Although the word “we” can be very clear—three people enter a room and one announces that “we” have come for a specific purpose—in other circumstances it can be rather ambiguous. A person who is alone will use the word “we,” and the listener has to infer who is part of the group they identify with.
The question jumped out at me as the first words in a piece about identity and faith in the United Church. The piece is one of the appendices to an expression of beliefs and values called A Song of Faith. The word “we” is used frequently in the document: “We can grow in wisdom and compassion. We can recognize all people as kin.” Or “we sing lament and repentance…we sing of grace.” Also, “we sing of the Spirit who speaks our prayers of deepest longing…” The appendix states that in the document, sometimes “we” means all humanity. Sometimes, it means the larger Christian community. Mostly, it means the people of the United Church of Canada.
As I read A Song of Faith, I find that mostly, I am happy to be part of the “we” in the piece. There is one moment when I am not sure it says what I would say, and there are times when the language makes me stop and think before identifying with it. But that was the point of this expression of faith—not to be a creed that defines who is Orthodox and properly part of the “we,” but to explore the faith and values of “us”, the church in our time.
The other recent time “we” jumped out at me was a Facebook post where someone said “we” are working on a project then clarified that it was all the fragments of the person that got taken apart and put back together differently during the pandemic. This made me think about the fact that we sometimes feel like two different people in one body, sometimes at the same time, sometimes as we look back at the journey of transformation.
I worry that it is harder to say “we Canadians” at the moment. Over the past few months, it has been clear that people have vastly different ideas about public health measures and vaccines, about what makes for a peaceful protest. I worry that this divide is deep and omnipresent. The “we” of the Green Party nationally elected a leader, but part of that “we” could not live with her. The Conservative Party ousted one leader and the race to replace him is not going smoothly. The divisions in the party may make it hard to build a cohesive “we.” I worry that as Canadians at this time we are not good at living with difference, that there is a desire to cling to one definition of what “we” should think.
I suspect you can remember a conversation when “we” was exclusive, drawing a circle around who was in, putting everyone else outside. The word sounds inclusive, but is not always used in that way. I worry that conversations with “you,” people who think differently from “us,” are increasingly difficult.
The word can also put pressure on the listener. If “we” think that something is right or something is the right thing to do, there can be a feeling that the listener should agree, that the listener should identify as part of the “we” group.
Sometimes the use of “we” hides differences that exist. “We all know…” suggests that no one could disagree with the statement. It is not easy to follow a claim like that with opinions or facts that would nuance the claim. “We’ve all been through hard times” masks the fact that a person with privilege has resources to get through a tough stretch that another person does not have. Hard times are harder for a person who is poor, a person with mental health challenges, a person without family support.
Such a small word. Such a common word. But “we” is a word that by definition draws a circle. The appendix to A Song of Faith rather blithely acknowledges that in the document “we” has a number of different meanings. I think that in our living it is better to be aware of what the circle we draw with “we” includes and what is placed outside that circle.
Cathy Hird lives on the traditional territory of the Saugeen Ojibway Nation
