This paper critically examines differences in nomenclature within Theatre for Development (TfD), arguing that naming functions not merely as description but as praxis. Drawing on liberation pedagogy, applied theatre theory, and critical development discourse, the study analyzes how TfD terminologies emerge from specific historical, ideological, and institutional contexts. The findings demonstrate that early labels such as Popular Theatre and People’s Theatre reflect anti-colonial struggle and collective resistance, while later terms such as Theatre for Development and Applied Theatre align with processes of institutionalization and professional accountability. The analysis further reveals that nomenclature structures ideological orientation, participatory methodology, ethical responsibility, and epistemic authority. The paper contends that terminological multiplicity should not be viewed as a conceptual deficiency; instead, it posits that productive tension is essential to the vitality of TfD, contingent upon reflexive engagement. By reframing nomenclature as praxis, the study advances theoretical coherence in TfD scholarship and points out the moral value of naming in participatory performance practice.