Political Solidarity in Times of Crisis: A multi-dimensional approach to study support for the rights and wellbeing of others

(1)

Thesis

Reference

Political Solidarity in Times of Crisis: A multi-dimensional approach to study support for the rights and wellbeing of others

FERNANDEZ GUZMAN GRASSI, Eva

Abstract

This dissertation centres on actors who engage in political solidarity, defend collective endeavours and support the rights of people in need. It substantiates that individuals, civil society and institutional actors enact political solidarity. Thus, political solidarity concerns a wide range of actors, practices and dispositions beyond institutional settings. Results evidence that political solidarity is conditioned by people's belonging to different groups, orienting their behaviours and attitudes towards others. Findings point to the importance of contextual factors such as multicultural policies in explaining welfare eligibility attitudes towards migrants, highlighting the role group identity dynamics plays in the allocation of welfare support and caring obligations across groups. Overall, the research concurs with previous studies showing that structural and cultural cleavages shape with whom individuals feel bounded in solidarity. As a result, progressive and inclusive political standings across groups are strongly associated with highly-educated cosmopolitan individuals sharing both left-economic and [...]

FERNANDEZ GUZMAN GRASSI, Eva. Political Solidarity in Times of Crisis: A

multi-dimensional approach to study support for the rights and wellbeing of others. Thèse de doctorat : Univ. Genève, 2021, no. SdS 163

DOI : 10.13097/archive-ouverte/unige:151977 URN : urn:nbn:ch:unige-1519776

Available at:

http://archive-ouverte.unige.ch/unige:151977

Disclaimer: layout of this document may differ from the published version.

1 / 1

(2)

Political Solidarity in Times of Crisis: A multi-dimensional approach to study support for the rights and wellbeing of others

Thèse

présentée à la Faculté des sciences de la société de l’Université de Genève

et

à la Classe di scienze politico-sociali de la Scuola Normale Superiore

Par

Eva Fernández Guzmán Grassi

pour l’obtention du grade en cotutelle de thèse de

Docteur ès sciences de la société mention: science politique et

Dottore di ricerca in scienza politica e sociologia

Membres du jury de thèse :

Prof. Donatella DELLA PORTA, co-directrice de thèse, Scuola Normale Superiore Prof. Marco GIUGNI, co-directeur de thèse, Université de Genève

Prof. Lorenzo BOSI, Scuola Normale Superiore Prof. Christian LAHUSEN, Université de Siegen Prof. Florence PASSY, Université de Lausanne

Prof. Pascal SCIARINI, président du jury, Université de Genève

Thèse No 163 Genève, le 22 février 2021

(3)

ii

La Faculté des sciences de la société, sur préavis du jury, a autorisé l’impression de la présente thèse, sans entendre, par-là, émettre aucune opinion sur les propositions qui s’y trouvent énoncées et qui n’engagent que la responsabilité de leur auteur.

Genève, le 22 février 2021

Le doyen

Bernard DEBARBIEUX

Impression d’après le manuscrit de l’auteur

(4)

iii

"I don't believe in charity.

I believe in solidarity.

Charity is vertical.

It goes from the top to the bottom.

Solidarity is horizontal.

It recognises the other person.

I have a lot to learn from other people."

Eduardo Galeano, Patas Arriba: La escuela del mundo al revés

(5)

iv

Abstract

This dissertation centres on actors who engaged in political solidarity, defend collective endeavours, and/or support the rights of people in need. These actors exhibit caring attitudes and practices of support for the wellbeing and rights of others, while often confronting public indifference and sometimes open hostility in the process. This dissertation posits a multi-dimensional approach to study political solidarity and to examine these actors and their practices and attitudes of political solidarity. It demonstrates that individuals, civil society, and institutional actors enact political solidarity. Thus, political solidarity concerns a wide range collective and individual actors that exhibit a range of practices and attitudes in different settings beyond political institutions.

These claims on political solidarity are analysed in four stand-alone papers. Collectively, these papers conclude that in times of scarcity, i.e. in the absence of and/or with limited access to institutional solidarity schemes, individuals and civil society actors engage in political solidarity to support and defend the wellbeing and rights of vulnerable groups. Overarching findings of this research evidence that political solidarity is conditioned by individuals belonging to different groups, which orients their practices and attitudes of political solidarity towards others. Concretely, group belonging or membership translates into degrees of universal or particular caring obligations and engagements to support the rights and wellbeing of others.

Furthermore, findings point to the importance of contextual factors such as multicultural policies in explaining attitudes about welfare eligibility for certain social groups such as migrants, highlighting the core role group identity dynamics plays in the allocation of welfare support and caring obligations across groups. The dynamics of group identity reveal tensions between competing solidarities across groups, shaping universal or particular orientations of care and support. These findings triangulate with recent studies showing that structural and cultural cleavages shape with whom individuals feel bounded in solidarity with. Findings concur with previous research on the interplay between cosmopolitan social dispositions favouring progressive and inclusive political standings across groups that are primarily held by highly educated individuals with both leftist positions on economic issues and libertarian orientations on cultural issues. Lastly, findings posit that independent of the diversity of actors engaging in political solidarity, civil society provision of welfare cannot be sustained solely by voluntary contributions and engagement from individuals. Ultimately, this issue challenges the long-term political and social inclusion of the most vulnerable people.

(6)

v

Résumé

Cette thèse porte sur les acteurs qui se sont engagés en solidarité politique en défendant les biens collectifs ou en soutenant les droits des personnes les plus vulnérables. Ces acteurs font preuve d'attitudes et de pratiques de soutien pour le bien-être et droits des autres, tout en se confrontant souvent à l'indifférence du public et parfois même à une hostilité ouverte par rapport à cet engagement. Cette thèse se centre sur la multi-dimensionnalité de la solidarité politique pour examiner ces acteurs et leurs pratiques et attitudes de solidarité politique. Elle illustre que les individus, la société civile et les acteurs institutionnels mettent en œuvre la solidarité politique.

