Who Is 'We'

[berlitz23]

I am essentially questioning the fundamental ethical, social, political, and ontological implications when one invokes or utilizes the first-person plural personal pronoun. Do you think 'We' always bears hidden presuppositions when employed in constructed contexts? and does its 'use' bear not only an element of inclusion but also exclusion simultaneously? e.g. 'We People' 'We are doing this' 'We Are this' I am not attempting to be pedantic but trying to understand what impells us to use this pronoun in ways that do directly or indirectly have social ramifications. So to distill and reiterate again, What does 'We' signify to you other than merely a vehicle?

[berlitz23]

Also any suggestions of literature would be deeply appreciated for tackling this question.

[JazzRemington]

The meaning and use of "we" is grammatical. It's a word we use when we want to talk about something in first-person plural form.

[¿Que?]

I would think that "we" would be an extension of "I."

and does its 'use' bear not only an element of inclusion but also exclusion simultaneously?
As in, "I am," you are now making a subject/object separation, whose specific form is contextual. "We" is a different manifestation of the same process.

[JazzRemington]

Also, surely you realize that this is inherently culturally biased. You're only puzzled because in English you can make distinctions between a personal pronoun and verbs. There are some languages that either don't strictly require a subject because the verb "tells" us the personal pronoun, or it's "bound up" with the verb (Latin, for example).

[mikelepore]

"We" makes more sense when the group actually wrote the phrase. The phrase in the IWW preamble "we unite under the following constitution" was inserted at a convention where the initial membership was there to vote on it. But when the phrase "We the People ... do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America" was written, "We the People" were not involved in the process. Perhaps the founders of the nation should have written "We fifty-five politicians in this meeting hall prescribe this Constitiution for the people."

[Thirsty Crow]

The meaning and use of "we" is grammatical. It's a word we use when we want to talk about something in first-person plural form.

And again some functions of language, which have social ramifications as berlitz correctly notes, are left out completely. You should really drop the instrumentalist notion of language.
"We" in political discourse, as well as other discourses conceived more broadly as "social", entails identification of a group as a vehicle of a kind of an action. And berlitz correctly notes that it is simultaneously an action of inclusion and exclusion, but that exclusion takes place "elsewhere" (since the instance of writing and/or pronouncing is primarily an affirmative speech act).
And "we" always has, more or less, hidden presuppositions. And what is most often hidden is the basis on which the identification works.


I would think that "we" would be an extension of "I."

As in, "I am," you are now making a subject/object separation, whose specific form is contextual. "We" is a different manifestation of the same process.

Again, don't limit the debate to a simplified discussion of the immediate linguistic context. We should concentrate on the function of the discourse, and "pluralization" (either by a completely different morphological element - as in a plural form of the pronoun I - or by a plural form on the verb itself) here has a specific function.

[Meridian]

What does 'We' signify to you other than merely a vehicle?How is it a vehicle?

By "we", the meaning of the word is signified. It has many uses, very dependent on context like other indexicals.

Asking "who is 'we'" (shouldn't it at least be "who are 'we'"?) is like asking "where is 'here'". Don't separate language from its use.

Rather than questioning language itself you can put this another way and give it some sense. For example, you could ask whether the word "we" is often used by (f.ex.) US politicians to intentionally portray division between North American people and those of other continents. The words "we, "us", "them" used correctly can create this effect.

[ZeroNowhere]

Don't separate language from its use.
I think that we agree here.

[JazzRemington]

And again some functions of language, which have social ramifications as berlitz correctly notes, are left out completely. You should really drop the instrumentalist notion of language.

Language is purely a means to communicate. Period. Language IS social because it's something shared by people and this is what gives these words perfectly clear and open meaning. There is nothing "hidden" about the ramifications and meanings of words - it's open and not something that's personal or private for some people but not for others (unless you're talking about a language kids invent for themselves for fun or a kind of private joke).


"We" in political discourse, as well as other discourses conceived more broadly as "social", entails identification of a group as a vehicle of a kind of an action.

You seem to be confusing "we" with a proper noun when you claim it entails some sort of "identification". In purely grammatical terms, "we" is first-person singular and is used to denote the subject of a particular verb. Further, do you not think that there is a REASON why someone involved in politics or what have you would purposely distort a purely grammatical term for certain ends? It's called "rhetoric" and "propaganda" for a reason, you know.


