CC BY
49Социология №2 2020
Теория Солидарности: история развития концепции
Ни Ваяан Радита Нови Пуспитасари,
аспирант, кафедра социальная философия УрФУ имени первого Президента Росии Б.Н. Ельцина, dita_puspitasari88@hotmail.com
В современном гражданском обществе формирование солидарности становится всё труднее. Из-за разнообразия культур и политических разногласий, люди перестали стремиться к солидарности в её изначальном виде. В этой статье рассматривается определение солидарности, которое относится к проблемам социальной философии в области политического либерализма. Понимание процесса построения солидарности становится ключевым для изучения солидарности в целом.
Ключевые слова: солидарность, политическая солидарность, общественная солидарность, политика идентичности
1. Introduction
This article investigate dimensions on the concept of solidarity by engaging to the problems of social philosophy relating to the modern theories and thinkers. The word 'solidarity' comes from Polish language as solidarnosc as a nonviolence social movement that led from the anti-communist members who associated with the Catholic Church.121 Through this movement, modern philosophers such as Mead, Durkheim, Scholz, Cladis and Habermas write about the development of solidarity in the framework of social and political bond to the engagement of civil society. There is an issue on how complex to define solidarity as a concept. According to Baldwin, the difficulty to define social solidarity is because the broad term of solidarity itself. Ontologically, the concept of social solidarity is based on the concept of sociology which refers to a mutual relationship between the individuals of the groups; and as a psychological aspect, it is based on the mind of the individual.122 Kelliher, on the other hand, states "the complexity of solidarity in practice can also be missing in theoretical works whose empirical engagement is at best oblique".123 The risk to define solidarity as a conceptual framework is highly influenced by the relation on the individuals and diversity on the empirical practices in the society. Therefore, this article analyses the definition of solidarity and its characterization, referring to the liberal approach of nowadays civil society.
2. Definition on the Concept of Solidarity
Since Emile Durkheim has published The Division of Labour in Society, there are several modern thinkers that try to define
121 Solidarity (History of). Retrieved from https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Solidarity_( History_of) (6 February 2020)
122 J. Mark Baldwin, "The Basis of Social Solidarity" in the American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 15, No. 6 (The
University of Chicago, 1910), p. 817.
123 Diarmaid Kelliher, Solidarity, class and labour agency: mapping networks of support between London and the coalfields during the 1984-5 miners' strike (University of Glasgow: PHD Thesis, 2017), p. 16-17.
Ц гп::д. 1
the concept of solidarity. The complexity for building the framework of solidarity lies in the social relation and interaction that the people have to each other. For Durkheim, solidarity is created from the formation of labor division that interconnected in the social sphere. This connection creates two sides of division of labor, i.e. the sexual organs of male and female; and the extension of the organic and social functions. The individual organism between sexes are depending upon each other, because they are 'incomplete' and in a 'mutual dependence'.124 Hence, the source of social solidarity is created from the division of labor that "must possess a moral character, since needs for order, harmony and social solidarity are generally reckoned to be moral ones."125 As an American Philosopher, Sally J. Scholz supports Durkheim's definition of solidarity in which it has particular bond of a community who has a strong feelings to move people into action.126 The relation between male and female individualism can be established in a proper condition by having a good moral character that can create harmony among the people in the social sphere. With her accountable work, she differentiates solidarity with other moral relations by characterizing it into three factors: firstly, the mediation between the individual and the community in which the uniqueness of individuals have been valued, but it can be combined into a unit of collectiveness or community. Therefore, solidarity emphasizes the concept of individual not as an absolute independence but it has the bond with others (interdependence). Secondly, particularity also become a unique factor to bind people together. The aim to achieve certain goals create a form of unity, that individual cannot be solidary with oneself and it needs "something distinctive about the unity of solidarity" that can be expressed through the forms of
solidarity.127 Thirdly, a distinctive positive duties of moral obligations are required to form the structure of solidarity that can be differentiated by social relational components and moral priorities. In this sense, solidarity has the positive side of social action that specifically is centered in the moral duties between individuals in the form of a community.
