The Reverend’s Speech
The difference I’m about to explain is so subtle I don’t know whether I can explain it well in a short bit of text. I’ve been working on this as a writing post, as a relationship post, and now finally, I’ve put it with the Change the World series. The story is about sensitivity to the way use words and how those words affect how we see the world, each other, and our place in it. That the reverend was speaking of changing the world is a coincidence that I hope won’t distract. . . .
At to my son’s college graduation in May, I listened deeply to the commencement speech. It took a lifetime to get to the moment — my son’s lifetime. I listened as he might. I listened as a parent who knew what his education cost. I listened as a writer who watched the audience from a wonderful vantage point. I listened as a blogger for words I might share in a Change the World post.
The well-known Reverend who gave the commencement address had two things going for him. He’s the editor of a national magazine, and he’s well practiced at inspirational speaking.
The message the reverend brought was well-written and deeply felt. It was meant, I think, to be about hope as an action. I heard him say these sentences.
I was engaged in where this would go. Yes, I thought.
Then he spoke of sad things in the world and how we accept and tolerate those situations because we believe that we cannot change them. He used the pronoun we.
Unfortunately, when he spoke of the future and changing what is framed it inside the wrong pronoun. He changed the pronoun to you. Forgive me as I paraphrase what he said. Please know that I’m being true to the message that came across.
You can choose not to accept . . .
I wondered what happened to we.
I couldn’t help but think of the graduates on this day they had looked forward for so many years. Maybe I’m overly sensitive. I could be too protective. But I think he could have had a more powerful inspirational impact had he considered the people he was trying to inspire.
You see, the reverend spoke from a podium high upon a stage. He was talking to graduates who sat in chairs listening as they had for most their school careers.
In that context, it was almost as if he had given them one more assignment dressed up in inspirational words. This time there would be no grade, no classroom or email support. The test would be the shape of the world.
If only, he had chosen the pronoun “we.”
We can stop tolerating situations in which children don’t have enough to eat. . .
The assignment would have become a shared cause.
The reverend could have changed the world, could have changed how those graduates saw their role, with just one word.
We can change the world — just like that.
–ME “Liz” Strauss
You’re right, of course.
Perhaps he wanted to convey the idea of passing the torch to the next generation. Perhaps he wanted to emphasize that the speech was about what this group of new graduates did next, as they pushed forward the course of human history. Perhaps he used the second person in order to highlight how this group will move on, alone at some point, past the point where he will be with them.
A milestone like a graduation can make an older speaker feel his mortality.
But, as I said, you’re right. “We” would have been more inspiring.
I’m going to play devil’s advocate here and throw out some possibilities that came to my mind as I was reading.
I don’t know who the reverend is, so none of this comes from any knowledge about him. And despite what the following points might suggest, I’m not looking to start a religious debate; I’m simply using them to show the long-established reference point he was (likely) coming from.
–Some folks regard the use of “we” with skepticism; it’s been used so much as a way to rally the masses that it sometimes comes out sounding like empty rhetoric. If the reverend isn’t actively doing something to help feed hungry children, say, because he has other causes he pours his time and energy into, he might not have felt comfortable using “we”. Too much chance of someone sitting out there saying, “Yeah, man? How come I don’t hear about YOU passing out bags of rice in Africa?”
–The Bible has a lot of passages about tending to your own spirit and making changes in your own self before you attempt to do the same with others. (There’s a passage to the effect of “don’t point out the splinter in another’s eye when you have a log in your own.”) So, it’s about YOU.
–You see see a lot in the Bible, and it’s reinforced in church sermons, about living a life that sets a quiet example others will want to model. It’s about YOU again.
–The Bible, particularly the Old Testament, is filled with stories of how the tide of entire tribes or entire nations was changed because of the changes effected in one person in their midst. We’re back to the individual again.
–You can find similar stories throughout history, where one person set the wheels in motion that led to greater change (William Wallace in Scotland is one example).
–Someone said “Be the change you want to see in the world” (Gandhi?). And there’s a litany of similar aphorisms from around the world, and from different religions, that echo the point that change must occur in ONE person if it’s to have a hope of occurring in many.
