Solidarity between citizens is an important value that makes people feel challenged by their fellow citizens, their needs and their limits. It is thanks to the solidarity between citizens, with their loved ones, with their neighbours, that there can be mutual aid.
In my eyes, solidarity is the value that makes it possible to concretely create a society. But when society sees itself divided into “clans” with difficult, even impossible relations—some clans seeing others as dangerous members—solidarity can no longer be experienced between citizens, or even with their relatives.
Moreover, without solidarity, is it possible to believe that a society values, in the context of daily life, equality between citizens?
This raises the question of freedom with which the defense of individual rights is generally associated. Shouldn’t this freedom be modulated by the question of equality between citizens? For example, the freedom of wealthy people is very different from that of people with limited resources; a rich person who can afford certain services, which is not the case for others.
Abandoning solidarity and equality, what does that actually mean for each of us? In my opinion, that means that we give up on “forming society”. Does that mean that we let go of aggressive relationships, violent relationships, as can be observed in certain neighborhoods of large cities? For me, this means that the law of the jungle will prevail, as in this climate of violence which has caused countless incidents with firearms in Montreal for the past few months. We can see here a degeneration of civilization. Civilization, in my eyes, is what allows collaboration and mutual aid, in a peaceful atmosphere in order to realize projects that meet the needs of a group or an environment.
However, we feel it everywhere, many people are currently angry, allow themselves to attack others, those who do not share their position, whether they are members of another group, or relatives, and this, because they do not share their positions. As if this disagreement necessarily made them enemies.
To position oneself in this way is to clearly state that the values of freedom of thought and freedom of expression are social dangers. But in the name of what could that be a danger? After all, aren’t rights and freedoms inherent in the democratic system in which we are supposed to live?
“Being a society” means accepting the differences between individuals. This acceptance is the guarantor of cooperation between the members of a group, a cooperation which is also inseparable from solidarity.
The diversity of points of view is essential for a society to move forward. I am one of those people who believe that “out of the clash of ideas springs light”. But that cannot happen in a society that believes only in unanimity of thought.
Totalitarian societies have demonstrated that unanimity of thought often represents a brake on solidarity and mutual aid. This does not make for a pleasant society to live in, but rather a society that is stagnant and which encourages the denunciation of neighbors, even relatives.
Haven’t we reached the moment when, as a society, we are faced with a challenge: that of taking the necessary means to “remake society”, so that the obstacles to cooperation are removed? Otherwise, there will be no more solidarity, and the 21ste century could very well be suffocating.