Abstract
Amid escalating global challenges, a re-examination of traditional conceptions of solidarity is increasingly urgent. This article contributes to this discourse in two ways. Firstly, it identifies emerging forms of global interdependencies that significantly differ from those underpinning traditional mechanical and organic solidarity. In response, it introduces the novel concept of “altruistic solidarity,” emphasizing the prioritization of welfare for geographically, temporally or relationally distant outgroups. Secondly, it provides a precise analytical definition of solidarity, differentiating it clearly from related social processes such as cooperation, social capital or social cohesion. Using prosociality as the empirical criterion, this approach facilitates rigorous identification and analysis of solidaristic behavior. The article concludes by highlighting two critical research directions: the systematic analysis of global interdependencies and a comprehensive investigation into the mechanisms fostering prosocial behavior in response to global challenges.
Climate change, large-scale migration, intensified use of natural resources, escalating inequalities and the rapid spread of diseases represent significant global challenges of our era. Although addressing these global issues is widely recognized as a normative imperative (Nawrotzki & Pampel, 2013), effective solutions remain elusive. Inequalities continue to grow at national and international levels (Piketty, 2014), border walls are increasingly constructed (Bissonnette & Vallet, 2020) and greenhouse gas emissions show no signs of abating (Crippa et al., 2021). Despite their distinct features, these challenges share two critical characteristics: they necessitate coordinated, multilevel interventions that extend beyond national boundaries and primarily benefit distant or future groups.
Traditionally, sociological analyses of solidarity, following Durkheim (1960 [1893]), have focused on cohesion within clearly delineated groups. Mechanical solidarity has been associated with shared norms and values within homogeneous communities, while organic solidarity has emphasized reciprocal obligations stemming from functional interdependencies within nation-states. However, contemporary global challenges require a form of solidarity that surpasses these established boundaries, motivating action on behalf of geographically, temporally or relationally distant groups. This emerging form, defined here as “altruistic solidarity,” is distinct because it is fundamentally oriented toward the welfare of outgroups rather than being driven by direct reciprocal obligations.
To clarify the necessity of this new category, a careful conceptual demarcation between organic and altruistic solidarity is required. Organic solidarity is primarily grounded in reciprocal obligations inherent within functionally interdependent groups, most notably nation-states, and thus hinges upon clear or contested but identifiable boundaries (Soysal, 1994). Conversely, altruistic solidarity emerges not from direct functional necessities, but from ethical commitments to distant or disadvantaged populations (Beck, 2006; Boltanski, 1999). Although contemporary global issues such as migration or climate change reveal persistent yet attenuated functional interdependencies (e.g., labor market ties and transnational environmental impacts), these connections are often indirect and mediated through complex global systems. The weakening of immediate reciprocity and heightened awareness of structural injustices and vulnerabilities create space for solidarity that transcends conventional functional obligations. Altruistic solidarity leverages these residual interdependencies but surpasses them, converting diluted functional linkages into ethical commitments aimed explicitly at distant others.
This article advances two main contributions. First, it develops a refined conceptual framework for understanding solidarity within the context of global interdependencies and challenges. By introducing and clarifying “altruistic solidarity” as a distinct analytical category, it provides sociological tools better suited to analyzing actions oriented toward geographically, temporally and relationally distant beneficiaries. Second, it proposes prosocial behavior as the empirical criterion for identifying and analyzing solidarity, clearly distinguishing it from related social phenomena such as cooperation, social cohesion and social capital. Specifically, it conceptualizes solidarity through three interconnected analytical levels: individual prosocial acts, collective prosocial actions facilitated by coordination and normative infrastructures and stable, institutionalized patterns of solidarity aimed at collective goods. By clearly delineating these dimensions, the framework advances empirical research into the emergence, sustainability and institutionalization of solidarity in response to global interdependencies.
The article is structured into four sections. First, it examines how global challenges reshape the context in which solidarity emerges, emphasizing the limitations of traditional solidarity frameworks and clarifying the conceptual distinction between organic and altruistic solidarity. Second, it articulates an analytical framework centered around prosocial behavior to operationalize the identification and empirical study of solidarity. Third, it presents a typology of solidarities—mechanical, organic and altruistic—and explicates their distinct generative mechanisms and psychological foundations. Fourth, the article discusses critical questions and theoretical challenges that arise from adopting altruistic solidarity as a core analytical concept, particularly concerning normative, institutional and political barriers. The conclusion highlights essential future research directions, emphasizing the importance of interdisciplinary collaboration to deepen our understanding of altruistic solidarity's emergence, sustainability and potential for addressing global challenges.
