Unity, solidarity, and our awkward object
Sometimes, when we want to have a political impact or win a campaign, we default to ideas of unity. If I had a magic wand, I’d swap those out for a more intentional practice and ethic of solidarity. Here’s what I mean by that.
Let’s think of our social movements—for example, the growing networks of people in the US organizing to stop fascism and re-boot democracy—as enormous and awkwardly heavy things that we must lift and move down a path. Not only are these bad boys heavy, but they can also be wiggly, slippery, sharp, and unpredictable. Still, we must move them forward!
Unity and the awkward object
Knowing that many hands make light work, we can default to the idea of unity as a method of carry. A few people at the front of the awkward object ask everyone to do what they’re doing, to unify with them in order to move the object forward. “We are stronger TOGETHER!” they shout as encouragement.
People behind and all around are told to mimic the leaders’ techniques and avoid trying unsanctioned methods. This makes perfect sense to people with the ability to understand and mimic those leaders.
But those in the back or out on the side might be holding a piece of that object that requires different mechanics. Maybe they need to rest it on a shoulder or use a backpack. If someone is smacked in the head by a chunk of the object that suddenly swings toward them, they may have to move or drop out. Importantly, some people will have disabilities. They may fall behind. Others may step in pile of fire ants or receive a snake bite on the path and not be able to continue.
Seeing that some are falling behind or having to let go and walk away, others may try shouting up and asking the leaders to change their pace or direction, only to find that they are then seen as breaking the unity needed to win, and are told to shush up or let go. The leaders, expecting unity, may find there aren’t enough unified helpers to move that pulsing, chaotic object forward. Sound familiar?
Solidarity and the heavy object
What if we tried another approach?
What if it were a given that everyone who maybe wanted to help might do it in a slightly different way? What if we acknowledged the object is so heavy and so awkward to carry and the path so laden with risk and danger that we really would need every single person we could possibly find to help us? In this approach, we quickly learn that no one moves forward until we allow everyone to help according to their unique skills and abilities.
Of course, we might also notice that when we made more space for different kinds of people, there are different ideas about which directions to move the object. Which way is forward if everyone’s included?
In a practice of transformational solidarity, the people with the most energy and skills to move the object pay close attention to those with the least resources or the most injuries, and ensure they are centered in the formation (or even given a ride) as the group hoists its awkward object forward. This allows the most people to help, even if it changes the pace or alters the direction of the group. Plus, if a predator comes along the path, there is safety in numbers and no one is left behind. Those who are least vulnerable to that predator categorically refuse to abandon those who are most vulnerable.
In the solidaristic approach, people are encouraged to find a piece of the object to carry that suits their abilities, and the group shapes itself to allow for that. Some people may just be killers of snakes on the path, and even very pro-snake people accept that it’s ok, because that’s their role. Those taking turns at the front at any given time are invested in hearing clear communication about how it’s going on the sides and in the back, because this helps them set a good pace and direction. They aren’t threatened by new ideas, or critical feedback because they know it’s necessary to keep the awkward object moving. Songs and jokes, rather than unity demands, help knit the group together.
When we act in solidarity, it is understood that what matters is our togetherness and our care for one another. Over time, the group may find that as long as they are focused on care and acting in solidarity with one another, they can move forward in any direction they can dream up.
Our awkward movements
This is of course an awkward and limited metaphor for our awkward movements. But hopefully it helps you understand what I mean when I say I want to swap out potentially harmful notions of “unity” for a widespread practice of “solidarity” that can help our diverse movements succeed. To beat back fascism and to take good care of one another turn out to be the same thing. No matter the terrain before us in the coming years, choosing solidarity with our most vulnerable will keep us on a good path.
Anything useful I can say about “transformational solidarity” – the kind that uplifts and powers popular movements for justice – comes from studying Astra Taylor and Leah Hunt Hendrix’s book on the topic. Anything weird or off key I’ve said on the subject of solidarity is my own mistake.