“Solidarity”, an ambiguous word that it is high time to replace with the more appropriate “convenience”

There is a linguistic spectre haunting Europe. A polysemic word, as the learned would say; but in reality, a slippery or ambiguous term in everyday, political or social discourse. The word ‘solidarity’, invoked at every humanitarian crisis, whether war-related or border-related. Solidarity was swiftly restored with great fanfare yesterday at the extraordinary meeting of the EU’s interior ministers, who expressed “strong solidarity” with Spain – a stance echoed by the Italian minister Piantedosi, who stated, “I wish first and foremost to express Italy’s sincere solidarity with the Spanish government” (the drowned received less of it) following several days of hard-line stances. And the 2022 political agreement on the relocation of asylum seekers is called the ‘voluntary solidarity mechanism’ – take a few each, otherwise we, as the first port of entry, will go under; that is the gist of it. Where, precisely, the word ‘solidarity’ serves as a euphemism for the more direct or brutal ‘self-interest’. This is not a matter of political analysis (the Commission’s proposal to increase financial aid to Morocco demonstrates how the real impact of what is termed ‘internal solidarity’ often rewards those who have put that solidarity under strain), but purely a question of terminology.

The word ‘Solidarnosc’, used in place of ‘freedom’ or ‘democracy’, already contained its share of ambiguity, providing a historical basis for Welsh populism in the ‘new Europe’. And even ‘solidarism’, so dear to Catholic political and social thought, has brought with it pockets of expediency and collusion. Once those years were over, the word slipped into common usage, taking on a generic, formulaic form of do-goodism – often insincere and clerical in nature, yet untouchable and dogmatic. In the world of science, ‘solidarity’ means something entirely different; in architecture, it refers to the ability of structural elements to ensure the stability of the whole, to work ‘in solidarity’. In any physical system, it denotes the capacity of the various components to contribute to the functionality of the mechanism. In relations between states, even when united by treaties such as those in Europe, what holds the whole together and makes policies and institutions function is, instead, a very clear political and diplomatic concept: expediency. This can also take the form of national self-interest when necessary (as was clearly seen in Ceuta, and not only because of Italy’s ill-advised reactions). Persisting in using an ambiguous, moralising word, which in public opinion shifts the logic of expediency into the realm of ethics or, worse still, sentiment, is a linguistic error. And therefore a conceptual one. And hence a political one.