When we use phrases like “the vulnerable,” “the marginalized,” and “the oppressed” to describe others it can have profound implications for how we see the people we are describing. They also color how we see the problems people around us face and our role in creating those problems.

I want to specifically look at three words, the context in which we use them, and how we can shift our use of these words to help us understand our role in creating vulnerability in society and the marginalization and oppression of people a reality.

There is a considerable amount of talk about what we, as a global community are doing to help the vulnerable, marginalized, and oppressed. However, using vulnerable, marginalized, and oppressed as labels for people in these situations and their condition allows us a level of autonomy and separation from the situation that is beneficial for our conscious but not beneficial in helping solve the societal problems that affect their lives.

The United Nations Development program defines vulnerable people as people exposed to a marked decrease in living standards. It is of special concern when it is prolonged, and when standards of living fall below critical thresholds, to a point of deprivation. (1)

USAID defines marginalized people as “those who are denied, or have very limited access to, privileges enjoyed by wider society.” (2)

Wikipedia defines oppression as “malicious or unjust treatment or exercise of power, often under the guise of a governmental authority or cultural opprobrium. Oppression may be overt or covert, depending on how it is practiced. Oppression refers to discrimination when the injustice does not target and may not directly afflict everyone in society but instead targets specific groups of people.” (3)

These definitions describe the conditions that must be present for a person to be considered vulnerable, marginalized, and oppressed. The challenge is these definitions are rarely seen outside of academic reporting on development issues. We have reduced the circumstances that define vulnerability, marginalization, and oppression down to three labels. These labels offer no context. We can use these labels to describe anyone we want based on our personal beliefs and experiences. We can also use the lack of context to deny individuals or groups of people access to any of these statuses that would increase awareness for their plight. 

Another problem with using these words as labels for people and groups in our everyday conversations is that they eliminate any references to events, policies, and systemic injustices that caused the conditions they face. Labeling people as vulnerable, marginalized, and oppressed while only using those labels to refer to them generalizes their situation. Labeling allows us to roll up the problems they face and lay the blame for those problems at their feet. If all we have is a label, then we are free to assume that they are vulnerable because they are “lazy” or “made poor choices.” They are marginalized because “they can’t assimilate and fit in.” They are oppressed because “they are weak” or “because they insist on retaining their culture.” 

The reality is these situations are much more complicated than can be contained in a simple label. 

Our use of these labels has other implications as well. It allows us to remove ourselves and the results of our choices from the equation. Every day we make choices that make people more vulnerable, enabling the marginalization and oppression of people in our communities and around the world. We shop at Walmart instead of local grocery and clothing stores. We continue to shop at places like Walmart because it is convenient and cheap even though we know they actively marginalize workers and intentionally avoid providing essential benefits like access to health insurance and retirement programs. We marginalize and oppress by buying $5 shirts and $10 pants made by people in countries like Cambodia and Myanmar, not acknowledging that those people often only make a couple of dollars a day while producing 100s of dollars worth of merchandise. We give our waiter a small tip because the chef made a mistake or because the restaurant was busy. These are just a few examples, but the reality is, we can’t possibly know all the ways our choices marginalize and oppress people we will never see. 

Yet we use labels for their circumstances that fail to help us have a deeper understanding of the current situation. 

We need to change how we refer to people facing situations of vulnerability, marginalization, and oppression. I want to propose that we make a change in how we refer to people facing these circumstances.

We should end the use of these words as a stand-alone label. Instead, we should refer to these conditions as circumstances that happen to a person rather than something that they are. Specifically, we should say people who are currently vulnerable, rather than “the vulnerable.” We should say people who are being marginalized or people who have been marginalized instead of “the marginalized.” Similarly, we should say people who are being oppressed or people who have been oppressed, rather than “the oppressed.” This subtle shift in language moves vulnerability, marginalization, and oppression from a personal trait and identity to something that is happening to a person or been perpetrated against them. This change allows those of us who are outside the situation more capacity for empathy as it will enable us to see people as separate from their circumstances. 

