If you read the previous post on why you should use active voice, then you might rightly wonder, why ever use passive voice. I could think of three reasons: value, context, and tact.
1. Value. Sometimes the doer of the action is not as important as the receiver. In such cases, the passive would be preferable. The example below favors the passive voice because it focuses more on the Unabomber's arrest than who arrested him. (I say this with all due respect to the FBI and no insult intended to the critical and dangerous work its agents do.)
1. Value. Sometimes the doer of the action is not as important as the receiver. In such cases, the passive would be preferable. The example below favors the passive voice because it focuses more on the Unabomber's arrest than who arrested him. (I say this with all due respect to the FBI and no insult intended to the critical and dangerous work its agents do.)
Active (focus on the less important FBI agents): FBI agents arrested the Unabomber.
Passive: The Unabomber was arrested.2. Context. Other times, the doer is so clear from the context that it does not merit mentioning. In these cases, again the passive would be preferable. Example:
Active (attention to an obvious doer): Construction workers erected the building in 2002.
Passive (attention to the receiver): The building was erected in 2002.3. Tact. If exposing a doer would be embarrassing or inappropriate, passive voice would also work well. Example:
Active (inappropriate attention to the doer): Carol made a mistake during the presentation.
Passive (more tactful omission of the doer): A mistake was made during the presentation.
***
Read
previous posts in this series:
Part
17: Using Active Voice for Clarity, Conciseness, Fluency
