State of the art

At the core of the research agenda set out for this dissertation is the definition of solidarity and its political dimension. Across time, the concept of solidarity has been understood in multiple ways in academic work and beyond. One of the main conceptual features of the concept of solidarity relates to its heterogeneity and contested nature (Lahusen et al. 2020; Ferrera and Burelli 2019; Stjerno 2005; Bayertz 1999). This is mainly due to its use in everyday life, which goes beyond the meanings used in social sciences.

Solidarity belongs to social realms and it is used to describe societal and public issues. In the following discussion, I provide a brief account of the use of the concept of solidarity across the social sciences, and I then discuss how literature has approached the political dimension of solidarity.

Solidarity in the social sciences

Discussing the full range and richness of academic writings on solidarity is a major study in itself, such as those conducted by Bayertz (1999), Stjerno (2005), Scholz (2008), and more recently by Gerhards et al. (2019) and Lahusen et al. (2020). Nevertheless, through these pages I elaborate a brief but thorough account of the three major academic perspectives investigating solidarity as they relate to my dissertation. As note earlier, this dissertation favours a multidisciplinary approach, pondering interconnections and differences between the fields of sociology, political science and psychology. Across these three disciplines, solidarity has been studied as social relations resulting in norms, obligations, attitudes and practices.

In field of political science, research has thoroughly explored the moral grounds for and related characteristics of solidarity, and its political implications, providing key elements for my research.

This includes the boundaries of solidarity grounded on political communities and political projects, which legitimise political attitudes and practices, and provides the grounds to rights and mutual obligations (Ferrara and Burrelli 2019; Bating and Kymlicka 2017; Stjerno 2005). Second, these studies suggest that solidarity entails moral obligations and collective responsibility, orienting support and caring obligations for others (Scholz 2015, 2008; Bayertz 1999; Rippe 1998).

Concerning the field of sociology, the study of solidarity centres firmly on its various roles – i.e., normative, structural and functional – examined through various modes of associations and the types of relations structuring and favouring those modes (Hechter 2015; Coleman 1990; Baldwin 1910, Durkheim 1993 [1893]). Sociological research on solidarity offers insights on social relations and settings, aiming at a groupness function by virtue of shared norms and obligations to social

24

configurations (memberships). These studies provide grounds to understand the various roles of solidarity and then identifying its political dimension.

Lastly, in social psychology, solidarity has largely been addressed at the individual and aggregate levels. These studies strongly focus on the motivational features of the concept, seeking to unveil how solidarity configures social categorisations (memberships) and identity dynamics (Schroeder and Graziano 2015; Lindenberg et al. 2006). These studies have also focused on the motivational factors associated with prosocial behaviour – namely solidarity behaviour. They add key elements to understand the main individual and collective factors associated with solidarity practices and attitudes. As such they provide grounds for studying the incorporation of social norms and obligations by individuals and groups enacting solidarity (political or not).

The combination of scholarly work in these three separate but related disciplines provide a valuable foundation from which to examine solidarity as hybrid concept denoting two major characteristics:

1) the groupness or membership function, which favours collective endeavours due to 2) observable cooperative and reciprocal practices and attitudes – outputs.

Previous studies on the political dimension of solidarity

Five areas of research can be identified relevant for the political dimension of solidarity, by which the following discussion is organised:

First, political studies have privileged arguments about the universal or particular commitments entailed by solidarity projects (Gerhards et al. 2020; Scholz 2015; Stjerno 2005). They investigate how political solidarity translates into community commitments (e.g., nationhood loyalties) based on particular understandings of communities of fate, or universal commitments based on ideals of a shared humanity. Additionally, political studies have surveyed how solidarity can motivate mutual concerns and obligations in increasingly diverse societies, suggesting that multicultural institutions contribute to institutional solidarity across groups (Banting and Kymlicka 2017). This a strand of literature has a long-lasting debate about the function of solidarity in relation to universal or particular norms and moral obligations to political projects.

