> But I'm not sure where it leaves us, because surely, the exact same
> argument applies to any aggregate (which we conceptualize - a marriage, a
> family, a country, any group at all.
>
> By the same logic, none of these "do things" or have goals, it seems.
Surely if the individuals within that aggregate have a common goal then
the aggregate as such can do things. By their very nature marriages and
families are groups that can be effective because they are "united" i.e.
are committed, have common goals etc. Theoretically from a christian point
of view, in a marriage the "two become one flesh", so is it an aggregate?
I think the ability of a group to "do things" would depend on the
characteristics of that group. Commitment to the common goal being one of
the highest. This is possibly why mission statements and visions have
become so popular - to try and make a cohesive unit of a large number of
people. Is not the US declaration of independence is basically a national
mission statement??
I would suggest that "healthy" small groups (marriage; family
-departments?sections?) have the ability to "do things" while large groups
have too many individuals and don't - but the smaller groups within the
large do!!
Regards
Maggi Linington
email: lngtn-mj@acaleph.vista.ac.za
--"Dr Maggi Linington" <lngtn-mj@acaleph.vista.ac.za>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>