. . .and worry about the Orwellian We.
Policy Magazine has a piece on the tendentious use of the word "we" in political rhetoric. While the point may be a small one, it has a lot of truth to it -- politicians use collective words to create a false sense of group identity and need in the electorate.
"The central word here is 'society', which of course refers to a group of people but which is often used, tacitly and even unconsciously, to refer to more than that-namely, to a group that has an overriding, collective goal and therefore has to make central decisions, even though societies can and do exist without having collective goals and without central decision-making. . .Posted by Discoshaman at janvier 27, 2004 12:58 AM | TrackBackAnother term that has been almost completely emptied of meaning by being called social is 'right'. A right properly means a sphere of freedom that is protected by law, or a just claim. But nowadays, by being prefixed with 'social' or related words like 'welfare', a right is taken to mean a claim to redistribution that the law enforces."
Only slightly related, but how about the ecclesiological "we"?
A few weeks ago I taught an adult Sunday school lesson in front of a group of people who had never heard me before. One of the leaders of the class came up to me afterward and asked me why I always say "we." ("We" believe this; such-and-such is how "we" confront a particular theological question, etc.)
I had never realized it, but I say that all the time while teaching. It took me a minute to figure out what I meant, but I decided I usually meant orthodoxy, or sometimes merely Southern Gables. In any event, first-person constructs seem to carry a lot more weight when they are in the plural. I see why politicos might find this an easy path to faux legitimacy (just like me :)).
Posted by: Tim Berglund at janvier 27, 2004 05:15 PM