Popular in Professional

Business

The Allegory of the Favela: The Multifaceted Effects of Socioeconomic Mobility

University of Pennsylvania Leandro S. Pongeluppe

Architecture

Connecting Cities and Nature

University of Virginia Timothy Beatley

Human Rights Law

Human Rights and Corruption: Problems and Potential of Individualising a Systemic Problem

Max Planck Institute Anne Peters

Finance

Chinese Exchange Rate Policy: Lessons for Global Investors

University of California San Diego Michael Melvin

Law

A statistical approach to law school citation rankings

University of Virginia Joshua Fischman

Education

Firm Performance Pay as Insurance against Promotion Risk

Stockholm School of Economics Alvin Chen

Establishing social groups in Hebrew

View more insights in Professional - Journalism and Media

View more figures from University of Massachusetts at Amherst

View the page of Gonen Dori-Hacohen

Read the Study

Next in Journalism and Media

The Optical and the Environmental

Francesco Casetti | Yale University

Vocational Anticipatory Socialization

Karen Myers | University of California Santa Barbara

Gonen Dori-Hacohen explores the Hebrew anaxnu (‘we’) in Israeli political radio phone-in programs.

Image courtesy of interviewee. April 30, 2024

Log-in or Sign-up to Faculti
Currently viewing this subject insight as a guest. You have insight(s) remaining for this month. Login to view 8000+ figures on the platform.

Generating Workspace...

Export as PDF

This video video discusses the speaker's research on the use of the pronoun "we" in language, specifically in political discourse and ordinary interactions. The speaker reflects on two primary contexts of their studies: their previous work on the creative and complex uses of "we" in mundane interactions, which they found challenging to analyze, and their examination of how "we" is utilized in radio discussions about public affairs in Israel.

The speaker emphasizes the significance of "we" in political contexts, as it represents social groups and collective identities. They explore how pronouns, particularly "we," can either establish existing social groups or create new ones within interactions. Their dissertation focused on ordinary people discussing public affairs over radio shows, observing different types of "we" that emerged from these conversations.

The speaker identifies several interpretations of "we" in these interactions, such as "conversational we," "program we," and "limited social we," each with distinct implications for inclusion and identity. The analysis includes various forms of "we" used to create community, manage interactions, and articulate political identities. Notably, a segment involving a Bedouin caller highlights issues of marginalization and belonging within the broader Israeli context.

Ultimately, the speaker argues for recognizing the complexity and creativity involved in everyday interactions, encouraging a deeper understanding of how we negotiate identities through language. They express appreciation for the intricate dynamics of human communication and the inherent creativity that emerges when individuals interact.

Language:

Export as PDF

X-TIMESTAMP-MAP:LOCAL=00:00:00.000,MPEGTS=900000

00:00.145 --> 00:01.845
It has two contexts, basically.

00:01.945 --> 00:06.205
One of them is, my interest with we, I studied, we,

00:06.385 --> 00:08.365
in Hebrew in a previous study.

00:08.945 --> 00:12.165
And to some degree it's a, it's a failure. It was a failure.

00:12.525 --> 00:16.485
I studied how two people use we in a mundane interaction,

00:16.745 --> 00:18.125
and I tried to make sense of that

00:18.705 --> 00:22.725
and I wasn't able to, they were doing it so creatively

00:22.865 --> 00:25.765
and I did it from a framework, conversation, analysis

00:26.235 --> 00:27.445
that gave me something.

00:27.465 --> 00:29.685
And we published something about how the,

00:29.865 --> 00:31.685
the two women in the car use we,

00:31.985 --> 00:33.445
but it didn't make a lot of sense.

00:33.545 --> 00:37.805
And so that we continued to, bug me to some degree.

00:38.905 --> 00:41.885
And on the flip side, I studied radio Phin,

00:41.975 --> 00:44.325
which is an arena of people,

00:45.405 --> 00:47.365
ordinary people talking about public affairs,

00:47.365 --> 00:48.965
talking about politics, talking about

00:48.965 --> 00:50.365
what interests them in life.

00:50.865 --> 00:52.125
And that was also studied.

00:52.785 --> 00:57.685
And this paper is a combination of these two interests

00:57.685 --> 00:59.325
that I have, how people use we

01:00.025 --> 01:01.845
and how people talk about politics.

01:02.185 --> 01:05.085
And we is central to politics

01:05.395 --> 01:07.485
because we is more than I,

01:08.105 --> 01:10.365
and so more than I is a social group.

01:10.385 --> 01:13.085
And we must study how social group talk politics.

01:13.085 --> 01:15.205
And that's the context of this paper.

01:15.665 --> 01:18.005
So we is a pronoun and there is a lot

01:18.005 --> 01:21.485
of research about pronouns, especially about the I

01:21.705 --> 01:23.245
and the you and the he,

01:23.675 --> 01:27.365
because this is the triangle of how people interact.

01:27.365 --> 01:29.165
Basically I am talking with you

01:29.545 --> 01:32.685
and many times we refer to some he or she

01:32.905 --> 01:35.085
or they in the interaction.