And berlitz correctly notes that it is simultaneously an action of inclusion and exclusion, but that exclusion takes place "elsewhere" (since the instance of writing and/or pronouncing is primarily an affirmative speech act).

This paragraph makes no sense to me. You'll have to explain it.


And "we" always has, more or less, hidden presuppositions. And what is most often hidden is the basis on which the identification works.

This doesn't make sense. I don't understand how "presuppositions" can be "hidden" inside/along side/etc. words. You'll have to explain that to me.

[¿Que?]

Again, don't limit the debate to a simplified discussion of the immediate linguistic context. We should concentrate on the function of the discourse, and "pluralization" (either by a completely different morphological element - as in a plural form of the pronoun I - or by a plural form on the verb itself) here has a specific function.
I don't think you're going to find any universal function for "pluralization." The fluidity of language relies on non-standard usage as a developmental mechanism. Standardization, in the sense of a codified set of rules for language usage, is incoherent with this understanding of language. Yet, even standardization goes through changes according to social/historical/cultural context.

[sunfarstar]

SO FUN!"WE" ARE "WEB" AND "E-MAIL".JUST SOSO.......:cool:

[Thirsty Crow]

Language is purely a means to communicate. Period. Language IS social because it's something shared by people and this is what gives these words perfectly clear and open meaning. There is nothing "hidden" about the ramifications and meanings of words - it's open and not something that's personal or private for some people but not for others (unless you're talking about a language kids invent for themselves for fun or a kind of private joke). You correctly note that language is social, and as a social phenomenon it also partakes in struggles that form what we know as "society". Words and other lexical items do not always possess clear and open meaning. That is pure wishful thinking. For instance, in juristic discourse during Stalin's period of rule in USSR some words appeared as "codewords" which entailed a complete set of value judgements. One of these words was "cosmopolitanism/cosmopolitan", which clashed with "internationalist". Now, the word itself necessitates historical context to understand it (the context of the teaching on proletarian internationalism and bourgeois cosmopolitanism), and it requires specific knowledge. And that forms boundaries to its clarity and openness as it will leave those speakers that do not possess the knowledge out of the area of understanding.
Moreover, it is also clear from everyday conversations that, functionally, meaning of lexical items does not always appear as clear and open. Sure, it is clear and open when you open the dictionary, but everyday communication does not rely on this method.
For instance, there is at least one class of lexical items which is very much prone to "struggle" over the content of its meaning: abstract nouns. Let's say, "justice". Now, people in conversation may reflect what generally happens with this kind of lexical items: struggle over the meaning of it. But it is not a matter of clarity of meaning outside the immediate social context of the conversation, it is rather a matter of performance of one of the possible meanings ("performance" as in producing an argument which validates the specific usage).





You seem to be confusing "we" with a proper noun when you claim it entails some sort of "identification". In purely grammatical terms, "we" is first-person singular and is used to denote the subject of a particular verb. Further, do you not think that there is a REASON why someone involved in politics or what have you would purposely distort a purely grammatical term for certain ends? It's called "rhetoric" and "propaganda" for a reason, you know.No, "we" does not entail an identification, rather it is used as a means in the process of "identification of the collective subject" in political and social discourses. And, on one hand, you are right to conclude that it is a distortion of a purely grammatical item of language (or an ideological mystification, if you will), however the fact remains that the specific "nature" of human language(s) rests on the very overarching principle/practice which is at work also here (and that practice is connotation).




This paragraph makes no sense to me. You'll have to explain it.
The exclusion I'm referring to happens, more often than not, outside the immediate context of the speech act (political speech, political writing). In other words, the action of exclusion (for instance: exclusion of minorities or illegal immigrants, which entails a discourse on the bases for this exclusion) will, in my opinion, happen in a separate speech and in a separate piece of writing.



This doesn't make sense. I don't understand how "presuppositions" can be "hidden" inside/along side/etc. words. You'll have to explain that to me.Take a look at what I wrote about "cosmopolitanism" in Stalinist USSR. The word itself contains a whole system of value judgements which are never worked out transparently. In other words, you could be accused of cosmopolitanism, and convicted, without ever knowing what does it refer to. From the perspective of individual speakers who do not possess the knowledge, this in effect is gobledygook whose presuppositions are hidden from them.


