solidarity

is something other than the coincidence and coordination of individual wills.

What would be the basis for a feminist cosmopolitanism that understands solidarities as something other than the coincidence and coordination of individual wills''

is the acceptance of reciprocal responsibility to other members of the group for the sake of common purpose. A sense of other people and ourselves being 'we'.

Increasing solidarity for Rorty means that our sensitivity is enhanced with regard to the particularities of the suffering and humiliation of others and as a result it leads to a reduction of cruelty. He defines solidarity as, accepting reciprocal responsibility to other members of the group for the sake of common purpose. In that sense the Communist Party of the Soviet Union had solidarity, the Nazis had solidarity, Mao's cultural revolutionaries had solidarity. The bad guys can have solidarity too. Solidarity is morally neutral, so to speak.([9], p. 61)And furthermore he describes it as: a sense of other people and ourselves being 'we' we feel that what affects them affects us because we, to some extent, identify with them. I was trying to describe social progress in a way borrowed from Wilfred Sellars: the expansion of 'we' consciousness, that is, the ability to take in more and more people of the sort fashionably called 'marginal' and think of them as one of us, included in us.([9], p. 32)

is a state that requires having something in common.

But allowing for others to exist in some strong sense, joining their ways of accessing things or at least appreciating them, just is solidarity. Solidarity requires having something in common. But having something in common is exactly what culturalism sees as essentialism, and thus as reactionary primitivism. How do you get there—solidarity—from here—the strong correlationism that lords over Marxist, anti-imperialist and imperialist thought domains? Perhaps having something in common is a spurious, dangerous concept? Perhaps we could reimagine solidarity without having anything in common? This is the popular approach from within strong correlationism. Or perhaps—and this is Humankind’s approach—we could reimagine what “to have in common” means. I chose the title Humankind as a deliberate provocation to those scholars who think that “having in common” is based on ideas that are less acceptable than farting in church.

is an intriguing word that describes a state of physical and political organization, and it describes a feeling.

“Solidarity” is an intriguing word. It describes a state of physical and political organization, and it describes a feeling.12 This itself is significant because “solidarity” cuts against a dominant ontological trend, default since the basic social, psychic and philosophical foreclosure of the human–nonhuman symbiotic real that we call the Neolithic.

is default to the biosphere and very widely available. In philosophical terms, it is the noise made by the symbiotic real as such, connecting humans and non-humans. It

Something like a permeable boundary between things and their phenomena is highly necessary for thinking solidarity. If solidarity is the noise made by the uneasy, ambiguous relationship between 1 + n beings (for instance, the always ambiguous host–parasite relationship), then solidarity is the noise made by the symbiotic real as such. So, solidarity is very cheap because it is default to the biosphere and very widely available. Humans can achieve solidarity among themselves and between themselves and other beings because solidarity is the default affective environment of the top layers of Earth’s crust. If non-life can have a world, then at the very least we can allow lifeforms to have solidarity.

is an answer to our severed reality insofar as its pleasant confusion of feeling-with and being-with (of appearing and being, of phenomena and thing, of active and passive) seem not simply to gesture to a non-severed, symbiotic real, but indeed to emerge from it.

Solidarity, a thought and a feeling and a physical and political state, seems in its pleasant confusion of feeling-with and being-with, appearing and being, phenomena and thing, active and passive, not simply to gesture to this non-severed real, but indeed to emerge from it. Solidarity is a deeply pleasant, stirring feeling and political state, and it is the cheapest and most readily available because it relies on the basic, default symbiotic real. Since solidarity is so cheap and default, it extends to nonhumans automatically.

is the noise the symbiotic real makes in its floating, spectral nowness, conditioned by the past (otherwise known as trauma), yet open to the future.

Solidarity is the noise the symbiotic real makes in its floating, spectral nowness, conditioned by the past (otherwise known as trauma), yet open to the future.

solidarity, n.Definitions

solidarity