Oxfam R.I.P.

Oxfam, or the “Oxford Committee for Famine Relief,” as it was initially known when it was founded in 1942, is a charity I’d always believed in, until recently that is. The NGO has come a long way in the intervening 80 years; its initial mission statement, namely to alleviate global poverty, morphed into “We fight inequality to end poverty and injustice.” ‘Words matter,’ as the activists like to say, and this subtle distinction is the first sign that something is wrong. 

A more substantial sign that something is wrong is the 92-page “Inclusive Language Guide” Oxfam released earlier this Spring as an aid for staff to “create a shared vision that centres equality, inclusion and accountability in our work to end poverty.” Whilst Oxfam makes it clear from the get-go that the guide is “not intended as a prescriptive document,” this tome is both prescriptive and proscriptive in its entirety. I’ve read it, so you don’t have to—but for any insomniacs out there, I may have the answer to your prayers. 

The report kicks off with a bizarre apology for the use of the English Language—an odd manoeuvre, seeing as those actually experiencing poverty are more than likely to understand the rudiments, and to appreciate the ability to communicate with them: 

“We further recognize that this guide has its origin in English, the language of a colonizing nation. We acknowledge the Anglo-supremacy of the sector as part of its coloniality. This guide aims to support people who have to work and communicate in the English language as part of this colonial legacy. However, we recognize that the dominance of English is one of the key issues that must be addressed in order to decolonise our ways of working and shift power.” 

Having apologised for the lexicon, we then have a trigger warning for the trigger warnings: 

 “Please note that since this guide includes words and phrases that should be avoided, you may come across some that you consider discriminatory or that have been used historically to oppress certain people or groups. These may cause distress to people who have experienced discrimination on the basis of their identity. Given the nature of this guide, we understand that many of the issues it discusses are personal and emotive for many people. While naming oppressions is necessary to deconstruct them, we recognize that this can take a toll on those directly affected. Please take care in the reading of the guide and prioritize your wellbeing.” 

The report subheadings are a joy to behold: “The Power of Language,” “Feminist Principles for Language Use,” “Disability, Physical and Mental Health,” “Gender Justice, Sexual Diversity and Women’s Rights,” “Migration,” and finally “Race, Power and Decolonisation.” It’s worth noting that there is barely a mention of feeding the hungry thus far. 

Where the report really comes into its own, however, is in its myriad examples of both prescriptive and forbidden language—you remember, that stuff it said it wasn’t going to do. 

For starters, “is affected by” is infinitely preferably to “afflicted with,” “suffers from,” or “is a victim of,” as it “avoids negative connotations.” Now that you’ve rebranded victims, you should further cloud the issue by referring to people “living with mental health issues,” not “psychotic,” “OCD,” or “manic depressive,” as such clarity might allow you to actually help them. The feel-good factor continues with “deaf,” “blind” and “the elderly” side-lined for their offensiveness. There is only “forced marriage,” never “child marriage;” rape “survivors” not “victims,” and no more “poor people,” but “people experiencing poverty”—which sounds patronisingly like a lifestyle choice. 

“Parent” replaces “mother” and “father,” and you must be “in solidarity with” not “standing with,” because some people can’t stand. Anyone who can stand, may well have thrown themselves out the window and “committed suicide” by this point, but of course you must remember to rephrase that as “took their own life”—something I imagine Oxfam employees will be seeing plenty more of in the coming years. 

I could go on for hours, but I shall refrain from an entire catalogue. However, I would like to draw your attention to the best bits: sections of the report that are either unintelligible word salads, self-contradictory, or just downright hilarious: 

“We include people of all genders in our commitment to gender justice, because equality isn’t equality if it’s not for everyone.” 

“We take an actively feminist approach that is inclusive of all genders.” 

“Bisexual erasure is part of heteronormative culture (that assumes that all people are heterosexual) but is also commonly experienced in work on LGBTQIA+ rights.” 

“Womxn: Whilst the majority of the time we use the spelling ‘women,’ in some contexts it may be appropriate to use ‘womxn,’ which can be seen as a mark of inclusion and solidarity. However, some trans people object to the phrase on the basis that trans women are women and the use of ‘womxn’ might suggest otherwise.” 

“Queer: Although historically a discriminatory term, this word is now being used as an umbrella term for people who are not heterosexual and/or cisgender. It is important to be aware that for some, particularly older members of the LGBTQIA+ community, the term ‘queer’ can still have negative personal connotations or be triggering.” 

“Headquarters: ‘Headquarters’ implies a power dynamic that prioritizes one office over another.” 

It is most revealing in the report’s final section that the following terms (all with highly negative connotations) do not require rewording: “Whiteness,” “White feminism,” “White gaze,” “White privilege,” “White supremacy,” and lastly “White saviourism”—which is surely the very definition of Oxfam itself? 

One wonders what the cost of such a lengthy report might have been, and it is telling that Oxfam CEO Dr Dhananjayan Sriskandarajah refused to confirm the price tag in a recent interview. 

Oxfam is hardly the first organisation to shirk their responsibilities in favour of political posturing, and they won’t be the last. Whether it’s police policing pronouns, the BBC policing rape victims’ descriptions of their attacker, universities banning words on campus, the censorship of children’s books, or the rewriting of the dictionary itself, we’re in it up to our necks. 

There is a more sinister side to this fiasco however— an assault on language is an assault on truth. A lexicon which no longer affords accurate description is hostage to those who set the boundaries of acceptable discourse. This is not a tenable position for democracy.

Well might Oxfam bluster their disappointment that “some people have decided to misrepresent the advice offered in the guide by cropping the document,” but having suffered a public backlash their first instinct was notably to turn off their Twitter replies—how’s that for inclusivity? 

I don’t have a direct debit set up with Oxfam, but if I did I would have already cancelled it; I suspect I am not alone. I also suspect the price for this latest woke disaster is likely to be paid by those suffering genuine poverty—“mothers” and “fathers” who might have overlooked the odd bit of “colonial language” if it came with a few square meals for their hungry children. 

If you enjoy The New Conservative and would like to support our work, please consider buying us a coffee – it would really help to keep us going. Thank you!