I don't think you're going to find any universal function for "pluralization." The fluidity of language relies on non-standard usage as a developmental mechanism. Standardization, in the sense of a codified set of rules for language usage, is incoherent with this understanding of language. Yet, even standardization goes through changes according to social/historical/cultural context.

Within political discourses and/or social discourses, you don't think there could be an universal function for "pluralization"? Well, in most cases I came across, what was happening was inclusion/exclusion thing. I don't know, however, if we could count that as an universal function.

[¿Que?]

Within political discourses and/or social discourses, you don't think there could be an universal function for "pluralization"? Well, in most cases I came across, what was happening was inclusion/exclusion thing. I don't know, however, if we could count that as an universal function.
Well, I think that would be definitional, rather than functional. But then again, Chomsky does talk about innate grammar, although that about covers the extent of my knowledge of his linguistics.

[JazzRemington]

Words and other lexical items do not always possess clear and open meaning.

Yes they do. It's only when you either obsess over their meaning or just don't know what a word means that a meaning of a word isn't clear.


And that forms boundaries to its clarity and openness as it will leave those speakers that do not possess the knowledge out of the area of understanding.

That has more to do with just not knowing what a word means. Plus, you seem to forget that this is because of people using words in special, often odd-ball ways. If you deliberately misuse a word or use it in some unique way, it's not the listener's fault he doesn't understand you...


Moreover, it is also clear from everyday conversations that, functionally, meaning of lexical items does not always appear as clear and open.

But yet, it does. As I've said, it's only when you obsess over it or try to distort it purposely. It's normally the speaker's fault when someone doesn't understand him.


Sure, it is clear and open when you open the dictionary, but everyday communication does not rely on this method.

Actually, dictionaries make things more complicated.


For instance, there is at least one class of lexical items which is very much prone to "struggle" over the content of its meaning: abstract nouns. Let's say, "justice". Now, people in conversation may reflect what generally happens with this kind of lexical items: struggle over the meaning of it. But it is not a matter of clarity of meaning outside the immediate social context of the conversation, it is rather a matter of performance of one of the possible meanings ("performance" as in producing an argument which validates the specific usage).

I guess?


No, "we" does not entail an identification, rather it is used as a means in the process of "identification of the collective subject" in political and social discourses. And, on one hand, you are right to conclude that it is a distortion of a purely grammatical item of language (or an ideological mystification, if you will), however the fact remains that the specific "nature" of human language(s) rests on the very overarching principle/practice which is at work also here (and that practice is connotation).

I never said "we" entails any sort of identification. It's a purely grammatical term used to talk about things in first-person plural. Period. "We" does not refer to a process. Please explain how this is possible.


The exclusion I'm referring to happens, more often than not, outside the immediate context of the speech act (political speech, political writing). In other words, the action of exclusion (for instance: exclusion of minorities or illegal immigrants, which entails a discourse on the bases for this exclusion) will, in my opinion, happen in a separate speech and in a separate piece of writing.

You're just repeating yourself. You have to explain what you are trying to say, because I don't think you understand it.


Take a look at what I wrote about "cosmopolitanism" in Stalinist USSR. The word itself contains a whole system of value judgements which are never worked out transparently. In other words, you could be accused of cosmopolitanism, and convicted, without ever knowing what does it refer to. From the perspective of individual speakers who do not possess the knowledge, this in effect is gobledygook whose presuppositions are hidden from them.

That has more to do with ideology or politics.


Within political discourses and/or social discourses, you don't think there could be an universal function for "pluralization"? Well, in most cases I came across, what was happening was inclusion/exclusion thing. I don't know, however, if we could count that as an universal function.

You keep obsessing over "we". You don't see how this is culturally biased? This is only possible because you're speaking a language which allows for the possibility of a clear grammatical distinction between plural and singular. None of what you're talking about would be the case for EVERY language out there.

