دکتر فاطمه محمدی، دکتر حامد موسوی
Fatemeh Mohammadi, PhD Candidate in Anthropology, Carleton University, Canada
Hamed Mousavi, ssistant Professor, Department of Regional Studies, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
The paper uses the case study of the controversy regarding the
construction of a mosque near the site of the 9/11 terrorist attacks in
Manhattan, New York, to analyze the different theoretical approaches to
the concept of solidarity. It is argued that the presence of affectional
solidarity which is based on feelings of caring, friendship and love
was very limited in the case under study. Instead the primary form of
solidarity present in the ground zero mosque debate was conventional
solidarity, which is based primarily on common interests and concerns
that are established through shared traditions and values. Nevertheless,
conventional solidarity uses membership within a group to advocate for
solidarity. In many instances however, people in need of solidarity
might fall outside of the boundaries of “we,” and as a result limiting
the utility of the approach. This is why the paper advocates for a
revised form of Jodi Dean’s reflective solidarity, which is based on
mutual responsibility toward each other despite our differences. It is
argued that in its current form this approach is a normative universal
ideal which holds great potential but is unclear, underspecified and
impractical. However, by injecting some “realism” into this theoretical
approach, reflective solidarity is superior to affectional and
conventional approaches. Full Text