Every “We” is controversial. It calls for a collective to do something together, which at the same time claims to be the subject of speech. Psychoanalysis has taught us that it’s hardly possible to say “I” without a interruption, because something (the “id”, the “superego”, “desire”) always speaks with or in the I, over which we have no control. It’s hard to imagine it being simpler with a “We”. In philosophical terms, the fragility of the we presents itself, on closer inspection, as a conflictual relationship. The contribution tries to develop this fragility in terms of three differences, which will be called the recognitive difference, the linguistic difference and the situational difference. These interruptions must show that there can be no “We”, at least not “as such”. A “We” is impossible to affirm as such. Yet, as we see in our political present, political situations demand what Judith Butler has called “performative assemblies”, forms of political communities that articulate “us” as a political force not only in imaginary ways, but also in ways that shape reality. A phenomenology of plural singular positioning could be the strategic option for the political that is possible and necessary in an age of the fragility of “We”.