01:35.665 --> 01:37.845
And so how we refer to people was studied.

01:37.945 --> 01:40.365
And there are rules for how people refer to people.

01:41.025 --> 01:42.685
Uh, so that's one prior research.

01:42.825 --> 01:46.525
And then pronouns can create two types basically of people.

01:47.125 --> 01:48.645
I can create something that exists.

01:48.905 --> 01:51.965
So I exist in the interaction, you exist in the interaction,

01:52.545 --> 01:54.885
or I can create something that does not exist.

01:55.105 --> 01:58.405
So when I talk about we my family,

01:58.905 --> 02:01.085
you don't necessarily know that I have family.

02:01.665 --> 02:05.115
And so I can create a new group

02:05.455 --> 02:08.275
of people via the we, we as a reference.

02:08.855 --> 02:13.395
And so that's part of the discussion of what we is, so

02:13.735 --> 02:14.955
how we refer to people,

02:15.295 --> 02:18.315
how we insert people into the interaction in a way

02:18.315 --> 02:22.115
that is both preexisting as Silverstein called it.

02:22.215 --> 02:23.315
So preexisting groups

02:23.855 --> 02:26.595
or creative groups that we create in an interaction.

02:27.215 --> 02:30.755
And that's part of the, of that in politics,

02:31.785 --> 02:33.685
you probably know that they studied we,

02:34.065 --> 02:36.485
and there is a famous British royal we

02:36.515 --> 02:38.365
that we spoke speakers, royals.

02:38.825 --> 02:42.965
The only thing about royal we is that when people interact

02:42.965 --> 02:45.845
with one another, this ambiguity about we

02:45.915 --> 02:48.845
that was found in politics is

02:50.125 --> 02:51.205
existing to lesser degrees.

02:51.265 --> 02:53.285
So politicians like to talk in ambiguity

02:53.285 --> 02:54.605
because you cannot catch me.

02:54.905 --> 02:56.405
So I will talk about a we

02:56.545 --> 02:58.805
and you will not catch who this we exactly

02:59.265 --> 03:00.265
Is.

03:00.515 --> 03:03.725
However, when we, when we interact, if I say we,

03:03.825 --> 03:04.845
you might ask me, okay,

03:04.865 --> 03:06.525
who are you referring to when you say this?

03:06.545 --> 03:09.165
We something that politicians will rarely be asked.

03:09.745 --> 03:11.605
So whereas in political discourse

03:11.675 --> 03:14.605
that we can be ambiguous in studying face-to-face

03:14.605 --> 03:18.445
interaction, it is harder to have that ambiguity.

03:18.785 --> 03:21.205
So we have these two constraints to some degree

03:21.205 --> 03:23.245
that in politics that we can be ambiguous.

03:23.265 --> 03:26.565
But in face-to-face is not so with a pronoun that refer

03:26.585 --> 03:28.285
to people or to groups.

03:29.205 --> 03:32.605
Although usually, the reference work is more

03:32.625 --> 03:34.045
of an individual level.

03:34.625 --> 03:37.285
And we rarely discuss, especially in English one,

03:37.285 --> 03:40.645
you don't have the, the plural U versus a single U.

03:41.385 --> 03:43.325
So in Hebrews, there is a difference

03:43.325 --> 03:44.405
between plural and single.

03:44.585 --> 03:48.245
So the reference to singular versus plural is

03:48.245 --> 03:49.325
another interesting question.

03:49.625 --> 03:51.125
And so this is a literature

03:51.125 --> 03:53.965
that I brought into bearing when I studied

03:54.505 --> 03:57.445
how people actually use we when they talk politics.

03:57.825 --> 03:59.925
So the study was my dissertation.

04:00.505 --> 04:02.565
Uh, I studied radio phone in Israel.

04:02.745 --> 04:05.045
Uh, at that time they had the,

04:05.185 --> 04:08.555
the public stations had three different shows

04:08.735 --> 04:10.555
of people calling in the radio show.

04:10.725 --> 04:13.595
There was one in the morning, one in the afternoon,

04:14.455 --> 04:16.275
and the second one was in the afternoon.

04:16.735 --> 04:19.755
By the way, all of them stopped existing when I finished my

04:19.755 --> 04:22.435
dissertation, which is an another topic.

04:23.095 --> 04:25.235
Um, the people were ordinary people.

04:25.395 --> 04:26.675
I cannot say much about them

04:26.675 --> 04:28.715
because the only thing I know about them is

04:28.715 --> 04:30.235
that they called the show and talked.

04:30.935 --> 04:34.035
Um, I did not do a study of who callers are.

04:34.125 --> 04:35.355
Other people have done that.

04:35.975 --> 04:40.875
Um, the hosts who are important, the hosts are the,

04:41.805 --> 04:43.875
media personalities who are not journalists.

04:44.805 --> 04:46.585
So some of them are journalists, some

04:46.585 --> 04:48.825
of them are celebrities, some of them are.

04:48.825 --> 04:51.985
There was a basketball coach that was a host.

04:52.405 --> 04:54.865
And, and so Toand a host tried

04:55.365 --> 04:57.305
and succeeded in being ordinary people.

