• A
  • A
  • A
  • ABC
  • ABC
  • ABC
  • А
  • А
  • А
  • А
  • А
Regular version of the site

Article

Мобильность и солидарность. Статья вторая

Социологическое обозрение. 2012. Т. 11. № 1. С. 19-39.

Alexander F Filippov. Mobility and Solidarity. Part 2. This article continues «Mobility and solidarity. Part 1» (Sociological review. Vol. 10. № 3). Solidarity  is considered first of all from the point of view of co-intended meaning, as an additional motive accompanying  the main motivation of participants of interaction and, at exhaustion of the initial motive, replacing this motive.  An example of such a motive in elementary interactions is fidelity. Fidelity, according to Georg Simmel, enables  participants to make as kind of logical induction from the facts of the current behavior to the expected behavior  of partners. Other type of communication concerning solidarity, is civil friendship, as described, in particular,  by Aristotle. However any friendship presupposes too narrow and too specific circles of contacts, it can be only  a prototype of modern solidarity. Religious ethics of fraternal affection and ethics of military brotherhood  compete to friendship and often force it out. The more they are free from «world orders» (M. Weber), the more  they come nearer to type of pure solidarity. The exchange of gifts can be considered as another type solidarity,  however in modern societies it has only limited potential of universality. The most important phenomenon of  modern mobile society is pure togetherness (Z. Bauman). Here solidarity is present as an imputed motive, one  of the accepted vocabulary of motives, often invoked post hoc to explain why those who aren’t forced to it by  power, money, or value commitments keep together