Durkheim also notes that social relationship can be established by a stable and organized form, where custom become the process of regulation. In this matter, solidarity need to be tested if it is essential to the stability of advanced societies, or is it a secondary condition in the body of solidarity? To answer this issue, moral phenomenon in social solidarity cannot be measured or observed, it is visible in the symbol of law. Durkheim uses two aspects on the verification of solidarity: internal symbol of moral facts (custom) and external symbol of the law. Here Durkheim states that custom is the basis of law where it manifests in the secondary forms of social solidarity. He stated that, "in fact, social life, wherever it becomes lasting, inevitably tends to assume a definite form & become organized. Law is nothing more than this very organization in its most stable and precise form... Social relationships can be forged without necessarily taking on a legal form. Some do exist where the process of regulation does not attain such a level of consolidation & precision. This does not mean that they remain indeterminate; instead of being regulated by law they are merely regulated by custom."128 This external symbol of law is where the establishment of an organized social form can be created, whereby it portrays solidarity in the reproduction of principal form. It, then, becomes the core of social solidarity that can be divided into public and private law - public law is associating themselves with the state and individual organ; where private law makes the
124 Emile Durkheim, The Division of Labour in Society (Hampshire: The MacMillan Press, 1984), p. 22.
125 Emile Durkheim, ibid., p. 24.
126 Sally J. Scholz, Political Solidarity (Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 2008), p. 17.
127 Sally J. Scholz, ibid., p. 19.
128 Emile Durkheim, ibid., p. 25.
individual become its actors. Therefore, the existence of social solidarity can be seen from the interaction between individuals that strongly attract both parties to have reciprocal relationship.
With Durkheim's framework that focuses on the stability of solidarity in the advanced societies, Scholz differentiates solidarity into social and civil solidarity, in which she describes social solidarity measures descriptively and normatively the linkage between individuals within a group vis-à-vis group cohesiveness. It shares obligations in every individuals by the establishment of laws, customs, codes and social mores.129 In social solidarity, the obligations refers to moral responsibilities that are imposed to others in the group membership and do not have the purpose for relieving oppression and/or injustice. Civil solidarity, on the other hand, relates the linkage between individuals within a political state that the virtue of the state has the obligation for the collectiveness of its citizens. In other words, the state becomes the vehicle and provides certain protections to the member of its citizenship. Civic solidarity also encourages individuals to participate by reducing the vulnerabilities in the civic public. Thus, it uses social policy to decrease the number of vulnerabilities of the individuals based on "the rights of individuals and on the good of society."130 Scholz consider the fulfillment of basic necessities of individuals is the requirement for the establishment of civil solidarity, that the individuals have the right to be protected by the society in the form of government's programs by achieving a welfare state. She uses Halldenius's framework on defining civic solidarity as a non-domination egalitarian welfare state. (Halldenius, p. 336 cited in Scholz 2008) As a result, it is detached from civic virtue of solidarity as a normative form of social solidarity in which civic solidarity relates to
the obligation of the society and the state "to protect individuals against vulnerabilities."131
John Rawls, on the other hand, argues solidarity establishes from the civic friendship as a form of 'fraternity'. He states that
"In comparison with liberty and equality, the idea of fraternity has had a lesser place in democratic theory. It is thought to be less specifically a political concept, not in itself defining any of the democratic rights but conveying instead certain attitudes of mind and forms of conduct without which we would lose sight of these values expressed by these rights. Or closely related to this, fraternity is held to represent a certain equality of social esteem manifest in various public conventions and in the absence of manners of deference and servility."132
Defining solidarity in the political sphere as the basis of justice, Rawls specifies the concept of solidarity can not equally stands with equality and liberty in the theory of democracy. Solidarity is a form of fraternity that establish through a certain environment that is created from the unity of civic society, not in the form of individual interactions, and can be achieved in the basic structure of society. Solidarity also can become a political conception of justice in the realm of political liberalism, when it is expressed in terms of political values or common good in the Catholic views.133 Public reason become the core value of solidarity, when solidarity has been seen from the framework of political conception of justice in which "a conception that expresses political values that others, as free and equal citizens might also reasonably be expected reasonably to endorse. Each of us must have principles and guidelines to
129 Sally J. Scholz, ibid., p. 21
130 Sally J. Scholz, ibid., p. 27
131
Lena Halldenius, "Non-domination and Egalitarian Welfare Politics" in the book of Ethical Theory and Moral
Practice 1. Cited by Sally J. Scholz, ibid., p. 31.
