Which Theories of Solidarity? From the Austrian Case to the European Context

Abstract

Current debates on solidarity are part and parcel of a critical evaluation of the modern Western welfare state, in particular of its financial and redistributive dimensions. The assumption prevailing until the late eighties of the 20th century, that the possibilities of expanding welfare entitlement are virtually limitless, has been severely challenged. In the search of new (‘third’) ways of securing social cohesion and stability, concepts of solidarity have been reconsidered (cf. Giddens, 1998; Kersting, 2000). However, the notion of solidarity needs clarification, as political actors often tend to amalgamate solidarity and social justice. These are two distinct concepts and thus serve as a theoretical foundation of two distinct visions of the welfare state. A welfare state construed on the idea of solidarity is meant to react to clearly defined needs, while the model based on the idea of social justice ‘gives everyone what the community owes to him or her’ (cf. Kersting, 2000, p. 51). While the former draws on the idea of benevolence, the latter refers to the idea of obligation. In terms of Kant’s philosophical approach, the former constitutes a ‘softer’, the latter a ‘stronger law’. While we always know what we owe each other, we tend to act in solidarity contingent upon a given situation or condition.