[berlitz23]

You correctly note that language is social, and as a social phenomenon it also partakes in struggles that form what we know as "society". Words and other lexical items do not always possess clear and open meaning. That is pure wishful thinking. For instance, in juristic discourse during Stalin's period of rule in USSR some words appeared as "codewords" which entailed a complete set of value judgements. One of these words was "cosmopolitanism/cosmopolitan", which clashed with "internationalist". Now, the word itself necessitates historical context to understand it (the context of the teaching on proletarian internationalism and bourgeois cosmopolitanism), and it requires specific knowledge. And that forms boundaries to its clarity and openness as it will leave those speakers that do not possess the knowledge out of the area of understanding.
Moreover, it is also clear from everyday conversations that, functionally, meaning of lexical items does not always appear as clear and open. Sure, it is clear and open when you open the dictionary, but everyday communication does not rely on this method.
For instance, there is at least one class of lexical items which is very much prone to "struggle" over the content of its meaning: abstract nouns. Let's say, "justice". Now, people in conversation may reflect what generally happens with this kind of lexical items: struggle over the meaning of it. But it is not a matter of clarity of meaning outside the immediate social context of the conversation, it is rather a matter of performance of one of the possible meanings ("performance" as in producing an argument which validates the specific usage).




No, "we" does not entail an identification, rather it is used as a means in the process of "identification of the collective subject" in political and social discourses. And, on one hand, you are right to conclude that it is a distortion of a purely grammatical item of language (or an ideological mystification, if you will), however the fact remains that the specific "nature" of human language(s) rests on the very overarching principle/practice which is at work also here (and that practice is connotation).




The exclusion I'm referring to happens, more often than not, outside the immediate context of the speech act (political speech, political writing). In other words, the action of exclusion (for instance: exclusion of minorities or illegal immigrants, which entails a discourse on the bases for this exclusion) will, in my opinion, happen in a separate speech and in a separate piece of writing.


Take a look at what I wrote about "cosmopolitanism" in Stalinist USSR. The word itself contains a whole system of value judgements which are never worked out transparently. In other words, you could be accused of cosmopolitanism, and convicted, without ever knowing what does it refer to. From the perspective of individual speakers who do not possess the knowledge, this in effect is gobledygook whose presuppositions are hidden from them.



Within political discourses and/or social discourses, you don't think there could be an universal function for "pluralization"? Well, in most cases I came across, what was happening was inclusion/exclusion thing. I don't know, however, if we could count that as an universal function.

Your analysis is what I hoped to elicit!

[Thirsty Crow]

Yes they do. It's only when you either obsess over their meaning or just don't know what a word means that a meaning of a word isn't clear.Odd. It seems that I have mistakenly concluded that you agree, as much as your knowledge on the subject allows for it, that there is at least one class of lexical items which is significantly prone to "struggle" over its meaning (abstract nouns)...and this would also imply that the meaning of this class of lexical items is not transparent and clear, not even in everyday speech. Or do you wish to contend that real people do not use members of such a class of lexical items in everyday conversation?




That has more to do with just not knowing what a word means. Plus, you seem to forget that this is because of people using words in special, often odd-ball ways. If you deliberately misuse a word or use it in some unique way, it's not the listener's fault he doesn't understand you...No, people accused and convicted as "cosmopolitans" knew what the word "cosmopolitan" meant (if I recall correctly, they were mostly artists). The only problem is that there occurred a shift in the word's lexical field which they were unable to account for.
And misusing a word is as good as using it properly if you are occupying a position of power. But there remains an important question: what inherent properties of human language are at work here?
You are content with designating this situation as "odd-ball use" and "misuse". However, that covers the problem only from a linguistically normative perspective and/or scientifically synchronic perspective (scientifically as in pertaining to the science of linguistics).


It's normally the speaker's fault when someone doesn't understand him.Care to back that up or provide some sort of evidence?





Actually, dictionaries make things more complicated.Irrelevant point. Maybe you're right, maybe you aren't Let's move on.








I never said "we" entails any sort of identification. It's a purely grammatical term used to talk about things in first-person plural. Period. "We" does not refer to a process. Please explain how this is possible.But it was you who accused me of claiming that "we" entails some sort of "identification". I did not claim that, and I did not claim that "we" refers to a process either. What I did claim is that "we" may be understood as a sign in political discourses ("We the people of the US...") whose signified is a collective subject. This is the process of "identification" in which the plural acts. Apart from that, the plural, in this kind of context, almost always operates on the basis of exclusion as well - it has to identify also the "non-we" (for instance: illegal immigrants) or, in other words, those that threaten the identified collective subject.
It's a matter of discourse analysis (at least that's how I understood OP's focus), not of grammar.
Hell, I think it would be best if I dissected a political pamphlet...maybe that would clear things up.




