Legitimising Social Policy for ‚Citoyens’ or ‚Untertanen’? The Semantics

of Solidarity and its Tradition in France and Germany

(Gesa Reisz)

First Draft, not to be quoted

Paper to be presented at

ECPR JOINT SESSIONS OF WORKSHOPS

Uppsala 13-18 April 2004

National Traditions of Democratic Thought, Workshop No.12

Heidrun Abromeit / Andreas Føllesdal

TU Darmstadt

Institut für Politikwissenschaft

but from May 2004:

Ruhr-Universität Bochum

Zentrum für Lehrerbildung

SH 1/171

44780 Bochum

+49 (0)234-3211992

g.reisz@web.de

1

Abstract

This paper focuses on cognitive barriers within the democratic discourse which can arise from different semantic, or tradition-based definitions of specific key concepts. One of these key concepts, which semantically combines democracy and social policy, is solidarity. The political tradition, which is attached to solidarity in Germany and France, varies significantly, especially concerning its democratic content. As solidarity will be a central concept in a possible European Constitution, political science and politics face the challenge of identifying and addressing these cognitive barriers which could emerge in transnational communication.

The paper will begin by first discussing solidarity in the context of the origins of social policy. Next, a comparison of the semantics of left-wing French prime ministers and German chancellors after World War II will illustrate the development of this concept within the two politico-cultural traditions. The French left-republican solidarist tradition combines social policy with anti-exclusion politics and creates a symmetric field of interaction between citoyens. The rhetoric of Chancellors Brandt and Schmidt is similar in content, though embedded in the distinct, traditional conceptual frames of the Labour Movement and Social Catholicism. However, both emphasise the role of the citoyen as the subject of social policy, in contrast to which the state plays a very dominant role as an agent of social politics. A European discourse on emancipatory and inclusive key concepts of social policy and democracy like solidarity must differentiate between similar contents and distinct politico-cultural traditions. The example of German Chancellor Schröder will demonstrate the possibility of a complete break with tradition and social-democratic content, accompanied by left-wing protests. The question that arises is how to maintain the democratic substance of this key concept against the interpretive authority of political leaders. As a European key concept, solidarity can perhaps resist the interpretive authority of chancellors who merely use ‘solidarity’ asymmetrically to legitimise political change.

1. Introduction

The chosen term “solidarity” to discuss cognitive barriers and common denominators of

national democratic thought belongs to the codified values of the European Union and plays a

significant role in the text of the Constitution and the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The the

preamble of the 1992 EU-Treaty describes only the aim of the Union to strengthen the

solidarity between the nations. But in the Charter of Fundamental Rights, solidarity is

established as universal principle and value. It holds that:

the Union is founded on the indivisible, universal values of human dignity, freedom, equality and solidarity; [...] and that it wishes to deepen the democratic and transparent nature of its public life, and to strive for peace, justice and solidarity throughout the world, The Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, liberty, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights (EC 2000: Preamble).

Furthermore, article 2 of the EU Constitution draft illustrates the seemingly false assumption

of solidarity as a common value of the Member States.

2

These values are common to the Member States in a society of pluralism, tolerance, justice, solidarity and non-discrimination. (European Convention: article 2).

The Constitution also defines solidarity between the generations, solidarity in foreign

relations, solidarity between the member states, and finally against terrorism, citing that „The

Union and its Member States shall act jointly in a spirit of solidarity if a Member State is the

victim of terrorist attack or natural or man-made disaster.“ (article 42).

For this reason, it would be important to know what solidarity in the European context

means for the citizens and for a European democracy before the Constitution is ratified. At the

same time, solidarity is a very important key concept of the Social Democratic party in

Germany and the Parti Socialiste in France, arguing their political and programmatic future.

