essay about unity and solidarity

• Table of Contents
• Random Entry
• Chronological
• Editorial Information
• About the SEP
• Editorial Board
• How to Cite the SEP
• Special Characters
• Advanced Tools
• Support the SEP
• PDFs for SEP Friends
• Make a Donation
• SEPIA for Libraries
• Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

• Friends PDF Preview
• Author and Citation Info
• Back to Top

Solidarity in Social and Political Philosophy

The term “solidarity” first becomes prevalent in the early- to late-nineteenth century in France. Since then, it has always been used to describe a special relationship of unity and mutual indebtedness within a group. The term’s origins lie in French legal usage, in which the Roman legal concept of an obligation in solidum —a joint contractual obligation in which each signatory declared himself liable for the debts of all together—long had a place in the French code civile (Blais 2007; Hayward 1959; Wildt 1999). Solidarity expands beyond its legal origins to become a central social and political concept in response to anxiety about the centrifugal, individualizing forces of commercial and industrial society. What could replace the old social ties of church, family, and guild, all of which had been weakened by markets? What might ensure a sense of shared purpose and common good? As an answer to these questions, “solidarity” becomes a rallying cry in progressive movements across Europe, including socialism, liberal nationalism, Catholic reformism, and Solidarism.

More recently, there has been a resurgence not only in calls for solidarity but also in theorizing about solidarity. Solidarity has been invoked with increasing regularity in contemporary social movements (Movement for Black Lives, Occupy, MeToo, climate change activism), law and politics (COVID, EU, constitutions around the world, human rights), and even bioethics. There is a growing literature in sociology, political science, social theory, and social and political philosophy on the concept and its value. And yet, the idea remains hard to pin down: What is solidarity? And what, if anything, makes it valuable? In this entry, we aim to provide an overview of this recent debate, focusing on its development in social and political philosophy.

1. The Nature of Solidarity

2.1 socialism, 2.2 civic solidarity, 2.3 national solidarity, 2.4 christian solidarity, 2.5 solidarity in social movements, 2.6 conclusion, 3. the value of solidarity, 4.1.1 conceptual incoherence, 4.1.2 theoretical redundancy, 4.2.1 does solidarity threaten liberty, 4.2.2 does solidarity promote false beliefs, 4.2.3 is solidarity exclusionary / unfair towards outsiders, other internet resources, related entries.

In social and political philosophy, the concept of solidarity is primarily used to evaluate, guide, and describe activities within groups and between individuals and groups. In unpacking different accounts, it is useful to begin by listing some typical practice-embedded expressions in which the concept is used. In a conversation about our work environment, someone might say, “we should show more solidarity with one another”; in a conversation about the origins of the welfare state, someone might say, “the welfare state is an expression of solidarity among citizens”; in a conversation about the dynamics of social movements, someone might say, “the neo-Nazi protesters acted in solidarity with one another”; in a conversation about supporting the Movement for Black Lives (M4BL), someone might say, “I stand in solidarity with you in fighting oppression”; in a conversation about the moral values animating European integration as a project, someone might say, “solidarity is a foundational value of the European Union”; in a conversation about the downsides of investment banking, someone might say, “there is not much solidarity among bankers”; in a conversation about the plight of earthquake victims in Indonesia, someone might say, “solidarity requires that we send some money as soon as possible”; in responding to news that a teammate has cancer, someone might say: “we ought to shave our heads in solidarity”. What accounts of the concept can aid us in evaluating and describing the phenomenon referred to in these and similar circumstances?

At the broadest level, philosophers (such as O’Neill 1996: 201 and Miller 2017: 62) usually distinguish between two senses of solidarity: solidarity among and solidarity with . According to the former, solidarity describes a relation among members of the same social group. As we will see in more detail below, solidarity among usually requires a rough symmetry in the attitudes and dispositions of its members. For example, we might both identify as members of Danish nation, share a commitment to overthrow the occupiers, and each be willing to come to each other’s aid in fighting them. On the other hand, solidarity with describes a relation between an individual and another individual, or between a set of individuals and the members of a social group of which the former are not members (the “outgroup”). On this reading, symmetry is not required: I might act in solidarity with you as an earthquake victim when I wire money to an NGO that is operative in your city. Here I act in solidarity with you without your acting in solidarity with me (or even being disposed to act in solidarity with me were the tables to be turned). A paradigmatic example of solidarity with is the Catholic notion of solidarity understood as a form of caritas , or charity (on an alternative interpretation of solidarity in the Catholic tradition, see below). As Józef Tischner, who was influential in Poland’s solidarity movement, writes:

With whom, therefore, is our solidarity? It is, above all, with those who have been wounded by other people, with those who suffer pain that could be avoided—accidental, needless pain. This does not preclude solidarity with others, with all who suffer. However, the solidarity with those who suffer at the hands of others is particularly vital, strong, spontaneous. (Tischner 1982 [1984]: 8–9)

Philosophers divide on whether asymmetric, unilateral forms of aid and support from individuals to other individuals, or from outgroup members to ingroups counts as genuine solidarity. For some (see, e.g., Sangiovanni forthcoming), they do not. We do better, he argues, not to conceive of solidarity with as a form of solidarity at all. The unilateral, asymmetric reading, he argues, tends to vitiate the egalitarianism at the heart of solidarity, and does not fit well with the practices in which the term was, historically, most prevalent. He also argues that solidarity with in this narrower sense is not distinguishable from other, related terms, such as “humanitarian aid”, “charity”, “benevolence”, or “support for a good cause”. There is nothing gained in calling forms of humanitarian aid or support for a good cause “solidarity”, and running the two ideas together under a single banner tends to obscure the value of solidarity as a form of egalitarian collective action.

For other philosophers (e.g., Kolers 2016), solidarity (whether with or among ) must always be unilateral and asymmetric. Kolers argues that paradigmatic cases of solidarity involve one group or individual (usually members of an outgroup), S , deferring to an object group, G , but not vice versa. According to Kolers,

[solidary action] is not principally justified by appeal to goals, nor do we choose sides on the basis of shared goals. To the contrary, when S is in solidarity with G , it is G , not G ’s ends, that S endorses or values. S is disposed to adopt whatever goal G sets for the action or as a political aim. For instance, insofar as they are in solidarity, heterosexual persons who support the right of same-sex couples to marry do so not because they individually want same-sex marriages to be possible, but because the LGBTQ community treats that as an important goal. (Kolers 2016: 58)

Paradigmatic instances of solidarity involve members of (out)groups (e.g., heterosexuals) committing themselves to do whatever members of a disadvantaged (in)group (e.g., homosexuals) require to overcome injustice. Importantly, on this picture outgroup members commit to the group , rather than to any aim pursued by the group. As a heterosexual, I do not act in solidarity by committing directly to fighting heterosexism alongside members of the LGBTQ community; rather, to act in solidarity, I must commit to the LGBTQ community as such, and so to whatever members tell me I need to do to promote their cause, whatever cause that is.

One advantage of this view is that it captures an important ethical aspect of coalitional social movements in which more privileged (out)groups act as allies of less privileged (in)groups in fighting injustice. As has often been noted, the trouble with such coalitions is that members of privileged groups often tend to be blind to the way in which privilege colors and sometimes distorts their efforts to support the aims of the movement. [ 1 ] Outgroup allies can sometimes reproduce, unconsciously, wider structural patterns of power and exclusion as they fight alongside ingroup members; they can perpetrate, for example, forms of epistemic injustice in seeking to impose their own agenda or ideals onto the wider movement (Deveaux 2021; Clark 2014; Medina 2013; Gould 2020; Land 2015). Kolers’ work reminds his readers that genuine solidarity requires that members of outgroups put aside their particular concerns, ideals, prejudices, and so on, and listen (Kolers 2016: 115). They must be prepared, in turn, to accept their relative epistemic limitations vis-à-vis members of ingroups who not only have “skin in the game” but often a vivid lived experience of the forms of injustice they are fighting. And they must also be prepared to defer out of respect for the disadvantaged: whether or not the disadvantaged have better epistemic access to truths about the struggle, etc., the privileged ought to defer out of respect for what is at stake for the disadvantaged. [ 2 ]

So far, we have discussed unilateral, asymmetric accounts of our target concept. We now turn to accounts of the concept that treat the idea of solidarity among as paradigmatic. Rather than naming the set of attitudes and actions characteristic of an individual who (unilaterally) offers support or aid, the idea of solidarity among names a relation among members of the same group. The relation is generally understood to make it the case that the group exhibits a distinctive kind of unity among its members ( solidus in Latin means whole or integrated). But what kind of unity? The unity in question is composed, on all plausible views, by an interlocking set of attitudes, dispositions, and characteristic actions displayed by members. It is useful to compare relations of solidarity to the relations constituting social groups as such. According to one influential definition of a social group, a social group

is a collection of individuals who perceive themselves to be members of the same social category, share some emotional involvement in this common definition of themselves, and achieve some degree of social consensus about the evaluation of their group and their membership of it. (Tajfel & Turner 2001: 100).

People waiting at a bus stop, or boarding a train, are not, in normal circumstances, a social group; employees of Google and members of the Church of England are. We can then say: For an (in)group to display solidarity, it must recognize itself as a social group: members must identify themselves based on some characteristic that marks them out as a social group. For example, members might identify as workers (on the basis, that is, of a role), as black (on the basis of racial categorization [ 3 ] ), as cancer survivors (on the basis of a common set of experiences), as environmentalists (on the basis of a shared cause), and so on. [ 4 ] But what other conditions are necessary (or at least paradigmatic)? Identifying as a social group is not sufficient: it seems clear that we might identify as employees of Google, or as engineers, or as investment bankers, but not be in solidarity with one another.

An obvious candidate is the condition that members of the social group be disposed to put aside narrow self-interest in coming to each other’s aid when required. We might imagine, for example, that the employees of Google or investment bankers are not prepared to set aside narrow self-interest except in special circumstances (where, say, employees know one another independently). If this were true, then it seems clear that, in their normal everyday interactions, they wouldn’t be in solidarity with one another (despite their cooperation). Some philosophers believe that these two conditions—identifying as a member of a social group and a willingness, on that basis, to set aside narrow self-interest in coming to a fellow’s aid—are necessary and sufficient for solidarity. Philippe Van Parijs, for example, writes:

When I help you out of solidarity, I do so because you are “one of us”, because “I could have been you”, because, in this sense, I “identify” with you. (Van Parijs forthcoming; see also Mason 2000: 27)

To illustrate, Van Parijs gives the example of a fellow traveler returning a lost wallet, or a cyclist helping another to board a train. In both cases, someone identifies as a traveler (or as a cyclist) and, in virtue of that identification, is disposed to come to another traveler or cyclist’s aid.

An advantage of the view is that it can encompass a wide variety of different contexts. It can, for example, account for unilateral senses of solidarity, such as the Good Samaritan. As long as the Good Samaritan is motivated by a relevant self-categorization that includes the stranger, then his coming to his aid counts as solidarity. The Good Samaritan might feel disposed to aid because he has shared the experience of being a victim of injustice, or because of their shared vulnerability, say, as human beings. But its encompassing nature may also make it hard to distinguish from related notions. The account seems to collapse into the view that solidarity is another name for all responsibilities that flow (or that are perceived to flow) from membership in a social group.

Tommie Shelby offers a view that is broadly similar in structure, but strengthens the requirements for mutual identification and group cohesion. For Shelby,

I believe there are five core normative requirements that are jointly sufficient for a robust form of solidarity [identification with the group, special concern, shared values or goals, loyalty, and mutual trust]. By “robust” I mean a solidarity that is strong enough to move people to collective action, not just mutual sympathy born of recognition of communality or a mere sense of group belonging. (Shelby 2005: 68; see also May 1996: 44; cf. Feinberg 1973: 677)

Returning a lost wallet and the Good Samaritan, on this view, are ruled out since they are products of a weak sense of group belonging. One may object, however, that the view is still not restrictive enough. For example, a reading group might exhibit all five features, and move its participants to do things together, and yet it seems strained to say that a reading group is in solidarity with one another. (It is strained not so much because it doesn’t capture the ordinary English meaning, but because it seems to jar with the value and history of the practices in which the term has predominantly figured, and which make sense of the role we might want an account of solidarity to play.) It is also unclear, on this view, whether collective action is a necessary condition of solidarity, or whether two or more people can be in solidarity by holding the attitudes mentioned without ever acting together in some relevant sense. Might brothers be in solidarity by possessing all five of the listed attitudes, though they never act together in the pursuit of any goals, or come to each other’s aid in any way?

Sally Scholz offers a view of solidarity that is explicitly political and oppositional. For Scholz,

Political solidarity arises in opposition to something; it is a movement for social change that may occur at many levels of social existence. … Natural disasters may inspire strong sentiments and even bonds of connection, but they do not inspire political solidarity. Political solidarity as I present it has a social justice content or aim; it opposes injustice, oppression, tyranny, and social vulnerabilities. (Scholz 2008: 54; see also Mohanty 2003: 7) [ 5 ]

Solidarity, on this view, is always geared toward overcoming injustice; it is essentially political. The reading group would be excluded, and so would be the Good Samaritan and sending money to earthquake victims. Scholz also argues that the concept entails the existence of positive moral obligations among participants. If participants (for example, a white supremacist group) lack positive obligations to aid each other in protesting racial integration (because such a protest would be in the service of unjust ends), then they cannot act in solidarity when they protest, come to each other’s aid, and are committed to their cause.

Andrea Sangiovanni offers a view that is less restrictive (but more restrictive than Shelby’s). In contrast to Scholz, he argues that solidarity must always be aimed at overcoming adversity, but the adversity need not be political. For example, suppose a village burns down in a fire and residents band together to rebuild it. They are committed to the endeavor and are ready to come to each other’s aid. Because their endeavor is oriented toward overcoming shared adversity it counts as solidarity. Furthermore, for Sangiovanni, the concept solidarity is not moralized: even mafiosi can be in solidarity with one another (despite the fact, that is, that their solidarity will promote bad ends). Finally, solidarity, he claims, neither merely precedes collective action (or, as Shelby argues, makes it more likely) nor is it merely a by-product of collective action, but is itself a form of collective action. As a kind of action, it does not therefore name only a set of desires and beliefs, a virtue, or a sense of fellowship with others. Rather, solidarity is any instance of collective action that has the following core features:

• Participants identify with one another on the basis of a role, condition, cause, set of experiences, or way of life on the basis of which …

… they each …

• …intend to do their part in overcoming some significant adversity, X , by pursuing, together, some more proximate shared goal, Y ;
• … are individually committed (i) to X and Y and (ii) to not bypassing each other’s will in the achievement of X and Y ;
• … are committed to sharing one another’s fates in ways relevant to X and Y .
• … trust one another to play their part in X and Y , trust each other’s commitment, trust that each will not bypass the other’s will, and trust each to share the other’s fate.

This view faces a number of challenges as well. First, like Shelby and Scholz, it doesn’t allow for unilateral cases of solidarity—such as the Good Samaritan and sending money to earthquake victims—to count as instances of solidarity since there is no collective action in the required sense. Second, and relatedly, it doesn’t allow for cases of “silent” or “private” solidarity (Bommarito 2016; Zhao 2019). As a young girl, Simone Weil gave up eating sugar because sugar had become unavailable to soldiers at the front. It seems plausible to say that she acted in solidarity with the soldiers. What reasons do we have to rule such cases out? And, finally, it seems to rule out protest movements that are organized on behalf of victims of injustice but not with them. Imagine we organize a protest against the French government’s closure of the refugee camps in Calais, and suppose that the refugees there do not know of, or otherwise take part in, our protest. Sangiovanni’s account seems to force us to say that we, on the outside, act in solidarity with one another but not with the refugees .

2. Solidarity in Practice

So far, we have discussed the nature of solidarity in general. In this section, we review the social and political practices in which the term has primarily figured. Whatever account of the general concept we think is best should aid us in illuminating each of these contexts (by successfully describing, evaluating, and guiding them). In the following, however, we remain neutral between different accounts of the general concept. Furthermore, we only cover a sample of such contexts. There are many more practices in which solidarity has found a place. We focus on what strike us as the historically most important and influential ones.

As mentioned above, the idea becomes prevalent in the early-nineteenth century in France. The soil in which the concept first takes root is socialism. The early socialist writers—Robert Owen (1771–1858), Henri de Saint-Simon (1760–1825), and Charles Fourier (1772–1837) (who Marx and Engels would later dismiss as “utopian”) were especially influential—decried the individualism and egoism fostered by market society (Claeys 2011). The untethering of markets from constraints of traditional law, social structures, and morality inevitably led, they argued, to social conflict and the moral, economic, and cultural degradation of the working classes. They believed that new forms of mutual aid, cooperation, and association were needed to bring each functional unit of the modern industrial economy together in a mutually supportive web, and prevent the worst effects of the competitive division of labor and the poverty it produces. In 1826, Robert Owen wrote:

There is but one mode … by which man can possess in perpetuity all the happiness which his nature is capable of enjoying,—that is by the union and co-operation of all for the benefit of each . While mankind remain congregated in large cities and towns, or live in single families apart from their species, each having distinct and opposite interests, no substantial improvement can be effected in the condition of society. To obtain the full advantages of cooperation, men must be associated in small communities, or large families, all the members of which shall be united by the bond of one common interest; the same bond of union connecting each community with every other established on similar principles. (Owen 1826–27 [2016: 69]; see also Leopold 2015)

Hippolyte Renaud gave this unified, mutually supportive social cooperation in the service of each and all a name that formed the title of his immensely popular summary of Fourier’s works, namely Solidarité (1842). [ 6 ]

In “Socialism: Utopian and Scientific” (1876), Engels rejected the utopians’ for failing to explain how their proposed societies could ever be realized (1876 [1978: 685ff]). There was no basis for their doctrines or their faith in the empirically verifiable laws of society. Given its association with the “utopians”, it is revealing that neither Marx nor Engels ever used “solidarity” as a term in any of their systematic writings. Where they did use the term was in their speeches and letters regarding the workingmen’s associations that were springing up everywhere in defense of socialism. In 1872, in a speech given in Amsterdam after a congress of the First International, Marx says:

Citizens, let us think of the basic principle of the International: Solidarity. Only when we have established this life-giving principle on a sound basis among the numerous workers of all countries will we attain the great final goal which we have set ourselves. The revolution must be carried out with solidarity; this is the great lesson of the French Commune, which fell because none of the other centers—Berlin, Madrid, etc.—developed great revolutionary movements comparable to the mighty uprising of the Paris proletariat. (Marx 1872 [1978: 522])

And, as Karl Kautsky, one of the most influential Marxists in the late nineteenth century, writes in the Class Struggle, which was the German Social Democratic Party’s official commentary on the proposed Erfurt program of 1891:

But as soon as the workers discover that their interests are common, that they are all opposed to the exploiter, it takes the form of great organizations and open battles against the exploiting class.… And when [these elevating tendencies] have once wakened full class-consciousness in any group of workers, the consciousness of solidarity with all the members of the working-class, the consciousness of the strength that is born of union; as soon as any group has recognized that it is essential to society and that it dare hope for better things in the future,—then it is well nigh impossible to shove that group back into the degenerate mass of beings whose opposition to the system under which they suffer takes no other form than that of unreasoned hate. (Kautsky 1892: Ch. 5, Secs. 5–6; see also Wildt 1999)

From its early socialist origins, “solidarity” found its natural home as a term describing the unity of workers’ associations—a term describing, that is, their mutual identification with one another as exploited, their mutual commitment to overthrowing capitalism through organized cooperation, and their willingness to sacrifice for one another in the name of the cause.

Civic solidarity refers to solidarity among citizens of modern states, and is often associated with the emergence and development of welfare states. The term as used in this way first became popular in the late-nineteenth century in France. The late-nineteenth century usages are outgrowths of earlier forms of socialism, but they develop the idea in directions that are less oppositional than the socialism that emerges as a political force in the wake of 1848. Two figures are associated with its popularization during this period: Léon Bourgeois and Emile Durkheim. We start with Léon Bourgeois since his account was, at the time, more influential than Durkheim’s.

In 1896, Léon Bourgeois—prime minister of France from 1895–6—published what would become the programmatic manifesto of the Solidarist movement, namely a pamphlet entitled Solidarité (Bourgeois 1902). The pamphlet begins by noting that all complex organisms reproduce themselves through an internal division of labor. Each organ has a different function; their interdependence is organized in such a way as to ensure the being’s self-preservation. Bourgeois calls this internal unity natural solidarity. He then goes on to note that societies are organized in much the same way: the more complex a society is, the more diverse and interdependent its internal division of labor. There are two differences. The first difference is that societies are made up of individuals possessed of reason and will, and so the laws of nature are not sufficient to ensure that the parts will coordinate to sustain and reproduce the life of the whole. The second difference follows directly from the first. Because the coordination necessary to maintain and reproduce a society depends on the reason and will of individuals, the laws that govern that reproduction must also work via those very same faculties. The laws governing social solidarity are, therefore, necessarily moral .

What mores ought to govern the division of labor and so, ultimately, the distribution of the benefits and burdens of joint production ( la répartition des profits et des charges )? Bourgeois writes that we must look for an answer at the moral implications of the very reciprocal dependence that constitutes society in the first place. Once we do so, we will see that every individual within the societal division of labor owes the vast preponderance of what they are able to obtain from that society—for example, through their talents and abilities, or through the knowledge they acquire from that society—to two sources. First, they owe a debt to past generations and, second, to contemporaries who, in the present, reproduce and advance the institutions, knowledge, resources, and societal conventions from which they gain (almost) all that is theirs.

[Because of man’s dependence on the societal division of labor] a necessary exchange of services exists between each and all. The free development of his faculties, of his activities, in short, of his very being , can only be realized, for each individual, as a result of the concurrent contributions of other men’s faculties and activities. This free development can, furthermore, only reach its full extent as a result of the accumulated contributions of the past. There is therefore a debt owed by each to all the rest, in virtue of the contributions and services rendered by all to each. (Bourgeois 1902: 137, translation by Sangiovanni)

Moral solidarity requires, then, citizens to identify with one another as jointly responsible for the social product, and to be prepared to discharge the social debt through common institutions designed to insure people against unemployment, sickness, and old age, to maintain jobs open to talents, and to support a public system of education. Lack of moral solidarity, Bourgeois implies, will lead inevitably to lack of coordination among the parts, and so to a breakdown in natural solidarity.

Published a few years earlier than Bourgeois’ pamphlet, Durkheim’s doctoral thesis— The Division of Labor in Society (1893)—distinguished between the mechanical solidarity typical of premodern, less complex societies and the organic solidarity of modern industrialized societies. Societies whose social cohesion is founded on mechanical solidarity are integrated through a “collective consciousness” that defines a common way of life. Where mechanical solidarity is characterized by similarity among members of a society, organic solidarity is characterized by difference . At the heart of organic solidarity is, as it was for Bourgeois, the division of labor. Modern societies must be integrated via the coordinated interdependence of an extensive division of labor. But Durkheim is adamant that the coordinated functioning of the different parts is not self-regulating. He emphasizes the need for a diffuse moral solidarity to reinforce and stabilize the functioning of the division of labor. (Top-down regulation via the state—which is “too remote” and “general”—is also not enough [Durkheim 1893 [1984: 27]].) This solidarity can no longer come from the “collective consciousness” (as it did in premodern societies): the differentiation of modern society increases individualism and diversity, undoing the bonds of similarity that tie together premodern societies. What sources are left to support the mutual “attraction”, disposition to come to other’s aid, and trust required for the cohesion of a society?

His proposed solution is clearest in the Second Preface to the Division of Labor , added in 1902. He suggests that the state alone cannot guarantee the conditions necessary for maintaining solidarity against the three predominant causes of social unrest in modern, differentiated societies. The first cause is anomie , the loss of direction and orientation that can accompany specialization. Anomie is the primary social danger accompanying the growing depth and extent of the division of labor, and threatens the sense in which we each are essential contributors to the success of society as a whole (Durkheim 1893/1902 [1984: 289–90]). The second cause is force , the sense of injustice that arises from a feeling that one’s work is not valued according to its worth and one’s own merits—the sense, in short, that one is exploited. Such grievances are especially strong when premodern elements of caste persist in modern conditions. The third cause is disuse , or the aimlessness, resentment, and lack of focus that comes from not having enough work. In each case, Durkheim argues, the citizen comes to lose a grip on his larger place in reproducing the whole; as he turns inwards, his grievances seem to him larger and his duties to others less pressing; he is less fulfilled by his labor, seeing it no longer as a reflection of his nature; mistrust takes root; he no longer sees his potential employers as cooperative partners, but begins to see them as enemies.

In the Preface, he argues that only the “professional grouping is a moral force capable of curbing individual egoism” (Durkheim 1893/1902 [1984: 11]). By “professional grouping”, Durkheim meant that the various industrial branches of an economy would be grouped into corporations (modelled on the feudal corporation). Unlike unions, corporations would constituted by both employers and employees, and would have the power to regulate wages, conditions of work, appointments and promotions; they would also have the authority to coordinate with other branches and with government. The effect of such groupings would be to recreate solidarity where it was most under pressure:

Within a political society [e.g., a corporation], as soon as a certain number of individuals find they hold in common ideas, interests, sentiments and occupations which the rest of the population does not share in, it is inevitable that, under the influence of these similarities, they should be attracted to one another. … It is impossible for men to live together and be in regular contact with one another without their acquiring some feeling for the totality which they constitute through having united together, without their becoming attached to it, concerning themselves with its interests and taking it into account in their behaviour. (Durkheim 1893/1902 [1984: 17–8])

The idea was that, in grouping together in smaller, functionally organized units individuals would regain their sense of contributing to society while, at the same time, giving everyone a felt stake in the justice and fairness required to reproduce it. In sum, organic solidarity refers to the bonds of mutual sacrifice and attraction that develop when each citizen realizes how the contribution they make to the overall functioning of the society as a whole, via their economic and social role, depends on a tightly knit, interdependent web of more particular associations.

The nineteenth-century nationalist takes over the term from the socialists to describe the unity of a nation in its struggle about external forces. For the nationalist, solidarity is anchored in shared identification with an “imagined community” where membership is defined not in terms of class or social position, but in terms of an underlying way of life characterized by common folkways, mores, and a shared history of struggle. In 1882, Ernest Renan claimed that the nation is an expression of a

great solidarity ( une grande solidarité ), constituted by a sense of the common sacrifices that have been made and that one is disposed to make again. (Renan 1882: 29)

And Giuseppe Mazzini, whose version of liberal-republican nationalism was to have such a great influence on nationalist movements across the world, writes in 1871:

The individual’s means and his thirty or forty years of adult life are but a tiny drop in the vast Ocean of existence. As soon as he becomes aware of this, he ends up discouraged and abandons the entire undertaking. If he is a good man, he will now and again engage in simple charity. If he is evil, he will isolate himself in complete selfishness. But give this man a Country [ patria ] and establish a link of solidarity [ solidarietà ] between his individual efforts and the efforts of all subsequent generations; place him in association with the labors of 25 to 30 million men who speak the same language, have similar habits and beliefs, profess faith in the same goal , and have developed specific tools for their work as required by the general conditions of their land, and the problem will change for him at once: his strengths will be greatly multiplied, allowing him to feel up to the task. (“Nazionalismo e Nazionalità” 1871 [2009: 63])

On this understanding, the nation is understood primarily as a project in which each participates over time and across generations. This same understanding has carried over to contemporary nationalists. For them,

a common history, territory, and shared bonds of belonging give rise to a commitment to a common project, namely to reproduce and defend the patria . As in workers’ movements, the struggle, furthermore, requires a preparedness to come to each other’s aid in realizing the project.

