Yes We Can: The Case for the Editorial “We”

In his On Language column for the New York Times, Ben Zimmer discusses the use of the first-person plural in writing, specifically the perceived motives of writers who use it. Zimmer acknowledges the use of the editorial “we” to create rapport with a community of readers, but reminds us that if the ploy fails, we may come off as pretentious (“We are not amused”), precious (“Are we happy now?”), or worse (see below).

Zimmer quotes sundry irascibles on the subject, including an admiral, a senator, and a preacher, with opinion editors a favorite target for hiding behind the authority of a larger, undefined “we” in their columns.

Admirals and senators are right to object, having especial responsibility not to throw around weight that isn’t theirs; their “we” implies the support of whole governments. A preacher’s “We” that hints at holy teamwork is possibly even more dangerous. Anyone with a platform of authority—editor, scholar, teacher—owes the audience a transparency that the use of “we” (like the use of the passive voice) can obscure.

I noted, however, that in his amusing account of objections to the editorial “we,” Zimmer does not call for a prohibition. “We” is a fine word with an honorable place in writing. It comes back to the idea of community that Zimmer mentions briefly, to the expression of ideas that a writer cannot rightly claim with an “I.” When a writer seeks to build consensus, or speak on behalf of a family or organization, or opine—as I do—from within a group of like-minded people without setting herself above it, the first-person plural is honest and apt.

Comments

[Darla-Jean Weaterford]

Thanks for this timely observation; I'm editing a book that has erratic uses of "we" that I need to make consistent one way or the other. I think the author would prefer to use it consistently, but he's a bit hesitant. With Zimmer's comments, I wasn't sure how to advise him; with yours, I am.

[Linda Seebach]

I was an editorial writer at several newspapers, and the editors I worked for accepted the need for an editorial "we" (and unsigned editorials) because "I" would often be inaccurate if several people contributed to an editorial, or if the person who wrote the editorial disagreed with the newspaper's position (not common, but it happens). And "this newspaper" is entirely too stuffy, like referring to oneself in the third person. But the other side of their acceptance was strict observation of the rule that if the newspaper refers to itself in the plural as "we," it should not also use "we" to refer to other groups -- that is, not when it means "we Americans" or "we in Denver" or otherwise includes lots of people who disagree with whatever generalization we are making.

I discovered, when living abroad, that I generally said "we" about Americans when I was describing an opinion or a policy that I agreed with and "Americans" when I disagreed but realized mine was a minority view.

[jv]

Politicians of any stripe who use "we" when they really mean "I" are especially annoying.

[Madeline Koch]

The problem I encounter frequently is that "we" within one article can refer to several different constituencies. I find it interesting that I don't seem to notice the confusion so much in stuff that I read or hear. But in stuff I edit -- well, I'm taking a break from editing one such piece in which I've just come across a third meaning in the same 1000 words... Back to the grindstone.