We like to feel a connection with what we read. But can it be dangerous to be made to feel that you share something with the voice you’re listening to? Of course, when we’re addressed in the second person, we know we’re being asked to agree. Its something Everyday Analysis has been guilty of, and in fact it can be when this type of analysis is at its best; when it asks you to think again about something you’ve often felt.
But what about telling you how you’ve often felt? Or, if you really have felt the same way as your writer, what has already happened (to both reader and writer) in order for this to be so.
A language of ‘we feel this way, and so…’, no matter how radical the ‘and so…’ may be, commits another kind of reactionary crime. In assuming a feeling is sufficient to start a discussion we not only exclude and/or pass judgement on those who havent felt that way, making what follows only relevant to a few, but we also participate in creating a sense of a ‘human condition’ – an assumption of common feeling – which shows our desire to naturalise the responses and instincts of our class and culture.