"Be even more suspicious … of all those who employ the term 'we' or 'us' without your permission. This is another form of surreptitious conscription, designed to suggest that 'we' are all agreed on 'our' interests and identity. Populist authoritarians try to slip it past you; so do some kinds of literary critics ('our sensibilities are engaged...') Always ask who this 'we' is; as often as not it's an attempt to smuggle tribalism through the customs."
Christopher Hitchens, Letters to a Young Contrarian (2001)
Very thought provoking piece as always Hollis! I hasten to add that now that we know about the gut microbiome, everyone is even more of a 'we' than previously appreciated. That said, I will keep an eye out more liberal use of 'I' in December, and hope that it could become a New Year's resolution for more writers.
Another day, another masterpiece, Hollis! I feel as though this should be read alongside my piece decrying the incessant use of vibes.
Vibes and we, in turn, allow one to hide behind a vague berth, to contribute to conversation without standing on one's own two feet, to make noise without saying anything at all.
In fact, the following excerpt pieced together from both of our writing can and should apply to both words:
"Vibes is no more than ambiguous, emotional beige.
It’s a placeholder for thought. A verbal shrug. A smudge where a sentence should be.
It’s bringing a dull, plastic knife to a linguistic gunfight.
It’s perfectly designed for a world where meaning collapses into shareable mush.
It’s nonspecific enough to be universal, breezy enough to signal you’re in on the joke, and vague enough to avoid the discomfort of saying what you actually feel...
It has no meaning without context. It is a pointer...
Hannah Arendt would say you’re dodging the blame. “Where all are guilty, nobody is.” Did you have a hand in the policy you are now critiquing? Own up to your role."
That "we" usage always sets off my anti-collectivist alarms. But runner-up might be "you". Look at your article. It's full of "you do this" sentences. A quick word count showed 32 instances. Some are more excusable than others. But then there's sentences like this:
You could use “we” ...
One could think of alternatives, but I'll leave that as an exercise for the student.
"We" removes agency and responsibility. "I" accepts agency and responsibility. "We" is groupthink, and that stifles dissent. "I" is a person putting forth and idea and inviting critique. "I"
opens the door to discussion and finding a better way forward. "We" closes those doors since it implies that the decision has already been made. Great post!
I hereby second Hollis's motion to impose “a moratorium on the generalized first-person plural for all blog posts, social media posts, opinion writing, headline writers, for all of December. No 'we,' 'us,' or 'our,' unless the 'we' is made explicit." I vote in favor of the motion, and further propose that the moratorium automatically roll over to subsequent months with no sunset date. Who’s with me?
Point taken, though as a Latin teacher it would be very difficult for me to recommend censoring 1/6 of a verb conjugation, even for just one month. Still, I'll see what I can do.
“Government is simply the name we give to the things we choose to do together.” 🤢
"Be even more suspicious … of all those who employ the term 'we' or 'us' without your permission. This is another form of surreptitious conscription, designed to suggest that 'we' are all agreed on 'our' interests and identity. Populist authoritarians try to slip it past you; so do some kinds of literary critics ('our sensibilities are engaged...') Always ask who this 'we' is; as often as not it's an attempt to smuggle tribalism through the customs."
Christopher Hitchens, Letters to a Young Contrarian (2001)
"surreptitious conscription"
This is very true.
We agree.
Very thought provoking piece as always Hollis! I hasten to add that now that we know about the gut microbiome, everyone is even more of a 'we' than previously appreciated. That said, I will keep an eye out more liberal use of 'I' in December, and hope that it could become a New Year's resolution for more writers.
Another day, another masterpiece, Hollis! I feel as though this should be read alongside my piece decrying the incessant use of vibes.
Vibes and we, in turn, allow one to hide behind a vague berth, to contribute to conversation without standing on one's own two feet, to make noise without saying anything at all.
In fact, the following excerpt pieced together from both of our writing can and should apply to both words:
"Vibes is no more than ambiguous, emotional beige.
It’s a placeholder for thought. A verbal shrug. A smudge where a sentence should be.
It’s bringing a dull, plastic knife to a linguistic gunfight.
It’s perfectly designed for a world where meaning collapses into shareable mush.
It’s nonspecific enough to be universal, breezy enough to signal you’re in on the joke, and vague enough to avoid the discomfort of saying what you actually feel...
It has no meaning without context. It is a pointer...
Hannah Arendt would say you’re dodging the blame. “Where all are guilty, nobody is.” Did you have a hand in the policy you are now critiquing? Own up to your role."
More here: https://www.whitenoise.email/p/stop-saying-vibes
Yes! I was just catching up with my reading, read your post, and thought the same thing! I loved your post, especially the dull plastic knives...
Write on!!!
That "we" usage always sets off my anti-collectivist alarms. But runner-up might be "you". Look at your article. It's full of "you do this" sentences. A quick word count showed 32 instances. Some are more excusable than others. But then there's sentences like this:
You could use “we” ...
One could think of alternatives, but I'll leave that as an exercise for the student.
:-)
I'm speaking to some very specific writers! The "you" is deliberate, in other words, not a lazy default. But I hear you (you!) just the same...
"We" can be forceful and masculine:
We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
Royalty also spoke with an authoritative "we", certainly in Shakespeare's day.
Some of the problems in using "I" and "me" could be answered with the anonymous first person "one". But that's been out of favour for a long time.
I agree that the faux-inclusion implied by the modern "we" grates.
“We have a dream.” Not good.
“we need to talk about" has always irked me.
Friends don’t let friends use “we”
How’bout the Royal We? 😉 Maybe journalists appropriated that for the same imperious reasons.
"We" removes agency and responsibility. "I" accepts agency and responsibility. "We" is groupthink, and that stifles dissent. "I" is a person putting forth and idea and inviting critique. "I"
opens the door to discussion and finding a better way forward. "We" closes those doors since it implies that the decision has already been made. Great post!
Just chiming in to also appreciate the Gwendolyn Brooks poem, one of my all time favorites!
Isn’t it the best? We real cool!
We're amused :) And I don't like this new free-dom you propose but I'll be mindful.
I hereby second Hollis's motion to impose “a moratorium on the generalized first-person plural for all blog posts, social media posts, opinion writing, headline writers, for all of December. No 'we,' 'us,' or 'our,' unless the 'we' is made explicit." I vote in favor of the motion, and further propose that the moratorium automatically roll over to subsequent months with no sunset date. Who’s with me?
Point taken, though as a Latin teacher it would be very difficult for me to recommend censoring 1/6 of a verb conjugation, even for just one month. Still, I'll see what I can do.
Points taken. I'll watch Pluribus next time I do an Apple binge, and I'll put my bullshit detecting goggles on each time I drop a we. Thank you.