I or We in Multicultural Australia?

I once listened to social psychology lecturer explain that a true leader should use 'we' when trying to persuade people. According to her theory, 'we' signals that you are part of the group, and it is only once you are part of the group that you can get others to follow you. My lecturer came from the Social Identity Tradition of social psychology, and she was criticising the theoretical position posed by European social psychologist Serge Moscovici.

I must concede that her theory does seem to be applied in most areas of social activism. For example, when discussing the stolen generations, evangelical white journalist Mike Carlton said:

"We have taken your lands, scattered your tribes, sundered your families, mocked your beliefs and denied your humanity. All this was done and we apologise profoundly for it.
Yet please hear us when we say that at times there was also good intent, for many among our white forebears held to the 18th century ideal of the noble savage who could and should be raised to some higher state by the imposition of a template of perceived European virtue. "

Personally, I dislike the 'we', and I'd say that recent examples of social campaigns in Australia prove that it is not very effective. In regards to Mike Carlton's campaign, he assimilated some whites to his position, but that position remained a minority.

I think the problem that the likes of Carlton face is that Australia is a multicultural society with a diversity of values, beliefs and identities. While that diversity remains, using 'we' is more likely to divide than unite. I definitely don't feel any sense of 'we' with Carlton. I see him as fundamentally dishonest, manipulative and intent on building race-based identities. Although I believe that Mike Carlton is free to apologise for the white race if he so desires, and whites are free to elevate him as their leader, he definitely doesn't speak for me and I won't ever be standing with him. Consequently, instead of people like me feeling a sense of affinity with Carlton, and listening to what he says, we just think he is a wanker. Maybe Australia will be less diverse in the future, and the use of 'we' will be more appropriate. Until then, the likes of Carlton will keep putting the cart before the horse if they keep using the word.  

While 'we' is often used out of a genuine desire to belong, sometimes a prejudiced person will use it to align themselves with the target of their prejudice, which in theory makes them no longer prejudiced. By using 'we' the prejudiced person shares the social category with the target of their ridicule, and in theory they are criticising themselves as much as others. In reality; however, the use of 'we' is very much a weasel technique. While linguistically a group is shared, the user of 'we' doesn't truly feel the affinity they speak of. Again, I think the consequences of its use are contrary to its intended aims. A good example can be found in a forum post that explains why the Australian movie industry has found itself alienated from the very people it really needs support from:

"The usual answer to this question has been along the lines that our film-makers and script-writers are tunnel-visioned in that they are only interested in black armband stuff that denounces our (always meaning "your") almost innate racism or our acquiescence in an "incontrovertible" genocide, yet another sad dirge about drug addiction or another dissing everything "mainstream" Australians respect - hence the dreary queue of pictures that 80% of us have little connexion with. In other words, producers, directors, et al., need to get out more, to see how people who don't dress all in black and can't carry on a 20-minute discussion about coffee genres, or who reckon that their outer suburban lives are fulfilling and that the fortunes of their local football team are interesting, live their lives. " Leonard Colquhoun

Even when 'we' isn't being used as a weasel technique, I still have my doubts about whether it is the most effective word to influence people. I disagree with my old social psychology lecturer in that regard. Take Martin Luther King's "I had a dream" speech for example. The speech was very much about 'I', and King used 'I' when speaking to an audience he definately felt 'we' with. King talked about his personal feelings, and framed those personal feelings into cultural attributes, and myths, shared by many:

"I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal."
I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.
I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
I have a dream today.
I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification; one day right there in Alabama, little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.
I have a dream today.
I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together."

Not only does using 'we' before it is truly felt look dishonest, I think it also makes people feel like they are being pressured to conform. When they feel this pressure they will push against it. 'I' is better because it lacks that conformity pressure. Furthermore, there can be no persuasion without assessment of the facts, and fact assessment always occurs at an individual level. While 'we' may appeal to people's emotional desire to belong, it doesn't appeal to what they truly believe. On the other hand, when someone says 'I', one individual is more motivated to compare his or her judgments to someone else's individual judgements. It is only on this individual level that rationality prevails.

To gain the best of both worlds, 'I' can still resonate with others when it is framed into myths shared by many. King knew this, and that was what made him a great leader. Unlike Carlton's words, there was no dishonesty or manipulative linguistic tricks in King's words. He spoke from his own heart, and united black and white in the process. Although it would be wrong to say his dream has been realised, the dream is now shared and discussions can focus on how to best achieve it. As for these Australians that keep using "we", I don't know what their dreams are, and I doubt they even know themselves.

(Top)