I don’t know about anyone else, but I’ve always heard a lot more “you” and not much “we” in church. *IF* my individual experience is in any way reflective of the larger reality (and I don’t know, because I haven’t been to all the churches in the U.S. or experienced all the denominations of Christianity), it might offer an explanation for why the reverend didn’t use “we”.
And then again…it may be something he simply wrote and gave little dedicated thought to.
And I apologize for rambling on so long. I got into a thought flow and didn’t realize how long it went on until I hit Submit. I’ll behave better next time.
Hi Juggling Frogs!
I know what you’re saying . . . I had the strangest feeling that the speech was written in a quiet office where too many speeches like it had been written before. I could see the parts come together beginning, middle, end. He had me totally bought in and in love with “Hope is a choice.” Then he lost me when the burden became mine and not also his.
Hi Whitney!
I hear what you’re saying, still taking all of that in . . . the audience would have to know that the reverend is thinking that. It’s the writer/speaker’s job to communicate not the audience’s job to figure out what he might have meant. 🙂
On the point of what the reverend himself was doing, he covered enough topics under the “do not accept or tolerate” what is wrong with the world that he probably is working on something in some area that would have allowed him to comfortably say we and join his generation with theirs. 🙂
I do love your comments and they way they make me think. Thank you for your mind and your thoughts . . . and in this case the incredible wealth of information that you brought. 🙂
Just another take on the Reverend’s words…
I don’t know what kind of man, or orator he is, but every good and honest orator ought to know when to use ‘I’, ‘we’ and ‘you’.
However, when someone is public speaking, every hearer ought to recognise that the speaker is addressing them personally. It’s no use sitting thinking, this is what such-and-such needs to hear, or ‘we’ need to hear, or questioning whether the speaker includes himself or not. The point is, if everyone addresses the message to themselves, then ultimately it will affect the ‘we’.
Have I made sense?
Hi Armen,
If I hear you correctly, then as a student or a parent, I wondered why it was my job as the listener to fix things and not also his.
That’s what I heard in his speech. “It’s your turn. My turn is done.”
wow whitney.. .i can only say… what she said.. awesome and sums up (well maybe not sums! 🙂 pretty well here
I think the “we” is more collective but reaching out to each persona
gp in montana
Hi GP!
Whitney is an awesome thinker and writer, isn’t she!!! Thank you, for noticing it too. 🙂
I don’t know the tone, I wasn’t there, but maybe you missed the message Liz? Maybe while being upset at the fact he didn’t publically address himself, you missed the whole thrust of his message?
It’s not about whether he addressed himself or not, it’s about whether or not each individual will act upon the instruction given.
If one says, “everyone is special”, ‘special’ loses its significance. If one says “you are special”, it can change an attitude, heart, or even a life. You can make a difference Liz – go and lead by example. Whether the messenger lives the message he brings, matters little. It’s about you! 🙂
Hi Armen,
Of course, because no one was there and so much context is missing this situation is really hypothetical in nature, isn’t it.
I just had a conversation on the phone that made me realize that part of what I picked up on was that the man himself was really “phoning it in.” I now know that wouldn’t have a problem is Jesus, Moses, Buddah, or Mother Teresa said “you” rather than “we” because I would hear the genuine care in what they were saying.
I know you didn’t hear the tone. I won’t comment I’ll just say I was his audience. I was inspired with his words and wanted to be, and somewhere he lost me.
“We” dilutes.
“You” concentrates.
I think the Reverand used the We when he spoke about things already done: “how we accept and tolerate those situations because we believe that we cannot change them …”
Those situations have already passed, and he’s talking about how ‘we’ could have done something about them.
And he changes over to the You when talking to the graduation guys–he’s talking to them, not to you nor for the radio.
I’d say that even the graduation guys wanted to hear something directed at them. After all they’re stepping out to a whole new world and are looking for serious, sincere and mature advice. And I think the You would make a greater impact on them with regard to their new responsibilities than a general We.
And of course, as Armen so sensitively commented above: If one says, ââ¬Åeveryone is specialââ¬Â, ââ¬â¢specialââ¬â¢ loses its significance.
Hi Zakman,
I’m so interested in the multiple views on this subject. Everyone has such valid reasoning behind their thinking. This will be on my mind for days, probably months.
It’s like the following statement that I’ve been thinking on for over 30 years.
,i> What the mind yearns for most is not to know, but to believe.
