In Being and Time , Martin Heidegger pointedly illustrates detrimental effects the “they”  impose on Dasein’s  hope for living in-the-world authentically toward its ownmost-potential for Being.  Regarding the “they,” Heidegger offers for reflection a basic possibility for social conformity in the world which might otherwise be overlooked in favor of simply thinking, something like, human beings conform as part of their ‘nature.’  He observes, “Dasein’s projection of itself understandingly is in each case already alongside a world that has been…interpreted by the ‘they’.”[1]  With this thought in mind, as well as many other aspects of Being-in-the-world analyzed in Being and Time, Heidegger reminds us that conforming to expectations from society is a call we answer which allows us to be in-the-world-with other people understandingly. 

In Heidegger’s attempt to lay bare the foundations for human ‘Being,’ the “they” play a significant part (representing bad stuff in-the-world.)  In an everyday sense, the ‘bad stuff’ attributed to the “they” may loosely be associated with popular scolding such as, “If they told you to jump off a bridge, would you do it?”  The “they” always interprets the world before our Being-in-the-world begins; so, the ‘jumping off a bridge’ metaphor for the “they” is generally experienced as something like: how we commonly respond to other people; what we commonly see as our opportunities in life; or where we commonly find entertainment. 

Regardless of questions about predestination or free will, we do not enter a world and then begin the process of creating meaning for all aspects of life.  Aspects of life always already have been interpreted before we begin.  In order to speak of those who have always already done the interpreting, Martin Heidegger introduces us to the “they.”  His representation of the “they” may pose problems for readers though.  

It is critical to remember that all humans, as Beings-in-the-World-with-Others, are inextricably embedded in-the-world together as the “they.”  One cannot confidently enter a room full of people without first learning how people behave.  In this sense, the world is a room full of the “they” and we all enter the world as a primary condition of our being.[2]  Heidegger warns the reader against assuming the “they” can be combated (or plotted against) as an external enemy; however, when he wrote “Dasein has been dispersed into the ‘they’, and must first find itself”[3] the reader may still want to assume a notion that somehow we may separate ourselves from the “they.”  At best, it seems, we can modify our “they”-self, but it seems unlikely we can ever eliminate our “they”-self.  Human beings enter the room (i.e. the world) full of people (i.e. the “they”) without any direct knowledge of how to function in the room.[4] 

The “they” allow human beings to function in-the-world together.  This leaves us in an awkward position of being our own worst enemy for living an authentic life.  Heidegger tells us, the “they” encourage mortals to live in an inauthentic state by distracting us from our anxiety of the knowledge that one day, at any moment, we will cease to be.  This basic state of avoiding anxiety is called “falling” and the “they” encourage us to “fall” away from our own pending death by coaxing us as if with shiny trinkets and baubles.  If the “they,” as according to Heidegger, limits our future possibilities for Being authentic, it seems we should want to resist the “they.”  This idea of resisting the “they” easily falls prey, though, to then trying to imagine an external “they” which is somehow separate from the “I” we call ourselves.  An external “they” then seems like an enemy we can strike out against.  It easily follows for us to then believe “I” will have no part in the “they”.  All the while, we are still a part of the “they” but now without even realizing our own mistake. 

How is it possible we can unknowingly be a part of the “they?”  To answer this question we might imagine human ‘Being’ emerging too late in-the-world.  To better understand this “emerging too late,” ‘in-the-world’ needs some explaining.  At its most basic, in-the-world refers to relationships we establish with other Beings around us.  These relationships, and Beings, refer to: tools we use; other people we encounter; and objects we sense as being present around us.  These relationships are significant in our everyday living and Martin Heidegger suggests our total relationships form a world for human ‘Being.’[5] 

The human ‘Being’ Heidegger primarily describes in Being and Time possess a capability to understand themselves, in their own issue with their own Being, as authentic or inauthentic.  By addressing human ‘Being’ at this stage of development, Heidegger shows us at issue with our own being as a basic stimulus for our individual concerns with what we will one day become.  This idea also refers to our own hopes expressed through our issue with our own ‘Being’ which results in us individually finding our own future meaningful to the “I” we commonly refer to as ourselves.

