Rethinking solidarity in Europe - English

In this together

By Juliane Mendelsohn2.10.2014Economics, Europe

If solidarity is to serve political change, it must be elevated to a normative goal and enforced as a principle of law and not as a matter of choice.


Mella /

Since the eruption of the Eurozone crisis in late 2008, I – and many others – have been struggling with the comprehension, the origins and the manifestation of what seems to be this “generation’s greatest political “ideal”()”: *solidarity*.

Solidarity is – in essence – a sense kindness and empathy, often combined with the strong political desire to alleviate others from suffering and to live in an altogether different world. By means of solidarity, we are told to feel kinship with Greeks, Palestinians, workers, women, Ebola patients and other persons altogether less fortunate.

But solidarity is also tricky and has massive limitations. A continued sense of solidarity quickly becomes irreconcilable with harsh facts, such as the unveiling of other people as scoundrels of evidence that they may have been partly responsible for their own grief. It requires immense persistence to empathize with people we are told are corrupt or irresponsibly, that send their own children into hell and hardship.

A toxic division

Calling what went down in Europe before, during, and after the crisis, a manifestation of solidarity is not “a stretch” but a fallacy. Since the crisis, Europe has been shaped by “the interests of single member states()”: and their desire to cling to familiar economic dogma. All the while showing few signs of greater social cohesion or community. On the contrary, bailouts and other crisis mechanisms have created a toxic division of Europe into the charitable lender states in the North and receivers in the South, making political equality and real solidarity between them impossible.

Solidarity is most likely to occur only amongst equals. According to Èmile Durkheim, _“cohesion and integration comes from the homogeneity of individuals: people feel connected through similar work, education and religious training, and lifestyle, which is often based on the kinship ties of familiar networks.”_ Where people are not equal, apparent gestured of “kindness” are most often not expressions of solidarity, but of something entirely different: *charity*.

But even amongst equals, solidarity cannot be guaranteed. The German Federal States of Bavaria, Hesse and Baden-Württemberg have repeatedly brought legal actions against the monetary transfers (the so-called Länderfinanzausgleich) from the South to the East and North of Germany. They were shut down by the law that guarantees equal opportunities to citizen and reaches beyond the borders of Federal States.

If solidarity is to serve as a justification for long-term and sustainable political change, it must be elevated to a normative goal and enforced as a principle of law and not as a matter of choice that can be refuted by a couple of people’s true sentiments.

Mercy alone won’t do

Europe was not created as a Union of heartfelt and charitable sentiments but as a Union of rights. We don’t think of women being able to vote, Afro-Americans being released from slavery or gays being allowed to marry as an act of kindness or solidarity, but as a natural consequence of their equality and rights as human beings. Why should the same not hold true for basic economic freedoms and equal chances to economic prosperity? Economies and societies cannot function without a distribution of welfare and rights and equality cannot be guaranteed. This could easily be achieved by common policies or, to bring in an entirely outrageous suggestion, “a common European income tax”:

A common identity, empathy, kindness and ultimately solidarity are important things, but if we want to build a common Europe or guarantee fundamental rights and equality around the globe, we cannot do this on the basis of mercy alone.



Most People Are Rationally Ignorant

What decisions would we make if we deliberated carefully about public policy? Alexander Görlach sat down with Stanford's James Fishkin to discuss deliberative democracy, parliamentary discontent, and the future of the two-party system.

A Violent Tea Party?

For many Europeans the massacre in Arizona is another evidence that political violence is spreading in the United States but this unfortunate event was the deed of a mentally ill person, not a political activist. There is no evidence of an increasing political extremism tearing America apart. Using

Passage to India

The US and Russia don't agree on much - but they are both keen to develop a good relationship with India. How do we know? Look at the arms trade.

"Cities are making us more human"

More than 50 percent of the world's population now live in cities – and there is no end of urbanization in sight. Harvard economist Edward Glaeser believes urbanization to be a solution to many unanswered problems: pollution, depression and a lack of creativity. He spoke with Lars Mensel about the

No Glove, No Love

Contrary to the mantras repeated by the press, HIV infections are not increasing. We need to move away from activist scare tactics and towards complex risk management strategies.

Perfection Is Not A Useful Concept

Nick Bostrom directs the Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford University. He talked with Martin Eiermann about existential risks, genetic enhancements and the importance of ethical discourses about technological progress.

Mobile Sliding Menu