BY: JULIANA ZHOU
Juliana Zhou has spent two decades moving across 5 countries in 3 continents as an immigrant, and speaks Japanese, Chinese and English. She focused on Development, Climate and Sustainability issues in SAIS. Due to living as a minority for most of her life, she cares about supporting those from vulnerable communities to live with dignity. She has used her personal experiences to publish a novel about the lives of immigrants in Japan, which explored themes such as cultural and linguistic adaptation, loss of homeland, belonging, and marginalization. She is a CPA with experience in financial and management consulting; additionally, she serves on the board of a DC based organization that promotes the well-being of refugees in US. She holds a Masters in International Public Policy from Johns Hopkins SAIS, a M.S. in Accounting from American University, and a B.A. in Economics from University of Toronto.
I. Introduction
My interest in ventriloquism – the act of a speaker speaking through a puppet - and its impact on aid predates my time at SAIS. I spent two decades moving from one country to another. My childhood marked by frequent relocations and the attendant losses sensitized me to the vulnerabilities of displacement as an aid recipient in Asia, where I encountered the callous behavior of some aid workers. These workers frequently talked over me, disregarded my expressed needs, and reacted with anger when they felt their authority was challenged. I remember a particularly egregious scene where a human rights worker received monetary payment from my family for a service that he was to perform, then quit the job before doing the work, refused to return the money and cut off all communication. I was stunned and hurt because I had trusted them when they came to ‘help’, and that trust was betrayed. Gradually, I realized that the power imbalance, coupled with the language barriers faced by immigrants and refugees, created a dynamic where aid workers could easily dominate the conversation. They became, in essence, ventriloquists, speaking over the very people they were meant to assist. The subjects of aid were reduced to mere puppets, their voices replaced by those of their ventriloquist.
At a human rights panel that I attended in Japan as an adult, a compelling point was made about the difficulty of those deeply entrenched in a problem to articulate their experiences in real-time. Children unable to attend school, for instance, often lack the means to voice their struggles. Their plight is typically publicized by third parties – social workers and researchers – who, despite their good intentions, inevitably bring their own perspectives to the table. The researcher, for instance, is usually an upper-to-middle class person with at least a college education. These individuals can offer valuable insights, but their accounts do not fully capture the subjective and visceral lived reality of those directly affected by the issue. These experiences led me to pay attention to how aid workers portray their beneficiaries, including instances of ventriloquism. I became interested in exploring how aid workers can “hear” and accurately represent their beneficiaries’ experiences, and the conditions under which the beneficiaries can effectively speak and be heard.
In this article, I analyze the issue of ventriloquism in development and humanitarian aid. The article proceeds as follows. The first section introduces my motivations in examining this topic. The second section offers an analysis of Gayatri Spivak’s classic article: “Can the subaltern speak?”, where Spivak demonstrates that marginalized groups are ventriloquized by both Western authorities and indigenous elites. The third section presents comparable formations of ventriloquism in development. The final section suggests methods for moving away from ventriloquism and towards more authentic empowerment for the beneficiaries, specifically mentioning listening, seeing, walking, and learning.
II. Can the Subaltern Speak?
The issue of authentic representation has been discussed by post-colonial philosopher Gayatri Spivak in her article, “Can the Subaltern Speak?”. Spivak focuses on the practice of sati in India, where widows were forced to self-immolate at their husbands' funerals. These women, nameless and erased from official records, had no means to voice their experiences. Spivak defines the ‘subaltern’ as marginalized groups who are denied social mobility. She concludes that “the subaltern cannot speak”. 1 The subaltern is instead spoken for by domestic authorities and Western intellectuals, who doubly ventriloquizes her. The domestic authorities stated in official records that “the women actually wanted to die”, while Western intellectuals countered with a claim to defend the women’s free will, by presenting themselves as benevolent agents who intervene to save the women from traditional practices that require elimination. 2 However, the women were not exactly granted free will: both imposed their own interpretations of the widows’ desires and needs. When pouring over the records of East India Company on sati, one never encounters the women’s testimony: one cannot put together their conscious 'voice'. 3 The subaltern cannot be comprehended within traditional bounds of knowledge, because their traces have been epistemically obliterated.