You're just repeating yourself. You have to explain what you are trying to say, because I don't think you understand it.OK, this is also an irrelevant point.
What I was trying to communicate is that, more often than not, a politician speaking about national cohesion and unity will make a significant pause before he/she begins to speak of those that threaten it. In effect, the speech is structured as a two-part whole.
But maybe I'm wrong. I wouldn't insist on it. Let's forget about it, shall we?




That has more to do with ideology or politics. Ideology and politics are constructed in language. So, there is a relationship between ideology and language. But your insistence on grammatical concerns does not allow for a study of this relationship. You cannot separate ideology from language in which it acts so easily.




You keep obsessing over "we". You don't see how this is culturally biased? This is only possible because you're speaking a language which allows for the possibility of a clear grammatical distinction between plural and singular. None of what you're talking about would be the case for EVERY language out there.
And I'm referring ONLY to political and social discourses which employ a language that allows for such a distinction. I'm not trying to universalize my comments.
But I'm curious...do you know of a language that has no means whatsoever of indicating grammatical number?
And that's an honest question.

[JazzRemington]

Odd. It seems that I have mistakenly concluded that you agree, as much as your knowledge on the subject allows for it, that there is at least one class of lexical items which is significantly prone to "struggle" over its meaning (abstract nouns)...and this would also imply that the meaning of this class of lexical items is not transparent and clear, not even in everyday speech. Or do you wish to contend that real people do not use members of such a class of lexical items in everyday conversation?

Words don't "struggle", people do. You're taking a metaphor literally.


No, people accused and convicted as "cosmopolitans" knew what the word "cosmopolitan" meant (if I recall correctly, they were mostly artists). The only problem is that there occurred a shift in the word's lexical field which they were unable to account for.

Again, that has more to do with laws, ideology, politics, etc. Whoever exactly made it illegal to be "cosmopolitans" deliberately turned this word into something evil that should be made illegal.


And misusing a word is as good as using it properly if you are occupying a position of power. But there remains an important question: what inherent properties of human language are at work here?

I don't understand what you mean by "inherent properties of human language".


You are content with designating this situation as "odd-ball use" and "misuse". However, that covers the problem only from a linguistically normative perspective and/or scientifically synchronic perspective (scientifically as in pertaining to the science of linguistics).

What else is involved in using language but grammatical rules? You'd have to explain what this something is in literal terms.


Care to back that up or provide some sort of evidence?

Are you seriously trying to claim that the speaker isn't at fault when he uses words he misunderstands? And notice I said "normally," and not "all the time".


Irrelevant point. Maybe you're right, maybe you aren't Let's move on.

But yet, you brought it up.


What I did claim is that "we" may be understood as a sign in political discourses ("We the people of the US...") whose signified is a collective subject.

I don't understand what you mean by "sign". But in the phrase "we the people...", it "we" is being used rhetorically or maybe a figure of speak (I don't know the technical term off hand).


It's a matter of discourse analysis (at least that's how I understood OP's focus), not of grammar.

And that discourse is rhetorical.


OK, this is also an irrelevant point.

I asked what you meant and you repeated yourself. If anything, what you repeated is irrelevant.


Ideology and politics are constructed in language. So, there is a relationship between ideology and language. But your insistence on grammatical concerns does not allow for a study of this relationship. You cannot separate ideology from language in which it acts so easily.

You don't see the difference between National Socialism and German? You can study an ideology but most often it's based on deliberate distortions of language. Studying these distortions would only undermine the ideology.


But I'm curious...do you know of a language that has no means whatsoever of indicating grammatical number?
And that's an honest question.

Japanese doesn't make strong grammatical distinctions between singular and plural. Now, they use numbers to indicate amount but that's it. "Kaizoku" means "pirate" and "pirates". This would severely inhibit any attempts at forming some kind of individualist philosophy.

[Thirsty Crow]

Words don't "struggle", people do. You're taking a metaphor literally.


Look, if you're bent on producing straw man arguments, I don't see a reason for me engaging in a debate with you. Go back, read my post, and highlight a part of it where I claim that "words struggle".

EDIT:

I don't understand what you mean by "sign". But in the phrase "we the people...", it "we" is being used rhetorically or maybe a figure of speak (I don't know the technical term off hand).