My scholarly interest begins here. I conducted research1 on the French and German

interpretations of solidarity resulting from a conflictive debate on the values of Socialist and

Social-Democratic parties. In 1999, German Chancellor Schröder and British Prime Minister

Blair published the so called “Schröder-Blair-Papier” (Schröder and Blair 1999), sketching a

concept of the future European social democracy. The liberal concept of social policy

Schröder and Blair drew up in this paper provoked cognitive disharmonies not only among

the French Socialists. The Schröder-Blair Paper urges that public relief should correspond to

individual monetary efficiency. Only those who utilised it “fairly” should receive solidarity in

relation to those who paid for it. And the new public values are individual output,

entrepreneurial spirit, responsibility for self and public spirit (Schröder and Blair 1999: 3).

But those terms were rarely part of the vocabulary of traditional social democracy. Solidarity

was mentioned in the paper only once more to maintain the stability of the German pension

scheme. Economic success is introduced as the main target of the Social Democratic policy.

They were nevertheless trying to link traditional values with modern means and assure the

recipients of never sacrificing those Social Democratic values. The French Prime Minister

Lionel Jospin, chair of the Parti Socialiste at that time, answered at the conference of the

Socialist Internationale, referring to the socialist traditions (Jospin 1999). He raised the

questions of how the left-wing parties could manage preserving traditional socialist values –

freedom, equality, fraternity and solidarity, which all originate in the Labour Movement – and

how to put them into practise. With allegiance to these values, the left-wing parties are

supposed to keep up the critical relationship with the market economy. With these points in

view, certain questions are raised. To begin, how could these differing interpretations of

1 The results presented in this paper are out of my doctoral thesis, which was finished in December 2003 (Reisz

2003).

3

Social Democrats and Socialists materialise? Why are the interpretations of the relevant left

values so different? Why do Schröder and Blair still use the traditional terms? And finally, if

their interpretations are specific to their respective cultures, what does that mean to European

discourses and European texts?

Taking account of the lack of research on historical semantics of solidarity in Germany

and in France, the first task is to find out what the traditions of solidarity – especially those of

left-wing solidarity – exactly are. What are the German and French traditions of political

interpretations of solidarity? What are the differences between the two nations concerning

solidarity as a politico-cultural term? A second part of the current case study is dedicated to

the question of whether or not the traditional interpretations are still used in rhetoric and if

they still belong to the political culture. Since when and how did they change? The third part

of this paper will discuss the European perspective on European solidarity and how to bridge

the gaps between differing cultural interpretations of key concepts.

2. France

2.1. The Political History of Solidarity

The etymological origin of solidarity is New Latin. The adjective “solidus“ meant parts

kept together in any way. A juridical precursor is solidarité in Roman Law meaning the

contractual collective liability of debtors (Borgetto 1993; Hayward 1959; Schmelter 1991;

Wildt 1995). This legal meaning for solidarity had already existed in France by the 16th-

century. The first known political interpretation of the term is documented in the debates of

the First National Assembly in France after the Revolution (Brunot 1967: 744-745). In 1791,

solidarity denoted the desired behaviour of the Conseil d’Etat in which ministers were to act

together in solidarity. That meant a common responsibility. When they reached a decision,

they were to represent unity, and further controversies were not to be illustrated publicly after

a decision was made.

The first social theoreticians who used the term in the first half of the 19th-century were

the early French Socialists Charles Fourier and Pierre Leroux (Beecher 1986; Bestor 1948;

Halsall 2001; Le Bras - Chopard 1992; Viard 1998).2 They first integrated solidarity as a term

for symmetric relations between the poor, the working class and the wealthy of the society.

Solidarity should be used as a term for help and assistance among equal members of the

society. It should not be used in the sense of asymmetric terms like philantropy, care or

2 The historical context of poverty policy and the history of the law against associations was included in the

analysis.