Solidarity becomes increasingly important in Christian, especially Catholic, thought and practice beginning at the end of the nineteenth century and takes flight with the papacy of John Paul II. [ 7 ] In response to the rising importance of socialism and class conflict in the middle of the nineteenth century, the Church realizes the need to address the situation of the worker. In the Church’s response, Pope Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum (1891)—a staple of Catholic social thought—tries to steal a march on the socialists by incorporating and reworking one of the socialist’s main rallying points, namely the idea of mutualism within worker’s associations. In those passages, Leo cites Ecclesiastes approvingly on the importance of fraternity:

“It is better that two should be together than one; for they have the advantage of their society. If one fall he shall be supported by the other. Woe to him that is alone, for when he falleth he hath none to lift him up”. And further: “A brother that is helped by his brother is like a strong city”. It is this natural impulse which binds men together in civil society; and it is likewise this which leads them to join together in associations. (Leo XIII 1891: §50)

But it was not until much later that the term gets used explicitly. In the 1967 encyclical Populorum Progressio , on global development and the inequality between rich and poor nations, Pope Paul VI invokes the unmistakably Solidarist notion that interdependence creates social obligations:

We are the heirs of earlier generations, and we reap benefits from the efforts of our contemporaries; we are under obligation to all men. Therefore we cannot disregard the welfare of those who will come after us to increase the human family. The reality of human solidarity brings us not only benefits but also obligations. (§17)

The origin of the Church’s union of interdependence and solidarity lies in an earlier nineteenth-century current of thought often referred to as Christian Solidarism. In Ethics and the National Economy (1918), its founder and most prominent advocate, Heinrich Pesch (1854–1926), writes:

Christianity teaches us that people, despite all individual and also social differences in occupation and ownership, are nevertheless socii, i.e., comrades, precisely by virtue of those differences. They are dependent on each other and bound together by a solidaristic community of interests in all of their industrial relationships as masters and journeymen, as employers and workers, and in the human race overall, which is the great universal family of nations. (Pesch 1918 [2004: 104])

On this corporatist understanding, it is not just the shared experience of human suffering, or the understanding of the human being as imago dei , but a recognition of the interdependence of human beings in society that grounds a demand to share one another’s fate. On this picture, we are meant to recognize how both our flourishing and our suffering is a result of mutual influence and mutual reliance in and through the multiple associations to which we belong; in response, we have obligations to share others’ fates by coming to others’ aid and by limiting the harm we do.

As is widely recognized, John Paul II was also deeply influenced by this strand of Catholic Social Thought (and its realization in Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum ). [ 8 ] In Sollicitudo rei socialis , he writes:

When interdependence becomes recognized […], the correlative response as a moral and social attitude, as a “virtue”, is solidarity. This then is not a feeling of vague compassion or shallow distress at the misfortunes of so many people, both near and far. On the contrary, it is a firm and persevering determination to commit oneself to the common good; that is to say to the good of all and of each individual, because we are all really responsible for all. (John Paul II 1987: §V)

On this reading, the ground of solidarity is, as in Bourgeois and Durkheim, an identification based on our role in the division of labor , which includes a recognition that participation in an unjust social order perpetuates suffering, and makes us accomplices. The doctrine goes hand in hand with the Church’s teaching on subsidiarity, in which local associations—including perhaps most importantly the family—have ethical priority to more general, encompassing associations, such as the state. More general and encompassing organizing units should intervene in the affairs of the lower only to help or aid them in the accomplishment of their tasks. On this understanding, the response to individual suffering must be collective; it cannot be done by individuals acting alone, but by each body, at each level of generality, working together as a unit to preserve the common good. As Pope Francis noted in a follow-up catechism to his COVID19 encyclical Fratelli Tutti ,

there is no true solidarity without social participation, without the contribution of intermediary bodies: families, associations, cooperatives, small businesses, and other expressions of society. Everyone needs to contribute, everyone. (Francis 2020) [ 9 ]

In the late twentieth century, the predominant context in which solidarity has had a place are modern social movements, such as anticolonial, black, feminist, LGBTQ, and disabled struggles. It would take us too far afield to review how solidarity is deployed in each one of these movements. But it useful to give a sense of the kind of questions that have motivated those engaged in them. One of the central questions is the following: What should the basis of the black, anticolonial, women’s movements, and so on, be? Should, for example, the women’s movement be grounded in an idea of sisterhood—on what unites women as women—or on a commitment to the (feminist) cause (or both, or neither)? Should black solidarity (for example in the US) be based in a shared ethnocultural identity as a nation, or in common subjection to oppression (or both, or neither)? Should Indigenous anti-colonial movements in Canada be grounded in particular territorially-based shared ways of life, or in broader commitments to overthrowing European colonialism wherever it exists (or both, or neither)? (see, e.g., Coulthard 2014; Simpson 2017). To give a sense of the debates, we will focus on black solidarity and the idea of sisterhood.

Should solidarity among women as women be grounded in some kind of shared experience of womanhood? It has become a staple of the feminist literature that there is no shared experience of simply being a woman. The attempt to identify a canonical list of experiences that characterizes “being a woman” is likely to lead to subtle forms of exclusion. Previous such attempts, it is often argued, have reproduced the cis-gendered experiences of white, middle-class women, and have marginalized the experiences of women whose experiences do not fit on the list (Lorde 1984; Hill Collins 1990 [2000]; hooks 2000 [2015]; Combahee River Collective 1977/1983; Spelman 1988). See also entry on feminist perspectives on sex and gender .

The alternative to grounding sisterhood in shared experience or shared oppression is to ground it in commitment to a cause or coalition against patriarchy. The trouble with this view is that it leaves open the question of how this defines a distinctive form of sisterhood , rather than a form of feminist solidarity. But is there anything distinctive about solidarity among women as women? If so, what are its grounds?

One response is to ground sisterhood not in a shared experience but in a shared condition of oppression—where that condition is experienced in different ways according to one’s overall structural position (which may be further influenced by intersecting factors, such as race, class, sexuality, and religion) (see, e.g., Young 1994).

This possible response to the challenge from exclusion invites a further objection: if sisterhood is supposed to be grounded in a shared condition defined by relations to a given set of socially conditioned material objects (primarily the socially sexed body and its reproductive functions), then doesn’t this also exclude? If this is supposed to ground an identification among women as women, then doesn’t sisterhood required constructing a shared narrative regarding what these relations are how they condition the sexed body? (Shrage 2009) But then doesn’t this just reinvite the challenge from exclusion, since different women—depending on their structural position—will find themselves subordinated and oppressed by a different conglomeration of socially salient relations and practices? Think, for example, of transgender women, or the variety of ways in which race, sexuality, class, gender, and religion intersect. [ 10 ]

Similar questions arise when considering the nature of Black (American) solidarity. Should such solidarity be grounded in a shared ethnocultural identity, in a shared condition as oppressed, in an anti-racist cause as such, or in something else again (such as a shared fate)? (These grounds are not, of course, exclusive: one might believe that black solidarity should be grounded in both ethnocultural identity and in the sense of sharing a distinct condition of oppression.) An important strand of black nationalism—one that was especially prominent in the1960s and 70s—holds that high-sounding appeals to the possibility of integration in the name of a universal fight against injustice cannot ground a robust solidarity among blacks. A deeper, widespread engagement with a distinct culture is needed. According to this form of nationalism, Black Americans (as descendants of slaves violently abducted from Africa and elsewhere) constitute a distinct, and distinctly cultural, nation-within-a-nation (Robinson 2001; Moses 1978). Nationalists argue that, though at the moment marginalized and divided within itself, black culture calls for development and expression (for example, in the arts, music, literature, and theatre) (Cruse 1967); without it, and the sense of collective identity and pride it secures, blacks cannot securely win their freedom in a fundamentally hostile American society (see, e.g., Malcolm X 1970 [1992]; cf. Rivers 1995).

Many black liberals demur: while black cultural, economic, social, cultural and political autonomy can be, in certain circumstances, strategically useful in the fight against anti-black racism, it is wrong-headed to insist on cultural unity as the basis of black solidarity. Insisting on cultural unity is divisive and unnecessarily exclusionary given the broad diversity of ethnic and social backgrounds in the black community. Black solidarity should be grounded, instead, on “thin” blackness, namely on shared experiences of anti-black racism (see, e.g., Shelby 2005: 245; Hill Collins 1990 [2000]; cf. Gooding-Williams 2009).

In this section, we have reviewed some of the salient histories in which use of the term “solidarity” has figured. The survey has had two functions. First, it has served to provide an overview of the political and social uses for which solidarity has been enlisted. Doing so enables us to frame the descriptive and normative challenges that any theory of solidarity faces: Does solidarity have a single nature that is repeated across different paradigmatic instances? Or is it a malleable, vague term with no fixed content? What, if anything, makes solidarity valuable? What should the grounds of solidarity be in, for example, different social movements, in the welfare state, or in political and social associations more broadly? Second, the survey provides a testing ground for new theories of solidarity, which, we have argued, should be responsive to the concept’s history. Theories should be adopted and rejected according to whether they successfully serve to describe, evaluate, and guide the various practices in which the term figures, and has figured. While a theory might recommend conceptual change, of course, it needs to be clear why and how such a change is worth making. Either way, being aware of the concept’s history is crucial since solidarity names not just an ideal but a concrete set of practices.

It should be fairly uncontroversial that solidarity can have instrumental value: when members of a marginalized group develop bonds of solidarity by committing to each other and, as a result of being in (or acting from) solidarity, they manage to overcome their oppression, then solidarity has value because of its causal/instrumental role. Similarly, it should not be controversial that solidarity can have instrumental disvalue: even well-meaning, morally justified acts undertaken in the spirit of solidarity can lead to unforeseen and regrettable consequences. The more interesting and challenging question is whether solidarity, as a social practice, also has non-instrumental value (or disvalue). But before we move on to this issue, let’s briefly list some of the instrumental values that solidarity in different forms typically facilitates:

Most notably, solidarity improves a collective’s ability to pursue projects. By committing to each other and experiencing unity, fellows in solidarity establish a robust basis of mutual identification that allows them to solve coordination issues and pursue joint action that is more likely to succeed than if each acted on their own (Shelby 2005). Groups that display solidarity also tend to care for each other in beneficial ways, e.g., by protecting vulnerable members or limiting social inequality amongst themselves (Banting & Kymlicka 2017; Miller 2017). Beyond this, solidarity has certain epistemic and relational benefits: whether as a result of shared goals, shared experience, or shared oppression (see above), fellows in solidarity consider each other trustworthy participants in the pursuit of the common good, and they share information, jointly deliberate and learn from each other about how to understand adversity and oppression and pursue strategies to overcome it (Harvey 2007 on epistemic solidarity; Goodin & Spiekermann 2015; Wiland 2017).

Does solidarity have value beyond these good consequences? Perhaps some quick terminology is helpful. Non-instrumental value is value that does not derive from making a contribution to something else. Non-instrumental value is intrinsic if the value stems from some (necessary?) internal property of the object (see: Intrinsic vs. Extrinsic Value ). Implicitly relying on such a notion of intrinsic non-instrumental value, several authors have claimed that solidarity’s value could only ever be instrumental. Rainer Forst, for example, argues that solidarity could not be “something intrinsically good , since a Mafia family very much depends on the solidarity of its members” (forthcoming) and he concludes that, therefore, solidarity is “normatively dependent”. Other authors concur with this judgment: solidarity is aimed at realizing justice or overcoming oppression, and it is valuable when and because it realizes this aim (Kohn forthcoming). The structure of the negative argument here is clear enough:

• If solidarity has non-instrumental value, then each instance of it has value
• Unity amongst mafia members is an instance of solidarity
• Unity amongst mafia members has no value
• Therefore, solidarity has no non-instrumental value.
• Therefore, no internal property of solidarity practices that is valuable as such, independent of the consequences that it produces

There is, however, an interesting overlap here with an issue we mentioned in section 2 , namely whether or not solidarity ought to be moralized: according to some authors that analyze such “pernicious solidarities” as the one that prevails amongst mafia clans and white supremacists, the correct response to Forst’s case is not to reject that the idea that solidarity has non-instrumental value, but to deny premise (2) : it is precisely for the reason that solidarity necessarily has some good-making internal properties that we should not consider unity amongst mafia members an instance of it.

It is not obvious how to resolve this potential disagreement. Is there perhaps some other way to proceed? A better approach, we think, is available if we scrutinize premise (1) : Intrinsic value is just one way in which a practice could have non-instrumental value. Whilst it may be true that a practice only has intrinsic value if each instance of it has value, this is compatible with its being non-instrumentally valuable in non-intrinsic ways. Here are some important considerations: Only attributing instrumental value to solidarity does, intuitively, seem to run up against at least two kinds of cases. First, defenders of the non-instrumental value of solidarity may point to the intuitive force of “futile solidarity”: when the exploited workers come together to fight for their rights in solidarity, we are likely to consider this valuable even if their effort is ultimately thwarted. Second, there is the very plausible thought that, somehow, a special kind of value is realized when bad or unjust aspects of the world are brought to an end through acts of solidarity: when the workers’ combined agency causes the end of their oppression rather than, say, the unexpected change of mind of their exploitative bosses, something especially valuable has occurred.

Now of course there are things that defenders of the “instrumental only” thesis can say in response: for example, they may point out that there still are good consequences in each of these examples, even if the overall goal has not been realized. For example, there may be a sense of shared destiny or reciprocal commitment amongst workers to each other that is caused by solidarity. It is this reciprocal commitment (and what it can lead to) that has value, not solidarity as such. The problem with this response is that it seems to misdescribe the relation between solidarity and whatever good has occurred in the world. The reciprocal commitment that workers have towards each other, for example, is not “caused” by solidarity: rather, solidarity is partly or wholly constituted by it. One suggestion, then, is that solidarity has non-instrumental value of a non-intrinsic kind. What does this mean? The idea is that solidarity is part-constitutive of something that is non-instrumentally valuable. This allows for there to be some practice x that satisfies our criteria for being solidaristic, and yet, it does not have value. But it preserves the idea that solidarity is not only good for what it causes but, if the right circumstances obtain, it is an integral element in something that is intrinsically good.

There are at least two ways in which we might flesh out solidarity’s non-instrumental value, one more individualistic and one more collective. The more individualistic approach suggests that we can understand solidarity’s non-instrumental value as analogous to the value of other good dispositions and attitudes that an agent can have. Specifically, philosophers thinking about the goodness of virtue have argued that appropriately responding to something that has value is itself something of (intrinsic) value, as is negatively responding to something that has disvalue (Hurka 2001). The connection to virtue works as follows: when an agent responds to the adversity that they or others face by developing solidaristic attitudes and dispositions—say by committing to ending oppression with others picked out by the cause—then their having these solidarist attitudes is non-instrumentally valuable because they are negatively reacting to something that is of disvalue (oppression, adversity etc.). But, and here is the rub, the agent’s response is only valuable when it constitutes the correct response to the relevant feature of the world. The white supremacist’s solidarity is not valuable because the thing against which his solidarity is directed, namely racial equality, is a valuable state of affairs. But negatively responding to something that has value clearly lacks non-instrumental value. This individualist account of solidarity’s non-instrumental value is attractive because it can account equally well for cases of “solidarity amongst” and “solidarity with”. Moreover, it equally applies to cases where agents privately develop the relevant solidaristic attitudes without actually acting on them (e.g., discussed in Bommarito 2016; Zhao 2019; and Viehoff forthcoming). Insofar as we think that their attitudes are valuable, some account along these lines seems necessary to account for it.

But perhaps there is something missing from this individualistic picture: one of the objections to those suggesting that solidarity only has instrumental value relied on the idea that there is value in people realizing a goal together . Shouldn’t our account of solidarity’s non-instrumental value also be able to capture this aspect? Recent literature has accounted for this in broadly two ways (though these are not necessarily exclusive): Avery Kolers maintains that, quite independently of pursuing justified aims, solidarity groups constitute just (in his words “equitable”) relations amongst participants. For Kolers, in following the demands of solidarity and acting together,

we are not only working to (teleologically) bring about the end of oppression; rather, we constitutively embody a non-oppressive alternative world —even if, as is likely, our joint efforts ultimately fail, in part or in whole. (Kolers 2016: 123–4)

So one way of highlighting non-instrumental collective value ensues from focusing on the kind of community that relations of solidarity give rise to: in acting together in the specific way required by the ideal of solidarity, fellows already conform to norms of equity or justice that they seek to bring about more widely.

Another line of argument is developed by Sangiovanni, who argues that, when successfully pursuing valuable goals together, we create non-instrumentally valuable joint agency :

We take pleasure in the exercise of those reciprocal, mutually adjusted, and mutually reinforcing capabilities that have enabled us to overcome forms of adversity that would have been impossible to overcome alone. The collective activity of overcoming […] comes to have non-instrumental value. (Sangiovanni forthcoming)

However, and similar to the more individualistic argument, the value of jointly exercised agency is conditional : acting successfully to overcome some obstacle is non-instrumentally valuable only if the overcoming constitutes an achievement that is worthwhile.

4. Challenges to Solidarity

Turning to criticisms of solidarity in this section, we start by distinguishing different kinds of criticism along different dimensions. Perhaps most importantly, one must distinguish between, on the one hand, challenges to solidarity as a social practice (or a range of social practices), and, on the other hand, criticism of theories of solidarity. We will call criticisms of the former kind “practical challenges” to solidarity and will address those of the latter kind as “theoretical challenges”. Practical and theoretical challenges are clearly independent of each other. For example, one can think that we need a clear account of what solidarity is, even if one holds that solidarity practices have, on the whole, negative consequences for political life.

Theoretical challenges to solidarity can conceivably take many forms, but we will focus here on the related charges of conceptual incoherence and theoretical redundancy. The former challenge is that uses of solidarity, both common sense and philosophical, are simply too diffuse and incoherent to allow for any adequate and theoretically productive definition. If those using the concept of solidarity in political or philosophical debate are more likely than not to misunderstand or speak past each other, then we should not use the concept. The latter challenge is that, from a theoretical standpoint, we don’t need to add solidarity to the fundamental philosophical concepts in the discipline because we can have everything we want by reflecting on alternative concepts and theories that have already been more thoroughly developed, for example justice, community, or equality.

When it comes to practical challenges to solidarity, critics argue that solidarity tends to have negative consequences and that, therefore, we should not promote it. We can further differentiate these practical challenges in terms of, first, the kind of negative consequences that are attributed to solidarity and, second, the kind of solidarity practices that are judged to be vulnerable to this challenge. In relation to the former, the most prominent criticisms concern solidarity’s impact on the realization of other important social and political values. One historically important line of criticism to solidarity argues that solidarity threatens liberty (Arendt, Shklar, Kateb). Others worry that solidarity creates unfair forms of inequality between those within a solidary group and those who are excluded (Scheffler 2001). Whilst the criticism focus on negative effects on outsiders, critics have also argued that solidarity may have negative effects on participants. Perhaps most notably, some have claimed that solidarity stymies pluralism and diversity . A related but distinct worry is that solidarity promotes—or perhaps even requires—false beliefs and self-conceptions amongst participants (Margalit 2017; Shelby forthcoming).

Before we move on to specific arguments, a point about generality: We maintain that, for a criticism to amount to a “challenge” to solidarity, it must rise to a certain level of generality, i.e., it must apply to a range of accounts of solidarity.

4.1 Theoretical criticism of solidarity

Since we are here interested in theoretical challenges to solidarity (and not just objections to particular accounts), we focus on challenges that, if true, would undermine the very endeavor of elevating solidarity’s place amongst significant theoretical concepts in the discipline.

A first theoretical worry about solidarity is that, given the diversity of linguistic usage, the range of contexts of application, and the breadth of phenomena addressed in the philosophical literature under the label, solidarity is conceptually incoherent. How might this be the case? To use a somewhat far-fetched example, imagine that we were charged with developing an account of the descriptive features, goodness or permissibility of all human activities that start with the letter “L”. Because the actions picked out by our category are simply too heterogeneous (there is nothing interesting that laughing and lying, let alone loving and lynching have in common), any theorizing would be pointless. Could it be the case that “solidarity” picks out a set of actions and practices that are simply too heterogeneous to lead to anything theoretically insightful? Niklas Luhmann, for example, suggested that solidarity is obsolete, a mere “formula of ideology” without determinate content (Luhmann [1984] quoted in Thome 1999: 101).

Despite the initial plausibility of this objection to theorizing solidarity, we think that solidarity theorists have powerful responses available. First, they can point to similarities that unify the descriptive, normative and evaluative features of instantiations of solidarity, even those as diverse as those mentioned above. For example, different authors have sought to show that despite their initial heterogeneity, solidarity in all these contexts descriptively entails a form of identification, or a sentiment of unity, or some orientation towards overcoming an obstacle or adversity, or some combination of these elements (Scholz 2008; Taylor 2015; Prainsack & Buyx 2017). Moreover, authors have subcategorized solidarity along social contexts—political solidarity, civic solidarity—(Bayertz 1999a; Scholz 2008), thereby organizing our heterogeneous linguistic use to allow for useful theoretical approaches to more determinate social practices of solidarity. Finally, theorists of solidarity can respond that, in providing a theoretical/philosophical account of solidarity, there is some freedom to make revisionary proposals about what should count as solidarity. Our (descriptive, normative, evaluative) understanding of solidarity is advanced if we “sharpen” our account of solidarity by excluding some peripheral uses, then that may well be legitimate and will limit the charge of incoherence. Theorists of solidarity may also point to other social and political concepts to claim that heterogeneous use both in everyday discourse and among philosophers is rarely considered a convincing reason to abstain from theorizing concepts like freedom, equality, justice, and the like. Why treat solidarity differently?

Faced with this appeal to other political concepts, critics may retreat to a related but distinct criticism: They may accept that concepts like freedom and equality too are beset with complexity and conceptual disagreements that need to be resolved. But they can then insist that there is no need to take up this difficult endeavor for solidarity because—contrary to liberty, equality etc.—there is no need for a theory of solidarity. This is the charge of theoretical redundancy : we can gain exactly the same explanatory mileage by using existing concepts and categories without theorizing solidarity. Descriptively , existing work on altruism, community and relations of loyalty might serve us just as well as accounts of solidarity: all of the relations that were described as solidaristic above are also (more or less intimate) communal relations amongst people. Normatively , the critic might suggest that we can reduce the claims generated by solidarity to requirements of justice, fairness, equality, and the like. And evaluatively , we can appeal to the general goodness of special bonds and relationships for the realization of a flourishing life, whether they are bonds of friendship, family, religion, or political community. If this were the case, then theorizing solidarity would be redundant, and ultimately, pointless. Why not, in a spirit of parsimony, simply rely on the concepts and theories we already have?

Again, we think that defenders of solidarity have good replies available: Perhaps the strongest response to the challenge of redundancy is to provide a substantive account of solidarity in terms of its distinctive descriptive, normative and evaluative features. If such an account is illuminating, then the charge of redundancy seems beside the point. More specifically, theorists of solidarity can appeal to distinctive descriptive or positive features of solidarity practices that make it inappropriate to subsume solidarity under a generic account of community and loyalty (see discussion in Kolers 2016: chapter 2). Unlike those bonds of friendship and family, for example, solidarity is purposive (goal-oriented), both in the sense that solidarity aims for the achievement of overcoming some obstacle or adversity and in the sense that fellows are picked de dicto in terms of the cause that is pursued rather than in some goal-independent manner (Arnsperger & Varoufakis 2003; Kolers 2016). In terms of normative distinctiveness, theorists of solidarity may also object to the critic’s implied assumption that a theoretical account of x ’s normative properties loses its usefulness when we discover that these properties supervene on or are explained by a more general moral consideration.

4.2 Practical challenges to Solidarity

We now move on to the practical challenges of solidarity. Should we be critical of real-world solidarity practices because they lead to bad consequences? Or may there perhaps even be something constitutively problematic about solidarity movements? Three prominent objections relate to solidarity’s impact on liberty, fairness, and truth.

Does solidarity muffle liberty? In her celebrated essay the “Liberalism of Fear”, Judith Shklar claims it does. She writes:

We must therefore be suspicious of ideologies of solidarity, precisely because they are so attractive to those who find liberalism emotionally unsatisfying, and who have gone on in our century to create oppressive and cruel regimes of unparalleled horror. […] To seek emotional and personal development in the bosom of a community or in romantic self-expression is a choice open to citizens in liberal societies. Both, however, are apolitical impulses and wholly self-oriented, which at best distract us from the main task of politics when they are presented as political doctrines, and at worst can, under unfortunate circumstances, seriously damage liberal practices. For although both appear only to be redrawing the boundaries between the personal and the public […] it cannot be said that either one has a serious sense of the implications of the proposed shifts in either direction. (Shklar 1989: 36)

There is, one might think, an element of truth here: theorists of solidarity tend to emphasize that solidarity becomes important when and because we sense the need for collective resistance and unity of purpose in the face of adversity. They also stress the non-instrumental value in setting aside self-interest in a horizontal identification with others on behalf of a shared goal, where part of what is valued is our seeing, together, our collective agency reflected in the ends we pursue (see previous section).

The element of identification may seem particularly problematic. Identification requires, among other things, coming to see others as “like oneself”, and taking that similarity as a basis for joint concern, empathy, and normative orientation. So, for example, when I identify with you as a worker , I see our common role as providing an important orientation in my life. In this sense, solidarity demands that one set aside the personal for the political (thus “redrawing the boundaries” between them). The worry is that, at least in politics, solidarity’s demand for similarity, commitment, and loyalty leads to unfreedom and tyranny. [ 11 ]

Faced with this fundamental challenge, theorists of solidarity have at least two arguments: First, they may insist that it is false to treat a commitment to solidarity as incompatible with a commitment to liberalism. To be sure, solidarities organized to promote illiberal ends by illiberal means are, well, illiberal by definition. But their disregard for individual rights or freedom or equality is not entailed or required by their solidarity. Indeed, if, as Shklar and others emphasize, liberalism demands vigilance, hatred of injustice, and a readiness to resist power when necessary, then liberalism requires solidarity. Resistance is most effective when it is conducted by groups whose grievances are shared and known to be shared. These grievances provide a spring for joint action, and a powerful source of identification. Such identification is necessary to overcome fear, and it allows people to act pro-socially by looking beyond their immediate self-interest to the larger task at hand.

A second reason why these challenges are not fully convincing is this: In Shklar the target is what we might call state-level solidarity. Though they do not name it, their target is national or patriotic solidarity—solidarity as invoked by those who have political power and who aim to rally the people against an enemy, or solidarity as it is invoked by those who believe that active, partisan political participation is essential for a flourishing life. The first response is simply to point out (as this entry does) that solidarity can be at the heart of social movements and bottom-up political action. It need not be solely focused on or through the state. The second response is that even state-level solidarity need not be so pernicious. Civic solidarity need not enforce blind conformity, disrespect difference or disagreement, or raze plurality. [ 12 ] There is a rich tradition in the history of political ideas—stretching from Leon Bourgeois’ [ 13 ] solidarism to present writings—that grounds civic solidarity not in some “totalizing” pre-political identity, but in the mutual interdependence of citizens and their democratic co-authorship of justice-preserving institutions. [ 14 ]

Solidarity, it was said, imposes not only demands on what to do but also on what fellows should believe. With regard to such beliefs, solidarity requires fellows to see each other as united by some common feature, or condition or experience. Does solidarity systematically lead to false beliefs amongst members of solidarity groups, for example about what unites them?

Perhaps most prominently, the question of the relationship between—in this case, historical —truth and the kind of collective group identification necessary for solidarity has come up in debates about (liberal) nationalism. Here, the charge against nationalist solidarity is that, for essentially instrumental purposes, national identity both relies on and promotes false beliefs amongst members about some glorified national past (Abizadeh 2004). Other forms of solidarity need not, of course, rely on some shared historical origins amongst participants. But the challenge can be generalized: insofar as solidarity requires some ground for mutual identification, whether shared experience, shared oppression, or shared goals, there is a danger that the practice systematically guides participants to overestimate those identification-grounding features at the expense of other, perhaps more salient, elements that are not shared amongst them. To go back to two earlier examples, sisterhood may require participants to see some feature of their identity (“being a woman”) as particularly important when, in fact, their de facto situation of social disadvantage is (also) fundamentally structured by other categories like race or class. Similarly, black solidarity asks participants to focus on whatever grounds commonality amongst blacks, even if their actual social position is shaped by matters of class, gender, migration status, and so on (Shelby forthcoming).

Confronted with the fact that much of what is promulgated as part of shared national history does not hold up against the historical record, liberal nationalists like David Miller (1995) have responded that “myths” about a national collective’s past need not be true so long as they serve the purpose of supporting those attitudes that underpin valuable national solidarity. But irrespective of whether or not they are useful , they are untrue , and, to the extent that the group identification necessary for national solidarity depends on it, it depends on having false beliefs.

