The Politics of Knowledge Production and the Role of the Charity Sector

 Bakita Kasadha

“You have a surprisingly sophisticated level of knowledge about this.” – Middle-aged white woman, charity manager

Yes, someone really said that to me before. I have heard this and variations of this line more times than I care to remember. It is a persistent reminder about who is expected to hold knowledge and who is expected to be the recipient of that knowledge. This often results in a one-way knowledge exchange meaning Black communities are treated as passive participants and in a tokenistic fashion, under the guise of community engagement. We are in the age of co-creation and promotion of participatory practices. Increasingly charities are being asked to evidence how their work is directly shaped by the communities they claim to serve. And how the workforce reflects the communities their organisation claims to represent. 

Participatory practices are nothing new though. “Nothing about us without us” has been a rally that many communities, including Black communities, have called for. We understand that policies, services, and initiatives need to be shaped with us and led by us, to serve us. Across the sector, charities are amplifying the need for “lived experience” involvement. Even within this moment, in too many spaces, I am expected to be the oracle of all lived experience but stay in my lane about anything beyond that. It can make these spaces and the processes suffocating. Unbearable psychologically, emotionally, and spiritually.

The politics of knowledge production and whose knowledge is valued continues to result in charities underserving Black communities specifically and marginalised communities more broadly. Often a false dichotomy draws a line between ‘lived experience’ and skillset where Black people are not expected to have a ‘sophisticated level of knowledge’ (read: “how do you know anything about this?”). I know it is the reason why I was assumed to be a volunteer, not a staff member, by a fellow staff member at a former workplace. The politics of knowledge production is what makes mainstream charities ‘CharitySoWhite’ and why Black people employed by these organisations are given job titles that contain the words ‘Communities’ ‘African communities’ ‘Black communities’ coordinator or engagement officer, rather than broader roles that do not pertain to their lived experience only. 

These roles are carved and we are squeezed into them after budgets are drawn and priorities are set. All the while community held and generated knowledge by grassroot organisations is ignored and mainstream charities only engage them to circulate pre-defined information. Where we are given a seat at the table, we are expected to funnel our communities to engage in a space that doesn’t feel equipped or adequate for our needs or priorities. 

As Audre Lorde wrote: ‘the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house’. 

Too many of the tools used in knowledge production are sharp and threatening. Despite this, we are rarely asked to comment on the tools, let alone replace them with our own. But that’s what needs to be done to achieve more and better; mainstream organisations must learn to follow and not see themselves solely within a leadership role.  

About Bakita:

Bakita Kasadha is a writer, researcher, and health activist. Her work focuses on community engagement, HIV treatment and sexual and reproductive health and rights.Twitter: @bakitakkWebsite: www.bakitakk.com