Tragedy? When humanitarian language becomes oppressive
When considering mass atrocities such as the Gaza genocide, it might seem strange to dedicate time to talking about the language humanitarians use to frame them.
However, Heidi Mogstad, senior researcher at the Chr. Michelsen Institute, argues that language has a powerful role to play in humanitarian response.
Language can be used as a tool for violence and domination. But what Mogstad calls “oppressive humanitarian language” can also undermine the fundamental mission of humanitarianism and perpetuate the systems of violence that cause crises. For example, even the seemingly harmless use of the word “tragedy” can ignore power dynamics and erase important historical context.
“They take what is actually a result of ordinary democratic politics and describe something as extraordinary… as being, you know, an accident.” says Mogstad. “Whereas in reality, the fact that thousands of refugees are drowning every year is a result of ordinary democratic political choices made by our elected political leaders.”
In this episode of Rethinking Humanitarianism, we talk about the ways humanitarian language becomes oppressive, and how the aid sector can do better.
