Solidarity Across Divides offers an account of some of the practices and structures that build solidarity in situations of ethnic conflict. Using contemporary examples to illustrate the potential of his ideas, George Vasilev explores methods for destabilizing long-entrenched animosities and fostering relations of commitment and trust in order to create or enhance solidarity. Vasilev describes his project as identifying “the obstacles and possibilities for the realization of solidarity in light of the confusion surrounding it. [He] offer[s] a theoretical foundation from which to comprehend the normative demands of solidarity, and a corresponding set of institutional proposals that can function as guideposts for the reconstruction of societies divided across cultural and ethnic differences so that mutual answerability is patterned into the relations of historical antagonists” (p. 6). Solidarity of this sort is a long-term endeavor; it emerges as divisions are gradually mended. The institutions and practices suggested by the author aim to reinstate trust in relations, even while they also function to support the basic infrastructure of society.
In Solidarity Across Divides, Vasilev focuses on ethnic conflict, but many of his ideas, as he notes, serve other forms of cultural conflict as well. The argument begins with a refutation of monist accounts of solidarity that depend on shared national values. By focusing on singular shared values, monist accounts fail to acknowledge difference and domination in social structures. Instead, Vasilev offers a “non-essentialist solidarity” which, he says, “is what differently situated actors experience when they are prepared to respect each other’s stated desires for self-determination, recognition, and distribution” (p. 21). Solidarity is relational; parties to the solidarity recognize that realizing some perfect account of self-determination, recognition, or distribution for themselves may harm others and are thereby willing to compromise in the realization of these desires (p. 41). Drawing on the work of James Tully, Nancy Fraser, Iris Young, and Axel Honneth, Vasilev shows how enjoying freedom in material conditions that promote dignity and with appropriate recognition of identity from others reflects relations of solidarity.
Deliberative democracy is a key element to fostering this solidarity, according to Vasilev. Unlike consociationalism and liberal multiculturalism, deliberation combines the practices and structures that support solidarity as a normative goal. The author further addresses problems with deliberation, especially the potential for vulnerable groups to be excluded or dominated by the powerful. To remedy this, he recommends a number of “group entitlements” or “group-specific institutional arrangements” as necessary for deliberation. Imbalanced or dominant deliberative structures can also be transformed or effectively rebalanced by external influence and strategic action. Vasilev suggests that two such reform models that combine external influence and strategic action to enhance “an oppressed group’s ability to participate effectively in democratic politics” are transnational advocacy networking and conditionality (p. 112).
The additions to deliberation demonstrate attentiveness to power dynamics in deliberative situations. Although situations of animosity or oppression clearly challenge the potential of deliberation, Vasilev turns to creative methods to counter some of the histories that would otherwise undermine deliberation, while also expressing appropriate caution for how they can go wrong. Transnational activist networks, for instance, sometimes act without sufficient guidance from local activists; conditionality has been used to entrench unjust systems as well as unsettle them. The point is to show that there is sometimes more room for change in the patterns of deliberative relations—and hence an increased possibility for solidarity—when traditional relationships are transformed, and sometimes that transformation comes from the outside.
Vasilev’s account also demonstrates an appreciation for and incorporation of in-group dialogue into the theoretical framework, noting the potential for transformation from within singular groups. As he explains, “in-group deliberation can, and sometimes does, elicit favourable shifts in the quality of group relationships by unsettling entrenched opinions and giving voice to outside perspectives where social division does not permit sustained and constructive deliberations across group lines” (p. 165). Group members themselves contribute sympathetic discussions of the historical antagonist’s perspective, allowing others a different avenue to understanding. Using Desmond Tutu and Nelson Mandela as examples, Vasilev explores the important role of in-group dialogue that, in the case of South Africa, encouraged black audiences to find some sympathy for whites as human beings who might themselves be frightened, even in their positions of power.
The book concludes with a chapter exploring the feasibility and desirability of consensus, while suggesting a new way to think about consensus: as consensus by degrees and distinguished in active and passive forms. The passive form introduced a bit of a chicken/egg problem for me: Vasilev argues that passive consensus could be nurtured by social context, that institutions could be encouraged that pattern “cooperative behavior” and “discourses that break down prejudicial attitudes” (p. 186). This sounds suspiciously like the essentialist, monist accounts of solidarity that form through shared national values, values incarnated in institutions. Of course, he may very well have something in mind much less tied to national identity through shared values and more in line with the practices of deliberation he advocates. The chapter ends with a nod to consensus as a condition of social existence: “[S]ocieties have nowhere else to turn but to a norm of consensus if they wish to understand themselves as communal and cooperative enterprises” (p. 198). True, in order to survive as a single society, some notion of shared agreement is necessary, but societies divided by ethnic conflict have also used formal and informal borders to coexist for social cooperation without solidarity. The importance of solidarity, then, is that it brings something more to communal and cooperative enterprise. It brings commitment. Consensus, it might be argued, is a form of commitment—or requires a form of commitment—that transforms relationships. Solidarity, or “promoting the moral point of view,” is a normative goal that “encompass[es] all who are potentially exposed to the harms and benefits of our actions” (p. 3), not just a practical aim for coexistence.
One strength of the presentation is the consistent and systematic effort to tie theoretical points to concrete examples of ethnic conflict and resolution strategies. The examples used throughout the book brought a richness to the discussion of solidarity in situations of ethnic conflict. Vasilev used these real-world events to punctuate the possibilities suggested in his theoretical account. Of course, there are drawbacks to using real-world examples as well. The nuanced details of any given situation are not always translatable. Leaders with the vision and ability to inspire loyalty and passion in others, like Mandela and Tutu, are generally in short supply. Many ethnic conflicts also have such detailed histories, deep animosities, and untranslatable disagreements that deliberation, consensus, and, ultimately, solidarity remain distant dreams. As a philosopher, my own desire for more theoretical discussion of democracy and other aspects of the proposal sometimes intervened in my reading, but such are the limitations of any project that makes a good-faith effort to engage theory and real-world examples in a meaningful way.
Solidarity across Divides is a nice contribution to a growing literature on solidarity and conflict resolution studies. There seems to be no shortage of conflicts, and their complexity offers ever-new challenges. Vasilev offers a compelling invitation to continue to look for paths to solidarity.
