Kitty Atonick Wakfer,
While I understand your opposition to collectivism in communication and agree with the social-cultural constructs that work to influence perceptions and/or relationships, I feel I must stand with my use of the inclusive (not collective, per se) wording.

I was (am) speaking in micro-vs-macro systems terms, for example; the United States goes to war collectively and our foreign and internal policies are viewed by other nations and cultures collectively. That is, when the US military perptrates a "Shock and Awe" on citizens of Baghdad, I find it extremely unlikely that the average citizen of that city would put the onus on Bush, Rumsfield, Cheney and the uniformed soldiers rather than the collective "Americans".

Another example would be the headline: "The United States gives $25 billion in aid to Saudi Arabia" ; I know I personally didn't knowingly contribute one thin dime, but my taxes (collected under duress and coersion) we appropriated thusly. Now, perhaps Saudi Arabia's enemies will be able to differentiate between me, and say, the bureaucracy that actually handled the transaction and other citizens who whole-heartedly supported it-but should they decide to do harm to the Saudi's supporters I think they might not make such distinctions.

What our country does as national policy, rightly or wrongly, is usually seen as a reflection of it's citizens. This is why it is so important to me, that we (all citizens of the United States) make damn sure that our government is a representative government and that we retain the right to petition for redress of grievances when elected leaders put financial profits and personal accolades ahead of what is right for the country.

I do believe in individual rights and more importantly, individual responsibilites-however, we also all inhabit the same sphere in this universe and I think it's important to be willing to live together in relative harmony. I truly believe that no man is an island.

Lastly, after reading your attached essay, perhaps the reason for my sense of collective language stems from the fact that I am an identical twin; as the essay stated ..."Of course, this use of "we" and "our" is pure nonsense unless the "we" happens to be twins, triplets, etc. Each fetus is in its own unique environmentally affected uterine developmental situation and, in fact, the "about" is used particularly because the number of cells made and destroyed depends somewhat on both the environment and genetic makeup of the fetus. Neither were all of the readers of the above (the "us") within a given uterus either at the same time or even ever (again excepting multiple gestations)," and I can personally attest to the fact that, as a rule (but certainly not always) twins tend to be more collective in their outlooks than single-born.

Thank you for taking the time to respond and I look forward to reading your website.
Sincerely,
Michelle L

Don't take life too seriously, you'll never get out alive.