Media Solidarities

Emotions, Power and Justice in the Digital Age

Kaarina Nikunen, SAGE Publications Ltd

• Publisher: SAGE Publications Ltd
• Year: 2018
• Print ISBN: 9781473994102, 9781473994096
• eBook ISBN: 9781526452436
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Ciencias sociales
• Subtopic: Estudios de medios

What does it mean when images of refugees' plight are shared on social media? Or when we respond to emotive NGO fundraising campaigns, or are heartened by do-good reality TV shows? Do these narratives offer incentives for genuine social change or only momentary feelings of individual satisfaction?

Drawing on social theory, political economy and cultural studies, Media Solidarities explores the way in which media can both enable and obstruct meaningful bonds of solidarity and positive social change. Written in a highly approachable style, it ties theory to contemporary world events and media discourses through a series of examples and case studies. The book offers an analytical toolkit to critically understand media narratives of representation, participation and production and to challenge our perceptions of our selves and society.

It will be fascinating reading for students in media and communications, politics, sociology, human geography and cultural studies.

1 Understanding solidarity

What is solidarity? It may first appear self-evident: solidarity means standing in unity with others and showing support in the struggle for justice. However, closer examination reveals that solidarity can refer to various things from social cohesion to political struggle. The political theorist Lawrence Wilde,¹ author of Global Solidarity (2013), notes that serious theoretical work on solidarity is surprisingly scarce and remains at the rhetorical level. Solidarity is often mentioned in passing, without need for definitions. Central to the concept of solidarity is a shared sense of responsibility and alliance that is formed horizontally rather than vertically. Solidarity is collective by nature, yet it entails an affective force that addresses people individually. Is solidarity a feeling of compassion and recognition of injustice? Does it require action? To unpack different dimensions of solidarity, Sally Scholz (2008) makes a useful distinction between social and political solidarity. Social solidarity describes the social cohesion of a society or community. It is a more ritualistic, ‘unconscious’ solidarity that is engendered through structures of society. Political solidarity refers to more conscious, active solidarity: a moral relation that unites individuals in a struggle for a common goal. It is formed as a commitment to challenge injustice, oppression, social vulnerability, and it may be organized as a short-lived protest or a long struggle with different phases and intensities (Scholz, 2008: 10–13, 21; 2013). From the perspective of this book, both social and political solidarities are relevant, however, the focus is more on the latter: how media engage with political struggles and the disclosure of injustice, rather than the ritualistic formation of solidarity through media. However, as is often the case, these categories are not always clear cut and easy to separate. There is interdependency between social and political solidarity and sometimes theories of solidarity address both dimensions.

¹ Wilde himself defines solidarity ‘as a feeling of sympathy shared by subjects within and between groups, impelling supportive action and pursuing social inclusion’ (2013: 1).

Media are powerful in evoking political solidarity, as already discussed in the introduction. Many of us also remember the image of Alan Kurdi, a three-year-old boy who drowned on the coast of Turkey in September 2015. It was taken by photographer Nilüfer Demir and rapidly circulated across mainstream and social media. Several adaptations, memes and social media campaigns were created around the image to raise awareness and to criticize the political leaders of the failed refugee politics of Europe. Some might say that it became an iconic picture of the refugee crisis of 2015 and that it changed the way people in Europe perceived refugees (Proitz, 2018; Mortensen, 2017): instead of suspect young men, refugees were seen now as vulnerable, innocent victims who needed help. The image of a child (who looked like many white European children) was seen to engender solidarity towards refugees among European citizens. However, others might point out that nothing in the European refugee policies was changed for the better on the basis of the image; in fact the policies became worse. Some months later, the EU made a deal with Turkey and Libya on the management of immigrants and refugees, regardless of their lack of facilities to take care of refugees – an agreement that was criticized by many humanitarian organizations. Therefore the sentiment of solidarity evoked by the image was only superficial and short-term. The image also raised concern over the ethics of publishing a picture of a dead child: shouldn’t there be privacy and respect towards the grieving family? For these reasons, the image was also disturbing. It disclosed so many things that seemed to be wrong in this world: the war in Syria, the terrible conditions of refugees, Europe’s deadly borders, the indifference and cruelty of the EU refugee policy – and not least, the shamelessness of the media, profiting from the gruesome image. The image also evoked a range of emotions from compassion and pity to embarrassment and shame. These emotions may have also transformed into acts of solidarity, volunteer work and activism: forms of political solidarity.

