Why do people say "we" when their statement only applies to me

[the_tortoise]

I don't even mean stuff like where they are mistakenly assuming that both of us share a perspective or experience.....

I mean like when they literally say "we" for a statement that only applies to me.

Is it supposed to convey something like them being in support of me ?....or that we are a team in dealing with something?.....something along those lines?

I find it very confusing.

 

[Fitzo]

I'm not sure, but maybe they just mean 'we human beings'?????

 

[Judge]

Depending on the context it can mean any number of things.

Some neutral, some even passive-aggressive IMO. Saying "we" when indeed they mean exclusively "YOU".

And perhaps on occasion it really might reflect something collective in nature which includes you and others.

 

[The Midge]

The "Royal We" can be used to express the opinion of the officer of state or other high rank such as a pope or monarch. "We are not amused." Queen Victoria was reputed to have said after a guest told an inappropriate anecdote at a banquet.

I was trained to use "we" instead of "I" when writing on behalf or a corporation on a matter of policy. It denotes that I am not giving my own private opinion.

Used as a form of sarcasm e.g. "We are going to do the washing up" one says. The other who might actually do the job by themself says "That is a Royal We".

 

[the_tortoise]

The "we" comment that prompted this thread was definitely not a "we as human beings" .... those instances make sense to me, usually.

I'm sure it wasn't sarcastic or passive-aggressive either, although I don't understand those very well.....@'The Midge', in your example is it sarcastic because the one who says "We are going to do the washing up" isn't going to help?

Does the Royal We sort of work like this: "I, as representative of all of you [everyone in the state], think this.....I speak for all of you, therefore I can just say 'We think this' "?

The we comment inspiring this thread was a statement that, in literal terms, only applied to me and not the other person (it was about something I need and only made sense if started with "the_tortoise needs" rather than the way it actually started, which is "we need" )......I think it is a way of stating that they are going to support me, since it is followed by talk of options. (It is strange to me, though....my brain keeps sort of, losing the meaning, if that makes any sense -- like it is hard to turn off/ignore the literal meaning of the words.)

 

[The Midge]

The "we" comment that prompted this thread was definitely not a "we as human beings" .... those instances make sense to me, usually.

I'm sure it wasn't sarcastic or passive-aggressive either, although I don't understand those very well.....@'The Midge', in your example is it sarcastic because the one who says "We are going to do the washing up" isn't going to help?

In that case the washer-upper is being sarcastic because they know the 'we' doesn't actually mean both of them.

Bosses use the 'royal we' a lot "We are going to work hard to out do the competition". The minions think "We are going to work hard while you lord it over us".

Does the Royal We sort of work like this: "I, as representative of all of you [everyone in the state], think this.....I speak for all of you, therefore I can just say 'We think this' "?

Basically yes. In UK everything that is public technically belongs to the Crown and the Queen speaks as the crown- a succession of Monarchs. The crown prosecutes criminal cases and creates the laws decided by parliament.

 

[the_tortoise]

In that case the washer-upper is being sarcastic because they know the 'we' doesn't actually mean both of them.

I see....sort of.....

Bosses use the 'royal we' a lot "We are going to work hard to out do the competition". The minions think "We are going to work hard while you lord it over us".

Now I'm getting confused again.....so the royal we can mean "every one of you except me" at the same time as it means "all of us"? Or it always means "all of us" but people in power say things that they don't mean about working hard with/for those under them because it sounds better?

Basically yes. In UK everything that is public technically belongs to the Crown and the Queen speaks as the crown- a succession of Monarchs. The crown prosecutes criminal cases and creates the laws decided by parliament.

I'm Canadian -- we still recognize the Crown so it's the same deal. Crown prosecution, Crown Corporations, Crown Land, etc.

 

[SusanLR]

Depends on the context of the statement, but, I find a lot of people will say something like "how are we doing today?" " This is what we need to be doing." Instead of saying this is what YOU need to be doing.
I find this type of we-ing like they think of you as daft. Like speaking to a child or infant. "Oh, don't WE look nice today?"
I could think of it as passive-aggresive.
But, it might just be another way some speak which is neutral but just sounds rather silly to me.