Solidarity in times of global challenges
Who is obliged in solidum? The conceptual origins of solidarity
Understanding solidarity's contemporary forms requires revisiting its conceptual genealogy, which originates in the Roman legal principle of obligatio in solidum. Under Roman law, this principle designated an obligation shared collectively, wherein each individual was fully liable for common debts incurred by a family or community. While initially confined to financial liabilities, the idea of joint and indivisible obligation gradually evolved into a broader principle of mutual responsibility—each individual accountable to and for the welfare of their community. Historically, this evolution has occurred through critical moments when the scope of recognized mutual obligations expanded significantly. 1
Christian theology, particularly through the concepts of agape or caritas, significantly influenced early conceptions of solidarity by positing universal human fraternity beyond national or ethnic boundaries. In this theological conception, acts of solidarity—such as charitable giving or caring for vulnerable strangers—were expressions of a moral debt owed to all humanity. 2 Modern humanitarian ethics later extended this universalizing impulse, positioning solidarity as a moral imperative transcending immediate group boundaries, even when direct reciprocity is absent or minimal (Held, 2006).
The concept of fraternity embedded in French republicanism also significantly reshaped solidarity. It institutionalized and politicized solidarity as a civic responsibility explicitly binding all citizens within the political boundaries of the nation-state (Bayertz, 1999). Solidarity thus became explicitly linked to collective welfare at a national scale, connecting citizens through reciprocal obligations to contribute to and benefit from shared public goods.
This brief historical outline serves a distinct conceptual purpose: it clarifies the dual nature inherent to solidarity as both relational and normative. Solidarity, unlike mere compassion or charity, presupposes a socially recognized bond that makes mutual obligations explicit and enforceable, even as the scope of such bonds varies historically. The Roman principle of obligatio in solidum thus remains conceptually valuable because it exemplifies the essential logic underpinning solidarity—shared obligations sustained through mutual recognition, collective accountability and normative expectations. In what follows, we leverage this framework to develop a contemporary typology of solidarities—mechanical, organic and altruistic—adapted explicitly to the scale and nature of global challenges. 3 Each type, while distinct in its underlying mechanisms and institutional anchors, retains the foundational logic of mutual obligation derived from this genealogical backdrop.
The arena of modern solidarity
The concept of solidarity rose to sociological prominence largely through the works of Comte and Durkheim, who investigated how different modes of interdependence bind individuals and groups. Durkheim's (1960 [1893]) seminal contributions to this debate are well known: he argued that “structural” transformations—urbanization, industrialization and technological progress—foster a new type of interdependence that dissolves traditional community ties. Pre-modern, or “mechanical,” solidarity was premised on the moral and functional similarities shared by small, relatively homogenous groups; modern, or “organic,” solidarity derives from a complex division of labor in large-scale societies, where specialized tasks make each member reliant on the productive functions of all the others.
While traces of pre-modern solidarity persist in small communities (Honneth, 1991; Taylor, 1989), modern conditions have enabled partly novel, more expansive manifestations of solidarity. These developments stem, in part, from the separation of time and space and the rise of expert systems that have drastically reshaped social life (Giddens, 1990). Such forms include (a) state taxation, an indirect mechanism of redistribution among citizens, supported by robust monetary infrastructure (Bazzani, 2020a, 2020b, 2022a), and (b) collective support among minority groups (e.g., laborers, women, migrants, and ethnic communities) seeking civil, political, and social rights. Durkheim's observations already hinted at potential transnational dimensions of solidarity (Durkheim, 1960 [1893]: 121, 281; Delanty, 2000; Inglis & Robertson, 2016). The consolidation of bureaucratic, military and police apparatuses—alongside the centralization of power and the rise of new interest-based groups—further facilitated modern solidarity, as states became arenas where competing ideas of the individual's duty to the collective played out, from self-preservation (Hobbes) or the satisfaction of needs (Smith) in liberal frameworks to the delegation of core welfare obligations to the state in socialist ones (Brunkhorst, 2005).
Key features of modern solidarity's interdependence involve its relative independence from personal will, its potentially dualistic outcomes and its orientation toward a collective good. For instance, people born into a specific country cannot simply opt out of the state's redistributive apparatus without incurring legal or social costs. Moreover, the dualist potential of modern interdependence can yield both beneficial and exploitative consequences—an insight underscored by conflict-oriented perspectives that emphasize the ways power relations shape whether solidarity fosters collective welfare or entrenches inequality (Collins, 1975; Gilmore, 1999; Sassen, 1996; Wallerstein, 1974). In modern contexts, the erosion of “brotherly” communal bonds through rationalization and bureaucratization (Weber, 1978) implies that solidarity rarely materializes automatically. Rather, it surfaces as a normative horizon demanding conscious commitment. Whether such commitment emerges depends on the willingness of individuals and collectives to take on duties specified by solidaristic norms—yet these norms can also generate free-rider problems, exacerbating the tension between altruistic and self-serving choices (Bayertz, 1999). Taxation and labor strikes exemplify how modern solidarity simultaneously upholds collective goods and risks free-riding. Taxation redistributes resources to those in need, but evasion undermines the system by reducing the funds available for collective welfare. Similarly, workers’ strikes can culminate in higher wages and better working conditions, yet their success is jeopardized when some laborers opt out of collective action and receive benefits without incurring costs. Thus, even as modern solidarity seeks to stabilize societal integration, it navigates persistent fault lines of conflict, power asymmetry, and dissent—features that become even more pronounced in contemporary globalized societies.