The purpose of this shift in wording is to force a shift in our thinking, to move these issues from labels we assign to other people to things that happen to them, allowing us greater capacity to empathize with their situation. The second purpose of this shift is to acknowledge that as members of a society we each play a role in creating the circumstances that lead to vulnerability, marginalization, and oppression. Only after we acknowledge our role in these processes can we truly value the people who are forced into these circumstances, have real empathy for them, and make choices that reduce our impact on people facing these situations.  

If you missed the first two Episodes of Words and Implications you can catch up using the links below.

References

(1) hdr.undp.org/en/content/broadening-our-thinking-vulnerability#:~:text=At%20its%20basic%20level%2C%20vulnerability,to%20a%20point%20of%20deprivation

(2) https://wfto-asia.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Literature-Review-Summary-Defining-the-Marginalized.pdf Pg 1

(3) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppression

Are we helping the least of these?

“The least of these” is a short phrase that finds constant use in Christian conversations and teachings, both in person and on social media. It is a phrase I have accepted in the past as normal. I understand the context behind it and the common set of values it describes.

Matthew 25:40 NIV reads, “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me’.”

In the broader context, Jesus is talking about caring for the less fortunate (those who are hungry or thirsty, strangers, prisoners, and the sick), and declaring that it is an essential part of living as Christians. He is also making a declaration of value.  

When we shorten this text to “the least of these.” we are taking it out of the wider context of the full sentence. Removing the context changes the nature of the phrase.

On its own, “the least of these” is a derogatory statement, a dismissive devaluing of people that implies they are less, that they are the lowest of the low. It dictates social status and is a declaration of the perceived worth of human life. 

When I was younger, before social media, Christians rarely used this phrase outside of Christian spaces, limiting its use to sermons, Bible classes, and Bible studies. I now notice it frequently used on social media and articles published on the internet in Christian discussions on politics, development work, social services, and charitable giving. While I believe that this phrase’s use is not intentionally malicious or derogatory, I think we need to be more intentional when choosing our words, especially in public conversations like those that occur on social media. 

This phrase is a Christian ideograph.

An ideograph is a short, abstract summary, shared by, and taken for granted by, a particular group, culture, or society. Another way of describing an ideograph is a standard piece of language that takes on significant meaning to specific populations in reference to the collective history of that piece of language. “The least of these” is an ideograph referencing Jesus’s teachings on caring for the poor and vulnerable. As Christians, we understand this, and we subconsciously add these contextual elements  in our minds automatically when we hear the phrase. 

Does our understanding of the deeper context of the phrase excuse our use of the phrase out of context in public conversations, promotional materials, and project names?

If we go back and look at Matthew 25:40, paying specific attention to the punctuation, we can see that the entire clause containing this phrase is this, “whatever you did for the least of these brothers and sisters of mine .”  

“The least of these brothers and sisters of mine” is an entirely different declaration of their human value than “the least of these.” 

Removing the second half of the phrase eliminates Jesus’s declaration of their human value. It changes people from “brothers and sisters of Jesus”, to “the least of these” and thereby makes a negative value determination.

Our use of this phrase out of context, especially in the presence of people who may not know the context of Jesus’s words has the potential to be insulting and demeaning to the very people we are attempting to value through our use of this text. 

I think we need to eliminate the ideographic use of “the least of these” from our vocabulary for two reasons: 

1. Used outside of the context of the surrounding text, it becomes a derogatory assessment of social status and perceived value. Social media and the lack of presence created by the internet have reduced our ability to perceive the impact of our words. I would hope that we would not stand in the presence of marginalized or vulnerable people and use the phrase “the least of these” to describe them. Yet, that is what we do every time we use this phrase on the internet, social media, and in public communications. By using this phrase, we unintentionally make value determinations based on a person’s perceived status within society. 
2. Our use of this phrase changes our perception of the people we are describing. The words we use matter. Using the phrase to describe others separates our value from theirs. It raises our status and reduces theirs, placing us in a place of perceived power over them. This power we grant ourselves through status comes with a perceived duty to save them, provide assistance, or be charitable. Our use of this phrase changes us and slowly shifts our perspective of the people around us, we begin to see them as projects, charity cases, and people without agency that need us to act for them. We forget the second half of the text, we fail to remember the real statement of value in this text, “these brothers and sisters of Jesus.” 

