Skip to content

The anti-lexicon of peacebuilding: listening to Edward Saïd and George Orwell

December 29, 2012

I think Edward Saïd wrote somewhere that the USA can never hope to contribute to sustainable peace in the Middle East until it is willing and able to describe the situation there objectively, comprehensively and accurately. Good advice for President Obama and his new Secretary of State as they embark on four challenging years in the region. And good advice meanwhile for anyone, be they doctor, secretary of state, international NGO staff member or anyone else, who takes on responsibility to help others fix their problems.

George Orwell, in his 1940s essay, Politics and the English Language (downloadable freely through Google), developed six golden rules for writing clearly about politics:

1. Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.

2. Never use a long word where a short one will do.

3. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.

4. Never use the passive where you can use the active.

5. Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.

6. Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.

Both Orwell and Saïd offer important advice for peacebuilders, who need to be as clear and complete as possible in their description of the contexts in which they offer to help build peace, so as to avoid misunderstandings and misdiagnoses.

Of course we can’t always describe things publicly as we see them privately. For example, the UN Development Programme (UNDP) might not be in a position to say clearly in public what it thinks of governance in Zimbabwe, because Zimbabwe, as represented by its government, is a member of the UN and thus a master of the UNDP. But all the more reason for the UNDP in Zimbabwe to get its analysis right, and express it as clearly as possible internally.

The point of this preamble is to emphasise that there is a premium on clarity of description in peacebuilding. Nevertheless, most of us who work in the sector regularly find ourselves breaking Orwell’s rules and failing to reach Saïd’s bar. (I know I do.) It is normal for people working in a given technical area to develop a common shorthand for describing the kinds of phenomena they seek to change, and how they seek to do so. It’s an efficient way of working.

But it can also be lazy and dangerous – as demonstrated in James Ferguson’s The Anti-Politics Machine about lazy development thinking in southern Africa. With that in mind I list here as examples, five words or phrases in common use which are sometimes evidence of lazy thinking and incomplete analysis, and therefore to ill-fitting or inadequate programming. I have avoided the usual suspects like “empowerment”, which is frequently cited as an example of lazy writing – because often it’s the humbler, less intrusive words and phrases which quietly do most to undermine the argument for peacebuilding.

1. Weakness Analysts commonly write about “weak governance”, “weak civil society”, etc. This is OK if the weakness is qualified, e.g. governance institutions which are weak because they fail to provide people with an opportunity to influence decisions which affect them, or because they exclude particular sections of society. But taken alone, “weak governance” is a more or less meaningless phrase – and often masks the reality that prevailing governance systems are actually quite strong in some respects, e.g. in repression. Civil society too can only be described as “weak” in regard to some specific function – such as delivering services, providing policy alternatives, etc. The point is, systems, bodies, organisations or people can all be inadequate vis-à-vis a specific standards or objectives, but to call them weak in general terms does nothing to improve the analysis, nor to change things for the better. Indeed, it may become a distraction and an obstacle to change. E.g. International Alert has argued that “weak governance” is an inaccurate and unhelpful description of the situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo, which would be more usefully described in terms of a resilient and effective patrimonial governance system, which skews policies and decisions so they sustain continued instability and violence.

2. Unaccountable. Analysts of governance often refer to leaders, governments, etc. as “unaccountable”. This is unhelpful, because few leaders are truly unaccountable – they are usually beholden to some group or other. By failing to capture this aspect of governance in our analysis, we fail to identify important obstacles and opportunities for change. When we describe leaders as unaccountable, it would be more helpful to explain to whom they are accountable, and for what. Typically, a dictatorial president is accountable to a faction or factions who help keep him in power, and is accountable for protecting the latter’s members while providing them with exclusive economic opportunities.

3. Youth, women – and other collective nouns for large groups of people. Programme analysis frequently includes broad statements about women (50% of the population, after all), or youth (frequently an even larger percentage). It is rare that all women or all young people are affected by the same factors in the same way, and even rarer for peacebuilding strategies or programmes to have an impact on all women or all young people. It is far more useful, for programming purposes, to say which women, or which young people are affected by the phenomena in question, and therefore which specific policy change might help to improve their situation. The words “youth” and “women” are probably the worst examples of this problem, but there’s a long list of other collective nouns which are similarly conducive to lazy thinking: young men, girls, the elite, the media, businesspeople, the private sector, civil society, and so on.

4. Community.  Again, unless clearly defined, the word “community” often becomes quite meaningless. E.g. in the UK it became common in the face of Al Qaeda threats, to talk about the “working with the Muslim community” – when it’s hard to imagine there is a single community uniting all 1.5 million Muslims in the country. Labelling people as a community where there is none, can lead others to draw the wrong conclusions. Programme strategies often use the word as though “community” is an unalloyed good: as in community-level governance, community-owned solutions, and community projects. But as we all know, “community” often masks a great deal of inequality, with particular individuals and groups being excluded from decision-making, opportunity and rights, and it is important that peacebuilders understand the factors which perpetuate these problems, rather than ignore them and assume that community level solutions will always be good ones.

5. Conflict. A very basic word in peacebuilding which we often misuse. It’s fairly normal for peacebuilders to understand “conflict” in its broad sense, i.e. as a description of the unresolved differences between people and within society. That’s a useful definition, which allows us to identify the systems, skills and culture for conflict resolution and management as the bench at which we work. But even when the work parameters have been so defined, it’s still common for peacebuilding strategies to be defined and described in terms of “addressing the underlying causes of conflict”, rather than in more appropriate terms such as “addressing the reasons why conflicts become violent”.

