Language & Integrity

🌍 Rethinking “Federation” in Naturism

Naming is never neutral. Words carry weight—especially in global movements shaped by history, identity, and governance. As naturism continues to evolve, a simple but urgent question arises: what do we mean when we say “federation”?

Currently, the term federation is used in two different—and conflicting—ways within international naturist circles. On one hand, it's applied to a global umbrella organization INF-FNI, which claims to represent naturism on a worldwide scale. On the other, it is also commonly used by many of INF-FNI’s own member organizations—often aligned with nation-states—to describe themselves as federations too.

This dual use isn’t just confusing. It represents a structural contradiction. And it weakens political clarity and philosophical coherence of the movement.

Conflict of Interest: Who Speaks for Whom?

The problem is simple: an international umbrella organization that describes itself as a federation cannot, in good faith, consist primarily of other organizations also calling themselves federations. This nested use of the same title implies an overlapping structure, blurring lines of representation.

More seriously, it introduces an inherent conflict of interest. Any global federation that is primarily constituted of national federations risks privileging national representation over naturist philosophy itself—which, by its very nature, transcends national boundaries.

Naturism is not a national identity. It is a lived practice of freedom, integrity, ecological awareness and non-sexual social nudity. It should not be constrained by political borders. Yet when membership and representation are framed along those same borders, the movement reinforces what it seeks to question.

Proposal for Clarity: One Federation, One Title

The proposed new INGO, tentatively titled Naturist Federation, aims to correct this confusion. But doing so requires a clear and principled naming policy:

• Naturist Federation will not admit any organization whose name includes the phrase “Naturist Federation.”
  This is not a symbolic gesture. It is a practical necessity. No member of a body called Naturist Federation should also claim that title independently—just as no country can call itself United Nations France or World Health Germany.

• Naturist Federation will not admit natural persons as members.
  This follows the model used by organizations like International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), where individual participation happens through affiliation with member bodies—not direct membership. It preserves the integrity of the INGO as a coordinating structure and avoids personal political conflicts.

• Any existing organization that currently identifies itself as a “naturist federation” must choose a new name if it wishes to join.
  This request is not made lightly. Clarity of structure requires clarity of identity. Encouraging name changes is a way to invite transformation, not erase history.

A Shift Already Underway

It’s worth noting that some organizations have already made this shift:

• British Naturism

• American Association for Nude Recreation

• Open & Bloot

These names reflect national presence without claiming the title of federation, which opens the door to participation in a truly international federation built on equality, not hierarchy. Unfortunately, INF-FNI still supports an incoherent naming model—permitting a “federation of federations,” which neither strengthens naturism politically nor reflects the movement’s non-nationalist foundations.

Toward a New Structure

This is not about rejecting past efforts. It is about naming contradictions clearly, so they can be healed. Creating a coherent, inclusive, and principled Naturist Federation means starting with language—and building from there. What comes next depends on reflection, dialogue and shared values. But clarity begins with names.

This post was written by a human being, with research and drafting assistance from AI.