Solidarity for the Long Haul

What holds people together in struggles for justice? Not identity, not reciprocity, and not altruism. My dissertation argues that genuine political solidarity is a specific kind of co-creation. It arises when people, faced with a shared obstacle, build a common moral understanding of what they’re fighting for and against. This “double-mediation”—by the material obstacle and by the shared understanding—produces a form of cooperation I refer to as non-reciprocal mutuality. Solidarity is like an orchestra: different parts, one shared performance, no ledger of who owes whom.

Solidarity's non-reciprocal structure relies on the human craving for devotion (Katsafanas). By aligning our need for devotion with the ironic, playful commitment that is paradigmatic of solidarity, we can invest ourselves fully in a cause without becoming rigid or fanatical. Solidarity is necessarily transformative: we become, in part, who we are through the struggle(s)—the conflict with those opposed to the cause and the debate with comrades, while creating a shared moral understanding in solidarity.

I use this theory of solidarity to clarify philosophical confusions, showing that the standard bifurcation between “symmetric” (reciprocal) and “asymmetric” (non-reciprocal) solidarity is a myth. Most importantly, I distinguish solidarity from the dangerous look-alike, nationalism. Nationalism binds people through a narrative of shared identity, demanding exclusion. Solidarity bonds people through a shared cause, remaining impartial. The difference determines whether our collective power is liberatory or oppressive.

With my dissertation, I offer a theory of solidarity for building movements that are powerful, principled, and capable of the long-haul struggle.