Summary Solidarity and Social justice, with practice questions

Samenvatting Solidarity and Social Justice
Knowledge clips week 1
Knowledge clip 1: Solidarity - historical and sociological roots
Historical roots of solidarity
 Essentially about shared aims and interests (common identity).
 Means that there is some natural attachment; we depend upon each other
(practical) and we expect things from each other (normative).
 The concept is much more diverse and developed differently across time.
 About family and kinship; which times are the most important ones.
 But also about fraternity (brotherhood); an extension of the idea of the family,
it goes beyond it.
 About voluntary ties with people.
 From Chistian to policial value; still about common identity.
 Fraternity became a political means for the first for freedom and
equality during the French revolution.
 Also about communities (19th century): shift in which people talk about
solidarity.
 Gemeinschaft: shared life experiences (work, community); a
willingness to share resources (prior to the industrial revolution).
 Gesellschaft: society; solidarity as a moral principle underlying society
(and the welfare state); the concept of solidarity now.
→ Tonnies

Sociological roots of solidarity
 Solidarity: sociological critique of social contract theory (Hobbes, Locke, Spencer).
 Social contract: implicit societal agreement about sharing resources.
 What we agree about is constantly shifting.
 Underlying it is that we always act rational; we are self-interests
individuals.
 This is not always the case; we can also act in the interest of
others.
 Leroux, Comte, Tonnies.
 Emphasize about shared values; we are dependent upon others as
well as interdependent.
 Solidarity as an integrative mechanism in society; the dependence
upon each other.
 Comte argued that the capitalist society has a bad effect on small
communities and families.
 Durkheim: Mechanical vs organic solidarity

Mechanical vs organic solidarity (Durkheim)
 Saw solidarity as a normative integrative mechanism.
 Was in the late 19th century, industrial revolution period.
 Mechanical solidarity:
 Pre-industrial (traditional) society.
 Little differentiation between people; sameness.
 Society is characterized with collective consciousness; people share norms
and values, which binds society together.
 Material element: people are alike.
 Subjective element: people think alike.
 Organic solidarity
 Modern (industrial) society.

,  Specialization/high degree of differentiation/ division of labor.
 We rely more on other people for our goods.
 There is an individual consciousness created; we are becoming aware of how
dependent we are on other people.
 More interdependence.

Knowledge clip 2: Forms of solidarity - a sociological perspective
Forms of solidarity
 Human solidarity: ties people have (family ties and blood links).
 About the early historical perceptions of solidarity.
 Social solidarity: about solidarity as a cohesive element in society.
 Integrative mechanism; what keeps us connected.
 Political solidarity: much more active connotations.
 People are standing up and actively having a role in solidarity.
 Civic solidarity: welfare state solidarity.
 The welfare state redistributes resources among the population.
 In contrast to the other forms, it focuses on the more obligations of the
welfare state to show solidarity and be solidaristic with its citizens.
 More normative perspective.
 Two critiques on these forms:
 There is no real distinction between the objects (receiving solidarity) and
subjects (who are solidaristic) of solidarity; insufficient clarity between
solidarity and social justice as a concept.
 There is an assumption that each of these forms are somewhat exclusive,
which is difficult to maintain because solidarity can also be inclusive.

Exclusive vs. inclusive solidarity
 Exclusionary ingroup solidarity: based upon common interest/heritage and exclude
those who don’t share this common interest/heritage.
 Collective consciousness (Durkheim).
 Inclusionary outgroup solidarity: we are solidaristic with people with different interests
or heritage, acknowledging that we are interdependent upon each other.
 E.g. refugees from Ukraine vs. other countries.
 Solidarity as a concept is contested; there is debate about what something actual
means.
 What solidarity entails changes across time and across socio-cultural
contexts.
 We are often not sure who is included and excluded in the ‘we’.

With whom are we solidaristic?
 Citizenship rights: citizens rights to have basic needs fulfilled based upon
citizenship rather than charity (you need the help of others and cannot rely on
rights).
 Based upon being recognized by the government as a citizen of a nation-
state.
 Decides often with who we are solidaristic.
 Social citizenship rights: ensure that we have a minimum standard of
living.
 Differ across countries.
 Civil citizenship rights: guarantee our equal protection under the law.
 Civil rights differ across countries.
 Boundary drawing: welfare states are quite popular (push for protection by the
welfare state) but there is also a demand to push back welfare states.
 Pointing to who deserves our protection and who doesn't.

,  Can have its roots in different sources of identification and tells us a lot of
processes of inclusion and exclusion.
 Don’t only lead to exclusion by boundary drawing but can also lead to
inclusion.

Knowledge clip 3: the social identity approach - the basics
Social identity approach
 We can distinguish between an individual (what makes you unique) and a social
(how the group you belong to is defined) identity and we can shift between these two
levels of identification.
 Based on this we create ingroups (us) and outgroups (them).
 Minimal group paradigm: in- and outgroups are created based on simple
characteristics (e.g. eye color) → meaningless process.
 This is quite easy, and when you are assigned to a group you are acting upon
this division.
 People tend to attend more points to ingroup members.
 Function of groups/social categorization:
 Uncertainty reduction/sense-making: guiding in how to act upon group
norms and decide who you can trust.
 Affiliation/need to belong: we developed through group-making processes.
affiliation as a basic human need.
 Paradox: this need for belonging (group identity) goes hand in hand
with the urge to optimal distinctiveness/uniqueness (individual
identity).
 Mid-size group can do both.
 Striving for positive self-concept.

SIT vs. SCT
 Social identity theory (focused on explaining intergroup behavior and animosity):
 Striving for positive self-concept and ingroup-concept→ ingroup favoritism
and outgroup derogation.
 Theory of social change.
 Self categorization theory (focused on explaining intragroup behavior):
 Activation of social identity based on accessibility (about situations ques
implicitly or explicitly eliciting certain social identities) and fit (about how
diagnostic or telling a certain identity is for explaining real world differences)
social.
 Maximizes differences between groups and minimizes differences within
groups.
 You can adapt certain identities across different situations, which fit the best.

Social identity threats
1. Distinctiveness threat: group distinctiveness is prevented or undermined. Group
identity is not (fully) acknowledged.
2. Group-value threat: the group’s (moral) values or competence are undermined.
Being viewed negatively by the outgroup based on your group membership.
3. Categorization threat: being categorized against one’s will. Labeled under a certain
social identity against your own will. Can lead to disidentification with the outgroup or
focusing more on the individual level of identification.
4. Acceptance threat: one’s position within the group is undermined. Evaluated
negatively or rejected by our ingroup.
 The degree of a certain action considered as a threat is influenced by the level of
identification with the group.
 Also influences how people react to the threat (defensive, resolving, etc.).