Solidarity has shifted from material obligation to symbolic performance, weakening its collective power. Online activism and "drive-by community" platforms encourage fleeting engagement, while "tee-shirt-and-meme solidarity" replaces real struggle. To reclaim solidarity, we must root it in long-term solidaristic communities and material commitments, not mere gestures.
Introduction
Solidarity has long been a defining term of the Left, invoked to signal collective struggle, shared commitment, and mutual support. Yet, as with
mutual aid, the concept has undergone a gradual dilution. Once a term describing a binding structure of shared obligation and material interdependence,
solidarity increasingly functions as a performative declaration—an ethical stance rather than an embedded political relationship.
Leah Hunt-Hendrix and Astra Taylor, in their book
Solidarity, offer an important framework for understanding this shift. They distinguish between
transformative solidarity, which actively builds power to restructure society, and
reactionary or counter-solidarity, which consolidates in-group bonds to exclude and dominate others. This distinction sharpens our critique of how leftist vocabulary has been enclosed and repurposed, though we diverge from Hunt-Hendrix and Taylor in certain ways—particularly in their emphasis on the role of the state in fostering solidarity and their framing of adversarial politics.
This article examines the evolution of
solidarity, its shifting meanings, and how its contemporary usage reflects broader trends in leftist discourse—particularly the retreat from durable collective power toward individualized moral positioning. By reconnecting
solidarity to concrete communal structures and reasserting its
obligatory rather than
affective dimension, we can begin to reclaim it as a living force in leftist organizing.
1. The Historical Evolution of Solidarity
The word
solidarity originates from the Latin
solidus, meaning "whole" or "firm." In legal and financial contexts, it denoted
solidary obligation, where individuals were mutually responsible for debts or agreements. The political meaning of
solidarity emerged in the 19th century, particularly in the labor movement, where it connoted
collective responsibility and mutual defense among workers.
For much of its history,
solidarity was not merely a sentiment; it was
a binding material reality. Trade unions, radical worker cooperatives, and revolutionary movements used the term to describe structures in which an injury to one was an injury to all—not in an abstract moral sense, but as a concrete fact. Strikes, boycotts, and other acts of collective resistance were
solidarity in action, forcing capital and the state to recognize the power of coordinated struggle.
Hunt-Hendrix and Taylor argue that transformative solidarity
requires institutions that foster interdependence, moving beyond fleeting moments of mobilization to sustained collective power. We agree but take issue with their optimism regarding the state's role in fostering solidarity, as historically state-led solidarity efforts have often been mechanisms of
containment rather than liberation. While they advocate for a "solidarity state," we question whether the state—given its historical function of managing capital and enforcing hierarchical order—can institutionalize
transformative solidarity without reproducing enclosures.
2. The Contemporary Dilution of Solidarity
In its contemporary usage,
solidarity has drifted in at least three key ways:
1. From Material Obligation to Ethical Gesture- Where solidarity once meant
acting with others in a shared struggle, it now often means
feeling for others from a distance.
- Online activism exemplifies this shift, where
solidarity is frequently expressed as an affirmation or statement of support rather than a commitment to shared risk or coordinated action.
- While symbolic solidarity is not meaningless, it lacks the
binding force that made the term historically powerful.
2. From Durable Commitment to Episodic Alignment- Solidarity is increasingly invoked in
temporary, reactive moments, often in response to crises, rather than as a sustained condition.
- This leads to
solidarity as spectacle—high-visibility campaigns of support that fade once the media cycle moves on.
- The absence of
institutional continuity means that many expressions of solidarity do not translate into lasting structures of resistance.
3. From Collective Strength to Individual Branding- Under neoliberal conditions, even radical language is shaped by the logic of
self-presentation.
- Solidarity often functions as a marker of moral virtue rather than as a structure of shared material risk.
- Activists and organizations may invoke
solidarity rhetorically while operating in ways that reinforce
competitive individualism.
A prime example of this phenomenon is the rise of
drive-by community, particularly in online microblogging platforms. These platforms encourage
short-lived, extractive engagement, where expressions of solidarity are
performed rather than sustained, favoring momentary alignment over enduring relationships. This is most pronounced in centralized, commercial social media spaces but is also present in decentralized, federated platforms. While these spaces facilitate rapid mobilization, they also fragment solidarity into
discrete, disconnected interactions, making it difficult to build
the long-term communal infrastructures necessary for real political transformation.
Relatedly, the contemporary Left is
overly invested in tee-shirt-and-meme solidarity, where expressions of alignment—whether in the form of slogans, merchandise, or viral content—substitute for
material acts of support and collective power-building.
3. Reclaiming Solidarity as Structure, Not Sentiment
To move beyond rhetorical or performative solidarity, we must
rebuild its material foundations. This means:
- Restoring the Material Basis of Solidarity through cooperatives, unions, and tenant organizations.
- Embedding Solidarity in Speech Communities and Communities of Practice by grounding it in real, lived social relations.
- Resisting the Enclosure of Solidarity by Capital and State by challenging corporate appropriation and symbolic activism.
- Reasserting Solidarity as Collective Power by cultivating long-term solidaristic communities rather than episodic mobilization.
Conclusion: Beyond Symbolic Solidarity
If
solidarity is to serve as more than a rallying cry, it must be
a binding social force, not just an ideological posture. Neoliberalism has turned
solidarity into a floating signifier—an ethical expression rather than a material condition. Reclaiming it means insisting on its
reciprocal, collective, and structural character, ensuring that it once again
binds us to each other in action, not just in words.