How can a sign (every "word" is a sign; in other words, "sign" is a technical term which is more precise than "word") be used rhetorically if rhetorics is the study of effective speech organization? Do you mean that it is used according to rules of historically organized rhetorics in order to be effective?
Or do you mean that it is used as a component of a particular style?
Or maybe you mean that it is used in a manner that is elaborate, pretentious, insincere, or intellectually vacuous?
You don't make any sense at all. Please acquaint yourself with the meaning (i.e. valid usage) of "rhetorics" and other lexical items derived from it: http://www.answers.com/topic/rhetoric

On a more serious note, you are onto something when you conclude that the plural form is used as a figure of speech (although it isn't a figure of speech, technically). That's what I'm saying all along, albeit in a different manner and with a different focus so let's drop the entire debate.

[JazzRemington]

Look, if you're bent on producing straw man arguments, I don't see a reason for me engaging in a debate with you. Go back, read my post, and highlight a part of it where I claim that "words struggle".


[...]that there is at least one class of lexical items which is significantly prone to "struggle" over its meaning (abstract nouns)...

If you didn't mean to claim that word's struggle, then be more clear next time you write something. This reads that words are prone to struggle over their own meaning.


How can a sign (every "word" is a sign; in other words, "sign" is a technical term which is more precise than "word") be used rhetorically if rhetorics is the study of effective speech organization? Do you mean that it is used according to rules of historically organized rhetorics in order to be effective?

"Rhetorical" as in "rhetorical statement". You're confusing "rhetorics" with "rhetorical".

[Thirsty Crow]

If you didn't mean to claim that word's struggle, then be more clear next time you write something. This reads that words are prone to struggle over their own meaning.

You know, "prone" is an adjective whose meaning is "having a tendency; inclined", and the item following it may very well be a noun and not as a verb (your interpretation) as the example demonstrates: http://www.answers.com/topic/prone. So, I guess that I needn't be more clear. It's rather the opposite, you should pay more attention to syntactic properties of certain lexical items.

"Rhetorical" as in "rhetorical statement". You're confusing "rhetorics" with "rhetorical" "Rhetorical statement" makes no sense apart from the one which grants the statement certain persuasiveness and/or special stress. If you paid attention to what was written regarding the function of the plural form within political discourses, you'd be able to realize that your definition of the use of it as "rhetorical" does not clarify anything except it's desired effect (which is, in itself, described in abstract terms as "persuasive" and/or "effective"; content is left out).

[JazzRemington]

You know, "prone" is an adjective whose meaning is "having a tendency; inclined", and the item following it may very well be a noun and not as a verb (your interpretation) as the example demonstrates: http://www.answers.com/topic/prone.

And if you were clearer, this wouldn't be a problem. YOU weren't clear. Period. If you were clear to begin with, you wouldn't have to waste time explaining how you meant one thing when you said something else.


"Rhetorical statement" makes no sense apart from the one which grants the statement certain persuasiveness and/or special stress.

That's why it's rhetorical when a politician says "we the people." He's trying to persuasive or stylish. But I'm curious, what else is there to clarify here?

[berlitz23]

I feel the arguments espoused here to a certain extent testify and confirm my suspicions . When advancing our theories over my question we are consciously or unconsciously anchoring ourselves in presuppositions about the others e.g. grammar rules or believing there is an unequoivcal or at least intelligible exchange between what we are intending to say and what is actually expressed or "uttered." This subsumes another problem in terms of when their is the utilization of 'We' within a political, social, institutional framework. I am interested what presumptions and presuppositions one affirms before one enters, infiltrates, or intervens, or basically constitutes a discourse.For example, the authorization and signing of the Declaration of Indepedence, what impelled 'We The People', did these people exist prior to their designation, compartmentalization, and subordination under this document? Basically does the signatures invent the signer? So before the declaration injuncts and invokes the authority of people, do we exist as people?

[Thirsty Crow]

And if you were clearer, this wouldn't be a problem. YOU weren't clear. Period. If you were clear to begin with, you wouldn't have to waste time explaining how you meant one thing when you said something else.As you like it, good sir.
But still, pick up an English grammar book. Or an English Syntax for Dummies.




That's why it's rhetorical when a politician says "we the people." He's trying to persuasive or stylish. But I'm curious, what else is there to clarify here?
So he's trying to be persuasive. He is trying to persuade his fellow countrymen who are listening to his speech. But, he wants to persuade them to...do what exactly?

[berlitz23]

So he's trying to be persuasive. He is trying to persuade his fellow countrymen who are listening to his speech. But, he wants to persuade them to...do what exactly?[/QUOTE]

My interest could be transplanted into your context in terms of a poltician trying to persude or impell an action, that is my one of my chief interests in regards to question how discourse operates on inclusion and exclusion.