Ainsi, la solidarité politique concerne un large éventail d'acteurs collectifs et individuels et une variété de pratiques et d'attitudes dans différents contextes au-delà des institutions politiques.

Ces affirmations sur la solidarité politique sont analysées dans quatre articles distincts. Elle conclut qu'en période de pénurie, c'est-à-dire qu'en l'absence ou avec un accès limité aux systèmes de solidarité institutionnelle, les individus et les acteurs de la société civile s'engagent dans la solidarité politique pour soutenir et défendre le bien-être et les droits des groupes et des individus vulnérables. Ainsi, les conclusions générales de cette thèse montrent que la solidarité politique est conditionnée par l'appartenance des individus à différents groupes, ce qui à la fois oriente leurs pratiques et attitudes de solidarité politique vers les autres. Concrètement, les appartenances aux groupes se traduisent en degrés d'engagement universel ou ciblé (particulier) dans leur soutien aux droits et au bien-être des autres.

En outre, les résultats soulignent l'importance de facteurs contextuels tels que les politiques multiculturelles pour expliquer les attitudes concernant l'éligibilité à l'aide sociale de certains groupes sociaux tels que les migrants, soulignant le rôle central que la dynamique de l'identité de groupe joue dans la répartition des obligations en matière d'aide sociale et de soins entre les groupes. Les dynamiques identitaires de groupe révèlent des tensions entre solidarités concurrentes entre les groupes, qui façonnent des orientations universelles ou particulières en matière de soutien aux droits at au bien-être des autres. Ces résultats sont en accord avec des études récentes qui montrent que les clivages structurels et culturels influencent le fait que nous nous sentions plus solidaires avec certaines personnes qu’avec d’autres. De même, les résultats concordent avec des recherches scientifiques sur l'interaction entre les dispositions sociales cosmopolites et positions politiques progressistes et inclusives au sein des groupes, qui sont principalement associées à des personnes instruites ayant des orientations et des valeurs politiques de gauche et libérales. Enfin, les résultats montrent qu'indépendamment de la diversité des acteurs qui s'engagent en solidarité politique, la prestation de protection sociale par la société civile ne peut être soutenue que par les

(7)

vi

contributions et l'engagement volontaires des individus. Cette problématique remet en question l'inclusion politique et sociale des personnes les plus vulnérables à long terme.

(8)

vii

Riassunto

La presente tesi si concentra sugli attori coinvolti nella solidarietà politica, nella difesa dei beni collettivi, e/o nel sostegno dei diritti delle persone in difficoltà. Costoro mostrano attitudini e comportamenti di care e di sostegno in favore al benessere e ai diritti degli altri, nonostante siano confrontati con l'indifferenza pubblica e talvolta con l'aperta ostilità nei loro confronti. Questa dissertazione propone una prospettiva sulla solidarietà politica multidimensionale per esaminare gli attori e le loro pratiche e le loro attitudini di solidarietà politica. La mia ricerca dimostra che gli individui, la società civile e gli attori istituzionali mettono in pratica la solidarietà politica. Infatti, la solidarietà politica riguarda una vasta gamma di attori collettivi e individuali che esibiscono una serie di pratiche e attitudini in diversi contesti al di là delle istituzioni politiche.

Le ipotesi sulla solidarietà politica sono analizzate in quattro articoli. Essi dimostrano che in tempi di difficoltà economica e in assenza di schemi di solidarietà istituzionale e/o con un accesso limitato, gli individui e gli attori della società civile si impegnano nella solidarietà politica per sostenere e difendere il benessere e, i diritti di gruppi e individui vulnerabili. I risultati generali de questa ricerca dimostrano che la solidarietà politica è condizionata dall' appartenenza ai vari gruppi, il che significa che le pratiche e le attitudini di solidarietà politica si traducono concretamente in gradi di obblighi universali o particolari di sostegno e cura degli altri.

Inoltre, i risultati indicano l'importanza dei fattori contestuali come le politiche multiculturali nello spiegare gli atteggiamenti sull'accettazione al welfare per alcuni gruppi sociali come i migranti. In aggiunta, i risultati evidenziano il ruolo centrale delle dinamiche d'identità di gruppo che s'impongono nell'allocazione del supporto al welfare e degli obblighi di care tra i gruppi. Le dinamiche dell'identità di gruppo rivelano tensioni fra solidarietà concorrenti tra i vari gruppi, dando forma a pratiche di care e di sostegno universale o particolare. Questi risultati si combinano con studi recenti che dimostrano che le divisioni strutturali e culturali modellano con chi gli individui potrebbero sentirsi legati in solidarietà. I risultati concordano con ricerche precedenti sull'interazione tra disposizioni sociali cosmopolite che favoriscono posizioni politiche progressive e inclusive tra i gruppi, e che sono principalmente detenute da individui istruiti con orientamenti di valore politici di sinistra e liberali. Infine, i risultati sostengono che, indipendentemente dalla diversità degli attori impegnati nella solidarietà politica, la prestazione di protezione sociale da parte della società civile non può essere sostenuta solo dai contributi volontari e dall'impegno degli individui. In definitiva, questo problema sfida l'inclusione politica e sociale a lungo termine delle persone più vulnerabili.

(9)

viii

Acknowledgements

This PhD thesis finds its origin in the European project, “European paths to transnational solidarity at times of crisis: Conditions, forms, role models and policy responses” (TransSOL).¹ Working as a research assistant on the project has been a great experience and I would like to thank all project members for the stimulating environment. I am particularly indebted to Marco Giugni, who provided to me the opportunity to work with various other projects where I established professional collaborations and friendships, which meant a great deal to me.