The case mobilized responses on social media in ways that expanded the influence of the original media representation in new contexts. This is how media are relevant for solidarity. Through media images, we are able to imagine, feel and think about the suffering of others. Indeed, media have been essential for making both suffering and help visible to the public (Franks, 2013: 3; Höijer, 2004; Sontag, 2003: 16–19; Tester, 2001). Media representations of injustice or suffering are not always just or fair: they can focus on only one side of things; they can sensationalize and exaggerate. As in the case of Alan Kurdi, such images are often on the borderline of what is ethical and acceptable; between shocking and eye-opening. Media are also capable of eroding the very idea of solidarity. Media may deepen divisions and oppositions between people and promote sentiments of hate and prejudice. For example, stereotypical representations and false information of Muslim minorities in Europe have fed prejudice and Islamophobia (Awan, 2014; Ogan et al., 2014).

However, the relation between solidarity and media is not only about political struggle. Media also provide ritualistic relations to the social world by providing a sense of togetherness, a form of solidarity in everyday life. Watching the news, or listening to music engender ritualistic space for social experience. The regular use of news media, websites, chat forums and music channels, particularly watching live performances and streaming, make connections to social worlds of other people in ways that may create a sense of belonging and enhance social solidarity on a local, national or even global level (Couldry, 2003). Pictures of Alan Kurdi may have also been encountered through such ritualistic viewing of news and become part of social debates and discussion among friends or in work places, enhancing their sense of shared social world, while feeling shock or anger at the fate of Alan Kurdi. This, more ritualistic aspect of media is connected to social solidarity, a more unconscious sense of living together.

In academic literature, the greatest conceptual interest in solidarity has been evident in sociology and political theory, where research often focuses on social solidarity, whether it should be connected with group identity or a sense of shared humanity; realized as individual or collective action; connected to the national or cosmopolitan realm; promoted through self-realization or through a sense of justice. Post-colonial studies, cultural studies, critical geography, feminist and queer studies have also paid attention to solidarity particularly in terms of political struggle. Feminist authors such as Nancy Fraser (2013), Jodi Dean (1996, 2013), Clare Hemmings (2012), Chandra T. Mohanty (2003), Elora Halim Chowdhury (2011), Lauren Berlant (2011) and Judith Butler (2015) come to the concept from different directions, often pointing out the tension between universalist ideas of social solidarity and the recognition of difference. They criticize essentialist ideas of humanity and gender and point out the relevance of emotions and affect in formations of solidarity. I think it is important to bring these discussions together in order to expand and challenge the ‘we’ in political theory and to find new ways of understanding solidarity in an increasingly complex, globalized and mediated world. These discussions are as timely as they have ever been, in a world where right-wing populism has gained popularity and rights for citizenship and human protection, some might say even the understanding of humanity itself, are redefined.

As it is impossible to cover everything said about solidarity in one chapter, I focus here on the main ways in which solidarity has been understood in sociological, political and feminist theories. The chapter is divided into two parts. The first part discusses solidarity as a theoretical concept used by political thinkers and philosophers (such as Calhoun, Wilde, Honneth, Rorty), and critical views developed in feminist studies (Mohanty, Dean, Hemmings and Fraser). This literature is aspirational and normative: it strives to capture the ideal conditions for solidarity in a society and in political struggle. I outline here the idea of solidarity that is based on common differences and realized through dialogue and cooperation. The second part builds on these ideas of solidarity by laying out the ways in which media may enhance and shape solidarity. It discusses this particularly from the perspective of changing media environment and the challenges and possibilities it proposes. Importantly, the second part expands the approach to emotions: how emotions are crafted and mobilized through media and what kind of solidarities they propose. First however, I shall briefly introduce the historical origins of the concept of solidarity in 19th-century Europe.

