Like Mr Christopher Ram in his letter of September 29, 2008, regarding Prime Minister Samuel Hinds’s letter of September 26, we were rather surprised by Mr Hinds’s repeated references to himself in the third person as “Prime Minister,” mostly without even the use of the definite article.
We are all aware of Mr Hinds’s high position in our government and we respect his office as well as his person. But was there really this need to use the third person throughout, in reference to himself, when the first person, the simple ‘I’ would have sufficed?
It might well be that, as suggested by Mr Ram, this style was conventional among royals in olden times. Certainly, it is not uncommon for members of the British aristocracy to use the third person ‘one’ when expressing a personal sentiment. This is generally held to be a form of emotional detachment typical of the class.
But we have no royalty or aristocracy in post-colonial, egalitarian Guyana. However, there does seem to exist an unhealthy fixation with titles in some quarters in Guyana and the Caribbean. In some cases, it has reached the stage where high officials are simply known as Minister, Permanent Secretary (or PS) or Ambassador, for example, with the definite article more often than not suppressed, as in Mr Hinds’s own self-references. It is almost as if one’s identity has become suppressed to the extent that the title matters more than one’s name.
In the Caribbean, one of the foremost exponents of the third person in references to himself is the Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago, Mr Patrick Manning, who is reportedly displaying many of the characteristics of a man intoxicated with his own importance.
Respected Trinidadian political scientist, Professor Selwyn Ryan, has recently suggested that Mr Manning is regarded by some as being “arrogant, aloof and out of touch with the people.” According to the University of the West Indies professor, “while he might not intend or be aware of it, Mr Manning’s political persona or aura does exude arrogance, smugness, and self-righteousness. When he speaks, he lets it be known, both with words and body language that, as his wife put it infelicitously, ‘he has spoken.’” All this comes from a commentator who has generally been regarded in the twin-island nation as a traditional supporter of the ruling People’s National Movement.
Whatever the reason for Mr Manning’s apparent self-aggrandizing behaviour, there does seem to be a correlation between the use of the third person and power, for it is normally those in high office who seek recourse to this device. And associated with this tendency to take oneself too seriously, perhaps because of the trappings of office or the deference of others, is frequently an inclination towards hubristic behaviour.
In psychological terms, the tendency to refer to oneself in the third person may be viewed as a symptom of narcissism. And history shows that there are clear links between narcissistic behaviour, an excessive sense of self-importance and the use and abuse of power.
It is quite unlikely, however, that Prime Minister Hinds is developing such unhealthy traits. As Mr Ram suggests, the unfortunate style he employs in his letter is uncharacteristic of the man. Indeed, we know Mr Hinds to be a modest, decent and very likeable individual, with no airs and graces or vaulting ambition.
It is therefore regrettable that he has opened himself to suggestions that he might be taking himself too seriously by employing the third person in such an unwitting manner.
Mr Ram, with tongue firmly in cheek, we believe, assumes that the letter was written by Mr Hinds and “not by one of his advisors for him to edit as necessary.” If so, this begs the question why Mr Hinds would adopt this infelicitous – to borrow from Professor Ryan’s language – form of self-reference?
But if the letter had indeed been drafted by one of his advisors, which is possible given the way in which the title of Prime Minister is repeatedly invoked, then surely Mr Hinds himself could have made the appropriate adjustments to the text. After all, he would have read the letter before approving its submission for publication, wouldn’t he?
Whatever the explanation, whatever the station of the person, referring to oneself in the third person runs the risk nowadays of generating a comedic effect, if not actually inviting ridicule. It is all rather unnecessary.