 

[the_tortoise]

Depends on the context of the statement, but, I find a lot of people will say something like "how are we doing today?" " This is what we need to be doing." Instead of saying this is what YOU need to be doing.
I find this type of we-ing like they think of you as daft. Like speaking to a child or infant. "Oh, don't WE look nice today?"
I could think of it as passive-aggresive.
But, it might just be another way some speak which is neutral but just sounds rather silly to me.

I really hope the condescending we-ing isn't happening to me now.....that would be very concerning, as it suggests this person doesn't take me seriously.

I think I can see how it's passive-aggressive if there is condescension involved -- like a sugar-coated way of disrespecting someone? @Judge is this the kind of passive-aggressive you meant?

 

[Bella Pines]

NTs use "we" a lot because they cannot see past their own nose. They do not view the world objectively, they are so often consumed in their own worlds that they genuinely believe that their version of reality is the be all and end all of life and an absolute truth. They believe that their opinion is representative of the masses and so speak in terms of "we". The sad thing is that if they have surrounded themselves by NTs who think and feel similar to them, then their opinion is frequently representative of their immediate surroundings and so they are correct to use the pronoun "we". In the aspie world, I fake use of the pronoun "we" to make it appear as though I am talking from a position of strength and have already secured agreement from those arround me. It is often not the case, but if NTs think that everyone else agrees then they are more inclined to follow with a joyful bleet.

 

[wight]

ah, you have come upon one of the instances of a word having multiple uses and contextual meanings.

Context, tone, word emphasis, and relationship all give subtle alternative meanings to the use of "we" ... it can be condescending, passive-aggressive, teasing, playful, serious... it can be used to indicate "you", "me", "all of us", "all of us except me"... it can mean "there is a consensus" or be used to convince people there already is a consensus even if there isn't.

In short, if you took that specific instance of its use to applying only to you, then that is probably what it meant.

 

[spaceman]

When this happened to me last. "We" was a cop out way of saying "me".
Work Rotas had changed. The watsapp group message read out: changes to staff blah blah, b/c blah blah, so if WE can all check the amended rota to makes sure this and that is covered. Thanks.

So I checked, and only mine had changed. Extra shifts. They had rota'd me in for another weekend. Yay... not.

 

[Judge]

I really hope the condescending we-ing isn't happening to me now.....that would be very concerning, as it suggests this person doesn't take me seriously.

I think I can see how it's passive-aggressive if there is condescension involved -- like a sugar-coated way of disrespecting someone? @Judge is this the kind of passive-aggressive you meant?

Absolutely. Often intended IMO to be downright patronizing.

 

[the_tortoise]

NTs use "we" a lot because they cannot see past their own nose. They do not view the world objectively, they are so often consumed in their own worlds that they genuinely believe that their version of reality is the be all and end all of life and an absolute truth. They believe that their opinion is representative of the masses and so speak in terms of "we". The sad thing is that if they have surrounded themselves by NTs who think and feel similar to them, then their opinion is frequently representative of their immediate surroundings and so they are correct to use the pronoun "we". In the aspie world, I fake use of the pronoun "we" to make it appear as though I am talking from a position of strength and have already secured agreement from those arround me. It is often not the case, but if NTs think that everyone else agrees then they are more inclined to follow with a joyful bleet.

I definitely think you are right that the lack of perspective-taking is a reason sometimes....but I am not convinced that it is an NT thing, specifically (it may be more common for NTs just because NTs are more common.....through happenstance they are more likely to find that more of their experiences are similar to most other people's experiences than an ND would.)

 

[spaceman]

I see....sort of.....



Now I'm getting confused again.....so
the royal we can mean "every one of you except me" at the same time as it means "all of us"? Or it always means "all of us" but people in power say things that they don't mean about working hard with/for those under them because it sounds better?



I'm Canadian -- we still recognize the Crown so it's the same deal. Crown prosecution, Crown Corporations, Crown Land, etc.

I see....sort of.....



Now I'm getting confused again.....so the royal we can mean "every one of you except me" at the same time as it means "all of us"? Or it always means "all of us" but people in power say things that they don't mean about working hard with/for those under them because it sounds better?



I'm Canadian -- we still recognize the Crown so it's the same deal. Crown prosecution, Crown Corporations, Crown Land, etc.

A royal we means "you". It's a hierarchy trick. saying we, but meaning you.
Or if I was your college, it would men us. (U, me, and the other workers)
Not the bosses.