New and deepening global interdependencies
Global flows of people, goods, capital, greenhouse gases (GHG) and viruses have expanded rapidly in recent decades, thereby amplifying cross-border linkages well beyond what “modern” solidarity regimes—primarily oriented toward nation-states—envisioned (Rosa, 2013; Sassen, 1996). In many ways, the international trading of goods and money extends the modern division of labor on a global scale, a phenomenon long recognized by world-systems theorists (e.g., Arrighi, 1994; Frank, 1967; Wallerstein, 1974), who underscore structural inequalities across core, semi-peripheral and peripheral zones. Yet, climate change—driven by massive GHG emissions—introduces an unprecedented dimension to global interdependence, as its consequences span distant geographies and generations with intensifying urgency, requiring structured frameworks to support climate solidarity efforts (Bazzani, 2023a, 2024). Additionally, mobility patterns increasingly reflect both inequalities rooted in political economy (Chase-Dunn, 1998) and environmental disruptions (Marotzke et al., 2020), underlining the compound nature of contemporary interconnectedness. 4
To better conceptualize these interdependencies, it is essential to explicitly differentiate among various theoretical dimensions:
Economic interdependence—embodied in global markets and multilateral trade agreements: integrates economies through complex global supply chains, generating mutual dependencies alongside significant asymmetries and inequalities (Bazzani, 2021; Gereffi, 2018; Kaplinsky, 2005). Political interdependence—involves formal institutional structures and agreements facilitated by supranational bodies such as the United Nations and international regulatory frameworks, structuring cooperative responses to global crises such as pandemics, migration flow, and climate change (Keohane, 2020; Zürn, 2018). Cultural interdependence—emerges from globally circulated media, transnational communications and cultural exchanges that generate shared understandings, emotional resonance and collective identities transcending national contexts, thereby enabling solidaristic impulses toward distant others (Castells, 2015; Couldry & Hepp, 2018). Ecological interdependence—arises through global environmental systems, manifesting in phenomena such as climate change, biodiversity loss and transboundary pollution, underscoring a collective vulnerability and responsibility beyond local or national capacities (Latour, 2018; Rockström et al., 2009).
These various global interdependencies retain the attributes of independence, duality and collective-good orientation while simultaneously exceeding the capacities of modern state structures in two notable ways. First, the apparatuses of modern states—once central to forging solidarity among citizens—appear less capable of managing cross-border vulnerabilities, especially when no supra-state authority can enforce cooperation (Beck, 2006). Although the goal of ensuring universal welfare persists, newly magnified risks undermine the capacity of states or promote strategic free-riding (Falkner, 2016; Gilmore, 2024). This resonates with the world-systems perspective, which highlights the limited ability of nation-states to resolve systemic crises emerging from global capitalism (Sassen, 1996; Wallerstein, 1974). Beck (2006) characterizes such interdependence as involuntary process of cosmopolitization, wherein external threats compel reluctant cooperation rather than genuine altruism. Stalemates in climate negotiations and the outsourcing of migration management by affluent countries illustrate how free-riding often overrides mutual interests. Furthermore, the biosphere, once deemed an inert resource, behaves as an active agent: the “critical zone” (Latour, 2018) encompasses geology, biology, and human activity in a highly interlinked system lacking a single comprehensive regulator. Consequently, responsibility for mitigating planetary challenges—from pandemics to climate change—extends beyond nation-states and into multilevel coalitions of civic actors, supranational institutions, and private enterprises.