This PhD thesis would not have been possible without the help of many people. First and foremost, I would like to thank my supervisors, Donatella della Porta and Marco Giugni for their guidance, support, and the sound advice throughout the research and the writing of this thesis. Not only have they been very generous with their time, but their enthusiasm and patience motivated me to continue during the more challenging moments of this research endeavour. One could not have wished for better supervisors.

I am also grateful to the members of my dissertation committee, Christian Lahusen, Lorenzo Bosi, Florence Passy, and Pascal Sciarini, for their insightful comments on a previous version of the dissertation. In particular, I wish to thank Christian Lahusen for his continuous support and challenging comments, which helped me move forward with my research.

I began this my PhD five years ago and I had the opportunity to share one year of this journey with researchers at the Scuola Normale Superiore in Florence, where I discovered and attended motivating courses relevant to my research. However, most of the time I spent at the University of Geneva where I met many inspiring people and with whom I shared most of this research journey. Very special thanks to my friends, colleagues, and allies, Valentina Holecz, Nina Eggert, Elisa Banfi, Johana Huber, Jasmine Lorenzini, Maria Mexi, Ophelia Nicole-Berva, Noémi Michel, Stéphan Davidshofer, Aurélien Evequoz, Steven Eichenberger, Victor Sanchez-Mazas, Adrien Petitpas and Julien Jaquet. One could only feel lucky to be bounded in solidarity with such a meaningful group of friends and researchers.

1Results in this study were obtained through the project, ‘European paths to transnational solidarity at times of crisis: Conditions, forms, role-models and policy responses’ (TransSOL). This project was funded by the European Commission under the Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement No. 649435). The TransSOL consortium was coordinated by the University of Siegen (Germany), and comprised the Université de Genève (Switzerland), the Fondation Nationale des Sciences Politiques (France), Glasgow Caledonian University (United Kingdom), the Panepistimio Kritis (Greece), the University of Florence (Italy), the University of Warsaw (Poland), the University of Copenhagen (Denmark), the University of Sheffield (United Kingdom) and European Alternatives Ltd. (Germany and United Kingdom). Special thanks to all members of the TransSOL research consortium for their contributions to the project.

(10)

ix

Writing a thesis becomes an important part of our lives as doctoral students. Yet, it is also my family and friends who have made of this journey worthwhile. I wish to express my gratitude to my beloved family and friends, Nico, David, Tullio, Ana, Vicky, Scott, Elena, Paula, Julia, Cecilia and Oscar. Your support, enthusiasm and encouragement have always been most cherished through these 18 years of – saudade – longing for home.

Lastly, a very special thanks to my son Lorenzo, a little giant who always made me laugh when tired, worried or enthusiastic about my research.

Thank you all!

(11)

10

TABLES AND FIGURES

CHAPTER 1

Ch.1 Table 1. Individual country distribution 39

Ch.1 Figure 1. Theoretical framework of multi-dimensional analysis of individual and collective forms of political solidarity practices and attitudes (outputs) 33 Figure 2. Immigration citizenship regimes (civic and cultural dimensions scoring 2010-2014) 42 CHAPTER 2

Ch.2 Table 1. Solidarity approach of TSOs (descriptive) 63

Ch.2 Table 2. A multiple solidarity approach of TSOs (% per combination) 64 Ch.2 Table 3. Organisational profiles across groups and sectors, based on solidarity approaches

and structural traits (odds ratio) 74

Ch.2 Figure 1. Predictors average marginal effects on horizontal forms of organisational

solidarity: Mutual help (TS1) and support & collaboration between groups (TS2)... 66 Ch.2 Figure 2. Predictors average marginal effects on vertical forms of organisational solidarity:

Altruistic (TS3) and philanthropic (TS4) ... 66 Ch.2 Figure 3. Predicted probabilities of professionalisation traits upon philanthropic (TS4) and mutual help (TS1) oriented forms of solidarity ... 68 Ch.2 Figure 4. Predicted probabilities of engaging in urgent needs activities on philanthropic (TS4), altruistic (TS3), support and collaboration between groups (TS2) and mutual help (TS1) oriented forms of solidarity ... 70 Ch.2 Figure 5. Predicted probabilities of engaging in political activities on support and

collaboration between groups (TS2) and mutual help (TS1) oriented forms of solidarity ... 71 CHAPTER 3

Ch.3 Figure 1. Type of reported solidarity activities in favour of refugees across countries (in %) 98 Ch.3 Figure 2. Differences of multiple means comparison of the willingness to improve the

conditions of the vulnerable groups 99

Ch.3 Figure 3. Marginal effects of economic left-right index on solidarity practices by target

groups 100

Ch.3 Figure 4. Marginal effects of libertarian-authoritarian index on solidarity practices by target

groups 100

Ch.3 Figure 5. Marginal effects of deservingness scale on solidarity practices by target groups 101 CHAPTER 4

Ch.4 Table 1. Institutional solidarity attitudes toward immigrants by country 127

(14)

13

Ch.4 Figure 1. Civic and cultural dimensions of the models of citizenship 121 Ch.4 Figure 2. Marginal effects of individual covariates and models of citizenship dimensions (cultural and civic) on forms of institutional solidarity toward immigrants 128 Ch.4 Figure 3. Adjusted predictions of institutional solidarity by model of citizenship cultural

dimension 130

Ch.4 Figure 4. Adjusted predicted probabilities of unconditional institutional solidarity and

welfare chauvinism by deservingness 131

CHAPTER 5

Ch.5 Table 1. Reported individual solidarity mobilisations in favour of the rights of refugees (in

