HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
Mar. 18, 2008 When teaching college students to write, one of the cardinal rules that they are taught is that it is improper to write in the first person. They should not use words like “I” or “me” or even “you.” Of course, avoiding “I” and “me” is important because they are not needed. The reader of the work knows (or assumes) that it is the writer who is putting forth whatever thesis they are putting forth. As for “you,” however, writers are told to avoid using it because the use of “you” assumes something about the reader. For example, a novice college writer might write something like, “Because of the state of public transportation, you cannot get from here to there very easily.” The problem with this statement is that, quite possibly, I can get from here to there easily because I might live on a bus line, or I might be within walking distance of the subway. Whatever the case, the writer should not have included me in her statement. With all of this in mind, there was something quite bothersome about the last Democratic debate between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. To be more precise, there was something quite troublesome about Mrs. Clinton’s performance. And the difficulty does not come from the discussion issues or political positions, or even from all of the talk of change and reform. Instead it comes about because of two little words that Mrs. Clinton continually said throughout the course of the debate: “You know.” In fact, Mrs. Clinton uttered this phrase thirty-seven (37) times. Why is this bothersome? It is bothersome because in saying “you know” a full 37 times, Mrs. Clinton, 37 times, assumed that those to whom she was speaking did or at least should know whatever it was that she knew and if they didn’t, then those to whom she was speaking were somehow remiss because they did not know. Complicated isn’t it? An explanation is in order, wherein I will explain exactly what I mean because I am not going to assume that “you know.” That would be presumptuous. The first part of the phrase, “you know” is, of course, “you.” The interesting thing about the word “you” is that it can be either singular or plural when referring the one or ones being addressed. In other words, it could mean that a person is referring to only one person or to a group of people. For example, one might say to their child, “You have to go to school,” or one could say to their children, “You have to go to school.” Either way, “you” refers to the ones (child/children) being addressed. “You” then is not the speaker. “You” is instead the one being spoken to or being spoken about. “You” is separate from the speaker, who is outside of the realm of where “you” is. And because the speaker is distinctly separate from the one being spoken to or spoken about, then the speaker is no a part of a “we.” If the speaker were a part of a “we” then the speaker would say “we” and not “you.” This is important. It is important because when one refers to “you” they are making a distinction. They are, in effect, drawing a circle into which they place “you” and into which they are not a part. This being the case, they are making “you” somehow separate from them. It is important then to attempt to figure out if the “you” to whom Mrs. Clinton was referring was singular or plural. If the “you” to whom she was referring was singular, then there are at least three distinct groups of hearers. First there is the first person, Mrs. Clinton. She must listen to herself. She is also the speaking subject. Next, there would or could be the singular “you” to whom she is or might be referring. In this case, it would be the person asking her the question or questions. The “you” could be Tim Russert, or Brian Williams, depending on the inquirer. But does that work? It does in one case when she says, “You know, Brian, wait a minute.” In this case it seems clear that the “you” is referring to Brian Williams. What exactly Brian is supposed to “know” is not clear. Is he supposed to know that he is “Brian?” Is he supposed to know that he needs to “wait a minute?” And if it is the latter, how is he supposed to know that? If it is the former, well, then that is just silly. Third, of course, would be the others. Those who are not the singular “you,” nor are they the subject “I.” But these three groups exist only if Mrs. Clinton is speaking to a singular “you.” And, while her direct referral to Brian Williams was a clear cut example of this, in the other instances of Mrs. Clinton’s “you know’s” (the other 36) it is not as clear as to whom she is referring. At one point she says, “You know, for example, it’s been unfortunate that Senator Obama has consistently said that I would force people to have health care.” Who is supposed to know that? Is it Brian Williams who is supposed to know that what Mr. Obama has been saying is unfortunate? Is it Mr. Obama who is supposed to know that? Why should either one of them know that, or even agree to knowing