Second, while traditional and modern forms of solidarity have predominantly focused on the welfare of “us”—defined as one's immediate community or nation-state—today's global crises demand an expanded notion of solidarity that includes “them.” The boundaries of the “us” are not fixed; rather, they are socially constructed and continually reshaped through cultural practices and political processes (Fuhse, 2021). Effectively addressing pressing challenges such as climate injustice and global inequality necessitates broadening these boundaries to incorporate distant or future “others” as legitimate stakeholders in solidarity efforts. However, achieving such expansion is far from straightforward. States have historically struggled to cultivate genuine solidarity across heterogeneous populations, often relying on hierarchical control rather than collective consensus. Pre-modern empires, for instance, managed diversity through rigid stratification rather than mutual recognition, while modern nation-states have persistently grappled with the question of who belongs within their solidaristic frameworks. Peripheral regions and marginalized populations, often perceived as “other,” have consistently posed challenges to state-led integrative efforts, reflecting deep-seated tensions in defining the limits of solidarity (Bonifai et al., 2022). Thus, while globalization has intensified interdependencies, the challenges of inclusion and exclusion have long been intrinsic to political organization. Addressing challenges such as climate change, however, requires costly actions by higher-emitting populations, which disproportionately benefit communities far removed in both space and time (Althor et al., 2016). Although mitigating global challenges can confer some advantages on the initiators, the primary beneficiaries remain distant groups. This reorientation toward outgroup well-being—whether the “Global South” or future generations—represents a tendency to move from ingroup to outgroup solidarity (Hopman & Knijn, 2022). Notably, the distinctions between ingroups and outgroups are often fluid, especially in global contexts, and are better understood as dynamic constructs that adapt to changing circumstances and identities rather than fixed categories (Lynch, 2019). In the context of global challenges, the critical issue lies in fostering a form of solidarity that transcends immediate, self-interested groups, regardless of how these groups are defined at any given time. Expanding moral circles, as suggested by insights from social identity and moral inclusion theories, is crucial in fostering solidarity, requiring both cultural shifts and institutional commitments (Crimston et al., 2016).
For instance, climate change exemplifies this transition in solidarity. Greenhouse gas emissions, largely from fossil fuel use, are predominantly produced by the wealthiest 10% of the global population, yet the adverse effects are disproportionately borne by developing countries and will heavily impact future generations (Althor et al., 2016). Addressing climate change thus involves solidaristic actions in high-emitting societies, whose members must bear the costs of reducing GHG emissions, while they do benefit directly—through cleaner air or resilience to extreme weather—the greater advantages accrue to developing countries and future generations. Moreover, societal engagement with pressing issues such as climate change can be enhanced through inclusive strategies (Fisher, 2024). Effective climate activism hinges on expanding social boundaries to include diverse stakeholders, fostering a shared sense of responsibility and collective action. Such inclusivity is crucial for gathering broad-based support and achieving substantive results in tackling existential threats.
Parallel analyses apply to efforts aimed at reducing global inequalities generated by worldwide value chains. Raising wages and improving social rights in the Global South is often proposed to address labor exploitation and uneven development (Kaplinsky, 2005). However, higher production costs can translate into price increases for Northern consumers, spurring a delicate tension between ethical imperatives and domestic self-interest (Milanovic, 2016). Comparable dilemmas arise in pandemic responses, where strategies to contain disease or fund medical research benefit both local communities and more distant populations (Sigler et al., 2021). Likewise, welcoming migrants and refugees exemplifies outgroup solidarity, prioritizing the welfare of individuals from outside the host community. Although migrants contribute positively to host countries, policies that facilitate their inclusion can also help rectify historical injustices and foster more balanced global development (Castles et al., 2013).
Such paradoxes of cooperation—where private incentives conflict with collective gains—were notably anticipated in world-systems and political-economy frameworks that highlight persistent power asymmetries in global value chains (Arrighi, 1994). Existing theories of global interconnectedness emphasize structural factors—particularly uneven exchange, colonial legacies and capital accumulation—that bind distant communities (Sassen, 1996; Wallerstein, 1974). Yet, these constraints also create openings for new solidarity practices that prioritize outgroup welfare. Emphasis on outgroup well-being—especially for marginalized or disadvantaged communities—distinguishes these emergent forms of solidarity from mechanical or organic solidarity, which primarily reinforce one's own group. Thus, the notion of altruistic solidarity—defined here as collective action emphasizing the welfare of outgroup individuals or communities distant in space, time or relational proximity—captures a unique extension of prosocial concern to groups beyond the immediate circle (see Table 1). In doing so, it provides an additional explanatory lens for understanding how and why certain communities or institutions transcend self-interested strategies in today's interconnected world.
Ideal types of solidarity: origin, scope, and beneficiaries.
Under what conditions, then, can altruistic solidarity toward distant out-groups realistically emerge amidst rising anti-immigration sentiments, escalating disruptions and intensifying climate crises? While a comprehensive examination necessitates empirical investigation, we hypothesize several crucial conditions based on existing literature: (1) widespread public recognition and framing of global challenges as interconnected and universal threats rather than isolated crises (Beck, 2006; Boltanski, 1999); (2) robust institutional infrastructures at national and supranational levels explicitly designed to support global justice frameworks, such as equitable climate finance mechanisms or inclusive migration policies (Keohane, 2020; Zürn, 2018); (3) sustained normative discourses that expand moral circles, facilitated by influential cultural narratives and media representation (Castells, 2015; Crimston et al., 2016); and (4) active coalitions of diverse stakeholders, from transnational social movements to progressive state actors, committed to global responsibility beyond narrow self-interest (Fisher, 2024; Hopman & Knijn, 2022). These conditions, while challenging, outline critical pathways for fostering altruistic solidarity as both a theoretical possibility and a practical reality.