Three strands of solidarity: socialism, humanitarianism, religion

People have always stood by each other in different kinds of struggles, helped each other in difficult times and shared resources for the common good. However, the need for solidarity and the interest towards the concept seem to emerge particularly in times when societies go through significant changes and when the traditional structures of life are challenged. Therefore it is no surprise that the actual concept of solidarity (originating from Latin legal term ‘solidium’ referring to joint liability in debt) was born in 19th-century Europe when social struggles paved the way for the rise of socialism and new humanitarian movements. The French Revolution, with its slogan of ‘liberté, egalité, fraternité’ combined ideas of solidarity with the vision of social equality and freedom. Next I introduce three strands of solidarity: socialism, humanitarism and religion.

Socialism

The first publication to have discussed the meaning of solidarity, has been identified as De l’humanite (Humanity) by Pierre Leroux, published in 1840, in which solidarity is presented as a way to fight inequalities created by private property and markets (Wilde, 2013: 21). Solidarity as a political concept became more pronounced in the second half of the 19th century and was closely associated with the workers’ movement and the rise of socialism in Europe. Lawrence Wilde (2013: 23) describes the workers’ uprising in June 1848 in Paris as the pivotal moment when solidarity became a central idea shaping working-class movements in France and elsewhere in Europe with new organization of action through cooperatives, trade unions and eventually political parties. The more radical version of solidarity, the revolutionary approach, was epitomized in the short lived Paris Commune (1871), a revolutionary government, that ruled the city for two and a half months with radical reforms and an attempt to create egalitarian rule. By the end of the 19th century solidarity had replaced fraternity in the vocabulary of the workers’ movement, emphasizing the political freedom of citizens (Brunkhorst, 2005; Wilde, 2013: 23–35).² We can see traces of this strand of solidarity in today’s social movements, which are often global by nature, when feminist, environmentalist and anti-capitalist movements make use of social media activism and digital protests.

² Women’s struggle for gender equality and right to vote, the suffrage movement, became organized in different countries also during the second half of the 19th century. The suffrage movement was not a socialist movement as it involved women and men from different classes and political parties. As such it was, at the time, an exceptionally diverse social movement.

Humanitarianism

The notion of solidarity also captures ideas of equality and compassion that were developing particularly in 18^th- and 19^th-century humanitarian movements. These movements fought against slavery, torture and public hangings, based on notions of universal humanity. For example the Society of the Friends of the Black founded in France in 1788, mostly by white men and women, fought for racial equality and rights of minorities. The International Red Cross was established in 1863, an event that is often cited as the beginning of institutional humanitarianism (Redfield and Bornstein, 2010). Humanitarianism, unlike solidarity, is often organized top-down from (privileged) benefactors to deprived beneficiaries. However, humanitarian campaigns are also driven by a sense of solidarity and an assertion of the equal value of all humans.The ethical principles of humanitarian movements are often connected to Kant’s moral philosophy. Perpetual Peace, written in 1795 lays the ground for ideas of cosmopolitanism and hospitality based on a common, shared humanity, often inscribed in solidarity struggles. These notions of common humanity and the need to help are something we see in many humanitarian campaigns of today.

Religion

A third approach to solidarity is connected to religion. Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism and Buddhism have all promoted ideas of solidarity in their teachings (Gilsenan, 1992; Scholz, 2013). Within Christianity, solidarity is connected to the equality of all humans in the eyes of God and to brotherly love (caritas), and taught particularly within the Catholic church where solidarity is seen not only as an obligation but as a virtue that seeks to uphold the good of both the individual and society.We can see the impact of solidarity on the Christian tradition in contemporary societies in the ways the Church sometimes takes a visible role in social struggles, for example those involving poverty and immigration in Latin America and in the European refugee crisis. Islam includes ideas of solidarity in its approach to community and charity for the poor (zakat) as a sacred duty (Frühbauer, 2007; Kochyut, 2009). Bayat (2005) discusses contemporary Islamism as a new social movement that evokes imagined solidarity across differentiated and fragmented realities (see also Habashi, 2011).