132 John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (Harvard Uniersity Press, 1999), p. 90 and Avery Kolers, A Moral Theory of Solidarity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016), p. 2.
133 John Ralws, Political Liberalism (New York: Columbia University Press, 2005), p. 248.
369
Fl
which we appeal in such a way that this criterion is satisfied."134
Another work from Mark S. Cladis's work in "Solidarity, Religion and the Environment: Challenges and Promises in the 21st Century", he analyzes the relation between solidarity, religion and environment in the framework of Emile Durkheim. Through his article, he tries to proof three arguments such as: religion and solidarity should not be treated as anomalies in modernity; the work of Emile Durkheim referring to solidarity plays a major role in the freedom of conscience and individual rights, moral pluralism, moral education, moral justice and political community; and the argument of religion and solidarity can give significant support in the cultural resources against the global trends that threaten the environment. Therefore, he starts with the definition of religion not in Durkheimian notion as a set of beliefs and practices that forge moral community, but as commonly understood with its historical traditions. In Durkheim perspective, religion is treated as dynamic social ideals, beliefs and practices that shape a shared perception of a society's moral universe. In the modern and postmodern time, religion become the foundation of the human life in the sense of "living together".
In the last book of Elementary Forms, Emile Durkheim exposed three concepts of the Third Republic, i.e. liberty, equality, and solidarity. For him, epistemology is a tool for socializing the idealist and empiricist for understanding the non-existence of radical private human existence with the notion of "to exist in a world is to understand that world, and understanding is comprised of shared, collective representations."135
Epistemology also allowed Durkheim to understand the social nature of humankind, in which one significant aspect comes from moral individualism. In the modern period, solidarity uses modern
individualism as a vehicle for the support of individual right in the form of a group of symbols, institutions, beliefs and practices. According to Cladis, this modern cult of the individual has the attribute of traditional religion, where possesses the sacred symbols of collective sentiments in both positive and negative aspects. In his conception, solidarity become suspicious in recent period, where in the epistemological ground, the doubt over shared, universal human nature could provide common ground among diverse individuals and communities.
It seems that in the emergence of solidarity, the interpretation often goes to "a contingent confluence of individuals with a shared cultural or ethnic inheritance, or an enforced uniformity that merely gives the impression of solidarity."136 Therefore, Cladis claims that solidarity is a contested concept that "borders on self-deception." On the other hand, Durkheim envisions solidarity as a vehicle to embrace all citizens with a particular set of goals and ideals. He describes solidarity is based on "the protection and extension of human rights; an economy accountable to human welfare (as opposed to the maximization of profit); the freedom of critical inquiry; and a secular state that respected yet was not based on religion."137 Referring to Cladis point of view, Durkheim's work on solidarity was placed in the conservative canon of sociologist enlisted to be regrettable placement in Durkheim's fundamental commitment and goals. According to him, Durkheim investigated the webs and patterns of social order for the sake of establishing social justice. The relation between social theorists with historical factors cannot be separated, therefore the present and past ideals, customs, and institutions are far from stagnant and it changes over time with the diversity and social progress. As a result, "they are not
134 John Rawls, ibid., p. 248.
135 Mark S. Cladis, "Solidarity, Religion and the
Environment: Challenges and Promises in the 21st
Century" in the Journal of Changing Societies &
Personalities, Vol. 1, No. 4 (Providence: Brown University, 2017), p. 357.
