Who’s “we”…?

Whenever a news organization interviews someone about the Big Issues, we invariably hear the person interviewed starting sentences like this: “We should…”, and “We shouldn’t…”, and “What we need to do is…” Then they fill in the blank with a sweeping statement of a solution that assumes knowledge of what the true problem is.

Those being interviewed rarely represent people who are actually able to make decisions and enact those solutions. Usually, we hear from politicians, advisors, consultants, academicians, pundits, people who used to be in roles accountable for solving such issues and celebrities. The question I never hear being asked, but which is central to the value of the opinion being offered, is “Who’s ‘we’?”

If asked this simple question, the interviewee would be in many cases completely stumped as to how to answer. I know, because I’ve asked this of people who are attempting to convince me that their solution to a Big Issue is both founded on evidence and will be effective. Only a few people have responded with a cogent description of the “we” referenced, and have reasoned out the actions necessary. In every case, however, the person has not been in a position to actually cause the change they are suggesting “we” should make.

It may seem harmless for people who think they’re qualified to have an opinion to offer broad solutions requiring a wide swath of people, the “we”, to act in concert towards implementing the proposed remedy. However, I believe it can be detrimental to truly finding a solution because it provides an illusion of action. Even if the proposal or assertion is one that “we” might agree with in general, there is no next step identified, and no specific people referenced to do the stepping. An illusion of a solution is worse than no solution at all. It prevents “us” from taking personal actions that “we” might actually have the power to do. We instead wait for the other part of the “we” to act.

Last summer, during the George Floyd Era, which encompassed all such tragedies and brought them to the forefront of our consciousness for several months, I heard a lot of voices saying, “We should do this…” and “We should stop doing that…”. I felt the emotional pull of the cause and was actually looking for what I could do personally, recognizing that systemic racism has existed for centuries in this country and continues to prevent progress towards the “more perfect union” referenced in our Constitution. I listened to the pundits, politicians, celebrities, protestors and academicians. All offered broad solutions that “we” should implement, which were actually goals, not methods. I heard “We should eliminate unwarranted, violent treatment of black people in the hands of the police!” My thought in response was, “Yes, I agree. Now what? What do I do, personally?” Not often do we hear the specific “what” after the “we should”.

Well, I can’t wait for the “we”. And “we” don’t have to. The actions I can immediately take include how I vote for propositions, politicians and referendums. Check. Done, and will continue to do. An action I could take is to participate in a protest march. I decided not to do that, because I’m in the “vulnerable” part of the population as we travel through the rapids of this pandemic. Another action I can take is to change my own behavior. How do I identify and eliminate my own unconscious contributions which perpetuate the systemic racism that is powerfully and subtly woven into our national fabric? How can I be an example to others? Nothing stopping me from commitment to personal change.

These are the actions that allow me to feel like I’m making a difference. Just agreeing with someone that “we” need to do something exerts energy that I could otherwise devote to actually doing something. Too much time is wasted listening to people who are questionably qualified to have a view, telling the audience what “we” should or shouldn’t do. I’d rather hear from more people telling me what they are doing personally.