SOLIDARITY A Short Introducion S.A. Stocker “We were born of the protest against wrongs, immiliation and injustice, We are and independent, self ‘governing labor union of the people from all regions and alltrades. We defend the rights, dignity and interests of the entire labor world?- Principal Aims of the Polish Workers’ Movement, Section I I The Concept of Solidarity Solidarity is an important political concept, first articulated by the noted German theorist Jurgen Habermas. His view of Solidarity was largely shaped by the Polish revolution of 1981. Iam going to skip this case study here, in the interest of brevity, but the reader may find it useful to think about a variety of historical events — particularly social movements towards the latter half of the 20" century - ‘when considering the applicability of this concept. ‘To understand Solidarity as a concept, itis helpful to first consider Habermas’ broader view of society and power. He contends that there are basically three sources of power in society: 1. The hierarchical regulatory apparatus of sovereign state authority (Administrative Power) 2. The decentralized regulatory mechanism of the market (Self-Interest) 3. Popular sovereignty (Solidarity) ‘The third source of power, Solidarity, is the spontaneous emergence of mass opposition to the state and its administrative power. It emerges from generalized feelings of exclusion held by people across social and economic lines within a given state or society. Solidarity emerges in the form of mass mobilization ony when administrative power becomes 50 severely detached from its sources of legitimation that peoole no longer see it as valid or meaningful. It is an ever-present force, and the potential for mass mobilization is constant. ‘This desire for self determination and meaning does not spring from an inherent notion of natural individual rights, but from a desire to understand the worl¢ around us and to have a hand in shaping its future, Itis only through consensus and mutual understanding that notions such as individual rights have emerged; and these have not emerged in the furtherance of individual interests, but with the goal of collective advancement. In the words of Habermas, “Emancipated individuals are jointly called to be authors of their own destiny... this context is perceived as the product of a cooperative practice centered ‘on conscious political will formation.” IL What Enables Solidarity to Emerge? Solidarity is mobilized in the context of oppression and exclusion, manifested as an oppositional force to the instruments of oppression and exclusion. All forms of administrative power exercise some measure of coercion and denigration against the general populace, yet for Solidarity to emerge on a massive scale, this oppression must happen in such a " Hiabermas, Popular Sovereignty p. 468way and to such a degree that normally predominant notions of individual rights are suppressed in favor of greater egalitarian goals. ‘This transformation is the key to understanding the emergence of Solidarity. Solidarity emerges as mass mobilization when the power of the state has become self perpetuating and exclusive in its decision making processes to the degree that the general populace no longer perceive it to be valid, legitimate, or meaningful. As Habermas states, “To an increasing degree, the interventionist state has contracted into a subsystem steered by power and centered on itself, to an increasing degree, it has displaced legitimation processes into its environment.” Individual interests are zno longer worth pursuing - except among a select group of elites - and among the general population a sense of agency and self-determination has been completely stripped away. ‘ILL In What Context Can Solidarity Emerge? According to Habermas, “Popular sovereignty... camnot operate without the support of an accommodating structure.”° This prompts the question, in what context can Solidarity, in the form of ‘mass mobilization emerge? ‘Although the effectiveness of Solidarity as a mass social movement may hinge on certain ‘accommodations within the administrative structure of the state, the emergence of it does not. Tt is a spontaneous expression of unity in the face of oppression and exclusion and can emerge within even the most rigidly structured societies; the 1956 uprising in Hungary, the 1968 uprising in Czechoslovakia and the 1989 Tiananmen Square uprising in China are good examples of this. ‘The context can, of course, change. In a society were limited freedoms have helped facilitate the ‘mobilization of Solidarity in opposition to a regime’s oppression, that regime can, by mobilizing sufficient material and immaterial resources, displace all measures of accommodation and drive Solidarity underground. While this is a temporary solution to the tangible challenge of mass ‘mobilization, it creates in society a subsurface of repressed and condensed Solidarity that is in constant danger of exploding into mass demonstrations or anti-state violence. IV. How does Solidarity Function? ‘At one time, writes Habermas, “...democracy was something to be asserted against the despotism palpably embodied in the king, members of the aristocracy, and higher-ranking clerics. Since then, political authority has been depersonatized. Democratization now works to overcome not ‘genuinely political forms of resistance but rather the systematic imperatives of differentiated administrative systems.”* It is these systematic imperatives that Solidarity attempts to overcome, The goal is to force the state apparatus to replace the mechanisms of legitimation that systematic imperative have displaced. ‘The power of Solidarity, according to Habermas, “... is exercised in the manner of a siege. It influences the premises of judgment and decision making in the political system without intending to conquer the system itself” V. Dangers of Institutionalization 2 Habermas, Popular Sovereignty p. 483. 2 Habermas, Popular Sovereignty p. 487 ‘ Habermas, Popular Sovereignty p. 469 = * Habermas, Popular Sovereigmy p. 486ust as a revolution is no longer a revolutic Solidarity when it becomes institutionalized. Thi Solidarity as a social movement. Solidarity should function as a ‘siege’ against the state and should shape its decision making ‘processes indirectly, not directly. When it becomes an instiutionalized power it begins to rely on ‘material resources and tangible power more than the immaterial resources — thet is, human understanding, consensus and spontaneity — that built its foundation. As Habermas notes, when a revolution is insttutionalized, “The Revolution dismisses its dissidents, who no longer rebel against anything but the Revolution itself.”* In effect, when the revolution comes to power, it inhabits the same political space as the regime it overthrew and by doing so creates the potential for revolution, or Solidarity, in opposition to itself. It is in fact a systematic imperative of administrative power to view dissent as a threat, and to treat it accordingly. jnen it overthrows the state, Solidarity ceases to be ‘in fact the greatest threat to the effectiveness of ‘VI. Beyond Solidarity as a Social Movement According to Habermas, Solidarity can in fact be institutionatized, within the framework of what he calls “Radical Democracy”, a republic that is “...not a possession we simply accept as our fortunate inheritance from the past. Rather itis a project we must cacry forward in the consciousness of @ revolution both permanent and quotidian. I am not speaking ofa trivial revolution by other means.”” Of course, itis dificult to conceive of a revolution that is both permanent and quotidian, indeed, any use of the word permanent in conjunction with the word revoluticn is antithetical to the idea of Solidarity as a spontaneous force. In this “Radical Democracy” Habermas explains thst; “Because it can express itself only in. general and abstract laws, the united will of the citizens must perforce exclude all non-generalizable interests and admit only those regulations that guarantee ecual liberties to all. The exercise of popular sovereignty simultaneously secures human rights.”* Itis my contention that such a democracy is not truly possible. Administrative power by its very nature (and Habermas supports me on this point) works to perpetuate its own power and displace ‘mechanisms of legitimation at the expense of agency and self determination on the part of the people, Solidarity and administrative power are therefore oppositional forces that cannot be integrated; the first ‘works methodically and strategically to expand its circulation of power and the second works spontaneously and communicatively to oppose that circulation of power. In conclusion, Solidarity is a temporal and spontaneous manifestation of collective will that ‘cannot be institutionalized. It emerges from shared understanding. It is the one force that guarantees our freedom to act as agents of our own destiny. Its the powerful understanding that in the face of exclusion and oppression, the interests of others are in fact the interests of us. As the Rev. Martin Niemoller said in 1945, “First they came for the Communists, and I didn't speak wo, because ! wasn't a Communist. Then they ‘came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn'ta Jew. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up, because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me.” © Habermas, Popular Sovereignty p. 458 1 Habermas, Popular Sovereignty p. 471 * Habermas, Popular Sovereignty p. 473