Knowledge clip week 1 – Lecture 1 – Chapter 2&3 Solidarity and social justice in contemporary
societies
Solidarity common identity – sameness – to whom do we owe
Distributive social justice what do we owe (resources, means, goods)
What is solidarity?
Historical roots having a common identity
Starting out as common identity – in relation to family - in relation to fraternity – taking on more
political significance – community (individualism)/gemeinschaft – Gesellschaft.
Psychological roots:
- Cooperation/altruism/prosocial behavior
- Belonginess/affiliation (verbondenheid)
- Social identity/ inclusion and exclusion how groups behave toward each other
Sociological roots way of critiquing social contract theory
Social contract: implicit societal agreement about sharing resources an implicit agreement amongst
everyone on how we should cooperate and share the societal pie.
Durkheim: mechanical vs. organic solidarity
Mechanical solidarity: (came first)
- Pre- industrial (traditional) society, reliance on agriculture
- Little differentiation – sameness – similar lifestyles
- Collective consciousness = shared set of ideas, norms and ideas
- Material element: people are alike
- Subjective element: people think alike
- Unite for a common good
Organic solidarity:
- Modern (industrial) society – different types of jobs
- Specialization / high degree of differentiation /division of labor
- Become less self sufficient and rely more on others
- Individual consciousness = we are more aware on our dependence on other people
- Interdependence – as our difference get bigger, our interdependence also gets bigger
Bayertz forms of solidarity:
- Human solidarity – earlier conceptions of solidarity – ties between human beings, naturalistic
foundation – looking at family ties and relationships
- Social solidarity – cohesive element in society – integrative mechanism – what keeps us
connected within society – solidarity as the cement for the cohesion of society – shared
history/culture
- Political solidarity – active connotation – groups stand up for their shared interests –
collective taking a role in beliefs – when fraternity takes on political meaning – active
resistance
- Civic solidarity – welfare state solidarity – distributing of benefits and resources – focusses
on the obligations of the welfare states and governments
,2 Main critique
- Is not much distinction between subjects and objects of solidarity – insufficient clarity
between solidarity as a concept and social justice – unclear who is being solidaristic, the
subject vs. who is receiving/not receiving.
In these 4 forms it is not clear if we talk about receiving or giving solidarity – therefore it is
unclear if it’s about solidarity of social justice
- Assumption that these forms are exclusive – solidarity can also be inclusive with people
whom we do not share the common identity or sameness
Exclusive vs. inclusive solidarity
- Exclusionary ingroup solidarity between a group of people based on the shared
identity/common interest/social cultural/ territorial heritage – excludes those that do not share
the same heritage (sharing norms).
- Inclusionary outgroup solidarity solidaristic with groups/individuals who have different
identities/heritage than us.
Social identification/interest and power resources trigger or drive social justice and solidarity as well
as boundaries between ‘us’ and ‘them’
With whom are we solidiristic? defined by citizen rights
Citizenship rights – citizens’ rights to have basic needs fulfilled as citizenship rather than charity
prior through charity - church
Citizen – member of the nation state – government recognition
Difference is dependence on others while with citizenship you have the right to assistance.
Social citizenship rights welfare state – minimum standard of living (income, work, healthcare etc)
Civil citizenship rights defines who is in- and excluded in welfare state – differ per country
As a result:
Boundary drawing the inclusion and exclusion regarding the scope of justice and this occurs across
civic, social and familial solidarity
3 criteria that represent boundary drawing between citizens and non-citizens
1. Territorial affectedness a political community whose members are equally affected by the
communities decisions and therefore have the claim to participate in making these decision
2. Sedentariness the idea that citizens have long-term ties to a specific territory, thsi is
challenged by the EU labour migration policies.
3. National belonging a form of ethnic belonging tot he imaigined community as the pre-
condition for granting citizenship.
Also takes place based on social geatures such as income, educational level and job status.
Social identity approach individual vs. social identity (group based) – ingroup vs. ooutgroup – us
vs. Them
Consists of two theories:
1. Social identity theory (SIT) (intergroup behavior) striving for positive self concept –
ingroup favoratism and outgroup derogation (discriminating against outgroups)
SIT: this framework proposes that a person’s self concept ranges from being purely
interpersonal to purely intergroup
Self concept comprised of attitudes, memories, behaviors etc. What distincts them from
others – Also defned by the social categories and the emotional and evaluative consequences
of belonging to a group (group identity)
, Social identity salience us vs. them, distinctions between groups
Group members’ experience of threat is determined by the socio-structural context in which
groups are embedded, these are influenced by status differences.