%) 167

Ch.5 Figure 1. Independent parameters and control covariates probability distributions in relation

to refugee solidarity activism 168

Ch.5 Figure 2. Individual predicted probabilities for universal value orientations and refugee

solidarity activism 170

Ch.5 Figure 3. Moral covariates predicted probabilities for refugee solidarity activism 172 Ch.5 Figure 4. Predicted probabilities of individuals holding universal value orientations and generalised moral commitments (H2 – combined moderator effect) 174

(15)

14

CHAPTER 1. Introduction

This dissertation centres on actors who engaged in political solidarity, defend collective endeavours, or support the rights of people in need. These actors exhibit caring attitudes and practices of support for the wellbeing and rights of others, while often confronting public indifference and sometimes open hostility in the process. This dissertation posits a multi-dimensionality of political solidarity to examine these actors and their practices and attitudes of political solidarity. It supports that individuals, civil society, and institutional actors enact political solidarity. Thus, political solidarity concerns a wide range of actors (collective and individual) exhibiting a variety of practices and attitudes in different settings beyond political institutions.

These claims are examined within a context of severe economic conditions, with austerity policies implemented by EU governments, and insufficient capacity of public institutions to manage the high and unpredictable flow of migrants into Europe. A context that challenges people's capacity to absorb and rebound from significant losses in income, jobs and social services. Context where individuals and civil society have nevertheless displayed resilience given the retrenchment of the welfare state, the liberalisation of the labour market, and the polarising rhetoric de-legitimising the entitlement of various vulnerable groups to social support.

Amidst this challenging context, political actors have displayed contradicting and often polarising positions towards solidarity. Most notable is the reluctance of some EU governments to accept refugees crossing the Mediterranean while hundreds of thousands of activists across EU countries engaged in political solidarity to defend the rights of refugees. Accordingly, arguments about political solidarity and the welfare and rights of the most vulnerable are increasingly antagonistic, impacting political and social trust as well as shared norms of reciprocity. This has raised questions pitting the division between particular versus universal orientations of social redistribution (Häusermann and Kriesi 2015; Emmenegger et al. 2012).

Hence, in times of scarcity, defining the eligibility of entitlements to social provision and rights becomes a most salient political issue, especially across multiple vulnerable groups. It involves both institutional and non-institutional forms of solidarity, however, when institutional solidarity schemes are absent or limited, individuals and civil society actors often engage in political solidarity to support and defend the wellbeing, interest and rights of vulnerable groups and people.

This context highlights the relevance of this study of the political dimension of solidarity. Firstly, examining solidarity uncovers its core aspects beyond a polarising political rhetoric. Secondly, it helps overcome the conceptual heterogeneity of solidarity as a catchall concept that ultimately limits its operationalisation, validity, and reliability, while favouring thorough examination of its

(16)

15

political dimension. Thirdly, it highlights the diversity of political solidarity accounts at the individual and organisational levels, as well as non-institutional forms of solidarity. Fourthly, studying solidarity, specifically its political dimension, helps unveil the underlying tensions, attitudes and practices of care and support in relationship to the welfare provision and the rights of vulnerable groups such as immigrants, refugees, unemployed people and people with disabilities.

Lastly, the study of solidarity and its political dimension unveils particular and universal orientations of support and caring obligations for the wellbeing and rights of others.

1.1 Aims and research questions

This dissertation examines solidarity and its political dimension. It adopts a multidisciplinary approach in four empirical chapters on the key aspects of solidarity and its political dimension.

Studies on solidarity and related social relations between individuals and groups are not new. A significant share of social science research has examined how social relations beyond a narrow circle of interpersonal ties give rise to social configurations that share purpose and obligation (Alexandre 2006; Bayertz 1999; Durkheim1993 [1893]; Coleman 1990). Such social configurations are fundamental to pursue collective endeavours forged on relationships of trust, care, and support between individuals and groups, and require overcoming the problem of free riding.

Prior to diving into further background and introduction for this dissertation, it is prudent to first frame the key research questions that steer and tie together the various lines of inquiry for and finding from this study. The overall research question for solidarity centres on:

How does solidarity bind people and groups together such that their shared responsibility towards the welfare of others motivates them to engage in individual or collective actions of support and care, regardless of risk or cost to themselves?

Ultimately, solidarity is about attitudes and practices of care and support across various actors (people and groups) in social configurations. The study of solidarity helps us understand why people individually or collectively devote their time and effort towards helping others and support collective endeavours, or at the very least, it helps us understand the dispositions of those who care and help others. This study purses this understanding addressing two major claims throughout:

First, solidarity is conditional upon memberships. Second, the memberships, attitudes and practices of solidarity can evoke a political dimension.

(17)

16

Group membership supposes feelings of togetherness (Alexandre 2006; Parijs 2004), grounded on mutual obligations and shared interests between actors in a social configuration (Gerhards et al.

2019). Thus, memberships are a condition for solidarity that bonds individuals and groups, orienting attitudes and practices of solidarity. Memberships underpin internal as well as intergroup group dynamics.

As solidarity entails memberships bonded with collective interest and obligations, it can be highly contentious, either when accommodating or challenging claims about the rights and interests of others. The political dimension of solidarity is bounded to the notions of rights and obligation within groups and between groups (Lahusen et al. 2020). Yet, scholars have generated modest evidence about political solidarity towards specific groups as well as across groups; in other words, there is narrow research on the practices, attitudes and membership orientations of care and support towards the rights of others.

To address the sparsity of research on this increasingly relevant area, this dissertation investigates four specific but interrelated research questions, which I will now present and discuss in subsequent chapters in this dissertation:

Research Question 1: To what extent do policy settings, namely citizenship and migration regimes, shape people’s attitudes of welfare chauvinism and unconditional institutional solidarity towards migrants?

