Solidarity and social justice
Knowledge clips week 1 - Solidarity
Clip 1: historical and sociological roots of solidarity
Historical roots
- One of the most well know sociological views on solidarity; Durkheim, talks about mechanical and
organic solidarity
- When we look back in history, we see that solidarity is often about a common identity, shared aims
and interests, some kind of mutual attachments between individuals
- But solidarity is more than common identity
- Prior to industrial revolution, people where family tied (kinship) and those where the most important
ties solidarity rested for a long time on the idea of families and kinships, but solidarity also
consisted in fraternity (brotherhood), this can be seen as an extension of families, voluntary
relationships
- Solidarity shifted from only a Christian value to also a political value, political values can be traced
back to 18th century
- Fraternity kind of looks like community
- In 19th century was solidarity mainly seen in terms of a community (a willingness to share resources)
Gemeinschaft: shared life experiences (work, community)
Gesellschaft: society (solidarity as a moral principle underlying society (and the welfare
state))
- After industrial revolution, we see a shift in how people think about solidarity; first it was focused on
community, now it’s more focused on capitalist societies, because people where moving towards cities
and we became detached from each other crucial philosopher is Tönnies, he argues that what
happens around the revolution, that we see a shift from gemeinschaft towards gesellschaft
Sociological roots
- Solidarity: sociological critique of social contract
- Social contract: implicit (suggested) societal agreement about sharing resourced, how do we
cooperate shared resources? How do we cut a pie?
- Underlying idea of social contract is that we are self-thinking individuals and we act rationally, but
that’s not always the case! So therefore, critique, too focused on individual rather than relational
aspects
- Leroux saw solidarity as shared values
- Comte saw solidarity as an integrative mechanism (something that holds society together)
Durkheim
- Mechanical vs organic solidarity, develops further on psychologists above, he came from the 19 th
century
- Mechanical solidarity: pre-industrial, little differentiation (sameness), collective consciousness
(shared set of believed norms and ideas) which bounds society together, material element; people are
alike, subjective element; people think alike
- Organic solidarity: modern (industrial) society, specialization, high degree of differentiation,
division of labour, individual consciousness, interdependence we are very dependent on other
people! Our differences get bigger, our interdependences are also bigger (based on interdependence)
Clip 2: Forms of solidarity – a sociological perspective
- Four forms of solidarity in Hopman and Knijn (2022);
1. Human solidarity: about ties between human beings, talks about earlier historical
conceptions on solidarity, sharing interests, sharing resources
, 2. Social solidarity: solidarity as cohesive concept in society, integrative mechanism
3. Political solidarity: has a more contagion, group of individuals are standing up for shared
interests, aligns with politicized collective identity
4. Civic solidarity: welfare state solidarity, welfare state as institution redistributed resources
among population, focused on obligations of the welfare state to show solidarity (this is where
it differs from the other ones), governments are exhibiting solidarity instead of individuals for
instance more normative aspect of solidarity
Example exam question; In chapter 3, four forms of solidarity are discussed. Which one can be
described as the ‘cement’ for the cohesion of society, relating to a shared history or a shared culture
between (groups of) people?
Answer: social solidarity
- Two main critiques on those four forms;
There does not seem to be as much of a distinction between the subjects and the objects of
solidarity, insufficient clarity between solidarity and social justice unclear who is being
solidaristic (subject) vs who is receiving solidarity or not receiving (object)
There is an assumption that each of the forms is somehow inclusive, and this is difficult to
maintain, because solidarity can also be inclusive, even with people not in our direct
neighborhood
- Exclusionary ingroup solidarity: kind of solidarity that exist between a group of people based on
shared identity, but it therefore excludes those that do not share the same ideas etc., only feel solidarity
with your ingroup, so you exclude the outside
- Inclusionary outgroup solidarity: when we are solidaristic with groups that have different
identities, interests or social cultural/territorial heritage than ourselves, interdependent on each other
I.e. refugees from Ukraine vs. other countries, get people from outside in your group
Exam question: within and between sociology and psychology, different terms for overlapping
concepts are used. Which of the two following sociological constructs align with the idea of intergroup
solidarity?
