FAQ
May 4th, 2008 by Micah Tillman
WEeding Awards FAQ
Do the WEeding Awards have a nickname?
Are WEedies given to authors or to texts?
Do you have any examples of WEeds?
What is the WEediness Quotient of a text?
How often are WEedies awarded?
Do the WEeding Awards have a nickname?
Yes. They are called “Basington-Basingtons” for short. But for really-short, they are called “WEedies” (singular: “WEedy”).
[top]
Are WEedies given to authors or to texts?
To texts.
[top]
An improper use of the first-person plural. Other than while quoting, it is never proper for a person to speak in the first person of an action she or he did not take (or an attribute she or he never had, or a belief she or he never held, etc.), and using the plural rather than the singular doesn’t change this fact.
[top]
Do you have any examples of WEeds?
Yes. Each of the following quotations contains one WEed:
“We saved France, twice.” -Any American born after 1918 (and most of the rest).
“We are overweight and smelly.” -Any skinny, good-smelling person.
“We won!” -Any sports fan.
“Violence is our answer to every problem.” -Any pacifist.
“We think government is always the solution.” -Any libertarian.
“Nothing ever bothers us.” -Almost anyone.
[top]
A sentence that contains one or more WEeds.
[top]
What is the WEediness Quotient of a text?
The ratio of the number of WEedy sentences in a text to the number of other sentences in the text that contain proper uses of the first-person plural. Sentences in which the author is reporting the opinions/claims/thoughts of someone else are usually ignored.
[top]
There are at least four problems. Without some insights from C.S. Lewis and my sister Joanna, however, I may have never seen the second. There may be more problems with WEeds, therefore, and I welcome further contributions on the subject.
Here are the four I can identify so far:
(1) WEeds represent a kind of sloppy thinking that makes the intellectual moves which undergird collectivist thinking (e.g., reification of The Group as something over and above the persons who comprise it, and valuing of The Group over the persons which comprise it) more palatable.
(2) WEeds can be a way to criticize others while shielding yourself. By saying “we” (rather than “they”) are guilty of something, the speaker tries to be accusatory and holier-than-thou without seeming to be either. What the speaker would never dare say explicitly is expressed implicitly. The apparent nobility of acknowledging and accepting guilt actually disguises a kind of moral wimpiness.
And even when a person actually believes him- or herself to be just as guilty of whatever sin as she says “we” are, the speaker actually separates him- or herself from the rest of the “we” by being the one who laments. A guilty person who is sorry for her or his sins is better than a person who is simply guilty. A person who not only feels the guilt, but publicly repents is even better.
Thus, the “we” (or “us”) becomes an implicit “I” and “you” (or “they”). A “We’re guilty!” becomes — beneath the surface — a “We’re all guilty, but I at least feel guilty about it!” And yet the speaker continues to use the first-person plural.
(3) When calling for some other person or group (e.g., the government) to fulfill some responsibility or take some action which only that person or group can fulfill/take, the first-person plural should not be used. It fosters a sense of hopelessness, helplessness, frustration, cynicism, etc.
If one finds it necessary to “call out” a person or group for not fulfilling their duties, or to “call on” a person or group to take some action, one should have the courage to do so explicitly. Moral matters should not be obscured by using what one might call the “inclusive language” of WEeds.
When someone speaks in the first person of an action which he cannot take, or of a duty which does not belong to him (and which he cannot fulfill), he immediately associates frustration with the situation. He experiences the task as impossible, since it cannot be fulfilled by him. He taints the issue with a suspicion of inevitable failure.
This injects even more negative emotion into the situation than would otherwise be present, obscuring both the issue at hand and its solution. Problem-solving requires clarity, and speaking of other people’s duties as your own through the use of the first-person plural is counterproductive.
(4) In many cases, the use of the first-person plural is evidence of a logical fallacy. The faulty reasoning goes as follows:
(i) Americans did Q
(ii) We are Americans
Therefore: (iii) We did Q.
Of course, you can switch “Americans” with “members of [INSERT GROUP NAME].” And you can change “did Q” to “has/had the property Q” or “believes/believed Q.” The reasoning would still be faulty.
Take the following, for example:
(i) Smiths (e.g., Sally Smith and Samantha Smith) married Sam and Fred
(ii) We are Smiths
Therefore: (iii) We married Sam and Fred.
The logical problem is two-fold. First it involves an equivocation or ambiguity involving the name of the group. “Americans” can mean the same as “some Americans” or “all Americans” (and “Smiths” can mean the same as “some Smiths” or “all Smiths”).
Second, if the group name is being used synonymously with “some members of the group,” then there is the logical impossibility of reasoning from non-essential properties of some members of a group to the non-essential properties of all members of that group.
This kind of thinking is an instance of the association fallacy, which (I believe) can be expressed logically as:
∃x ( x∈S ∧ Qx ) → ∀x ( x∈S → Qx) [modified from Wikipedia article]
That sentence, read in English, says: “There exists some x which is a member of the set S and has the property Q. Therefore, every x which belongs to the set S has the property Q.”
For example: “There exists some thing who is a member of the cat species, and who has four legs. Therefore, every thing who is a member of the cat species has four legs.”
Or another example: “There exists some thing who is a member of the class of all four-legged animals and who is a cat. Therefore, every thing who is a member of the class of all four-legged animals is a cat.”
In each case, the reasoning is invalid, and using it is an affront to logical thinking, rational discourse, and the intelligence of those to whom one is speaking.
[top]
How often are WEedies awarded?
As often as I want.
[top]
