I use the first person plural very promiscuously in my blogs. In fact, I write the word “we” so often that it’s really starting to grate.
Sometimes I use it to speak about humanity in general: “we all know…” and sometimes to talk more specifically about my own civilisation “we in the West…” I’m annoyed with myself for using the word so often because I know that it’s wrong. “We” isn’t as innocuous as it seems. When used in this way, the first person plural is actually a very subtle form of coercion.
By writing that “we” act this way or think this way, the writer is trying, sometimes unwittingly, to lure the reader into their paradigm. It’s an excellent way to pass off opinion as fact, to portray one’s personal views as common knowledge.
Let me give you an example. Say I was to write about the American president’s military service. At the moment it hasn’t been proven beyond reasonable doubt that America’s commander-in-chief went AWOL in the 1970’s, but a strong suspicion lingers in the minds of many. So, if I were to write something like: “we all know that George Bush is a draft-dodger.” What I would actually mean would be: “I think that George Bush is a draft-dodger and I want you to think that way too.”
By using the phrase “we all know” I give the impression that my opinion is actually un-contestable fact. If you do contest my “fact” then you must be an idiot because “we all know” that Bush is a draft-dodger. If you don’t “know” this, then what’s your problem? See, a little bit of good old-fashioned peer pressure.
I find this happens to me as a reader. When I’m reading something I disagree with, say a neo-con rant by David Frum, I find myself lured into his worldview. Frum is a fine writer and an intelligent man. After the first few paragraphs I find myself wanting to accept his analogies and logic even though I find his politics contemptible. It’s like going up to someone else’s car and kicking the tyres. You’re pleased to see that they’re pumped up but you shouldn’t forget that it’s not your car.
Good writers tempt the reader into their paradigm in a variety of ways, with the soundness of their arguments, the eloquence of their analogies or the quality of their wit. They don’t over-use the “we” conceit for fear that its ubiquity will reveal its true intention.
Tony Blair is not a good writer. His article in yesterday’s “Observer” about the crisis in Iraq is pornographic in its use of the “w” word. The headline of the half-page article reads: “Why ** must never abandon the historic struggle in Iraq.” The first line says: “** are now locked in a historic struggle in Iraq.” In all, Blair uses the words “we”, “our” and “us” twenty-nine times in the piece.
Sometimes the British Prime Minister uses “we” to refer specifically to his own country, for example: “if ** scorned our American allies. On other occasions he deploys the “w” word more widely to refer to the “coalition”: “if ** cut and run”. He also uses the first person plural to refer to his civilisation: “** in the West enjoy all the pleasures.”
Many times though, it’s unclear what “we” refers to in this article. Who is the “we” which is “locked in a historic struggle”? Is it the whole of the West or just the Americans and the British? Is it all the people of Britain and the US or just their governments? Maybe it’s just Bush and Blair.
Perhaps, like his hero Thatcher, the British Prime Minister has started to refer to himself in the plural. If you go through his piece and replace all the “we’s” with “I’s”, it actually makes more sense. The last line would be: “There is a battle I have to fight, a struggle I have to win and it is happening now in Iraq.” Can’t argue with that.
But I digress. I believe that Blair uses “we” in an attempt to speak for all of us in the West. He ascribes his opinions and aims to everyone in his country. He is trying to convince highly sceptical domestic opinion that, faced with the current dire situation in Iraq, “we’re all in this together.” Never mind who caused this mess with their belligerence, their deception and their insane imperial ambitions, “we” have to succeed in Iraq.
The British Prime Minister is like a pyromaniac who starts a fire in a crowded room and then screams “Don’t blame me; we’re all in this together!” Yes Tony, we are all in this together but that doesn’t mean we forget who started the fire in the first place. It certainly doesn’t mean that you should be trusted with the matches in the future.
“We” can all agree on that!