Who do belong to us?

With each other, for each other. Sculpture made by Nicolas Dings

Actually, what I am going to write now is a bit Eurocentric. Or maybe it is not the right word, for the distinctions I am going to make are typical for English, Dutch (my mother tongue) and the other Indo-European languages and these languages are not only spoken in Europe. However, there are many languages in which these distinctions do not apply. Keeping this in mind, let’s start.
Take this case: John says to Anna: “We’re going to the movies.” Question: Does Anna or doesn’t Anna go to the movies with John? Only context can tell. This becomes clear if we add what John also said:
- “We’re going to the movies. My wife is waiting. See you later”. OR
- “We’re going to the movies. Are you ready?”
In the first case John uses a, what linguists call, exclusive we: Anna is not included in (excluded from) the we-group. The speaker or writer refers to him or herself plus his or her associates but not to the person(s) addressed. In the second case John uses an inclusive we: Anna is included in the we-group. When the inclusive we is used, the speaker or writer includes the addressee(s), for example the person(s) s/he is talking with or his or her audience or readers.
In English, Dutch and many other languages, there is only one word for the inclusive and exclusive use of we, but not in all languages this is the case. Some languages use different words for the exclusive and the inclusive we. Click HERE for a map of languages that distinguish or do not distinguish linguistically both types of we.
The inclusive/exclusive distinction of we is not simply a linguistic distinction that makes clear that “we” can have two meanings. It is also practical to know it, for speakers, including politicians, often confuse them or use them intentionally in an ambivalent way in order to build a relationship with their audience. Such a relationship can be built because the inclusive we evokes a sense of commonality and rapport between speaker or writer and audience. So, in order to get support for new covid restrictions, a prime minister can say “We all must tackle the coronavirus. That’s why we have decided to take these measures…”. The first we, which refers to all inhabitants of the country including the government, is used to evoke support for what the second we (the government) has decided. The first inclusive we is used in order to bring about that everybody is behind the measures taken by the second, exclusive, we. Or take the situation that a speaker says that if the government will continue its present policy, many refugees will come to this country, and then he says “It’s that what we want?”, suggesting that the audience agrees with him and doesn’t want this to happen, while actually it is maybe so that only he, the speaker, doesn’t want it. Then saying “we” is a manipulative use of “we" in order to evoke support for his words. Actually, there are countless ways to use “we” in a manipulative manner.
Although the inclusive we and the exclusive we are the main meanings this pronoun has, there are also other ways “we” can be used. For instance:
- The medical or institutional we. Examples: “Have we slept well tonight?”, “Have we opened our bowels?’, “Have we been a good boy today?”
- The royal we: “We” is said while “I” is meant. This is especially used by persons in high office, but also in other contexts like the Bible and the Quran.
- The third person we: Take this sentence: “We in this country should spend more money on social security.” In this sentence, it is meant that the government should do so, but not only. The we refers to a third person, but the speaker feels a kind of responsibility for or involvement with the issue stated.
The upshot is that we must realize well what we mean when we ue we or talk about us, and even more so when others try to involve us in their projects by suggesting that we are involved. 

Sources
- Michael Cysouw, “Chapter Inclusive/Exclusive Distinction in Independent Pronouns”.
- Richard Nordquist, “Exclusive ‘We’: Definition and Examples”.
- Richard Nordquist, “Inclusive ‘We’ (Grammar)”.