While these three strands emphasize different aspects of solidarity they also capture the essential ideas of solidarity: the sense of togetherness in a fight against inequality and suffering. This book focuses mostly on the remnants and traces of the first two strands (the socialist and humanitarian) in the contemporary media context. But how can solidarity be achieved and what would that require from society?

In this together: social solidarity

The classic sociological approach to social solidarity was presented by Emile Durkheim, who strove to understand what holds societies together. Durkheim created his theory of solidarity in the context of the division of labour (The Division of Labour in Society, 1947[1893]). He tried to identify the elements in society that build solidarity, a bond that ties people together socially. For Durkheim social integration, being part of and agreeing on a shared system, forms the moral basis of society. His approach to solidarity is structural and ritualistic: it is not really interested in how people react to injustice or align together in a particular struggle but looks at solidarity from a functional perspective. If society is built in the right way, solidarity emerges as part of it.

Durkheim (1947[1893]) made a distinction between mechanic and organic solidarity. Mechanic solidarity was connected with pre-modern societies, characterized by a totality of belief and value systems, and by strict moral codes. This kind of society of a ‘collective consciousness’ allows for little variation or individuality. This means that the society is kept together not by voluntary interaction but through punitive systems, rules and regulations. Mechanical solidarity was based on similarity.

Organic solidarity, for Durkheim, meant stronger interdependence and individuality between people. In modern societies organic solidarity is connected with the division of labour, complexity, specialization and cooperation. These create greater dependence and interaction between people. Organic solidarity develops through social interactions between the members of the society, through family and occupational relationships that infuse the community.

Importantly, understanding of the interdependence between people is what keeps society together. Durkheim believes that this is the key element of society, as people cannot live together without ‘tying themselves to one another with strong, durable bonds’ (Durkheim, 1947[1893]).

Yet society needs to be organized on the basis of fairness and equality if such solidarity can flourish. Durkheim identified three ‘abnormalities’ that threatened solidarity. These were anomie (loss of morality), inequality, and inefficiency. In a society with stark class divisions and inequalities, solidarity cannot flourish and alliances are formed among one group against another rather than in unison.This is something we can identify during economic crises when unemployment and grim visions of the future feed dissatisfaction and may be used by political groups to turn people against each other. The rise of populism and increasing hostility against immigrants and refugees in Europe can be interpreted as a sign of such crumbling of solidarity.

Some argue that the welfare state is the ideal model for social solidarity or at least the place where the best existing form of social solidarity can be found, supported by payment of taxes that benefit the society as a whole (Stjerno, 2005). The welfare state can be thought of as ‘rooted in mutual aid’, cooperation and reciprocity, based on the idea of ‘being with’ each other (Gearey, 2015: 342). Yet others argue that the welfare state can include alienating qualities (bureaucracy, centralization, inflexibility) that can lead to a lack of interaction and mutual help among people and produce a society of distant relations. For others, these problems could be tackled by emphasizing cooperation and participation in society instead of returning to (often nostalgic) ideas of community (Gearey, 2015).

Craig Calhoun (2002) places a similar emphasis on cooperation and participation. He presents his own list of four forms of social solidarity: functional interdependence, categorical identities (nation, race, class, gender), direct social relations, and publics. Direct social relations and publics represent forms of solidarity, for Calhoun, that are open to choice and born out of creative action, mutual engagement and participation in public debates. These forms of solidarity are not dependent on predefined identities of similarity but rather work towards a shared participation in the public sphere. Social interaction provides for a rich civil society, established in dynamic public spheres. The idea of a process of world-making, founding common ideas, institutions and practices is central in Calhoun’s view. In media...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Publisher Note
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• Acknowledgements
• Introduction
• 1 Understanding solidarity
• 2 Producing media solidarities
• 3 Imagining equality with politics of hospitality
• 4 Feeling good through entertainment
• 5 Sharing suffering on social media
• 6 Participating and protesting online
• Conclusions
• References
• Index