The problem of the institutional “we”

November 2, 2009 · Posted in Education, PR · Comment 

The problem with the institutional we is that not only is it barely a step up from the use of the passive voice, but that just like the passive voice, it’s a way to diffuse agency. In addition, although it attempts to suggest timelessness, to sidestep the sticky issues of archives where names and titles can be found that no longer are part of the institution, it does not generally succeed. Rather it is a form of stasis.

More importantly, it raise all sorts of issues about community boundaries, institutional coercion and the agenda of the persons writing (or editing, or approving) copy with the use of the institutional we. For although it may be intended to appear inclusive, the we is always connected to a verb or a state of being and objects and noun and verb phrases and all those things that attempt to define who belongs or more often the actions and attitudes of those who do or don’t belong.

I don’t know for sure how to get around it. I personally rely much too heavily on “the College” in my writing for work and ‘I’ in my own writing. But it seems to me that that “we” needs to be made more explicit at times and/or that managers and administrators or going to need to be more willing to use first person singular and speak for themselves because in the world of social media everybody is speaking about the institution and speaking as themselves in relation to it.

Tags: <, , >

What do we mean by authenticity?

March 2, 2009 · Posted in Social Media · Comment 

Social media gurus tell us that social media privileges authenticity. We PR people are told that if we want to engage, we need to do so with an authentic voice. And we tell our CEOs and such that if they are going to blog or tweet or, heck, communicate with anyone other than other CEOs then they need to be real about it.

This call for authenticity is entirely understandable. The language of work has been horribly abused and calcified (and yet has been absurdly prone to faddishness e.g. buzz words) ever since managerial capitalism ascended in the mid 20th century.

But what do we really mean by authenticity?

In my experience, what is generally meant is a mix of informal (conversational) grammar and syntax, hip vocabulary and pop cultural references, strong undercurrents of irony and self-deprecation (but with doses of sincerity) all combined with an opinionated, knowing approach to whatever field is being discussed. It is the lingua franca of educated Gen Xers. It is best represented these days by Twitter, I think, (previously blogging) but it has its roots in the bulletin boards, usenet groups, listservs, etc. of the early (rather libertarian in tone) years of the Internet. Thus, authentic discourse is strongly anti-authoritarian, anti-hierarchal, anti-ignorance, and anti-consumerist (or at least anti-mindless consumerism — it’s hip to what’s cool, though).

To be authentic is to mix the expert with the personal. It’s not the wholly personal — there must be some level of skillz exhibited; otherwise, it’s merely a puerile discourse of self-indulgent display (c.f. the incomprehensible entirely ungrammatical ramblings of MySpace comments), and I don’t believe that most marketers, social media gurus etc. value stuff that’s wholly puerile. After all, the authentic can only gain social currency when it shows that it provides something of value — either it’s entertaining or informative or interesting or preferably all three.

So what happens when this type of authenticity becomes the status quo?

Perhaps it never will considering how slow corporations and other organizations are slow to embrace it or how ham-fisted the results often are when they do. And perhaps authenticity is a broad enough concept to encompass and value a range of discourses. But it’s not entirely clear to me that the authentic voice as it is presently constituted is going to last and going to appeal to multiple generations even though it’s the mode of discourse I (being one of those educated, blogging Gen Xers) feel most comfortable working in.

(And perhaps what comes next is some sort of neo-formalism. If so, I’m screwed.)

Tags: <, , , , , >