04:57.845 --> 05:00.745
And so the callers were ordinary people calling other

05:01.105 --> 05:03.105
ordinary people to talk about public affairs.

05:03.615 --> 05:05.025
That was the concept of the shows.

05:05.805 --> 05:08.825
Um, there was the screening process in one

05:08.905 --> 05:11.215
of the show, in another show.

05:11.635 --> 05:13.175
It was first come, first served.

05:13.635 --> 05:15.255
So if you called in, you got in.

05:15.875 --> 05:18.815
Um, and why Hebrew?

05:18.925 --> 05:21.735
Well, 'cause I'm from Israel and that's where I grew up.

05:21.915 --> 05:24.455
So I wanted to study Hebrew. That was the main case.

05:24.515 --> 05:27.255
Israel is unfortunately a very interesting country

05:27.915 --> 05:28.975
always in the news.

05:29.395 --> 05:33.935
Uh, and so that's a, if one wants a, an added bonus

05:34.195 --> 05:35.935
or a disadvantage if you want.

05:36.675 --> 05:39.375
Um, and those were the people that I studied.

05:39.915 --> 05:42.495
Um, you know, ordinary people to some degree.

05:42.765 --> 05:44.615
It's about creating social groups.

05:45.035 --> 05:47.215
And when we interact with creative social groups,

05:47.515 --> 05:51.475
and the thing that somewhat surprised me

05:51.695 --> 05:54.795
and I wasn't completely ready for is

05:54.825 --> 05:56.875
that they created various groups.

05:57.625 --> 05:59.405
And if you think about it, it makes sense,

05:59.885 --> 06:02.565
although usually it makes sense only

06:02.565 --> 06:04.725
after we finds it after we find it.

06:04.865 --> 06:08.005
So, when you and I interact, we interact

06:08.925 --> 06:12.065
and that's a, we and I can talk about we interact right now.

06:12.365 --> 06:14.105
And people do that all the time.

06:14.725 --> 06:16.825
And that's one type of social group

06:17.455 --> 06:19.145
that I found in my conversations

06:19.245 --> 06:20.625
and I called it conversation.

06:20.685 --> 06:23.905
We, it is to say the people who converse right now,

06:24.975 --> 06:29.075
and it was used mainly by hosts use it,

06:29.215 --> 06:32.275
to invoke I'm managing the interaction we need to finish.

06:33.535 --> 06:37.875
Um, and so the manager of the interaction in Voxer weed

06:37.895 --> 06:40.035
to some degree, it's, it, it has a,

06:40.155 --> 06:42.235
a malicious slant to that.

06:42.505 --> 06:45.515
Because when I talk for both of us interacting,

06:46.315 --> 06:49.075
I include you in a group that I'm not sure you want

06:49.075 --> 06:50.275
to be included in.

06:50.775 --> 06:53.155
So when the host said we need to finish,

06:53.495 --> 06:56.235
the caller cannot say, no, no, we don't need to finish

06:56.235 --> 06:58.275
because he is included in that tweet,

06:59.015 --> 07:02.475
but he don't want to finish necessarily.

07:03.255 --> 07:07.235
Um, so that's the first tweet that I found a different we,

07:07.235 --> 07:10.155
that I found is again, coming mainly from the host

07:10.175 --> 07:11.315
and I called it program.

07:11.495 --> 07:14.595
We, although that's a bad name, it's the people who produce

07:15.255 --> 07:17.675
the interaction, who produce the group,

07:17.775 --> 07:19.635
who produce the community to some degree.

07:20.335 --> 07:23.595
So they were regular callers at our show.

07:23.975 --> 07:25.995
And so when a host said to a regular call,

07:26.095 --> 07:30.435
you are a regular at our show, he creates the program.

07:30.735 --> 07:33.275
We, the community that surround the, we,

07:33.665 --> 07:35.355
sometimes the colorer is included.

07:35.355 --> 07:38.835
Sometimes the colorer is not incl included in that we,

07:39.495 --> 07:41.475
and that's the second way that I found.

07:41.735 --> 07:42.835
So the program, we,

07:43.335 --> 07:46.355
the third one is coming mainly from the callers.

07:46.895 --> 07:48.315
So when I speak for me

07:48.515 --> 07:52.145
and my family, we had a lovely weekend last week.

07:53.035 --> 07:54.255
The host is not included.

07:54.435 --> 07:56.775
It is the experience of the caller

07:57.115 --> 08:00.295
and some limited social group that he's part of.

08:00.315 --> 08:01.415
And the host is not.

08:02.665 --> 08:04.245
It is a different from the prior two

08:04.245 --> 08:05.965
because it's not a local week.

08:06.705 --> 08:08.445
So the conversation, we

08:08.445 --> 08:11.925
and the program, we is local in the interaction, whereas

08:12.545 --> 08:15.765
the, so the limited social way is not limited

08:16.145 --> 08:18.685
to the interaction and exists outside of the interaction.

08:18.945 --> 08:23.245
It comes into the interaction and it is exclusive.

08:23.305 --> 08:27.325
So the, the callers talks about it without the host.

08:28.715 --> 08:31.815
The next group is a more interesting one

08:31.875 --> 08:33.295
or the more political one.

08:33.395 --> 08:35.055
So now we're getting into politics.

08:35.475 --> 08:37.815
It doesn't say that the, the limited social way is not

08:37.815 --> 08:38.855
necessarily political.

08:38.855 --> 08:40.455
So my family can be political

08:40.475 --> 08:43.055
or my, town can be political

08:43.355 --> 08:44.375
or my, you know,

08:44.635 --> 08:48.335
my party political party political affiliation is political.

08:49.035 --> 08:51.135
But the largest way

08:51.135 --> 08:54.535
that I found in my data is talking as Israelis.

08:55.655 --> 08:57.035
So we, Israelis

08:57.495 --> 09:01.035
and I found two types of different Israelis speaking.

09:01.815 --> 09:05.275
One of them is what I call the open general.

09:05.495 --> 09:06.875
We, and so

09:06.875 --> 09:09.155
that's the entire Israeli society without

09:09.155 --> 09:10.395
living anyone aside.

09:10.655 --> 09:12.755
So it's a very inclusive we

09:13.695 --> 09:16.995
and it's almost like we can all agree

09:16.995 --> 09:18.435
that we need better education.

09:19.375 --> 09:22.715
It, it is hard to imagine someone does not agree with that.

09:23.015 --> 09:24.395
But still, I'm talking as a,

09:25.015 --> 09:26.635
as an Israeli about the community.

09:27.175 --> 09:29.675
So we, Israelis, we want peace.

09:30.815 --> 09:32.995
You cannot find people that cannot want peace.

09:33.015 --> 09:34.635
Of course the details matter,

09:35.095 --> 09:37.915
but generally speaking, we, Israelis want peace.

09:38.015 --> 09:40.395
We want better education, we want better economy,

09:40.615 --> 09:42.475
we want better education system.

09:42.935 --> 09:47.235
So all to some degree slogans that doesn't have a

09:47.795 --> 09:51.675
downside to them or a is open general way.

09:52.725 --> 09:56.665
Uh, in Israel, as everyone knows, there is also a,

09:56.865 --> 09:58.785
a political struggle between Israelis

09:58.785 --> 10:00.385
and Arabs or Palestinians.

10:01.325 --> 10:04.025
And that's the second open general way.

10:04.165 --> 10:06.865
So we Israelis against the Palestinians

10:06.965 --> 10:11.325
or against the Arabs, and in this way we are the good guys.

10:11.955 --> 10:15.445
They are the bad guys. And that came up a lot.

10:16.655 --> 10:20.075
Um, and mainly callers used that open.

10:20.215 --> 10:21.475
We either open general

10:21.775 --> 10:25.355
or open oppositional open we, that I call it.

10:25.375 --> 10:27.435
So the opposition between we the Israelis

10:27.435 --> 10:30.555
and they the ARBs slash Palestinians,

10:30.945 --> 10:33.035
that was the biggest group I found.

10:34.135 --> 10:36.955
Um, but there were two other smaller groups

10:37.095 --> 10:38.195
of we that I found.

10:39.055 --> 10:40.355
One of them is the vocal.

10:40.535 --> 10:43.135
We, so until now,

10:43.355 --> 10:45.535
at least one participant in their interaction was

10:45.535 --> 10:46.695
while part of the group.

10:48.245 --> 10:50.665
So either the conversation or the program

10:50.925 --> 10:53.065
or the, the limited social or Israelis,

10:54.195 --> 10:57.975
but I can speak of a company that I'm not part of.

10:59.045 --> 11:01.745
And then the company decided we don't do that anymore.

11:02.935 --> 11:06.475
So when I quote a collective group that is

11:06.505 --> 11:08.115
outside the interaction, I can do that.

11:08.355 --> 11:09.835
People do that in interaction

11:10.175 --> 11:13.115
and that's a separate, we, that's a vocal.

11:13.255 --> 11:15.475
We, and it's very different from all the others.

11:16.785 --> 11:19.965
And now there is one last v we

11:20.035 --> 11:22.285
that was found in earlier research

11:22.505 --> 11:26.245
and I barely found it unfortunately to some degree.

11:26.905 --> 11:30.205
And that's the humanitarian. We, we or the humanity.

11:30.345 --> 11:35.095
We, so we people, there was a hint

11:35.195 --> 11:39.975
for one, we people unlike the American constitution,

11:41.245 --> 11:44.495
they were barely we people or we humanity

11:44.875 --> 11:48.525
or we, all of us, in my data,

11:49.225 --> 11:52.895
the most of them were we Israelis. Um,

11:53.345 --> 11:55.805
And so these are the six or seven.

11:55.985 --> 11:58.045
I'm not a quantitative researcher usually,

11:58.105 --> 11:59.125
so I'm bad in counting.

11:59.135 --> 12:02.605
These are the different type of we that people create or use

12:02.665 --> 12:04.245
or refer to when they interact.

12:04.545 --> 12:07.285
So this is an interaction between host.

