Estimated reading time: 3 minute(s)
I was privy to a conversation recently where a very benign little pronoun grabbed my attention.
They. Simple enough. Harmless enough. But something about the way it was being used was bothering me. The context of the situation was quite harmless itself. The conversation had turned to a young college graduate who was embarking on a new career helping people who are deaf to learn sign language and other ways to communicate and function despite a loss or lack of hearing. When asking questions regarding the people she would be working with, a few curious inquirers employed the pronoun “they” to refer to anyone who was deaf. A simple, time-saving allowance the English language offers us. Or, any language for that matter. A routine application of such a term, with absolutely no other implications. All that was being done was simplification of the conversation by using the word “they”.
But the more I thought about it, the more I wondered if it was completely harmless.
As I listened, it seemed that though completely accurate, and appropriate, the term “they” acted as a separator. A segregator. Obviously, that is its purpose. They is the pronoun referring to a specific grouping of people. But somehow, as it was being used, the “they” seemed not a temporary application, but a more overarching, permanent sort of separation. They did not replace the words “the people you are working with who can not hear”, but rather, it assigned to them their value. They were “they”, and nothing would change that. And “they” implicitly implies a “we”, creating a more drastic level of separation than if the pronoun were applied as a temporary way to make the sentence more efficient.
Though in this instance, no malice or negative thinking or perceptions were held or intended, the thoughts that followed in my head dealt with what I perceived to be the root of the issue: classifications.
We are so good at classifying. We are good at looking at other people and saying, “They” are (fill in the blank). “They” could be people who are deaf, or it could be people of a different religion, or denomination, or other spiritual distinction. Or, it could be homosexuals, democrats, republicans, right-wing, left-wing, Elvis impersonators or Apple Computer users. It is also applied to ethnic groups.
“They” is the great separator of “Us”.
I realize this is pretty deep into semantics right here. But I think it’s more than that. The conversation I was listening in on does not merit such scrutiny, but the greater underlying principle is the real issue. We really tend not only to group people and assign them labels, but then we have to treat them according to our pre-affixed labels. We have already taken a step backward in treating all people equally when we already have a classification (or two?) for them.
I am certainly not immune to this, but it was another moment of seeing life from a different perspective. For a moment, I think I felt what it would be like to be the “they” that a small group of friends were discussing. Where my whole being was lumped in with a larger group of beings because of some external trait I exhibit. Why must we classify? Why must we organize?
I suppose for the expedience of the situation, “they” was the proper word to use. Perhaps I would have not condensed the people to “they” or added “deaf” to their description as often as was added. Perhaps I would not have used the plural, and just spoken of one person, and individual, that the college grad would be assisting. Not sure what sat so wrong in my heart that night. But whatever it was, it was a good reminder that we are all unique and individual people who deserve such treatment.
You are you, not a they.
As it happens, we talkd about this in psych too. It turns out that every human language employs groupings and classification systems (fun fact: mental shortcuts are called “heuristics”) simply because it cannot process information without them. We naturally group things into categories because it allows our mind to process more of our surroundings.
My most recent mantra has been “every vice is a virtue gone wrong,” something CS Lewis said a bunch. I think it’s true in this case – while neutral heuristics allow our brains to comprehend and experience more of the world, they are a problem when value is assigned to those heuristics. The terms “we” and “us” by themselves are fairly inclusive, but because people so rarely refer to every single human being on the planet, a heuristic is implied. Voice inflection of the terms usually help distinguish the value.
I find it all very fascinating, but I’m probably boring you. I’m thinking that you’re right to say that we often assign values to others simply by classifying them into a group … but I also don’t think that’s any reason to stop classifying simply because in itself, the classifying isn’t a crime – it’s the value we add to that classification. I mean, “all deaf people” is a useful heuristic because it helps us show a distinction – all deaf people cannot hear, and so we call all deaf people “them” in conversation … it’s shorter, and it implies a set of behaviors we can use to more easily interact with them. For some, it means sign language, for others, finding a pen and paper to make communication easier. Unfortunately, for others it carries connotations of ridicule. But for them, the heuristic-virtue has been corrupted into a vice.
Just to paint a bigger picture 🙂
Sorry, Chris… as one who really does mean every human on the planet when I say “we” (unless context dictates otherwise) I must disagree. I do understand it seems very picayune, but I think the “bigger picture” is not the semantics, but the notion behind it that we are somehow groupable. I believe that almost always leads to badness, relationally speaking.
It generates walls that need not be there. They may be invisible, and even somewhat scalable, but when there is an us and a them, or a we and a they, we have created a separation… and often that separation by itself creates “values” on each of the groups… but usually that takes a little help.
I believe your psych class was correct in saying that every human language employs groupings and classification systems… it’s what we do. We’re really good at comparing. But that does not make it ok. (Nor, obviously does it make it intrinsically wrong…)
My point, restated, is that the “bigger picture” is that we are all vastly different and unique, and yet of completely equal value. Clumping people into a “they” separates them from “you”, and just leads (more often than not) to bad assumptions, and even actions.
That’s my thoughts, anyway. 🙂
(Nice quick response time, by the way!) 🙂