136 Mark S. Cladis, ibid.
137 Mark S. Cladis, ibid., p. 358.
immutable."138 Durkheim also noted that the inclusion of moral progress is influenced by social problems to achieve social solidarity. Cladis, then, uses human rights as an example, in which it cannot be realized by the law or court system, but it also require the same social beliefs and practices to support the legal system. Then, the question arises: "What kind of solidarity - or solidarities - do we already have, and what kind should we have?"139 This question has been asked by Cladis to reaffirm that an appropriate form of solidarity in the democratic societies must have the capability to tolerate diversity and celebrate diversity as a precious public resource.
Therefore, solidarity can be defined as a relationship between individuals that have common moral aims and to form a unity in the civil society. Positive moral obligations become significant part in order to create a good structure of solidarity. For Durkheim, a stable structure of law is also important in the organized social form. His theoretical statement is supported by Scholz and Rawls, whereby moral responsibilities and public reason can create solidarity in the structural foundation of the society.
3. Types of Solidarity: The Framework on The Present Day Cases
In recent time, debate over identity politics become significant that the appeal to solidarity is undervalued. In the political realm, the interest of group members constrains the less-powered people into their allegiance and 'sacrifice their sense of self for the sake of the group members, in which expression of solidarity is described as a particular response to local concerns. This notion, according to Jodi Dean's point of view, is followed by a suspicion that the membership of solidarity is 'exclusionary and repressive'.140 In the feminist point of view, the white women's liberation is defined by the sisterhood of all women and
reject the differences or oppression among themselves. In this sense, appeals to solidarity is sustaining the unity of the group and evade critique on the concept of identity. For her, the decline of solidarity is influenced by the collapse of traditional values that changes the interest of freedom and social differences in a diversified society.
In her book of Solidarity of Strangers: Feminism after Identity Politics, she explains and analyzes the current issue of reflective solidarity in the modern society. She starts with the gender issue that expression of solidarity centered in affirmation, inclusion and recognition.141 One example comes from a news of a Somali woman who gave birth on the side of Italian road that the local community were ignoring or laughing at her. This event was one of other cases that racism increased in the Italian society toward immigrants. Through this incident, she described two types of people; the one who ignores the woman, and the other one who calls the hospital where she was treated. In this case, the concept of recognition, inclusion and affirmation are expressions of solidarity that the caller had shown to the Somali's woman in which it was encouraging her that she was supported by the people. According to the Italian's interpretation of this event, the concept of solidarity 'involves a set of shared expectations that constitute a context of meaning central to a group's self-understanding'. Scholz also emphasizes it as the product of oppression and injustice which results individuals joins groups of shared aims to make conscious commitment. Political solidarity is based on "shared commitment to a cause" in the form of an individual commitment, collective action and group responsibility. She states that: "The experience of the oppressed provides the content for the movement of political solidarity. For this reason, many who use the term have
138 Mark S. Cladis, ibid.
139 Mark S. Cladis, ibid., p. 359.
140 Jodi Dean, Solidarity of Strangers: Feminism After Identity Politics (Berkeley: University of California Press: 1996), p. 15.
141 Jodi Dean, ibid.
conflated the oppressed group with the solidary group.
Sharing common history of oppression is not, however, sufficient for solidarity; each individual actually experienced the relevant history."142 This phenomenon on the form of solidarity in the civil society has the absence of shared values and commitments. For Dean, the story of Somalian woman described different outlook of Italian solidarity within their own society that escaped from the absence of political identity. In the event, the Italian callers created an open-minded thought as a local community with the acceptance of differences. Dean states that 'closure is not an option' - in contemporary multicultural societies - that will lead to violence, rigidification and exclusion. Therefore, she represents the concept of reflective 'as an openness to difference which lets our disagreements provide the basis for connection.'143 Differentiation of agreement is the basis for connecting the diverse society that will create an openness within themselves. As a result, she diversifies two kinds of solidarity - the affectional solidarity and conventional solidarity. In her account, affectional solidarity is the outcome of intimate relationship of love and friendship where it will build a strong connection between the people. In this kind of solidarity, the primary aspect belongs to the child's preliminary development in the basis of self-trust and the capacity to interact or respond to the necessity for others. The particular aspect focus on the reflection and importance of her existence with the help of validation from others that shows her uniqueness that 'can not be extended to a limitless variety of others.'144 Moreover, the universal dimension of affectional solidarity 'recognizes the other as the person she is requires that we remain attuned to the myriad differences comprising her individuality.' It means that the individuality of a person need to be expressed through the imminence of
others within the specialness and exclusivity of a reciprocal interaction.
