[Open Democracy] James Mensch asks us to be careful of easy generalisations about “solidarity”. Is it necessarily exclusionary? or grounded in the past, the tribe? No, when we examine the lived examples of solidarity, we find a diversity of practices and habits that is not easily reducible to grand theorising.

In our increasingly interdependent world, human solidarity has become a topic of general (and heated) discussion. It has been urged as an antidote to the competitive pressures of globalisation and to the threats of climate change. Others argue that the sense of belonging together, of sharing a common fate that it brings is essential for civil society. Without this, we will seek to avoid the burdens our governments impose on us, for example, taxes and the draft. This sense of belonging facilitates our talking to each other and forming a democratically based consensus on such matters. A common history, language, religion, or ethnic identity can ground this sense of belonging. So can a feeling of shared danger.
The difficulty is that this sense of belonging can be exclusionary. Those belonging to the “wrong” race, professing the “wrong” religion, or speaking the “wrong” language - for example, Flemish in Wallonia - will not belong. Neither will the immigrant, who does not share the nation’s history.

Read more at OpenDemocracy…

Tags

Developing Countries, Globalization & Global Culture, Society, World

Share This