Does this worry generalize to all forms of solidarity? One important difference between national solidarity and other forms is that most other solidarities do not typically depend on beliefs in something that is manifestly untrue. Rather, they emphasize the relevance of some genuine aspect of a person’s practical identity—whether it is shared experience, shared oppression, shared goals etc.—over others. We might add that whether or not some feature is salient for one’s practical identity is, at least to a degree, up to the relevant agent. So one conciliatory response that defenders of (non-national) solidarity might offer is that solidarity does not depend on belief in falsehoods, but rather that it expresses which aspects of their identity participants take to be important. They might add that, insofar as there is free deliberation both about what unites and, importantly, what divides participants to solidarity movements, the charge of promoting false beliefs is beside the point. In a more combative vein, they may also add that, at least in some cases, solidarity is actually a necessary element for the formation of correct beliefs about one’s own and others’ predicament. Wiland describes this as epistemic solidarity (Wiland 2017: 69). Thus, standing in solidarity with others that have suffered from similar instances of adversity and oppression can be a necessary condition for enabling each other to make sense of our predicament: We form true beliefs about our shared predicament and improve our ability to define and fight oppressive conditions by being able to trust each other’s oppression-related testimony (Goodin & Spiekermann 2015).

Whatever else solidarity entails descriptively; it entails a special commitment to one’s solidarity fellows that one does not hold towards everybody else. And whatever normative consequences solidarity has for those in solidarity, it will ground some special claims that these fellows have on us and we on them. In this sense, solidarity, like friendship, family, and nationality, constitutes a special relationship with special obligations. Over recent decades, a number of philosophers have raised challenges to the very idea that special obligations can be justified towards those who are not part of them. Perhaps most prominently, Samuel Scheffler has raised a fairness-based “distributive objection” to all special relationships (Scheffler 2001). If fellows in solidarity form special relationships with special obligations, then, does Scheffler’s criticism apply here too?

The distributive objection builds on the idea that participants to special relationships receive special benefits from each other: qua membership, we are owed not just more from fellow participants than we are from outsiders, but we are also owed priority, in at least some instances. What the distributive objection observes is that members already benefit from the relationship goods that are constitutively tied to being in a meaningful relationship. The problem is that, then, fellows also owe less to outsiders then they did beforehand: Special relationships—including solidarity relations—thus function, to use Scheffler’s memorable phrase, like “moral tax shelters” to those who already benefit.

Whilst several authors have rejected the general thrust of the distributive objection (Kolodny 2002; Lazar 2009), we want to point to some features of solidarity that should provide specific cover against this challenge. Crucially, friends of solidarity may stress that unlike friendship or love relations, solidarity obligations are not necessarily grounded in the value of the relationship, but in relationship-independent value that comes from having these duties. Special duties of solidarity would then be justified more like role obligations—lawyers, for example, have fiduciary duties to represent their client’s interests not because of the non-instrumental value of lawyer-client relationships, but because of the advantages that vesting them with such duties has for the system’s overall ability to optimally realize impartial moral demands (such as protecting innocent defendants). On this strategy, duties of solidarity would ultimately be grounded in non-partial values like fairness and natural justice. How might this justification run? Many of our positive general duties are imperfect, so that even well-meaning people are likely to face significant obstacles in discharging them: it requires the ability to coordinate our actions in complex ways with others; and we must also be motivated to make contributions in light of other important projects and relationships. If the special obligations that flow from solidarity commitments can provide us with a robust way of solving issues of coordination and motivation (because, following a solidarity-commitment, discharging our general duties through solidarity somehow better aligns with our personal projects) then those obligations could be justified by an appeal to impartial moral considerations (Kolers 2016; Viehoff forthcoming).

But even for those who think that some duties of solidarity are grounded in the non-instrumental value of solidaristic fellowship, there are important responses available: First, solidarity (at least in its most paradigmatic forms) establishes unity amongst those suffering from injustice or oppression, so it rather far from providing some kind of indirect protection from more extensive duties towards the more vulnerable. Second, special responsibilities towards our fellows, like other special duties, are not absolute: very plausibly, they are constrained by general demands of justice. So even if special obligations among fellows in solidarity could ground some partiality, these duties would be limited by more weighty considerations of justice.

Do these responses answer all the possible objections of fairness and exclusion? Probably not; questions of permissible solidaristic partiality, especially amongst large-scale collectives like the state, clearly depend on questions of social and global justice that cannot be addressed here. So questions of the kinds of obligations that solidarity practices can ground blend into issues of justice. But that should not be surprising, nor should it prevent us from reflection on solidarity in its own right.

• Abizadeh, Arash, 2004, “Historical Truth, National Myths and Liberal Democracy: On the Coherence of Liberal Nationalism”, Journal of Political Philosophy , 12(3): 291–313. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9760.2004.00201.x
• Appiah, Anthony, 1985, “The Uncompleted Argument: Du Bois and the Illusion of Race”, Critical Inquiry , 12(1): 21–37. doi:10.1086/448319
• Arendt, Hannah, 1963, On Revolution , New York: Viking Press.
• –––, 1951 [1973], The Origins of Totalitarianism , New York: Harcourt, Brace. New edition, New York: Harcourt Brace & Jovanovich, 1973.
• Arnsperger, Christian and Yanis Varoufakis, 2003, “Toward a Theory of Solidarity”, Erkenntnis , 59(2): 157–188. doi:10.1023/A:1024630228818
• Banting, Keith and Will Kymlicka (eds.), 2017, The Strains of Commitment: The Political Sources of Solidarity in Diverse Societies , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198795452.001.0001
• Bayertz, Kurt, 1999a, “Four Uses of ‘Solidarity’”, in Bayertz 1999b:3–28. doi:10.1007/978-94-015-9245-1_1
• ––– (ed.), 1999b, Solidarity , (Philosophical Studies in Contemporary Culture), Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. doi:10.1007/978-94-015-9245-1
• Blais, Marie-Claude, 2007, La solidarité: histoire d’une idée , (Bibliothèque des idées), Paris: Gallimard.
• Bommarito, Nicolas, 2016, “Private Solidarity”, Ethical Theory and Moral Practice , 19(2): 445–455. doi:10.1007/s10677-015-9640-2
• Bourgeois, M. Léon, 1902, “Rapport de M. Léon Bourgeois au Congrès d’Éducation Sociale en 1900”, in Solidarité , 3rd edition, by M. Léon Bourgeois, Paris: Armand Colin, 159–188. [First edition published in 1896.]
• Bowles, Samuel and Herbert Gintis, 2011, “A Cooperative Species”, in their A Cooperative Species: Human Reciprocity and Its Evolution , Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1–7.
• Bratman, Michael, 2014, Shared Agency: A Planning Theory of Acting Together , New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199897933.001.0001
• Carastathis, Anna, 2014, “The Concept of Intersectionality in Feminist Theory”, Philosophy Compass , 9(5): 304–314. doi:10.1111/phc3.12129
• Claeys, Gregory, 2011, “Non-Marxian Socialism 1815–1914”, in The Cambridge History of Nineteenth-Century Political Thought , Gareth Stedman Jones and Gregory Claeys (eds.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 521–555. doi:10.1017/CHOL9780521430562.018
• Clark, Meghan J., 2014, The Vision of Catholic Social Thought: The Virtue of Solidarity and the Praxis of Human Rights , Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.
• Combahee River Collective, 1977/1983, “A Black Feminist Statement”, April 1977, Boston, MA. Printed in Home Girls: A Black Feminist Anthology , Barbara Smith (ed.), New York: Kitchen Table—Women of Color Press, 1983. New edition, New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2000, 264–274.
• Coulthard, Glen Sean, 2014, Red Skin, White Masks: Rejecting the Colonial Politics of Recognition , (Indigenous Americas), Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
• Crenshaw, Kimberle, 1991, “Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color”, Stanford Law Review , 43(6): 1241–1299. doi:10.2307/1229039
• Cruse, Harold, 1967, The Crisis of the Negro Intellectual: A Historical Analysis of the Failure of Black Leadership , New York: William Morrow.
• Dawson, Michael C., 2001, Black Visions: The Roots of Contemporary African-American Political Ideologies , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Dean, Jodi, 1995, “Reflective Solidarity”, Constellations , 2(1): 114–140. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8675.1995.tb00023.x
• Deveaux, Monique, 2021, Poverty, Solidarity, and Poor-Led Social Movements , New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oso/9780190850289.001.0001
• Durkheim, Émile, 1928 [1959], Le socialisme: sa définition, ses débuts, la doctrine Saint-Simonienne , Marcel Mauss (ed.), (Travaux de l’Année sociologique), Paris: F. Alcan. Translated as Socialism and Saint-Simon , Charlotte Sattler (trans.), Yellow Springs, OH: Antioch Press, 1959.
• –––, 1893 [1984], De la division du travail social , Paris: Félix Alcan; second edition 1902, third edition 1911. Translated as The Division of Labor in Society , W. D. Halls (trans.), New York: Free Press.
• Dworkin, Ronald, 2011, Justice for Hedgehogs , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Engels, Friedrich, 1876 [1978], Herrn Eugen Dühring's Umwälzung der Wissenschaft , a translated abstract of which was published as “Socialism: Utopian and Scientific” and collected in Tucker 1978, pp. 683–718.
• Faucci, Riccardo and Antonella Rancan, 2009, “Transforming the Economy: Saint-Simon and His Influence on Mazzini”, History of Economic Ideas , 17(2): 79–105.
• Feinberg, Joel, 1973, Social Philosophy , (Foundations of Philosophy Series), Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
• Forst, Rainer, forthcoming, “Contexts of Solidarity”, in Sangiovanni and Viehoff forthcoming.
• Francis, 2020, “Catechesis ‘Healing the world’: 8. Subsidiarity and virtue of hope”, 23 September 2020. [ Francis 2020 available online ]
• Fricker, Miranda, 2007, Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing , New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198237907.001.0001
• Garton Ash, Timothy, 1983 [2002], The Polish Revolution: Solidarity , London: J. Cape. Third edition, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2002.
• Goodin, Robert E. and Kai Spiekermann, 2015, “Epistemic Solidarity as a Political Strategy”, Episteme , 12(4): 439–457. doi:10.1017/epi.2015.29
• Gooding-Williams, Robert, 2009, In the Shadow of Du Bois: Afro-Modern Political Thought in America , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Gould, Carol C., 2007, “Transnational Solidarities”, Journal of Social Philosophy , 38(1): 148–164. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9833.2007.00371.x
• –––, 2020, “Motivating Solidarity with Distant Others: Empathic Politics, Responsibility, and the Problem of Global Justice”, in The Oxford Handbook of Global Justice , Thom Brooks (ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 121–138. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198714354.013.6
• –––, forthcoming, “Rethinking Solidarity through the Lens of Critical Social Ontology”, in Sangiovanni and Viehoff forthcoming.
• Glasgow, Joshua, 2009, A Theory of Race , New York: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203880951
• Harvey, Jean, 2007, “Moral Solidarity and Empathetic Understanding: The Moral Value and Scope of the Relationship”, Journal of Social Philosophy , 38(1): 22–37. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9833.2007.00364.x
• Hayward, J. E. S., 1959, “Solidarity: The Social History of an Idea in Nineteenth Century France”, International Review of Social History , 4(2): 261–284. doi:10.1017/S0020859000001371
• Hechter, Michael, 2015, “Solidarity, Sociology of”, in International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences , second edition, James D. Wright (ed.), Oxford: Elsevier, 6–9. doi:10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.32147-X
• Hill Collins, Patricia, 1990 [2000], Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment , (Perspectives on Gender 2), Boston: Unwin Hyman. Second edition, New York: Routledge, 2000. doi:10.4324/9780203900055
• hooks, bell, 1981 [2015], Ain’t I a Woman , London: Routledge. [First edition published 1981, second edition 2015.]
• –––, 2000 [2015], Feminism Is for Everybody: Passionate Politics , Cambridge, MA: South End Press. Second edition, New York: Routledge, 2015.
• Hurka, Thomas, 2001, Virtue, Vice, and Value , New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/0195137167.001.0001
• John Paul II, 1987, Sollicitudo rei socialis , 20 December 1987 [ Sollicitudo rei socialis available online (English) ]
• Kateb, George, 1989, “Democratic Individuality and the Meaning of Rights”, in Rosenblum 1989: 183–206 (ch. 10). doi:10.4159/harvard.9780674864443.c14
• Kautsky, Karl, 1892 [1910], The Class Struggle: Erfurt Program , trans. William Bohn, New York: Kerr & Co. [Originally published as Das Erfurter Programm in seinem grundsätzlichen Theil erläutert , Stuttgart: Vorwärts.
• Kohn, M., (forthcoming), “Solidarity: The Link Between Facts and Norms”, in The Virtue of Solidarity , Andrea Sangiovanni and Juri Viehoff (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Kolers, Avery, 2016, A Moral Theory of Solidarity , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198769781.001.0001
• Kolodny, Niko, 2002, “Do Associative Duties Matter?”, Journal of Political Philosophy , 10(3): 250–266. doi:10.1111/1467-9760.00152
• Koslowski, Peter, 2000, “Solidarism, Capitalism, and Economic Ethics in Heinrich Pesch”, in The Theory of Capitalism in the German Economic Tradition: Historism, Ordo-Liberalism, Critical Theory, Solidarism , Peter Koslowski (ed.), (Studies in Economic Ethics and Philosophy), Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer, 371–396. doi:10.1007/978-3-662-04084-3_10
• Land, Clare, 2015, Decolonizing Solidarity: Dilemmas and Directions for Supporters of Indigenous Struggles , London: Zed Books.
• Lazar, Seth, 2009, “Debate: Do Associative Duties Really Not Matter? 1”, Journal of Political Philosophy , 17(1): 90–101. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9760.2008.00329.x
• Leo XIII, 1891, Rerum Novarum . [ Rerum Navarum available online (English) ]
• Leopold, David, 2015, “Scientific Socialism: The Case of Robert Owen”, in Scientific Statesmanship, Governance and the History of Political Philosophy , Kyriakos N. Demetriou and Antis Loizides (eds.), New York: Routledge, 193–209.
• Leroux, Pierre, 1840 [1845], De l’humanité: de son principe, et de son avenir, où. se trouve exposée la vraie définition de la religion et où l’on explique le sens, la suite, et l’enchaînement du Mosaisme et du Christianisme , Paris: Perrotin. Second edition 1845.
• Lorde, Audre, 1984, Sister Outsider: Essays and Speeches , (Crossing Press Feminist Series), Freedom, CA: Crossing Press.
• Luhmann, Niklas, 1984, “Die Differenzierung von Interaktion und Gesellschaft. Probleme der sozialen Solidarität”, in Solidarität in der Welt der 80er Jahre: Leistungsgesellschaft und Sozialstaat , Robert Kopp (ed.), Basel: Helbing and Lichtenhahn, 79–96.
• Malcolm X, 1970 [1992], By Any Means Necessary , New York: Pathfinder. Second edition, 1992.
• Margalit, Avishai, 2017, On Betrayal , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Marx, Karl, 1871 [1978], Speech, 8 September 1872 in Amsterdam after a congress of the First International. Collected as “The possibility of non-violent revolution (the Amsterdam speech)” in Tucker 1978, pp. 522–525.
• Mason, Andrew, 2000, Community, Solidarity, and Belonging: Levels of Community and Their Normative Significance , Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511490309
• May, Larry, 1996, The Socially Responsive Self: Social Theory and Professional Ethics , Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
• Mazzini, Giuseppe, 1871 [2009], “Nazionalismo e Nazionalità”. Translated as “Nationalism and Nationality”, in A Cosmopolitanism of Nations: Giuseppe Mazzini’s Writings on Democracy, Nation Building, and International Relations , Stefano Recchia and Nadia Urbinati (eds.), Stefano Recchia (trans.), Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2009, 62–65.
• Medina, José, 2013, The Epistemology of Resistance: Gender and Racial Oppression, Epistemic Injustice, and Resistant Imaginations , (Studies in Feminist Philosophy), Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199929023.001.0001
• Michnik, Adam, 1985, “Letter from Gdansk Prison”, Jerzy B. Warman (trans.), The New York Review of Books , 18 July 1985.
• Miller, David, 1995, On Nationality , (Oxford Political Theory), Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• –––, 2017, “Solidarity and Its Sources”, in Banting and Kymlicka 2017: 61–79 (ch. 2). doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198795452.003.0002
• Mohanty, Chandra Talpade, 2003, Feminism without Borders: Decolonizing Theory, Practicing Solidarity , Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
• Moses, Wilson Jeremiah, 1978, The Golden Age of Black Nationalism, 1850–1925 , Hamden, CT: Archon Books.
• O’Neill, Onora, 1996, Towards Justice and Virtue: A Constructive Account of Practical Reasoning , Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511621239
• Owen, Robert, 1826–27 [2016], “The Social System”, The New-Harmony Gazette , volume 2, several issues. Reprinted in Selected Works of Robert Owen , Gregory Claeys (ed.), (The Pickering Masters), London: W. Pickering, 1993. Reprinted, New York: Routledge, 2016, volume 2, 56–105.
• Pesch, Heinrich, 1918 [2004], Ethik und Volkswirtschaft , Freiburg im Breisgau: Herdersche verlagshandlung. Translated as Ethics and the National Economy , Rupert J. Ederer (trans.), Norfolk, VA: IHS Press, 2004.
• Plunkett, David and Tim Sundell, 2013, “Disagreement and the Semantics of Normative and Evaluative Terms”, Philosopher’s Imprint , 13: article 23. [ Plunkett and Sundell 2013 available online ]
• Potter, Mark W., 2009, “Solidarity as Spiritual Exercise: A Contribution to the Development of Solidarity in the Catholic Social Tradition”, PhD thesis, Boston College. [ Potter 2009 available online ]
• Prainsack, Barbara and Alena Buyx, 2017, Solidarity in Biomedicine and Beyond , (Cambridge Bioethics and Law 33), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781139696593
• Renan, Ernest, 1882, Qu’est que c’est qu’une nation , Paris: Calmann-Lévy. [Quoted translation is by the authors.]
• Renaud, Hippolyte, 1842, Solidarité: Vue Synthétique sur la Doctrine de Charles Fourier , Paris: Librairie de l’École Sociétaire; second edition 1845, third edition 1846.
• Rivers, Eugene F., 1995, “Beyond the Nationalism of Fools: Toward an Agenda for Black Intellectuals”, Boston Review , 20(3/Summer): 16–18.
• Robinson, Dean E., 2001, Black Nationalism in American Politics and Thought , New York: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511606038
• Rosenblum, Nancy L. (ed.), 1989, Liberalism and the Moral Life , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. doi:10.4159/harvard.9780674864443
• Sangiovanni, Andrea, forthcoming, Solidarity: Its Nature, Grounds, and Value , Manchester: Manchester University Press.
• Sangiovanni, Andrea and Juri Viehoff (eds), forthcoming, Solidarity , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Scheffler, Samuel, 2001, Boundaries and Allegiances: Problems of Justice and Responsibility in Liberal Thought , Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/0199257671.001.0001
• Scholz, Sally J., 2008, Political Solidarity , University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.
• Sewell, William H., 1980, Work and Revolution in France: The Language of Labor from the Old Regime to 1848 , Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511583711
• Shelby, Tommie, 2005, We Who Are Dark: The Philosophical Foundations of Black Solidarity , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. doi:10.4159/9780674043527
• –––, forthcoming, “A Tale of Two Tenths: Race, Class, and Solidarity”, in Sangiovanni and Viehoff forthcoming.
• Shklar, Judith N., 1989, “The Liberalism of Fear”, in Rosenblum 1989: 21–38 (ch. 1). doi:10.4159/harvard.9780674864443.c2
• Shrage, Laurie (ed.), 2009, “You’ve Changed”: Sex Reassignment and Personal Identity , (Studies in Feminist Philosophy), Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.
• Simpson, Leanne Betasamosake, 2017, As We Have Always Done: Indigenous Freedom through Radical Resistance , (Indigenous Americas), Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
• Spelman, Elizabeth V., 1988, Inessential Woman: Problems of Exclusion in Feminist Thought , Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
• Tajfel, Henri and John Turner, 2001, “An Integrative Theory of Intergroup Conflict”, in Intergroup Relations: Essential Readings , Michael A. Hogg and Dominic Abrams (eds.), (Key Readings in Social Psychology), New York: Psychology Press, 94–109.
• Tajfel, Henri, M. G. Billig, R. P. Bundy, and Claude Flament, 1971, “Social Categorization and Intergroup Behaviour”, European Journal of Social Psychology , 1(2): 149–178. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420010202
• Taylor, A., 2015, ‘Solidarity: Obligations and Expressions’, Journal of Political Philosophy , 23: 128–45.
• Taylor, Charles, 1989, “Cross-Purposes: The Liberal-Communitarian Debate”, in Rosenblum 1989: 159–182 (ch. 9). doi:10.4159/harvard.9780674864443.c13
• Thome, Helmut, 1999, “Solidarity: Theoretical Perspectives for Empirical Research”, in Bayertz 1999b: 101–131. doi:10.1007/978-94-015-9245-1_6
• Tischner, Józef, 1982 [1984], Etyka solidarności , Paris: Spotkania. 2nd Ed. Translated as The Spirit of Solidarity , Marek B. Zaleski and Benjamin Fiore (trans.), San Francisco: Harper & Row.
• Tucker, R. C. (ed.), 1978, The Marx-Engels Reader , London: Norton.
• Van Parijs, Philippe, forthcoming, “Solidarity and the Just Society”, in Sangiovanni and Viehoff forthcoming.
• Viehoff, Juri, forthcoming, “Personal Sacrifice, Commitment, and the Value of Solidarity”, in Sangiovanni and Viehoff forthcoming.
• Wiland, Eric, 2017, “Moral Testimony: Going on the Offensive”, in Oxford Studies in Metaethics 12 , Russ Shafer-Landau (ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1:chapter 3.
• Wildt, Andreas, 1999, “Solidarity: Its History and Contemporary Definition”, in Bayertz 1999b: 209–220. doi:10.1007/978-94-015-9245-1_11
• Young, Iris Marion, 1994, “Gender as Seriality: Thinking about Women as a Social Collective”, Signs , 19(3): 713–738.
• Zakaria, Rafia, 2021, Against White Feminism: Notes on Disruption , New York: W.W. Norton.
• Zhao, Michael, 2019, “Solidarity, Fate-Sharing, and Community”, Philosopher’s Imprint , 19: article 46. [ Zhao 2019 available online ]

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up this entry topic at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

[Please contact the author with suggestions.]

citizenship | common good | feminist philosophy, topics: perspectives on sex and gender | nationalism | responsibility: collective | socialism

Copyright © 2023 by Andrea Sangiovanni < andrea . sangiovanni @ kcl . ac . uk > Juri Viehoff < juri . viehoff @ manchester . ac . uk >

• Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2023 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Department of Philosophy, Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

Solidarity: Why we need it and how to get it

Solidarity is an important value for any society, as well as for the entire global community. This idea of ​​community — essential in the Christian tradition — means finding an area of unity amidst the diversity that characterizes human societies, and the recognition of a set of common, universal values that characterize us as human beings with dignity.

In order for this to become a reality, it’s necessary to establish a consensus about fundamental values, work to extend the principles of peace, equity, and well-being, and establish a basic principle of mutual recognition and reciprocity.

Solidarity as a value

Solidarity is a value par excellence, characterized by mutual collaboration between individuals which makes it possible to overcome the most terrible disasters, such as wars, plagues, diseases, etc. This applies as well to helping relatives, friends and acquaintances who find themselves in difficult situations, so that they can overcome obstacles and move forward.

Solidarity allows us to overcome the adversities that present themselves throughout life. A person who practices solidarity does not hesitate to collaborate and support all those who are in disadvantaged situations, in contrast to people who are indifferent to the needs of others and more self-centered.

We must encourage an attitude of solidarity in the young, since solidarity can be seen as the basis of many other human values. ​​In a special way it helps one develop valuable friendships in family and social settings, based on virtues such as kindness, support, respect, and tolerance.

Solidarity and sociology

From the perspective of sociology, solidarity can be described as the adherence of each one of the members of a human community to the same values. According to French sociologist Emile Durkheim, solidarity can be seen in three ways:

• Community solidarity is a feeling of unity based on common interests or goals, shared by many individuals, which makes them belong to the same social group, work together towards achieving the same goals, or fight together for the same cause.
• Organic solidarity , seen in a company, is the interdependence that exists among the various individuals due to the strong specialization of each one of them and the division of technical labor in different functions.
• In contrast to the previous kinds, mechanical solidarity is characterized by a total competence and independence of each individual in most of the jobs, in which case the individuals have no need of the others.

In conclusion, solidarity is knowing how to behave with people; it’s a form of social behavior for the purpose of creating cohesion and social ties that unite the members of a partnership with each other.

Christian solidarity

Solidarity is part of the social doctrine of the Catholic Church , and as such is defined as the consideration of the set of characteristics or aspects that relate or unite people, and the mutual help, interaction, collaboration and service that this set of relationships promotes and encourages. This collaboration and interaction must contribute to the development, growth, and progress of all human beings based on Christian and gospel values.

The great value of this vision lies in its foundation. We do not practice solidarity simply because there’s a social convenience; rather, we are supportive because every human being enjoys a unique and unrepeatable dignity that is given by God.

Articles like these are sponsored free for every Catholic through the support of generous readers just like you.

Help us continue to bring the Gospel to people everywhere through uplifting Catholic news, stories, spirituality, and more.

THE PHILOSOPHER

Published since 1923.

• Savannah L. Pearlman

"Mutual Aid and a Pluralistic Account of Solidarity": An Essay by Savannah L. Pearlman

From The Philosopher, vol. 110, no. 4 (" The New Basics: Philosophy ").

If you enjoy reading this, please consider becoming a patron or making a small donation .

We are unfunded and your support is greatly appreciated.

“The test of solidarity, the mark of a cooperative commonwealth, is mutual aid – the recognition of our fellow citizens, all of them, as men and women toward whom we have obligations by virtue of the fellowship.” Michael Walzer, The Company of Critics

The philosophical literature on solidarity is, unsurprisingly, set on answering two conceptual questions. First, what does solidarity consist of? And second, what does being in solidarity require?

While it is largely agreed upon that solidarity is a kind of unity among persons, this agreement is short-lived – for if solidarity involves unity, what kind of unity is this? That is, does solidarity coalesce around shared identity or simply fellow-feeling ? Shared action or fate ? Or is solidarity merely a matter of commitment to a particular cause to achieve certain ends? Below, I look to examples of Mutual Aid to reject a piece-meal model of solidarity (where solidarity is this but not that) in favor of a more pluralistic account. The notion of solidarity need not be constrained, all or nothing, by a specific strain of interpretation. Instead, we should recognize that solidarity is a matter of variety and degree.

The concept of Mutual Aid has become well-known for its catchphrase: “Solidarity Not Charity”. Mutual Aid involves the exchange of goods, services, and social support between members of a particular community, sometimes formed as a result of shared identity or geographic locale. Whereas charity is perceived to be transactional and externally sourced (from outsiders towards individuals or communities with need), Mutual Aid is a tactic of internal community assistance, which emphasizes collective care and sometimes encourages (but does not require) reciprocity.

Although Mutual Aid is often used to describe contemporary community-based social movements, Peter Kropotkin’s 1902 monograph, Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution , lays out a long history of interpersonal cooperation and symbiotic interdependence spanning dozens of cultures and several millennia. In addition to barn raisings and collective childcare schemes of old, contemporary Mutual Aid includes deeds that range from the spontaneous upkeep of little free pantries to organized workshops on tenants’ rights.

Contemporary positions on Mutual Aid reflect the hard lessons learned during the COVID pandemic. In his 2020 book, Mutual Aid , Dean Spade describes Mutual Aid as “survival work”, writing:

We are put in competition with each other for survival, and we are forced to rely on hostile systems – like health care systems designed around profit, not keeping people healthy, or food and transportation systems that pollute the earth and poison people – for the things we need... In this context of social isolation and forced dependency on hostile systems, mutual aid – where we choose to help each other out, share things, and put time and resources into caring for the most vulnerable – is a radical act.

