The term “solidarity”, bandied around freely in Europe especially around May Day, was a political latecomer relative to the slogans of “liberty” and “equality”. It entered political discourse in the late 19th century on the back of the acknowledged unlikelihood that a stronger form of unity, “fraternity”, would ever be achieved. And it was only in the years following WWII that “solidarity” became an important organising principle of European societies.

… inequality reduces the common ground that different members of society can share…- Ranier Fsadni

Today, not much more than a century after it entered political discourse, one has to wonder whether solidarity, as an organising social principle, has much of a future.

In Malta, lip service to it has never been greater. But precisely because of that it has become devalued. “You have my solidarity” in politics has come to mean little more, in practice, than good will, a hug of sympathy. It does not necessarily translate into commitment to policy or political cooperation. A few years ago, the Malta Gay Rights Movement could curl its collective lip and say it wanted rights, not solidarity.

It’s not just the Maltese context. According to Richard Sennett, a distinguished sociologist of work, the culture of the new economic order is eroding the very capacity to imagine a real belonging to society. “Tribalism”, the solidarity we feel with people like ourselves, is alive and well.

But, even though the majority of Euro-Americans live in cities, social solidarity – the willingness to engage with people who are ethnically, religiously or economically different – is weak. Prof. Sennett subscribes to a long line of thought, going back to Aristotle, that civil engagement is not just about good will. Cooperation is a craft, involving skills of listening and response, of everyday diplomacy and practices that enact commitment. Much of his latest book, Together (Allen Lane), is taken up with showing how such skills can be learned and practised in everyday settings.

However, there is a draught running through an otherwise warm, empathic book full of faith in humanity’s capacity for cooperation and complexity. Early on, Prof. Sennett sketches why current institutions do not permit people to use anywhere near their full resources:

“Modern society is ‘de-skilling’ people in practising cooperation... people are losing the skills to deal with intractable differences... We are losing the skills of cooperation needed to make a complex society work.”

It’s not a nostalgic argument for a more communal past. He identifies three conditions that are creating this context of de-skilling.

First, there is growing inequality between rich and poor, not just between societies but also within them. In the US, the wealth of the top one per cent (particularly the wealth of the top 0.1 per cent) has shot up astronomically while middle America has experienced significant loss of high-skilled manufacturing jobs.

It’s not just the US, of course. Europe is heading down the US route, in its own way, as unemployment, cuts to social programmes and austerity measures take their toll.

The point is that inequality reduces the common ground that different members of society can share, inciting the “politics of the tribe”.

Second, important changes in modern work undermine both the desire and the willingness to work with those who differ. There is the so-called silo effect that comes with the compartmentalisation of the division of labour.

However, the less time people spend working together increases this isolation. Some managerial practices recommend that teams are not kept together for more than nine to 12 months. The rise of the short-term contract contributes both to the isolation of inequality and to the isolation from one’s fellow workers, as people keep to themselves and do not involve themselves in problems that will not be their concern before long.

Prof. Sennett is sceptical that this is a passing condition that may be offset by new jobs in the green or creative economy: “We face the prospect that it will seem ‘normal’ for 15 to 18 per cent of the labour force to be without full-time work for more than two years; among young people in their 20s, these percentages will rise to 20-25 per cent.”

Finally, there is the social and cultural backlash whose symptoms are the votes gained by far-right parties, which proclaim solidarity and protectionism but only for their own kind.

In response, Prof. Sennett says, a new type of character is being born: one keen to downplay difference – political, ethnic, religious or erotic – to proclaim everyone “basically the same”. But this, too, is a form of disengagement, and spells trouble for those whose difference is conspicuous.

This Sunday, in France, we shall see which way the first-round vote for Marine Le Pen has been redistributed.

Ms Le Pen attracted one in six French voters because she has not been afraid to raise fundamental questions about solidarity and inequality. Her answers are “tribal”. Will Europe see politicians emerge capable of raising the questions – asking them more than just rhetorically – but also with the courage to give complex, workable answers?

If not, the future of solidarity seems bleak: the breaking of its promise of emancipation; a return to its connotations of repressive unity.

ranierfsadni@europe.com