12:07.665 --> 12:11.445
The host name is Ari Linac, that the basketball coach,

12:11.785 --> 12:16.325
and the color, his name is Mohamad Al, awi,

12:16.655 --> 12:19.645
which is an important name as we will see more internally.

12:20.025 --> 12:24.045
And you have both the English and the Hebrew.

12:24.505 --> 12:28.205
The first line is a Hebrew in Latinized letters.

12:28.345 --> 12:31.205
And the second line is a translation to English.

12:31.825 --> 12:34.205
Um, and let's start right at it.

12:34.305 --> 12:35.645
Uh, line four you can see is

12:35.645 --> 12:37.245
that the C stands for the colors.

12:37.345 --> 12:39.925
The color says the arguments are part of our lives.

12:40.585 --> 12:42.165
You see, we have the hour here.

12:43.115 --> 12:44.565
It's almost ambiguous,

12:44.805 --> 12:47.885
although it seems that our lives can be both you and I.

12:48.465 --> 12:51.885
So it includes the call the host, so it to some degree

12:52.845 --> 12:56.165
everyone or the entire Israeli community that listen to it.

12:56.865 --> 12:58.285
And then the color continue.

12:58.585 --> 13:00.645
We are a people that know how to argue.

13:01.385 --> 13:03.685
So now we can see is that he invokes the people.

13:03.685 --> 13:05.245
So this is a open general way.

13:05.835 --> 13:09.725
This is a way that referred to the entire nation

13:09.725 --> 13:12.685
to some degree, especially since he invokes the word people.

13:13.465 --> 13:17.285
Um, in Hebrew, he says, which is folk or people.

13:17.785 --> 13:20.445
So the caller sees himself as part of the people.

13:20.865 --> 13:24.365
He invokes the open general, we of the Israeli, we,

13:26.285 --> 13:27.305
he gets an answer.

13:28.085 --> 13:30.625
And I didn't say, this is the beginning of the interaction.

13:31.395 --> 13:32.415
He gets an answer.

13:33.235 --> 13:36.955
And to our business, our business is a different,

13:36.955 --> 13:39.355
this is not the same hour as nine four.

13:40.025 --> 13:41.195
It's a different, we here

13:41.195 --> 13:42.635
because to our business is not

13:42.735 --> 13:44.075
the business of the entire people.

13:44.955 --> 13:47.885
It's a business of the people who conduct this show.

13:48.025 --> 13:50.605
In line seven, we have end to our business.

13:51.265 --> 13:54.925
Uh, this is you and I, we have a business to, to go into.

13:55.025 --> 13:56.725
Uh, so this is a conversation we,

13:57.025 --> 13:58.165
we need to get to business.

13:58.625 --> 13:59.645
The caller and the host.

13:59.665 --> 14:03.365
So the host here imposes a, a a we on the caller

14:03.365 --> 14:05.765
to move ahead with the conversation to start talking

14:05.955 --> 14:10.445
because to some degree the caller's opening was too long.

14:10.905 --> 14:13.925
And so the host Hastings him to get to the point

14:14.305 --> 14:15.405
to get to the business.

14:15.625 --> 14:19.125
It is a conversational way that we have a business to attend

14:19.125 --> 14:21.165
to in the interaction that we are conducting.

14:21.745 --> 14:26.065
The caller then presents himself and he says, Muhammad Al.

14:26.925 --> 14:30.185
Now this is a special name. It is a wan name.

14:30.405 --> 14:31.865
So the color is wan.

14:32.805 --> 14:37.305
And upon hearing his name, the host says in line 13

14:37.365 --> 14:40.945
and 14, you have a spot with us in the program.

14:41.765 --> 14:44.305
Now, as you can see this as a yellow, we,

14:44.415 --> 14:46.665
because with us it, the program is the,

14:46.695 --> 14:47.945
what I call the program.

14:48.085 --> 14:50.665
We or the, or the community. We,

14:51.025 --> 14:53.005
So the host talks for the community

14:53.105 --> 14:55.885
or for the program editors and managers

14:55.905 --> 15:00.445
and everyone to show that we as the community we know you,

15:00.665 --> 15:03.445
you are a regular caller in our program.

15:04.305 --> 15:08.005
And so we have a movement here from a caller

15:08.005 --> 15:09.725
who present himself as one of the people

15:10.425 --> 15:11.445
to the conversation.

15:11.585 --> 15:14.645
We to manage the interaction, to get to the business of it.

15:15.265 --> 15:18.985
Two, with us, the, the program

15:19.135 --> 15:21.145
with the community around the we.

15:21.685 --> 15:23.785
Now why is this segment interesting?

15:24.055 --> 15:27.465
Because I said that the open Israeli we

15:28.005 --> 15:29.225
is for Israelis.

15:30.045 --> 15:32.345
If people know about the conflict in Israel,

15:32.415 --> 15:33.425
they should know

15:33.495 --> 15:36.945
that Bedouins are a liminal position in Israel.

15:37.215 --> 15:38.665
They're not Jews. And

15:38.665 --> 15:42.825
therefore some consider them to be not the,

15:43.725 --> 15:45.025
how should I put it?