One minute I think it’s true. The next minute I think the opposite is.
It appears that way with “you” and “we.”
I’m so jealous of Armen. I went on for…what…15 thousand words and Armen captured it in the space that it took to write “If one says, ââ¬Åeveryone is specialââ¬Â, ââ¬â¢specialââ¬â¢ loses its significance. If one says ââ¬Åyou are specialââ¬Â, it can change an attitude, heart, or even a life.”
(As I’ve said before, brevity is not one of my virtues. On the day they were handing out virtues, I went back for a second helping of chutzpah and apparently missed the line for brevity entirely.)
I also love the succinctness of Zakman’s ââ¬ÅWeââ¬Â dilutes. ââ¬ÅYouââ¬Â concentrates.
Nicely written and analyzed, both of you!!
(But I do still appreciate GP’s and Liz’s compliments.)
Now don’t get carried away . . .
We “includes” and you “excludes.” 😉
Nope. I got it. The Reverend had it straight.
About the world that produced this graduating class, the Reverend can include the audience, the graduates, and himself, and own the decisions of inertia, ennui, of heroism, of nurture and neglect. We all did and continue to make the world as it is, and to make it continue, improve, or fall apart, as we each choose.
Then the Reverend issues assignments or challenges, things that the individuals in the class may or may not choose to do. He reminds them of the things most of us have come to grips with, that consequences follow our actions and decisions. The Reverend reminds the individuals (the ‘you’) and the class as a whole that as they begin to build a place for themselves in the world, they can choose to fit in, or to challenge where the community has become complacent.
The Reverend might promise to walk with them, to make those ‘better’ decisions, but after identifying himself with the world, the school, and the audience (the ‘we’), he could not possibly promise that the world, the school and the audience would also make those ‘better’ choices. The class would react badly to such a bald untruth.
The ‘We’ and ‘You’ distinguish between who has been responsible, and a discussion of who is most likely to make needed changes.
As one who speaks publically at least half a dozen times a week, this dialogue has really enforced upon me the power of our words. It’s quite frightening to be honest.
Hi Brad!
Beautiful analysis. Thank you for that. I’m most intrigued by this last bit.
The ââ¬ËWeââ¬â¢ and ââ¬ËYouââ¬â¢ distinguish between who has been responsible, and a discussion of who is most likely to make needed changes.
Surely missing was any note of responsibility for how the world got the way it did in the first place. 🙂
Thanks Whitney!
But it’s all Liz’s fault. For some reason, I think very clearly when I’m here!
Normally I do read all the posts before submitting my comment. And Whitney I did read your post in full, but I really couldn’t relate to the Biblical references.
Hi Armen,
I think you shouldn’t be thrown by the fact that everyone here is missing your voice, tone, expression, and body language. What I’m hearing is that understanding the people who are listening is important.
Zakman,
I stand guilty. Thanks for that. 🙂
“Surely missing was any note of responsibility for how the world got the way it did in the first place. “
That would be the ‘we’ that made the decisions and choices that made the world that brought that particular graduating class to that particular ceremony. We all are responsible for the world being as it is, and not better, including those graduates that day.
Oh Brad,
Sorry, I meant the mention of responsibility of the “we” was missing from the speech. 🙂
I agree with who where it lies.
Hmmmm – I have one quote to offer you my friend… “Some of the most spiritual people in history have made self-searching a way of life.”
I know you’ll relate that to this, but, think about it, when I say you, I’m “pointing” away from me. As you said, inclusive, exclusive.
Not very spiritual.
Hi Mark,
I’m thinking on that. Self-searching is the only place we have a chance of finding anything authentic we can recognize as fully real, I would think.
You have just inspired me.
Liz
You just put in fine words what I’ve been thinking too: “Self-searching is the only place we have a chance of finding anything authentic we can recognize as fully real.”
I’ve said it before and will say it again:
I really am learning little by little about my own thoughts and reactions to a given situation here at Liz’s blog. Thankfully, I can still think to some extent, and I start recognizing the authentic in me and seeing the fraud. And the result is sometimes I’m upset, at times at peace when I understand ‘it’s okay’, sometimes angry and sometimes feel like I’m facing a dead brick wall.
Oh God… totally off topic here. Plz excuse me guys!