Essentially, Spivak argues that true representation is impossible within unequal power structures. She discusses how political and religious leaders, and scholarship - including Western scholarship- marginalize subaltern voices. She questions the very notion of representation, arguing that misrepresentation inevitably occurs because any data that has been selected by third parties would have been recontextualized and reframed by that very process. She introduces "epistemic violence," referring to the exclusion of subaltern perspectives from history and knowledge. 4 The article had a lasting impact on disciplines of postcolonial studies, history, anthropology, sociology, and development studies, among others. Its major weakness is that though it raised ethical questions about limitations in representing others, and concluded that “the subaltern cannot speak”, it does not answer what then should be done to realize their authentic representation. Critics ask whether Spivak achieved anything other than a theoretical paralysis – a moral defeat - of authentic representation and effective intervention.5 The article leaves the reader to grapple with the conflict between the desire to act to help subaltern groups, and an awareness of the potential for harm caused by those actions.
III. Development Ventriloquism
In this section, I demonstrate a similar process of ventriloquism within the development context. My central suggestion is that development produces scenarios in which the development practitioners’ substitutes impose their own judgments for those of the beneficiaries they aim to assist, while claiming to represent the recipient’s voice. This is ‘development ventriloquism’.
Macroenvironment: The issue of development ventriloquism has macro and micro components. On the macro level, in recent years, the World Bank, IMF, and other major development actors have promoted "partnerships”. This shift coincided with a move away from top-down approaches like Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs) towards more "country-driven" development strategies“.6 Nevertheless, power imbalances and inequalities within the global development system still exist that sometimes limit the extent of genuine partnership. Below, I draw on historical and contemporary cases to demonstrate development ventriloquism.
Inadvertent development ventriloquism: Khader critiques the concept of "inadvertent ventriloquism" in development work, where practitioners inadvertently impose their own views on the communities they aim to assist.7 He analyzed a case where a missionary in Africa claimed that Lombaba women wanted to end polygamy, which he linked to HIV/AIDS. However, as polygamy was seen as a socioeconomic asset in the region, while missionaries at the time strongly disapproved of polygamy.8 The author questions the authenticity of this narrative, suggesting Oliver may have unconsciously imposed his own views, rather than listening to what the women themselves were saying, an example of "inadvertent development ventriloquism." 9 This form of ventriloquism may stem from practitioners underestimating beneficiaries' capacity; overvaluing their own expertise; confirming pre-existing assumptions; and seeking validation for their views.10
Turning an experience into a story: Aid workers are at risk of simplifying their beneficiaries’ complex lived experiences into narratives that align with their own objectives, while sacrificing contradictory, complex, or uncategorizable data. The chaotic nature of the beneficiaries’ lived experiences may be smoothened into stories about either the subjects as victims, or as empowered agents taking control of their lives with the help of aid. I recall a conflict at an exhibition for Syrian refugees in Japan. A Syrian man objected to being labeled a ‘refugee’, finding the term undignified and connoting helplessness. He emphasized that he had voluntarily chosen to leave Syria instead of being forced to, and preferred to be identified by his name instead of as a “refugee”. The exhibition organizer, however, saw the term ‘refugee’ as crucial for acknowledging the injustice he had suffered under the Assad regime. This led to a heated exchange, with the organizer ultimately dismissing the man's concerns as a politically motivated one potentially indicating support for the Assad regime. In this case, the organizer represented the man in a way by which he did not wish to be represented by, by ventriloquizing his experiences and projecting her own narrative onto them.
Speaking about, for, or with: To expand on the concept of ‘speaking’ in development, the concept as applied to development practitioners is ambiguous, as it may refer to speaking about the poor (through research and advocacy), for the poor (by voicing their concerns in official contexts), or with the poor (in partnerships).11 However, each of these approaches has its own set of problems. Speaking for the poor can create a paternalistic dynamic where the speaker assumes to know what the poor need, while speaking with the poor can be hindered by language barriers and power inequalities. For instance, despite Christian Aid’s efforts to give displaced people in Mali a voice, the agency alienated and offended them by partnering with the mayor of the town who spoke only French, a language that many didn’t understand and viewed as elitist and colonial.12 A double ventriloquism is formed here, similar to the dynamic portrayed by Spivak, where subalterns are ventriloquized by both Western authorities and local elites.
