Discursive constructions of inequality and solidarity
Normative dimensions of inequality and solidarity
We propose to organize our IP jointly with the University of Göttingen and the University of Pune, offering different perspectives on a topic of broad interest: Inequality and solidarity.
One of the promises of modern capitalist democracies was – and still is – that they try to alleviate problems of inequality. Especially the postwar European welfare states promised to generate more equality by social, educational, and regulatory measures. However, this promise, embedded in both policies and discourses, has its major problems. First, inequality has often been conceptualized along the classical materialist left-right axis, targeting equality between social classes along a workers vs. capital view of the world. Other cleavages like gender equality, migrants vs. local population, or winners of globalization vs. losers of globalization (which may not be the same as workers vs. capital, as it pitches workers in different sectors against each other) have been neglected. Second, maybe even the “old” class-based notion of equality has lost its traction due to the ascent of the neoliberal worldview. Social policies are under pressure of austerity measures, discourses of solidarity give way to discourses about the benefits of competition and free markets. Third, the “old” European welfare state discourse has always neglected the global dimension of inequality. Much of Europe´s prosperity was – and is – due to neocolonial economic relations that outsource socially and environmentally costly modes of production to “emerging economies” in Asia, Latin America and Africa. The benefits of these global production chains are felt in Europe as cheap consumer goods, the social and environmental costs of these global production chains are felt elsewhere.
However, even given this diagnosis, there may be examples of solidarity, on the local, national, and maybe even global level. Scholars of social capital debate whether this solidarity is only possible in small in-groups, generated by bonding social capital, or can be transferred to larger societal entities. Nevertheless, notions of solidarity underpin all forms of inequality-reducing policies and discourses.
The aim of the IP is therefore to analyze new and old forms of inequality and solidarity in Europe and beyond. That is, inequality might be analyzed within European nation-states, but we particularly welcome contributions that look at the interrelation of European and international inequality. An example would be international inequality as a source of migrant flows, and the European solidarity (or lack of solidarity) in dealing with these migrant flows; or the complex phenomena of inequality and solidarity implied in global production and trade (e.g. the combination of cheap production of mobile phones in emerging economies with the use of tax havens in the EU).
We welcome papers that deal with questions of inequality and solidarity in all forms, between all kinds of groups, in a materialist as well as culturalist perspective. Thus, inequality may refer to the material bases of inequality – income, terms of trade, access to natural resources – as well as to socially constructed forms of inequality – unequal access to cultural resources, or socially created distinctions. Inequality may be analyzed in a comparative perspective between countries, social groups, or subnational units; or in a historical perspective over time.
We are also interested in normative discussions about the costs and benefits of inequality and solidarity. Most analyses point to the ambivalent nature of inequality. On the one hand, inequality may serve as a powerful incentive for innovations, improvement of social practices, or products. Inequality may also simply be a by-product of highly complex and stratified societies, with the “right” degree of inequality creating economic and cultural dynamism. On the other hand, structural inequality is seen as harmful for societal cohesion and democratic self-determination, as it creates either apathy, or highly destructive conflicts between social classes, countries, or world regions. Similarly, solidarity can generate collective action and unify societies, but may generate conflicts if solidarity is understood to benefit in-groups at the expense of out-groups.
Subtheme 1: Material bases of inequality and solidarity
The first subtheme is interested in – broadly speaking – material forms of inequality, their causes and consequences. Material inequality may refer to income, social and human capital, or to unequal exchange relations, on levels ranging from the local to global trade networks. The role of Europe and the EU is equivocal in this regard. On the one hand, the EU and European welfare states may be seen as devices trying to promote equality among their citizens. However, they also create insiders and outsiders, those who participate in the wealth generated in the European single market, and those not partaking in the wealth generated by specialization, globalization, and trade. Analyses in this subtheme may cover empirical analyses and descriptions of inequality, as well as of the policies to combat them.
Subtheme 2: Discursive constructions of inequality and solidarity
The second subtheme covers – again, broadly speaking – those manifestations of inequality and solidarity that cannot solely by covered by material considerations. For example, Bourdieu´s theory of social distinctions covers less material inequality, but socially constructed forms of inequality that stratify societies. These discursive forms of inequality are often accompanied by material inequality – either resulting from material inequality, or being used to create and justify material and legal inequalities. Think of the creation of refugees as a concept or “second class citizens”. On the other hand, these discursive forms of inequality can take on a life of their own, structuring societies into haves and have-nots on a local, national, or global scale. Similarly, solidarity is to a large extent socially constructed. Who is deemed to be “worthy” of solidarity? What does solidarity entail, and how far does it go? How does Europe export its notions of inequality and solidarity into the world? In how far does Europe live up to these images? These questions are debated in the arts and media, in party programmes, and in everyday discourse.
Subtheme 3: Normative dimensions of inequality and solidarity
The third subtheme concerns normative considerations about inequality and solidarity. At first glance, most normative assessments are that inequality is bad and solidarity is good. However, things may not be so easy. For example, a discourse of inequality underpins the notion of meritocratic societies, arguing that inequality is the results of different capabilities and effort, incentivicing people to work hard make use of their talents. Similarly, globalization is on the one had accused of generating inequality within and between nation states, and at the same time praised for alleviating poverty and generating a new middle class in emerging economies. On the other side of the coin, solidarity may be seen as a universal principle, but very often, solidarity is restricted to small groups (family, kin, nation) at the expense of out-groups. The third subtheme welcomes contributions that discuss these questions and offer normative judgements about different forms of inequality and solidarity.
IP Topic 2019:
