ABSTRACT
This paper is the somewhat illegitimate offspring of a larger research programme into the semantics of collective expression in law. What, if anything, do expressions such as 'conspiracy', 'company', 'community', 'nation' or 'legal culture' refer to? Is it possible to make a rational choice between a theory which employs this kind of term and an ontologically less promiscuous one? What if such a choice is not based directly on the apriori rejection or acceptance of collective terms?