4

charity. Leroux interpreted the function of the solidary society as an organism. Solidarity was

on the one hand a kind of love to all human beings and on the other hand a form of

cooperation and organisation on the basis of functional diversity.3

During the second half of the 19th-century, a list of social theoreticians introduced and

used solidarity as a scientific term. Indeed, Auguste Comte, one of the founders of the French

sociology, defined solidarity as a law of nature equivalent to a law of sociology and a

functional principle of the developing society. But the scripts of Comte illustrate the

theoretical problem of all theoreticians of solidarity. Somewhere and somehow feelings and

sentiments play an important role in the cognitive process before recognising social duties, or

even during perceiving the reciprocal interdependence (Comte 1907 [1838]). This theoretical

problem would turn up with every new theoretician of solidarity, how to deal with morality

and feelings in the process of cognition of social necessities. The solutions varied. The

question of why solidarity will function in a modern society is answered by scientific laws

(positivistic, French-biologistic, and partly sociological)4 or moralistic principles trusting in

religion or in common sense and reason of the society members (sociological and social-

Christian).5 Later political language usage would represent this problem with pragmatic

solutions. All theoretic concepts of solidarity faced a developing French society with its social

problems and offered solutions in a solidaridly united society. But they differed in naming

the “Who with whom for whom” of solidarity. For a scientific law developed out of the Social

Ddarwinism or French biologism was no necessity to define any “who” or “whom” because

every member of the society based on division of labour was solidary because of the

reciprocal interdependencies and advantages of cooperation. The normative theoreticians

started out with the fact that communities like the family acted in solidarity. In the developing

modern society, traditional communities, like families and the villages, were replaced by

modern, voluntary relationships. Finally, the whole society with all social duties and

advantages was the community of solidarity and all members equally concerned. But they did

not describe the way to the necessary equality of all society members either. Sociologists like

Durkheim considered this as being evolutionarily reasoned (Durkheim 1988; Gülich 1991).

The society based on growing labour division would be a society of solidarity and defective

3 The organicistic image roots in a French counter discourse to British Social Darwinism 4 F.e. Charles Spencer, Charles Gide, Léon Duguit and, to a certain extent, Auguste Comte, Emile Durkheim

and Léon Bourgeois. The last three maintain a social law but refer to morality and feelings when providing their

reasons. 5 F.e. Pierre Leroux, Alfred Fouillée, Charles Fourier.

5

functions were pathologies but that would not change the causal connection between growing

labour division and increasing social solidarity.

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels introduced solidarity as a term of fighting for a

common struggle for the Internationale. Fraternity was no longer considered as a key concept

of cohesion of the working class because in France everybody, millionaires too, declared

themselves fraternal with the other citoyens of France (Schieder 1972). For this reason, the

term symbolised institutionalised inequality. Marxist solidarity should be exclusive and

include only the working poor and oppressed. But solidarity in the Marxist theory also meant

the ideal society based on solidarity, when all were equal. Then solidarity would be the

principle of the communist society and function because of the consciousness of the society

members.

Furthermore, solidarity in the Internationale was a political resource. Solidarity was

allocated and withdrawn symbolising gained recognition and agreement or in the case of

denying negative sanctioning of acting in violation of the principles of the Internationale

(Reisz 2003: 154-156).6

This leaves us with asking, which interpretation was politically effective and in which

milieu did it find resonance? Further, which developed into a politico-cultural tradition? In

France, this is a very complicated field of research because all social groups in the last third of

the 19th-century—free masons, Catholics, protestants, workers, educational organisations,

left-wing parties, liberal Catholic economists—were using the term. Describing all of them

would lead too far in this paper, but the dissemination of solidarity as a concept of social

cohesion with an optimistic view of the future was very effective. Because of this

dissemination, the decisive politico-cultural process in France was possible and its initiator

was Léon Bourgeois (Hayward 1959; Hayward 1961; Hayward 1963a).

Léon Bourgeois (1851- 1925), son of a clockmaker, studied law and began a career in

the public administration. He joined the Radicaux Socialistes, a radical democratic, left-wing

republican party. In 1888, he became a member of the national assembly and minister of

education. He would later become minister of law and finally Prime Minister for one year, in

1895.