This first research question examines the political dimension of solidarity by focusing on a range of institutional solidarity attitudes towards migrants, highlighting how individual attitudes of political solidarity are conditioned by group memberships. Moreover, two main issues are explored within this research question: first, groups' boundaries limiting enactment of political solidarity across groups, and secondly, the influence of policy settings in shaping those group boundaries to either enhance or challenge the allocation of social rights.

Studies on solidarity supporting for the rights and wellbeing of others have strongly focused on forms of institutional solidarity centred on welfare schemes and redistribution, as well as social policies (Gerhards et al. 2019; Emmenegger et al. 2012; Alesina and Giuliano 2011). The literature advances that individual preferences for redistribution are conditioned by welfare state types as well as an individual's economic standing (Rehm et al. 2012; Alesina and Giuliano 2011; Alesina and Glaeser 2004). Research also advances that ‘generous’ social programmes influence individual attitudes towards the expansion of social rights to various groups (Emmenegger et al. 2012).

Generous welfare states tend to reduce income inequality and hostility towards immigrant access to social rights through well-developed de-commodification policies (Van der Waal et al. 2013). In

(18)

17

this perspective, studies have demonstrated a preference towards high-skilled over low-skilled migrants in Western societies, and that high-skilled people tend to support social redistribution in terms of reciprocity (Helbling and Kriesi 2014; Hainmueller and Hiscox 2010).

More recently, some of these studies have investigated how individual preferences for welfare entitlements are conditioned by perceptions of the deservingness of the various social groups (van Oorschot and Uunk 2007; van Oorschot 2006; van Oorschot 2000). These studies demonstrated how institutional solidarity is conditional by group memberships, which shape attitudes toward migrant rights (Banting and Kymlicka 2017; van Oorschot et al. 2017).

These studies point to the importance of context in explaining the extension of social rights to certain social groups such as migrants. However, there is limited in-depth research on the interplay between the various contextual factors that can shape attitudes towards the inclusion of migrants and refugees to welfare schemes. There is a gap in the evidence for how the models of citizenship shape individual attitudes towards migrant’s eligibility for welfare rights (Kolbe and Crepaz 2016).

The models of citizenship refer to predominant understandings of boundaries and rules to access the community and full citizenry rights (Koopmans 2013). Citizenship reflects a specific political membership to an imagined community, which shapes individual attitudes towards extending or limiting social rights and obligations to immigrants. Thus, variations between the different models of citizenship should shed light on how citizen membership orientations shape particular or universal preferences of institutional solidarity towards migrants.

Building on previous discussion about individual preferences of deservingness and attitudes of institutional solidarity the second research question of this study focuses on political practices of solidarity in association with individual social and political dispositions.

Research Question 2: How do social dispositions of deservingness and political values account for individual differences in political solidarity practices between unemployed people and people with disabilities in comparison to refugees?

This second search question examines the political dimension of solidarity beyond institutional settings. It investigates a variety of political practices of solidarity at the individual level within non- institutional settings, shedding light on how people accommodate competing solidarities across vulnerable groups.

A common argument based on individual self-centre gains advances that individual engagement in political practices depends on selective gains, and that the heterogeneity of individual interests should limit solidarity towards others (Olson 1965). Following this argument and building on the

(19)

18

structural cleavage theory (Lahusen et al 2020; Gerhards et al. 2019), by virtue of common socio- economic interests and position, individuals might engage in political solidarity practices favouring in-groups against out-groups.

Moreover, in relation to individual perceptions of social group deservingness and the allocation of rights, recent studies suggest that structural and cultural cleavages shape with whom people feel solidarity towards (Gerhards et al. 2020, 2019). Structural and cultural cleavages fuel solidarity with others by virtue of sharing cultural characteristics and socio-economic categorisation (Gerhards et al. 2019; Häusermann and Kriesi 2015; Kriesi 1993). Therefore, due to the increased bi- dimensionality of the political space in western European countries (Häusermann and Kriesi 2015;

Helbing and Kriesi 2014), individuals in multicultural societies may engage in political solidarity practices favouring their own group members by virtue of structurals socio-economic and cultural political cleavages.

These studies illustrate that the political divide partly influences individuals attitudes of solidarity and perceptions of beneficiary entitlement to social support. However, these major contributions lack in-depth research on how the perceptions of deservingness also shape the range of practices and attitudes of political solidarity beyond welfare schemes allocation. Specifically, universal or particular membership orientations, when influenced by the cultural-identity divide, should also affect individual’ informal practices and attitudes of political solidarity across groups.

Moreover, memberships orient attitudes and practices of solidarity between groups as well as within them. Thereby, solidarity can be limited to particular groups, but also to imagined groups, such a humanity as a universal orientation. People are inclined to show more solidarity towards their in- group, but they can also show solidarity to others. In this regard, collective mobilisation and activism for others’ rights is a critical area of study for understanding universal orientations of support and caring obligations towards others. Therefore, the third research question of this study delves into universal orientations concerning the rights of others focusing on activism.

Research Question 3: How do universal value orientations and moral commitments sustain activists' engagement in solidarity mobilisation to benefit refugee rights?

This research question focuses on activism in relation to political solidarity towards refugees. It examines political practices of solidarity at the individual level in non-institutional settings, shedding light on universal orientations of care and support embodied in membership to imagined groups (e.g., humanity). It also examines the norms and group obligations underpinning political solidarity in activism towards refugees.

(20)

19

People enact political solidarity when participating in social movements to support the rights of others (Polletta 2020; della Porta 2018). Such action seeks to improve the situation of solidarity beneficiaries by challenging or contesting policies or by bringing about social change. The political solidarity in social movements challenges norms of the community or society to support and expand rights for others (Polletta 2020:13).

