Recently, an expat I met at a restaurant reflected on how incredible his first job in an International Non-Governmental Organization (INGO) was. Initially the language and structure of conversation his colleagues used during day-to-day official communication gave him an impression that he was surrounded by geniuses. [break]
One of the examples he quickly stated was “We are working to improve the wellbeing of the country’s most at-risk populations in a sustainable manner, and we deliver participatory and innovative solutions to uplift the lives of the poor and underprivileged in rural and urban areas”. Out of several similar illustrations he put across, this was the only one I recall.
bestthinking.com
To him, such influential and appealing language seemed heavy and exceptionally impressive. It sounded like the speech of some famous intellectual or visionary leader. After attending to such wonderful communications in his office, he shared his frustration in trying to acquire similar talent in learning and using these so-called “big terminologies” properly. Soon after, as he started grasping and using such terms, it became almost natural to him, as to most development workers.
It was then that he started wanting to know the precise meaning of these terms. It has already been 18 years since then, and he is still struggling to find the meanings. But then he laughed, and proudly said that he has never had to look back as he always had a lucrative development job, thanks to his expertise in being a fluent user of such heavy development lingo.
As he left the restaurant, he commented that his colleagues were not as smart as he had initially thought; it was more about the proper use and customization of fancy development jargon.
After our conversation, I went home and looked back on some of my own previous write-ups. I came across an interesting paragraph that I had written sometime ago: “We build capacities, jointly develop innovative models that benefit small holders, and link these to a holistic development approach.
Such models are up-scaled by embedding market based solutions, and leveraging a climate resilient green economic strategy in a resource–efficient way that overcomes the possible conflict between economic growths and climate change.” Like my friend from the restaurant, I had also tried my best to figure out what exactly I was trying to say, and concluded that it could not possibly mean anything to common people.
This raises a question as to why we in the development sector commonly use such “Gobbledygook” if it does not mean anything to common people. Is it because we want to be different? Or because the use of such lingo is required to impress people in the industry? Or is it that we do not really have anything tangible to say that everybody can understand and relate to? Frankly, I do not have an answer.
I recalled an article published in The Economist on January 2011 entitled “The Jargon of Aid—Anyone here Speak NGOish?” The piece provides good examples of some of the mumbo jumbo commonly used by many people in Africa receiving aid, including stakeholders.
The article explains the pleasures of such terms and how they are nice and woolly, hard to define, and harder still to deny. It concludes that “NGO-speak” is particularly cherished and nurtured in grant applications that smaller NGO have to file to bigger ones. According to the article, using the right words is all you need. “If you don’t know the catchphrase, you hardly have a chance to apply for funds”.
The author works for a development organization. Views are personal
pokhrel2012@hotmail.com
Related story