Answer: Inclusionary outgroup solidarity
Exam question: what is needed for inclusionary outgroup solidarity? High ingroup identification,
interdependence, perceived social injustice or a superordinate identity?
Answer: perceived social injustice they need to recognize that the disadvantaged position that the
politicized group is fighting, that that is the unfair,
- Citizenship rights: citizens’ rights to have basic needs fulfilled as a right of citizenship instead of
based on charity with citizenship it’s about your right instead of solidarity
Social citizenship rights: include things that we have a minimum standard of living, such as tax
benefits and that we can go to school
Civil citizenship rights: guarantee our right to get protection under the law, as a non-Dutch citizen, she
does not have the right to be protected by Dutch law instead gets protected by USA law
- Boundary drawing: i.e. there is a popularity on welfare state but also not, at a time where demand
for protection is high, there is also a demand to pay really close attention to the way in which we are
distributing welfare state resources not actual boundaries, but pointing to question who can get our
protection and who not? Takes place on base of race, but also on gender, age, sexual orientation etc.
Clip 3: The Social Identity Approach; the basics
- We can distinguish between individual and social ID
- Based on social identity there are ingroups (us) and outgroups (them) created kind of easy to
create these groups minimal group paradigm
- Minimal group paradigm: experimental paradigm where people are allocated into group on bases
of meaningless criteria, such as eye color or flip of a coin based on this meaningless process,
, people that take part in this experience, tent to allocate more points that they can divide between
groups to their own group than to outgroup members, even though the points didn’t had any meaning
always want your group to be the best, automatically behave like that
- Social categorization so easy because of the functions of groups;
Uncertainty reduction/sense-making
Affiliation/need to belong
(Optimal distinctiveness)
Striving for positive self-concept
- Social identity approach built upon two theories; SIT vss SCT
Social Identity Theory (SIT): developed first, focused on explaining intergroup conflicts,
discrimination and derogation (intergroup behavior), main idea; people want to uphold a positive self-
concept ingroup favoritism & outgroup derogation, theory not so much focused on explaining
intergroup animosity, but it was on reducing outgroup derogation
Self Categorization Theory (SCT): focused on intragroup behavior, how do people come to identify
to a certain group and how do people choose which social identity to adopt in a specific situation,
main idea; activation of identity based on; accessibility & fit
- Social identity threats;
Distinctiveness threat: group identity is not recognized or acknowledged
Group-value threat: being viewed negatively by others based on your group membership, i.e.
when citizens feel guilt or shame for crimes committed by their country (slavery)
Categorization threat: labelled under a certain social identity against your will, i.e. on gender
instead of on expertise
Acceptance threat: when someone is rejected by our ingroup, want to belong to a group
Degree of threat is influenced by the level of identification with the group
Exam question: a drawback of the common identity model it that it can create a … threat
Answer: Distinctiveness threat, people can feel threatened, because …
Common Identity Model: model that tries to find a way to reduce outgroup derogation and/or ingroup
favoritism, way to make 2 different groups that may have clashed at first, try and work together or at
least do not show animosity to each other way to reduce intergroup animosity
Clip 4: Facilitating intergroup solidarity
- Through creating a superordinate identity, one can unite people that belong to different social groups
and through that reduce intergroup bias more groups can identify, i.e. at sports, but does not always
work, can also give a back fire;
- Distinctiveness threat rejection of superordinate identity
- Reduced striving for social change by disadvantaged groups
- Three conditions that made salient either a separate group identity, a common ingroup identity, or a
dual group identity important for your wellbeing
- Don’t really understand this part… Dual identity etc
- Social identity Model of Collective Action (SIMCA model): for predicting protest intention, built
on a large meta-analysis of studies that identified three largely separate lines of research on underlying
motivations of protest behavior; group-based unfair disadvantage, social identity & collective efficacy
beliefs collective action for social change
- Model has been extended, namely on the distinction between social identities (broadly speaking) and
politicized identities (as a specific form of social identities)
- Raised consciousness of social injustice/inequality
- Intergroup polarization pros and cons
- More likely to engage the protest