15:45.765 --> 15:48.025
Not the imagined Israeli

15:48.285 --> 15:50.785
or not part of the imagined Israeli community.

15:51.525 --> 15:55.585
And, and so when the caller says we are a people,

15:56.085 --> 15:58.585
he shows that I'm an Israeli like everyone else.

15:59.045 --> 16:02.905
I'm using the open general, we to be a member

16:02.905 --> 16:04.265
of the Israeli community.

16:05.125 --> 16:08.505
And when the host says, you have a spot with us, this,

16:08.565 --> 16:11.345
the host accepts him to the community

16:11.845 --> 16:13.745
as a proud member of the community.

16:14.245 --> 16:17.305
And, and what I, I showed in the programs

16:17.685 --> 16:20.305
and to some degree with the we is that

16:21.105 --> 16:24.065
marginalized Israelis, that is to say bedwin

16:24.325 --> 16:28.345
and to some degree J and Arabs called the show.

16:29.005 --> 16:33.425
And they try to be part of the community way as a gateway

16:33.765 --> 16:36.345
to become part of the open general way.

16:36.885 --> 16:39.105
So in Israel, if you want to be in Israel, you need

16:39.105 --> 16:41.025
to be part of a smaller community.

16:41.165 --> 16:44.145
And then the smaller community creates a larger community.

16:44.725 --> 16:47.905
And so the host accept the Pedro in color

16:47.925 --> 16:49.305
to be part of the community.

16:49.405 --> 16:54.385
We, in order for the color to get what his wish to be part

16:54.405 --> 16:57.955
of the Israeli, we, and this call is pretty

16:57.955 --> 17:01.555
because the call then complained about being discriminated

17:01.555 --> 17:05.875
against, that he is not seen as an Israeli,

17:06.235 --> 17:08.475
although he starts by presenting himself

17:08.575 --> 17:09.835
as being part of the people.

17:10.235 --> 17:11.515
I have the basic premise.

17:11.815 --> 17:13.555
People overlook interactions

17:13.815 --> 17:16.315
and people don't understand how creative

17:16.975 --> 17:18.235
we are when we interact.

17:19.055 --> 17:21.875
And I think that fluidity of the week shows how

17:23.365 --> 17:26.205
creative we are both at the, at the micro level

17:26.305 --> 17:29.125
of moving from one week to the, to the other,

17:29.505 --> 17:32.845
but how we use the micro level to create the macro world.

17:33.305 --> 17:37.045
So how from switching from one week to another, I show

17:37.045 --> 17:38.725
what identity I am, part of

17:39.035 --> 17:41.045
what I would identity I wish to have.

17:41.865 --> 17:44.525
And, and oftentimes much research is

17:44.525 --> 17:45.685
looking at the macro level.

17:46.065 --> 17:48.845
We talk about politics, we talk about power, we talk about

17:49.205 --> 17:51.445
Struggle, we research

17:51.585 --> 17:54.965
and most of us tend to take interaction for granted.

17:55.665 --> 17:57.805
We think that we know how to do that.

17:58.665 --> 18:00.805
And so we are doing it without being aware

18:00.805 --> 18:03.885
of the extreme intricacies that interactions have

18:04.625 --> 18:08.325
and the different types of, we is one of these intricacies

18:08.355 --> 18:09.805
that we manage

18:09.805 --> 18:13.005
and negotiate throughout our lives in many interactions.

18:13.585 --> 18:14.765
And we do it automatically.

18:14.825 --> 18:17.885
But it's, it's fun and it's creative.

18:18.745 --> 18:20.565
And the basic of humanity

18:20.625 --> 18:23.325
to some degree is the creativity that we have in us.

18:23.785 --> 18:26.565
And it shows when we interact with other people.

18:27.305 --> 18:29.165
And that's why I love this work

18:29.225 --> 18:30.525
and that's why I love this job.

18:30.665 --> 18:31.885
And I think that's

18:31.885 --> 18:33.805
to some degree why I love people sometimes

18:34.075 --> 18:35.445
because they're so creative.

18:35.755 --> 18:39.325
When, when we are using the structures we have.

The Complexity of 'We' in Interaction

00:00:00 - It has two contexts, basically. One of them is, my interest with we, I studied, we, in Hebrew in a previous study. And to some degree it's a, it's a failure. It was a failure. I studied how two people use we in a mundane interaction, and I tried to make sense of that and I wasn't able to, they were doing it so creatively and I did it from a framework, conversation, analysis that gave me something. And we published something about how the, the two women in the car use we,
00:00:33 - And so that we continued to, bug me to some degree. And on the flip side, I studied radio Phin, which is an arena of people, ordinary people talking about public affairs, talking about politics, talking about what interests them in life. And that was also studied. And this paper is a combination of these two interests that I have, how people use we and how people talk about politics.
00:01:05 - because we is more than I, and so more than I is a social group. And we must study how social group talk politics. And that's the context of this paper. So we is a pronoun and there is a lot of research about pronouns, especially about the I and the you and the he, because this is the triangle of how people interact. Basically I am talking with you and many times we refer to some he or she
00:01:35 - And so how we refer to people was studied. And there are rules for how people refer to people. so that's one prior research. And then pronouns can create two types basically of people. I can create something that exists. So I exist in the interaction, you exist in the interaction, or I can create something that does not exist. So when I talk about we my family, you don't necessarily know that I have family. And so I can create a new group
00:02:08 - And so that's part of the discussion of what we is, so how we refer to people, how we insert people into the interaction in a way that is both preexisting as Silverstein called it. So preexisting groups or creative groups that we create in an interaction. And that's part of the, of that in politics, you probably know that they studied we, and there is a famous British royal we
00:02:38 - The only thing about royal we is that when people interact with one another, this ambiguity about we that was found in politics is existing to lesser degrees. So politicians like to talk in ambiguity because you cannot catch me. So I will talk about a we and you will not catch who this we exactly Is. However, when we, when we interact, if I say we, you might ask me, okay, who are you referring to when you say this?

