Collective Entities do not really exist.

  The point in my book for which I have received the most criticism to date was my assertion that collective entities—groups-- have no real existence.   That is, they have no ontological status other than as descriptions, classifications, comparisons, outside of the realm of conversation.

  When I say this, people are quite surprised, since they assume that they do really exist.  Am I really saying that this particular group of people does not exist?  In the true sense yes, I am saying precisely that.  The individuals who make up the group exist, but not the group itself.  It is nothing more than a mathematical set, with the individuals being the members of that set. 

   Suppose you walk into this room and see a pile 10 pennies here on the desk in front of me.  Does that group exist?  No; it only exists as the individuals pennies.  Can you show me the group apart from showing me the individual pennies that comprise the group?  No, you cannot.  In fact, I may not even have intended to create a pile of 10 pennies: it might simply be a pile of 10 pennies that were left over when I was trying to retrieve the dimes and nickels in my pocket!  The point I make here is that it is the observers, through our perception and our intent, who create the groups most of the time.

  Furthermore, groups are artificial, in that they do not exist in nature; our perception alone creates them.  We create them by making distinctions among larger possible collections, and different observers may make different distinctions.  To take an example from ancient history, most Romans made few distinctions among the Gauls.  Gauls were the enemy of Rome, and all Gauls were, ultimately, enemies.  Julius Caesar, on the other hand—perhaps because he spoke some of their languages—knew that they were not a united people, and that he could use their rivalries to cement Roman power over them.  In fact, even the Gauls themselves did not think of themselves as one people, and argued over who was, in fact, a Gaul.  Did the term include the Belgae, for example, a half-Celtic, half German, collection of people?

We do this all the time; look at the tendency to assume monolithic blocs of voters that prove to be illusive come election day.  What is a “Hispanic?” Is it someone who has a Spanish sounding name, or whose speaks Spanish,  or whose parents spoke Spanish, or whose ancestors once came from Spain/Portugal, or what?  I have a relative in Guatemala by marriage who carries a Chinese surname, looks completely Asian, but who clearly thought of himself as Guatemalan; is he also Hispanic, or not?  Who decides?

This may all sound academic, but it has a social and legal relevance.  If the group does not really exist, but is just a subjective definition on the part of some people in a given society, that “entity” can have no rights, no responsibilities, since it no more exists than the invisible Pink Unicorn.  All social philosophy must begin and end with discrete individuals, except when we are using a verbal shortcut in casual conversation.  Pick any social group you choose, say, in this case, African-American Women.  Does this include women whose descendents left Africa at any time, or only as a result of the slave trade?  Does it include women who may appear dark skinned but have one parent who is Caucasian?    Can you show me the group without showing me the individuals?  The answer is no, you cannot.  We may speak of a mob rioting and destroying property, but that is not correct.  Only individuals think, only individuals act.  The members of a “group” might, and sometimes do, act together, but it is still a collection of individual actions.  The responsibility for an action still resides with the individual, not the “group.”