In a recent post on the blog of the American Philosophical Association, Jennifer Gammage highlights Mutual Aid’s anarchical history, a feature notably absent from Spade’s account:

While not all of those practicing mutual aid share Kropotkin’s strong views of social democracy and/or Marxist politics, most people involved in mutual aid projects seek to decenter the role of individuals and eliminate social hierarchies, and most practice consensus-based decision-making and horizontal organizing. These tactics allow for radical action beyond the protest site or the picket line by teaching those of us living with the hangover of individualistic notions of the subject to relate to others in new ways that allow for reciprocal changes in beliefs and/or behaviors to be understood as a collective strength rather than a personal injury.

In contrast to Spade’s interpretation, then, Gammage notes that most Mutual Aid communities aim beyond the goal of mere survival and seek instead a future in which they can flourish.

Mutual Aid is conceptually rich fodder for analysing the notion of solidarity: it is a multi-faceted paradigm from which we can identify different strains that the notion of solidarity may embody. From this, I argue that it would be unwise to contort or restrict our conception of solidarity as one that covers only one or some of these solidaristic scenarios. Instead, we should understand solidarity as a rich, pluralistic notion, which can take many forms.

Solidarity as Shared Identity

One understanding of solidarity is that it describes the sense of unity that arises when group members coalesce around some shared identity. We can think of this variety of solidarity as the one that roots the feminist appeal to “sisterhood” and the French nationalist demand for “fraternité!”

Identity-based notions of solidarity have, however, been called into question due to worries about social ontology and essentialism. Who counts as having membership “in the group”? Does identity-based solidarity require all members of the group to share specific, inherent traits, and, if so, might these criteria wrongly exclude others who ought to be included? While these concerns are well-founded and ought to be a continued topic of discussion, there can be no doubt that shared identity (whatever that amounts to) can give rise to solidarity.

Identity-based notions of solidarity have been called into question due to worries about social ontology and essentialism.

Consider the Black Panthers’ commitment to Mutual Aid. Founded in 1966, the Black Panther Party coalesced around Black identity as a means of self-preservation under oppression. The group originated in Oakland, California, where rampant racism and police brutality meant that merely being Black put one at risk for bodily harm. As a result, having the same racial identity – an identity which subjected oneself to unjust interpersonal, institutional, and structural oppression – became a basis for solidarity via Mutual Aid.

Beginning in the late 1960s, the Black Panthers launched several “Community Survival Programs.” The United States National Archives reports that the Free Breakfast Program served breakfast to children every school day morning, while the Free Food Program distributed 10,000 bags of groceries to Oakland community members. These programs were meant to assist Black families in particular­ – those families who were often discriminated against or could not access government benefits were targeted as those who ought to receive the benefits of identity-based Mutual Aid.

There is undeniably something legitimate about one’s marginalized identity constituting a basis for solidarity under these non-ideal social circumstances. When one’s identity – in this case, one’s racialization – singles a person out as a target for discrimination and unjust treatment, identity-oriented Mutual Aid is meant to mark that person as someone whose circumstance deserves remediation.

And yet, there is also something odd about the notion that merely sharing an identity feature with someone else is a sufficient basis for solidarity. Perhaps, as Sally Scholz (2008) has argued, the point is not that those in solidarity often share certain identity features, but rather that the moral content of solidarity is motivated in response to unjust political circumstances.

There is something odd about the notion that merely sharing an identity feature with someone else is a sufficient basis for solidarity.

Political solidarity – the kind of solidarity that exists in opposition to injustice – certainly makes explanatory sense as the motivating force behind the Black Panther’s “Community Survival Programs”, compared with shared identity features alone. As Tommie Shelby writes in his book, We Who Are Dark :

Traditionally, [black solidarity] has a dual basis, one positive and the other negative. The shared racial identity and cultural heritage of African Americans provide a foundation for black unity, and those in the ethnoracial community of African descent often seek to preserve and celebrate the group’s cultural distinctiveness through group loyalty, community intercourse, ritual and collective self-organization. On the negative side, the black experience of unjust treatment and discrimination has helped create strong bonds of identification. A common history of oppression and vulnerability to racism has engendered a need for political solidarity and group self-reliance, if only as a matter of defense in a non-ideal world.

Marginalized identity in opposition to oppressive forces plays a powerful role in generating solidaristic scenarios. And yet, it is equally clear that shared identity features are not the only basis for solidarity, nor does it necessarily imply solidarity. For instance, time, locality, and context matters: A Black waitress in New Orleans may not feel solidarity with a Black tradeswoman in Ghana simply because they’re both Black women. Since solidarity neither requires nor reduces to shared identity, what else could it mean to be in solidarity?

Solidarity as Fate-Sharing

Another interpretation is the notion that solidarity involves individuals with not only shared identity or political interests, but also a collective fate. As such, solidarity is the sense that a group might be emotionally bonded together by the notion that their fates are somehow tied. The sense of unity arises from the feeling that the group has a joint future which all involved must work together to secure.

While much of the Mutual Aid movement has typically focused on local aid distribution, solidarity as fate-sharing calls for a global example. The Movement for Black Lives – a coalition of 50 groups, including the Black Lives Matter network and other prominent Black organizations – has actively traded advice and social support with Palestinian activists (see, for example, Hansi Lo Wang’s 2021 article, “The Complicated History Behind BLM’s Solidarity With The Pro-Palestinian Movement”). A 2015 video created by activist groups the Dream Defenders, Black Youth Project 100, and the Institute for Middle East Understanding sets images of the Palestinian struggle side-by-side with the Black Lives Matter movement against police violence in the United States, while the narrator repeats: “When I see them, I see us”. Many Black activists view themselves as fate-sharing with Palestinian activists, bound together in the struggle for liberation within one inextricably linked network of oppression.

Solidarity transcends both race and locale, reaching across communities who perceive themselves to be in fellowship.

Solidarity in this case transcends both race and locale, reaching across communities who perceive themselves to be in fellowship. This iteration of solidarity is a reflection not only of self-identification (between two communities whose members perceive themselves to be experiencing a structurally parallel variety of oppression), but also of fate-sharing – your victory is my victory, your loss is my loss. To quote Martin Luther King Jr., “No one is free unless we are all free”.

Here solidarity is framed as an emotional bond between group members or even between groups in similar circumstances, emerging as a result of their collective decision to stand in opposition against unjust social conditions. However, the moral content of solidarity can extend beyond those who experience political marginalization. In the following section, I suggest that joint experience, regardless of one’s role in unjust social conditions, can inspire no less legitimate and normatively valuable forms of solidarity.

Solidarity as Fellow-Feeling

While some philosophers (such as Avery Kolers) reject the idea that fellow-feeling is either necessary or sufficient for solidarity, and others (such as Sally Scholz) worry that equating solidarity with attitudes like mere camaraderie – a positive feeling of association – drains it of its moral content, I contend that an interpersonal exchange about common experiences can be a sufficient basis for solidarity.

Recall that while it is most often associated with providing pro-bono goods and services, Mutual Aid also emphasizes care and the exchange of social support. In this sense, support groups such as Alcoholics Anonymous, grief groups, or even support networks for single parents are expressions of Mutual Aid. In groups such as these, the group member is able to express their own challenges or anxieties with others who can experience emotional reciprocity and provide validation.

Again, solidarity of this sort is engendered by a common struggle and a sense that you are “in it together,” but one need not be a member of a socially or politically marginalized group, or take any particular set of actions, in order be in solidarity with other group members.

In these cases, fellow-feeling is not reducible to mere camaraderie. Those within the group have a sharper understanding of what it is to face a particular set of challenges than non-member outsiders, e.g., the challenge of resisting an alcoholic impulse for someone in an Alcoholics Anonymous group. There is something substantial in relating one’s experience to others who can not only sympathize or even emphasize, but truly understand , because they have been there themselves .

Having one fundamental shared experience can knit social solidarity between the most diverse persons – those who may otherwise have nothing in common.

Having one fundamental shared experience can knit social solidarity between the most diverse persons – those who may otherwise have nothing in common. Consider a case where the grief group is for parents who have lost children. Those within this group may feel a profound sense of solidarity, even by merely being in the presence of others who experienced the same trauma that they, themselves, have. These cases of solidarity can thus reasonably be construed as a robust form of fellow-feeling.

Solidarity as Action

Critics will reply that having fellow-feeling – even of this robust sort – is not sufficient for solidarity. Solidarity, they argue, requires action . For, is one really in solidarity with another if they do not act as such? These philosophers will contend that solidarity is instantiated by appropriate action.

With this in mind, imagine a scenario in which a local boy has recently been diagnosed with leukaemia. After taking the recommended regimen of chemotherapy, he has lost his hair and become very self-conscious. Now imagine that unbeknownst to him, his basketball coach has organized the whole team to shave their own heads as an act of solidarity.

This example gives rise to an interesting question: Can an act of solidarity be merely symbolic? I do not see any reason to exclude those acts that cannot change or alter the negative circumstance, such as this boy’s leukaemia. After all, the value of solidarity is in the interpersonal exchange of support, not in its ability to produce positive consequences.

The value of solidarity is in the interpersonal exchange of support, not in its ability to produce positive consequences.

In his 2019 article, “Solidarity, Fate-Sharing, and Community”, Michael Zhao contends that being in solidarity sometimes entails participating in acts of deprivation. The motivation behind such acts, Zhao contends, is that solidarity includes “the thought that, in certain ways and to certain extents, what happens to part of the group should happen to the entire group. If certain members of my group are undergoing something bad, and I cannot make it so that they no longer undergo that thing, then I should undergo it with them”. Participating in solidarity is one normatively valuable response to a friend’s undesirable circumstance, especially if one cannot change those circumstances. The team cannot prevent their teammate’s leukeamia, but they can shave their own heads as an act of solidarity.

Some philosophers – Andrea Sangiovanni and Michael Bratman, for example – suggest that solidarity requires collective action, taken with others . This suggestion has the odd corollary that a pair might be too small of a unit to be in solidarity with each other. If merely one of the teammates shaved his head, rather than the team together, would that not also be an act of solidarity? Perhaps there is something about the team as a unit , participating together , which provides added heft. In that case, the team acting in solidarity together has some degree of solidarity over and above the acts of the individuals themselves. Even if this explains the goings on here, it seems wrong to suggest that a single teammate cannot act in solidarity with the ill boy in the event that the other teammates opt out. A relationship between two people is sufficient for an interpersonal exchange, which I see as the base unit of solidarity.

Solidarity as Commitment to Achieving Ends Still, there is a question about whether the acts, themselves, are a show of solidarity. Scholz has argued that the expression of solidarity is centred not on the acts, specifically, but in the act of uniting towards a particular end . She distinguishes between different types of solidarity within the sphere of political solidarity:

The cause or goal of political solidarity is broadly construed as justice or liberation, but social movements like political solidarity usually organize around a more concrete purpose as well. We can call these two layers of the goal or ends of political solidarity the formative and substantive ends. The formative ends, liberation or justice, serve as a sort of hopeful possibility for what collective action might accomplish if all the barriers that sustain oppression or injustice are removed. The substantive goals include all those specific barriers—such as gaining a just wage or fair working conditions, ending racial or domestic violence, removing the obstacles to full citizenship imposed on some people, bringing an end to the cultural or social exclusion felt by others, and so on (from Political Solidarity (2008)).

Kolers has criticized this teleological view in A Moral Theory of Solidarity , writing that the focus on ends over means overlooks the moral value of solidarity: “the meaning and justifying features of solidarity depend not on what you hope to achieve, but on which side you are on”.

Imagine that a local Mutual Aid group is committed to spending the weekend finding a replacement for an elderly woman’s broken oven. They call all over town and check all of the usual places, without luck. The value is in the fact that they committed to help the elderly woman, even though they are unsuccessful in attaining the end of a new oven. They committed themselves to being on her side. Accomplishing the goal is desirable, but it is not the primary focus of solidarity.

Conflicting Principles

Some will argue that a pluralistic account of solidarity is too unwieldy. Why juggle multiple, robust notions of solidarity of various degrees and kind when we can capture most of the scenarios described here with an action-based or political account of solidarity? These critics will contend that we can explain away the remaining cases (those that do not fit the mould) as morally irrelevant, or too thin to amount to solidarity.

In response, I reply that a pluralistic account of solidarity mirrors our ordinary use of the term – we do not tend to understand solidarity as a clean-cut phenomenon, distinctly this and not that. There is no one set of necessary and sufficient conditions for solidarity, and it is precisely this quality that makes solidarity so philosophically interesting. Individuals in solidarity with one another often hold differing priorities or values, and being open to a pluralistic account more accurately reflects this variation.

There is no one set of necessary and sufficient conditions for solidarity, and it is precisely this quality that makes solidarity so philosophically interesting.

There is also something rather objectionable about policing what really “counts” as solidarity and what doesn’t when we return to the level of practical engagement. What it means to commit to a cause or act in appropriate ways will be importantly relative to those involved and their situations.

For example, members of a Mutual Aid group may seek to be in solidarity with the local homeless population, whose camp is in danger of being disbanded by the local government. Some members may wish to express solidarity in political ways by making policy change or enacting local protections. Others may seek to establish social solidarity with the homeless population by setting up a coffee station, providing tarps, or warm clothing. Still others may camp out in their own tents, to demonstrate their commitment with the homeless against government intervention. And those without the time and resources to act might still be angry on their behalf, resenting injustices against their poorest neighbours.

Solidarity poses an interesting conceptual challenge for the philosopher, being at once vague and specific. Just what grounds solidarity or which factors act as the glue which hold members together will vary among different persons and contexts. With the help of some examples from the field of Mutual Aid, I have sought to identify a few of the many ways we might join in or express our solidarity with others.

Savannah Pearlman is an Associate Instructor at Indiana University – Bloomington, where she is completing her PhD in Philosophy. After becoming interested in Mutual Aid during the COVID pandemic, she authored an article on the topic for the American Philosophical Association Blog. She is also guest-editing a special issue of the Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal on Mutual Aid with Mark Lance (Georgetown) to be published this Spring. Website: savannahpearlman.com Twitter: @Savannah__P

Recent Posts

"The Value of Philosophy in a Market-Driven World": An Essay by Hossein Dabbagh (Keywords: Education; Humanities; Neoliberalism; Ethics; Critical Thinking; Social Justice)

"Circling Back to the University: Public Philosophy and Pedagogy in the 21st Century": An Essay by Aaron James Wendland (Keywords: Academia; Ethics; Ukraine War; Emmanuel Levinas)

"Alexandre Kojève and Universal Emancipation": An Essay by Jeff Love (Keywords: Hegel; Master-Slave; Freedom; Servitude; Biography)

Solidarity and strategy: the forgotten lessons of truly effective protest

Organising is a kind of alchemy: it turns alienation into connection, despair into dedication, and oppression into strength

‘N othing appears more surprising to those, who consider human affairs with a philosophical eye, than the easiness with which the many are governed by the few; and the implicit submission, with which men resign their own sentiments and passions to those of their rulers,” the Scottish philosopher David Hume wrote in his 1777 essay Of the First Principles of Government. Centuries later, his observation still holds. Despite having numbers on our side, the vast majority of people continue to be dominated by a small subset of the population. Why?

Today, an oligarchic minority rules because they have extreme wealth. The 2022 World Inequality Report found that the richest 10% today take over 52% of all income, leaving the poorest half just 8.5%. The same year, the bottom half of US citizens, or more than 160 million people, held a mere 2% of the country’s total wealth. An upper class owns most of the land and capital, which allows them, in turn, to exert control over politics and pass on enormous fortunes to their offspring, effectively establishing a modern-day aristocracy.

In opposition to the power of money stands the power of the many – at least in theory. In practice, things are more complicated. As Hume noted long ago, power does not flow from sheer numbers alone. What matters is not merely absolute numbers but organi sed numbers. Without solidarity and organisation, numerical advantage doesn’t mean much. It doesn’t matter if there are thousands of workers and only a handful of bosses if those workers lack a union, or if there are millions of citizens and one dictator if people are too atomised and afraid to try to topple the regime.

Yet history has shown time and again that even a proportionally small number of people, if they are well organised, can have an outsized effect. People getting organised is what brought down slavery and Jim Crow, outlawed child labour in the US and elsewhere, and overthrew the legal subjugation of women. If it wasn’t for people acting in concert, universal suffrage would not exist, and neither would the eight-hour workday or the weekend. There would be no entitlement to basic wages, unemployment insurance, or social services, including public education. It would still be a crime to be gay or trans. Women would still be under the thumb of their husbands and at the mercy of sexist employers, and abortion would never have been legalised, however tenuously. Disabled people would lack basic civil rights. The environment would be totally unprotected and even more polluted. Without collective action, colonised people would never have ousted their oppressors, Indigenous people would not have survived attacks from genocidal settlers, and apartheid would not have been overthrown.

Often, the powerful like to take credit for social change after the fact, portraying progress as the inevitable result of economic development and enlightened, beneficent leadership. We praise President Franklin Delano Roosevelt for forging the New Deal, with its wealth of social programmes and labour protections, instead of paying tribute to the militant labour movement that forced his administration’s hand, inflicting real costs on bosses and investors through thousands of work stoppages, picket lines and strikes. Similarly, the civil rights legislation of the 1960s did not come about because of Lyndon B Johnson’s bravery, but rather because a militant and well-organised minority fought boldly against a hostile and often violent majority, pushing them to shift their behaviours, if not their beliefs.

Throughout the first half of the 20th century, the labour movement and the civil rights movement had a complex relationship, but ultimately collaboration strengthened them both. The 1963 March on Washington was a march for “jobs and freedom”, and many of the signs held aloft during that historic gathering bore the stamp of the trade unions that helped fund the event and provided critical logistical support. In the decades that followed, there was a steep decline in the membership bases of unions and civic associations, as the right wing began a concerted campaign to undermine their legal ability to organise.

Scholars have since documented the way the late 20th century was, for the activist left, characterised by a shift to a shallow, professional and often philanthropically funded model of “advocacy”, one that elevates self-appointed leaders and elite experts to speak on behalf of constituencies to whom they are not directly accountable. Rather than organising people to fight for themselves, these groups promote professionals who attempt to exert influence inside the halls of power. Instead of protests, they publish white papers; in place of strikes, they circulate statements; instead of cultivating solidarity, they seek access to decision-makers.

These kinds of elite strategies can occasionally produce positive results, but the approach is often counterproductive, and certainly not democratic. This top-down approach puts its faith in the persuasive abilities of a tiny few, and denies the fact that politics is a power struggle – and that engaging and organising more people gives your position more leverage.

The sociologist Theda Skocpol uses the phrase “diminished democracy” to describe this shift from membership to management-led initiatives. A similar trend of diminishing democracy is apparent in the growing number of people who think of themselves as allies or activists, but who are not connected to political organisations. Millions of concerned citizens support social justice causes – they want an end to racism, a shift toward ecological sustainability, better treatment for workers, and so on – and they raise awareness by sharing on social media, committing random acts of kindness, voting for progressive candidates and showing up at rallies. And yet, they are not actually organised.

T he diminished organisational capacity in American civic life is reflected in the weakness of social movements that appear, on the surface, to be robust. The 21st century has witnessed the biggest protests, and the most popular petitions, in history, yet they have produced comparatively small effects . On 15 February 2003, across the world, an estimated 10 million people came out in opposition to the impending war in Iraq. Since then, in the US, protests have only become bigger. In 2017, the Women’s March, held the day after Donald Trump’s inauguration, attracted an estimated 5 million people, taking part in at least 400 actions worldwide, from large cities to small towns. In the autumn of 2019, teenagers called for a global climate strike, which inspired more than 6 million people to protest at 4,500 locations in 150 countries. In 2020, the protests against racism and police brutality continued the trend, rapidly becoming the largest movement in the country’s history. After the murder of George Floyd, an estimated 15 to 26 million people demonstrated nationwide over a one-month period.

Of course, there is much to cheer about here, especially when people move from the sidelines to the streets. During the anti-police brutality protests of 2020, half of those who protested reported that it was their first time ever doing so.

But we’ve seen again and again that size alone doesn’t guarantee success. President George W Bush dismissed the anti-war actions as a “focus group”, and barrelled ahead with an illegal war that would cost more than 1 million lives ; protesters never unleashed the kind of sustained resistance that played a role in ending the war in Vietnam. The Women’s March protests were meaningful and inspiring to the participants, and offered a vital outlet for dissent that fed the electoral energy that deposed Donald Trump, but failed to deeply shift policy or the patriarchal status quo. The youth leaders of the global climate strike hoped for something more confrontational – teenage organiser implored adult allies to walk off the job and escalate the fight – but the few grownups who skipped work didn’t do so in a coordinated fashion. If the adults had organised as the teenagers did and halted business as usual around the world, more might have come of it. The racial justice protests of 2020 were historic and changed the terms of the national debate, and many local groups and electoral campaigns harnessed the movement’s momentum to important effect – but the scale of these victories hardly matches the massive outcry and depth of public support the numbers in the streets indicate. What might have happened had a larger fraction of the tens of millions who demonstrated been channelled into member-based organisations to work toward common goals?

Elsewhere in the world we see a similar problem. The protests of the Arab spring brought out huge numbers of people across the Middle East, from Tunisia and Egypt to Bahrain and Syria. The numbers sparked significant political consequences in some cases, but the lack of organisation around clear alternatives meant that the results were not necessarily improvements. Syria devolved into a devastating and protracted civil war; Egypt saw its authoritarian leader resign, only to eventually be replaced by a military dictatorship; Tunisia was the lone nation in the region that adopted democracy, but a decade after the 2011 protests, its president was already reconsolidating power , expanding his executive powers, and diminishing checks and balances, undermining the reforms that the revolution initiated.

Uprisings can sometimes create a mirage of popular power, but without the organisation, strategy and vision necessary to influence what follows, the presence of large numbers is insufficient to produce transformative results, leaving more disciplined and mercenary formations to fill the void.

I t’s worth lingering on this dilemma, because it is tempting to think that the problem is that our movements aren’t big enough. This is where the question of organisation comes in. It’s not enough to pursue numbers alone. If material transformation is your goal, it may well be better to have a dozen staunch supporters than 1,000 fair-weather friends; 100 dedicated organisers will probably accomplish more than 100,000 email contacts or retweets.

Consider what it took to compose and deliver a petition two centuries ago. In 1839, the London Working Men’s Association presented a People’s Charter to the British parliament, demanding electoral reforms including universal male suffrage and annual elections. They gathered more than 1,280,000 names , representing workers of every imaginable occupation and background, on a massive scroll that was three miles long. Simply transporting it across town was a feat that demonstrated the dedication and ingenuity of the ringleaders, and the depth of popular support. When the petition was rejected by parliament, public outcry inspired organisers to try again. They presented a second charter in May 1842, signed by more than 3 million people, which was also ignored, and then a third petition delivered in 1848. Today, the UK parliament’s official website recounts this history , noting that while the Chartist movement formally disbanded before it succeeded, it helped catalyse change, including the electoral reform bills of 1867 and 1884, and that by 1918 “five of the Chartists’ six demands had been achieved”. Today, a million virtual petition signatures are an indication of good digital marketing skills, not the devotion of the organisers or the signatories to a cause.

This is why labour unions are so critically important. They organise people to come together in the real world and to engage in a series of collective actions that ultimately can’t be ignored. At their best, unions facilitate collective discipline and long-haul dedication, enabling people to use a clear form of leverage: the withholding of labour.

To make a real and lasting mark, transformative solidarity must involve expanding the number of supporters while also strengthening the relationships between participants. Consider the civil rights movement. Today, everyone knows about the Montgomery bus boycott led by Rosa Parks, but few realise it lasted 381 days , and we rarely acknowledge the years of organising that laid the groundwork, nor do we recall earlier efforts that helped hone the boycott in Montgomery, including the Baton Rouge bus boycott of 1953 . Similarly, we have vague inklings that the suffragettes struggled to secure the right to vote, but we often fail to grasp the tireless decades of meetings, planning and petitioning, or we forget the fact that their tactics included property destruction : bombing, arson and breaking windows. These organisers didn’t confine themselves to civil debate, or seek unity with racist and patriarchal authorities who viewed Black people and women as subhuman. They engaged in an unremitting, high-stakes confrontation.

A n excellent example of the power of radical imagination in building transformative solidarity is the movement for disability justice. The idea that disabled people occupy a distinct social category first began to take shape amid the large-scale social changes of the 19th-century industrial era. This was the period when workers began to see themselves as a cohesive group with a unique form of social power, and when women and also gay people, particularly gay men, began to understand themselves in new ways.

Something similar was true of disabled people. Of course, mentally and physically impaired people have always existed, but the nature of the barriers and prejudice disabled people face, as well as the ways disability is understood, have changed as underlying conditions have evolved. While religious superstition and persecution of disabled people were common during the middle ages, preindustrial economies also permitted many people with a disability to contribute to their household’s economic survival; they lived and worked alongside family members at home or in nearby farms and workshops, doing tasks that their bodies could accomplish. As production industrialised, this ceased to be the case. Piecework and factory lines demanded rote precision, and people’s bodies were increasingly valued for their ability to make precise mechanical movements. “Industrial capitalism thus created not only a class of proletarians but also a new class of ‘disabled’ who did not conform to the standard worker’s body and whose labour-power was effectively erased, excluded from paid work,” observe scholars Marta Russell and Ravi Malhotra. “As a result, disabled persons came to be regarded as a social problem and a justification emerged for segregating them out of mainstream life and into a variety of institutions, including workhouses, asylums, prisons, colonies and special schools.”

In a world of rapidly increasing inequality and cutthroat competition, disability came to signify dependence and inferiority as eugenicist ideas gained ground. Social Darwinism, a popular form of eugenics thinking in the 19th century, rationalised discrimination against people with physical and mental impairments as well as other marginalised populations, to whom disabilities were attributed. Women, Black people, Jewish people, gay people and immigrants were all said to lack the physical and mental capacities required for full equality and inclusion – they were emotional, feeble-minded, degenerate, diseased and so on. Sadly, members of these groups too often reinforced the ableist stigma, distancing themselves from disabled people in an attempt to assert their full humanity and prove their relative worth.

Given these pervasive prejudices and other barriers, it’s no wonder solidarity was slow to build among (and with) disabled people. And yet, if there is any oppressed group that has numbers on its side, it ispeople with disabilities, who make up the world’s largest minority – and a growing one, given the fact that every able-bodied person lucky to live long enough faces the prospect of joining those ranks. (One might imagine that would be grounds for a robust alliance of the able-bodied and disabled, yet the typical attitude of the able-bodied toward disabled people remains pity, not solidarity.)

In the 1970s, the disability justice movement took off in earnest when people began to apply insights from the movement for racial equality to their own lives: perhaps they too were part of a constituency that was also entitled to civil rights? The mere possibility of a world that embraced every individual, regardless of physical or mental ability or health, provided motivation.

Part of the challenge, in those early days, was that many disabled people didn’t necessarily identify as such. Instead, they saw themselves as individuals with distinctive embodiments or medical conditions. It wasn’t obvious to people with different impairments that they were part of the same “Us”. For solidarity to develop between a deaf person, a blind person, a person with cerebral palsy, a person with polio, a person missing a limb, a person with Down’s syndrome, and a person with autism or another form of neurodivergence, a shift in consciousness was required, an act of radical imagination.

In the early days of the disability rights movement, organising work was even more challenging than it is today. Countless obstacles blocked the way, many of them physical, such as the existence of stairs where there could be a ramp. Even when disabled individuals embraced solidarity in principle, they had a difficult time physically joining with others to put their values into practice. When the call for disability rights first rang out, dropped kerbs and wheelchair lifts on public buses were rare or nonexistent in the US, and channels of communications were similarly inaccessible, which meant getting the word out could be as hard as getting out into the streets. Fortunately, activists understood that a small number of participants could have an outsised impact if they used the right tactics and had the right strategy. And so they began coordinated and confrontational campaigns of civil disobedience to vividly dramatise their oppression and demand public services and equal protection under the law.

In 1977 in San Francisco, about 150 disabled radicals occupied the fourth floor of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare for 25 days. “Blind people, deaf people, wheelchair users, disabled veterans, people with developmental and psychiatric disabilities and many others, all came together,” leader Judith Heumann later recalled . “We overcame years of parochialism.”

