First, a personal anecdote.

Back in the last millennium, I either heard or read something that ended up causing a fundamental shift in my perspective and personal psychology. It had to do with active listening and conversational stances. The short form of this insight was along the lines of "in a conversation, are you actually listening to the other participants, or just waiting for your turn to speak?" IIRC, one method to judge this involved paying attention to the pronouns one used in speaking -- are you using more "I" than "we" constructions, for example.


This struck me as extremely interesting. The next time I sat down in a staff meeting (in my previous-previous job), I made a (English major-y) little chart on my notepad: the rows were myself and my colleagues' names and the columns were the various pronouns -- I, we, you (singular), you (plural) [1], he/she/it, and they.

[1] Growing up in southwestern PA, I classified "you (plural)" under the heading of "yinz." Depending upon where you are in the South, this is equivalent to "y'all" or "all y'all."

As my co-workers spoke, I made tick marks on how they expressed their opinions in this staff meeting (and tracked my own). I found out some interesting stuff:

* The co-workers I particularly liked most often used "we" when speaking on topics.

* The co-workers I wasn't sure of most often used "they" in speaking on topics.

* The co-worker that I disliked (intensely) overwhelmingly used "I" in speaking on topics; co-workers who were being pettish on an issue most often used I as well.

(Admission: since I was tracking all this, I didn't speak much in that meeting, but self-reflection made me honestly admit that I myself, at the time, used "I" a helluva lot. After that, I have tried to moderate my use of the singular person in general discussions.)

Various personality traits seemed to fall into line behind this pronoun usage:

* Extensive use of "we" were team players and amiable. To me, this connoted solidarity and acceptance of others in a holistic perspective.

* Extensive use of "they" were combative and always at odds with an (external) opponent. To me, this connoted an element of conflict and divisiveness.

* Extensive use of "I" seemed to me to connote selfishness and self-exception, alongside arrogance and a measure of disregard for others.

(Admission: Yeah, this was a shock to me on a personal level. I'm much better now.)

I thought hard -- and have continued to think hard -- about this concept/construction off-and-on for the past decade. It informs the way I communicate, both listening and speaking: I truly believe that there is something to be learned by one's habitual pronoun usage in conversation. While this may be simply rhetorical (in at least two senses of the word), something just feels right about applying this sort of analysis to people's words.

End anecdote.

In listening to Senator Clinton and Senator Obama's speeches over the past several weeks, especially those tonight after the PA Primary, I have to say that from my perspective:

* Obama uses a lot of "we" statements.

* Clinton uses a lot of "I" statements. [2]

[2] To be fair, Clinton's post-PA speech had a lot more "we" than she usually seems to use (IMAO), but that still wasn't a majority of her statements.

In light of this, I think this habitual pronoun usage helps explain an element (among many, including the substantial and the style-focused) of my distaste for Senator Clinton.

I'd love to hear the observations/opinions on this sort of pronoun usage from my f-list -- especially in light of the "unused" pronouns [singular you, plural you (yinz/y'all), and he/she/it) -- be it discussing typical conversation or the political arena.

Tags: mental health, philosophy, reference