Knowledge clips week 1 - Solidarity
Clip 1: historical and sociological roots of solidarity
Historical roots
- One of the most well know sociological views on solidarity; Durkheim, talks about mechanical and
organic solidarity
- When we look back in history, we see that solidarity is often about a common identity, shared aims
and interests, some kind of mutual attachments between individuals
- But solidarity is more than common identity
- Prior to industrial revolution, people where family tied (kinship) and those where the most important
ties solidarity rested for a long time on the idea of families and kinships, but solidarity also
consisted in fraternity (brotherhood), this can be seen as an extension of families, voluntary
relationships
- Solidarity shifted from only a Christian value to also a political value, political values can be traced
back to 18th century
- Fraternity kind of looks like community
- In 19th century was solidarity mainly seen in terms of a community (a willingness to share resources)
Gemeinschaft: shared life experiences (work, community)
Gesellschaft: society (solidarity as a moral principle underlying society (and the welfare
state))
- After industrial revolution, we see a shift in how people think about solidarity; first it was focused on
community, now it’s more focused on capitalist societies, because people where moving towards cities
and we became detached from each other crucial philosopher is Tönnies, he argues that what
happens around the revolution, that we see a shift from gemeinschaft towards gesellschaft
Sociological roots
- Solidarity: sociological critique of social contract
- Social contract: implicit (suggested) societal agreement about sharing resourced, how do we
cooperate shared resources? How do we cut a pie?
- Underlying idea of social contract is that we are self-thinking individuals and we act rationally, but
that’s not always the case! So therefore, critique, too focused on individual rather than relational
aspects
- Leroux saw solidarity as shared values
- Comte saw solidarity as an integrative mechanism (something that holds society together)
Durkheim
- Mechanical vs organic solidarity, develops further on psychologists above, he came from the 19 th
century
- Mechanical solidarity: pre-industrial, little differentiation (sameness), collective consciousness
(shared set of believed norms and ideas) which bounds society together, material element; people are
alike, subjective element; people think alike
- Organic solidarity: modern (industrial) society, specialization, high degree of differentiation,
division of labour, individual consciousness, interdependence we are very dependent on other
people! Our differences get bigger, our interdependences are also bigger (based on interdependence)
Clip 2: Forms of solidarity – a sociological perspective
- Four forms of solidarity in Hopman and Knijn (2022);
1. Human solidarity: about ties between human beings, talks about earlier historical
conceptions on solidarity, sharing interests, sharing resources
, 2. Social solidarity: solidarity as cohesive concept in society, integrative mechanism
3. Political solidarity: has a more contagion, group of individuals are standing up for shared
interests, aligns with politicized collective identity
4. Civic solidarity: welfare state solidarity, welfare state as institution redistributed resources
among population, focused on obligations of the welfare state to show solidarity (this is where
it differs from the other ones), governments are exhibiting solidarity instead of individuals for
instance more normative aspect of solidarity
Example exam question; In chapter 3, four forms of solidarity are discussed. Which one can be
described as the ‘cement’ for the cohesion of society, relating to a shared history or a shared culture
between (groups of) people?
Answer: social solidarity
- Two main critiques on those four forms;
There does not seem to be as much of a distinction between the subjects and the objects of
solidarity, insufficient clarity between solidarity and social justice unclear who is being
solidaristic (subject) vs who is receiving solidarity or not receiving (object)
There is an assumption that each of the forms is somehow inclusive, and this is difficult to
maintain, because solidarity can also be inclusive, even with people not in our direct
neighborhood
- Exclusionary ingroup solidarity: kind of solidarity that exist between a group of people based on
shared identity, but it therefore excludes those that do not share the same ideas etc., only feel solidarity
with your ingroup, so you exclude the outside
- Inclusionary outgroup solidarity: when we are solidaristic with groups that have different
identities, interests or social cultural/territorial heritage than ourselves, interdependent on each other
I.e. refugees from Ukraine vs. other countries, get people from outside in your group
Exam question: within and between sociology and psychology, different terms for overlapping
concepts are used. Which of the two following sociological constructs align with the idea of intergroup
solidarity?