‘Telling your own story’: Aid agencies increasingly emphasize a fourth approach: enabling others to speak for themselves or ‘helping our beneficiaries to tell their own stories’.13 While it assumes “speaking” is inherently empowering, this assumption often fails in practice. Firstly, recounting traumatic experiences can be upsetting, time-consuming, and invasive.14 Secondly, accurately translating and conveying nuanced cultural meanings across languages and contexts is challenging.15 Thirdly, participants may not be or feel free to ‘tell their own story’ in politically and militarily volatile situations with potential safety risks.16 Finally, the dynamics of power between beneficiaries and aid workers - whom the beneficiaries depend on for resources - influences how beneficiaries tell their ‘story’ and may compromise its authenticity.17 Without a nuanced deliberation of these factors, those intending for the beneficiaries to ‘tell their own story’ may inadvertently misinterpret and misrepresent the beneficiaries.
Choosing to not speak: Literary critic Jean Franco makes a case for interpreting some subaltern silence as intentional secrecy and a deliberate act of defense and control, rather than a passive effect of marginalization. 18 By hiding through silence, subalterns might protect themselves from what they perceive as misrepresentation or extraction, make them invulnerable to outside scrutiny, and regain a degree of control over how they are represented, which includes not being represented.19 This highlights the complexity of subaltern agency, where silence is not always an absence of voice, but an act of resistance. Focusing on having someone ‘tell their own story’, though valuable, can lead to premature satisfaction with a ‘story’ that is expressed on the surface, and a consequent neglect of what is not expressed.
IV. Suggestions to Avoid Ventriloquism
In this section, I describe several ideas on moving towards more authentic representation. I focus on methods and mindsets for one-on-one or one-to-group interactions here. These relationships differ from macro level development encounters in that development projects usually involve navigating between multiple and heterogeneous beneficiary needs, instead of a binary relationship. A pertinent question to ask is how to change institutional incentives to discourage macro level ventriloquism. Nevertheless, I focus on interpersonal interactions here because they are what I have control over as an individual.
Listening: If the argument that representations of subalterns by third parties inevitably leads to some misrepresentation is accepted as having a degree of validity, then it follows that those serious about supporting subaltern groups without ventriloquizing them should shift away from attempting to represent their voices. The primary focus should not be on representing the subalterns as best as possible, but on listening as best as possible. Acknowledgement of the possibility of misrepresentation can itself be taken as a response that comes from having listened. In initial stages of a project, aid workers can consider speaking less. To listen, the beneficiary has to speak without being weighed down by our expectations, assumptions, and projections.
Seeing: To facilitate listening, make a conscious effort to ‘see’ the beneficiaries’ concrete specifics and peculiarities. It is easy to go into a situation and start talking about ideas on what to do if the beneficiaries are perceived as figures onto which we project our generalized knowledge. It is less easy to consider the specifics of a particular beneficiary. Pausing before speaking is valuable because if we have not prepared a conclusion, and the beneficiaries see this, the beneficiaries feel freer to speak however they want. When the aid worker tries to immediately force the interaction to a place where they can provide an answer-to-go, like a frozen meal-to-go, I think this leads to ventriloquism and makes the interaction poor, though s/he may seem eloquent and efficient in that brief moment.
Walking: This idea draws on The Walking Interview as a Biographical Method (WIBM) by O’Neill and Roberts (2019). When meeting the beneficiary, the meeting need not take place in a room with a desk. To mitigate the power inequality between the aid worker and the beneficiary, they can meet and walk to somewhere side-by-side, possibly going to a place that the participant frequents, allowing them to view and experience the same sensory experiences.20 This disrupts the power imbalance of a traditional meeting, in which the aid worker and the beneficiary are separated by a physical barrier – the desk they sit at - and a metaphorical barrier, where the aid worker is the one who establishes the setting of the meeting.21 Disrupting these barriers may lead to more natural speech from the beneficiary. By seeing and hearing what the beneficiaries see and hear, the aid worker is given space to come closer, and this may help to develop empathy at a level that is more equal. One thing to keep in mind here is to connect, but not conflate yourself with the beneficiary. An awareness of the beneficiary as a separate individual should be maintained while attempting to connect.
Role Playing: As an alternative method to disrupt the power structure inherent in traditional interactions and enhance the effectiveness of practitioners, I suggest initiating role play activities for critical conversations. Practitioners can play the role of a beneficiary, preferably within the context of a project they are involved in, and interact with other staff in mock meetings, discussions, and outreach sessions. Practitioner ‘beneficiaries’ will gain insight into their emotions when placed in a vulnerable position, and reflect on any discomfort or difficulties experienced during interactions with aid workers.