After his election as Prime Minister, he edited a collection of his essays on solidarity

first published in the Nouvelle Revue in the same year on the peak of his public power with

an extraordinary amount of attention focused upon him. (Bourgeois 1896; Bourgeois 1900;

Bourgeois 1901a; Bourgeois 1901b; Bourgeois 1902) His concept of solidarity was an

6

eclectic framework of many theoretical texts, especially the ideas of Fouillée, Leroux and

Comte (Hayward 1963b; Scott 1951). He combined his reception of sociology with a clear

view on the political situation and a (reactive) normative concept of the solidarist society. In

Bourgeois’ view, solidarity was first a social fact like for the French sociologists (solidarité-

fait); second, there was a moral duty opposite the society. In the case of injustice arising out

of the solidarité-fait, compensation would be a solidary and moral act. Special policies should

give the impetus for this solidarist society. Bourgeois’ solidarity was combining the aims of

liberal and collectivist positions by solidarity as a comprehensive principle. Bourgeois was

trying to integrate monarchists as well as liberals and socialists. Solidarité-fait as the social

fact was completed with Solidarité-devoir, which meant a moral duty of every society

member arising from being a debtor of the society it was born into. So the solidarist society of

Bourgeois has two conditions: governmental initiating of solidarist social policy and political

motivation of society members with a sense of duty. The cognitive barriers before accepting

social duties were not discussed and were cleared away by the political practise of the Prime

Minister and the social practise of the public intellectual Bourgeois.

The public intellectual Bourgeois was not only influential in politics but also in social

and educational organisations. He was member and often chair of numerous important

organisations, the most important having been the Ligue de l’Enseignement. The Ligue was

founded 1866 by Jean Macé, who was Fourierist and free mason. By 1870, the Ligue had

already united 1298 Sociétés republicaines d’instruction. It founded public libraries,

numerous instruction associations and was engaged in pushing through laic public schools for

all. The Ligue had already multiplied the idea of solidarity in 1868. The basic primary school

would implement the practical implications of the loi de la solidarité. Macé introduced

Bourgeois and he was elected as president of the Ligue from 1895-1898. The Ligue reached

the most important multipliers of the French Republic: the professeurs (high school teachers,

compare Hayward 1963a)

This was only one example. Bourgeois established and pulled relations to all influential

organisations and groups and the intellectual elite. Eighteen-nintey-five was a kairos for

popularising solidarity as a symbol of social policy, social justice, republican education and

the Radicaux Socialistes as the so called “Systempartei” (Mayeur 1973; Mollenhauer 1997) of

the Third Republic of France combining left-wing and republican projects. Only one year as

Prime Minister was enough to reach the climax of his interpretation power and create the

solidarist society as a republican project of all French. His initiatives in social policy were not

6 This is a result out of the analysis of all protocols of the second Internationale.

7

very successful, but they were impressive enough for the public mind. Since Bourgeois’

solidarity was the frame for social policy, republican projects and laic basic schools for all. So

solidarity was closely connected with the political system and the republican political culture

which is the frame for French democracy.

What does that mean for the French interpretation of solidarity? Solidarity is a

symmetric field of interaction between the citoyens. It is the social cohesion between the

citoyens and their political attitude as debtors of the society and free and equal participants of

politics.

In addition the French Labour Movement was able to activate the solidarist frame as

well as the marxist frame in form of the Kampfsolidarität (battle-and-strike solidarity). The

French Labour Movement was not organised that centralist and Marx-oriented as the German,

there was no consensus or political unity, so it was no mass basis or united front with uniform

ideology. Different to the German Labour Movement reformist opinions were widespread. So

we could find agreement with an integrative concept of solidarity as well as the battle-and-

strike solidarity for a European general strike before the beginning of World War I (Ansart

1992; Gülich 1991; Willard 1981).

Next both of the Christian Churches in France at the time of Bourgeois’ government

already knew solidarity as the sociological approach and social symbol in their organisations.7

Furthermore the free masons supported the cabinet of Bourgeois and helped as an intellectual

Network to disseminate solidarist ideas. This list could be continued but that would lead too

far.

In the second part of the French case study we try to discover whether this frame from

the end of the 19th century is still in use. Do we find similar or different interpretations of

solidarity in 20th century France? Do politico-cultural traditions still matter?