Ambiguity and Identity in Political Discourse

00:03:09 - So whereas in political discourse that we can be ambiguous in studying face-to-face interaction, it is harder to have that ambiguity. So we have these two constraints to some degree that in politics that we can be ambiguous. But in face-to-face is not so with a pronoun that refer to people or to groups. Although usually, the reference work is more of an individual level. And we rarely discuss, especially in English one,
00:03:41 - So in Hebrews, there is a difference between plural and single. So the reference to singular versus plural is another interesting question. And so this is a literature that I brought into bearing when I studied how people actually use we when they talk politics. So the study was my dissertation. I studied radio phone in Israel. at that time they had the, the public stations had three different shows
00:04:10 - There was one in the morning, one in the afternoon, and the second one was in the afternoon. By the way, all of them stopped existing when I finished my dissertation, which is an another topic. the people were ordinary people. I cannot say much about them because the only thing I know about them is that they called the show and talked. I did not do a study of who callers are. Other people have done that. the hosts who are important, the hosts are the,
00:04:44 - So some of them are journalists, some of them are celebrities, some of them are. There was a basketball coach that was a host. And, and so Toand a host tried and succeeded in being ordinary people. And so the callers were ordinary people calling other ordinary people to talk about public affairs. That was the concept of the shows. there was the screening process in one of the show, in another show. It was first come, first served.
00:05:15 - and why Hebrew? Well, 'cause I'm from Israel and that's where I grew up. So I wanted to study Hebrew. That was the main case. Israel is unfortunately a very interesting country always in the news. and so that's a, if one wants a, an added bonus or a disadvantage if you want. and those were the people that I studied. you know, ordinary people to some degree. It's about creating social groups.
00:05:47 - and the thing that somewhat surprised me and I wasn't completely ready for is that they created various groups. And if you think about it, it makes sense, although usually it makes sense only after we finds it after we find it. So, when you and I interact, we interact and that's a, we and I can talk about we interact right now. And people do that all the time. And that's one type of social group

Examining 'We': Interaction and Identity in Discourse

00:06:19 - and I called it conversation. We, it is to say the people who converse right now, and it was used mainly by hosts use it, to invoke I'm managing the interaction we need to finish. and so the manager of the interaction in Voxer weed to some degree, it's, it, it has a, a malicious slant to that. Because when I talk for both of us interacting, I include you in a group that I'm not sure you want
00:06:50 - So when the host said we need to finish, the caller cannot say, no, no, we don't need to finish because he is included in that tweet, but he don't want to finish necessarily. so that's the first tweet that I found a different we, that I found is again, coming mainly from the host and I called it program. We, although that's a bad name, it's the people who produce the interaction, who produce the group, who produce the community to some degree.
00:07:23 - And so when a host said to a regular call, you are a regular at our show, he creates the program. We, the community that surround the, we, sometimes the colorer is included. Sometimes the colorer is not incl included in that we, and that's the second way that I found. So the program, we, the third one is coming mainly from the callers. So when I speak for me and my family, we had a lovely weekend last week.
00:07:54 - It is the experience of the caller and some limited social group that he's part of. And the host is not. It is a different from the prior two because it's not a local week. So the conversation, we and the program, we is local in the interaction, whereas the, so the limited social way is not limited to the interaction and exists outside of the interaction. It comes into the interaction and it is exclusive.
00:08:28 - The next group is a more interesting one or the more political one. So now we're getting into politics. It doesn't say that the, the limited social way is not necessarily political. So my family can be political or my, town can be political or my, you know, my party political party political affiliation is political. But the largest way that I found in my data is talking as Israelis.
00:08:57 - and I found two types of different Israelis speaking. One of them is what I call the open general. We, and so that's the entire Israeli society without living anyone aside. So it's a very inclusive we and it's almost like we can all agree that we need better education. It, it is hard to imagine someone does not agree with that. But still, I'm talking as a, as an Israeli about the community.