Second, research in social policy has extensively focused on solidarity to define the criteria used to distinguish and analyse welfare states schemes (Bonoli and Natali 2012; Esping-Andersen 1990).

This strand of research has also addressed individual welfare scheme preferences and support of re-distributional policies as a function of political values, individual vulnerability and ranking preferences of deservedness among vulnerable groups (Gerhards et al. 2019; Rehm et al. 2012;

Reeskeens and van Oorschot 2012; Alesina and Giuliano 2011; Rehm 2009; van Oorschot 2006).

25

This area of research has also contributed to comparative approaches unveiling contextual factors – e.g., welfare state types and generosity – influencing people's attitudes towards collective endeavours and perceptions of vulnerability, fairness and deservingness (Ferrara and Burelli 2019;

Ferrara 2014; van Oorschot and Uunk 2007; Alesina et al. 2001). By focusing on welfare schemes, these various studies discuss the diversity of solidarity outputs, but only in institutional settings.

Third, arguments about the recent transformation of the political space in Western societies have focused on the interplay between identity and redistributive issues. This strand of literature argues that institutional solidarity among social groups in Western countries is structured along a bi-dimensional political space, comprised of a state-market political conflict and the particular against universal identity conflict (Häusermann and Kriesi 2015; Helbing and Kriesi 2014; Emmenegger et al. 2012). This literature also argues that the cultural-identity divide stands out in shaping individual attitudes towards solidarity and perceptions of genuine welfare beneficiaries among groups (Bansak et al. 2016; Hainmueller and Hopkins 2014; Reeskeens and van Oorschot 2014;

van Oorschot and Uunk 2007). These studies indirectly address the interplay between the institutional outputs and the function of solidarity, stressing how the outputs of solidarity are oriented by social groups' public legitimacy.

Fourth, social movement studies have thoroughly investigated solidarity as source of collective action. Scholars have described solidarity as an external or internal source of membership commitment. External solidarity concerns political engagement to benefit vulnerable people, while internal solidarity entails political engagement benefiting one's own group (Hunt and Benford 2004). Social movement scholars have also studied solidarity to understand the formation of collective identities (Tilly 2005, 2001; della Porta 1995; Melucci 1995) as well as solidarity practices favouring political mobilisations for the rights of others (Giugni and Passy 2001, Tilly 2001;

McAdam 1988, 1986). At the same time, these researches engage with studies from social psychology to understand how individual social dispositions and world-views favour political mobilisation and activism (Passy and Monsch 2020; Giugni and Grasso 2019; van Stekelenburg and Klandermans 2010; Klandermans 1997). The social movement literature has thoroughly examined at the individual level the function of solidarity by centring the discussion on solidarity as a source of collective identity and engagement.

Finally, literature on social movement organisations and civil society organisations (CSOs) has examined the function of solidarity as a mobilising, organising and stabilising source of commitment (Lahusen et al. 2020; Polletta 2020). As a result, organisations mobilise and organise constituencies by building solidarity through common frames and identities. Scholars have illustrated that in Western countries, CSOs and social movement organisations have a hybrid function, providing

26

services to and engaging politically for the most vulnerable (Lahusen et al. 2021; Bosi and Zamponi 2020; della Porta 2020; Baglioni and Giugni 2014). The literature has also exemplified the role of CSOs concerning the social and political inclusion of vulnerable groups, sustained in principles of cooperation, solidarity and mutual-help (Lahusen et al. 2020; Eggert 2014; Baglioni and Giugni 2014; Morales and Giugni 2011). Thus, at the organisational level, research has also examined the outputs of solidarity. In summary, the organisational literature on welfare subsidiarity and social movements organisations has centred the discussion on solidarity as a source for collective identity and as an operating principle across various organisational forms while giving place to distinct outputs.

In conclusion, building on the notion of rights, this dissertation investigates the political dimension of solidarity, while discussing the interconnection between prior research as relevant to the four research questions across this dissertation’s four empirical chapters. In the following section, I provide a theoretical framework to examine solidarity and political solidarity, and the methodological tools to operationalise the framework.