(See social identity threats)
2. Self-categorization theory (intragroup behavior) activation of identity based on
accessibility and fit
Intra solidarity – in de groep
Inter solidarity – tussen groepen
Minimal group paradigm easy to form groups, leaning toward ingroup members
Functions of groups:
- Uncertainty reduction/ sense making
- Affiliation/ need to belong
- (Optimal distinctiveness)
- Striving for positive self-concept
Social identity treats
- Distinctiveness threat group distinctiveness is prevented or undermined (e.g., merging of
companies)
- Group – value treat the group’s (moral) values or competence are undermined (e.g., feeling
guilt by history crimes (slavery))
- Categorization threat being categorized against ones will, labelled under a certain social
identity, this can lead to disidentification with the ingroup
- Acceptance threat one’s position within the group is undermined – happens when we are
rejected by our desired ingroup – fraternity/hazing
Degree of threat influenced by level of identification with the group.
Advantaged groups can experience threat when the legitimacy of their status is questioned BUT can
also induce feelings of collective guilt amongst high status group members, leading to more positive
outgroup attitudes and behaviors
Facilitating intergroup solidarity tussen groupen
Through Common ingroup identity model creation of a superordinate identity
- Introduce/ make salient a shared superordinate identity – overarching identity (e.g., sport fans,
stepfamilies)
- Reduction of ingroup favoritism (and outgroup derogation)
CIIM different group representations and (re)categorizations mediate ingroup attitudes and
orientations. On the one hand, a key means to improving intergroup relations is inducing members of
different groups to conceive of themselves as members of a single group, superordinate identity,
rather than two completely separate (competitive) groups Identification with the superordinate
category (Christian) which is inclusive of both subgroup identities (catholic and protestant) should
lead to less negative evaluations of the former outgroup through an increate in the attractiveness and
liking of that group. reduce intergroup threats & promote positive intergroup attitudes
Possible drawbacks
- Distinctiveness threat rejection of superordinate identity most likely amongst high
identifiers of the group
- Reduced striving for social change by disadvantaged groups (ethnic minorities)
societies
Solidarity common identity – sameness – to whom do we owe
Distributive social justice what do we owe (resources, means, goods)
What is solidarity?
Historical roots having a common identity
Starting out as common identity – in relation to family - in relation to fraternity – taking on more
political significance – community (individualism)/gemeinschaft – Gesellschaft.
Psychological roots:
- Cooperation/altruism/prosocial behavior
- Belonginess/affiliation (verbondenheid)
- Social identity/ inclusion and exclusion how groups behave toward each other
Sociological roots way of critiquing social contract theory
Social contract: implicit societal agreement about sharing resources an implicit agreement amongst
everyone on how we should cooperate and share the societal pie.
Durkheim: mechanical vs. organic solidarity
Mechanical solidarity: (came first)
- Pre- industrial (traditional) society, reliance on agriculture
- Little differentiation – sameness – similar lifestyles
- Collective consciousness = shared set of ideas, norms and ideas
- Material element: people are alike
- Subjective element: people think alike
- Unite for a common good
Organic solidarity:
- Modern (industrial) society – different types of jobs
- Specialization / high degree of differentiation /division of labor
- Become less self sufficient and rely more on others
- Individual consciousness = we are more aware on our dependence on other people
- Interdependence – as our difference get bigger, our interdependence also gets bigger
Bayertz forms of solidarity:
- Human solidarity – earlier conceptions of solidarity – ties between human beings, naturalistic
foundation – looking at family ties and relationships
- Social solidarity – cohesive element in society – integrative mechanism – what keeps us
connected within society – solidarity as the cement for the cohesion of society – shared
history/culture
- Political solidarity – active connotation – groups stand up for their shared interests –
collective taking a role in beliefs – when fraternity takes on political meaning – active
resistance
- Civic solidarity – welfare state solidarity – distributing of benefits and resources – focusses
on the obligations of the welfare states and governments
,2 Main critique
- Is not much distinction between subjects and objects of solidarity – insufficient clarity
between solidarity as a concept and social justice – unclear who is being solidaristic, the
subject vs. who is receiving/not receiving.