Moreover, the analytical distinction between interdependence and dependence, as highlighted by world-systems theory, is crucial. Interdependence implies reciprocal linkages, even if unequal, that foster mutual vulnerabilities and responsibilities. Dependence, conversely, is fundamentally asymmetric, characterized by hierarchical relationships and exploitation, as historically observed in core–periphery dynamics (Chase-Dunn, 1998; Wallerstein, 1974). Altruistic solidarity, as conceptualized here, primarily emerges within contexts of interdependence where reciprocal ties, albeit weakened, persist and structural injustices become visible, prompting ethical commitments. However, severe dependence does not necessarily preclude altruistic solidarity. Indeed, acute power asymmetries and overt exploitation can sometimes catalyze solidarity rooted in moral indignation and ethical responsiveness (Beck, 2006; Boltanski, 1999). Nevertheless, dependence generally poses greater challenges to sustained solidaristic action due to entrenched power disparities and the potential perception of beneficiaries as less legitimate or as passive recipients.
Nevertheless, grouping a broad array of phenomena—such as social movements, activist communities, civil humanitarianism or even taxation—under a single umbrella risks conflating heterogeneous dynamics. In the subsequent section, a clearer analytical framework is proposed to distinguish altruistic solidarity from related concepts, aiming to refine empirical investigations of how and why groups mobilize solidarity actions across local, national and global divides.
Solidarity and prosocial behavior
The various forms of solidarity presented share the fundamental objective of ensuring collective welfare, particularly by supporting individuals or groups experiencing temporary or enduring vulnerabilities relative to their wider communities. Although “solidarity” is a common term in everyday discourse, it remains contested in academic research, often conflated with related concepts such as cooperation, social cohesion or social capital (Smith & Sorrell, 2014; Wittek & Bekkers, 2015). To provide analytical clarity, this article adopts Lindenberg's (1998) definition of solidarity as a form of prosocial behavior—actions carried out at some personal cost to benefit others (Wittek & Bekkers, 2015). Costs and benefits can encompass resources such as money, time, energy, material goods, emotions, relationships, and opportunities. 5
Prosocial actions can manifest as direct, face-to-face interactions, or indirectly through institutions or third-party mechanisms (e.g., taxation and climate finance mechanisms).
6
Although in real social processes burdens and benefits may partially overlap, prosocial behavior—particularly in its altruistic form—is marked by an orientation toward benefiting others, even when some indirect or reciprocal advantages may also occur. This emphasis differentiates solidarity clearly from self-interested or beneficial exchanges (Bowles & Gintis, 2011). Importantly, solidarity transcends individual acts of kindness or compassion by requiring collective coordination, public acknowledgement and institutionalization, all aimed at serving collective goods (Ostrom, 1990). Employing an institutionalist–emergentist perspective (Coleman, 1990; Ostrom, 1990), this article proposes a tripartite analytical model that distinguishes three interconnected levels:
Prosocial behavior refers to individual acts that impose a tangible cost (c > 0) on the actor while generating a benefit (b > 0) for another person. Collective prosocial action emerges when such behaviors become temporally coordinated or institutionally mediated—through social norms, moral discourses, or policy frameworks—thus forming sequences of prosocial behavior. Solidarity, in turn, is a stable pattern of collective prosocial action that is publicly recognized as serving a collective good and is at least partially routinized.
This layered approach clarifies that altruistic solidarity—solidarity specifically benefiting geographically, relationally or temporally distant outgroups—relies on institutional infrastructures, such as global climate agreements or international refugee support frameworks, to convert dispersed prosocial impulses into sustained solidarity.
While altruistic solidarity entails prioritizing the welfare of distant or disadvantaged others—often at a tangible cost to the actor—this does not necessitate purely selfless motivations. By incorporating insights from democratic theory, particularly Mansbridge's (1990) concept of “enlightened self-interest,” we can better understand how solidaristic actions may emerge even when actors perceive indirect long-term benefits. Inclusive deliberation processes can foster a collective awareness that addressing global threats ultimately serves everyone's well-being. In this light, altruistic solidarity reflects not the absence of self-interest, but its transformation into a broader sense of shared vulnerability and interdependence.