V. Conclusion
In this article, I described issues with ventriloquism – misrepresentation of marginalized voices - and how this affects development, and suggested several methods to mitigate this. It is partially a result of my attempt to take a negative experience and turn it into something meaningful. While institutional change is crucial, individual aid workers can make a difference by shifting from speaking for beneficiaries to truly listening and understanding their experiences. I do not want anyone to recall me the way I recall the aid workers that I had met, and I want to not betray the trust that any beneficiary has placed in me. It is not easy to approach the vulnerabilities of others. There should be patience for the trial-and-error process that people go through as human beings to speak to, hear, and understand another human being before finding a solution.
Bibliography
1. Spivak, G. C. (1988). Can the Subaltern Speak? In C. Nelson, & L. Grossberg (Eds.), Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture. Urbana/Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 39
2. Spivak, G. C. (1988). Can the Subaltern Speak? In C. Nelson, & L. Grossberg (Eds.), Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture. Urbana/Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 28
3. Spivak, G. C. (1988). Can the Subaltern Speak? In C. Nelson, & L. Grossberg (Eds.), Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture. Urbana/Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 28
4. Spivak, G. C. (1988). Can the Subaltern Speak? In C. Nelson, & L. Grossberg (Eds.), Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture. Urbana/Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 77
5. Morton, S. (2003). Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak. London: Routledge.
6. Contu, A. and Emanuela, G. (2014). NGOs Management and the Value of ‘Partnerships’ for Equality in International Development: What’s in a Name? Human Relations 67 (2): 205–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726713489999
7. Khader, S. J. (2011). Beyond Inadvertent Ventriloquism: Caring Virtues for Anti‐paternalist Development Practice. Hypatia 26 (4): 743. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1527-2001.2011.01167.x.
8. Khader, S. J. (2011) Beyond Inadvertent Ventriloquism: Caring Virtues for Anti‐paternalist Development Practice. Hypatia 26 (4): 747. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1527-2001.2011.01167.x.
9. Khader, S. J. (2011). Beyond Inadvertent Ventriloquism: Caring Virtues for Anti‐paternalist Development Practice. Hypatia 26 (4): 744. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1527-2001.2011.01167.x.
10. Khader, S. J. (2011). Beyond Inadvertent Ventriloquism: Caring Virtues for Anti‐paternalist Development Practice. Hypatia 26 (4): 744. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1527-2001.2011.01167.x.
11. Wright, K. (2018). Helping Our Beneficiaries Tell Their Own Stories?’ International Aid Agencies and the Politics of Voice within News Production. Global Media and Communication 14 (1): 85. https://doi.org/10.1177/1742766518759795.
12. Wright, K. (2018). Helping Our Beneficiaries Tell Their Own Stories?’ International Aid Agencies and the Politics of Voice within News Production. Global Media and Communication 14 (1): 98. https://doi.org/10.1177/1742766518759795.
13. Wright, K. (2018). Helping Our Beneficiaries Tell Their Own Stories?’ International Aid Agencies and the Politics of Voice within News Production. Global Media and Communication 14 (1): 86. https://doi.org/10.1177/1742766518759795.
14. Wright, K. (2018). Helping Our Beneficiaries Tell Their Own Stories?’ International Aid Agencies and the Politics of Voice within News Production. Global Media and Communication 14 (1): 89. https://doi.org/10.1177/1742766518759795.
15. Baker, M. (2006) Translation and Conflict. London; New York: Routledge
16. Baker, M. (2006) Translation and Conflict. London; New York: Routledge
17. Baker, M. (2006) Translation and Conflict. London; New York: Routledge
18. Franco, J. (2010). Moving from Subalternity: Indigenous Women in Guatamala and Mexico, Can the Subaltern Speak? Reflections on the History of an Idea, ed. Rosalind C. Morris, New York: Columbia University Press, 213-24.
19. Franco, J. (2010), Moving from Subalternity: Indigenous Women in Guatamala and Mexico”, Can the Subaltern Speak? Reflections on the History of an Idea, ed. Rosalind C. Morris, New York: Columbia University Press, 217.
20. O’Neill, M. and Roberts, B. (2019). Walking Methods: Research on the Move. London: Routledge.
21. Murphy, D. (2022). Walking, Talking, Imagining: Ethical Engagement with Sex Workers. Ethics and Social Welfare 16 (2): 224. https://doi.org/10.1080/17496535.2022.2033809.
