When reflecting back on any writing assignment given, every student ever can recall being told the first person was not a thing, the paper should not be biased. State the facts and move on. But what if this notion and way of thinking was undone? the ever neglected first person can finally have its time in the sun? turns out, in professional and academic context, first person is accepted and at times needed.
WHEN SHOULD “I” USE FIRST PERSON?
According to Kate McKinney Maddalena’ article, “I need you to say ‘I’”: Why First Person Is Important in College Writing” She explained not only how first person is neglected in writing, but how it also provides a bigger picture to ones writing. One reason she gave as to the exclusion of first person in writing, is that it stops the writer from being objective. The line between the academic and personal becomes blurred. Can’t prove something that is clearly opinion based. Therefore using phrases that reflect opinions are out and objective phrases are in. For example, a phrase like “I think that the sky is always blue” is kicked to the curb along with its equally unbiased sibling, “because I think so…” and any other variations of that family.
Here’s When its better to use first person.
Maddalena then goes on to explain that first person is necessary when ‘taking a stance’ on something. Now, I am going to be honest, this threw me, because I always thought you should hit your reader with cold hard facts and they will realize on their own whether you are for or against the given topic. But, now that I’ve read that section of the article, it makes sense as to why first person is necessary. For example, “As a volunteer at a bilingual preschool, I can see that both language immersion and individualized language instruction have benefits,” or “As a principal at an elementary school with a limited budget, I would argue that language immersion makes the most sense.” This is the example Maddalena used in her article. She explains that without the context of “volunteer” or “principal…” there wouldn’t be a ‘bigger picture’ of what the stance is on students benefitting from language immersion and or individualized language instruction. Without the context, the statements sounds like they are opposing each other. One prefers Language immersion while the other prefers language immersion and individualized instruction. With context, you realize that not only they agree but because the principal has limited resources, he chose one of the two options the volunteer mentioned. It may feel like an outlandish idea at first, but after practice it should feel second nature, right?
Leave a Reply