The “B-word”
Examining the Power of Language in Development Work
The “B-word” has been deeply embedded in international development lexicon for years — in reports, presentations, planning documents, and even everyday conversations. It endures, despite increasing criticism for the many reasons it’s problematic. Beneficiary.
My organization refuses to use it.
Much has been written about why we shouldn’t use beneficiary in the development sphere. The term assumes a positive impact of aid that doesn’t always actually occur. It implies an unequal power dynamic between the parties involved. It disempowers people by describing them as passive recipients rather than recognizing and appreciating their own agency in creating change. It can reflect a patronizing attitude towards the people we work with. And while some may argue that debate around the word is simply a game of semantics, we all know that language can be incredibly powerful. In the world we live in — in our interactions, our beliefs, and our relationships — words matter. So why should they not matter here?
It gets a little more complicated when we try to come up with a good alternative. Some have suggested words that I think work well in certain contexts: constituents, users, consumers or clients, primary actors, contributors. But these (along with other alternatives) are imperfect substitutes, for a variety of reasons. No one has identified a single word that can effectively replace beneficiary across development work. (No one-size-fits-all solution? Shocking, I know.)
And that’s okay. Maybe we don’t need a new universal term. Maybe the better approach is to take the time within our own organizations to thoughtfully discuss and determine how we should describe the people we work with in a way that aligns with the specific nature of our work and, more importantly, with our values. Such honest, genuine reflection will not only help guide us to better language, it will help ensure we are critically examining our role in relation to the people we work with. As many have been quick (and correct) to note, simply substituting one word with a new word does absolutely nothing if the underlying attitudes and beliefs don’t shift as well.
At Gardens for Health in Rwanda, where I work as a Global Health Corps fellow, we have partner families. And that’s not just a term we use on our website. It’s what my colleagues say, every day, in meetings, during lunchtime conversations, when they talk to friends and family. Sometimes we talk about mothers and caregivers and households, depending on the context. But first and foremost, the people we work with are our partners — our equal partners, who have the power to take good care of their families and raise healthy children. We admire their strength. We acknowledge the time, effort, and dedication they choose to commit when agreeing to participate in our program, and we are mindful of their investment when we plan and schedule our activities. Our field educators develop close relationships with our partner families that are built on respect, trust, and equality. Our partners are part of our community, which is why our farm hosts community lunch every day that is open to all. We establish imihigos, or short contracts, with our partner families at the beginning of each season, which makes us accountable to them — and them to us — by communicating well-defined expectations on both ends, emphasizing that we are partners, each providing something to the other.
Those are just a few of the ways in which our language at Gardens for Health reflects our values. This inspires me, in the same way that I want others to be inspired in their work. I know we are not alone, and that many other organizations share similar beliefs and probably use similar terms. But if you, or others in your organization, still talk about beneficiaries, I urge you to pause for a moment. Have a candid discussion about the role that the people you want to help play in their own success. Brainstorm terms or phrases that better capture the nuance of your work and reflect a power dynamic you are proud of. There might not be a single perfect substitute, but there’s likely a better alternative for whatever project or program or group of people you’re referring to in a particular moment.
Maybe we’ll always need to occasionally report to a funder on the number of beneficiaries reached. Such is life. But more often than not, we can shape our own narrative. So let’s frame our work with our own words — words that reflect the values of empowerment, humility, and equality.