While multiple theoretical traditions have examined how prosocial behavior scales into collective outcomes—including affective resonance (Collins, 2004), identity expansion (Tajfel et al., 1979), norm diffusion (Sunstein, 1996), and reputational signaling (Nowak & Sigmund, 2005)—this article adopts an institutionalist–emergentist perspective, drawing on Coleman's (1990) macro–micro–macro schema and Ostrom's (1990) theory of collective action. This approach is particularly well suited to explaining how dispersed, often ethically motivated, behaviors evolve into coordinated and routinized contributions to collective goods. Altruistic solidarity, in this view, is not simply the sum of isolated acts but the emergent outcome of behavioral alignment, public recognition and institutional stabilization. While emotional, strategic or discursive mechanisms may contribute to the initiation of prosocial behavior, this framework emphasizes the conditions under which such behavior becomes sustainable, particularly when extended to outgroup recipients. Rather than treating alternative explanations as mutually exclusive, I argue that altruistic solidarity is best understood as an overdetermined phenomenon, shaped by the interplay of behavioral, symbolic, emotional and institutional processes.
Furthermore, this approach helps reconcile tensions between motivational and consequentialist definitions of prosociality (Batson & Powell, 2003; Pfattheicher et al., 2022). While some scholars emphasize the role of altruistic intentions, a consequentialist perspective—focusing on whether actions tangibly benefit distant others—offers a pragmatic criterion for identifying solidarity even when motivations are mixed. Two ideal types of prosocial behavior—mutualism and altruism—further clarify this distinction (Bowles & Gintis, 2011). Mutualism entails reciprocal benefits among participants and is typical of mechanical and organic solidarities. Altruism, by contrast, prioritizes the welfare of others, often with limited or only indirect returns to the actor, as seen in global climate mitigation or refugee resettlement initiatives. Acknowledging these differences enhances empirical analyses of solidarity by distinguishing it more clearly from related concepts such as social capital, trust and cooperation.
Moreover, this analytical framework integrates critical sociological insights regarding the situational and strategic dimensions influencing solidarity (Collins, 1975; Ridgeway, 2014). Instead of viewing solidarity as merely a product of internalized norms or social integration, this perspective highlights how situational triggers, strategic alliances and power dynamics shape the emergence or decline of solidaristic actions. Civic movements and global protests exemplify how strategic and moral considerations converge to form broad-based solidarity initiatives (Della Porta & Steinhilper, 2021). This perspective helps explain why altruistic solidarity, particularly in response to global challenges, can thrive or falter, depending on complex interactions across sociopolitical levels (Ridgeway, 2014; Wittek & Bekkers, 2015).
Ideal types of solidarity
The three types of solidarity—mechanical, organic and altruistic—share the fundamental objective of promoting collective welfare but differ significantly in their generative mechanisms, institutional anchors, psychological foundations and scope of social concern. Clarifying these distinctions enhances analytical precision and provides a robust framework for empirical investigation.
Mechanical solidarity is primarily grounded in communal sharing and intensive socialization into shared beliefs, norms and values. This form of solidarity typically emerges within relatively homogeneous communities where emotional resonance, strong ingroup identification and moral conformity underpin reciprocal obligations among members. These tight-knit bonds ensure collective resilience but are often limited to immediate, face-to-face interactions and clearly defined groups.
Organic solidarity, by contrast, is characterized by functional interdependence shaped by complex divisions of labor and institutionalized through formal rules, contracts and state regulation. This solidarity relies on institutional frameworks and impersonal norms, fostering cognitive schemas oriented toward role differentiation, reciprocity and fairness expectations within large-scale, structurally complex societies. Individuals indirectly support one another through formalized mechanisms such as taxation, welfare systems and regulated markets, reflecting Fiske's (1992) relational models of equality matching and market pricing. Nonetheless, Durkheim (1960) recognized that industrial society did not simply produce smooth interdependence; he repeatedly acknowledged the presence of “abnormal forms” and the role of the state in mitigating inequalities—a key point later stressed by Alexander (1982). This underscores that organic solidarity is neither fully automatic nor devoid of conflict and power differentials.
Altruistic solidarity, as a newer analytical category introduced in this article, builds on the universalistic moral obligations outlined earlier and draws upon multiple generative mechanisms, including global moral shocks, boundary expansion, normative discourses, situational triggers and reflective reasoning (Bazzani, 2022b; Wittek & Bekkers, 2015). The psychological microfoundations here often involve complex cognitive and affective processes, such as empathy and moral responsiveness toward distant or disadvantaged groups, as well as rational calculations of broader collective and ethical benefits. Altruistic solidarity frequently leverages situational triggers (e.g., global crises and moral shocks) and normative infrastructures (institutional arrangements, moral narratives) to extend prosocial commitments beyond immediate reciprocal structures (Bazzani, 2023b). Paradigmatic examples include hosting asylum seekers, funding development initiatives in the Global South or undertaking costly climate mitigation measures for the benefit of future generations. In each case, the actor assumes tangible burdens—economic, social or emotional—that primarily advantage outgroups, thereby exemplifying how solidarity is extended across space and time through normative and institutional means. In this way, altruistic solidarity represents an expansive form of communal sharing (Fiske, 1992)—extending the sense of shared identity and mutual care to those outside one's immediate group boundaries.