that? This is the problem with using “you” when speaking formally: It includes people who may not want to be included. Like the time Mrs. Clinton said, “You know, take a country like Germany.” What if “you” has no desire to take a country like Germany? Do “you” have to? The subject, the addresser of the “you” is telling you to, but, really, do you have to? Or how about, when the subject (Mrs. Clinton) says, “You know, I was willing to take that stand, and, you know, fortunately the people of New York supported me and I won.” So now “you” is supposed to know two things. First, that she was willing to take a stand. Isn’t this something that only she could really know? How is “you” supposed to know about her will? Second, “you” is supposed to know that it was fortunate that the people of New York supported her. Apparently, “you” is supposed to see this as a fortunate event whether “you” thinks it was or not. By positioning herself as the speaker to the “you” Mrs. Clinton has alienated herself from the “we.” If one were to draw a diagram of what this means it would look something like this: We You Mrs. Clinton It is no accident that this diagram with the subject in the middle looks very much like a mini solar system. This is what happens when one establishes oneself as the addresser to the “you” singular. One is left with a “we.” Should one instead be addressing a plural you, then there would be only two circles with which to illustrate that discussion. The “we” circle in theory would be removed. But there are complications with this idea and with that illustration. This is because not all individuals in the plural “you” would be or could be willing to be a part of that identity. Instead, there would be a significant leftover group, which could only be referred to as the “them.” And one could diagram this idea thusly: Them You Plural Mrs. Clinton Notice in this diagram that “them” are not a part of the “you plural,” instead they are located far away from the “you plural” and, indeed far away from those who are supposedly in the know. Marginalized and cast aside, “them” are left to fend for “themselves” or to join the “you plural.” There is, of course, always the possibility that “them” could go to journalism school and ask the questions, like the “you singular”, but that is hardly a reasonable solution. Instead, the “them” can’t help but be only on the outside looking in, not knowing what “they” are supposed to know, particularly because “them” are never addressed. Mrs. Clinton never says, “Them know…” Instead it is always “you know.” This may seem like a trivial point, but it is of paramount importance when one considers politics and politicians. When a candidate only addresses a limited “you plural” and fails to address the “them,” the “them” will remain marginalized at the ballot box, particularly when a candidate lectures to the “you plural” about what they do or do not know, or, more precisely, of what they are or are not cognizant. This is because there could easily be another part of the diagrams that have heretofore been drawn. In this diagram there is the “you plural” (who does know) the speaking subject (who says that the you plural knows) the “them” (who don’t know and either don’t care to know or cannot know) and, a new group, the “they,” which is a group that would like to be a part of the “you” plural, but, by reason of not “knowing” what the “you” is supposed to know, must be relegated to being a group outside of, yet related to the “you” plural. The “they” are only “they” because they do not “know.” Yet, the “they” is still marginalized, still left to feel like a “them” and may, in fact, become a them should the speaking subject marginalize the “they” too much by constantly assuming that the “they” is a “you” plural who “knows” what the speaking subject knows. This diagram would appear like this: Them They Mrs. Clinton You Plural Notice that the “they” is overlapping the “them” just a bit. This is problematic. It is problematic for the speaking subject because it means that “they” could or would become “them” and thus become a part of the marginalized group at the ballot box. The focus of any political discourse should be on the “they” and the “them” and not on the “you” either singular or plural. The politically expedient diagram would be one that contained only one circle, and in that circle would be the all collective “us.” The “us” includes the speaking “I,” both of the “you’s” (singular and plural), the “they” and the “them” and the “us” would only suggest that “us” know what “us” know and it would not suggest what “you” knows and by extension what only a limited number of identities know or care to know. ------------ About the author: Email Wesley Mills: Wesley.Mills@esc.edu Comment on this article here! ------------ All articles are EXCLUSIVE to Useless-Knowledge.com. Please link to this article rather than copying and pasting it onto your site (which would be unauthorized and illegal). |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
