[Air-l] conceptual lexicon

[Ellis Godard]

Jeremy wrote:
> It is actually unclear that we can extrapolate a collective identity
> from a multitude of identities, though that is what many 
> believe....   

That is, at least in part (arguably a large part), because it is also actually unclear whether any "collective identity" exists, for any collective. 

Any atomized unit or interaction might enunciate such an identity, but each unit might enunciate something different, and/or differently encunciate something somewhat comparable.

What is "American culture"? Or pick a smaller collective: What is the "collective identity" of this list? Or even smaller: How often or likely do all members of any nuclear family similarly define their collective identity?

Here's an hypothesis: For all collectives (known or knowable, demonstrated or demonstrable, accountable or conceivable), less than a majority (probably far less) have (or even could have) a collective identity.

Even if collective identities exist (anywhere, much less everywhere), such a description then begs an explanation: Under what conditions (if any) are collective identities more likely to occur?

> It is just one theoretical tradition that accepts that aggregation or 
> the whole is equal to the some of the parts, others believe that the 
> whole is less than and/or greater than the some of the parts.

Screw belief; show me evidence - and evidence that has descriptive (if not also explanatory, and perhaps even practical) application. 

I'm not simply asking for an account of a collective identity for any particular collective, though that would be a good starting point. I'm challenging whether "the whole is" is even meaningful. The whole isn't. It isn't simply that a collective's "identity" is dubious; in much of modern life, boundary conditions for "collective" are, too.

-eg