How would our perception of social problems and people who have been marginalized or oppressed by society be different if we constantly referred to them as “these brothers and sisters of mine”?

“These brothers and sisters of mine” isn’t the ideograph we use, but maybe it should be. 

This year has been intense, tumultuous, and traumatic for most of us on the planet. The emergence of Covid-19 has completely derailed at least some aspects of what many of us hoped would be a great year. At the same time, US politics has erupted into a brutal partisan battle that is soul-crushing, filling the most hopeful among us with deep dread and anxiety. Throw in the divides over marginalization, police brutality, social justice, social distancing, and mask-wearing, amplified by the news for profit, and we have reached a stage of abject chaos that few of us ever thought we would see. 

When we are anxious, scared, and forced out of our routine and comfort zone, our natural reaction is to look for ways to increase our certainty and safety.

I am certainly guilty of it. There have been many days where I have been overstressed and thought only about myself and my family in this crazy year. But I need to do better. We need to do better. We need to somehow find the emotional energy to take a step back and look around us at what the United States has become and where we as Christians place our value.

When we are stressed, we center ourselves in the debate. We ask questions like, what is best for me? How can I eliminate uncertainty in my life? How can I ensure that I will be able to take care of my family? These are all valid concerns, and they become amplified in times of crisis like we are facing now. So we unfollow people who post things that we disagree with, we stop engaging with others around us to reduce the noise in our lives. We dig in and look for ways to increase certainty. We look for ways to reduce the cognitive dissonance between what we believe and what we see in the world around us. 

However, we need to remember that these problems are more temporary in nature for many of us. For others, they are a way of life. More than 11% of the US population lives below the poverty line, and they are also asking these questions. More than 35 million people are economically insecure, health care insecure, and food insecure. The reality is that even above the poverty level, these conditions still exist. Medical issues cause 66% of bankruptcies in normal times. We are currently in the middle of a public health crisis that increases economic and health-related risks for vulnerable populations. Those who are vulnerable and marginalized live with these questions and stressors for years, even decades. At the same time, many of us are only forced to entertain them in times of crisis. 

I keep seeing and reading articles by Christian authors that emphasize voting for politicians that support policies that mainly benefit Christians or focus on legislating conservative values. The idea seems to be that if Christians vote for what is best for them, then they can choose to help the less fortunate as they feel “lead.” The Republican Party and by proxy the church, has been voting against and shrinking social safety net programs for decades.

As Christians, by voting against social welfare programs, policies that increase access to health insurance, and increases to the minimum wage to a living wage standard, we are actively participating in the marginalization and oppression of millions of people. 

Standing idly by as our elected representatives implement gerrymandering schemes to suppress the votes of people they have marginalized in our name makes us complicit in that marginalization and oppression. 

Supporting a man like Donald Trump and his constant dehumanization and marginalization of others because the things he does make life better for us makes us complicit in the dehumanizing and marginalizing actions he commits every day. 

The adverse effects of these choices, like reduced access to health care and welfare programs, disability benefits, social strengthening programs, and a living wage for vulnerable people in our country, are seen as tolerable losses to ensure the church’s core agenda is enacted, and privilege is protected. What is promoted as tolerable losses for the sake of political wins, with the end justifying the means, has life-altering consequences for millions of people. 

The question I want to ask is this: 

Should 35 MILLION PEOPLE (this is a low estimate) be forced to depend on our charitable inclinations for their survival and quality of life? Should they, as citizens of this country, be forced to depend on our vote to speak for them? 

Why should their interests, and what is most beneficial for their quality of life, take a backseat to our self-interests? Why do Christians vote against a living wage, health care equality, and social safety net programs that protect millions of people while claiming to follow Jesus? Why do we allow ourselves to be caught up in the game of marginalizing and oppressing others for power?

Why is it ok for us as Christians to talk about charitable giving as a solution to all these issues while refusing to acknowledge that the policies we advocate for are central causes of these issues? 

How dare we vote against the best interests of those who are marginalized and demand that our generosity and pity determine the quality of life for people our choices actively marginalize and oppress?

