In this edition of analyzing words that are used all the time, but often have complications, it's time to look closely at the word "we."
This tiny word is used a lot in my students' thesis statements. "We need to end homelessness." "We should do a fundraising event." "We must ban whatever word I'm offended by this week." It's easy to see why "we" gets so much face time. Just two little letters, filled with so much promise. "We" connotes togetherness, unity, a sense that anything can be accomplished if we are just more, well, we.
But it's not quite so simple. Using the word "we," I believe, tends to distance the writer/speaker from the action. After all, one could just say, "I am going to work to end homelessness," "I am going to raise money," or "I am going to curb by own language." And then actually do it. Instead, it's a clever trick to sound like "we" are going to work together, but it actually comes off as, "I have this idea that I want credit for, but I want you to do the work."
Call me cynical, but every time I hear a student, or anyone else for that matter, use the word "we," I automatically ask, "What are you doing about it first?" When I have students write about wanting to end homelessness, I wonder, "So how many homeless people have you invited to live at your house?" or "How many homes have you bought for homeless families?" If the answer to either of those questions is zero, then why should anyone listen to you? You don't really mean "we," you mean everyone else and then maybe you'll help a little later on.
"We" may also imply an unintended antagonism in your position. Obviously, every argumentative thesis acknowledges opposition, but using "we" just might go further than you want. For example, if someone writes, "We should address global warming," or "We should build a border wall," there is a subtle in-group vs. out-group dynamic forming. After all, if I am not on board with your thesis, are you saying that I am now viewed as a quasi-enemy? Sort of a "if you're not with us, you're against us" type of deal? That's not usually a good position from which to make an argument to which you want people to listen and consider.
Politicians of all stripes are probably the worst culprits of "we" overuse. When Barack Obama endlessly proclaimed, "Yes we can" (a slogan that incidentally almost always appeared on signs as grammatically incorrect, btw), I had no idea what he was talking about. Can what? Who is we? Me? What can I do? What if I don't want to do whatever it is you think I can do? Why don't you just do it? What are you involving me in this? I feel the same way every time Donald Trump shouts that "We are going to make America great again." Who is we? Me? I already think America is great, so why are you yelling at me? Are you saying you don't think America is great? Then why are you here? Why are you involving me when this is clearly a you issue?
You get the point.
The word "we" can be a problem. There's nothing wrong with using it, as long as you are clear who exactly "we" is. You can't just lump everyone together and assume we are all part of the same "we." Some of us may not want to be in your "we." See?
So, if you are working on essays in your classes, and you wonder if you should use a "we," think twice. Because on the other end of that paper, there could be a me.