To better capture the complexity and analytical utility of this typology, it is crucial to differentiate clearly between collective solidarity phenomena and their underlying generative mechanisms and psychological microfoundations. Each solidarity type is analytically distinct not because it exclusively relies on specific mechanisms, but due to the varied prominence and configuration of these mechanisms. For instance, mechanical solidarity involves emotionally intensive relationships driven by shared norms, whereas organic solidarity emphasizes functional interdependence regulated by impersonal norms. Altruistic solidarity integrates cognitive and affective processes such as empathy and rational moral calculations, characterized by more flexible and diffuse relational commitments.
Following Lindenberg's (1998) distinction between strong and mild (weak) solidarity, altruistic solidarity aligns primarily with mild solidarity, which extends across broader societal contexts and fosters inclusiveness, sustained cooperation and institutional resilience, particularly relevant in globalized contexts. Conversely, mechanical (and to some extent organic) solidarity exemplifies Lindenberg's “strong solidarity,” which is sustained by tighter ingroup bonds and a readily activated normative goal frame (Lindenberg, 1998). These analytical distinctions illuminate the conditions under which various forms of solidarity emerge, persist, or diminish, underscoring their dynamic coexistence within complex social systems. Table 2 synthesizes these distinctions, summarizing each solidarity type's generative mechanisms, institutional anchors, psychological microfoundations and dominant modes of prosociality.
Ideal types of solidarity: generative mechanisms, institutional anchors and psychological microfoundations.
Integrating these analytical clarifications into the broader discussion of solidarity significantly enhances empirical and theoretical analyses of solidaristic behaviors, particularly in the context of contemporary global challenges.
Open questions and theoretical challenges
This article has articulated a refined conceptual framework for understanding solidarity in response to global challenges, focusing particularly on the novel category of altruistic solidarity. While this approach provides valuable analytical clarity, some critical questions and limitations remain.
Firstly, fostering prosocial behavior toward distant outgroups—what we term altruistic solidarity—poses both practical and normative challenges. Solidarity that extends beyond immediate ingroups can encounter resistance, especially in contexts shaped by resource scarcity, cultural polarization or perceived threats to group identity. Yet, empirical research (Baldassarri, 2020) suggests that strengthening outgroup solidarity does not inherently erode ingroup cohesion; rather, both can co-exist and even reinforce one another. Understanding the conditions under which this occurs is crucial for both theory and policy. To this end, our framework builds upon and extends prior work, such as Buchan et al.’s (2009) influential account of globalization's effects on cooperation. While their model focuses on whether increased global interconnectedness fosters cosmopolitanism or reinforces parochialism, our analysis highlights the pivotal role of institutional infrastructures. Altruistic solidarity, we argue, is more likely to emerge and stabilize when globalization is accompanied by mechanisms that support prosocial behavior across social, spatial and cultural boundaries—such as transnational governance bodies, global accountability regimes and normative discourses of shared responsibility. Conversely, when global interdependencies are experienced through stark asymmetries of power and benefit, they risk reinforcing perceptions of dependency or exploitation rather than mutual obligation. Thus, cultivating altruistic solidarity requires more than attitudinal shifts; it demands attention to the structural and institutional arrangements that can either foster or inhibit solidaristic commitments at scale. This calls for a research agenda capable of integrating micro-level behavioral insights with macro-level analyses of governance, power and norm diffusion in a globally interdependent world.
Secondly, adopting a consequentialist approach to solidarity—focusing on tangible outcomes for distant others—requires confronting the challenge of defining and agreeing upon these outcomes. Global challenges, such as climate change or large-scale migration, involve diverse stakeholders with potentially conflicting views on what constitutes beneficial action. Thus, the intersubjective definition of what is considered valuable and beneficial across different contexts is a further area of potential research for the field of prosociality (McGuire, 1994)—especially the need to incorporate non-WEIRD (“Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic”) data and perspectives (Bhambra et al., 2020). While participatory processes and democratic deliberation can mitigate these divergences, achieving broad consensus remains complex. It is therefore crucial to continue exploring how inclusive deliberative processes might effectively mediate between competing definitions of collective well-being in varied sociocultural contexts. However, attempts to delegitimize prosociality by arguing that it is subject to varying evaluations of its consequences run the risk of becoming a facile, self-exonerating argument that absolves individuals of moral obligations stemming from global interdependencies.