Zakman,
I don’t see that you were off topic . . . you’re talking about authenticity — that’s where the conversation took us.
I see the same things when I look as you do — some that give hope; some that make wonder if I’ll ever be what I hope to. I suspect all people who have a sense of self do.
I read once that we should realize that we’re supposed to be confused and that thought me strangely peaceful. 🙂
I visit here nearly every day, and sometimes only read, but lately I’ve been wanting to interact as well.
But what’s strange is that once someone acknowledges my comment… that’s IT for me… I’m so much into myself that I don’t bother to reply. That is such a narrowed attitude… but I’m trying to change, honest.
Why am I constantly looking for validation? Or am I just testing if my thoughts are normal or authentic.
Oops I forgot to respond to Liz’s reply: “realize that weââ¬â¢re supposed to be confused”
I’d guess a confused mind is a thinking mind?
If so, I’m pretty sure even Bill Gates would be confused at times… 🙂
Zakman,
Isn’t it strange? I had a conversation today with a friend in which we were talking about what sort of things were “me” things and what were everybody things. . . . Sometimes it’s nice just to find out which is which.
Don you think?
Often I don’t comment on blogs I read, because I feel shy. Sometimes when I do and someone answers, I don’t have any more to say. . . .
🙂
“Often I donââ¬â¢t comment on blogs I read, because I feel shy.”
Never! 🙂
Glad I inspired you… I’ve been looking for inspiration for quite some time for myself and I go and give it to you instead? lmao…
I’m only now beginning, baby steps mind ya’, to feel like I’m on the way back. AND – I’ve been working all along! What truly stinks out loud is I had to take a real job offline to “make someone else” happy. How bone-headed was that?
Yet, that is but one example of why I have to do this self-searching thing to discover what it is about me that needs to change in order for me to live happier.
Honesty is the truth and the truth will set us free! (Notice the link?)
Later – have a JOB to go to… 🙁
Mark
P.S. Zakman – stick around with Liz – you’ll be okay…
Oh Mark,
How much I have missed having you around, our silly conversations and the way you told me the truth. Both were so good. You never left my heart or my head. You’re my friend and my brother, bone-headed and wise.
Of course you inspire me. Let’s see there’s the honesty, yeah. Then courage, the humor, principles, the vision for the future, and the search . . . need I say more? 🙂
zakman
“But whatââ¬â¢s strange is that once someone acknowledges my commentââ¬Â¦ thatââ¬â¢s IT for me”
It depends on the forum. On my ‘how do I feed my new draft horse’ site, I learned years ago to make a single response, and not to respond again on that thread, unless I had something related but quite different to say. I found that set an example. At the time we were learning about online courtesy. As people interested in what went on in the barn, we had a high percentage of visitors that .. um, didn’t play well with others. Crusty types. Quite ‘assured’ from managing horses and horse people. The problem we ran into, was often a back-and-forth discussion degraded into name calling and hurt feelings. So on DraftResource.com we keep close to the topic, talk about horses not people. There has been a gradual change over the last 8 years. New people often show more online courtesy, the old timers have drifted to other sites or off the net. I miss a lot of old friends that moved on, but I still consider my site a reference for new owners. And I never did figure out how to keep the old timers happy while making newcomers feel comfortable.
Liz has created a community of courteous people here. The average post is focused on the writing not the writer, and she encourages introspection and deeper insights with the example she sets. We usually read bunches on a new site before jumping in, so we get a feel for the level of courtesy, direction of comments and replies, and can make a successful, well received contribution.
I mean, I could be snide and point out you are reluctant to enter a comment dialogue, simply because you haven’t been hanging out with Liz. A more honest observation is that not all hosts encourage comment conversations. Sometimes it can look as if one visitor is hogging the hosts’ attention — a teacher’s pet. And that can intimidate other visitors, or drag the conversation into uncomfortable or personal areas, or turn from a dialogue or discussion into a battle of wits with half-armed contestants.
So if this feels like a corner of the Internet with an especially comfortable atmosphere, hey! Your feelings are your own, and no one can dispute about that.
Hey Brad,
I learned so much reading that comment. Thank you for saying what you did. It means a lot, especially from a man who has said what he has to say clearly and honestly every time that I have read what you’ve had to say.