Conventional solidarity is constructed by the common interest and concerns that originates from shared traditions and values unifying a group or community. Conventional solidarity divides into inward-oriented type and outward-oriented type (we-ness). The inward-oriented type belongs to the members who express their claims and concerns to each other; and the outward-oriented type focusing on the common struggle that expand the circle of addressees to demonstrate their claims in the scale of a larger society. According to inward-oriented type and outward-oriented type, the expectation of members are given when it is produce by the traditional values or a condition that 'constructs various individuals as members of groups.' Thus, the establishment of a common form of membership originates from a shared adherence to common beliefs or goals. This belief becomes mediation that exceed the interconnection between members. The primary component of being a member is to adhere the norms 'of being validate as one of "us"' and create boundaries that 'one as a member can not go.'145 These type of solidarity can be seen also in Durkheim's work on solidarity based on the division of labor.
In his work, Durkheim acknowledge there are two opposing sides: negative solidarity (the lack of social relationships) and positive solidarity (ones affording cooperation). In the positive solidarity, Durkheim divided into mechanical solidarity (solidarity by similarities) and organic solidarity (solidarity arising from the division of labor). Mechanical solidarity is a collective consciousness, that has undifferentiated societies, who have common values and beliefs. It is ruled by repressive sanctions that the "act" is referring to the definition of a "crime" or penal law. The bond between repressive law with mechanical solidarity is strongly based on the collective consciences (a set of social norms) that the society is believe
Sally J. Scholz, ibid., p. 33. 143 Jodi Dean, ibid., p. 16.
144 Jodi Dean, ibid., p. 17.
145 Jodi Dean, ibid., p. 18.
in. Therefore, crimes or violations against the law are seen as offensive acts against the whole society. A crime, in this notion, is acknowledged as "an act strikes moral consciousness of nations in the same way and universally produce the same consequence" - crime has common elements connecting them where the act is controlled by "prescribed punishment", or as a written law.146 Durkheim stated that, the definition of crimes according to the collective sentiments need to be fulfilled by a certain average intensity. It can be seen by the greater deviation to crime as opposed to immoral acts that is reflected to the firmness of penal law, and in contrast to the elasticity of civil law. There are dual purpose for the penal law, i.e. to determine the obligations and to prescribe the sanctions tied to them. Opposed to the definition of penal law, civil law does not have clear boundaries of sanctions and it only follows the rule of social duty. To sum up, Durkheim defined an act of crime is "by offending the strong, well-defined states of the collective consciousness.... We should not say that an act offends the common consciousness because it is criminal, but that it is criminal because it offends that consciousness. We do not condemn it because it is a crime, but it is a crime because we condemn it... Every act that disturb, it is a crime."147 The repression of acts are influenced by the combination of officials and judicial authorities being interfering the administrative powers or religious aspects in the secular sphere on the individual consciousness. There is one way to solve the problem, Durkheim stated, by symbolizing the consciousness of the state's authority to provide safeguards in traditions, collective practices and beliefs from the outer and inner enemies.148
In his theoretical analysis, collective consciousness is the stem of the authoritative state, where it becomes the symbol of autonomy and "capable of producing its own spontaneous actions". It
