SAE Cooperation Theory Paper 4: "We" / SAE 合作论 Paper 4: 「我们」

This paper reads the "we" in cooperation. People who do things together say "we" every day: our team, this project of ours, our company, all our years of friendship. Following Relation Theory, this series first asks one question: when "we" is said, which branch is it? One branch is doing things together; the other is mutual recognition. Which branch occurs is checked case by case; it is not assigned in advance by the kind of relation, nor assigned in advance to the branch of doing things together because the matter is cooperation. Neither branch comes before the persons, nor stands above them; doing things together does not automatically produce a position that legislates each side's own law for the two. The ordinary plural holds as usual: "We taught twelve people this week" puts into one sentence what each person has done, and sets up no third party. Judging one party's law for him in the name of "for the team," "for the project" or "for the company," that is, using the name of "we" or of a construct to take in and replace one party's direction, has the same form as judging one party's law for her in the name of "this household" or "for our sake," which Marriage Theory has read, and carries the direction of colonization. That the one who takes the lead puts forward a request concerning an arrangement is not, in itself, of this kind; whether it is, is checked first against the existing authority and commitments. One and the same sentence, "For this project, everyone has to come in this weekend," is a request in one arrangement, an authority that comes with a position in another, and only in a third the taking in and replacing under a borrowed name. A company is a construct; it is the address of attribution, not the subject of the act, nor a third bearer; what is said in its name is traced back to the person who said it and the position he is in. Guarding comes back to the individual: not handing over one's judgment under "we decided together," not possessing others under "I have contributed," not cancelling recognition of concrete people for the sake of a shared ideal. Mutual recognition occurs in cooperation too, and can be real. "We're friends, so you have to agree" has the same form as "We love each other, so you have to agree": it borrows the branch of mutual recognition to pass final judgment on something done together; the one who borrows it can be on either side. When several people do one thing together, it is read by pairwise accounting; passing through a third person does not release the instigator from his part; a little circle of several people does not form a third bearer; where a little circle maintains an arrangement premised on "outsiders are merely means," it is read by Paper 1's reading of collusion; formal organizations and their staffing structures belong to the institutional side; "each has a share," in something done together, is carried to several people and read in the same way. This paper interfaces with Rousseau's general will and Searle's collective intentionality, stating the level of each comparison, and takes up the line of the Analects on being sociable without being partisan (群而不党); Gilbert's plural subject is pointed back to Relation Theory. This paper does not prove that a team ought not to have a shared goal, nor that people who do things together ought not to recognize each other. 这一篇读合作里的「我们」。一起做事的人天天说「我们」:我们团队,我们这个项目,我们公司,我们这么多年的交情。这个系列照关系论先问一句:一说「我们」,是哪一支。一支是一起做的事,一支是相认;哪一支发生,逐件另核,不按关系的种类预先分派,不因为是合作,就预先归给一起做的事那一支。两支都不先于各人,也不高于各人,共同做事不自动生出一个替两个人立自己的法的位置。普通的复数称呼照常成立:「我们这周教了十二个人」,把各人做下的事并在一句里说,不立一个第三者。 以「为了团队」「为了项目」「为了公司」之名替一方判他的法,即拿「我们」或一个构的名义收下并替下一方的方向,与婚姻论读过的以「这个家」「为了我们」之名替一方判她的法同形,带殖民方向。带头的人提出一项安排要求,本身不是这一种;是不是,先核现有的权限与承诺。同一句「为了这个项目,周末大家都得来」,在一种安排里是一项要求,在另一种里是位置上的权限,在第三种里才是借名收下并替下。公司是一个构,是归责的地址,不是施为的主体,也不是第三个承担者;以它的名义说出的,还原到说出它的人与他所在的位置。守卫落回个人:不以「我们共同决定」交出判断,不以「我作出过贡献」占有他者,不以共同理想取消对具体人的承认。 相认在合作里也会发生,可以是真的。「我们是朋友,所以你得同意」,与「我们相爱,所以你得同意」同形,是把相认那一支借去终审一件一起做的事;借的人,哪一边都可以有。多人一起做一件事,照两两记账;经过第三人,不免除始作俑者那一段;几个人的小圈子不成第三个承担者;小圈子以「外人只是手段」为前提维持一项安排的,照第一篇对合谋的读法读;正式的组织与编制归制度侧;一起做的事里「各有一份」,推到多人照读。这一篇与卢梭的公意、塞尔的集体意向对接,写明比较的层次,并接《论语》「群而不党」一句;吉尔伯特的复数主体,回指关系论。这一篇不证明团队不该有共同的目标,也不证明一起做事的人不该彼此认出。