Nevertheless, there is a long-standing debate on activism about whether and if so, solidarity facilitates individual participation in contentious politics. Solidarity has been conceptualised to be originated from common experiences, feelings, values, moral obligations, and commitments (Carlsen et al. 2020; Jasper 2008). Scholar have suggested that the political dimension of solidarity reinforces the motivations of activist to care and act as moral agents in response to others’

vulnerabilities (Santos 2020; Tronto 1993). In this sense, the literature has advanced that individual participation in solidarity mobilisations is grounded in cultural and symbolic conflicts strongly related to changes in individual value systems (Kriesi 1993, 1990; della Porta and Rucht 1995).

However, the literature is limited on the interplay between the activist’s internalised moral commitments to groups and their value orientations. Activists rationalise their practices of political solidarity through values in relation to the social maps provided by the moral norms of their groups.

Therefore, activists engaging in practices of political solidarity on behalf of others requires accommodating competing solidarities concerning the caring norms of their groups with their own universal value orientations. Specifically, universal value orientations should interact with activists’

moral norms resulting in convergence (or divergence) between the two to reinforce (or weaken) refugee solidarity activism.

At the same time, literature has showed that organisational actors provide welfare subsidiarity and engage in political solidarity to support the rights of their beneficiaries. Therefore, the fourth research question of this dissertation centres on organisational solidarity, investigating practices and dispositions of political solidarity of collective actors.

Research Question 4: Which organisational characteristics are associated with the specific solidarity approaches enacted by organisational actors, namely social movements organisations and civil society organisations?

This last search question focuses on the political and social dimensions of solidarity. It investigates political solidarity and solidarity (tout court)in non-institutional settings, and across a wide range of social and political practices, as well as collective actors, such as social movements and civil society organisations.

(21)

20

Social movement organisations and civil society organisations are collective actors that provide welfare subsidiarity, empowerment and political advocacy to the most vulnerable people and groups (Lahusen et al. 2021). Their solidarity is political when their support to others is tied to political demands, such as the recognition of the rights and welfare of their beneficiaries. Through their public engagement, these organisations make collective claims on behalf of their beneficiary’s rights and provide people and groups with alternative ways of enduring day-to-day difficulties (Bosi and Zamponi 2020; Uba and Kousis 2018; Forno and Graziano 2014).

Social movement organisations and civil society organisations have proven very resilient to their changing environments, adapting their modes of coordination across issues and sectors and modifying their actions accordingly (Lahusen et al. 2021), fuelled by the hybridisation of practices of social movement organisations and more established civil society organisations (della Porta 2020). These organisational actors mobilise, organise and stabilise political solidarity between constituencies and beneficiaries (Lahusen et al. 2020). Yet this process of increased hybridisation has received limited research with regards to emerging solidarity approaches, i.e., the vertical and horizontal interactions between the constituencies and beneficiaries of the two forms of organisation. There is also a paucity of research on the social and political practices associated with the different forms of solidarity action pursued by these organisations, and the associations of these actions withkey organisational characteristics. These limits to the scholarly research highlight the added value of the focus on this fourth question in this dissertation.

In summary, the scholarly literature has dealt with the political dimension of solidarity by building, both implicitly and explicitly, on the notion of rights and caring obligations towards others. While this literature raises important questions about solidarity and its political dimension, underscoring the relevance of previous academic contributions in the field, it also reveals gaps in the research on the salient role of membership, attitudes and practices of care and support for the rights of others in relation to solidarity and its political dimension – the research focus encompassed by this dissertations four research questions.

1.2 Scientific relevance

This dissertation contributes to the literature on solidarity by proposing a comprehensive framework to identify and study its core political aspects. It is based on an original empirical study, working across disciplines to examine and showcase the various dimensions of political solidarity.

It advances knowledge on the relevance of universal orientations of political solidarity for the social and political rights of the most vulnerable groups. The approach focuses on relevant implications

(22)

21

of individual and collective dispositions and practices as they relate to political solidarity within institutional and non-institutional settings.

Moreover, the dissertation assembles research on attitudes of support for the institutionalisation of social rights and related perceptions of deservingness across vulnerable groups (Banting and Kymlicka 2017; Crepaz et al. 2008; van Oorschot and Uunk 2007). By focusing on political values and social dispositions (Gerhards et al. 2020; Bansak et al. 2016), the study contributes to the literature on political actions targeting the wellbeing and rights of others (Polletta 2020; della Porta 2018; Lahusen and Grasso 2018). The empirical analyses substantiates the diversity of actors enacting political solidarity, with examples from individuals and civil society organisations sustaining political solidarity for the welfare and rights of the most vulnerable people and groups (Lahusen et al. 2021; Lahusen et al. 2020).

The remainder of this section explores the scientific relevance of this dissertation according to four primary areas of contribution:

First, starting from its conceptual analysis of the various perspectives of solidarity and its political dimension, this study contributes to the use of an analytical tool to identify and define political solidarity. The analytical tool is employed to characterise political solidarity and unveil key explanatory factors characterising, triggering and describing practices and attitudes of political solidarity across groups.

To capture, describe and define political solidarity, literature is referenced from various disciplines, including political science, psychology and sociology. Each of these scholarly strands have advanced the concept of solidarity, but are largely limited to the discourse defined by their particular disciplinary focus. This dissertation builds on these different perspectives, threading together interconnections to understand different aspects of political solidarity in relationship to memberships, attitudes and practices. As such, solidarity is conceptually framed as two-step process, where solidarity is first defined and then this definition is specified to describe a political solidarity (see Section 1.4). This approach helps to illustrate that solidarity is conditional by memberships, and that the attitudes and practices of solidarity can have a political dimension in relation to claims for the rights and wellbeing of others.

Second, this study contributes to prior literature by integrating three levels of analysis. At the micro- level, the study examines individual practices and attitudes regarding the political dimension of solidarity. At the meso-level, the analysis focuses on the organisational forms and characteristics of citizen networks and collective initiatives operating in political solidarity with the most vulnerable.