Heidegger’s human ‘Being’ does not seem to develop in this book.  Dasein[6] is generally presented in its fullest capacities as the “I am” which is always my-self.  Human ‘Being’ discussed in Being and Time seems to always already have the capacity to modify its own relationship with the “they” while uncovering its own possibilities for living through its issues with its own ‘Being.’  Heidegger’s lack of viewing Dasein as a developing entity falls outside the scope of his book; however, it also covers over much of our initial involvement with the “they.”  Thankfully, though, Heidegger’s language leaves room for a scale of human maturity to be worked out for Dasein.  In order to better understand the role of human ‘Being’ in the “they,” we must first understand ourselves as an emerging entity. 

As an emerging entity,[7] Dasein emerges too late as Being-in-the-world.  Falling into the “they” (always already a part of our existence) becomes visible as a phenomenon upon our arrival-into-the-world.  Thrown into “they-world,” we initially seem to comport ourselves toward simply trying to continue beyond our birth.  From the beginning, the “they” primarily engage us as Care-Givers.  From our arrival-into-the-world, we slowly emerge as (what seems) a matter of reflex.  Before we give any indications of possessing the capability to think about our ownmost-potential for Being; we first communicate in a primordial language.[8] 

As-yet-emergent, we suckle and cry.  Our Care-Givers interpret our infant language which begins our encounter with the “they.”  Assuming a best case scenario, the “they” as Care-Givers interpret our infant language in favor of our continuance in-the-“they”-world.[9]  As primordial language is thus interpreted by the Care-Givers, the infant’s language becomes cries for sustenance, comfort and belonging.  As-yet-emergent, human beings thrown in-the-world with no language rely on the “they” to ever emerge as Dasein at all.  The price Dasein pays, for Being-with-others, is this inculcation in-the-having-been-world always already interpreted by the “they.”[10]  The cost for Dasein not Being-with-others in this way seems to be never gaining the capacity to understand its possibility for ‘Being.’

From this thrown arrival, we are interpreted by (and interpreting) the “they” we were thrown in-the-world with (i.e. our Care-Givers.)  At this stage of maturity, as-yet-emergent, we display some qualities of Heidegger’s Dasein which is already fully capable of addressing itself toward its ownmost-potentiality for Being.  For instance, infants listen.  Listening, according to Heidegger, is central to “Dasein’s existential way of Being-open as Being-with.”[11]  “Being-open,” on the other hand, is a critical part of understanding individual future possibilities. 

Heidegger also reminds us that “mood is a Primordial kind of Being for Dasein…prior to all cognition and volition, and beyond [Dasein’s] range of disclosure.”[12]  In this regard, mood reveals Dasein Being-there-in-the-world.  Average observation seems to make clear, infants have moods.  What those moods entail is left to the interpretation of the “they” as Care-Givers.  Thrown with no means of communication beyond primordial language, as-yet-emergent human ‘Being’ by necessity subjects itself to “that inconspicuous domination by Others which has already been taken over unawares from Dasein as Being-with.”[13]  Until our language matures to verbal discourse, as-yet-emergent, we have no intelligible way to directly interpret for the “they” our ownmost-potential for Being much less simply continuing to exist into that future at all.

“Inconspicuous domination” comes before language for human ‘Being’ through our Care-Givers who enable us to gain language.  “They” comfort us as infants with food, clothing and shelter.  “They” interpret our primordial language for us in such a way that, as-yet-emergent, we never could.  “They” teach us the common language of the world in which we have been thrown.  In the best of Care-Giver scenarios, “they” cannot help but have us adopt their preferences.  Again, in this best of Care-Giver scenarios, we generally feel a sense of solicitude for our Care-Givers which we will feel for no Others.[14]  Therefore, as-yet-emergent we naturally adopt the preferences of our Care-Givers as almost a primordial sign of respect for our continued existence.

Up to now the discussion has focused on infant human beings in a state of primordial language.  Mood has been shown to exist within us as Being-there-in-the-world ‘as-yet-emergent.’  Listening also exists within us supporting our Being-with-Others ‘as-yet-emergent.’  Understanding has not yet been demonstrated in the infant.  The world an infant is born into seems, at least initially, to display very little significance to the infant.  As-yet-emergent, human beings generally discover objects around them in the most trivial ways; however, we mature thrown into the environment of our Care-Givers.  This environment of the “they” leads us to language as well as to relationships of significance built first from within our Care-Givers’ environment.