Answer: Inclusionary outgroup solidarity
Exam question: what is needed for inclusionary outgroup solidarity? High ingroup identification,
interdependence, perceived social injustice or a superordinate identity?
Answer: perceived social injustice they need to recognize that the disadvantaged position that the
politicized group is fighting, that that is the unfair,
- Citizenship rights: citizens’ rights to have basic needs fulfilled as a right of citizenship instead of
based on charity with citizenship it’s about your right instead of solidarity
Social citizenship rights: include things that we have a minimum standard of living, such as tax
benefits and that we can go to school
Civil citizenship rights: guarantee our right to get protection under the law, as a non-Dutch citizen, she
does not have the right to be protected by Dutch law instead gets protected by USA law
- Boundary drawing: i.e. there is a popularity on welfare state but also not, at a time where demand
for protection is high, there is also a demand to pay really close attention to the way in which we are
distributing welfare state resources not actual boundaries, but pointing to question who can get our
protection and who not? Takes place on base of race, but also on gender, age, sexual orientation etc.
Clip 3: The Social Identity Approach; the basics
- We can distinguish between individual and social ID
- Based on social identity there are ingroups (us) and outgroups (them) created kind of easy to
create these groups minimal group paradigm
- Minimal group paradigm: experimental paradigm where people are allocated into group on bases
of meaningless criteria, such as eye color or flip of a coin based on this meaningless process,
, people that take part in this experience, tent to allocate more points that they can divide between
groups to their own group than to outgroup members, even though the points didn’t had any meaning
always want your group to be the best, automatically behave like that
- Social categorization so easy because of the functions of groups;
Uncertainty reduction/sense-making
Affiliation/need to belong
(Optimal distinctiveness)
Striving for positive self-concept
- Social identity approach built upon two theories; SIT vss SCT
Social Identity Theory (SIT): developed first, focused on explaining intergroup conflicts,
discrimination and derogation (intergroup behavior), main idea; people want to uphold a positive self-
concept ingroup favoritism & outgroup derogation, theory not so much focused on explaining
intergroup animosity, but it was on reducing outgroup derogation
Self Categorization Theory (SCT): focused on intragroup behavior, how do people come to identify
to a certain group and how do people choose which social identity to adopt in a specific situation,
main idea; activation of identity based on; accessibility & fit
- Social identity threats;
Distinctiveness threat: group identity is not recognized or acknowledged
Group-value threat: being viewed negatively by others based on your group membership, i.e.
when citizens feel guilt or shame for crimes committed by their country (slavery)
Categorization threat: labelled under a certain social identity against your will, i.e. on gender
instead of on expertise
Acceptance threat: when someone is rejected by our ingroup, want to belong to a group
Degree of threat is influenced by the level of identification with the group
Exam question: a drawback of the common identity model it that it can create a … threat
Answer: Distinctiveness threat, people can feel threatened, because …
Common Identity Model: model that tries to find a way to reduce outgroup derogation and/or ingroup
favoritism, way to make 2 different groups that may have clashed at first, try and work together or at
least do not show animosity to each other way to reduce intergroup animosity
Clip 4: Facilitating intergroup solidarity
- Through creating a superordinate identity, one can unite people that belong to different social groups
and through that reduce intergroup bias more groups can identify, i.e. at sports, but does not always
work, can also give a back fire;
- Distinctiveness threat rejection of superordinate identity
- Reduced striving for social change by disadvantaged groups
- Three conditions that made salient either a separate group identity, a common ingroup identity, or a
dual group identity important for your wellbeing
- Don’t really understand this part… Dual identity etc
- Social identity Model of Collective Action (SIMCA model): for predicting protest intention, built
on a large meta-analysis of studies that identified three largely separate lines of research on underlying
motivations of protest behavior; group-based unfair disadvantage, social identity & collective efficacy
beliefs collective action for social change
- Model has been extended, namely on the distinction between social identities (broadly speaking) and
politicized identities (as a specific form of social identities)
- Raised consciousness of social injustice/inequality
- Intergroup polarization pros and cons
- More likely to engage the protest