never frees itself by the source of its authority, where collective consciousness is controlling the authority of determining the notion of criminal acts. The measurement of state's authority is resided in the power of their citizens by attaching the gravity of the crime against the state. The society belongs to this social structure come from the primitive societies, by sharing common moral consciousness. Hence, Durkheim specifies that "it is in lower societies that this authority is greatest and where this seriousness weighs most heavily, and moreover, that it is in these self-same types of society that the collective consciousness possess most power."149 Thus, collective consciousness become the standardization of criminal act in which it has the capacity to provoke punishment. In this matter, punishment constitutes of an emotional reaction that characterized by some variables - the people or society is its source; vengeance as its function; it is a weapon of defense, or an expiation for the past. As Durkheim stated that "at first punishment may have consisted of private acts of vengeance. But then, if today society is armed with the right to punish, it seems that this can only be by virtue of some sort of delegation by individuals. Society is only their agent."150 On the other hand, religion is the basis of penal law - within the social sphere - it exercises constraint over the individual every moment by altruism and abnegation. The needs to follow the religious law is valued by the society that whoever against the law of the gods, the offender is against the people. Durkheim noted that, "it is an offence, in the sense that the sanction prescribed by the law does not consist merely in putting matter to rights; the offender is not only obliged to make good the damage he has caused, but he owes something else in addition, an act of expiation." The burden of individual's punishment is taken control for themselves, although the vendetta has been recognized as legitimate to the
146 Emile Durkheim, ibid., p. 31.
147 Emile Durkheim, ibid., p. 40.
148 Emile Durkheim, ibid., p. 42.
149 Emile Durkheim, ibid., p. 43.
150 Emile Durkheim, ibid., p. 49.
society. Durkheim confirm that the nature of the penal system based not in the private matter, but it is "a progressive succession of encroachment by society upon the individual."1 Therefore, punishment is depending on the will of individuals that support the moral values of the people.
Cladis, then, use moral individualism and moral pluralism as a tool to measure the foundational concept of Durkheim's theoretical approach in his basic position of solidarity and diversity. In the concept of liberalism, Durkheim named moral individualism as an egoistic aspect with the threat for the society to become consumerist and preoccupied the narrow self-interest. There are two characteristics of moral individualism, i.e. "a set of social beliefs and practices that constitute a pervasive shared understanding, which supports the rights, and dignity of the individual; and a plurality of social spheres that permits diversity and individual autonomy, and furnishes beliefs and practices, which morally associate individuals occupying a particular sphere."2 sphere."2 Through these characteristics, individualism is the focus of a diverse citizenry that cares for a common political community. It also focuses on the individual rights with a relatively distinct and protected social spheres that provide shared meanings and identities. On the other hand, moral pluralism "pertains to the relation between the beliefs and practices of the political community and the beliefs and practices of such associations or groups as churches and synagogues, ethnic organizations and activist alliances."3 Therefore, moral pluralism refers to diverse communities and associations that exercise distinctive beliefs and practices and contribute to the common public goals and projects.
Back to Durkheim's theoretical division of solidarity, he reflect the notion of division of labor into organic solidarity. This term is not originated by the collective
consciousness, but it focuses on the peculiarity of the people. Meanwhile, mechanical solidarity is determined by repressive law, organic solidarity depends on the restitutory law by springing "from the farthest zones of consciousness and extends well beyond them. The more it becomes truly itself, the more it takes its distance."4 The linkage between restitutory restitutory sanction with the society is based on the body of representatives, i.e. lawyers, courts and magistrates. Durkheim explains restitutory law is "more or less outside the collective consciousness, they do not merely concern private individuals."5 Therefore, contrary to restitutory law, repressive law is the establishment of individual conscience in the society by building "the individual himself to society." Repressive law correlate to the center of common consciousness, whereby restitutory sanction is being part of it or is placed outside the collective consciousness. The role of society in restitutory law has been removed, even though they can intervene the sanction.
