We
video, research
video, research
We is a research led through analysis and editing of video recording of speeches and discussions concerning interactions between humans and technology. The video-experimentation revealed a relation between language and identity and thus directed the research towards the word ”we”. “We” is a simple yet important word. “We” decides about inclusion or exclusion. “We” grants us our rights. Just think of the American constitution begining by the words “We the people”.
Language shapes our perception of ourselves independently from the actual transformations we undergo. In our formulations of who we are, the transformations we are undergoing often remain unnoticed or underestimated, although the changes they provoke are radical and relatively fast. Already existing words are either expanding or completely changing their meanings in order to preserve their legitimacy in the world.
More about this work︎︎︎
Language shapes our perception of ourselves independently from the actual transformations we undergo. In our formulations of who we are, the transformations we are undergoing often remain unnoticed or underestimated, although the changes they provoke are radical and relatively fast. Already existing words are either expanding or completely changing their meanings in order to preserve their legitimacy in the world.
More about this work︎︎︎
We often say “we”. What does the sentence mean? Is it clear? Anything except someone speaking quite a lot? Who are we and “we”? Are we human? Is it not only the word “say” that suggests we are human? And who are “we”? Or rather: who is “we”? Is “we” us? And are we “we”?
“We”. There is “her”. There is “him”. There is “it”. There is “them”. Maybe there is even “you”. Oh, and there is “me”. “Me” decides who “we” is. “We” is me and some other element or elements. “We” comes with identification. “We” means “I identify with someone or something else”. “We” emphasizes similarities. “We” aspires to be more than “me” standing alone. “We” is much more “me” than me or any one of us. “We” amplifies the individual’s presence by including the others in itself. “We” means speaking for the others. It means supposing others to identify with “me”. “We” means authority. “We” means power, citizens identifying with representatives or not and representatives supposing citizens to identify with them.
Is “we” a “me”? A perverted “me”? Or an inverted “me”? Is “we” not just a “me” reverted to self-consciousness? “We” welcomes plurality. It offers “me” the anonymity of a crowd. Saying “we” means claiming variety. Is “we” a non-conforming “me”? What if “we” means non-identification just as well as it means identification? Does it still have any meaning then?
“We”. There is “her”. There is “him”. There is “it”. There is “them”. Maybe there is even “you”. Oh, and there is “me”. “Me” decides who “we” is. “We” is me and some other element or elements. “We” comes with identification. “We” means “I identify with someone or something else”. “We” emphasizes similarities. “We” aspires to be more than “me” standing alone. “We” is much more “me” than me or any one of us. “We” amplifies the individual’s presence by including the others in itself. “We” means speaking for the others. It means supposing others to identify with “me”. “We” means authority. “We” means power, citizens identifying with representatives or not and representatives supposing citizens to identify with them.
Is “we” a “me”? A perverted “me”? Or an inverted “me”? Is “we” not just a “me” reverted to self-consciousness? “We” welcomes plurality. It offers “me” the anonymity of a crowd. Saying “we” means claiming variety. Is “we” a non-conforming “me”? What if “we” means non-identification just as well as it means identification? Does it still have any meaning then?
Every “we” changes who “we” is. “We” is not a label for something already existing. Saying “we” generates new meanings. “We” is something new every time. “We” is that “we” is. It is simply “we”. Indeed, what if “we” is “it”? What if “we” does not mean only humans while we are only humans? Or the other way round, what if “we” means only humans while we are not only humans. What if humans have merged with “it”? Does it change something for “we”?
What if “it” means technology? What if “we-the people” is not large enough to include all of us? Does it mean there is “we” and there is “they”? And what if we are “we”? Or what if we are “they”? Does something change if they are both human? What if “we” does not understand “they” is human? What if “they” does not understand “we” is human? And what if “we” does not understand “we” is human or “they” does not understand “they” is human? What if it becomes a threat for “we”? And what if “it” becomes a threat for “we”? What if it becomes a threat for “they”? And what if “it” becomes a threat for “they”? What if “we” become a threat for “they”? What if “they” become a threat for “we”?
Do we need to understand it? Does “we” need to understand it? Or do we need to understand “it”? Do we need to understand “it” to understand it? Do we need to understand it to understand “it”? Do we need “it” to understand it? Do we need “it” to be understood? Do we need it to be understood? Does “we” need “it” to be understood? Does “we” need “it” to be understood to understand it? Does “we” need it to be understood to understand “it”? Does “we” need to be understood to understand “it”? Does “we” need to be understood to understand it? Do we need “it” to understand “we”? Do we need to understand “it” to be understood? Does “we” need to be understood to understand?