Heidegger teaches us “in significance itself…is founded the Being of words and of language.”[15]  As-yet-emergent, we have always already fallen into the “they” by necessity.  We can only learn we’ve fallen after “they” teach us the language of the world in which we have been thrown.  Heidegger tells us, “In saying ‘I’, Dasein expresses itself as Being-in-the-world.”[16]  “I” clearly comes later than our arrival in-the-world though.  First, as-yet-emergent, we learn a language of relationships and significance from our Care-Givers.  The initial language of significance for us, as infants, focuses on how “they” interpret our primordial language.  As-yet-emergent, we must also learn the language of our Care-Givers’ environment which is always already where we’ve been thrown.  Once again, in the best case Care-Giver scenario, as-yet-emergent we learn preliminary parts of language with tremendous care because the environment we’re thrown into is an extension of our Care-Givers.

Thus the turning-away of falling is not a fleeing that is founded upon a fear of entities within-the-world.  Fleeing that is so grounded is still less a character of this turning-away, when what this turning-away does is precisely to turn thither towards entities within-the-world by absorbing itself in them.[17]

      All of this takes place before we are capable of ‘emerging’ capable of addressing ourselves towards our own future.  Generally speaking, the language of the “they” is learned in fragments.  This means we verbally start communicating by saying something like ‘mama,’ ‘papa’ or ‘baba’ before we reveal ourselves as Being-in-the-world by saying “I.”  It seems likely that until we say “I,’ we have not yet emerged capable of addressing our ownmost-potentiality for Being; however, before saying “I” it is now clear we have already fallen to the “they.”

      “I am” must precede our future possibilities.  “I am” seems prerequisite to our Being-ahead-of-ourselves; however, is “I am” enough for Dasein phenomenally to be at issue with itself?  “I” only seems to suggest an understanding, on our part, that we may interpret ourselves at all.  This signifier does not indicate, in itself, any issue with our own Being.  The issue with our own Being may be attributed to Heidegger’s assertion that “anxiousness is a basic kind of Being-in-the-world” for us.[18]  Being-there-in-the-world combined with our basic state of mind, anxiety concerning our pending death,[19] results in questions.

      However, it still does not seem we have fully ‘emerged’ simply by asking any question.  ‘What’ questions demonstrate, as-yet-emergent, us becoming further embedded in the “they-world.”  ‘What’ questions correspond most generally to entities with a Being unlike our own.  In this regard, ‘what’ questions further embed us in the “they” by seeking further clarification from the “they” (e.g. “What’s that?”)  ‘Who’ questions are much the same as ‘what’ questions except the entity being regarded generally shares our own kind of Being (e.g. “Who’s that?”)  With ‘where’ questions, we seek clarification regarding spatial and directional aspects of the world.  ‘How’ questions generally inquire into the nature of doing.  ‘Why’ questions, on the other hand, seem to reveal an emergence of Dasein beyond simple objects in-the-world as well as an emergence beyond Being-with-Others in the simplest state (i.e. naming the Others.)

‘Why’ questions call Others-in-the-world to exercise their own understanding in order to explain the world.  A child learning to speak can run with questions all day.  The questions which cause the most difficulty are those questions asked when the child finally reaches the ‘why’ state.  ‘What’s that?’  Who’s that?’  “Where’s that?’  These kinds of questions can generally be pretty easy to deal with, if no less frustrating when asked in rapid succession.  The answers generally involve some naming of the environment or of another person.  The ‘how’ question can be frustrating because these questions generally require a specific kind of knowledge on our part in order to provide an answer (e.g. ‘how does the clock work?’)  ‘Why’ questions, on the other hand, present the biggest challenge because many times the interpretations made to answer such questions really should lead the answer back to us ourselves.

      Why are we here?  Why should I be kind?  Why not steal?  Why wear clothes?  The answers to all of these questions, it seems, is something vaguely like ‘because of other people.’  The “they,” though, like to answer questions with certainty and definitiveness.  Heidegger reminds us of the “they” preference for certainty when he states, “Idle talk is the possibility of understanding everything without previously making the thing one’s own.”[20]  (He also tells us that ‘idle talk’ comes from the “they.”)  How questions can lead to idle talk, but ‘why’ questions seem a bit more problematic due to our inability (many times) to provide evidence for our answers.  The “they,” however, respond to ‘why’ questions with certainty as “they” turn away from the anxiety raised by the questions and our own pending mortality.