The notion of division of labor, then, belongs to negative solidarity. According to him, negative solidarity is a relation of body social between a person to a thing where the concept of the thing needs to be interpreted in which it stated that "since it is only through the mediation of persons that things are integrated into society, the solidarity that arises from this integration is wholly negative. It does not cause individual wills to move towards common ends ... there is no active co-operation, no consensus."6 In the legal aspect, the thing thing is referring to the concept of property. Therefore, there are two kind of rights in the concept of property, i.e. real right and personal right. Real right possess the right of succession and preference in which Durkheim states that "the right that I possess over something is exclusive of any other that might be established after mine." For example, the inheritance
1 Emile Durkheim, ibid., p. 51.
2 Mark S. Cladis, ibid., p. 361.
3 Mark S. Cladis, ibid.
4 Emile Durkheim, ibid., p. 69.
5 Emile Durkheim, ibid., p. 70.
6 Emile Durkheim, ibid., p. 73.
become the possession of the property by the owner to their descendants. The property in real right cannot be mediated through the second or third person, in which only the owner of the property has the legal status. Real form of solidarity "links things directly to persons, but not persons with one another."1 On the other hand, personal right describes the transition of an obligation to another person by having the equal rights in a thing. There is no relationship between the thing and himself, but the existence of a bon d between the owner of the thing and the other party. The relationship of division of labor is based on the contractual law in the sphere of the supreme legal expression of cooperation.
The characteristic of solidarity can be defined according to the condition of the society itself. With the decreasing identity politics in the group members, Dean constructs solidarity according to the feminist point of view. According to her, modern society lost its traditional values that change meaning of freedom and social differences. This phenomenon, in Durkheim's theoretical approach, belongs to the negative solidarity - by lack of social relationship and no active cooperation from the individual action. Therefore, Dean presents the concept of reflective solidarity as a connection between diverse statements and disagreement. Although Dean is more to the political sphere, Durkheim establishes the basis of social solidarity relates to the collective consciousness and social justice.
4. Conclusion
The complexity for defining the concept of solidarity is referring to the social and political issues in the civil society. Relation over collective interest has been decreasing, where diverse phenomenon of disagreement influences the collective consciousness of the people. According to social sphere, Durkheim define solidarity as a linkage between individuals that unites the diversity of groups aims. He
argues that moral obligations will be the basis for creating the social justice, in which Rawls specifies the creation of justice can be achieved through the common good of the society. The characterization of solidarity is influenced by the diverse social and political background of the people, that Dean and Durkheim construct the concept of solidarity by collective action, individual commitment, common values and beliefs.
Solidarity as a Theory: The Development of
the Concept Ni Wayan Radita Novi Puspitasari,
Ural Federal University named after the first
President of Russia B.N. Yeltsin In the contemporary civil society, the complexity to form solidarity become increasingly difficult. Through multicultural background and the absence of political identity, people lost their aim to create solidarity in the original form. This article scrutinize the definition of solidarity by referring to the social philosophical problems in the realm of political liberalism. The characterization of building solidarity also become crucial for understanding the concept of solidarity as a whole.
Keywords: Solidarity, Political Solidarity, Social
Solidarity, Identity Politic References
1. Baldwin, J. Mark. "The Basis of Social Solidarity" in the American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 15, No. 6. The University of Chicago, 1910.
2. Cladis, Mark S. "Solidarity, Religion and the Environment: Challenges and Promises in the 21st Century" in the Journal of Changing Societies & Personalities, Vol. 1, No. 4. Providence: Brown University, 2017.
3. Durkheim, Emile. The Division of Labour in Society. Hampshire: The MacMillan Press, 1984.
4. Halldenius, Lena. "Non-domination and Egalitarian Welfare Politics" in the book of Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 1.
5. Kelliher, Diarmaid. Solidarity, class and labour agency: mapping networks of support between London and the coalfields during the 1984-5 miners' strike. University of Glasgow: PHD Thesis, 2017.
6. Kolers, Avery. A Moral Theory of Solidarity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016.
7. Scholz, Sally J. Political Solidarity. Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 2008.
8. Solidarity (History of). Retrieved from https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entr y/Solidarity_(History_of) (6 February 2020)
1 Emile Durkheim, ibid., p. 73.
