**Links to**: [[Pronoun]], [[Collective intentionality]], [[Sameness]], [[Neologistics]], [[Dialove]], [[Dialogics]], [[E Pointing]], [[Self-reference]], [[Reference]], [[03 Semantic noise]], [[Language-modulating]], [[Modulations]]. ### Proposal: we prefer new, different pronouns, but “we” will do, for now.   This project tends towards the use of the first-person plural so that _wreader_ and _riter_ may be joined as one modulation. It is not the intention in our use of “we” to assume consensus or homogeneity, but to provoke _collective intentionality_. If “we”—like any other pronoun—denotes the spatiotemporal permanence of a stable entity as it semantically projects itself into the future, then “we” supports a sense of direction that is different, more fragmented, eternally differential, from the more cutting pronouns which signal individuality (I, you, etc.). None of us are individuals, why continue to reinforce this myth? Some important comments on “we” and relata: >The two of us wrote Anti-Oedipus together. Since each of us was several, there was already quite a crowd. Here we have made use of everything that came within range, what was closest as well as farthest away. We have assigned clever pseudonyms to prevent recognition. Why have we kept our own names? Out of habit, purely out of habit. To make ourselves unrecognizable in turn. To render imperceptible, not ourselves, but what makes us act, feel and think. Also because it’s nice to talk like everybody else, to say the sun rises, when everybody knows it’s only a manner of speaking. To reach, not the point where one no longer says I, but the point where it is no longer of any importance whether one says I. We are no longer ourselves. Each will know his own. We have been aided, inspired, multiplied. > >Deleuze and Guattari 1987, p. 3.   >Wynter (2015, 24), discussing the formulation of the homogenized “we,” suggests that this referent “is not the referent-we of the human species itself”; rather, it is isomorphic in its privileged subjectivity to the “we” of humanity. As Wynter goes on to suggest, as natural scientists and also bourgeois subjects, logically assume that the referent-we—whose normal behaviors are destroying the habitability of our planet—is that of the human population as a whole. The “we” who are destroying the planet in these findings are not understood as the referent-we of homo oeconomicus (a “we” that includes themselves/ourselves as bourgeois academics). Therefore, the proposals that they’re going to give for change are going to be devastating! And most devastating of all for the global poor, who have already begun to pay the greatest price. . . . Devastating, because the proposals made, if nonconsciously so, are made from the perspective of homo oeconomicus and its attendant master discipline of economics. (24; emphasis original) The assertion of this unity across time and space erases the very racialized ruptures and geosocial rifts that brought this Anthropocenic world into being through the stratification of flesh. As Toni Morrison (1992, 46) suggests, “the world does not become raceless or will not become unracialized by assertion. The act of enforcing racelessness in literary discourse is itself a racial act.” > >Kathryn Yusoff, _A Billion Black Anthropocenes or None_, pp. 64-65.