Security is not a dirty word, General Melchett once told Captain Blackadder before helpfully adding that crevice and job indeed are while leak is “positively disgusting”.
Melchett would no doubt be surprised to learn that today, in some circles both within and outside the sector, the word charity is also treated as though it is a bit grubby.
There have been many debates about the word’s shortcomings, with some arguing that it is an archaic label for a sector that has developed far beyond its origins in recent decades and is trying to discard its paternalistic preconceptions.
Many rival terms for charities have sprung up but none of them have replaced it partly because they are all so very ugly.
Let’s start with the negative phrases. Not-for-profits, nonprofits (to be read in an American accent) and non-government organisations (NGOs) – the latter favoured by those in international development – all describe what charities aren’t, which is deeply uninspiring.
A bigger problem, perhaps, is that none of the non-words successfully isolate charities. An NGO could just as easily describe a commercial business if taken literally while a government-run public service such as a library is as not-for-profit as a charity. Maybe we should combine the two and see whether NFPNGOs catches on?
The positive alternatives have the right idea, focusing on what drives charities rather than restricts them. For-purpose and for-impact are favoured by some in the sector but, again, are public institutions such as, say, the police not equally driven by achieving those things?
Also, at risk of sounding pedantic, it is just as possible to have a destructive purpose or to make a negative impact as a positive one.
Government departments, meanwhile, seem to want to call us voluntary, community, and social enterprises (VCSEs) – sometimes adding an F in for faith (and good measure) – in their announcements.
It is normal for statutory bodies to favour sterile, charmless terminology but it is a bit odd that none of the letters in VCFSE stand for charities and some of their press releases avoid using the C word altogether.
Warm and pretty
Postwar prime minister and NHS don Clement Attlee famously described charity as a “cold, grey, loveless thing”.
But those who’ve listened to Civil Society’s history of the sector podcast will know that the word charity evolved from the Latin word caritas, which literally means love.
The word originally meant a spiritual rather than romantic love and entered the English language via the old French charité. It developed over time to mean “benevolence for the poor”, which is perhaps the definition that modern day charities find unhelpful and wish to shirk.
Its limitations aside, the word charity is still so much more aesthetically pleasing than any of its more recently invented synonyms. Contrary to Attlee’s comments, charity’s love-derived meaning gives it a warmth that none of the alternative, cold, corporate-sounding terms have.
In fact, it is so pretty that some people name their kids Charity. Emmerdale viewers will know that one of the programme’s biggest and longest-suffering stars is called Charity Dingle. There is not a cat in hell’s chance that TV execs would commission a character called For-Purpose Smith.
While some members of the public lack a nuanced understanding of the modern sector, they generally like charities and want to give them their time and money.
People don’t really want to donate to a community interest company, which is why a minority of them get in trouble for calling themselves charities. And if you told your neighbour you were spending your Saturday mornings working at a VCSE, they’d wish you good luck with your exams.
As well as the word’s beauty, charity has a clearer and more specific definition than all its rival terms. They have to follow charity law and the Charity Commission’s public register gives a robust overview of those in England and Wales, although it excludes some of the smallest organisations.
Broader terms
But even if we all agree that charity is a great word, what do we call the broader sector?
Voluntary organisations, civil society, third sector (awful, degrading) and social sector (sounds like the bar and pub industry) are all used to some extent.
Over the past year, the government has put its weight behind growing the impact economy, which has caused some concern by lumping charities together with for-profit businesses that profess a social purpose.
Of the options, civil society is the rose among the thorns but none of them are universally welcomed.
Like charity, civil society has evolved its meaning over hundreds of years. Originally, it was much more closely tied to the concept of government, with the Latin societas civilis meaning a political community.
Today, it is distinct from the state, and is generally used to describe charities and all other organisations that are not profit-driven businesses or government bodies. NCVO’s Civil Society Almanac uses the term interchangeably with voluntary organisations.
But do members of the public really know what civil society, third sector or any of the other terms mean? Good causes probably resonates more as a phrase but its definition is even more woolly.
We could make up a new term… Net-altruistic, dividend-free, worthy originals?
What about dingle, after the great woman herself? It’s a warm, cheerful word with an historic etymology (from the Old French dinglé) that would surely gain traction across the sector. It’s such a strong suggestion, Ireland even named a port town it. Although from a quick web search it seems that dingle might have its own drawbacks.
If we can’t settle on a word that we would all proudly use to describe ourselves, without reservation, please let us at least stop being so squeamish about charity.
