Solidaristic Practices as a Form of Democratic Empowerment
by Alexander Heindl (University of Munich)
In my contribution, I want to answer the question to what extent solidaristic practices can be understood as a form of collective and individual empowerment. From the perspective of social philosophy, this will also answer the question to what degree solidarity is normatively desirable. My contribution will consist of two parts. First, I will argue for a novel understanding of solidaristic practices, based on Pragmatist and Radical-Democratic thought. Second, the relationship between solidarity and empowerment will be established.
The first part will focus on the concept of “transformative solidarity” as experienced in political or social movements. It is a specific form of collective action, that is situated in the public arena of the “political” and aims at changing existing normative orders through establishing new discursive hegemonies (e.g. a new way of treating migrants). Solidarity therefore transcends the concrete context of a praxis of help or support to make a more general political statement, such as the idea of a “welcoming society” as a societal goal.
Combining John Dewey’s concept of democracy with Radical-Democratic theory, I understand democracy as an experimental practice taking place in the „political” sphere. The “political” consists of a constant power struggle where different collective formations collide in their fight to reshape the normative order of society. The “political” cannot be harmonized since every established part of a given normative order excludes other perspectives or needs. Hence, this perspective critically highlights the voices of the excluded. In addition, a plurality of conflicting perspectives within the sphere of the “political” is conceived as a precondition of a vital democracy.
The second part of my contribution analyzes if and in which way solidaristic practices induce empowerment on two levels essential for participation in such a democracy: on the individual as well as on the collective level. On the one hand, the construction of a solidaristic “we” empowers individuals engaged in collective action to actively shape social life through the provision of identity, sense, trust, safety and mutual support. These internal factors help to transform impuissance into individual and collective power. On the other hand, I state that a plurality of solidaristic practices fill the “political” with life, thereby introduce real political alternatives and new experiments of social organization into the discourse and therefore also enlarge the democratic space of concepts and actions itself. On the European level practices of “transformative solidarity” can additionally foster the construction of an European public sphere and can be seen as normatively desirable as long as they take place within the basic democratic principles.
Therefore, before institutionalizing solidarity between member states, the European Union first has to foster conditions for solidaristic action between citizens. Praxis and experience has to forego institutionalization in order to avoid that European solidarity remains an empty signifier.
The first part will focus on the concept of “transformative solidarity” as experienced in political or social movements. It is a specific form of collective action, that is situated in the public arena of the “political” and aims at changing existing normative orders through establishing new discursive hegemonies (e.g. a new way of treating migrants). Solidarity therefore transcends the concrete context of a praxis of help or support to make a more general political statement, such as the idea of a “welcoming society” as a societal goal.
Combining John Dewey’s concept of democracy with Radical-Democratic theory, I understand democracy as an experimental practice taking place in the „political” sphere. The “political” consists of a constant power struggle where different collective formations collide in their fight to reshape the normative order of society. The “political” cannot be harmonized since every established part of a given normative order excludes other perspectives or needs. Hence, this perspective critically highlights the voices of the excluded. In addition, a plurality of conflicting perspectives within the sphere of the “political” is conceived as a precondition of a vital democracy.
The second part of my contribution analyzes if and in which way solidaristic practices induce empowerment on two levels essential for participation in such a democracy: on the individual as well as on the collective level. On the one hand, the construction of a solidaristic “we” empowers individuals engaged in collective action to actively shape social life through the provision of identity, sense, trust, safety and mutual support. These internal factors help to transform impuissance into individual and collective power. On the other hand, I state that a plurality of solidaristic practices fill the “political” with life, thereby introduce real political alternatives and new experiments of social organization into the discourse and therefore also enlarge the democratic space of concepts and actions itself. On the European level practices of “transformative solidarity” can additionally foster the construction of an European public sphere and can be seen as normatively desirable as long as they take place within the basic democratic principles.
Therefore, before institutionalizing solidarity between member states, the European Union first has to foster conditions for solidaristic action between citizens. Praxis and experience has to forego institutionalization in order to avoid that European solidarity remains an empty signifier.