The demonstrators held their ground despite great physical discomfort – the space was not meant to be lived in, and certainly not by people with a wide range of functional needs – and demanded that officials clarify and enforce existing rules protecting disabled people from discrimination under certain circumstances. Knowledgable disabled spokespeople sparred with lawmakers about legislative proposals in televised broadcasts, and the organisers sent a delegation to Washington to further lobby officials. Brad Lomax, a member of the Black Panther Party who had multiple sclerosis, was responsible for the party bringing hot meals to the sit-in each day. The pivotal protest helped strengthen government regulations and provided an example for organisers around the country to follow. In Denver the next year, 19 disabled activists, the Gang of 19, got out of their wheelchairs and lay down to stop traffic , demanding accessible public transportation. That event directly led to the creation of the Americans Disabled for Accessible Public Transit, Adapt, which organised similar protests across the country and brought a further degree of militancy and national visibility to the movement.

O nce disabled people began to organise to build transformative solidarity, they changed the landscape of the US at an astonishing pace. In 1990, the Americans with Disabilities Act was passed, a groundbreaking piece of legislation that, in many ways, is more far-reaching than its civil rights-era predecessor, for it requires not only that establishments open their doors to previously excluded groups, but that they remake the entrance, widening the frame and adding a ramp or an elevator.

Today, we take dropped kerbs, wheelchair lifts, accessible bathroom stalls and closed captioning for granted, but each of these adaptations was hard-won. During the lead-up to the ADA’s passage, disabled activists secured critical support from key Republican officials, finding common ground with individual politicians who had disabled loved ones whose rights they felt called to protect. At the same time, activists refused to play into attempts to divide and conquer by homophobic conservative politicians who wanted the legislation to deny protections for people with HIV and Aids. Society has been dramatically transformed as a result of strategic organising by disabled people who imagined a world where discrimination wasn’t sanctioned by the state, and where people with a wide range of embodiments would be able to move around not only unimpeded, but actively and creatively assisted.

Where disability rights are concerned, incredible progress has been made, but much remains to be done. Today, resources are funnelled into youth- and life-extension therapies, instead of into planning for the unavoidable reality of human difference, ageing and fragility. We obsess over personal wellness while sidelining the issue of public health. We focus on cures for impairments and illness, when we should also work to make the world more hospitable to those who are disabled or unwell. Meanwhile, we fail to examine how our economic system maims and sickens millions – think repetitive stress injuries on the job, how poverty negatively impacts mental health, or asthma or cancer caused by poisoned air – while denying people treatment and care.

Instead of submitting to this injury and devaluation, we should heed disability theorist Alison Kafer’s call to organise toward what she calls an “accessible future” – one that values and makes space for a multitude of bodies and modes of moving, thinking and being. As some early theorists of solidarity recognised more than a century ago, we are all interdependent, and we all begin and often end our lives in states of total dependency. Instead of marginalising disabled people and vilifying vulnerability, a society founded on the principle of solidarity would understand human variation and mutual reliance as the basis of a decent and desirable society.

T he kind of solidarity required to secure a more accessible and inclusive future will not appear spontaneously. It needs to be organised into being. Real organising is a kind of alchemy: a process that turns alienation into connection, despair into dedication, and oppression into strength while fashioning a whole that is stronger than its parts.

Again and again, people build solidarity and leave the world a better place, as the examples of movements for labour, civil and disability rights all show. And yet we still struggle to tell these inherently collective stories. Too often the tale of “Us” gets whittled down into a tale of an “I” – a story about a visionary liberator or self-sacrificing saint who changed the world. We turn a handful of protesters and rebels into icons, but hear comparatively little about the organising communities that shaped and supported them, or the ones that they tried to build to carry their efforts forward.

Our simplifying, celebrity-obsessed culture distorts the legacies of talented organisers and historical figures while also amplifying a handful of contemporary telegenic activists – the latter too often possessing a knack for social media and self-promotion, but lacking a commitment to an organised base they are accountable to. This emphasis on lone heroes is a kind of flipside to the fixation on increasing numbers for their own sake, or on notching bigger protests rather than better ones. An unhelpful binary emerges as a result: social movements are imagined to consist of charismatic individuals on the one side and nameless masses on the other.

But real organising is something else entirely. Every successful effort to challenge the status quo has required a multitude of people playing a wide range of roles. Allowing for this diversity is one way to grow both numbers and meaningful organisation. When we come together in an organised fashion – forging new self-conceptions, embracing radical visions and acting strategically – we can wield the power of numbers to disrupt business as usual, wrest concessions and pave the way for future victories.

Adapted from Solidarity: The Past, Present, and Future of a World-Changing Idea , published by Pantheon Books

• The long read
• Civil rights movement
• US politics

Most viewed

Advertisement

Social justice: the path to unity

• Original Paper
• Published: 21 July 2022
• Volume 2 , article number  128 , ( 2022 )

Cite this article

• Sylvie Bláhová   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7673-7290 1  

109 Accesses

Explore all metrics

Recent debates on social justice have focused mainly on cultural issues. Increasing economic inequalities, especially in the developed world, have demonstrated that socioeconomic issues have not lost their importance. I argue that for social justice to be achieved, both the cultural and socioeconomic spheres need to be considered. These two approaches to social justice interpret the default principle of equality differently: while adherents of the cultural approach understand equality as the recognition of differences, proponents of the socioeconomic approach emphasize universal equal treatment. The paper consequently claims that applying both approaches to social justice can help respond to the shortcomings of exclusively focusing on cultural issues. Emphasizing both paradigms not only acknowledges the interconnection of socioeconomic and cultural issues and provides an adequate response to increasing socioeconomic inequalities, but it also helps address social division: because the socioeconomic paradigm is based on the universalist assumption of equal treatment, it provides a sense of unity. Accordingly, I argue that a sense of unity is crucial for both approaches to justice: without unity neither socioeconomic justice nor cultural justice can be attained.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Introduction: Equality as a Multifaceted Concept

Social and Global Justice

Recognition and Redistribution in Theories of Justice Beyond the State

Peterson further develops his arguments in his most recent book, Beyond Order .

(1) Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty of others; (2) Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both (a) reasonably expected to be everyone’s advantage, and (b) attached to positions of offices open to all (Rawls 1999 ).

See also Miller ( 1976 ), Ackerman ( 1980 ), Carens ( 1981 ), Arneson ( 1990 ), Cohen ( 1997 ).

Young ( 1990 ) conceptualizes five types of oppression: exploitation, marginalization, powerlessness, cultural imperialism, and violence.

Taylor ( 1994 ) claims that “nonrecognition or misrecognition can inflict harm, can be a form of oppression, imprisoning someone in a false, distorted and reduced mode of being.”

Patrimonial capitalism means that capital—and thus economic power—is in the hands of those who have inherited wealth (Piketty 2014 ).

See also Atkinson ( 2015 ), Dabla-Norris et al. ( 2015 ), Vaughan-Whitehead ( 2016 ), OECD ( 2019 ).

Multidimensional poverty is determined by the following characteristics: low household income, limited education, no health insurance, residence in a low-income area, and unemployment.

Proponents of intersectionality argue in the same vein: without deeper consideration of the broader context, there is a danger of taking into account only some of a group’s members, typically those who are most privileged (Powers and Faden 2019 ; see also Cho, Crenshaw and McCall 2013 ; Hancock 2016 ; Carastathis 2016 ).

Ford and Goodwin ( 2014 ) have labeled these socioeconomic groups the “left-behinds.”

As Davidson and Saull ( 2016 ) demonstrate in their research, explanations for social problems such as economic marginalization are increasingly based on arguments centered on cultural identities and practices.

See also Davidson and Saull ( 2016 ).

As Fukuyama ( 2018 ) writes, “African-Americans continue to be objects of police violence, and women continue to be assaulted and harassed.”

Authenticity is one of Taylor’s central concepts. Taylor understands authenticity as being true to oneself. He connects authenticity with identity, arguing that our deepest selves are shaped by our relationship with others and our commitments and values. Authenticity substantiates that everyone has their own way of being human, which should be the basis of respect (Taylor 1994 ).

Subsuming both spheres of justice to one concept was an initial aim of Young, who framed both socioeconomic and cultural issues in a unified concept of power. She, however, overlooked that if we frame both socioeconomic and cultural issues by the concept of power, the explanation of socioeconomic themes—and the way of reversing power relations—would be different from the cultural ones. Recently, Powers and Faden ( 2019 ) have provided an interesting alternative to Young’s approach. Specifically, they base their theory of justice on a concept of well-being, which is able to cover a wider range of people’s deprivation. Powers and Faden’s theory thus stands somewhere in between the Young’s theory and the capability approach.

A specific view of this topic has been provided by Adolph Reed Jr. As argued above, Reed ( 2018 ; 2021 ) criticizes identity politics and claims that focusing on race only serves to suppress class politics “in the interest of both white and black political elites.” Nevertheless, while it is true that a wealthy Black banker can benefit from the system socioeconomically—and can thus promote capitalism—this does not mean that he is recognized at the sociocultural level. Hence, the problem with Reed’s approach is that he focuses on just one dimension of justice—that is, the socioeconomic issues—that he says determines other spheres. However, the socioeconomic position does not necessarily have consequences for the sociocultural level. Nancy Fraser ( 2003 ) mentions just the example of “the African-American Wall Street banker who cannot get a taxi to pick him up.”

As Barry ( 1995 ) explains it, “income is the stuff whose distribution is the subject of attributions of fairness.”

Habermas ( 1987 ) distinguishes between the lifeworld and the system. He defines the lifeworld as the horizon of understanding and possible interactions: the lifeworld determines the norms that structure our daily interactions. The system refers to strategic actions that serves the interests of institutions and organizations (mainly markets and bureaucracies).

According to Habermas ( 1987 ), “communicative actions are not only processes of interpretation in which cultural knowledge is “tested against the world”; they are at the same time processes of social integration and socialization. The lifeworld is “tested” in quite a different manner in these latter dimensions: these tests are not measured directly against criticizable validity claims or standards of rationality, but against standards for the solidarity of members and for the identity of socialized individuals.”

If we are to apply this to practical politics, then it can be said that it is actually the Sandersian type of politics—focusing on socioeconomic issues—that has the potential to be the basis of unity. However, this does not mean that the sociocultural level of justice is less important: both levels are equally important and cannot be reduced to each other. Still, it is true that, given the premise of universality and unity, the socioeconomic level is crucial for mutual communication and thus influence the character of debates also at the sociocultural level.

Ackerman BA (1980) Social justice and the liberal state. Yale University Press, New Haven

Google Scholar  

America’s Women and the Wage Gap (2021). In: National Partnership for Women & Families. Available from https://www.nationalpartnership.org/our-work/resources/economic-justice/fair-pay/americas-women-and-the-wage-gap.pdf . Accessed 27 Mar 2021

Arneson RJ (1990) Liberalism, distributive subjectivism, and equal opportunity for welfare. Philos Public Aff 19(2):158–194

Atkinson AB (2015) Inequality: what can be done? Harvard University Press, Cambridge, London

Book   Google Scholar  

Bahls C (2011) Health policy brief. In: Health Affairs. Available from https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hpb20111006.957918/full/healthpolicybrief_53.pdf . Accessed 26 Mar 2021

Barroso A, Parker K, Bennett K (2020) As Millennials Near 40, They’re Approaching Family Life Differently Than Previous Generations. In: Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2020/05/27/asmillennials-near-40-theyre-approaching-family-life-differently-than-previous-generations/

Barry B (1995) Justice as impartiality: a treatise on social justice, vol II. Clarendon Press, Oxford

Barry B (2001) Culture and equality: an egalitarian critique of multiculturalism. Polity Press, Cambridge

Braveman PA, Cubbin C, Egerter S, Williams DR, Pamuk E (2010) Socioeconomic disparities in health in the united states: what the patterns tell us. Am J Public Health 200(1):186–196

Article   Google Scholar  

Cancian M, Reed D (2009) Family structure, childbearing, and parental employment: implications for the level and trend in poverty. Focus 26(2):21–26

Carastathis A (2016) Intersectionality: origins, contestations, horizons. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln

Carens J (1981) Equality, moral incentives, and the market: an essay in utopian politico-economic theory. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago

Cawthorne A (2008) The straight facts on women in poverty. In: Center for AmericanProgress. Available from https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/issues/2008/10/pdf/women_poverty.pdf?_ga=2.154277243.215529476.1618295398-1221413766.1618295398 . Accessed 27 Mar 2021

Chambers S (2020) Truth, deliberative democracy, and the virtues of accuracy: is fake news destroying the public sphere? Political Stud 69(1):147–163

Children in Poverty by Race and Ethnicity in the United States (2019). In: Kids Count Data Center. Available from https://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tables/44-children-in-poverty-by-race-and-ethnicity#detailed/1/any/false/1729,37,871,870,573,869,36,868,867,133/10,11,9,12,1,185,13/324,323 . Accessed 27 Mar 2021

Cho S, Crenshaw KW, McCall L (2013) Toward a field of intersectionality studies: theory, application, and praxis. Signs 38(4):785–810

Cohen GA (1997) Where the action is: on the site of distributive justice. Philos Public Aff 26(1):3–30

Dabla-Norris E, Kochhar K, Suphaphiphat N, Ricka F, Tsounta E (2015) Causes and consequences of income inequality: a global perspective. In: International Monetary Fund. Available from https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2015/sdn1513.pdf . Accessed 26 Mar 2021

Davidson N, Saull R (2016) Neoliberalism and the far-right: a contradictory embrace. Crit Sociol 43(4–5):707–724

Dworkin R (1981a) What is equality? Part 1: equality of resources. Philos Public Aff 10:185–246

Dworkin R (1981b) What is equality? Part 2: equality of welfare. Philos Public Aff 10:283–345

Fins, A (2019) National Snapshot: Poverty among Women & Families, 2019. In: National Women's Law Center. https://nwlc.org//wp-content/uploads/2019/10/PovertySnapshot2019-2.pdf

Fiscella K, Franks P, Gold MR, Clancy CM (2000) Inequality in quality: addressing socioeconomic, racial, and ethnic disparities in health care. Policy Perspect 283(19):2579–2584

Ford R, Goodwin M (2014) Revolt on the right: explaining support for the radical right in Britain. Routledge, New York

Fraser N (1997) Culture, political economy, and difference: on Iris young’s justice and the politics of difference. In: Fraser N (ed) Justice interruptus: critical reflection on the ‘Postsocialist’ condition. Routledge, New York, pp 189–205

Fraser N (2003) Social justice in the age of identity politics: redistribution, recognition, and participation. In: Fraser N, Honneth A (eds) Redistribution or recognition? A political-philosophical exchange. Verso, London, New York, pp 7–109

Fukuyama F (2018) Identity: the demands for dignity and the politics of resentment. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York

Gutmann A (2003) Identity in democracy. Princeton University Press, Princeton and Oxford

Habermas J (1987) The theory of communicative action, volume two: lifeworld, and system: a critique of functionalist reason. Beacon Press, Boston

Hancock AM (2016) Intersectionality: an intellectual history. Oxford University Press, New York

Heyes C (2020) Identity politics. In: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Available from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity-politics/ . Accessed 15 Apr 2021

Jones J, Schmitt J (2014) A college degree is no guarantee. In: Center for Economic and Policy Research. Available from https://www.cepr.net/documents/black-coll-grads-2014-05.pdf . Accessed 27 Mar 2021

Kymlicka W (1995) Multicultural Citizenship: A Liberal Theory of Minority Rights. Oxford University Press, Oxford

Lamont J, Favor Ch (2017) Distributive justice. In: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Available from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justice-distributive/ . Accessed 19 Apr 2021

Lilla M (2018) The once and future liberal: after identity politics. HarperCollins Publishers, New York

Milanovic B (2016) Global inequality: a new approach for the age of globalization. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

Miller D (1976) Social justice. Oxford University Press, Oxford

Miller D (2002) Cosmopolitanism: a critique. Crit Rev Int Soc Pol Phil 5(3):80–85

Piketty T (2014) Capital in the twenty-first century. The Belknap Press, Cambridge, London

Plato (1979) Gorgias: clarendon Plato series. Oxford University Press, Oxford

Powers M, Faden R (2019) structural injustice: power, advantage, and human rights. Oxford University Press, Oxford

Rawls J (1999) A theory of justice, Revised. The Belknap Press, Cambridge

Reed A Jr (2021) Why black lives matter Can’t be Co-opted. In: Nonsite.org . Available from https://nonsite.org/why-black-lives-matter-cant-be-co-opted/ . Accessed 8 May 2022

Reed A Jr, Legette W (2018) The role of race in contemporary U.S. politics: V.O. key’s enduring insight. In: Nonsite.org. Available from https://nonsite.org/the-role-of-race-in-contemporary-u-s-politics/ . Accessed 8 May 2022

Reeves R, Rodrigue E, Kneebone E (2016) Five evils: multidimensional poverty and race in America. In: Center on Children and Families at Brookings. Available from https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/ReevesKneeboneRodrigue_MultidimensionalPoverty_FullPaper.pdf . Accessed 27 Mar 2021

Rorty R (1998) Achieving our country: leftist thought in twentieth-century America. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, London

Rorty R (1999) Philosophy and social hope. Penguin Books, London

Spar DL (2020) Work, mate, marry, love: how machines shape our human destiny. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York

Taylor Ch (1994) The politics of recognition. In: Gutmann A (ed) Multiculturalism: examining the politics of recognition. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 25–73

Chapter   Google Scholar  

The Gender Pay Gap Situation in the EU (2018). In: European Commission. Available from https://ec.europa.eu/info/policies/justice-and-fundamental-rights/gender-equality/equal-pay/gender-pay-gap-situation-eu_en . Accessed 26 Mar 2021

Under Pressure: The Squeezed Middle Class (2019). In: OECD. Available from https://www.oecd.org/els/soc/OECD-middle-class-2019-main-findings.pdf . Accessed 10 Mar 2021

Vaccari C, Chadwick A (2020) Deepfakes and disinformation: exploration of the impact of synthetic political videos on deception, uncertainty, and trust in news. Soc Med Soc 6(1):1–13

Van Parijs P (2004) Cultural diversity versus economic solidarity. De Boeck, Brussels

Vaughan-Whitehead D (2016) Europe’s disappearing middle class? Evidence from the world of work. In: International Labour Office. Available from https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/---dcomm/documents/publication/wcms_630642.pdf . Accessed 9 Mar 2021

Williams DR, Mohammed SA (2013) Racism and health I: pathways and scientific evidence. Am Behav Sci 57(8):1152–1173

Young IM (1990) Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton University Press, Princeton

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Political Science of the University of Hradec Králové, Rokitanského 62, 500 03, Hradec Králové, Czech Republic

Sylvie Bláhová

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sylvie Bláhová .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

I hereby declare that I am not subject to any conflict of interest.

Research involving human and/or animal participants

My research does not involve human participants and animals.

Informed consent

I express my informed consent to the handling of my manuscript according to the rules of the journal.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Bláhová, S. Social justice: the path to unity. SN Soc Sci 2 , 128 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43545-022-00418-4

Download citation

Received : 30 December 2021

Accepted : 02 July 2022

Published : 21 July 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s43545-022-00418-4

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Social justice
• Redistribution
• Recognition
• Social cohesion
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

What is solidarity? During coronavirus and always, it’s more than ‘we’re all in this together’

Professor of Curriculum & Pedagogy, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto

Disclosure statement

Rubén A. Gaztambide-Fernández does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

University of Toronto provides funding as a founding partner of The Conversation CA.

University of Toronto provides funding as a member of The Conversation CA-FR.

View all partners

• Bahasa Indonesia

Medical researchers around the world are involved in an unprecedented collaboration to test experimental treatments for COVID-19. When Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the director-general of the World Health Organization, announced the initiative in mid-March, he called it the “ solidarity trial .”

Across the globe, local expressions of solidarity appear to be spreading as individuals take it upon themselves to act on behalf of others in need.

From the WHO to government leaders and citizen actions , expressions of solidarity may appear to be a good and common-sense response to the crisis . Yet, as American author Barbara Ehrenreich suggests, fascists, religious zealots or nations at war also unite in solidarity to advance their agendas. Some groups can mobilize solidarity for destructive purposes .

While solidarity may be a fundamental human need, the meaning of solidarity and what it requires of us is elusive. In my work, I explore how realizing solidarity depends on education. Teaching for solidarity requires relationships, intentions and actions grounded in explicit ethical and political commitments . I am interested in how the values that underpin these commitments define the differences between “us” and “them.”

Whether we are confronting a pandemic, global warming, income inequality, racism or gender-based violence, solidarity depends on how we come together. It is defined by how we understand and enact our responsibilities to, and relationships with, each other.

Equally responsible for a debt

The word solidarity has its roots in the Roman law of obligation that held a group of people bound together — in solidum — as equally responsible for a debt. The contemporary uses of the concept go back to the French Revolution and the ideal of human solidarity articulated by philosopher and “ champion of socialism ,” Pierre Leroux.

Read more: Crimes of solidarity: liberté, égalité and France’s crisis of fraternité

For Leroux, solidarity was necessary for human well-being and flourishing. But in their 1848 Communist Manifesto , Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels conceptualized solidarity as an expression of the shared experience and specific political needs of the working class.

Solidarity has also been a central concept in Catholic social teachings since the end of the 19th century. It figures prominently in liberation theology, in which solidarity and communion with the poor is a fundamental spiritual commitment .

This brief history illustrates that solidarity depends on some idea of what it means to be “us.” In my forthcoming book, I explore the educational challenges that arise when people invoke solidarity in colonial societies.

I examine what happens when solidarity is contingent on others being more like us, thinking more like us and believing what we believe.

Universalistic solidarity

German philosopher Kurt Bayertz points to four uses of the concept of solidarity .

The first, universalistic solidarity, suggests all human beings have a moral duty to work together for the benefit of all. This is implied whenever someone says “ we’re all in this together .”

While compelling, this view of solidarity ignores differences and potential conflict between the needs and values of different groups. It overshadows how the impact of a crisis isn’t equal among different groups .

Civic solidarity

The essence of civic solidarity is that we don’t necessarily have a personal relationship with those on whose behalf we take action. Civic solidarity involves an indirect commitment through taxes or charity contributions . Practising physical distancing is also an act of civic solidarity.

Lacking a personal sense of connection to and reciprocity with those who benefit from civic solidarity can undermine solidarity efforts , which may lead to the need for legal enforcement .

Social solidarity

Bayertz’s third use, social solidarity, refers to how societies stick together, but also to how certain groups act together as a community to protect their interests.

Maclean’s magazine contributing editor Stephen Maher suggests that in the United States, Donald Trump supporters’ acceptance of the president’s early response to the virus, which downplayed its possible impact, reflected low levels of social solidarity .

But this is misleading. Trump’s right-wing conservative supporters don’t lack social solidarity. Rather, their sense of solidarity coheres around a commitment to ideals of freedom from restrictions and protecting their financial resources and investments as a way to ensure their own well-being.

Likewise, there is a strong sense of solidarity among conservative religious groups that rely on Christian faith over science to protect themselves .

A strong sense of social solidarity is crucial for advancing all kinds of political agendas and values.

• Political solidarity

Political solidarity revolves around issues of inequality related to class, racism, sexism and other forms of discrimination. Political solidarity usually involves one group acting in support of another, even though groups may not be affected equally by injustices .

Political solidarity raises questions about identification, privilege and reciprocity , as expressed, for example, through the hashtag #solidarityisforwhitewomen .

Yet the concept of political solidarity is crucial for addressing how pandemics exacerbate existing social inequalities . Ignoring this actually undermines other forms of solidarity.

Read more: How Covid-19 breaks down solidarity with migrants

Three critical aspects of solidarity

Whatever form we invoke, it’s helpful to remember three aspects of solidarity:

Solidarity is always about relationships. We cannot be in solidarity alone. Who are we in solidarity with and what defines that relationship?

Solidarity always requires us to be intentional about our commitments. What is the aim of our solidarity and where do those commitments come from?

Solidarity requires actions that also change us, perhaps even a sacrifice. What am I willing to do and give up in order to ensure the well-being of others, whether they are like or unlike me?

Toward creative forms of solidarity

Acknowledging the ethical and political commitments that we bring to solidarity is crucial. Otherwise, solidarity can “turn against us,” as Barbara Ehrenreich suggests.

For instance, some solutions, such as physical distancing, become impossible for communities that are already under-resourced, such as the homeless . Otherwise allied nations like Canada and the U.S. find themselves in conflict as both seek to ensure the supply of personal protective equipment for health-care workers.

Being explicit about ethical and political commitments will become increasingly important as governments ask us to compromise our personal freedoms and civil liberties to contain the spread of the virus.

Such compromises and the global character of the current crisis demand that we also think of solidarity as creative .

As the “crisis blows open the sense of what is possible,” in the words of journalist Naomi Klein , we are forced to imagine new ways of being with one another. We also have the opportunity to rethink our values and intentions , and to re-narrate the stories we tell about who we are, where we belong and with and to whom we share a debt.

• Barbara Ehrenreich
• Coronavirus
• Creative pedagody
• social solidarity
• civic solidarity

Sydney Horizon Educators (Identified)

Senior Disability Services Advisor

Deputy Social Media Producer

Associate Professor, Occupational Therapy

GRAINS RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION CHAIRPERSON

INSCMagazine

Models, Lifestyle, Sports, Entertainment and Culture

• The Unifying Power of Unity: Building Stronger Communities and Societies

Introduction:

In a world marked by diversity and differences, the concept of unity stands as a beacon of strength and resilience. Unity transcends individuality, forging connections that bind communities and societies together. It is the cohesive force that propels collective progress, fostering understanding, collaboration, and a shared sense of purpose. This article explores the multifaceted nature of unity, examining its significance in various contexts and its potential to shape a harmonious and prosperous global landscape. Click here to read more interesting content.

• Defining Unity:

At its core, unity refers to the state of being united or joined as a whole. It encompasses the idea of individuals coming together, setting aside differences, and working towards common goals. Unity is not the absence of diversity but rather the recognition and acceptance of differences, creating a collective strength that surpasses individual limitations.

• Unity in Diversity:

The phrase “unity in diversity” encapsulates the essence of fostering unity while celebrating differences. Embracing diverse perspectives, backgrounds, and cultures enriches the fabric of a society. When unity is achieved within this diversity, a robust and resilient community emerges, capable of facing challenges with a collective strength that draws from the unique strengths of its members.

III. Community Unity:

At the community level, unity serves as the cornerstone for progress and well-being. A unified community is characterized by a sense of belonging, mutual support, and shared responsibility. Whether facing economic hardships, natural disasters, or social challenges, communities bound by unity are better equipped to navigate adversity and emerge stronger.

A key aspect of community unity is active participation. When individuals actively engage with their community, contributing time, skills, and resources, it fosters a sense of shared ownership. This shared responsibility creates a supportive ecosystem where everyone plays a role in the community’s growth and resilience.

• National Unity:

National unity holds paramount importance in the stability and prosperity of a country. It involves a shared commitment to the nation’s values, principles, and goals. When citizens unite beyond ethnic, religious, or political differences, it creates a cohesive society that can address common challenges and work towards collective advancement.

Political leaders and institutions play a crucial role in nurturing national unity. Policies that promote inclusivity, social justice, and equal opportunities contribute to building a unified nation where diversity is a source of strength rather than division.

• Global Unity:

As the world becomes increasingly interconnected, the concept of global unity gains prominence. Challenges such as climate change, public health crises, and economic disparities necessitate collaborative efforts on a global scale. Unity among nations is crucial for addressing these challenges effectively.

Global unity involves fostering international cooperation, diplomacy, and a shared commitment to the well-being of the planet and its inhabitants. Initiatives that promote cross-cultural understanding, humanitarian efforts, and sustainable development contribute to the vision of a united world working towards common goals.

• Building Unity Through Education:

Education plays a pivotal role in building unity at various levels. By fostering an understanding of diverse perspectives, promoting empathy, and instilling a sense of shared responsibility, education becomes a catalyst for unity. Educational institutions that prioritize inclusivity and teach the values of tolerance and respect contribute to the development of individuals who are better equipped to contribute to a united society.

VII. Overcoming Challenges Through Unity:

Unity becomes particularly crucial in times of crisis. Whether facing natural disasters, pandemics, or socio-economic upheavals, a united front enhances resilience and facilitates a more effective response. By pooling resources, expertise, and collective efforts, communities and nations can overcome challenges that might seem insurmountable when faced individually.

VIII. The Role of Communication in Fostering Unity:

Effective communication is a linchpin in the development and sustenance of unity. Transparent, open, and respectful communication bridges gaps, dispels misunderstandings, and cultivates a culture of trust. Dialogues that encourage active listening, empathy, and a willingness to understand diverse perspectives create an environment conducive to unity.

• Cultural Expressions of Unity:

Many cultures worldwide have unique expressions of unity embedded in their traditions, ceremonies, and rituals. These cultural manifestations often highlight the significance of collective identity and shared values. Exploring and appreciating these cultural expressions fosters a global understanding that goes beyond borders, reinforcing the idea that unity is a universal aspiration.

Conclusion:

In a world marked by division, conflict, and disparities, the concept of unity emerges as a guiding principle for building stronger, more resilient communities and societies. From the grassroots level of individual relationships to the global stage of international cooperation, unity has the power to transcend differences, creating a tapestry of interconnectedness.

As we navigate the complexities of the modern world, fostering unity requires intentional efforts, understanding, and a commitment to shared values. By recognizing the strength that arises from diversity, actively engaging in community building, and promoting inclusivity on a global scale, we can harness the transformative power of unity. It is through unity that we can collectively shape a future marked by cooperation, empathy, and the shared pursuit of a better world for all.

Share this:

Leave a reply cancel reply.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

• Current Edition
• About Kosmos
• Submit a Work
• Join | Donate
• Full Archive
• Your cart is currently empty.
• Autumn 2020
• Table of Contents

Introduction

Conversations.

Staff and Advisors

• Board of Directors
• Kosmos Global Ambassadors Program
• Exclusive Serial Features
• Exploring Connection for Greater Impact
• Global Citizens Movement
• Kosmos Activities at the United Nations
• Subscribe to the Journal
• Current Issue
• Editorials of Nancy Roof
• Reader Essays
• Kosmos Writers
• Artist Portfolios
• Order Back Issues
• Other Articles
• Join Kosmos Community
• Past Editions
• Kosmos Live
• Digital Subscription
• Edit My Profile
• Edit My Address
• Kosmos Community Forums
• Digital Issues
• Available Downloads

What is Solidarity?

Reflections on justice and the crisis of meaning.

I was born when all I once feared, I could love. – Hazrat Bibi Rabia of Basra, 7th century Sufi saint

Survival has become an economizing on life. The civilization of collective survival increases dead time in individual lives to the point where the forces of death threaten to overwhelm collective survival itself. Unless, that is, the passion for destruction is replaced by the passion for life. – Raoul Vaneigem, The Revolution of Everyday Life

One of the great crises of our times is the crisis of meaning, which is both a symptom and a cause of the broader polycrisis – the convergence of ecological, political, spiritual and social breakdown. Traditionally held certainties about humanity’s place in the world are crumbling. Those to whom we have abdicated our power – politicians, academics, doctors, experts, leaders – reflect back the confused, muddled buffoonery of a collective emperor with no clothes. Extinction illness and other psychological collateral effects are deepening both depression and denial, forcing humility and exacerbating hubris. The Anthropocene casts a long and convoluted shadow.

As the political adage goes, “we are prisoners of context in the absence of meaning.” So what then shall we do? A starting place is better understanding of and relating to the current context – i.e. assessing the nature and texture of the oxygen we breathe (even when we can’t). We can also attribute new and ancient meaning to the consequences of our actions. In this essay I argue that solidarity can play a central role in triangulating these two practices as a means towards sense-making. We can re-imagine solidarity as a communal, spiritual act. Solidarity as becoming.

Etymologically, solidarity comes from the Latin word solidus , a unit of account in ancient Rome. It then merged into French to become solidaire referring to interdependence, and then into English, in which its current definition is an agreement between, and support for, a group, an individual, an idea. It is essentially a bond of unity or agreement between people united around common cause. True to its original meaning, there is the notion of accountability at its core.

Below are some reflections on solidarity within the fast-changing context of modernity, or more aptly, the Kali Yuga , the dark ages prophesied by the Vedic traditions of India. I offer these five interlocking premises in the spirit of wondering aloud and fostering allyship. I do not claim any special expertise or moral authority. Like all truths, these are subjective notions anchored in a particular historical moment, through the medium of a biased individual (accompanied by a complex of seen and unseen forces such as ancestors), and an entangled set of antecedents bringing together the past, present and future simultaneously.

Solidarity is not something activists do. It is a requirement of being a citizen of our times.

It matters what matters we use to think other matters with; it matters what stories we tell to tell other stories with; it matters what knots knot knots, what thoughts think thoughts, what descriptions describe descriptions, what ties tie ties. It matters what stories make worlds, what worlds make stories. – Donna J. Haraway, Staying with the Trouble: Making Kin in the Chthulucene

Most of us were not taught moral philosophy outside the constructs of our institutional religions or educational systems. I would like to propose a simple, time-tested applied ethic to steer our conversation. In the troubled times we find ourselves in, our disposition should be to side with those that have less power . In the context of capitalist modernity, to borrow Abdullah Öcalan’s language, this means siding with the oppressed, the exploited, the immiserate, the marginalized, the poor.

You can examine any situation, in all its complexity, and assess the following: who has more power over the other? Who is benefitting from the other’s misery? Who is exerting domination? Where does this power come from? What are the rights of those involved? From this vantage point of critical thinking, one can then engage their moral will in support of balancing power . This can be applied to both the human and more-than-human realms of other species and animate ecosystems.

This ethic does not mean you are the judge or arbiter of final say; rather, it is a heuristic, a short-hand assessment for where to pledge your moral weight and your solidarity. Of course, the difficulty is that we are subjective beings with pre-existing identities and implicit biases. And our identities matter and impact who and how we are able to show up for others in society. Solidarity requires the cultivation of wisdom and discernment, strategy and compassion.

Sometimes being an ally to those in adverse power dynamics may mean educating the oppressor by interrupting their consciousness and steering them towards awareness of equity through relationship and commitment to their higher being. More often, solidarity requires being an accomplice rather than an ally ; it requires a direct affront to power itself.

Part of our responsibility is to understand the construct of our identities. Not to transcend or bypass them, but rather, to situate our beingness (our race, gender, socio-economic status, cognitive biases, etc.) in the broader context of society in order to be in deeper kinship with others. By engaging in a perspective outside of our internalized role-type, we create the ability to disidentify, at least momentarily, with our social personas in order to be in service to others who are affected by the cultural constructs imposed on them.

However, our work of seeing and understanding the landscape and internal ley lines of intersecting identities, and the cultural byproducts they produce, does not stop here. In addition to our own inner deconstruction, we must also avail ourselves to perceiving and understanding the intersecting matrix of others – especially those who embody different histories and diverse backgrounds.

Perhaps by activating the lens of power, rendering meaning to the plight of other beings, human and otherwise, and being committed to see whole selves with multiple, intersecting identities, we can start to develop the critical capacity of moral judgement and discernment, not as something to fear, or something that others will do (e.g. activists), but rather as a requirement of being a citizen of our times.

Part of the reason we are in a crisis of meaning is that we have stopped exercising our meaning-making sensibilities – our dedication to what we deem so worthy of care that we would challenge anything, including our own constructed roles within the social hierarchy.

To become a citizen of our times requires that we understand the impoverishment of our times.

I don’t know who discovered water, but I can tell you it wasn’t a fish. – Marshall McCluhan

We spend inordinate amounts of time consuming “culture”, yet we do not necessarily have the means to cultivate a critique of culture. Max Weber believed that the human is an animal suspended in webs of significance that we ourselves have spun. Indeed, culture is the cumulation of all those webs of significance. It is only by unveiling the threads that we can start to grasp the limitations of our perceived reality in the attempt to expand the horizon of possibility.

For those of us who live within the dominant culture of the West, our context often prevents us from understanding the consequences of our way of living. We are infantilized when it comes to basic knowledge like how money is created, where our waste goes, where our energy and resources are extracted from, where and how our food is grown, the history of our nations, and the origins of our sources of wealth.

On one level, this is an artifact of power. Privilege is a constraint. In fact, privilege is a blinding constraint. We appear to be hapless fish swimming in the ocean of neoliberal capitalism that impedes our ability to see selfishness masquerading as efficiency; destruction, war and violence wrapped in the euphemisms of economic growth and jobs; colonization masked as “development”; patriarchy obfuscated by pointing to the exceptions; structural racism occluded by “pull yourself up by your bootstraps”.

For one to understand power, one has to understand culture. In order to decode culture, one must develop critical faculties. To be critical, one must disidentify with the object of critique, in our case, the dominant culture.

This requires a de-colonization of one’s entire being. It is an ongoing praxis of deprogramming old constructs of greed, selfishness, short-termism, extraction, commodification, usury, disconnection, numbing and other life-denying tendencies. And reprogramming our mind-soul-heart-body complex with intrinsic values such as interdependence, altruism, generosity, cooperation, empathy, non-violence and solidarity with all life.

These are not programs to be swapped out or software upgrades to a computer. The mechanistic metaphors of Newtonian physics do not easily transfer to the messy reality of lived experience. These values are nurtured by entraining new beliefs, enacting new behaviors, contracting new relationships, activating new neural patterns in the brain, reordering new somatic responses in the body. And by “new”, I mean new as a subjective reference. In many ways, these are acts of remembering.

How does this apply to a politics of solidarity in practical terms? Every time we focus on a single issue that matters to us (e.g. lower corporate taxes, mandatory vaccinations, elite pedapholia rings, etc.) without examining the larger machinations of power or the interests we ally ourselves with (i.e. associational politics), we remove the possibility of true structural change. Every time we defend capitalism as a source of innovation or the “best-worst system” we have, we dishonor the 8000 species that go extinct every year and the majority of humanity that are suffering under the yoke of growth-based imperialism. Every time we say that some poverty will always exist, we condemn our fellow humans because of our own ignorance. Every time we say that we have the world we have because of human nature, we are amputating human ingenuity, connection, empathy and possibility.

We first need to understand the cultural waters we are swimming in before and during the process of forming and reforming our political perspectives. And we must deeply question any opinions we may hold that require the world to stay the way it is, especially if we are benefitting from the current order.

Solidarity is not a concept; it is an active, embodied practice

To define another being as an inert or passive object is to deny its ability to actively engage us and to provoke our senses; we thus block our perceptual reciprocity with that being. By linguistically defining the surrounding world as a determinate set of objects, we cut our conscious, speaking selves off from the spontaneous life of our sensing bodies. – David Abram, The Spell of the Sensuous

As we deepen our critique of the dominant culture, we will naturally start to oppose the values that are rewarded by our current order. By better understanding what we stand against , we will deepen our understanding of what we stand for . As we create intimacy with ideas such as solidarity, empathy, interdependence and other post-capitalist values, we refine our internal world, the felt experience of what it is to be a self-reflective, communitarian being in service to life. As we shift internally, we will find the external world of consensus reality start to mirror back these values, and in turn, our bodies will reflect the external changes.

The political transmutates into the somatic whether we are conscious of it or not. We carry the scars of history in our bodies, physically, genetically, epi-genetically and memetically. Solidarity requires that we honor history, that we do not deny or ignore the historical circumstances that led us to this moment. Techno-utopianism and the New Optimist agenda of people like Bill Gates and Stephen Pinker require amnesia and anesthesia, forgetting and numbing, as their starting place. The somatic realities of historical trauma and current life trauma, as they relate to different and intersecting social locations, presents an opportunity to redefine solidarity by engaging in relationships that actively heal the present while healing the past.

Although identities are political, they are not fixed; rather, they are emergent and ever-unfolding facets of human nature as a sub-stratum of cultural evolution. Intersectionality asks us to relate to a matrix of identities infinite in expression and limitless in nature. Rather than checking the boxes of understanding and political correctness, we are instead asked to develop our muscles of multi-faceted perception; we are asked to become more agile in our relational being and to develop a multitude of entry points to our empathy. Intersectionality challenges us to become humble in our orientation to solidarity because it requires us to question deep assumptions of our socialization. As the feminist scholar and poet Audre Lorde reminds us “There is no such thing as a single-issue struggle because we do not live single-issue lives.” We are tasked with developing a field of solidarity worthy of the complex forms humanity is dreaming itself into.

As we start to become practitioners of solidarity, we might find that our humanity expands as our conceptions of identity expand. We might find that we are more resilient in the face of the onslaught of neoliberalism and its seductive forces. We may find ourselves less susceptible to advertising propaganda or conspiracy theories on the one hand, or existential angst, despair and ennui on the other. We may find ourselves more adept at holding multiple simultaneous truths, ambiguity, apparent chaos and other paradoxes. We may find that solidarity as embodied practice is where true meaning and integrity comes from.

As we start to see how all oppression is connected, we can also start to see glimpses of how all healing is connected. And that our own liberation is not only bound up with that of others but that our collective future is dependent on it.

Solidarity is not an act of charity, rather it is a means of making us whole again. Solidarity will ask of us what charity never can.

Solidarity is a pathway to spiritual development

The world is perfect as it is, including my desire to change it. – Ram Dass

The binary thinking goes both ways. Political communities often lack deeper spiritual practices and metaphysical worldviews beyond Cartesian rationalism. Activists often get burned out because they lack spiritual resourcing and a sustained depth of purpose. On the other hand, spiritual communities are often disconnected from reality as they attempt to bypass the physical plane. Through solidarity, there is the possibility of a sacred activism that creates lasting structural change.

For example, by engaging in collective prayer as an act of solidarity, we are exerting our life-force for shared healing, knowing and trusting that our healing is entangled with the healing of all others. Our individual healing can be a consequence of our prayer, but to focus our prayers on simply our own safety, abundance, etc. is to relegate our relationship with the divine into a selfish monologue.

Often, collective prayer or contemplation can become an entry point into a more thoughtful, delicate activism . Even for those deeply steeped in direct action and political organizing, transforming reactionary impulses such as outrage into intentional prayer opens latent potentialities. By spending time in contemplation about what another being may be going through, we access the possibility to live many lives, to see many perspectives, to hear many tongues, to know many ancestors, to receive the blessings of many deities. In that sense, empathy and solidarity are gateways to what quantum physicists call non-locality.

Solidarity expands our capacity for generosity, pleasure and grief  

Generosity is doing justice without requiring justice. – Imam Junaid of Bhagdad, 9th century Islamic scholar

Among activists, there has historically been a strong culture of self-flagellation, worldly denial and asceticism. This has partly contributed to a political climate bereft of pleasure, especially on the Left. This in turn repels potential allies and diminishes the appeal of social justice movements. To paraphrase Emma Goldman, a revolution without joy is not a revolution worth having. Nor will our subconscious ratify its manifestations. Part of the practice of resistance to dominant culture is to create and live alternatives of such beauty and extraordinariness that the so-called “others” are magnetically drawn to post-capitalist possibilities.

The more we develop our capacity for pleasure, the more we can access the immediacy of the present moment. The skill of being present with what is while creating what could be also allows us to access the deep grief that comes with being a human in the Anthropocene and potentiates the generosity of spirit that is required to flourish in these times.

As we remain present, as we hold what spiritual traditions call “witness consciousness” in the face of planetary destruction – of other species, of cultures and languages we will never know because of our way of living – we may also access the mythopoetic aspects of our being, the archetypal realms that can assist us in reshaping the physical world. We may start to remember that our lives are creative, shamanic acts we are performing on ourselves.

The practices of tending grief, of being faithful witness, of opening to pleasure, of deepening generosity, of expanding our circle of concern, can rewire our identities from atomized individuals having a personal experience to inter-relational beings taking part in the immensity of a self-generating cosmos.

As we shed the veils of separation and anthropocentric logic created by monocultures of the mind, we open ourselves to what the physicist David Bohm called the implicate order , an omnicentric worldview connected to the wholeness of every perceived other.

We are being prepared for even deeper complexity, breakdown, tragedy, renewal and rebirth. This transition calls upon all of us to be vigilant students of our cultures, to contemplate our entangled destinies, to abandon our entitlement, to transcend the apparent duality of inner and outer work, and to reaffirm our responsibility to each other and the interwoven fabric of our sentient planet and the living universe. Through solidarity we give more of ourselves over to the divine, to the collective unfolding, so the future can reflect back who we really are.

Special thanks to Carlin Quinn, Yael Marantz, Martin Kirk, Blessol Gathoni and Jason Hickel for their contributions. As with all acts of creation, this article was a communal endeavor.

About Alnoor Ladha

Alnoor’s work focuses on the intersection of political organizing, systems thinking, structural change and narrative work. He was the co-founder and Executive Director of The Rules, a global network of activists, organizers, designers, coders, researchers, writers and others focused on changing the rules that create inequality, poverty and climate change. TR started in 2012 as a time-bound project and an experiment in temporary organizational design, exploring new ways of how to work, play, and make trouble together.

Alnoor comes from a Sufi lineage and writes about the crossroads of politics and spirituality in troubled times. His work has been published in Al Jazeera, The Guardian, Truthout, Fast Company, Kosmos Journal, New Internationalist, and the Huffington Post among others. He is the Council Chair of Culture Hack Labs, a co-operatively run advisory for social movements and progressive organizations. He is also the co-director of Transition Resource Circle and the co-author of Post Capitalist Philanthropy: The healing of wealth in the time of collapse.

Related Reading

Prisons as monasteries.

Unconditional Freedom Project stands for the principle that true freedom is available to every human being, irrespective of external conditions. In fact, we believe that places like prisons, where residents’ lives are strictly regulated, can foster introspection, help heal emotional wounds, and lead individuals to discover purpose and meaningfulness in their lives.

Purposeful Memoir as a Path to Alignment

Most people think of memoir as a recounting of what we already know about our lives. But, in fact, what we already know is only the beginning of the journey of what I call purposeful memoir.

Caring for the Soul of Humanity

I was 25 years old when I witnessed human misery for the first time. It was 2008, and I had moved to a remote city in the underprivileged state of Maranhão, in Northeast Brazil. Despite moving with the illusion of building a new life, the harsh realities of extreme poverty and structural violence expanded my worldview in ways I couldn’t imagine.

How We Win | Divestment and Nonviolent Direct Action

One reason to target a bank was the interface between the climate crisis and the economy. We observed that the economic class that sets the direction for the U.S. refuses to accept responsibility for climate consequences. By pressuring a bank to take responsibility for the consequences of its practices, we would be pushing a higher standard of behavior.

Add comment Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

CAPTCHA Code *

Yes, I’d like to join for free to receive the new  Kosmos Journal  and access to the full archive.

The Four Freedoms  

The four freedoms and artificial intelligence, the rights of all beings, ‘the grab’ | conspiring to control the world’s food and water, with four freedoms, four responsibilities, the promise of liberty and the pain of separation, philanthropy as a territory of transition, fear, freedom and the queer world of quantum mechanics, a participant critique of the french mutual aid network, solaris, spotlight on hanne strong, origin | from “the story of gaia”, why beauty matters, mixed media, deep adaptation | a quartet of videos, this feature is self-generated, searching for a more beautiful world, with charles eisenstein, navigating the storm of global change, the sanctity of food, mugwort | plants rule the world, eleanor on 72nd street, exactly this spot | how air is, graffiti on the lee monument | gray, listening to the intelligence of your body, blessed community   the families we make, becoming ‘blessed community’, love, care and community, find the others | start a conscious change collective, are transition towns our key to a more beautiful future, mindful living at morningsun, unitive narrative | a new lens for approaching the sustainable development goals, the art of life | a documentary, what i learned visiting intentional communities, crone wisdom | the soul of community, way of council | speaking and listening from the heart, desert blues | the music moves in circles, return to fixing things | the artist’s posthumous garage sale, sibling beit midrash | jacob’s gift, the rope bridge | monument, the way out | end of the egoic era, envisioning the beloved community, the eco-institute at pickards mountain | my experience as a black participant-turned-leader, a us department of peacebuilding, how to have a community conversation, chinese brush painting: a lesson | conflagration, the bridge to tomorrow is a work-in-progress, the sacred masculine  , masculine/feminine | a non-binary view, in search of the sacred masculine, the great simplification, erasure of indigenous identity, finding ben | mental health, justice, and healing, gender and peace | thoughts on the russian war in ukraine, blueprints for men, climate crisis | a problem of myth, ritual fire and sacred masculinity, trauma and healing for boys and men of color, adrift in the world, lessons from the ancient samurai, a cloud never dies | a film about the life of thích nhất hạnh, baptism of fire, the butterfly man in the house of pain, dusty and me, reflections on outliving my son, awakened life, a contemplation on resilience in ukraine, in the dream, my father reprimanded me for wearing earmuffs indoors | for my son, texas buddha | horse talk, taimu shakuhachi flute | art of emptiness, one final inning in st. louis, our spiritual commons   the inner resources we share, synthesis and the intuitive mind, our spiritual commons, waters of spirit, the soul of nations, global citizenship and universal values, honoring commons-based circuits of value, the value-renewed society, transformative social and emotional learning (sel) as a catalyst for climate action, embodied thinking and embodied feeling, autobiography of a yogi | 75 years on, the atlas of disappearing places, the world of itō jakuchū, the hermetic revival, the moment | alan watts and the eternal now, message from haiti | inspiration between two, lord of the forest | good fences, bum’ma (because i couldn’t say grandma), text | along the willamette, calendula seed | spirit rise, the holomovement, all things are a commons, the indwelling spirit, toward a global wellbeing mindset, the potential of grassroots environmental stewardship, meeting mugwort, joanna macy | climate crisis as spiritual path, seeking “ssshhh”, humble like the earth, are you sure   the cultivation of belief, are you sure, marching orders | covid’s attention war, post-truth politics and collective gaslighting, perceptual intelligence, seeing truth in van gogh, healing wetiko, the mind-virus that plagues our world, red brain, green brain, a quest for truth as a continuous motion to reconsider, the noosphere is here, ‘great turning’ visionaries | part 1, ‘great turning’ visionaries | part 2, earthjustice | working at the brink, deep winter, watching river otters, being brave, searching for what we already know, truth that affirms and regenerates all life, the industry of us | all you cannot see, truth is an orange canary from lisbon, garbage | pedaling my bike past jefferson davis place, let’s see what happens next | mid-20th century salvation, the juniper tree, composer, david crowe, 23 million trees planted, realigning withearth wisdom    , indigenous to life, the wisdom of our ancestors, the big ocean cantata, how to be a soil keeper, to reason with a madman, how not to lose the elephant for all its parts, our animal bodies and the unitive state, the web of meaning, trauma and regeneration, emerging renaissance | the art and wisdom of leigh j mccloskey, hermetic wisdom and the attributes of our time, glacier, elder, teacher, realigning with earth wisdom, the wonder of it all, practicing the art of wonder through radical presence, between prayer mat and smoke hole, reconnecting our children to nature, seeking the honey of life, slant | vernacular, signposts and hedges | visiting my brother’s nebraska farmstead on august 30th at dusk, into the riptide | the best we can imagine together, today you are a river in my hands | once trees grew inside me, inhale exhale, the century of awakening  , century of awakening, awakening to life, global challenges are directing us toward a unity of purpose, vow of 120,000 actions, the descent to soul, gravity and allurement, the two faces of digital spirituality, sacramental conversation, the ecozoans, can we measure culture and consciousness, dismantling the patriarchy within, living communally, reclaiming spiritual wholeness, the unchaining and the unveiling, scaffolding for a thrivable planet, cultivating spiritual intelligence, the age of freedom, the joy of living and learning interconnectedly, remembering nature, prayers in the dark, ‘uncomfortable’, poems for the solar age, butterfly effect, topophilia | thicket, master sha | tao calligraphy, how quickly the light changes | before you set your table, unexpected grace | love poem with accolades, visionary spirit   transition and transformation, the role of the visionary, unlocking a fresh vision for the world, dying into the creative, a global governance paradigm shift | first principles first, what is global education and why does it matter  , vision and change | fermentation as metaphor, thoughtforms | the materialization of sustained ideas, across the creek, looking back | the visionary spirit of resilience, deschooling dialogues: on initiation, trauma and ritual with francis weller, choosing earth | with duane and coleen elgin, reilly dow | art of the scribe, new visions give hope in dire times, rough initiations, “dear darkening ground”, david berkeley | oh quiet world, death and rebirth, birdsong as a compass, the power of pausing, we are all radical, dismantling solid bricks, cinderella story, kitchened | postcard from the mother ghost, it couldn’t be clearer, a poem for my students, ocean breeze, into the morphic | reality ritual, rapids of change   our collective journey, our collective journey, the tree saviors of chipko andolan | a woman-led movement in india, making the case for a small farm future, what would hagia sophia say, an evolutionary transition is coming—are you ready, what indigenous wisdom can teach us about economics, somatics, healing, and social justice, recovering the divine feminine, oppression, interconnection, and healing, humanity and the microbe: a soul agreement, crazywise | shamanic mysticism and mental wellness, venerating the sacred | art as cultural therapy, we the “peoples” | the un at 75, the sustainable development goals begin with mindset, decolonization matters, five centuries of self-quarantine, living radical impermanence, turning our crises around from the inside out, a universal congress, horizontal governance, salmon migration as earth expression, epiphany | in the know | mapping, power colours memories identity fighting, true wealth  , the evolutionary potential of wealth, true health | what if the virus is the medicine, the treasure of our living, relational commons, soil wealth and a regenerative green new deal, the power of allurement, advertising and trading | the markets’ problem twins, vision for a city of hope near auschwitz, bioregions and regeneration | honoring the places where we live, mystical anarchism, a spiritual biography, economic justice and ecological regeneration, wrestling with wealth and class, joy and value of connection to place and community, breakfast table revelation, safe houses | giving refuge, good fortune, two poems by joy mcdowell, two poems by diane kendig, two poems by ellen waterson, love letters from seaweed, in the hands of alchemy, greenplanet-blueplanet | sacred economy and caring, fragile gold, in the labyrinth   pathways to healing, walking the labyrinth, the labyrinth and the black madonna, rebuilding earth’s forest corridors, civility and its discontents, freedom and energy from healing white racism, howling in place, wall street to main street to world street, the science of oneness, covid-19 is a symbol of a much deeper infection, our finest hour, if we choose, hitching for hope, with ruairí mckiernan, gazing into the heart of perfection, shelterless in the time of covid-19, taking turns, weeding the labyrinth, in the garden, biracial identity | seeking to be unconditioned, a letter to herman creek canyon, mind matters most, becoming medicine, the vitality of paradox, ordinary grace, john fullerton on the qualities of a regenerative economy, leading in unknown terrain, wisdom from the flood.

Already have an account? Log in here .

Create a free account and we will share the world of Kosmos.

