Why solidarity is bad

The concept of solidarity is both a descriptive and a normative concept. It purports to describe the network of communal relationships from which we derive and that define who we are. It purports, as well, to prescribe our moral and political obligations to that network of communal relationships. We assert five theses with regard to solidarity. Unable to display preview.

Download preview PDF. Skip to main content. This service is more advanced with JavaScript available. Advertisement Hide. We are good at defending social security but we are not so good at tackling social security fraud. Because it may give others the opportunity not just to launch an attack on fraud but on the whole system of social security. Another example. We are good at defending the welfare state but we are not so good at handling problems of its costs and financing.

Because it may give others the opportunity not just to launch an attack on the financibility of the welfare state but also on the welfare state itself. I think that if progressives want to be seen as the main defenders of a generous and civilised system of social security, then that is all the more a reason to be — at the same time — at the heart of the fight against social security fraud.

If we want to be seen as the main defenders of the modern welfare state, then that is all the more a reason why it should be us and nobody else who are going to be seen as the ones concerned about its costs and financing. If we leave these discussions to our political opponents, then they will not just solve the problems but also kill the ideals. To save our ideals, it should be us to address the problems, first and best.

I think many social democratic parties in Europe are afraid to address problems that come with our ambition to organise solidarity because they fear that opponents may use that opportunity to challenge the ideal of solidarity itself. I am convinced that this attitude of fear will not be rewarded and that the only way to save solidarity is to be the first and the best in addressing the areas where it runs into problems. Now then, let me be specific and give you three areas where I think solidarity is under threat and where we should come up with progressive answers, no matter how uncomfortable they are, in order to save solidarity from destruction by our political opponents.

Solidarity is facing three threats:. I believe solidarity is under threat from migration and our failure to integrate newcomers into our society. I believe solidarity is under threat from policies that favour insiders over outsiders and baby-boomers over youngsters. I believe solidarity is under threat from attempts to create a Europe that is large, fully integrated, effective and efficient all at the same time.

First, migration, why is it that if we don't do the right thing, migration could become a threat to solidarity? The story begins with the conclusion that solidarity is not a matter of, or at least not exclusively, a matter of altruism. Many sociologists have argued that the welfare state is not based on altruism, but on enlightened self interest: we all run the same risks so we might as well collectively insure ourselves against those risks.

We do not like to live in neighbourhoods with a high chance of running into beggars and homeless people all the time. We do not want to live in houses that may be broken into by bored youngsters, so let us educate them and improve their life chances. Looking at the history of our welfare state it is not merely speculative to conclude that solidarity is easiest organised and supported in societies where citizens have common interests and run similar risks.

And looking at various studies one can also safely conclude that people can easier be motivated to share risks if they understand each other, identify easily with each other and indeed have common values. The tragedy in some of our Western European societies, and certainly in the Netherlands, is that these foundations for solidarity are now being challenged by migration and by failing integration of newcomers into our societies.

An increasingly diverse society makes it more difficult to sustain support for solidarity. Part of the problem is a perceived loss of common values. Tax paying citizens may then very well argue: Why should I make an effort for people I don't know, don't understand, or who don't do things the way I would? And the other thing happening in a society like the Netherlands is this: migration may not only cause a loss of common values but it also seems to come with a loss of common interest. In Dutch society the facts speak for themselves.

It is no longer true that we all run the same risks. For example migrants and people of migrant background in the Netherlands run a much greater risk than others of being poorly educated, unemployed, sick or having a criminal record. Here again the result — if we do nothing about it — will be that white middle class tax paying citizens wonder: am I paying taxes for myself or am I paying for them? It is for this reason that I am convinced that unlimited migration and failing integration are a serious threat to solidarity and to the degree of welfare sharing we are proud of as social democrats.

A traditional social democratic answer to this problem would be to make a moral point about why there is nothing wrong with paying taxes to the benefit of others. And yes, that moral point will always remain important.

But it has never been enough. Solidarity always needed that foundation of common values and common interests. From redistribution to recognition? New Left Review I : 68 — Redistribution or recognition? A political—philosophical exchange. Giroux Henry A. Solidarity, struggle, and the discourse of hope: Theory, practice, and experience in radical education, Part II. The Review of Education 12 4 : — Gornick Janet C.

An institutional proposal. In Gender equality: Transforming family divisions of labour , ed. Janet C. Gornick and Marcia K. Hassim Shireen. Whose utopia. In Gender equality: Transforming family divisions of labour. London, New York : Verso Books. Hawkesworth Mary. Feminists v. Asteriskos 1 2 : — Hemmings Clare. Why stories matter: The political grammar of feminist theory.

Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice of freedom. Jaeggi Rahel. Solidarity and indifference. In Solidarity in health and social care in Europe , ed. Kluwer Academic Publishers. From Mathura to Manorama: Resisting violence against women in India. New Delhi : Women Unlimited.

Kaviraj Sudipta. Indira Gandhi and Indian politics. Why Loiter? Women and risk on Mumbai streets. New Delhi : Penguin Books. Kohli Atul. Poverty amid plenty in the New India. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press. Madhok Sumi , Rai Shirin M. Agency, injury, and transgressive politics in neoliberal times.

Signs 37 3 : — Mahon Rianne , Robinson Fiona. Feminist ethics and social policy. Toronto : UBC Press. Marx Karl , Engels Fredrich. The German ideology. New York : International Publishers. Mercier Elisabeth. Pop feminism, sex-positive activism, and the polemics surrounding the SlutWalk. Michel Sonya , Peng Ito. All in the family? Migrants, nationhood, and care regimes in Asia and North America. Journal of European Social Policy 22 4 : — Mies Maria.

Patriarchy and accumulation on a world scale: Women in the international division of labour. London : Zed Books. Miller Fred. Aristotle's political theory. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Mohanty Chandra T. Signs 28 2 : — Narayan Uma. Essence of culture and a sense of history: A feminist critique of cultural essentialism. Hypatia 13 2 : 86 — Nussbaum Martha , Sen Amartya. The quality of life. Oxford : Oxford University Press. Orloff Ann S. Should feminists aim for gender symmetry? Ostrom Elinor C.

Covenanting, co-producing, and the good society. Panich Leo , Gindin Sam. Transcending pessimism in necessary and unnecessary utopias. New York : Monthly Review Press. Pateman Carol. The sexual contract. Stanford : Stanford University Press. Pettman Jan J. International sex and service. In Globalisation: Theory and practice , ed. Eleonore Kofman and Gillian Youngs. London : Continuum. Rai Shirin M. Depletion: The cost of social reproduction. International Feminist Journal of Politics 16 1 : 86 — Safri Maliha , Graham Julie.

The global household: Toward a feminist postcapitalist international political economy. Signs 36 1 : 99 — Scheper-Hughes Nancy. Sen, Amartya. The Journal of Philosophy 82 4 : — Sen Amartya. More than million women are missing. New York Review of Books December 20 issue. Shire Warsan. Smith, Adam. The theory of moral sentiments. 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. 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. 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.

For Leroux, solidarity was necessary for human well-being and flourishing. But in their 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. I examine what happens when solidarity is contingent on others being more like us, thinking more like us and believing what we believe. German philosopher Kurt Bayertz points to four uses of the concept of solidarity.