[berlitz23]

also it should be noted the inherent anthromorphic tendency embedded in that word, does 'We' always have to designate a humanist optic?

[Meridian]

The question "Who is 'we'" does not make sense. It does not make sense because you would have to use the plural form "are" instead of "is". Unless, of course, that you are talking about the word itself, which is singular - but not a 'who', not the name of a person.

If one were to swap "is" with "are", the question would be "who are we". This question does make sense, and the meaning is apparent to anyone knowing English. The use of the term "we" differs depending on context of utterance, which is also true of words like "you", "here", "there", etc.

[berlitz23]

The question "Who is 'we'" does not make sense. It does not make sense because you would have to use the plural form "are" instead of "is". Unless, of course, that you are talking about the word itself, which is singular - but not a 'who', not the name of a person.

If one were to swap "is" with "are", the question would be "who are we". This question does make sense, and the meaning is apparent to anyone knowing English. The use of the term "we" differs depending on context of utterance, which is also true of words like "you", "here", "there", etc.

I understand your contention and perhaps it should be couched in the plural form 'are' to be consonant with english grammar rules. Yeah I what do you exactly mean 'the meaning is apparent to anyone knowing English?" Could you elucidate? I understand the contextual dimension inherent with each utterance of 'We', yet curious about the apparency factor?

[Meridian]

I understand your contention and perhaps it should be couched in the plural form 'are' to be consonant with english grammar rules. Yeah I what do you exactly mean 'the meaning is apparent to anyone knowing English?" Could you elucidate? I understand the contextual dimension inherent with each utterance of 'We', yet curious about the apparency factor?
In the same manner that you understand the meaning of my previous post, to the extent it was written in comprehensible English and to the extent you understand English. And in the same manner that I understand the meaning of your post.

Who are we? It could be answered in the following ways, amongst others: berlitz23 and Meridian, Revleft users, readers of the Philosophy forum in Revleft, web users, political leftists, humans, etc. It is the same with the question of where 'here' is. This question does not offer us a philosophical problem, because 'where here is' is a matter of linguistic practice. Precisely from its use does it get its content. So nothing can be derived from the word "we" by itself but only when seen in relation with the way the word is used.

[berlitz23]

In the same manner that you understand the meaning of my previous post, to the extent it was written in comprehensible English and to the extent you understand English. And in the same manner that I understand the meaning of your post.

Who are we? It could be answered in the following ways, amongst others: berlitz23 and Meridian, Revleft users, readers of the Philosophy forum in Revleft, web users, political leftists, humans, etc. It is the same with the question of where 'here' is. This question does not offer us a philosophical problem, because 'where here is' is a matter of linguistic practice. Precisely from its use does it get its content. So nothing can be derived from the word "we" by itself but only when seen in relation with the way the word is used.

I concur on your point that 'nothing can be derived from the word "we" by itself but only when seen in relation with the way the word is used.' I am interested in more the politics of representation associated with we, acknowledging as you said context I am interested in your interpretation of the authorization and signing of the Declaration of Indepedence or any institutional document. What impelled 'We The People', did these people exist prior to their designation, compartmentalization, and subordination under this document? Basically does the signatures invent the signer? So before the declaration injuncts and invokes the authority of people, do we exist as people?

[berlitz23]

Here is an example that underpins and instantiates my original question-it is Michael Bloomberg's response to the slew of tirades against Gays in the city. I am curious in this context when he says 'we' read and I am interested in your analysis, the 'We' in this example is ambigious to me:

"To those who have been the target of bullying and bias, whether you happen to be in this room or in any neighborhood in the city, I say this: this great city stands with you. We believe in you. We want you here. We will do anything in our power to keep you safe. And we will do everything in our power to punish those who dare threaten the well being of our citizens. "

"As I said over the weekend, the perpetrators of the abuse and torture in the Bronx will be spared no mercy. At the same time, we will continue -- with the help of PFLAG -- reinforcing in our public schools what is the most comprehensive anti-bullying policy of its kind in the nation. Because building a city of honesty and respect and civility begins with our children.
"This city's greatest strength has always been its diversity and openness. There are moments when that is challenged, when some argue for closing, rather than opening doors -for closing, rather than opening our hearts."