We use words that embody profound concepts often without comprehending their nuances. So words remain simply words without producing the intended impact. If this is the state of inter-personal conversation, which becomes empty and ritualistic, what can one say about conversations that are of national importance and implications? A cluttered understanding of the operative meaning of a word contributes to tensions and conflicts at interpersonal, institutional and public domains. Confucius, the Chinese philosopher, had said, “If you want peace in the kingdom, be clear about your definitions”. Hence, for the sake of clear communication that leads to desired action towards fulfilment of our objectives, knowing the word is critically important.
In Indian literary traditions, a word has three meanings. Among others, Kaviraj Vishwanath Goswami has explained them in Sahitya Darpan. They are: shabdarth (literal meaning), bhavarth (figurative and contextual meaning), guddharth (deeper and philosophical meaning). Usually, the last one is imbibed by an individual who knows the earlier two meanings of the word.
Interestingly, I have encountered the confusion and gross misuse of words/concepts in all sectors – government, business, development, and academia, and so on. The development sector is the biggest victim of such confusions as it operates on a greater number of concepts than the other sectors. There is a litany of development jargons – need-based assessment, participatory development, livelihood generation, gender equity, sustainability, social mobilisation, inclusion, ownership, and so on. In politics, we see concepts like democracy, secularism, socialism, pluralism, equality, social justice, federalism, devolution, decentralisation, deprivation, discrimination and displacement, and so on.
Likewise in business, we come across words like growth, inflation, stagflation, recession, debt, fiscal deficit, private borrowing, globalisation, crony capitalism, demand, supply, demographic dividend, interest rate, price fluctuation, bitcoin, direct and indirect tax, GST, demonitisation and so on. When it is political economy, the confusion is even greater. People come across these words in everyday life in newspapers, political manifestos, budget etc. But, usually, they let the challenge of the word pass and consequently, cannot effectively engage in economic policies or activities.
Let me share one interesting and instructive anecdote that prompted me to come up with this column. A European development agency had invited their partner NGOs in India working on gender projects to a training-workshop run by a noted gender expert of our country. There were about 21 heads of NGOs attending it in a farmhouse in Delhi. I was one of them. Before the start of the training, the resource person (gender expert) asked all of us to write in a piece of paper, in a few words, the meaning of gender as we knew it. To everyone’s surprise, only one and a half answers were correct. The correct answer was given by a young lady who had attended a previous training programme conducted by the same gender expert. The half-correct answer was mine!
Today’s Concept is Solidarity
The concept of solidarity has not captured the interest of political philosophers to the same extent as those of freedom, equality and justice. There are however quite a few slogan-like phrases in different cultures expressing the implications of solidarity. For example, there are words in the Bible, “Bear one another’s burdens”. In Indian Vedic culture, it is Vasudhaiva Kutumbkam (world is a family). Remember also the old motto of the Labour Movement, “United we stand, divided we fall”.
The above mentioned popular phrases indicate a union between people – a union that comprises both responsibility for each other and dependence on each other. This mutual dependence and togetherness is manifested in fellowship or solidarity. Used initially as a term in sociology by Durkheim, it denoted the internal forces of cohesion, later the Left ideology groups began to use it as a tool of class consciousness that led to intra-class solidarity
Yet, solidarity is one of the least discussed concepts in the political literature even though one rarely hears a political speech these days that makes no mention of it. Solidarity owes its origin to the word fraternite in the French Revolution. For the sake of gender balance (fraternity is brotherhood), it became solidarity. The word solidarity derives from the Latin word solidus, which means firm, dense, sustainable, and which is found in words such as solid and solidity. To put it simply, solidarity creates a more solid, more stable and unified society. For the early Labour Movement, unification was the necessary premise for changing the society. No one person acting alone was able to tackle injustice. The strength to do so required people standing together. It was important to stay unified in the struggle for justice.
Historically, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels had described the conditions of the emergence of solidarity with regard to the Labour Movement in the Communist Manifesto of 1848. They defined it as the engine of social change. Solidarity for Marx and Engels emerged when the workers found themselves in similar circumstances – against capitalism – which they can fight only if they put their differences aside and come together in solidarity.
The concept of solidarity is also a practical expression of the realisation that we are all social beings, inter-dependent on each other. Opportunities for life have to be shared by all. Solidarity thus implies that a society shaped by common good is the most successful society. Solidarity must be seen as the collective self-interest as well as a joint and mutual responsibility for how society functions. This can be best illustrated with the axiom that, “It takes a village to raise a child”. Parents have the fundamental responsibility for raising their own children and ensuring their well-being. But the upbringing of the children is also affected by their entire social environment. And we are all responsible for that.
Generally, there is a consensus on the broad features of solidarity which is described as a "feeling of human community and responsibility" that often "finds expression in behaviour that benefits society," which, in some cases, may "even (go) against the individual's own short-term interests" and goes beyond the formal claim to reciprocal justice.
Solidarity is the glue that binds other progressive principles – equality, freedom, justice, pluralism etc. Solidarity has two aspects - one, to acquire a sense of overarching community; a feeling that all citizens inhabiting a country is like a large community. Our Constitution also starts with, "We the people of India give ourselves a Constitution...." The word "we" implies community-ness. And a community is based on the principle and practice of "caring and sharing", which is really the expression of solidarity. If you have an umbrella and if it is raining, you can share it with a fellow human being who is standing in the rain without one. That is caring for others and is an expression of solidarity.
The second is the fight for justice. This refers to solidarity within the community, not necessarily across the communities. This is when solidarity becomes a weapon for the weak in their fight for social justice. Karl Marx had famously said, "Man exploits man." This really brilliantly characterizes the history of mankind, when strong has dominated and exploited the weak. It is true that most constitutions in democratic politics do not put the dominant and the dominated, the strong and the weak, the rich and poor in antagonistic terms. They seek to maintain equality and a social order through regulation and distributive justice. But human nature being what it is, acts of solidarity are critical in maintaining a plural society.
The American theologist and intellectual Karl Paul Reinhold Niebuhr said, "Man's capacity for justice makes democracy possible, but man's inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary". Without solidarity, justice is impossible to secure or deliver. Let us recall John Ruskin's legendary essay, titled "Unto The Last". The title was taken from the Bible, "The Parable of the workers in vineyard" in Mathew 20:14-15, "I will give unto this last even as unto thee... So, the first shall be last, and the last first." Gandhiji translated it into "sarvodaya" (well-being of all), and later, Vinoba Bhave called sarvodaya is antyodaya (well-being of the last or the poorest). Both these concepts entail solidarity; rich and the privileged must care for the poor.
Solidarity also implies tolerance, love and compassion. Many countries including India lack compassion in public life. For instance, an accident victim lying on the road in a pool of blood is not attended to by all passers-by. Only one in hundred or thousand cares to intervene or inform the police. The idea of embracing solidarity is to bring compassion to the forefront of public life.
Human solidarity has to be consciously striven for, and not only assumed. Solidarity expresses the experience that people can live together humanely, freely as equals only if they feel responsible for, belong to and serve one another. Solidarity, to be truly meaningful, has to be expressed in "day-by-day cooperation". This is then operationalized through "social institutions and structures within the framework of which solidarity develop and contribute to social security". It need not stop at national frontiers and has a universal meaning and purpose.
In actualising the concept, three different aspects of solidarity have to be addressed. One, how can people act in solidarity with one another; that is also act against their own short-term self-interests? Second, how can current forms of cooperation be described and what room do they leave for the survival of the spirit of solidarity. Third, solidarity requires societal (working) forms. What forms of solidarity have developed in our society?
To elaborate aspect one, solidarity in action encounters two usual misunderstandings. The first misunderstanding rests on the assumption that anyone who acts in solidarity curtails his own benefits. So, whoever gives priority to their own interests is not acting in solidarity. The second misunderstanding assumes that constantly acting in solidarity is irrational; logically it conflicts with one’s own interests making the solidarity acts impracticable. Therefore, solidarity behaviour must be limited. Also, solidarity is an indulgence of the well-off, something only for those who can afford it.
On the other hand, many authors have argued that there is rational justification for acting in solidarity which benefits both individuals and the society. In fact, Robert Axelrod, an American political scientist, provided a convincing answer to the above misunderstandings in 1980s in his book ‘The Evolution of Cooperation’. By means of an experiment Axelrod was able to prove that cooperative behaviour can lead to better outcomes for all in the long term.
Aspect two is about practical cooperation and social solidarity. It was already evident to Marx and Engels that co-existence and cooperation are keys to the emergence of solidarity. The working environment has of course changed substantially since the time of Marx and Engels. What is the current situation with regard to the interaction of social solidarity and cooperation? Richard Sennett, an American sociologist, in his 2012 book, ‘Together: The Rituals, Pleasures, and Politics of Cooperation’. He describes cooperation (a basis of solidarity) as an exchange in which participants benefit from each other… They cooperate in order to create something that they could not create alone. He qualifies good deeds and altruism. Not every form of benevolence and altruism contributes to a solidarity society. Good deeds alone do not create a fairer society however praiseworthy they are. The dividing line here is between actions that nearly elevate people’s needs and those actions that put people in a position to lead a self-determined, secure life on an equal footing.
Aspect three is about forms of solidarity. It requires social forms in which it can find expression. Historically, various forms have taken shape and remain powerful organisations even today with considerable influence and functions in our society. Three examples may suffice – cooperatives, second, social security, and third, clubs, parties and trade unions.
In Cooperatives, people or businesses come together in a joint trading and economic enterprise to back one another up (socially) and produce goods under good working conditions. The first workers’ cooperative was set up by Robert Owen in his cotton mill in New Lanark (Scotland). The cooperatives are characterised even today by their democratic organisation and stable economic form. Particularly, in the wake of the financial market crises from 2011, also within the framework of the energy transition in Germany, Cooperatives are once more becoming attractive.
Social security which some countries call it insurance was established with the aim of providing people protection against some of life’s contingencies (sickness, invalidity, old age). In Germany, it was introduced way back in 1890s. Bismarck was reacting to the growing influence and pressure from the Labour Movement. Social insurance brought solidarity between workers under the control of the state.
Clubs developed in Europe from the 1850s onwards. It was permitted under state control to form associations of persons in order to pursue social, political or cultural goals. Clubs were characterised by their nature of solidarity. One of the best known clubs was the General German Workers Association from which the Social Democratic Party of Germany developed. The trade unions too developed from clubs. Self-help clubs were another important development. A prominent example was the Workers’ Welfare in Germany.
Let us also note that solidarity taken in isolation can be exclusive and discriminatory. Extremist groups have good solidarity among them but are bad examples. To a democratic polity that is based on a pluralistic civil society, the extremist form of solidarity represents a grave danger. It oversteps the mark; feeding social cohesion with animosity and discrimination against others. Therefore, the part and parcel of any discussion of solidarity should be the realisation of freedom and equality in a democratic society.
Email:-----------------------dr.dkgiri@gmail.com
We use words that embody profound concepts often without comprehending their nuances. So words remain simply words without producing the intended impact. If this is the state of inter-personal conversation, which becomes empty and ritualistic, what can one say about conversations that are of national importance and implications? A cluttered understanding of the operative meaning of a word contributes to tensions and conflicts at interpersonal, institutional and public domains. Confucius, the Chinese philosopher, had said, “If you want peace in the kingdom, be clear about your definitions”. Hence, for the sake of clear communication that leads to desired action towards fulfilment of our objectives, knowing the word is critically important.
In Indian literary traditions, a word has three meanings. Among others, Kaviraj Vishwanath Goswami has explained them in Sahitya Darpan. They are: shabdarth (literal meaning), bhavarth (figurative and contextual meaning), guddharth (deeper and philosophical meaning). Usually, the last one is imbibed by an individual who knows the earlier two meanings of the word.
Interestingly, I have encountered the confusion and gross misuse of words/concepts in all sectors – government, business, development, and academia, and so on. The development sector is the biggest victim of such confusions as it operates on a greater number of concepts than the other sectors. There is a litany of development jargons – need-based assessment, participatory development, livelihood generation, gender equity, sustainability, social mobilisation, inclusion, ownership, and so on. In politics, we see concepts like democracy, secularism, socialism, pluralism, equality, social justice, federalism, devolution, decentralisation, deprivation, discrimination and displacement, and so on.
Likewise in business, we come across words like growth, inflation, stagflation, recession, debt, fiscal deficit, private borrowing, globalisation, crony capitalism, demand, supply, demographic dividend, interest rate, price fluctuation, bitcoin, direct and indirect tax, GST, demonitisation and so on. When it is political economy, the confusion is even greater. People come across these words in everyday life in newspapers, political manifestos, budget etc. But, usually, they let the challenge of the word pass and consequently, cannot effectively engage in economic policies or activities.
Let me share one interesting and instructive anecdote that prompted me to come up with this column. A European development agency had invited their partner NGOs in India working on gender projects to a training-workshop run by a noted gender expert of our country. There were about 21 heads of NGOs attending it in a farmhouse in Delhi. I was one of them. Before the start of the training, the resource person (gender expert) asked all of us to write in a piece of paper, in a few words, the meaning of gender as we knew it. To everyone’s surprise, only one and a half answers were correct. The correct answer was given by a young lady who had attended a previous training programme conducted by the same gender expert. The half-correct answer was mine!
Today’s Concept is Solidarity
The concept of solidarity has not captured the interest of political philosophers to the same extent as those of freedom, equality and justice. There are however quite a few slogan-like phrases in different cultures expressing the implications of solidarity. For example, there are words in the Bible, “Bear one another’s burdens”. In Indian Vedic culture, it is Vasudhaiva Kutumbkam (world is a family). Remember also the old motto of the Labour Movement, “United we stand, divided we fall”.
The above mentioned popular phrases indicate a union between people – a union that comprises both responsibility for each other and dependence on each other. This mutual dependence and togetherness is manifested in fellowship or solidarity. Used initially as a term in sociology by Durkheim, it denoted the internal forces of cohesion, later the Left ideology groups began to use it as a tool of class consciousness that led to intra-class solidarity
Yet, solidarity is one of the least discussed concepts in the political literature even though one rarely hears a political speech these days that makes no mention of it. Solidarity owes its origin to the word fraternite in the French Revolution. For the sake of gender balance (fraternity is brotherhood), it became solidarity. The word solidarity derives from the Latin word solidus, which means firm, dense, sustainable, and which is found in words such as solid and solidity. To put it simply, solidarity creates a more solid, more stable and unified society. For the early Labour Movement, unification was the necessary premise for changing the society. No one person acting alone was able to tackle injustice. The strength to do so required people standing together. It was important to stay unified in the struggle for justice.
Historically, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels had described the conditions of the emergence of solidarity with regard to the Labour Movement in the Communist Manifesto of 1848. They defined it as the engine of social change. Solidarity for Marx and Engels emerged when the workers found themselves in similar circumstances – against capitalism – which they can fight only if they put their differences aside and come together in solidarity.
The concept of solidarity is also a practical expression of the realisation that we are all social beings, inter-dependent on each other. Opportunities for life have to be shared by all. Solidarity thus implies that a society shaped by common good is the most successful society. Solidarity must be seen as the collective self-interest as well as a joint and mutual responsibility for how society functions. This can be best illustrated with the axiom that, “It takes a village to raise a child”. Parents have the fundamental responsibility for raising their own children and ensuring their well-being. But the upbringing of the children is also affected by their entire social environment. And we are all responsible for that.
Generally, there is a consensus on the broad features of solidarity which is described as a "feeling of human community and responsibility" that often "finds expression in behaviour that benefits society," which, in some cases, may "even (go) against the individual's own short-term interests" and goes beyond the formal claim to reciprocal justice.
Solidarity is the glue that binds other progressive principles – equality, freedom, justice, pluralism etc. Solidarity has two aspects - one, to acquire a sense of overarching community; a feeling that all citizens inhabiting a country is like a large community. Our Constitution also starts with, "We the people of India give ourselves a Constitution...." The word "we" implies community-ness. And a community is based on the principle and practice of "caring and sharing", which is really the expression of solidarity. If you have an umbrella and if it is raining, you can share it with a fellow human being who is standing in the rain without one. That is caring for others and is an expression of solidarity.
The second is the fight for justice. This refers to solidarity within the community, not necessarily across the communities. This is when solidarity becomes a weapon for the weak in their fight for social justice. Karl Marx had famously said, "Man exploits man." This really brilliantly characterizes the history of mankind, when strong has dominated and exploited the weak. It is true that most constitutions in democratic politics do not put the dominant and the dominated, the strong and the weak, the rich and poor in antagonistic terms. They seek to maintain equality and a social order through regulation and distributive justice. But human nature being what it is, acts of solidarity are critical in maintaining a plural society.
The American theologist and intellectual Karl Paul Reinhold Niebuhr said, "Man's capacity for justice makes democracy possible, but man's inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary". Without solidarity, justice is impossible to secure or deliver. Let us recall John Ruskin's legendary essay, titled "Unto The Last". The title was taken from the Bible, "The Parable of the workers in vineyard" in Mathew 20:14-15, "I will give unto this last even as unto thee... So, the first shall be last, and the last first." Gandhiji translated it into "sarvodaya" (well-being of all), and later, Vinoba Bhave called sarvodaya is antyodaya (well-being of the last or the poorest). Both these concepts entail solidarity; rich and the privileged must care for the poor.
Solidarity also implies tolerance, love and compassion. Many countries including India lack compassion in public life. For instance, an accident victim lying on the road in a pool of blood is not attended to by all passers-by. Only one in hundred or thousand cares to intervene or inform the police. The idea of embracing solidarity is to bring compassion to the forefront of public life.
Human solidarity has to be consciously striven for, and not only assumed. Solidarity expresses the experience that people can live together humanely, freely as equals only if they feel responsible for, belong to and serve one another. Solidarity, to be truly meaningful, has to be expressed in "day-by-day cooperation". This is then operationalized through "social institutions and structures within the framework of which solidarity develop and contribute to social security". It need not stop at national frontiers and has a universal meaning and purpose.
In actualising the concept, three different aspects of solidarity have to be addressed. One, how can people act in solidarity with one another; that is also act against their own short-term self-interests? Second, how can current forms of cooperation be described and what room do they leave for the survival of the spirit of solidarity. Third, solidarity requires societal (working) forms. What forms of solidarity have developed in our society?
To elaborate aspect one, solidarity in action encounters two usual misunderstandings. The first misunderstanding rests on the assumption that anyone who acts in solidarity curtails his own benefits. So, whoever gives priority to their own interests is not acting in solidarity. The second misunderstanding assumes that constantly acting in solidarity is irrational; logically it conflicts with one’s own interests making the solidarity acts impracticable. Therefore, solidarity behaviour must be limited. Also, solidarity is an indulgence of the well-off, something only for those who can afford it.
On the other hand, many authors have argued that there is rational justification for acting in solidarity which benefits both individuals and the society. In fact, Robert Axelrod, an American political scientist, provided a convincing answer to the above misunderstandings in 1980s in his book ‘The Evolution of Cooperation’. By means of an experiment Axelrod was able to prove that cooperative behaviour can lead to better outcomes for all in the long term.
Aspect two is about practical cooperation and social solidarity. It was already evident to Marx and Engels that co-existence and cooperation are keys to the emergence of solidarity. The working environment has of course changed substantially since the time of Marx and Engels. What is the current situation with regard to the interaction of social solidarity and cooperation? Richard Sennett, an American sociologist, in his 2012 book, ‘Together: The Rituals, Pleasures, and Politics of Cooperation’. He describes cooperation (a basis of solidarity) as an exchange in which participants benefit from each other… They cooperate in order to create something that they could not create alone. He qualifies good deeds and altruism. Not every form of benevolence and altruism contributes to a solidarity society. Good deeds alone do not create a fairer society however praiseworthy they are. The dividing line here is between actions that nearly elevate people’s needs and those actions that put people in a position to lead a self-determined, secure life on an equal footing.
Aspect three is about forms of solidarity. It requires social forms in which it can find expression. Historically, various forms have taken shape and remain powerful organisations even today with considerable influence and functions in our society. Three examples may suffice – cooperatives, second, social security, and third, clubs, parties and trade unions.
In Cooperatives, people or businesses come together in a joint trading and economic enterprise to back one another up (socially) and produce goods under good working conditions. The first workers’ cooperative was set up by Robert Owen in his cotton mill in New Lanark (Scotland). The cooperatives are characterised even today by their democratic organisation and stable economic form. Particularly, in the wake of the financial market crises from 2011, also within the framework of the energy transition in Germany, Cooperatives are once more becoming attractive.
Social security which some countries call it insurance was established with the aim of providing people protection against some of life’s contingencies (sickness, invalidity, old age). In Germany, it was introduced way back in 1890s. Bismarck was reacting to the growing influence and pressure from the Labour Movement. Social insurance brought solidarity between workers under the control of the state.
Clubs developed in Europe from the 1850s onwards. It was permitted under state control to form associations of persons in order to pursue social, political or cultural goals. Clubs were characterised by their nature of solidarity. One of the best known clubs was the General German Workers Association from which the Social Democratic Party of Germany developed. The trade unions too developed from clubs. Self-help clubs were another important development. A prominent example was the Workers’ Welfare in Germany.
Let us also note that solidarity taken in isolation can be exclusive and discriminatory. Extremist groups have good solidarity among them but are bad examples. To a democratic polity that is based on a pluralistic civil society, the extremist form of solidarity represents a grave danger. It oversteps the mark; feeding social cohesion with animosity and discrimination against others. Therefore, the part and parcel of any discussion of solidarity should be the realisation of freedom and equality in a democratic society.
Email:-----------------------dr.dkgiri@gmail.com
© Copyright 2023 brighterkashmir.com All Rights Reserved. Quantum Technologies