No doubt there are countless other words and phrases whose misuse contributes to murky analysis and less-than-surgical programming. But I hope these five examples suffice to make the point. I doubt that a business marketing strategy defined at the level of generality all-too-common in peacebuilding, would convince investors to part with their capital. If so, then we should not get away with it in peacebuilding.

I am not claiming that one has to be able to describe everything with perfect accuracy and pinpoint precision, before embarking on peacebuilding in a particular context. But I do agree with Saïd that it’s important to describe things as accurately, objectively and comprehensively as possible if one is offering to help resolve complex problems. And I’d also suggest that Orwell’s six golden rules are useful guides to help us do so.

Advertisements
9 Comments leave one →
  1. December 29, 2012 9:18 pm

    Great post, much food for thought and thought for food. I have found that being too specific is difficult in proposal writing (conflict analysis sections) as it will show clearly the limit of reach in impact. Do you agree that these changes should come from donors and trickle down. Or how else to gain a critical mass of better lexicon?

    • December 30, 2012 4:55 pm

      Hmm, not sure that better analysis and descriptions should come from donors. All of us can do better, I feel.

  2. Roxanne permalink
    December 29, 2012 9:39 pm

    Fantastic, fantastic post — as someone who works with women affected by conflict and cares about storytelling too, I am so happy you wrote this. Your points about treating “women”, “youth” or vulnerable populations at large as a uniform group without texturing or nuancing our statements about them were particularly salient. I also loved the reference to “the premium on clarity.” Thank you for this.

  3. March 17, 2013 8:24 pm

    Really enjoy you sharing your blog post. Truly getting excited about visit our website. Really great.

  4. February 3, 2015 4:13 pm

    Reblogged this on Security, Conflict and International Development (SCID) and commented:
    This post by Phil Vernon of International Alert – The anti-lexicon of peacebuilding: listening to Edward Saïd and George Orwell – raises some excellent points about the need for language to be clear in the field of peacebuilding (and elsewhere) to avoid ‘misunderstandings and misdiagnoses’.
    It is agreed that in order for conflict resolution and peacebuilding efforts to be successful, regularly used concepts need to be unpacked and each enjoy a shared, specific and clear meaning. Without a shared understanding of such concepts it is hard for action to be co-ordinated, coherent, efficient and effective. It is also hard to monitor and evaluate progress, identify and utilise lessons learned and best practice, and ultimately improve efforts to prevent and respond to conflict and its challenges. Actions and outputs are less likely to be ambiguous, conflicting and ineffective if communication is clear and the language used to describe aims and outputs is shared and unambiguous.
    However, aims and outputs of various actors in conflict-affected environments are not always harmonious, and a shared – if ambiguous – language can be used (and often is) to disguise competing agendas and real priorities. The language of peacebuilding can often be used by those engaged in this field to disguise the politics of intervention. It can also be used to reinforce power relations within the field, which tend to marginalise ‘other’ voices – including those directly affected by conflict and those whose future’s most depend upon the success of peacebuilding.
    It is also important to recognise the policy implications of certain concepts and understand the reasons why certain concepts are ascribed to certain phenomena, states or processes above others. As the beginning of the SCID Course addresses, describing a state as failed or fragile may be motivated more out of a desire on the part of other states to intervene (and control threats, or extend their own influence and power, or distract domestic populations from other issues/other threats), rather than ‘concern for the inability of some states to provide for their own population’s security, welfare and rights’ (Call, 2008: 1504). Similarly, describing governance as ‘weak’ may be unhelpful insofar as it often overlooks informal systems of governance and insofar as it is often used as shorthand (and thus specific details or supporting evidence need not be provided). However, it is precisely this value – overlooking the specificities of each system of governance – that makes the term ‘weak governance’ so useful, and tends to generate similar policy responses.
    It is suggested that it is necessary to recognise the complexity, power and political dimensions of language – and the ways that it can be used to reinforce or challenge power relations; legitimise actions and intervention; and rationalise, exploit or hide competing agendas. Perhaps we need to accept that the language used in peacebuilding – as elsewhere – can be ambiguous with the same concept being used to mean different things by different people, for instance – just as peace and conflict are experience and mean different things to different people. Rather than aiming to be objective and specific in our use of language, perhaps we need to accept that language is a social construct: it is as part of conflict and peace as it is the tool used to understand these phenomena; it is a means through which conflicts are fought, and peace is forged; it reinforces or shifts power relations and as such is at the heart of conflict. It is informed by our specific experiences as well as shared histories and cultures, as much as it reflects our aspirations and intentions (whether at the micro or macro level). It is suggested that there can be no objectivity when it comes to the language we use: what is important is that we become aware of our subjectivity and how it is reflected in the language we use. In that way we can start to accept the legitimacy of ‘other’ perspectives as well as start to question the validity of metanarratives about conflict and peace – and in such a way potentially better contribute to building more peaceful societies (however we might define them).

    Reference:
    Call, C. (2008) ‘The Fallacy of the “Failed State”’, Third World Quarterly, 28(8): 1491-1507.

Trackbacks

  1. The anti-lexicon of peacebuilding: listening to Edward Saïd and George Orwell | Conflict transformation, peacebuilding and security | Scoop.it
  2. Phil Vernon's blog
  3. Metaphors in peacebuilding: the need to take good care with our language | Phil Vernon's blog
  4. Are ISIS seeking the very reaction they are getting? | Phil Vernon's blog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: