Research

Solidarity is routinely invoked but poorly anatomized. Against accounts that reduce it to group loyalty, affective warmth, or reciprocal obligation, I argue solidarity is a unique structure of cooperative agency defined by a double mediation. First, it is materially mediated by a shared obstacle or injustice—the against which (Viehoff 2025). Second, it is reflexively mediated by a co-created shared moral understanding—the for which (Dishaw 2024). Solidarity is the dynamic relationship between these two mediated relations. This model explains solidarity’s ontological status as an emergent ‘power-with’ (Zheng 2023) and its constitutive role in shaping political subjectivity. I centralize conflict and co-creation, displacing harmony or identity as solidarity's grounding.

Why do individuals commit to grueling, risky collective action? I argue solidarity productively harnesses what Katsafanas identifies as a fundamental human craving for devotion—the drive to invest in ‘sacred’ values beyond rational self-interest (2022). However, unlike fanatical groups that cement dialectical invulnerability, the double-mediated structure of solidarity—particularly its shared moral understanding—promotes an ironic attachment to these same values. Through what Jonathan Lear calls ‘erotic uncanniness’ (2014), solidary subjects learn to treat ends as simultaneously sacred and contingent. This ironic devotion, drawing on Audre Lorde’s erotic as empowered sharing (1978), aligns desire with obligation without succumbing to the rigidities of fanaticism.

What is the normative structure of cooperation in solidarity? Rejecting reciprocal exchange models (Forst 2024) and deferential hierarchies, I defend a model of non-reciprocal mutuality. Solidary cooperation is like an orchestra: members have non-fungible roles oriented toward a shared performance, not a ledger of individual obligations. One's obligation is to the joint interest (Taylor 2015), not to the other individuals. This model explains how solidarity integrates actors with vastly different levels of privilege and capacity without falling into transactional accounting or paternalistic deference. Non-reciprocal mutuality is the cooperative logic that falls directly from solidarity’s cause-mediated ontology (Viehoff 2025), providing a framework for collective action that is both strategically effective and inherently anti-hierarchical.

Nationalism is often rhetorically draped in the language of solidarity. I provide a social-ontological demarcation to demonstrate that this is a category error. 

Allyship has emerged as the dominant framework for privileged actors seeking to combat oppression. I demonstrate that its core logic, wherein action must be authorized by or defer to the presumed unitary interests of an oppressed group, structurally objectifies those it aims to aid. By reifying an oppressed group as a monolith with authorizable interests, allyship abstracts from internal plurality and reduces individuals to fungible category members. Contrasting this with a cause-mediated model of solidarity (Viehoff 2025), I show how solidarity’s requirement of shared moral understanding (Dishaw 2024) and non-reciprocal mutuality (Thalos 2012) empowers without essentializing. This leaves us a choice between a framework that replicates the abstractions of oppression and one that resists them.

As organizing moves onto Slack, Discord, and Zoom, we must ask: can the robust, trust-dependent relationship of solidarity survive digital mediation? While digital tools enable unprecedented levels of cooperation, they systematically disrupt the embodied, affective experience salient for sustaining solidarity. Drawing on the affective theories of trust (Jones 1996), I argue that solidarity relies on affective feedback loops that thrive in co-presence. Digital mediation, through structural anonymity and emotional distance, attenuates these loops. While digital solidarity is not impossible, it is a precarious solidarity more vulnerable to burnout, suspicion, and collapse under pressure.

Theorists routinely bifurcate solidarity into ‘symmetric’ (reciprocal, fate-sharing) and ‘asymmetric’ (unidirectional, deferential) types. I argue this taxonomy is conceptually flawed and politically misleading. Through an analysis of cases from labor strikes to campus encampments, I show that all solidarity involves role differentiation and asymmetry in stakes and leverage. The expectation of strict reciprocity is a mirage; even in tight-knit unions, contributions are non-exchangeable and non-fungible. Obligation in solidarity flows from commitment to a joint interest, not a ledger of reciprocal exchange. Abandoning this bifurcation reveals the unified, non-reciprocal logic of solidarity across the phenomenon's diverse instantiations. 

If solidarity is necessarily exclusionary (us vs. not-us) and requires something shared among members, can it help us combat problems that directly threaten all humanity? Can we use it to overcome issues that primarily threaten non-human subjects, such as animals or even the earth itself? In this project, I elucidate the role of solidarity in social perseverance amid environmental crises, focusing on two potential avenues of solidaric perseverance—a solidarity with all of humanity and solidarities with non-human subjects.