This attitude and the policies we advocate for as a result, attempt to place us in a position of power over the vulnerable.

By advocating against government policies that provide assistance to people we have marginalized, pushing for charitable solutions to the issues faced by people we have marginalized, and electing politicians that actively marginalize the political voice of millions of people, we attempt to gain control over their quality of life and try to conform it to what we think they need, even though we cannot individually or even collectively as Christians cover these financial costs, nor do we have any intention to do so. 

As we make choices about candidates and policies, I would ask that we thoughtfully consider the plight of others and the impact our choices have on power dynamics and the rights of others instead of just what is best for us as Christians. Democratic policies favor the people the Republican Party has been working to marginalize and oppress for decades. I grew up republican and have lived most of my life, believing in these republican ideas. 

It took me moving overseas and looking back to realize the effects of those ideas and policies. As Christians, we have a duty to follow Jesus’s example and actively work toward ending marginalization and oppression. I realize that many votes have already been cast, but we need to begin making choices that end dehumanization, marginalization, and oppression.

There is only one candidate that does not dehumanize and marginalize on a daily basis who is for equal access to health care, a reliable social safety net, and a living wage standard. If we are going to make this a single-issue election, let’s make it about dignity, human value, and upholding the rights of the people we have been marginalizing and vote for Biden. 

I have a growing fascination (some might say obsession) with the words we use to describe and construct our world. To most of us, the idea that we use words to describe our world is a given, a fact of human interaction. When I say that we use language to construct our world, and our reality, that may sound foreign. You might be more likely to call that my opinion rather than a fact. 

There is ample academic research supporting the idea that we construct our social reality through the use of language. If you are interested, you can look up The Social Construction of Reality by Peter Berger and Thomas Luckman. (It’s not light reading, but the ideas are really important) The short version is that the words we use shape how we perceive the social reality around us. They impact how we understand ideas, social debates, and conflicts, even how we view our friends and family, social groups, and the entire demographics of people. How we describe people slowly becomes our understanding of who they are. That understanding impacts how we interact with them. The language we use to discuss social issues shapes the tone and nature of those discussions and informs our beliefs about the nature of those social issues and the people involved. It also shapes the creation of our institutions and the public policy that emerges from those institutions.

When we choose to describe asylum seekers as illegal immigrants who are trying to defraud the government, we come to believe that is who they are. If that is our understanding of who they are, our perception of how they should be treated will be much different from seeing them as asylum seekers in need of humanitarian aid. When we choose to describe people with more liberal political views advocating for better social welfare problems as Marxist, communist, and socialist we are not only judging their ideas, we are solidifying how we see them and our opinion of who they are. When we label a social safety net as socialist we are creating and solidifying a belief about the people whose survival depends on those programs. If we describe people with more conservative political views as overly moralistic, biased, or uninclusive we are creating and solidifying our perception of them. Even labels like “the poor” can influence how we think about and value the people we see as fitting under those labels.

The words we use matter. As the famous saying goes “With great power comes great responsibility”. Often I feel like the words we use to articulate our reality are not intentionally chosen but emerge from our habits, and are regurgitated from our recent social and more often (social media) interactions. I think about the implications of our words and word choice a lot. I want to have deeper conversations about the words we use, the implications of those words, and their potential impact on our thinking and our actions. 

This post is the beginning of a series of posts examining the words we use to discuss and debate the critical issues in our society and how those words frame our reality and influence our thinking and beliefs and the thinking and beliefs of those around us. I would love it if you would join me and make this a conversation and dialogue rather than a one-way communication. The goal is not to make judgments about the issues themselves but to better understand the words we use to talk about them and the implications of those words on how we think and act. Understanding the meanings we assign to words and what those words mean to others is the first step in more healthy discussions.

There is one overlying principle that we all need to embrace for a discussion like this to be healthy. That principle is that we all need to approach the conversation with the assumption that those around us mean no harm. We all must assume good intentions from those around us for a discussion to continue in a healthy manner.

To start off the conversation here is my first question (questions and answers are both welcome in reply).

What is your initial reaction to the idea that our use of language constructs our reality?