Thirdly, the integration of positive moral obligations into modern ethical and political liberal thought presents significant hurdles. Modern political and ethical discourses traditionally emphasize protecting individual rights from collective demands rather than enforcing positive duties toward distant others. The challenge thus lies in constructing compelling narratives and institutional incentives that encourage prosocial behavior without triggering resistance related to perceptions of coercion or infringement on autonomy. Addressing these tensions between individual freedoms and collective obligations represents an essential avenue for further sociological and philosophical inquiry.
Moreover, recent political trends—such as resurgent nationalisms—highlight potential barriers to the global institutionalization of altruistic solidarity. These movements often exploit anxieties around external threats or perceived competition for scarce resources, potentially undermining efforts to build broader solidaristic alliances. Sociological research must therefore critically analyze these counter-movements, identifying factors that facilitate or inhibit broader moral commitments toward distant or future populations.
Conclusion
This article has re-examined the concept of solidarity in the context of contemporary global challenges, proposing “altruistic solidarity” as a distinct category of prosocial behavior necessary to address issues such as climate change, mass migration, resource depletion, global inequalities and pandemics. These challenges generate novel forms of interdependence, requiring coordinated, multilevel responses that extend beyond traditional group boundaries to prioritize distant outgroups. In contrast to mechanical solidarity (grounded in shared beliefs and community cohesion) and organic solidarity (based on functional interdependence within nation-states), altruistic solidarity explicitly centers on the welfare of individuals and groups separated geographically, temporally or relationally from those offering support.
The significance of altruistic solidarity lies in its potential to resolve critical sociological problems linked to global challenges, particularly the difficulties inherent in mobilizing collective action and transcending parochial interests. Historical precedents—from anti-slavery movements to human rights campaigns—illustrate how expanding moral obligations beyond immediate groups has historically facilitated meaningful social change. Yet, contemporary global interdependencies require an unprecedented level of collective coordination and institutional innovation. Addressing climate change, for instance, demands substantial individual and collective costs, highlighting the need for a robust form of solidarity capable of reconciling immediate costs with long-term global benefits.
Moreover, the recent shift within the climate movement in Northern Europe towards dystopian imaginaries—as highlighted by Latour (2018)—underscores the need to articulating visions of solidarity that rise above fear or paralysis. To foster altruistic solidarity, social actors and movements must drawn on alternative intellectual traditions that emphasize relational care and planetary stewardship—traditions already shaping contemporary climate-justice debates in the Global North—whyle engaging actively with expectations, imaginaries and narratives of the future (Bazzani, 2023c). For example, feminist ethics of care that centre relational dependency (Held, 2006), Indigenous epistemologies grounded in reciprocity and ecological interdependence (Whyte, 2017), papal encyclicals that discuss integral ecology and universal fraternity (Francis, 2015, 2020), and cosmopolitan social theories of global responsibility (Beck, 2006; Pensky, 2007) all offer publicly resonant frameworks for imagining post-dystopian futures. These perspectives not only critique existing structures but also sustain political hope and normative ambition, essential for mobilizing solidaristic action toward distant others.
This article underscores two primary research directions essential for advancing our understanding of altruistic solidarity. Firstly, interdisciplinary research must more systematically elucidate the nature and implications of global interdependencies, integrating insights from natural and social sciences to effectively analyze phenomena such as global value chains, environmental-induced migrations and climate inequalities. Such an integrated approach will illuminate the multifaceted character of contemporary interdependencies, highlighting areas where solidarity could effectively intervene.
Secondly, comprehensive analyses of the generative mechanisms underlying altruistic solidarity are urgently required. Recognizing the inherently dualistic outcomes of interdependence—beneficial or exploitative—research must explore how specific institutional arrangements and normative frameworks either promote or inhibit solidaristic behaviors. This inquiry should particularly examine how solidaristic practices can be institutionalized and sustained, emphasizing the roles of transnational governance structures, inclusive deliberation processes and cultural narratives in nurturing prosocial commitments. 7
Ultimately, cultivating altruistic solidarity remains an ethical imperative and a political challenge. Meeting this challenge requires the deliberate design and implementation of institutions and policies that sustain solidaristic actions on a global scale. By rigorously investigating the institutional and social conditions that enable or constrain such action, sociology provides empirical insights that can inform efforts to address some of the most pressing challenges of our time.
Footnotes
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the project financed within the PRIN 2022 PNRR Call for Proposals referred to in Directorial Decree no. 1409 of 14/9/2022 “PRIN2022_PNRR_BAZZANI – Prosocial motivations for climate mitigation behaviors (PROSOCIAL-CLIMA)” within the National Recovery and Resilience Plan, Mission 4 - Component 2. From Research to Enterprise – Investment 1.1 National Research Program Fund (NRP) and Research Projects of Significant National Interest (PRIN), funded by the European Union – NextGenerationEU. (Project Code: P2022LWTSJ).