In these 4 forms it is not clear if we talk about receiving or giving solidarity – therefore it is
unclear if it’s about solidarity of social justice
- Assumption that these forms are exclusive – solidarity can also be inclusive with people
whom we do not share the common identity or sameness
Exclusive vs. inclusive solidarity
- Exclusionary ingroup solidarity between a group of people based on the shared
identity/common interest/social cultural/ territorial heritage – excludes those that do not share
the same heritage (sharing norms).
- Inclusionary outgroup solidarity solidaristic with groups/individuals who have different
identities/heritage than us.
Social identification/interest and power resources trigger or drive social justice and solidarity as well
as boundaries between ‘us’ and ‘them’
With whom are we solidiristic? defined by citizen rights
Citizenship rights – citizens’ rights to have basic needs fulfilled as citizenship rather than charity
prior through charity - church
Citizen – member of the nation state – government recognition
Difference is dependence on others while with citizenship you have the right to assistance.
Social citizenship rights welfare state – minimum standard of living (income, work, healthcare etc)
Civil citizenship rights defines who is in- and excluded in welfare state – differ per country
As a result:
Boundary drawing the inclusion and exclusion regarding the scope of justice and this occurs across
civic, social and familial solidarity
3 criteria that represent boundary drawing between citizens and non-citizens
1. Territorial affectedness a political community whose members are equally affected by the
communities decisions and therefore have the claim to participate in making these decision
2. Sedentariness the idea that citizens have long-term ties to a specific territory, thsi is
challenged by the EU labour migration policies.
3. National belonging a form of ethnic belonging tot he imaigined community as the pre-
condition for granting citizenship.
Also takes place based on social geatures such as income, educational level and job status.
Social identity approach individual vs. social identity (group based) – ingroup vs. ooutgroup – us
vs. Them
Consists of two theories:
1. Social identity theory (SIT) (intergroup behavior) striving for positive self concept –
ingroup favoratism and outgroup derogation (discriminating against outgroups)
SIT: this framework proposes that a person’s self concept ranges from being purely
interpersonal to purely intergroup
Self concept comprised of attitudes, memories, behaviors etc. What distincts them from
others – Also defned by the social categories and the emotional and evaluative consequences
of belonging to a group (group identity)
, Social identity salience us vs. them, distinctions between groups
Group members’ experience of threat is determined by the socio-structural context in which
groups are embedded, these are influenced by status differences.
(See social identity threats)
2. Self-categorization theory (intragroup behavior) activation of identity based on
accessibility and fit
Intra solidarity – in de groep
Inter solidarity – tussen groepen
Minimal group paradigm easy to form groups, leaning toward ingroup members
Functions of groups:
- Uncertainty reduction/ sense making
- Affiliation/ need to belong
- (Optimal distinctiveness)
- Striving for positive self-concept
Social identity treats
- Distinctiveness threat group distinctiveness is prevented or undermined (e.g., merging of
companies)
- Group – value treat the group’s (moral) values or competence are undermined (e.g., feeling
guilt by history crimes (slavery))
- Categorization threat being categorized against ones will, labelled under a certain social
identity, this can lead to disidentification with the ingroup
- Acceptance threat one’s position within the group is undermined – happens when we are
rejected by our desired ingroup – fraternity/hazing
Degree of threat influenced by level of identification with the group.
Advantaged groups can experience threat when the legitimacy of their status is questioned BUT can
also induce feelings of collective guilt amongst high status group members, leading to more positive
outgroup attitudes and behaviors
Facilitating intergroup solidarity tussen groupen
Through Common ingroup identity model creation of a superordinate identity
- Introduce/ make salient a shared superordinate identity – overarching identity (e.g., sport fans,
stepfamilies)
- Reduction of ingroup favoritism (and outgroup derogation)
CIIM different group representations and (re)categorizations mediate ingroup attitudes and
orientations. On the one hand, a key means to improving intergroup relations is inducing members of
different groups to conceive of themselves as members of a single group, superordinate identity,
rather than two completely separate (competitive) groups Identification with the superordinate
category (Christian) which is inclusive of both subgroup identities (catholic and protestant) should
lead to less negative evaluations of the former outgroup through an increate in the attractiveness and
liking of that group. reduce intergroup threats & promote positive intergroup attitudes
Possible drawbacks
- Distinctiveness threat rejection of superordinate identity most likely amongst high
identifiers of the group
- Reduced striving for social change by disadvantaged groups (ethnic minorities)