White Supremacy and colonialist attitudes are on the forefront my mind currently as the world struggles to address historic and systemic racism. What if part of this could be a movement to de-colonialize international development work? There are a number of issues in this space but what I can speak to is the idea of supremacy in marketing, communications, and fundraising.

Popular nonprofit marketing theory and practice place the donor at the center of the story. The donor is encouraged to become the hero of the beneficiary’s story. Donors are courted with the idea that, for a few dollars a day, they can save a child from starvation, rescue a woman who was trafficked, or help a family rebuild from a disaster.  A small excess in our lives can have a life-changing impact in the life of the poor, exploited, or hungry. I think we can all agree that placing the donor as the hero of the story an effective method of increasing donations. We as humans like to feel good about ourselves and that we are having an impact on the world around us. While it is true that our insignificant excesses can be of significant value to those in need, I think we need to realize the impacts these messages have on our perception of our value in the world, specifically our value in relation to those we deem needy. 

Nonprofits are often constrained by tight budgets and staff shortages that require efficiency in communications and fundraising. Consequently, fundraising has evolved to the place the donor at the center of communications because it is effective, not because it is ethical. While I understand that money is ultimately king in terms of the daily functions of a nonprofit, I would like to question if the non-financial costs of this messaging are worth the financial rewards. 

I see three main non-financial costs associated with this ‘donor as hero’ messaging strategy.

At a societal level celebrating the donor as a hero promotes a problematic world view, where people from developed nations or ‘superior’ belief systems are positioned as potential saviors to countries, cultures, and individuals in need. Centering the donor in the role of hero plays to the ego and perceived supremacy of the donor and reinforces the idea that their beliefs, values, and culture are superior to those in the areas the organization is working in or ministering to. This message is communicated whether or not an individual gives money or not. Simply promoting these messages in our fundraising impacts a society’s beliefs about themselves and their global neighbors. 

The narrative of the donor as the hero devalues the contributions of the organization’s local staff and the beneficiaries in the process of development. If the donor is the hero, what role does the beneficiary play? It seems the default in that scenario is for the beneficiary to play the role of victim, saved from inadequacy, exploitation, or unfortunate circumstances by the benevolent donor. If the donor is the hero then the nonprofit staff are relegated to supporting roles where their efforts are largely hidden from view and rarely celebrated. The celebration of the donor’s money and ‘sacrifice’ for in the cause overshadow the endless hours of work on the part of the staff to create safe, reliable opportunities for the communities they serve. It also overshadows the hard work and determination required from the beneficiary to make the most of the opportunity and ultimately find success. 

These heroic stories require dramatic results to be achieved in a short amount of time. The storytelling we enjoy for entertainment has convinced us that heroes solve problems quickly and permanently. Development work is typically far more complex and progresses much slower than a heroic tale. Offering the title of ‘hero’ also promises a quick heroic finish. When this fails to materialize our heroes will likely not blame themselves, instead, they will look for others to blame while they maintain their title. After all, they did what they were asked, they fulfilled their role and sacrificed some of their wealth, the happy ending should be a foregone conclusion. If it doesn’t appear as promised or is not as satisfying, they will move on and don another cape offered by another organization in hopes of living out another hero’s story. 

Nonprofits need money to operate and currently, the donor as hero narrative seems to be working financially. If it works, why change? If we were going to make a change where do we go from here?

We need to change because the ‘donor as hero’ model is unethical, devaluing, and disrespectful to beneficiaries and nonprofit staff, especially in the areas of international development as detailed above. 

Instead, we need to move toward a connection based model of messaging, communicating, and fundraising. A focus on connection based messaging and fundraising celebrates the value and contributions of beneficiaries and nonprofit staff who are doing the work on the ground. We can create a community environment where donors can learn to engage with people their donations are impacting, where beneficiaries and staff are equal partners with the donor in improving lives and communities. Shifting our messaging away from the donor as the hero allows beneficiaries and communities to have greater influence and agency in how development happens in their communities. When we help donors see staff and beneficiaries’ heroic partners, we provide space for relationships to form around shared goals and encourage donors to admire local staff and beneficiaries for who they are and their dedication to bringing change to their communities.