• Early, priority access to the freshest Quarterly
• Kosmos Newsletter, with briefings, podcasts and short videos delivered to your inbox
• Opportunities to engage online with thought leaders and affinity groups
• Invitations to our yearly retreats and other Kosmos gatherings

Create a Free Account

Possible Futures   Regeneration, Connection and Values

A story still unfolding, thomas berry and the rights of nature, ten economic insights of rudolf steiner, holding a seed for the future, from what is to what if, the unexpected journey of caring, re-imagining america, the alchemy of power, the next civilization, with jeremy lent, collective trauma and our emerging future , sacred season gathering of songs, freedom to make music, global social witnessing, a cry for help, active hope | time with joanna macy, healing the wounded mind, art in a time of catastrophe, hopeful essay penned by firelight, our scarlet blue wounds, kito mbiango | the power of art to drive action, closer looking | microscopy and aboriginal art, three poems, new spirit, wise action  , new spirit, wise action, beyond ‘sacred activism’, fourteen recommendations when facing climate tragedy, restoring the housatonic river walk, shut it down: stories from a fierce, loving resistance, thich nhat hanh’s code of global ethics, every act a ceremony, inner work makes our outer work massively more effective, the sun of darkness, white men and native america, burning man | what we’ve learned, kathy thaden | an inner fire, big lazy | music for unsettling times, kendra smith | the disappearing art of living, holacracy | an emergent order system, the practice of liminal dreaming, god becomes a hairdresser, men at the end of their strings, what you cross the street to avoid, a long convalescence, decoding the trump virus, seven practices of ‘holistic activism’, memes, mantras, and modern illusions of the eternal, including the earth in our prayers, the paradox of wise activism, living in flow, fluency in the language of stillness, values as a means to invite greater depth, summer 2019  , resonance and relationship, to all my relations, the holy grail of restoration, freeing the dragon, developing a mindful approach to earth justice work, rhino conservation, bringing reefs back to life, farming while black, selfcare freedom, the stones will cry out, sacred headwaters of the amazon, eating as if life and the planet mattered, sam lee | birdsong hits the charts, among the nightingales in berlin, reforestation in portugal, dancing with animals, cooperation with wild boars in palestine, killing us softly, where are we in the story of the universe, borders of our perception, the gift of tears, a song of pause, captives of our desire, documenting land trauma, spring 2019  , the earth is doing her best, dancing with gaia, the community awaiting us, turtles among us, resilience, the global challenge, and the human predicament, book | trees of power, paradise lost | the sequel, cultivating right livelihood, quiet places initiative, rising earth consciousness, consciousness and the combustion engine, the lie of the land | conversation and essay, rejoining the great conversation, physics and spirituality, a vision for the world, chama river revelations, rights of nature, council of the wild gods, the power of community, gallery 1 | in the realm of the world’s heart, gallery 2 | flower flourescence, gallery 3 | guardians of the sacred in tibet, emergent universe oratorio, a conversation with alanis obomsawin, three poems from reverberations from fukushima, dear reed canyon, winter 2018   global citizen, global spirit, the practice of global citizenship, we are all global citizens | seeing ourselves in the advancement of all, breaking out of the domination trance, evolving toward cooperation, on edge work, migration flows, and glocalization, returning to indigenous worldview, liquid democracy and the future of governance, book | farming for the long haul, delivering the un global goals | the consciousness perspective, the insurgent power of the commons in the war against the imagination, on elevating the human narrative, film | lifeboat, refugees adrift at sea, for love of place | reflections of an agrarian sage, sacred diplomacy in the emerging ecozoic era, globalism-nationalism, the new left-right, the economics of solidarity, spirit, and soul, global citizenship | an emerging agenda in education, a pocket full of stones, the most important thing, being and becoming in a field of resonance, an overcast morning, i sit down to write, almost bethlehem, the rebel’s silhouette, xiuhtezcatl martinez | break free, playing for change, the universal declaration of human rights, toward a global ethic, statement on the unique challenge of nuclear weapons, the earth charter, fall 2018   all consuming, the four nutriments, un-pick-apart-able, tending the wild, making politics sacred again, from the unreal to the real, the problem with “more”, the galileo project, eager: the surprising, secret life of beavers and why they matter, do we really want to be happy, the deschooling dialogues | plant medicine and the coming transition, eldering in the age of consumption, water and the rising feminine , a tale of two pipelines, unity and the power of love, between the inner and outer worlds, wind | a letter to my daughters, healing the hunger, the selling of the soul, nourishment, are we addicted to fear, what the wind taught, the prophecy, green medicine, the fairy begs for bacon, finals time, how love builds a home, may everything flower, healing sound with jesse paris smith, consumption as the path, books in brief, climate news.

Contributors

KOSMOS Summer Quarterly, 2018

Unlearning together, awake, awakened, woke, change the worldview, change the world, presence at the edge of our practice, dynamic governance, roots and evolution of mindfulness, indigenous worldview is a source we now urgently need, the wanderer’s preparation in the death lodge, the deschooling dialogues: grief, collapse, and mysticism, social breakdown and initiation, forgive: the new practice and mantra for black men, the migrant quilt, the connection, healing into consciousness, wealth and abundance, confessions of a recovering catholic, the habits of schooling, an uncommon song, being human, the night i didn’t stand up, absence presence, yorkston/thorne/khan.

15 Solidarity Examples

Solidarity refers to the unity and mutual support found within groups. In contemporary discourse, it’s often associated with left-wing, working-class, and communist discourse.

Group solidarity can lead to increased social cohesion, fostering an environment of mutual respect and understanding. By not breaking from their shared bonds and worldview, the group feels strong and inclusive.

In sociology, the term is closely associated with Emile Durkheim, who came up with two types of solidarity:

• Organic Solidarity : This refers to solidarity within small homogenous groups with shared values and belief systems.
• Mechanical Solidarity : This refers to solidarity within large heterogeneous groups who remain united and committed to one another out of mutual self-interest and interdependence.

For more on Durkheim’s perspective, see Durkheim’s contribution to sociology . The rest of this article will explore the broad, layman’s interpretation of the term solidarity.

Solidarity Examples

1. neighborhood watch programs.

In every neighborhood, safety is in the interests of the people who live there. To ensure the security of the area, residents might come together to form a neighborhood watch. This sense of solidarity arises from the mutual need for protection and safety. Residents, through their collective efforts, report any safety concerns, and in so doing, maintain a safer environment for everyone.

2. Labor Unions

This is perhaps the clearest demonstration of solidarity. Workers form unions to band together and negotiate for better working conditions and fair wages. The success of labor unions depends on the solidarity among workers. Standing together, they are able to negotiate with a united voice, showcasing mutual support and commitment to collective goals. If too many of the workers peel off, the solidarity is broken, and the union’s power is diluted.

3. Environmental Movements

To combat widespread ecological issues, many individuals join environmental movements. Their shared care for the environment creates a solidarity that fuels their work. By pooling their resources, knowledge, and passion, these groups strive for a sustainable future. This unity tangibly manifests itself in clean-up drives, protests, and lobbying for environmentally friendly policies.

4. Comradeship Among Soldiers

In the military, soldiers form enduring bonds of solidarity. When faced with life-threatening situations and treacherous conditions, the support and unity among soldiers are critical for survival. They need to trust one another unconditionally. Oftentimes, the harshness of their environment kindles a special kind of brotherhood. Their shared experiences, challenges, and goals foster a robust solidarity that transcends personal differences and forms the basis of their comradeship.

5. Disaster Relief Efforts

In the wake of natural disasters, communities often exhibit exceptional solidarity. Residents unite to repair the damage, help those in need, and rebuild their lives together. This show of solidarity is essential to overcoming the hardship and healing as a community. Across boundaries and social divisions, people come together, demonstrating the power of unity during difficult times.

6. Nationwide Protests for Racial Equality

Instances of racial injustice often galvanize people to stand together in solidarity. Large scale protests, like those seen with the Black Lives Matter movement, present a strong display of unity against systemic discrimination. Despite the emotional toll and physical risks involved, participants forge ahead, spurred by the strength in their numbers and the shared goal of equal rights.

7. Fundraising Efforts for Medical Bills

In many instances, communities rally together to raise funds for individuals struggling with outlandish medical bills. This is a strong demonstration of solidarity. People, moved by compassion, donate money to help a neighbor, friend, or even stranger address their financial burden. It’s a collective effort that goes beyond the realm of financial aid, extending emotional support and care.

8. Support Groups for Disease

People often find solidarity in support groups for diseases like cancer or Alzheimer’s. Members bond over shared experiences of fighting the disease either personally or as caregivers. They offer mutual assistance, share coping strategies, and provide emotional support. This shared struggle forms the basis of their solidarity, offering hope and strength in the face of their hardships.

9. Community Response to Homelessness

In several communities, locals have united to address homelessness. This could involve collective action to provide affordable housing, food distribution, or communal job-training workshops. Such endeavors depend on solidarity among community members to tackle poverty and homelessness. It is a collective effort to uplift the most vulnerable members of their community.

10. School Alumni Associations

Alumni associations often exist to maintain unity among former students. When individuals share a common alma mater, this creates a bond— a sense of solidarity— that extends beyond their school days. Members often work together to plan reunions, offer scholarships to current students, or contribute to their former school’s improvements. Their mutual experiences foster a lifelong sense of community and purpose.

11. Picket Lines

Picket lines showcase the solidarity of workers in the face of injustice. When negotiations fail, employees may resort to picketing – a form of strike where workers band together outside their workplace, showcasing their disgruntlement openly. This act, often in harsh weather conditions or personal discomfort, reflects their united stand against unfair work practices. Their collective dissent underscores the solidarity they share in seeking justice.

12. Peaceful Protests for Womens’ Rights

Women and men alike have united in solidarity to advocate for women’s rights, such as equal pay, reproductive rights, and against domestic violence. This sense of solidarity is evident when they gather for peaceful protests, rallies, or marches like the widely recognized “Women’s March”. Their joint actions express a shared acknowledgment of women’s struggles and the need for equality.

13. Flood Rescue Operations

Community members often display acts of solidarity in response to flooding. Aided by their shared understanding of the topography and local patterns, individuals may band together to conduct rescue operations. With boats, makeshift rafts, or by forming human chains, they risk their own safety to save others. It is the embodiment of solidarity – unity born of a shared crisis, directing their energy towards a common goal.

14. Sports Teams

Solidarity is commonly exhibited in sports teams. Players often overcome personal differences and unite for a common goal. The solidarity that emerges is meaningful, pushing the team to perform better, support one another during setbacks and celebrate together during victories. This unity, camaraderie, and shared purpose forms the backbone of successful sports team dynamics.

15. Volunteer Cleanup Crews

Following a disastrous event, communities sometimes witness the formation of volunteer cleanup crews. This accomplishment of unity is motivated by mutual desire to restore normalcy. Members come together, donating their time and effort to handle tasks such as debris clearing, rebuilding, or even just providing a listening ear for those affected. Their unified action in the face of adversity highlights the essence of solidarity.

Pros and Cons of Solidarity

Solidarity sounds like a great thing – and, usually, certainly is. But on occasion it could cause significant negative effects.

For example, when workers come together in solidarity on strike, it might lead to better wages and conditions. However, in some cases, it may also lead to economic ruin – especially if the balance of power means workers force companies to become unprofitable.

Similarly, if someone within your in-group has done the wrong thing, your group may still try to protect them rather than hold them accountable. This is where solidarity becomes blind loyalty rather than a principled stance based on a clear set of values.

Below are some flow-on effects, both positive and negative, of solidarity.

Solidarity is an important concept in modern societies, helping people come together to promote the common good and shared self-interest. Everything from supporting fellow workers to coming together after a flood disaster to help one another out can be seen as an example of solidarity. By standing together, we’re often stronger than the sum of our parts.

Chris Drew (PhD)

Dr. Chris Drew is the founder of the Helpful Professor. He holds a PhD in education and has published over 20 articles in scholarly journals. He is the former editor of the Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education. [Image Descriptor: Photo of Chris]

• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 5 Top Tips for Succeeding at University
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 50 Durable Goods Examples
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 100 Consumer Goods Examples
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 30 Globalization Pros and Cons

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

What Is the Role of Solidarity in National and Global Community Development

By: Author Valerie Forgeard

Posted on Published: April 21, 2022  - Last updated: July 1, 2023

Categories Community , Culture , History , Leadership , Society

The role of solidarity in national and global community development is significant because it aims to strengthen the sense of caring for others for the common good.

Solidarity is the association of various individuals, different groups, and even institutions working together for the well-being of our civil society. It’s a concept that embodies a moral obligation both to those who’re close to us and to people who are of a different race, ethnicity, or society than we are.

What’s Community Solidarity?

When people think about where they come from, many think of their city or neighborhood, others think of their state or the region of the country where they live. These communities can have a big impact on your life.

For example, your community gives you access to important resources like education and public health care. The people around you can also support you socially and help you build friendships and relationships.

Communities Also Play an Important Role in Shaping Us Through Our Culture and Traditions, Which Can Be Passed Down Through Generations

But communities don’t happen by themselves – they must be built through collaboration between residents and the work of organizations or agencies.

The work needed for these communities to thrive is called community development. Whether in the United States or in a developing country, all types of communities can benefit from this type of work, but it can be especially useful where conditions are extremely difficult for people due to poverty, crime, lack of human rights, or inadequate housing.

An important part of building a successful community is what’s known as “community solidarity” – meaning that people in a particular area have a sense of belonging and feel connected to each other despite any differences (e.g., age or ethnicity). This connectedness means that individuals feel they have to defend the human rights of other people in their community against unfair treatment. Solidarity makes communities strong because it brings residents closer together, reduces conflict, and encourages them to share their time and help each other when needed, so that everyone benefits from being part of the same community, whether it’s large or small.

The Principle of Solidarity

Each person is unique, but we’re all human beings.

We’re all members of the same family and we’re all connected. Solidarity is the principle that inspires action for others. It’s a value that makes our lives more meaningful, and it’s a practice that strengthens communities.

Solidarity can be built in many ways, and the more mechanical solidarity we develop with each other as a human family, the more united we fight for justice and peace.

Solidarity can mean different things to different people. For some, human solidarity means working together to achieve a common sustainable development goal, such as raising money with friends to help others in need.

For others, it means allying with those fighting for justice or freedom from oppression. Some feel solidarity with their neighbors or work colleagues, while others feel more connected to the people in their city or country.

Solidarity doesn’t require that we agree on everything – that wouldn’t even be possible! Rather, human solidarity means that we work together for the good of all, even if we disagree on how best to achieve that.

The principle of solidarity means that we’re all responsible for the well-being of others. In other words, everyone has a right to a decent life, and society has a duty to provide it.

Solidarity is the principle that inspires action for others. It’s a value that makes our lives more meaningful, and it’s a practice that strengthens communities. The more human solidarity we have with each other as a human family, the more united we’re in the struggle for justice and peace.

Why Is Global Solidarity Important?

At a time when global events increasingly affect our daily lives, we need to recognize that we must work together to create a better world.

Global solidarity is a concept that requires us to think beyond our borders and address issues that transcend our own community. If we can focus on what unites us as a people, rather than what divides us, then perhaps we can address the big issues that threaten all of our futures.

Global and national challenges are intertwined today. If you’re a farmer in Southeast Asia, you can’t just worry about your local crops. You also have to consider global climate change and its likely impact on rainfall patterns and temperatures. And when the impacts of global warming become more local – when there’s a drought or a flood – you need to work with your neighbors to find common solutions that will sustain your community’s livelihood.

Humanity is facing unprecedented challenges such as climate change, migration, epidemics like AIDS, food shortages and poverty. If we’re to survive as a species, we must find ways to collaborate internationally and create solutions at the local level to overcome these obstacles.

We cannot do this without global solidarity.

Strong global solidarity is essential for humanity’s survival. We’re facing unprecedented challenges and need to collaborate internationally and create solutions at the local level to overcome them.

Examples of Global Challenges

Where should we start? Look around you.

We Face Many Big Global Problems That We All Need to Work Together to Solve

• Take education, for example. According to the College of Yale, “Dyslexia affects 20 percent of the population and 80-90 percent of all people with learning disabilities. It’s the most common of all neurocognitive disorders.”
• Poverty remains one of the most important areas for improvement, according to the Financial Times: “The IMF now expects global prices to rise 7.4 percent this year, much more than the 3.2 percent it predicted at the end of 2020,”
• The World Bank estimates “that the combination of the COVID 19 crisis and the war in Ukraine will result in an additional 75 million to 95 million people living in extreme poverty in 2022, compared with pre-pandemic projections.”
• According to the World Health Organization, “approximately four to five million deaths per year are prevented worldwide due to vaccinations”.

We also face climate change and its devastating effects on the planet: rising sea levels, droughts, floods, and food insecurity – all of which will hit the poorest countries first because they never had the resources to build infrastructure. There’s much work to be done – at the global, regional, and local levels – to ensure that these issues are addressed by governments and communities alike.

When it comes to social justice issues, poverty alleviation programs, or climate change mitigation strategies, it’s important that communities themselves are involved in the processes so that these policies reflect their needs

The Role or Importance of Social Solidarity in National and Global Community Development

The role of solidarity in global community development is both crucial and evolving. To say that the world has changed greatly since the turn of the century would be an understatement. There are many reasons for this, but perhaps the most important is technology.

Today, we have more access to information than ever before – and we can share that information much faster, too. You could even argue that this kind of global citizenship is a byproduct of technology and its growing importance in our lives.

The ability to communicate with each other – both locally and globally – is a valuable resource for sparking positive change in communities around the world. That’s why it’s important that those who want to make a difference take advantage of this opportunity to collaborate and work toward a common goal: helping others.

This sense of connection – shared experiences – is critical to how people can relate to other cultures and populations outside their own borders.

Social media such as Facebook and Twitter have been particularly influential in bringing people together across great distances, but they’ve also highlighted the division and divide between political parties and social classes.

Solidarity with individuals and communities is often seen as a moral or ethical value rather than a political one. However, the increasing visibility of global issues such as climate change and migration has demonstrated the importance of social solidarity in managing social change. The role of solidarity in global community development is critical and evolving.

What’s Sustainability and in What Ways Is It Linked to Global Solidarity and Local Action?

Sustainability is about reducing our impact on the planet to a manageable level.

We know we can’t reduce our impact to zero, but by working toward that goal, we can be sustainable and give ourselves a chance to undo some of the damage we’ve done.

But it’s not just about individual action. Social solidarity means that people, groups, or countries join together to make change happen for everyone. It means that if one country does nothing to slow climate change, it affects all the other countries – and that’s a negative effect. So it makes sense for us to show solidarity with each other so that we can bring about positive change for as many people as possible.

We already know that there’s global climate change, but if we go back in time, we see how much things have changed in the last few decades alone.

We also know that humans are responsible for this change through activities like burning fossil fuels – fuels like coal and natural gas – which puts carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

This idea of solidarity is at the heart of globalism. Globalism recognizes that we’re all connected, no matter what country we live in or what language we speak, and that means that the failure of one country has an impact on all others.

The United Nations sees globalism as an opportunity to lift millions of people out of poverty through collective action, while protecting the environment, and a solidarity economy.

But everyone has a role to play in protecting our planet and securing its future – and that’s true. But different people have different roles to play depending on their situation and circumstances, which means not everyone can do the same thing.

How Can You Contribute to the Development of Your Community Through Solidarity?

You can contribute to the sustainable development of your community by creating a sense of solidarity in the community. You can do this, for example, by going to the polls, lobbying for legislation, volunteering at events and groups in your area, raising awareness about issues that affect you and your community, and staying informed about what’s happening in the world around you.

Create a Sense of Solidarity Within the Community

You can do this by going to the polls, calling legislators and advocating for legislation, volunteering at events and groups in your area, raising awareness about issues that affect you and your community, and educating yourself about what’s going on in the world around you.

• Voting is one of the most important things you can do to contribute to the development of your community because it gives a voice to those who may be underrepresented. Even if you’re not sure who you’ll vote for, go to the polls – there are many choices, not just Republican or Democrat. Learn about the candidates running in local and state elections before you head out on Election Day!
• Educating yourself about important local, national and global issues is another great way to contribute to community development. Even if you don’t have time to volunteer or fight for change, reading the news every day will help you make decisions based on facts, not emotions, when
• Volunteering at a local charity or event can help you meet new people and feel connected to your community. You can check local charities’ websites for volunteer opportunities or check with your city government for organized volunteer events.
• Raising awareness about issues that affect your community is an effective way to build solidarity and promote change . You can join a local activist group, create a blog or social media page dedicated to these issues, or share information with friends and family members who might be interested.

Mahatma Gandhi’s campaigns for nonviolent civil disobedience and Nelson Mandela ending of apartheid in South Africa have shown that the role of solidarity in national and global community development is linked to the concept of social justice.

The greatest aspect of solidarity is the national effort to achieve equality for all sectors within a nation. Social justice in community development seeks to address these issues and provide equal opportunities for all members of society.

These efforts involve reforming, developing, or building social institutions or policies that address inequalities in specific groups or segments of civil society affected by social economy hardship or human rights issues.

In order to make a difference, different groups and each human being all have a collective responsibility.

At the global level, social justice and community development are evident in international aid efforts around the world that aim to improve conditions for access to public health care, educational opportunities, jobs, access to various media, food security, and other aspects related to poverty reduction strategies that provide direct assistance or support through local or volunteer organizations at the grassroots level.

How Does Education Contribute to Community Development Leadership?

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize that education is important. The more educated someone is, the greater their chances for success in life. But what many people don’t realize is that education also contributes to community development by giving individuals and communities access to better opportunities for the economy to grow.

For a community to thrive and be healthy, it needs strong leadership that knows how to plan for the future. Education is critical in this regard because educated people make better decisions that benefit the entire community. Another aspect of education is that it gives people more knowledge about how the world works, making them aware of how their actions affect everyone around them.

Education also gives people more opportunities in life, which benefits not only them personally, but also their community.

For example, they can get better, well-paying jobs or go to college to contribute to society and help others as professionals such as doctors and lawyers.

A well-educated community tends to have a lower crime rate because there are fewer frustrated people who feel hopeless about finding opportunities outside of criminal activity.

What’s Global Health and Why Is It Important?

It’s no secret that we live in a globalized world. This means that the decisions we make as individuals, as well as the social, political, and actions of our governments on the economy, have far-reaching consequences for others around the world. To be a good global citizen, we must ensure that these impacts are positive. While you may never have heard of “global health,” it’s one of the most important areas when it comes to understanding and addressing international challenges.

The International Community Opened International Cooperation and Mutual Recognition

Think about how you interact with other countries on a regular basis: whether you buy coffee from Latin America, receive mail from East Asia or the United States, build a social enterprise with entrepreneurs from developing countries, choose your favorite incense from South Asia, send a text message to your cousin in the United Kingdom, use an app developed by a developer in Southeast Asia while listening to music composed by an artist in South Africa … the list goes on!

Despite the millennia of our planet’s history and millions (or even billions) of inhabitants, your actions can make a difference to someone else on the other side of the globe – and their actions can affect you too!

Celebrate a United Nations International Day

Whether you’re interested in gender equality, social protection, mutual understanding, social cohesion, solidarity or social economy, human rights, global health, or collective responsibility for climate change, there’s an International Day for everything, designed to educate about every sustainable development goal. It’s a great opportunity to build solidarity, and cooperation between different groups, and promote collective action. There’s even an International Human Solidarity Day on December 20 every year!

Related Articles:

What Is Global Community

How My Choices Affect the Global Community

How Local Community Affects the Global Community

How Global Community Changed Our Lives (Solved)

Is the Global Village Still an Imagined Community

Essay on Unity for Students and Children

500+ words essay on unity.

Unity is of utmost importance for society as well as the whole country. “Strength is always with Unity” is a popular phrase and it is true to its every word. Unity represents togetherness. Therefore, it is standing together for every thick and thin matter. There are many stories as well as real-life incidences have proved that unity always leads a harmonious and fulfilling life for all. On the other hand, many people still do not understand the importance of staying in unity. People keep fighting over insignificant things and at last end up with loneliness.

Towards Common Goal- Unity

People in unity look forward to work towards a common goal instead of satisfying their own selfish motives. People love their nation as well as their fellow citizens. Therefore, it is the fact that they would be able to grow with a better lifestyle only when there is national development.

And it is but obvious that national development is possible only when they maintain unity. Hence, this goes a long way in the development of the nation.

Advantages of Unity

Here are some of the advantages of unity:

Help and Support-

People help each other and provide moral as well as financial support when it is needed. On the other hand, living in isolation will make anyone feel insecure and introvert.

Good Guidance-

It is a proven fact that when we stay united then we may seek guidance from others them for both personal and professional matters.

Proper Growth-

Staying united is good for our growth as well as the nation’s development. This is also good for the family in particular and all-round development of children.

Source of Motivation-

When we work together, we are motivated and encouraged to work harder. Also, we push each other to accomplish the goals and this works as a great motivational factor.

Greater Accomplishment-

When we work together as a team, we are able to accomplish greater goals which might not be possible alone.

Fighting a Mission-

Fighting a mission becomes much easier when there are more numbers of people involved. Indian national movement for freedom is it’s the best example. Many social evils and unjust practices have been fought and eradicated in the past only because of unity among people.

Get the huge list of more than 500 Essay Topics and Ideas

Government’s Role in Building Unity

Unity can be achieved if each individual is ready to leave his individual interests and work for the betterment of the nation as a whole. Undoubtedly this spirit must be inborn. But the government can play an important role in building unity among people. Few steps in which this can be achieved are as follows:

End Corruption-

A country can never be prosperous if its political system is corrupt. So, the political leaders must be chosen with utmost care. Also, the government must make it possible by imposing the required legal measures.

Lower Economic Disparity-

There is a lot of economic disparity in our country. As we can see that rich people are becoming richer day by day and the poor are getting poorer. This makes the poor people adopt the criminal means that hamper national development. The government must bridge this gap.

Educate People-

People must be educated about many things related to the country’s development and also about the importance of unity. This should be made a part of the school curriculum. Many other means are also there through which it can be emphasized.

Thus, we see there are uncountable benefits of staying in unity. We can accomplish big tasks, rely on the people in times of need and nurture youth power in a better way. Safety and security can be assured by the national unity. Every citizen must work towards having full unity in the country.

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Which class are you in.

• Travelling Essay
• Picnic Essay
• Our Country Essay
• My Parents Essay
• Essay on Favourite Personality
• Essay on Memorable Day of My Life
• Essay on Knowledge is Power
• Essay on Gurpurab
• Essay on My Favourite Season
• Essay on Types of Sports

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Download the App

Home — Essay Samples — Religion — Solidarity — Solidarity Meaning as Per Religion

Solidarity Meaning as Per Religion

• Categories: Solidarity

About this sample

Words: 1644 |

Published: Mar 14, 2019

Words: 1644 | Pages: 4 | 9 min read

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr Jacklynne

Verified writer

• Expert in: Religion

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

4 pages / 1919 words

2 pages / 989 words

1 pages / 316 words

4 pages / 1877 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Solidarity

In the novel "The Outsiders" by S.E. Hinton, Two-Bit Mathews is a key character who plays a significant role in the story. Two-Bit, whose real name is Keith, is a member of the Greasers gang along with the protagonist Ponyboy [...]

A world is made up of societies, societies are made up of groups, and groups are made up of individuals also known as people. People who share basic purposes or objectives or goals would form a group, and this event is what [...]

Milburn defines Catholic Social Thought (CST) as the expansive religious and communal observation on the civil concerns that occurs in the church. The Catholic Church developed the CST to support some ideals and morals that [...]

Emilie Durkheim is one of the most important people for sociology with Karl Marx and Max Weber. Durkheim took the importance from the environment which he grew up and also from the thinkers which he had the opportunity to [...]

When considering the idea of a divine creator one might consider arguments made by analogy, as William Paley does in his work Natural Theology, as indications of such a creator’s existence. Paley constructs an argument by [...]

In a theological age conscious of the damage inflicted by sin upon human reason, Anselm of Canterbury emerges as one of its greatest champions. Though his maintenance of the primacy of faith never wavered, his project was one of [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Unity in Diversity in Indian Society

India is a plural society both in letter and spirit. It is rightly characterized by its unity and diversity. A grand synthesis of cultures, religions and languages of the people belonging to different castes and communities has upheld its unity and cohesiveness despite multiple foreign invasions.

• National unity and integrity have been maintained even through sharp economic and social inequalities have obstructed the emergence of egalitarian social relations. It is this synthesis which has made India a unique mosque of cultures. Thus, India present seemingly multicultural situation within in the framework of a single integrated cultural whole.
• The term ‘diversity’ emphasizes differences rather than inequalities. It means collective differences, that is, differences which mark off one group of people from another. These differences may be of any sort: biological, religious, linguistic etc. Thus, diversity means variety of races, of religions, of languages, of castes and of cultures.
• Unity means integration. It is a social psychological condition. It connotes a sense of one-ness, a sense of we-ness. It stands for the bonds, which hold the members of a society together.
• Unity in diversity essentially means “unity without uniformity” and “diversity without fragmentation”. It is based on the notion that diversity enriches human interaction.
• When we say that India is a nation of great cultural diversity, we mean that there are many different types of social groups and communities living here. These are communities defined by cultural markers such as language, religion, sect, race or caste.

