It's only words...

This week I have been thinking about the things we value, the words people use to describe us and the impact that has on how people perceive us based on those words and values. At a time when many of us in VCFSE organisations are worrying about the impact of financial pressures on ourselves and on the people we support this might sound a bit of a woolly thing to be spending brain power on but I think it is important for a number of reasons. I’ll try and share with you why I think this…

Firstly, there have been some rumblings about Wes Streeting referring to charities as ‘stakeholders’ not partners last week. Debra Allcock Tyler has written very passionately about this and there is nothing that I disagree with in her article. There is, however, something that is perhaps, honest in his description – partners, to me, indicates a sharing of power whereas stakeholders have little power in the relationship and so some might argue that we are not partners.

Secondly, Wes Streeting was filmed complaining about charities lobbying government. Charities have a campaigning and advocacy function and whilst people may not like the term ‘lobbying’ that may well be what we do. Of course we would much prefer people used the words that conjure up collective voice rather than words that are associated with self-interest or pressure groups, however, does it matter as long as the people who make decisions listen to what we say? Is it such a big deal as long as we have equal opportunity to reach those who make the decisions. The words lobbying and lobbyists conjure up images of people with ‘special access’ - surely as a society we want all charities, as advocates for their communities, to be able to have special access to power don’t we?

Thirdly, as others have noted, the government is currently working with NCVO and ACEVO to develop a Civil Society Covenant which will be introduced this spring, and which was trailed in government press releases as a new beginning and ‘a new era of partnership’. So what does the kind of thinking, or the words used above reveal about the value of the Covenant and moreover, the relationship central government wants with charities? And, this is what worries me more, how will local government and statutory bodies pick that up and amplify it, or react against it, at a local level. A stakeholder is defined as somebody ‘with an interest or concern in something’ whereas a partner is somebody ‘that takes part with another, or others, in doing something‘. Also, as two of the key principles proposed in the Covenant are Partnership and Participation it seems odd to minimise the ‘taking part with another’ aspect of the word partner.

If VCFSE organisations are stakeholders not partners what does that mean for local codesigned and coproduced services? For VCFSE representatives on boards and steering groups? For our role in Integrated Care Systems? Are we just an ‘interested’ party or are we ‘working with’ and actively ‘taking part’ in supporting people to live healthier lives. It makes a difference. We, Community, Voluntary, Faith and Social Enterprise organisations, are an integral component of support for people as they try their best to live well, but we are not an arm of the state. We are not a nuisance, and we would love to be something other than the safety net when the state and the market fails. And this is perhaps the real issue here – what is the function of VCFSE organisations? What do the words being used by those on both sides of the argument tell us? Do we exist to serve the community or to serve the aims of the state? Are those two things actually in conflict with each other?

Finally, and on a lighter note, I have noticed an increase in people using AI notetakers in Teams meetings. Leaving aside ethical issues of people assuming everyone is ok with AI capturing their words and images this prompted me to look at the collective nouns for a group of Otters. It seems there are a number of different collective nouns for a group of Otters. It seems apt that options include a romp (meetings often feel a bit that way), a bevy (there are times I feel as if a drink is needed afterwards) and a raft (when Otters come together as a group in the water - at times it seems as if it will be necessary to climb aboard something to prevent drowning). Above all though the collective noun that resonates most with me is a ‘family’, defined by Merriam-Webster Inc. as ‘a group of people united by certain convictions or a common affiliation’. Perhaps that is the relationship with government that we need, not stakeholder or partner, and that we need to find that conviction or common affiliation that unites us. And of course it brings me back to the main point of this article – the words we choose to use to describe ourselves convey meaning and that matters!