Lastly, at the macro-level, it examines the interplay between individual attitudes of political

(23)

22

solidarity and policy frameworks, substantiating how policy frameworks shape attitudes of political solidarity, oriented by membership obligations to specific groups.

Third, this study includes four empirical papers, three of which are peer reviewed and published in scholarly journals. Each of these papers contribute to the existing literature on the drivers of political solidarity through generalisable findings. In addition, each paper proposes a robust and systematic conceptualisation and operationalisation of political solidarity, which is examined by employing a range of methodological tools (from frequentist to Bayesian approaches). Moreover, these four research contributions benefit from the use of new cross-national data sets collected within the EU project, “European paths to transnational solidarity at times of crisis: Conditions, forms, role models and policy responses” (TransSOL). These empirical data are used to analyse various dimensions of solidarity, including its political dimension by examining practices and attitudes in relationship to three groups (unemployed and disabled people and migrants/refugees) in eight EU countries (Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Poland, Switzerland and the UK).

Finally, the fourth major contribution relates to the overall question that motivates the study: How does solidarity bind people and groups together such that their shared responsibility towards the welfare of others motivates them to engage in individual or collective actions of support and care, regardless of risk or cost to themselves? Within the context of the ongoing crises in Europe discussed earlier, this dissertation studies actors who enact political solidarity to defend collective endeavours and support the rights of people in need. Analysis throughout the four empirical chapters in this dissertation looks at the practices of political solidarity (e.g., activism to defend refugee rights; participation in organisations to support the rights of unemployed people and people with disabilities), underscoring the diversity of solidarity practices and actors. Nonetheless, findings reveal that not all attitudes and practices of care and support bounded by shared obligations and commitments to groups are political. Moreover, these attitudes and practices can appertain to institutional and non-institutional settings. The analysis of the political dimension of solidarity has also underscored the political conflict between universal versus particular orientations of the practices and attitudes of political solidarity. This divide is a key element to understanding the boundaries to political solidarity in non-institutional and institutional settings based on the cultural-identity conflict, and has been associated with research on the bi-dimensionality of the European political space (Beramendi et al. 2015; Häusermann and Kriesi 2015; Helbing et Kriesi 2014).

(24)

23

1.3 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

(25)

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).

(26)

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

(27)

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.

1.4 Theoretical framework

Having summarised the current formulations and use of the concept of solidarity in the social science literature, I will now delineate how this concept is used in this dissertation as it relates to the theoretical framework guiding this research.

Solidarity

As identified above, solidarity can be examined through various lenses, but key conceptual elements concern social configurations that link individuals and groups and favour prosocial practices and attitudes due to common obligations.

Traditional concepts of solidarity also indicate that solidarity comprises three social roles – normative, functional and structural. In this sense, solidarity has been described as a measure of social cohesion. Durkheim (1993 [1893]) defines solidarity as a source of social order (i.e., fulfilling a normative role), based on a sense of mutual awareness and a set of collective obligations. Hence, solidarity also entails compliance to social norms, which favours social cohesion (a functional role).

Researchers have also elicited structural aspects of solidarity. Solidarity by virtue of social relations concerns social groups and people sharing common interests and characteristics. This structural role of solidarity favours normative compliance and requires functional interdependence between individuals with limited rationality (Hechter 2015; 1987; Coleman 1990).

(28)

27

These three roles define the groupness or membership function of solidarity, which has been described as mechanical solidarity if based on interpersonal ties, and as organic solidarity when based on the interdependence between highly differentiated social arrangements (Durkheim 1993 [1893]; Hechter 1987). The literature also concludes that solidarity can be project-driven, as people are not only oriented towards the concrete aspects of everyday social life, but also towards collective everlasting projects (Alexander 2006; Rippe 1998).

The groupness or membership function of solidarity supposes a motivational source to cooperative and reciprocal practices and attitudes (Gerhards et al. 2019; Bating and Kymlicka 2017). Solidarity favours collective endeavours due to its groupness function where the actors enacting solidarity can benefit directly or indirectly (Lahusen et al. 2020). These elements of the concept of solidarity indicate its hybrid nature (Gerhards et al. 2019; Scholz 2008). As a result, solidarity denotes a functional, structural and normative role (i.e., groupness or membership function) in addition to observable practices and attitudes (i.e., outputs).

Therefore, solidarity involves first a range of social relations connecting either individuals and groups, actors and beneficiaries, or actors and projects. Second, it builds on common normative grounds. Third, it provides motives for action, and lastly, it translates into practices (behaviours) and attitudes.

Hereafter this dissertation centres on an understanding of solidarity, which denotes relations of care and support, held and carried out by individuals or collective actors, in favour of others and enacted by virtue of shared norms and obligations to common membership to groups. Indeed, these relations are employed to describe the solidarity outputs, i.e., the practices carried out by actors to support, or at the very least, to describe their disposition to care and help others (Lahusen et al.

2020; Bayertz 1999). Thus, solidarity is defined as:

Attitudes (preparedness) and practices of care and support for the rights, interests and welfare of others, through personal or collective contributions within non-institutional or institutional settings, shaped by norms and obligations to common memberships (group orientations).

In this sense, solidarity is distinguishable from other associated concepts i.e., 'altruism', 'philanthropy', 'care' and 'prosocial'. First, solidarity relates and differs from altruism and philanthropy because it is grounded in reciprocal expectations (indirect or direct), sustained by membership to groups or projects (Lahusen et al. 2020). Moreover, solidarity goes beyond a supererogatory action of altruism (Ferrera 2014; Habermas 1991, 1990), i.e., a good Samaritan action, because it is bounded to shared obligations to others and expectations from others

(29)

28

(Gerhards et al. 2019). Solidarity is distinguished from philanthropy and altruism because, “the person who pledges solidarity to the cause, even if she has not been affected, nevertheless also sees herself as having a stake in the cause” (Polletta 2020:22).

