Solidarity and Selectivity
In Part II of this book the focus shifted from the various meanings associated
with gift giving to the classical anthropological and sociological
theories on solidarity and to some concrete cases of solidarity. In particular,
Part II drew attention to some negative aspects of solidarity.
In Chapter 5 we observed that compared with the overwhelming attention
the aspect of reciprocity has received from the gift theorists, in
sociological theory it is clearly undervalued. A second, returning theme
concerns motives for solidarity. The anthropological theories proved to
offer a broader range of possible motives than the work of the classical
sociologists: from the “pure” gift given to close relatives, through
equivalent reciprocity, to forms of exchange based on self-interest. Anthropologists
point to another important motive that may be involved
in creating and maintaining social order: power. Gifts can serve as instruments
of power, status, and honor and be used to fortify one’s own
position and to protect oneself against the risks implied in ties with rivals.
The theory of the gift revealed the same four motives to engage in
social relationships as had already been discussed in Chapter 1. A final
theme relevant to our subject matter is ritual. The symbolism involved in
ritual, the awareness and recognition of the identity of the other, and the
shared norms and common emotional mood required by the ritual all
contribute to reinforcing social bonds. Just as the participants of the Kula
ritual who did not comply with the conventions of the gift ceremonials
were sanctioned by social disapproval and excommunication, also in our
own society not abiding by the symbolic codes of rituals is to disturb the
bond of alliance and community.
Chapter 6 brought a new element into the picture, that of “negative solidarity,”
solidarity acting as a principle of selection or exclusion. Although
there is no reason for serious concern about contemporary solidarity as
expressed in charity, volunteer work, or informal care, there are some
inherent failures of solidarity. Empirical data about gift giving show that
those who givemuch also receivemuch, whereas poor givers are poor recipients
aswell.AMatthew effect is atwork, benefiting the most generous
givers and disadvantaging those who are already in poor social and material
conditions. Reciprocity ties people together but may simultaneously
act as a principle of exclusion. Empirical data on informal care suggests
that primarily family and close relatives profit from this care. Solidarity
is selective in that relatives and family are preferred above those who are
farther away in social distance. Philanthropic particularism, the inherent
tendency of voluntary initiatives to favor those with whom one identifies
most, again echoes the negative side of solidarity.
In Chapter 7 family solidarity was investigated in more detail. Family
solidarity has traditionally been considered the prototype of Durkheim’s
mechanical solidarity, the small homogeneous community firmly rooted
in shared values and characterized by a natural propensity to display solidarity
toward its members. In our individualized society this solidarity is
assumed to be in decline, or at least to have become less self-evident. Empirical
data presented in this chapter, however, suggest that the broadly
felt concern about the vitality of family bonds and intergenerational solidarity
is not warranted. People are still willing to contribute, financially
or otherwise, to the care needed by the elderly. In particular, women are
still providing a substantial amount of informal care, especially to older
generations. A solid base for family solidarity has remained but there
are also signs that the motivation for family solidarity is predominantly
based on “prescribed altruism,” an inner obligation to care, rather than
on feelings of affection and identification.Moreover, family ties are often
ambivalent and based on contradictory feelings.