i am reminded here, pretty much every day, how lucky i am to be an english speaker. both socially and professionally, i have it pretty darn easy being fluent in english and more or less conversational in nepali...and i know plenty of foreigners who get by just fine with no nepali at all (although i think you have a MUCH more fun time here if you learn).
this article [h/t virtual linguist] talks about the rise of english to its current status as the global language. it is, unsurprisingly, a story in which oppressive power structures and pervasive inequalities play a leading role. just a reminder that privilege and power are inherently self-reinforcing.
another things that this article made me consider is the degree to which the professional circles in which i run are highly english-medium. development is an industry that has a lot of rhetoric about decentralization, local ownership and empowerment, capacity building, etc in the global south. but the power and priorities are all too often driven by donors in the global north, for whom english is the lingua franca.
for instance, at my organization, everyone except for the director and myself is nepali, with anywhere from limited to proficient english. what language we use casually and conversationally depends on the speakers and the topic, but we inevitably file much of our nuts-and-bolts work in english...because we're communicating with northern donors or headquarters in DC. we mostly implement through (ie in partnership with/supervising) local, district-level NGOs. there are lots of good arguments for the functionality of this model, and they shouldn't be ignored (more on this later?). however, these reasons talk mostly about the constraints on us implementing directly, rather than why these local groups aren't being directly funded. the arguments don't fully articulate the implicitly symbiotic nature of the relationship. we need them for lots of reasons, and they need us because they (theoretically "as yet") "lack capacity". speaking generally, local-level/grassroots NGOs, especially new ones, often do lack familiarity with the donor standards of accountability, have green personnel, are (in nepal, anyway) affiliated with local political parties etc, but most foundationally they lack the language, both literally (in terms of english skills) and more broadly (in terms of connections and the familiarty with the norms, terminology, and dance specific to the industry) to be able to appeal directly to those with the money.
**let me be totally clear that this is not meant as any criticism of the organization i work for, specifically. i actually think they are pretty darn great at what they do. overwhelmingly, i think we put our (or, i suppose, our donors') money where our collective mouth is and really commit to local planning, priorities, and capacity building. the model used is, under the circumstances, entirely necessary and largely effective. i've worked with some of our local partners and have tremendous respect for their abilities and dedication. one day i'll get around to writing about some of our programming and give you specific examples of this. **
this also isn't one of those "the WHO creates epidemics" conspiracy theories (yes, i have heard that one). however, i am saying, in a broader practical and philosophical sense, that the current structure of the development industry restricts access to resources to those who possess a certain figurative proficiency in the industry's "language" (including the latest trends in jargon and practice), and, by extension, a certain literal fluency in english. this often necessitates a trickle down method of program implementation, which is intuitively at odds with the industry's rhetoric, and can make fulfilling its ostensible aims even more challenging. it is one of the many things that leads one to ask...whose aid is it anyway?
No comments:
Post a Comment