Likewise, solidarity is often used as synonym for prosocial practices and attitudes (Lindenberg et al. 2006). Conceptually, solidarity also accounts for motives. Hence, the hybrid nature of solidarity denotes two major characteristics, a function and an output, yet the prosocial concept only accounts for the output. Lastly, “care” suggests a sensibility toward others’ needs (reciprocal or not) and refers to an empathic concern (Nadler 2012; Dovidio et al. 2006). Thus, solidarity relates to care when care is an expressive form of concern due to a sense of belonging among people but not when it is the source of empathic concerns and emotional arousal.

Studying solidarity

Solidarity takes place between individuals and groups, actors and beneficiaries, and actors and projects. Therefore, solidarity describes target-oriented practices and attitudes, conditioned by one’s membership. Concretely, this illustrates that solidarity requires having or taking an interest in and for others.

Interest-oriented actions and attitudes, and its mirror image altruism, are key concepts in social science research. They have been studied as being primarily motivated by the actors' self-interest (rational choice) and/or in an obliged situational interdependence with others (exchange theory) and/or context (cultural theory) (Hechter 2015; Simpson and Willer 2015; Spillman and Strand 2013). Previous arguments situate practices and attitudes of solidarity as oriented towards the actor’s self-interest, but limited by the interdependence with other actors that indirectly favours the interests of other beneficiaries than the actor. However, there is no reason why interest-oriented actions should not favour others, based on a commonality of interests or by virtue of empathic concern (Schroeder and Graziano 2015; Spillman and Strand 2013; Batson 2011).

In this respect, on the one hand, actors can be beneficiaries of a solidarity practice because they are part of the beneficiary group or because it leads to an indirect self-gain. On the other hand, actors and beneficiaries do not need to overlap, meaning actors can enact solidarity to support or help other beneficiaries (individuals and groups). The former account concerns direct reciprocity based on mutual help and obligations or imagined expectations, i.e., I help you because you help me or eventually you might help me (Lahusen et al. 2021; Simpson and Willer 2015; Ferrera 2014). In contrast, the latter account concerns indirect reciprocity based on a third-party engagement, i.e. I help you because you helped her (Simpson and Willer 2015; Spillman and Strand 2013).

(30)

29

Yet, in this dissertation, more than examining the motivational source behind solidarity practices and attitudes (outputs), I investigate to which beneficiaries solidarity outputs are orientated. Since solidarity can take place between individuals and groups, actors and beneficiaries, or actors and projects, it is the groupness or memberships function that defines the orientation of the solidarity attitudes and practices – outputs (Lahusen et al. 2020; Schroeder and Graziano 2015; Tilly 2005).

Accordingly, solidarity practices and attitudes are characterised by the actors enacting these outputs, the beneficiaries of the outputs, and the group orientations of care and support (membership function).

Therefore, solidarity is an “attribute of groups” (Hechter 2015), meaning an internal “degree of fusion” or unity with a commonality of purpose (Ferrara and Burrelli 2019). It concerns the readiness to care and support, “specific groups of people” (Lahusen et al. 2020). In this sense, solidarity is attached to specific reference groups. The outputs of solidarity are conditional to the memberships orienting attitudes and practices of solidarity within groups, as well as between groups. Thereby, solidarity can be limited to specific groups (particular), but also to imagined or universal groups (e.g., humanity). Thus, memberships inform how people accommodate competing solidarities across groups, uncovering internal group dynamics but also intergroup ones.

Defining the political dimension of solidarity

The previous conceptual overview presents a general understanding of solidarity, integrating a rich variation of social relations, memberships, attitudes and practices. Now these features are centred in relation to its political dimension. First, I define the political dimension of solidarity, illustrating how solidarity features can encounter a political dimension. Second, I discuss how memberships (group orientations), practices and attitudes of solidarity can be considered political. Lastly, I elaborate the conceptual operationalisation of political solidarity used in the four papers of this dissertation.

One of the main characteristics of solidarity is related to shared obligations and strains of commitments between individuals and groups – its groupness function. Solidarity preludes normative-led practices and attitudes to build and maintain collective endeavours as well as just societies (Gerhards et al. 2020; Gerhards et al. 2019; Bating and Kymlicka 2017; Bayertz 1999).

Accordingly, solidarity concerns shared projects to build and sustain collective endeavours. These projects fuel solidarity practices and attitudes in modern societies inspired by feelings of loyalty and civic virtues that go beyond old communitarian perspectives (Alexander 2006; Rippe 1998). The projects constitute the boundaries of the social configuration (membership) and therefore of the solidarity relations (Polletta 2020; Alexander 2006; Rippe 1998). In this sense, I maintain that the

Political Solidarity in Times of Crisis: A multi-dimensional approach to study support for the rights and wellbeing of others

Thesis

Reference

Political Solidarity in Times of Crisis: A multi-dimensional approach to study support for the rights and wellbeing of others

Political Solidarity in Times of Crisis: A multi-dimensional approach to study support for the rights and wellbeing of others

Thèse

présentée à la Faculté des sciences de la société de l’Université de Genève

et

à la Classe di scienze politico-sociali de la Scuola Normale Superiore

Par

Eva Fernández Guzmán Grassi

Abstract

Résumé

Riassunto

Acknowledgements

Thank you all!

CONTENTS

TABLES AND FIGURES

CHAPTER 1. Introduction

1.1 Aims and research questions

1.2 Scientific relevance

1.3 State of the art

Solidarity in the social sciences

Previous studies on the political dimension of solidarity

1.4 Theoretical framework

Solidarity

Studying solidarity

Defining the political dimension of solidarity