ABSTRACT
Wilson (1990) discusses the use of personal pronouns by political figures. He talks of two conflicting pressures they experience. The first, which is keenly felt in what he terms ‘personality-led’ politics (typically found, he says, in the United States but the term would also seem to be ever more applicable to the United Kingdom as well), is to use the singular I in the stressing of personal achievement, especially in competitive democratic systems. At the same time, the wise politician will avoid authoritarian or coercive rhetoric and will shun the risks inherent in assuming too much personal responsibility for actions and policies, both of which policies advise the use of we. First person pronouns can thus be used tactically:
One of the major aims of a politician is to gain the people’s allegiance, to have them believe that the decisions that are being made are the right ones. At the same time […] it is also useful to have the audience believe, in some circumstances, that any actions are perhaps not only, or not fully, the responsibility of one individual. First person pronomial forms can assist the politician in achieving these almost contradictory aims
(Wilson 1990: 76)
Wilson divides the use of we into two main types: to group the speaker and the listener(s) (inclusive we) and to group the speaker and some other(s) excluding the listener(s) (exclusive we). The first is used to express solidarity and avoid the semblance of coercion, the second can be exploited to share responsibility. He then reports the work of Urban (1986) on the employment by representative political figures of the second of these uses, on the so-called ‘expanding circle’ of we, from I one other through infinite stages to I the universe. The examples of political spokespeople he gives – highly relevant here – include the following referents of we:
The President and I we The Department of Defense we The Reagan administration we
The US government we The United States we
The United States and Soviet Union we (Wilson 1990: 53)
From an analysis of the briefings texts, we may well be able to add other footings of we to this list.