Various forms of diversity in India

• Religious diversity: India is a land of multiple religions. Apart from the tribal societies, many of whom still live in the pre-religious state of animism and magic, the Indian population consists of the Hindus (82.41%), Muslims (11.6%), Christians (2.32%), Sikhs (1.99%), Buddhists (0.77%) and Jains (0.41%). The Hindus themselves are divided into several sects such as Vaishnavas, Shaivates, Shaktas, Smartas etc. Similarly, the Muslims are divided into sects such as Shias, Sunnis, Ahmadiyas etc.
• Linguistic diversity: Languages spoken in India belong to several language families, the major ones being the Indo-Aryan languages spoken by 75% of Indians and the Dravidian languages spoken by 20% of Indians. Other languages belong to the Austroasiatic, Sino- Tibetan, Tai-Kadai, and a few other minor language families and isolates. India has the world’s second highest number of languages, after Papua New Guinea.
• Racial diversity: 1931 census classified India’s racial diversity in the following groups- The Negrito, The Proto-Australoid, The Mongoloid, The Mediterranean, The Western Brachycephals and the Nordic. Representatives of all the three major races of the world, namely Caucasoid, Mongoloid, and Negroid, are found in the country.
• Caste diversity: India is a country of castes. The term caste has been used to refer to both varna as well as jati. Varna is the four-fold division of society according to functional differentiation. Thus, the four varnas include Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Shudras and an outcaste group. Whereas Jati refers to a hereditary endogamous status group practicing a specific traditional occupation.. There are more than 3000 jatis and there is no one all India system of ranking them in order and status. The jati system is not static and there is mobility in the system, through which jatis have changed their position over years. This system of upward mobility has been termed as “Sanskritization” by M. N. Srinivas.
• Cultural diversity: Cultural patterns reflect regional variations. Because of population diversity, there is immense variety in Indian culture as it is a blend of various cultures. Different religion, castes, regions follow their own tradition and culture. Thus, there is variation in art, architecture, dance forms, theatre forms, music etc.
• Geographical diversity: Spanning across an area of 3.28 million square kilometre, India is a vast country with great diversity of physical features like dry deserts, evergreen forests, lofty mountains, perennial and non-perennial river systems, long coasts and fertile plains.
• In addition to the above described major forms of diversity, India also has diversity of many other types like that of settlement patterns – tribal, rural, urban; marriage and kinship patterns along religious and regional lines and so on.

Factors Leading to Unity Amidst Diversity in India Constitutional identity:

• The entire country is governed by one single Constitution. Even, most of the states follow a generalised scheme of 3-tier government structure, thus imparting uniformity in national governance framework . Further, the Constitution guarantees certain fundamental rights to all citizens regardless of their age, gender, class, caste, religion, etc.
• Religious co-existence: Religion tolerance is the unique feature of religions in India due to which multiple religions co-exist in India. Freedom of religion and religious practice is guaranteed by the Constitution itself. Moreover, there is no state religion and all religions are given equal preference by the state.
• Inter-State mobility: The Constitution guarantees freedom to move throughout the territory of India under Article 19 (1) (d), thus promoting a sense of unity and brotherhood among the masses.
• Other factors such as uniform pattern of law, penal code, administrative works (eg. All India services) too lead to uniformity in the criminal justice system, policy implementation etc.
• Economic integration: The Constitution of India secures the freedom of Trade, Commerce and Intercourse within the Territory of India under Article 301. Further, the Goods and Service Tax(GST) have paved way for ‘one country, one tax, one national market’, thus facilitating unity among different regions.
• Institution of pilgrimage and religious practices : In India, religion and spirituality have great significance. . From Badrinath and Kedarnath in the north to Rameshwaram in the south, Jagannath Puri in the east to Dwaraka in the west the religious shrines and holy rivers are spread throughout the length and breadth of the country. Closely related to them is the age-old culture of pilgrimage, which has always moved people to various parts of the country and fostered in them a sense of geo-cultural unity.
• Fairs and festivals: They also act as integrating factors as people from all parts of the country celebrate them as per their own local customs. Eg. Diwali is celebrated throughout by Hindus in the country, similarly Id and Christmas are celebrated by Muslims and Christians, respectively. Celebration of inter-religious festivals is also seen in India.
• Climatic integration via monsoon: The flora and fauna in the entire Indian subcontinent, agricultural practices, life of people, including their festivities revolve around the monsoon season in India.
• Sports and Cinema: These are followed by millions in the country, thus, acting as a binding force across the length and breadth of India.

Factors that threaten India’s unity:

• Regionalism: Regionalism tends to highlight interests of a particular region/regions over national interests. It can also adversely impact national integration. Law and order situation is hampered due to regional demands and ensuing agitation.
• Divisive politics: Sometimes, ascriptive identities such as caste, religion etc. are evoked by politicians in order to garner votes. This type of divisive politics can result in violence, feeling of mistrust and suspicion among minorities.
• Development imbalance: Uneven pattern of socio-economic development, inadequate economic policies and consequent economic disparities can lead to backwardness of a region. Consequently, this can result in violence, kickstart waves of migration and even accelerate demands of separatism.. For instance, due to economic backwardness of the North East region, several instances of separatist demands and secessionist tendencies have sprung up in the region.
• Ethnic differentiation and nativism: Ethnic differentiation has often led to clashes between different ethnic groups especially due to factors such as job competition, limited resources, threat to identity etc. E.g. frequent clashes between Bodos and Bengali speaking Muslims in Assam. This has been accentuated by son of the soil doctrine, which ties people to their place of birth and confers some benefits, rights, roles and responsibilities on them, which may not apply to others.
• Geographical isolation: Geographical isolation too can lead to identity issues and separatist demands. The North-East is geographically isolated from the rest of the country as it is connected with the rest of the country by a narrow corridor i.e the Siliguri corridor (Chicken’s neck). The region has inadequate infrastructure, is more backward economically as compared to the rest of the country. As a result, ithas witnessed several instances of separatism and cross-border terrorism, among others.
• Inter-religious conflicts: Inter-religious conflicts not only hamper relations between two communities by spreading fear and mistrust but also hinder the secular fabric of the country.
• Inter-state conflicts: This can lead emergence of feelings related to regionalism. It can also affect trade and communications between conflicting states. For instance, Cauvery river dispute between Karnataka and Tamil Nadu.
• Sometimes external factors such as foreign organizations terrorist groups, extremist groups can incite violence and sow feelings of separatism. E.g. Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) has been accused of supporting and training mujahideen to fight in Jammu and Kashmir and sow separatist tendencies among resident groups.

In-spite of the challenges posed by diversity, there can be no doubt on the role played by sociocultural diversity in sustaining and developing Indian society. Problem is not of diversity per se, but the handling of diversity in India society. The problems of regionalism, communalism, ethnic conflicts etc. have arisen because the fruits of development haven’t been distributed equally or the cultures of some groups haven’t been accorded due recognition.

Hence, Constitution and its values must form guiding principles of our society. Any society which has tried to homogenize itself, has witnessed stagnation in due-course and ultimately decline. The most important example is this case is of Pakistan which tried to impose culture on East-Pakistan ultimately leading to creation of Bangladesh.

One comment

Very much appreciated. Thank you for this excellent article. Keep posting!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

• Life Journey
• Life Lessons

5 Messages of Jose Rizal's A Philippine Century Hence

"A Philippine Century Hence" holds a treasure trove of wisdom for the Filipino youth of the future. As they reflect on the lessons of the past and navigate the challenges of their time, Rizal's insights can guide them towards a more enlightened path. The essay's emphasis on education as a beacon of progress remains relevant. The youth could glean from Rizal's foresight that investing in education, both formal and self-driven, is a powerful catalyst for national advancement. By fostering critical thinking, empathy, and a global perspective, the youth can actively contribute to shaping a society that thrives on innovation, inclusivity, and continuous learning.

The examination of various potential situations for the philippines within the essay highlights the importance of making well-considered decisions to shape the nation's forthcoming trajectory. young filipinos have the opportunity to grasp the value of taking an active role in steering governance and matters of national importance. rizal's plea for conscientious citizenship can serve as a lesson from which they can draw, motivating them to become enthusiastic promoters of constructive transformation. by endorsing openness, responsibility, and active participation in community affairs, they possess the ability to play a role in fostering a society that esteems fairness, equality, and adherence to legal principles., additionally, rizal's vision of a united nation, embracing its cultural heritage while pursuing progress, resonates deeply with the filipino youth. they can find in his words a reminder to celebrate diversity and draw strength from their roots. by valuing their heritage and respecting others', they can forge connections that transcend borders and divisions, fostering a sense of unity and shared purpose. ultimately, "a philippine century hence" encourages the filipino youth to be architects of their own destiny, recognizing that their choices and actions today will ripple through time, shaping the philippines of tomorrow., the messages of jose rizal's a philippine century hence include education as a path to progress, responsibility for nation-building, cultural identity and progress, unity and solidarity, and vision and long-term thinking.  , education as a path to progress, education stands as a cornerstone of progress in "a philippine century hence." rizal's emphasis on its transformative power highlights how education can transcend socio-economic boundaries, offering a pathway to liberation and societal advancement. by stressing its critical role, rizal encourages future generations to recognize education as a catalyst for change, capable of unlocking potential, broadening horizons, and fostering critical thinking., rizal's message resonates with the notion that an enlightened populace is vital for a nation's growth. the essay underscores how education equips individuals with the tools to challenge misconceptions, question norms, and envision innovative solutions to pressing issues. this transformative aspect of education doesn't merely benefit individuals; it collectively elevates society, driving progress by generating a workforce skilled in various fields, from science and technology to the arts and governance., furthermore, rizal's focus on education's capacity to break the chains of ignorance encapsulates the belief that knowledge can dispel the darkness of prejudice and superstition. by investing in education, societies can build a foundation of informed citizens who contribute to informed decision-making and sustainable development. rizal's message underscores that education is not just a personal pursuit but a societal investment with the potential to uplift communities, bridge disparities, and steer nations toward a future brimming with possibilities.  , responsibility for nation-building, rizal's contemplation of diverse philippine futures underscores the crucial role of responsible citizenship. by imagining various paths, he prompts reflection on individual contributions to national destiny. his message encourages active involvement in shaping the nation's trajectory, emphasizing that a prosperous society thrives when citizens take ownership of their roles. this message resonates with the idea that every citizen's participation, whether in politics, community service, or governance, is a building block for a resilient and progressive nation., in "a philippine century hence," rizal's call to action is palpable. he highlights that positive change emerges from collective efforts rooted in accountability and social engagement. the essay fosters the understanding that the nation's well-being depends on the commitment of its people to uphold principles of justice, integrity, and inclusivity. rizal's words echo across time, urging future generations to be proactive agents of change, to hold leaders accountable, and to contribute towards a more equitable and just society., the enduring importance of rizal's appeal for accountable citizenship remains constant over time. his words convey the lasting reality that the advancement of society stems from a collective dedication to constructive change. through active involvement within their localities, promoting openness, and pushing for fairness, individuals have the ability to contribute to a tapestry of accountability that fortifies their nation's societal, political, and economic underpinnings.  , cultural identity and progress, rizal's visionary perspective underscores that progress need not come at the expense of cultural identity. his essay celebrates the harmonious coexistence of tradition and innovation, inspiring filipinos to honor their roots. by recognizing the beauty of heritage while embracing advancements, rizal's message promotes a dynamic society that evolves without forsaking its essence. this resonates with the truth that a strong cultural foundation can anchor a nation during periods of transformation., "a philippine century hence" echoes the value of cultural pride and openness to change. filipinos are encouraged to draw strength from their past while seeking improvements that enhance their quality of life. rizal's insight reminds us that a nation's character is enriched when diverse elements blend, fostering a forward-looking society rooted in its history. this lesson endorses the idea that a nation's resilience stems from honoring its heritage as it navigates modernity., rizal's perspective illuminates a path that cherishes the past while embracing the future. his message underscores that cultural heritage isn't a hindrance but a beacon guiding progress. the essay invites filipinos to confidently stride forward while preserving their distinctiveness. by harmonizing cultural pride and advancement, a balanced and adaptable nation can emerge, ready to face the evolving world without losing its unique identity.  , unity and solidarity, rizal's plea for unity underscores his unwavering faith in the strength of solidarity. his essay advocates for filipinos to rise above differences and unite in the pursuit of common goals. by fostering collaboration and joint efforts, rizal's message promotes a sense of togetherness that transcends divisions, emphasizing that collective action amplifies impact. this resonates with the truth that a united populace can overcome obstacles that might seem insurmountable when faced alone., "a philippine century hence" champions the idea that unity is the cornerstone of societal endurance. rizal's call encourages filipinos to find common ground, highlighting that shared aspirations bind individuals together. the essay's message is a timeless reminder that cooperation not only enables a nation to confront challenges but also fortifies its fabric against adversity. it emphasizes the significance of collective endeavor in shaping a brighter future., rizal's perspective magnifies the idea that a nation standing together is one that possesses robust resilience. the essay emphasizes that unity fosters not only strength but also a resolute direction. by embracing this concept, the filipino people can unearth the potential of togetherness, utilizing their array of backgrounds to construct a society marked by harmony. rizal's appeal acts as a motivating force for successive generations to collaborate, transcending disparities to forge a nation bound by a collective aspiration for advancement and well-being.  , vision and long-term thinking, rizal's essay serves as a compass, guiding readers to cast their gaze beyond the immediate. his words urge contemplation of the enduring impact of present decisions on the future of the nation. by emphasizing the potential consequences of choices made today, rizal's message resonates with the importance of adopting a forward-looking mindset. this message encourages individuals to consider the legacy they leave behind and to engage in actions that pave the way for a better tomorrow., "a philippine century hence" carries the profound truth that present actions ripple through time. rizal's insights echo the significance of strategic thinking and planning. his call for foresight encourages leaders and citizens to envision the philippines they want for future generations. this message underscores the value of setting long-term goals, fostering resilience, and cultivating a mindset that values sustainability and holistic progress., rizal's vision underscores that the path to progress requires a commitment to sustainable development. the essay invites readers to embrace a perspective that transcends immediate gains, focusing on the enduring welfare of society. rizal's message reminds us that the choices we make today are not isolated events but threads woven into the fabric of a nation's destiny. by internalizing this perspective, filipinos can become architects of a future marked by prudent decision-making, thoughtful planning, and a dedication to building a nation that thrives for generations to come., popular post.

El Filibusterismo: 8 Takeaways from Don Custodio

Search this website, footer menu widget.

• Terms and Conditions

Contact form

The Fantasy of a Lily-White America

I n 1970, two years and a couple days after the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Time magazine published a special issue on Black America . The cover was a Jacob Lawrence portrait of Jesse Jackson, against the backdrop of bright yellows and reds, seemingly poised to speak. His eyes sad, skeptical, and cautious. The special issue included an extended essay on Jackson and the shifting terrain of Black politics. Another addressed the militant and hopeful attitudes among African Americans as they recognized the unwillingness of white America “to bend or change to accommodate black equality.” In April of 1970, with grief still palpable, the editors of Time sought to examine the complexities of Black lives and politics in the face of the white backlash during the Nixon years. Race held center stage.

But it was an essay, “What Would America Be Like Without Blacks,” written by Ralph Ellison, the author of Invisible Man , and, later, published in his 1986 collection of essays, Going to the Territory , that struck a chord with me. I have been struggling with how to characterize our current national malaise, especially given the recent reporting about Donald Trump’s plan to use civil rights laws to protect white people. It’s easy to describe MAGA Republicans as racists or to talk about the white backlash and to decry the assault on American history and the manufactured panic around immigration. But something more fundamental about who we are as a nation (or who we refuse to be) is being revealed in this moment. Ellison maintained that “whenever the nation grows weary of the struggle toward the ideal of American democratic equality,” we reach for the illusion of secession— the fantasy of a lily-white America .

That fantasy, of course, involves not only the desire to rid the nation of Black and brown people, but aims to banish us and the issue of race from the nation’s moral conscience. The likes of Jacob Lawrence or Ralph Ellison, for example, or even Dr. King and Jesse Jackson are reduced, by some today, to a mere footnote in the struggle for democracy. These political forces cast aside the creative tensions around race that have made the country what it is. In their hands, America’s original sin is settled by the wishful effort to wash the nation clean.

And we have seen this throughout the history of the country: from schemes during the antebellum period to send free Black people to Liberia to President Lincoln’s insistence that free Blacks accept the colonization scheme because white people “suffer from your presence” to the lies of the Lost Cause and Redemption to American immigration law like the Immigration Act of 1924 that insisted that ours must remain a white nation to the clamoring around the border today and the bitter fights about what to teach our children in schools.

This is the tragic feature of American life: that seemingly inescapable petulance and moral fatigue that leads so many to put aside efforts to make real the promises of American democracy and, instead, find comfort and safety in the idea that this country belongs only to white people.

I can imagine some of my liberal friends crying foul. That I have succumbed to cynicism—that I have forgotten about all those white people marching after the murder of George Floyd or those who voted for Obama. Actually, I am reminded of the life of Tom Watson in Georgia, who played a central role in the Georgia Populist Party and who, at one point in his life, found himself standing side-by-side with Black farmers defending them with arms only to become one of the most vicious racist in the south, or George Wallace, a moderate on race matters initially, but after losing an election declared “I will never be out-niggered again.” Or those in the 19 th century, like Walt Whitman, who opposed slavery but loathed the idea of Black citizens voting. Moral fatigue around the battle for racial equality in this country has often led to a retreat to the solidarity found in being white or, more modestly, in resigning oneself to the world as it is.

No matter Trump’s bombast or his criminality the theater of his politics makes certain segments of white America feel good. His rallies offer a kind of catharsis and confirmation. Many who attend them are given license to express their hatreds and their fears. His popularity is not reducible to racism but born of it . He “is like a boil bursting forth from the impurities in the bloodstream of [American] democracy.”

Threats of secession or fears of the Great Replacement that motivate so much of the vitriol behind the immigration debate all express the desire of “getting shut” of the problem—of ridding the country of “the browns” and “the blacks” that present a danger to the white Republic (the unwanted others who pollute our blood). That ‘getting shut’ isn’t just about deportation, as the talk of overturning “affirmative discrimination” policies that disadvantage white Americans reveals, it is also about putting these people in their rightful place.

In 1970, Ellison examined this “free-floating irrationality,” what he called “a national pathology.” The fantasy of a lily-white America showed that, deep down, most white Americans don’t know who they really are. That when we think of this country apart from the distorting lens of race and racism, what comes into view is the extraordinary diversity and pluralism at the heart of America.

For Ellison, American popular culture betrays the lie that ours is a white nation. Perhaps Beyonce’s country album, Cowboy Carter , does the same. From our language to our literature to our politics, the presence of diversity has given this country its distinctive pitch and frequency. To deny this is to deny who we are, leaving some susceptible to the comfort of lies that tell them they matter more than others because of the color of their skin.

Trumpism, at its core, is the latest example of the fantasy of white America. We must say this explicitly and repeatedly, because it is at the root of the choice we face as a nation. That lie offers, as it always has, an easy resolution to the unsettling question of who we are as a nation. It leads some to believe they need “illegals” and “niggers” to feel fully American.

Some fifty-plus years ago, Ralph Ellison worried that the nation’s refusal to grasp the power of its soul —that “expression of American diversity within unity…, the presence of a creative struggle against the realities of existence”—would lead to a kind of “moral slobbism” that has always threatened to overrun this fragile experiment. We face that danger today. What is required of us, if we are to escape such a fate, is to reject the comfort of the fantasy of a lily-white Republic and, finally, discover who we really are as Americans and that will involve a full embrace of the diversity that makes this great country swing, Duke Ellington style.

Israel | Passover 2024: A Celebration of Resilience and Unity

Hadassa Getzstain

As Passover approaches, Jews worldwide prepare to gather around their Seder tables. This ancient tradition, passed down through generations, carries profound significance this year amidst the complex challenges faced by Israel and world Jewry. In times of difficulty, the essence of the holiday, rooted in continuity and unity, resonates more deeply than ever. 

The war that broke out on October 7 sharpens the sense that beats in the hearts Jews, in Israel and around the world, who see themselves both as a victim of the atrocities and as a soldier at the battlefront. 

This feeling of being united in our fate also stirs within many Jews in light of the worldwide rise in antisemitism that threatens the peace and security of Jews around the world. 

Above all, at the moment we sit at the Seder table and mark the transition our ancestors made from slavery to freedom, we will remember that 133 Israelis are still being held captive by Hamas and other hostile organizations in Gaza, in unbearably difficult conditions. 

The timeless refrain, "In every generation, a person is obligated to see themselves as though they went out from Egypt," underscores the enduring relevance of the Exodus narrative. Today, as conflicts persist and anti-Semitism rears its head globally, this shared history unites us in our struggles and aspirations. 

Thinking of the future, while relying on the past 

Freedom is the beating heart of Passover. We remember and mention the Exodus from Egypt, the journey from slavery to freedom, and the covenant between the Holy Blessed One and the people of Israel. This remembering gives us strength to face difficulties and challenges and reminds us of our unique destiny as a people.  

Indeed, precisely in these difficult times, Passover takes on an even deeper meaning. This is an opportunity for us to reflect once again on the long, complicated journey of the people of Israel, and to find inspiration, consolation and meaning. 

In many ways, the remembrance of Passover is rooted within us beginning in childhood and is designed to provide us strength. As with the memory of the Holocaust and heroism in our time, the memory gives us inspiration, serves as a guide and provides us consolation. It strengthens our spirits during difficult times through the parallel between the biblical story and historical mythos and the difficult events that we have been through and are still forced to go through – as a people, as a country and as a society.  

The conclusion embodied in the story is clear – we must not lose hope.  

We must always aim forward, learn from the past and unite as a people. The story of the Jewish people, even before arrival in the land of Israel, teaches us to think in concepts of the future, while relying on the past. To continue to tell the story of what we have been through, and to draw strength for continuity, for action, for building and for renewal, working for the benefit of our community and for future generations. 

And indeed, we celebrate Passover, the feast of freedom, as is told each year at our Seder, and in a few weeks, we will celebrate Israel’s Independence Day, Yom HaAtzmaut, whose key motif, embodied in the national anthem, Hatikvah, is "being a free people in our land." 

Unity and Remembrance   

Passover is also a holiday of unity. We, the Jews in Israel, together with our brothers and sisters in the diaspora, share the same story, the same heritage and the same beliefs. However, the obligation to act and strengthen the connection and mutual responsibility of Jews around the world applies not only on holidays but throughout the year. Strengthening the connection between Israel and the diaspora is a necessary condition for preserving the Jewish tradition and passing it on to future generations. 

Passover serves also as a testament to the resilience of the Jewish people. From the depths of despair to the heights of freedom, our collective story embodies the triumph of the human spirit. Amidst uncertainty, we find solace in the enduring values that guide us forward. 

Passover transcends geographical boundaries, uniting Jews across the globe in a shared celebration of identity and heritage. Beyond the holiday season, fostering connections between Israel and the diaspora remains essential for preserving our collective legacy. 

The story of the Exodus serves as a beacon of hope for future generations. By instilling a sense of pride and resilience in our children, we ensure that the flame of our heritage continues to burn bright. 

United we are stronger  

As we embark on the Passover journey once again, let us draw strength from our shared history and commitment to one another. In unity lies our greatest strength, empowering us to overcome any obstacle and write the next chapter of our collective story. 

We will continue to tell the story, to draw inspiration from it, but we will look forward with all our strength – with the goal of working together, developing the economy and society in Israel, strengthening security and working for peace, and we will not let any hostile external force destroy us. Every town that was destroyed shall be reestablished, all the infrastructure that was harmed shall be upgraded and every wounded soul shall be healed. With the rebuilding of the country, we shall be consoled.  

We know that the path is not always easy, yet we also know that United we are stronger, and that together we can be victorious over any challenge. 

As we gather at our Seder tables, we not only recount the past but also look ahead with optimism and determination. Just as spring brings renewal to the natural world, Passover rejuvenates our spirits and reaffirms our commitment to building a brighter future. 

Recent News

WJC Delegation Visits Small Slovenian Jewish Community To Call For Elevated Response to Antisemitism

Ahead of Passover, WJC President Calls on Jews to Unite in the Face of Challenges

WJC Diplomatic Seder in Israel Highlights Plight of Hostages Held by Hamas

European Jewish Students Attacked as ‘Fascist Zionists’ at Youth Conference

WJC NextGen Stand in Solidarity with EUJS

Women’s Resource Center in Sarasota organizes new support group to navigate divorce

New divorce support group at Women’s Resource Center

The Women’s Resource Center will be offering a divorce support group on Wednesdays from 5-6:30 p.m. starting on May 1 at its facility in Sarasota, 340 S. Tuttle Ave.

The program is designed to provide women dealing with divorce with a safe and supportive environment to meet. Participants will have an opportunity to share their challenges and successes with others, develop coping skills, and benefit from the mutual support.

“Our Divorce 101 workshops have shown us, firsthand, the need and demand for a group like this," said Brent Giangregorio, director of client services. "I believe our divorce support group will offer a sanctuary for healing and growth, where individuals can find solace, solidarity, and the strength to navigate towards a brighter tomorrow.”

The facilitator is Paula Falk, an advocate for mental health and well-being. Falk has worked in psychiatry with all age groups and became involved in support group sessions for caregivers as director of caregiving services for Senior Friendship Centers.

Participants can attend one or all of the sessions. To register, visit mywrc.org/divorcesupportgroup . For more information, call 941-366-1700. WRC offers mental health counseling, career coaching, legal and financial consultation, and more. To learn more about services, call 941-256-9721 or visit mywrc.org .

Grant boosts ESOL programs at Manatee Literacy Council

The Manatee Literacy Council has received grant from the William G. and Marie Selby Foundation to enhance its Adult English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) programs by providing laptops for in-person classes and acquiring educational software to support learning outside the classroom.

The new laptops will equip adult learners with the tools to develop their English language and digital literacy skills. Participants also will benefit from improved access to online learning resources. “This grant will empower our students with the technology they need to succeed in their language learning journey,” said Michelle Desveaux McLean, executive director of the Manatee Literacy Council.

The Manatee Literacy Council, a volunteer-driven nonprofit, offers free and confidential literacy programs to help non-native English speakers gain the language skills they need to navigate daily life and pursue educational opportunities. For more information, visit manatee-literacy.org .

Five Riverview soccer athletes receive Monroe scholarships

The Andrew Monroe Memorial Scholarship Fund awarded five scholarships during the Riverview High School boys and girls soccer ceremonies in March.

Marco Munera, Jonathan Hatfield, Norbert Csonka, Alyssa Gancitano and Georgia Wilcon received the awards during soccer banquets held in March at Laurel Oak Country Club. The scholarships are funded through donations and the fund's annual 5K Walk/Run sanctioned by the Manasota Track Club.

Following Monroe’s death in a 2011 car crash, the family set up the scholarship to assist Riverview soccer players. To qualify, each applicant submitted an essay explaining how they emulate the character traits that defined Monroe. For information, visit andrewmonroe.com .

Around and about

· The Suncoast Boat Show is underway this weekend in water and on land at Marina Jack, 2 Marina Plaza, Sarasota. The event, presented by Boat Owners Warehouse, features a wide selection of sportfishing, power boats and motor yachts, exhibits, and activities for children. On Saturday and Sunday, Captain Don Dingman will present a youth fishing clinic; participants receive a free rod and reel. Tickets:  eventspass.com/event/suncoastboatshow24?pr=WEB/#/buyTickets . ( visitsarasota.com/events-festivals/suncoast-boat-show )

· Unity of Venice , 125 N. Jackson Road (in the garden), is hosting its annual Pet Blessing on Saturday from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. Cats and dogs on a leash and all animals in a box, cage, or crate, including birds, turtles, and guinea pigs, are welcome. The event includes massage, grooming, and Reiki. ( veniceunity.org/events )

· The Closet of Hope at Gulf Cove United Methodist Church , 1100 S. McCall Road, Port Charlotte, which offers free clothing for children and adults, is accepting donations. The Closet is open the first and third Saturdays of the month (except holidays) from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. Donations can be brought to the Closet on Thursday at 10 a.m. or on Saturdays. Info: 941-697-1747.

· The Sarasota Anime-Fest , featuring a roster of anime industry professionals, fan-related celebrities, and assorted events, is April 27 from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. at the Carlisle Inn & Conference Center, 3727 Bahia Vista St. Tickets can be purchased at the door or in advance through sarasotaanimefest.com .

Submissions by Tonya Tremitiere , Debye Bernard , Su Byron, Michelle Desveaux McLean, Stacey Monroe, Visit Sarasota, Sue Pavlat, and Dana Hanson.