If The bosses say WE are going to sort this mess out today.
The bosses will boss.
and you, will sort the mess

I hope!

 

[the_tortoise]

A royal we means "you". It's a hierarchy trick. saying we, but meaning you.

Okay, got it. I don't get how the trick is supposed to work, but your explanation about what it ultimately means is very clear so thank you!

Do you know how the royal we came to be used like that, as a heirarchy trick?

I can't see how the royal we in the quote from the Queen turns into the heirarchy trick -- I can't understand how/if they're related to each other......

My only guess to connect them is maybe it's something like satire? But then how does it work as a heirarchy trick(?) -- what is the boss trying to make people think or feel, what is the boss trying to convince them of? If everybody (except me, I suppose) knows that they actually mean "you" then what is the point? (This last question is a real question, not a rhetorical statement that it must be pointless -- it must have a point of some kind, even if it's archaic or taken for granted or something like that, or else people wouldn't do it.) Is the boss just trying to be funny or witty or.....?

I went looking for articles about the heirarchy trick/sarcastic use and how it came to be, but I haven't had any luck so far. I did find a nifty article that said the royal we may come from a bygone King asserting that he was speaking for both himself and God and also this bit that further confirms for me that the use of "we" to convey support and teamwork in addressing an issue that really only belongs to one person is actually something people do:

Finally, there is the point of view I call the “nanny narrator.” We could call this “the therapy we,” since it might be heard in the classic question of a shrink: And how are we feeling today? But I will lay its use first at the feet of nannies and grannies, who speak baby talk to their charges: “Have we finished our Cheerios?” When adults use it instead of you to address someone else, we telegraphs that the someone else is not alone; it’s code for “I am with you; we are in this together.”

I find it all very strange and curious....

 

[The Midge]

Now I'm getting confused again.....so the royal we can mean "every one of you except me" at the same time as it means "all of us"? Or it always means "all of us" but people in power say things that they don't mean about working hard with/for those under them because it sounds better?

Yes, it is all about context. I had to learn them the hard way.

 

[Fitzo]

The royal we actually means I. As in "We are not amused". That means I am not amused.
" How are we today " is not using the royal we and in my opinion is often but not always patronising. I think it's something people have got into a habit of saying without really thinking.

 

[spaceman]

Okay, got it. I don't get how the trick is supposed to work, but your explanation about what it ultimately means is very clear so thank you!

Do you know how the royal we came to be used like that, as a heirarchy trick?

I can't see how the royal we in the quote from the Queen turns into the heirarchy trick -- I can't understand how/if they're related to each other......

My only guess to connect them is maybe it's something like satire? But then how does it work as a heirarchy trick(?) -- what is the boss trying to make people think or feel, what is the boss trying to convince them of? If everybody (except me, I suppose) knows that they actually mean "you" then what is the point? (This last question is a real question, not a rhetorical statement that it must be pointless -- it must have a point of some kind, even if it's archaic or taken for granted or something like that, or else people wouldn't do it.) Is the boss just trying to be funny or witty or.....?

I went looking for articles about the heirarchy trick/sarcastic use and how it came to be, but I haven't had any luck so far. I did find a nifty article that said the royal we may come from a bygone King asserting that he was speaking for both himself and God and also this bit that further confirms for me that the use of "we" to convey support and teamwork in addressing an issue that really only belongs to one person is actually something people do:



I find it all very strange and curious....

Well my guess would be that it's not so much a trick. I'd say duped. Is more correct.

With bosses they are also hierarchy of the workplace.
And also dupe us with this language. Dude us into thinking everybody is one big team. (Which we are sometimes). So as a team we will sort this mess today.

But you know by now who the 'we' really is. It's you.

a prime minister will say. We the united kingdom have chosen to leave the EU.
when actually, there was a 2% difference. So we in that case is barely half. Then consider plenty didn't or couldn't vote. lies and propaganda misleading people on both sides.

So a royal we in that scenario means 30- 40% in my opinion. I don't want to be a part of that we.

But it's a royal we.

 

[Flinty]

Tangent!

I remember a Wayne and Shuster routine which I cannot find on YouTube...it involved naming a street after Queen Victoria. The closing line went something like this:

We are a beautiful waterfall on the dark continent. We are a territory in Australia. We are the capital of the beautiful province of British Columbia...but we are NOT a MEWS!