Exploring 'We' in Israeli Political Discourse

00:09:30 - You cannot find people that cannot want peace. Of course the details matter, but generally speaking, we, Israelis want peace. We want better education, we want better economy, we want better education system. So all to some degree slogans that doesn't have a downside to them or a is open general way. in Israel, as everyone knows, there is also a, a political struggle between Israelis
00:10:01 - And that's the second open general way. So we Israelis against the Palestinians or against the Arabs, and in this way we are the good guys. They are the bad guys. And that came up a lot. and mainly callers used that open. We either open general or open oppositional open we, that I call it. So the opposition between we the Israelis and they the ARBs slash Palestinians,
00:10:34 - but there were two other smaller groups of we that I found. One of them is the vocal. We, so until now, at least one participant in their interaction was while part of the group. So either the conversation or the program or the, the limited social or Israelis, but I can speak of a company that I'm not part of. And then the company decided we don't do that anymore.
00:11:06 - outside the interaction, I can do that. People do that in interaction and that's a separate, we, that's a vocal. We, and it's very different from all the others. And now there is one last v we that was found in earlier research and I barely found it unfortunately to some degree. And that's the humanitarian. We, we or the humanity. We, so we people, there was a hint
00:11:41 - they were barely we people or we humanity or we, all of us, in my data, the most of them were we Israelis. And so these are the six or seven. I'm not a quantitative researcher usually, so I'm bad in counting. These are the different type of we that people create or use or refer to when they interact. So this is an interaction between host.
00:12:11 - and the color, his name is Mohamad Al, awi, which is an important name as we will see more internally. And you have both the English and the Hebrew. The first line is a Hebrew in Latinized letters. And the second line is a translation to English. and let's start right at it. line four you can see is that the C stands for the colors. The color says the arguments are part of our lives.

Understanding 'We' in Israeli Conversations

00:12:43 - It's almost ambiguous, although it seems that our lives can be both you and I. So it includes the call the host, so it to some degree everyone or the entire Israeli community that listen to it. And then the color continue. We are a people that know how to argue. So now we can see is that he invokes the people. So this is a open general way. This is a way that referred to the entire nation to some degree, especially since he invokes the word people.
00:13:17 - So the caller sees himself as part of the people. He invokes the open general, we of the Israeli, we, he gets an answer. And I didn't say, this is the beginning of the interaction. He gets an answer. And to our business, our business is a different, this is not the same hour as nine four. It's a different, we here because to our business is not the business of the entire people.
00:13:48 - In line seven, we have end to our business. this is you and I, we have a business to, to go into. so this is a conversation we, we need to get to business. The caller and the host. So the host here imposes a, a a we on the caller to move ahead with the conversation to start talking because to some degree the caller's opening was too long. And so the host Hastings him to get to the point to get to the business.
00:14:19 - to in the interaction that we are conducting. The caller then presents himself and he says, Muhammad Al. Now this is a special name. It is a wan name. So the color is wan. And upon hearing his name, the host says in line 13 and 14, you have a spot with us in the program. Now, as you can see this as a yellow, we, because with us it, the program is the,
00:14:48 - We or the, or the community. We, So the host talks for the community or for the program editors and managers and everyone to show that we as the community we know you, you are a regular caller in our program. And so we have a movement here from a caller who present himself as one of the people to the conversation. We to manage the interaction, to get to the business of it. Two, with us, the, the program
00:15:21 - Now why is this segment interesting? Because I said that the open Israeli we is for Israelis. If people know about the conflict in Israel, they should know that Bedouins are a liminal position in Israel. They're not Jews. And therefore some consider them to be not the, how should I put it? Not the imagined Israeli or not part of the imagined Israeli community.

Identity and Community in Israeli Discourse

00:15:56 - he shows that I'm an Israeli like everyone else. I'm using the open general, we to be a member of the Israeli community. And when the host says, you have a spot with us, this, the host accepts him to the community as a proud member of the community. And, and what I, I showed in the programs and to some degree with the we is that marginalized Israelis, that is to say bedwin
00:16:29 - And they try to be part of the community way as a gateway to become part of the open general way. So in Israel, if you want to be in Israel, you need to be part of a smaller community. And then the smaller community creates a larger community. And so the host accept the Pedro in color to be part of the community. We, in order for the color to get what his wish to be part
00:16:57 - because the call then complained about being discriminated against, that he is not seen as an Israeli, although he starts by presenting himself as being part of the people. I have the basic premise. People overlook interactions and people don't understand how creative we are when we interact. And I think that fluidity of the week shows how creative we are both at the, at the micro level
00:17:29 - but how we use the micro level to create the macro world. So how from switching from one week to another, I show what identity I am, part of what I would identity I wish to have. And, and oftentimes much research is looking at the macro level. We talk about politics, we talk about power, we talk about Struggle, we research and most of us tend to take interaction for granted. We think that we know how to do that.
00:18:00 - of the extreme intricacies that interactions have and the different types of, we is one of these intricacies that we manage and negotiate throughout our lives in many interactions. And we do it automatically. But it's, it's fun and it's creative. And the basic of humanity to some degree is the creativity that we have in us. And it shows when we interact with other people. And that's why I love this work
00:18:35 - And I think that's to some degree why I love people sometimes because they're so creative. When, when we are using the structures we have.

Faculti AI can make mistakes

Research

Policy

Analysis