In social justice, internal language guidelines are never “done”

Looking at language

In the context of Fairpicture’s work, it might seem counterintuitive to focus on terminology where we are focused on visual communication. But when speaking about visuals, we do - of course - rely on verbal language, be it in meetings, briefs, or publications. We communicate with stakeholders and partners in diverse national, cultural, professional, and organisational contexts. These individuals and organisations might rely on different terms to refer to the same things or use the same term to express different ideas. This will depend on their linguistic habits, preferences, and expectations. At Fairpicture, we want to take into account these different contexts and perspectives, while still being guided by our values . This resulted in our consulting and content marketing circles developing language guidelines that allow our organisation to consciously select appropriate terminology in line with the principles that guide our work in the visual sphere.

Having internal language guidelines is a widespread practice of many organisations, whether that be non-profits or corporations. It helps us establish meaning for crucial concepts and unify our communications, often including glossaries that can be quickly consulted in daily operations. As helpful as this may be, those aspiring to contribute to social and global justice are not well served by clinging to static definitions. Why? The usage of language is the result of negotiation processes in the context of power relations. Looking for the most appropriate terms requires constant awareness of how contexts and debates about issues are changing. At the same time, the connotation of terms stems from wider historical and political factors. Over decades, a term changes its meaning, it might catch on to denote a particular idea, but over time, it gets loaded with new connotations and is replaced by another term. In this sense, a quick-fix glossary cannot ever be “finished”. It is always a work in progress.

Loaded terms through the course of time

This process requires reconciling contradictions. One example relates to the term “Global South”. We use it instead of the term “Third World”. In 2023, the former does not come with the same problematic baggage as the latter. In current Western discourses, “Third World” carries derogatory connotations of presumed “backwardness”, while “Global South” points to global relations of inequality: the qualifier “global” pushes the term over from geography into politics - not all places located in the “Global South” are on the Southern Hemisphere. In a global context, societies, groups, individuals located in the “Global South” are those holding positions of structurally less power than those located in the “Global North”. This terminology allows us to name relations of exploitation and oppression instead of focusing on simplistic notions of presumed “difference”. Difference is relevant, but in a way very different from what the connotations of “Third World” in the West suggest: it is differences in power that are crucial. 

Is this different when it comes to the concept of the “Global South”? Not necessarily. The latter is contested as well. After all, the more you lean into the history and diverse meanings of any term, the more contradictions you find. “Global South”, too, can be used to homogenise and essentialise communities, countries, or whole continents and lock them in stereotypes of suffering and destitution. It, too, can serve to conceal the heterogeneity of interests and differences within societies. Yet it does include that important reference to the global dimension and thus helps to name particular patterns of inequality. Contrary to terms such as “developing country” or “emerging market”, the “Global South” does not invoke only one predominant connotation. Its ambiguity carries with it a certain irritation and allows for challenging stereotypical representations.

Conscious and context-specific choices

Locating the different stakeholders that work with Fairpicture globally, therefore, we still rely on the distinction between the “Global South” and the “Global North”. Doing so is a conscious choice for handling contradictions and mirrors the “work in progress” regarding our language use that I referred to above. Our internal language guidelines, then, are the result of reflections such as the ones in this blog post.

We use certain terms because they are accessible to a wider audience and established as the “state of the art” in current debates about global inequalities and power relations. We use them not because they would necessarily always mean exactly what we want them to, but rather because they do the least possible harm. They allow us to position ourselves in particular discourses or to communicate our messages to specific target groups.