A Study Of Solidarity From The Perspective Of Contemporary Political Philosophy

Liberty, equality, and fraternity, which used to be the three slogans for the French Revolution, laid the value foundation of thought and practices of modern society. With the changing social ideology, the concept of solidarity gradually evolved from fraternity, and finally replaced it. Liberty, equality, and solidarity now become the three fundamental values of western political ideals. However, for a long time, the researches on solidarity are mainly made from the perspectives of sociological theory or social philosophy, while rarely has anyone interpreted it by the adoption of political theory.This situation has been changed from around the1970s to the1980s. After Rawls’ A Theory of Justice has started the revival of political philosophy, scholars have been criticizing the theory of justice from the perspectives of libertarianism and communitariansim. During this criticizing period, the theoritical value of solidarity has been highlighted. Twenty years debate led to some consensus, and one of them is if the theory of justice which implements the principles of freedom and equality, wants to succeed, there must be corresponding social conditions working as a support. To be accurate, only being in a fraternal or a solidary community could the justice be truly achieved or implemented. Of course, maybe justice and solidarity would be both implemented. But in any case, theories of justice and solidarity must complement each other.From social reality level, with traditional society changing into modern society, the homogeneity of pre-modern society is no longer exist, instead it has been replaced by social individuation and pluralism. Diversity of people’s cultural backgrounds, values, lifestyles and interests greatly exacerbates the possibility of social conflict. Under this kind of situation, the original basis of social order and social integrative mechanisms appear to be incapable, and therefore, it is urgent to explore and construct a solidarity theory that fits the modern society.Based on such a double concern of theoretical issues and practical problems, we try to explore a modern solidarity theory which includes diversity. After the process of observation and analysis, we believe that this solidarity theory must meet two requirements:the first is to protect individual autonomy, and the second is to respect the obligation that people have to take because of the non-voluntary associative identity. These two requirements have the same basic position in modern people’s moral intuition, and neither one could be reduced to the other. Taking this as a standard, this paper discusses several relevant political theories.The substantialist model of communitarianist solidarity conceives the political community as an "ethical totality" in which the individual is completely absorbed. So this conception of solidarity appears as a dangerous model of the state in any society already characterized by the "fact of pluralism," for it does appear to require oppressive use of state power in order to achieve the kind of value integration idealized. Rawls’s political liberalism attempts to isolate a political conception of justice from non-political morality, and this strict separation tends to undermine the ability of his theory to recognize of citizens’ special identity. Then it would endanger the stability of the very state his approach is attempting to preserve.Liberal nationalists offer a view of civic solidarity based on a shared national culture. According to this conception of solidarity, the liberal state should actively promote a kind of common national culture. Once liberal nationalists acknowledge that all national cultures have ethnic cores, they need an answer to why ethnic minorities outside the ethnic core should embrace the national culture. On the new republican view, freedom is defined as non-domination and is placed as the highest good to be realized. So they can accommodate the notion of the common good, because they conceive freedom in a teleological way. However, this leads to the consequence that the common good can be promoted by means of domination.On the base of Kantian moral theory and the theory of communicative action, Habermas has constructed a radically inclusive conception of solidarity. He suggests that shared constitutional principles, not a shared ethno-cultural identity, can and should be the basis of civic solidarity among citizens. According to discourse ethics of Habermas, the individual’s inalienable right to say yes or no and her overcoming of her egocentric viewpoint. Without the first, consensuses are merely factual rather than impartial and universal. Without the latter, no ’other-perspective-taking’, and therefore, universal agreement can emerge. These two conditions, representing the respect for the individual autonomy and the recognition of individuals’ interdependence, are internally connected and accounted for by discourse theory.The main concern of Habermas’ discourse ethics is the reconstruction of the practice of solidarity to reveal the universal norm behind every act of solidarity. This leads to the consequence that his constitutional patriotism emphasizes the moral-legal-procedural component too much. So some scholars think Habermas’s theory of solidarity is too formal and thin to serve as an effective form of solidarity. While Cooke agrees with Habermas that solidarity requires a moral-legal-procedural component she also believes, with Axel Honneth, that solidarity requires a more substantive ethical-political component. Thus, Cooke’s theory provides a very general framework for establishing a theory of solidarity which can reconcile individual autonomy and associative identity.