Nimbus Wedderburne-Snitch
Extracting that pound of flesh
One can be neither too diligent nor too eagle-eyed when it comes to funding worthy causes in the colonies, especially in these days of economic stringency. Failure by the international funding community to be heedful of where its euro, dollar or pound goes will amount to nothing short of a serious dereliction of duty.
So, great was the Snitch’s relief upon learning recently that a certain high office representing a certain country—developed, naturally, and no slouch when it comes to generosity in extending lucre to less fortunate nations—is the model of sagacity in the allocation of funds. The Office of Good Value for Money makes sure good money is thrown only at good—neither squandered on silliness nor assigned to stagnant incompetence nor siphoned off into the dark pockets of unscrupulous opportunists. Such singularity of purpose must be applauded. Just darned rotten luck for those waiting for relief on Africa’s faultlines of flood, drought and disaster.
Up for a challenge?
A clear prerequisite for entering the rarified arenas of development (in general) and climate change (in particular) is an aptitude for languages. Too soon do those with longevity in the field forget the confusion of the neophyte when dunked into the deep end of the mutant language of climate change.
Being naturally partisan to good language usage—any language—Snitch was understandably stumped by the acronymspeak encountered in the climate-sector boardroom. But confusion turned to stalk-eyed disbelief when, in casual conversation, a colleague remarked, “I haven’t engaged with my wife yet to establish whether we’ll be able attend the party”.
What the … ? Whatever has happened to those good old faithfuls like “talk” and “speak” and “chat” and “discuss”? Have they not served many millions perfectly serviceably over enough centuries? Other scoundrels that threaten to ballyrag perfectly utilitarian expressions into the Siberia of nomenclature crop up like clockwork every day—“stakeholder mapping” or its mate, old lazy-brain “stakeholder engagement”; the noun “scope” when used as a verb; “download” when what is meant is actually to listen carefully or pick the brains of someone smarter or more knowledgeable than oneself.
One vocabular toxin that has inveigled itself into our day-to-day conversation, to the point of banality, is the ubiquitous “capacity building”. What, in the name of great Jupiter, is this animal? Is it “learning”? Is it “expansion”? How seriously must we take ourselves to speak like this? And how lazy our brains have become.
But think about it this way—when used in the context of developed countries stepping in to help out developing countries, that term can and will inevitably be construed as being patronising. So, why not get back to speaking plain old English? Better yet, Snitch proposes a competition among those involved in RCCP (stakeholders, to those who don’t get it) to coin a fresh expression to replace that insidious and all-but-meaningless “capacity building”.
What say you? Will a bottle of Chivas do the trick?