      In this context, it seems, we emerge capable of addressing ourselves towards our future possibilities for Being with the emergence of ‘why’ questions.  The “they” in turn tries to stifle these questions as quickly as possible due to the anxiety such questions might stir within us all.  Stifling ‘why’ questions with faith-based and ‘I said so’ responses, reinforces a sense of inevitability that no better answers to these questions will ever be regarded by the “they.”  By turning the ‘why’ question into something obvious, the “they” covers over their lack of answers and, furthermore, their lack of knowing.  In this regard, the “they” moves into the harsh territory reserved by Martin Heidegger in Being and Time.

      The “they” are remorseless with silencing anxiety.  Dasein is then further tempted to immerse in the “they” for the certainty of their responses.  The “they” appears to know and that appearance of assuredness is enough to tranquilize Dasein in pursuing an inauthentic potentiality for Being within the “they.”  This should not leave us in a position of trying to combat the “they” though.  “I am” is part of the “they” as much as any Other.  The “they” will not be destroyed, because one “they” will only be replaced by another.  Certainty will not destroy certainty and that seems to be a reason for hope.

      The “they” cannot be replaced, but the “they” can be modified.  Modification does not in itself suggest how the “they” might be made better than “they” have been.  We might focus on care for Others first.  It seems a reasonable area of focus to improve the “they.”  If trust can be determined to be a mode of caring for Others we want to nurture, we might first try to garner greater trust from the “they” for Being-with-Others.  How we might go about implementing such an enterprise is a speculative arrangement at best.  The answers provided by the “they” are necessary for every one of us to be authentically with one another in conversation.  The “they” teach us the vocabulary we will need to express ourselves.  As well, the “they” always already knows the right answers anyway.[21]

When the “they” are caught openly manipulating us the “they” generally justify their answers in platitudes and high-minded ideals.  For example, the latest “financial crisis bailouts” were sold to the American public as an investment for the American people; in which, American’s would receive all of their money back.  This type of example can only be used approximately, but it does seem to get at an aspect of how the “they” operates in its responses during uncomfortable moments.  The “they” generally does not oppress openly, therefore, we, in turn, want to be absorbed in the “they” for the comfort provided by their rationalizations. 

If this is the case, then it seems that focusing on the answers given by the “they” may not be the modifications which will make the “they” better than “they” have already been.  If Being-in-the-world-with-Others can be modified through the “they” the ‘doing’ of the “they” answer might be a better focus.  This brings back to the ‘why’ question.  It seems that ‘why’ leads back, generally, to people as an answer.  The “they,” generally, answer these ‘why’ questions with emotional assurance.[22]  The “they” try to answer ‘why’ questions as emotionally certain as “they” answer ‘what’ or ‘where’ questions. 

“Why are we here?”  The “they” commonly refers us to religion with their emotional certainty grounded in faith.  The faith is grounded in the “they” which brings us back to ourselves.  Regardless of the answer, if we remove the emotional certainty (at least) we begin to be honest with each other by uncovering our place in-the-world and recognizing we’ve been thrown into our own interpreted understanding.  The “they” know an answer, but the “they” are reluctant to admit the existence of other answers to the same question.

If we can modify the “they” to admit their reluctance openly, then what might be the worst we are left with?  Without emotional certainty, the “they” are still entitled to answer with their same answers.  However, if the “they” do their answering with less emotional assurance and more encouragement for Dasein to test the “they” answers against experience; then, this might be the best we can hope for ‘having been’ until now and continuing into ‘what is left for us to do.’  In this case, we still have answers, therefore we continue to build our vocabulary; but, we also know the future isn’t closed off for future interpretation.  Lack of emotional certainty from the “they” might then seem likely to produce anxiety, but (if Heidegger is right) a less emotionally certain “they” would only leave us in our most basic state-of-mind still Being confronted with our own possibilities for the future and a better chance to discover our own authentic possibilities for doing what’s left to be done.