Who are us?
Please believe me -- two posts in a row mentioning Katie Couric shouldn't be taken as a sign of a new direction for this blog.
In the last post I mentioned the Ridger's bewilderment regarding a recent statement made by Couric. And the perplexity is reasonable. Couric mentioned a problem that "could affect every one of us - and our loved ones." -- which leads the Ridger to pose the reasonable question: "Our loved ones aren't 'one of us'?"
Well are they? It might depend on what Couric what trying to say. Here's how her comment doesn't make sense:
"[this problem] could affect every one of us -- and our loved ones." ...because it's possible that each of us will be affected in manner.1
by the problem. And it's also possible that the people we love will be affected in manner.1
by this problem.
So because Couric says "every one of us" this reading runs into the problematic hedging by "and our loved ones" disrupting what "every one" means or who "us" includes. The use of the first person plural inclusive us might seem to include everyone including those who are not watching the show. If that's the case why does Couric add "loved ones" as a necessary 'other' not covered by the previous statement?
Here's how the statement might make sense:
"[this problem] could affect every one of us -- and our loved ones." ...because it's possible that each of us producing or watching this broadcast will be affected in manner.1
by the problem. And it's also possible that the people we love (who are not producing or watching this broadcast) will be affected in manner.1
by this problem.
Couric's use of "us" isn't then universal. Nor do we always expect it to be. It's inclusive but we're still able to draw a line between us and them. There's exclusivity in this one. It draws the line between viewers/producers and those loved ones who are not viewing or producing the show. It sounds a little elitist. Why draw the line? And where exactly is it drawn? This explanation -- tho it might work -- doesn't work for me. And considering that there is undoubtedly a circle of people who are neither watching/producing the show nor have any loved ones watching/producing the show...are they safe?
Another way it might make sense:
"[this problem] could affect every one of us -- and our loved ones." ...because every person can possibly be affected in manner.1
by the problem. And it would then happen that the people they love will be affected in manner.2
by this problem.
This requires a switch. If I'm the viewer I've just been told that I could be affected in a primary way by this problem -- say I'll stub my toe and cry out in pain. That first hand experience is manner.1
. And of course because I'm such a crybaby Buffy has to put up with my whining. She's affected in manner.2
-- the secondhand effect. And if Couric's "every one of us" is truly a universally inclusive group that means that even tho I'm the one watching the show it's also possible that Buffy will stub her toe and cry out in pain manner.1
and I will have to put up with her soft and adorable whimpering manner.2
.
This one makes the most sense to me because of Courics use of "and" coordinating the two claims. That it could affect every one of us - and our loved ones. If the effect was the same for both us and our loved ones I would expect or to coordinate the possibilities. That would be a complementary coordination that indicates the same effect going in either place -- the "and" might indicate a simultaneous coordination of people being affected at the same time -- but not necessarily in the same way.
So within this claim I the viewer am at once one of us AND a loved one.
That's one way to double their Nielsen ratings.
And if the problem is going to affect only those watching or producing the show ... could the problem, perhaps ... be ... KATIE?????
ReplyDeleteHa. Perhaps you have found the common denominator.
ReplyDelete