{~} /we: the social person
the first person plural refers to a number of people who collectively possess, effect, or suffer something together--it is distinguished from the other plural persons by its deictic aspect which, theoretically, "includes" the speaker.
the speaker is, in idea, singular, yet the action is carried out by a collective, in the mention of which there is no distinction between the one who speaks (an I) and the other(s), a they. there is a blending of enunciators into the voice of a single locutor. saying we as opposed to I and they requires the concession of the speaker's privileged position : they are no longer the person speaking, only the voice.
the first-person-plural speaker may also be an abstract person, convoked by a collective of agents: it is the disembodied voice of a group. in the case of textual communication, . the accordance of. the use of a first person singular would imply both a more advanced unification of persons and a unicity of the action: it evokes the idea of a hive mind, it erodes the autonomy of each individual. the first person plural creates the impressions not just of multiplicity but also, in the right context, of ubiquity: in pamphlets and propaganda in general, the plurality of "we" subverts the idea that there is a single individual, group, etc. responsible for actions, but rather a collection of points which cannot be located in one place, nor identified clearly and totally.
anonymous (not the liberal collective) groups make good use of this, since the scarcity of information about every individual person casts doubt on the size, location, and power of a group--which allows for the fancy of a much larger collective than the one which is actually speaking (to the point where manifesti written by a single person might use we to lend legitimacy to an idiosyncratic opinion, masquerading a manifold of agreeands).
i wanted to write about « we » after using it to describe the couple that me and my beloved form. neither singular nor strictly plural, our person is the dual (the only grammar i know of which is attested to have used a dual pronoun is ancient greek). we make up an object, a compound being, which is not just 50% me and 50% him but something completely different--this being is thus a case of emergence. whenever i say "we are X" or "we are doing X" i'm giving our relationship, its structure, its entire thingness as a living object, an agency and an independence which i can put trust into, consider as something real and manifest (which it is indeed). it is the incarnation of the link between me and my partner.