2.2. Solidarity in the Speeches of the French Prime Ministers since 1947

The chosen material for the research on that question are speeches of French left-wing

Prime ministers on social policy from 1947-2000. Prime ministers and in the German case

chancellors are speakers with high public attention and influential in their parties concerning

7 In France existed two social Catholic interpretations of solidarity. In this context a liberal definition became

very eminent with the public intellectual Charles Périn, compare (Waha 1910). But altogether it could not stand

the dominant interpretations of social-reformers in France. This interpretation did not become a part of the

politico-cultural tradition but was discussed in scientific contextes, expert dicourses. This differentiation was a

specific French discourse.

8

manifestos and conceptual framing of policies. Left-wing parties and social policy were

chosen to limit the corpus, because they represented the most eminent context of origin, in

which the interpretation discourses of solidarity took place.

The analysis of this discourse-segment in France illustrated a surprising continuity in

framing social policy with the republican solidarity.8 The example of the Socialist Prime

Minister Pierre Mauroy shows vividly, how passionatly republican solidarity can be activated

even in the eighties:

Non, la France dont je vous parle aujourd'hui, la France que nous voulons bâtir avec tous les Français, c'est une France forte du travail de tous les siens, c'est une France solidaire, soucieuse de créer pour tous les conditions de la justice sociale et de la dignité, c'est une France responsable, fondant à tous les niveaux de décision les bases d'une nouvelle citoyenneté, c'est une France entreprenante et volontaire, décidée à reconquérir la maîtrise de son appareil de production, c'est une France fière de son message de paix et de progrès, la France des droits de l'homme, championne d'un nouvel ordre international. (Mauroy 1981a, S. 47)

Pierre Mauroy was after 24 years in the opposition the Prime Minister who introduced

together with François Mitterand as president a socialist era. He had the historical chance of

framing this era with socialist vocabulary and he chose France solidaire. The manifesto of the

Parti Socialiste from 1971 – ten years before – “Changer la vie” was radical democratic and a

plan of a Socialist Reformation and the manifesto of 1980 “Projet socialiste” was more

moderate but referring to the same radical democratic concept. The key concept of this radical

democratic manifestos was autogestion (not to translate in German or English, a kind of self

disposition with participatory rights). So solidarity meant in the context of the PS at the time

of the change of government the activity of citoyens as subjects of politics with all

participatory rights. Mauroy and his Socialist successors used solidarity as a key concept of

democracy and social policy.

Lionel Jospin was elected as Prime Minister 1997 after four years in the opposition and

renewed solidarity as republican pact:

J'entends à cette fin me saisir pleinement du mandat que les Français nous ont confié. Redonner à notre pays une chose précieuse entre toutes et qui, pourtant lui a progressivement échappé : un sens. […] Un sens, c'est-à-dire à la fois une signification – la France doit conforter son identité, mise à mal - et une direction ; notre pays demande un projet. Aux Françaises et aux Français que vous représentez ici et qui, au-delà de cette enceinte, nous écoutent, je veux dire ceci : faisons un pacte. Un Pacte républicain, un pacte de développement et de solidarité. [...] C'est ainsi que l'État peut être véritablement l'expression de la nation. La nation est non seulement la réalité à

8 For the history of the socialist party compare Bock 1988; Bock 1989; Bock 1990; Bock 1992; Bock 1993;

Schäfer 1989; Stephan 2000; Stephan 2001.

9

laquelle nous sommes tous attachés, mais surtout le lieu où bat le coeur de la démocratie, l'ensemble où se nouent les solidarités les plus profondes. Elle reste le cadre naturel des réformes essentielles dont le pays à besoin. (Jospin 1997: 2835)

Solidarity is still obtainable with this interpretation, although the new manifestos of 1988 and

1991 – “Propositions” and “Nouvel Horizon” (Parti Socialiste 1992), respectively – neither

listed Socialist projects nor propagated autogestion any longer. Both were more republican

manifestos than socialist ones. The Socialist's objectives included in these manifestos

deliberative democracy and the new project Citoyenneté. “Nouvel horizon” took account of

this democratic key concept with a new procedure of conceptualising the manifesto. The first

step was the consultation of experts, follwed by adecentralised discussion of party members.

The third step was the editorial work. So Lionel Jospin stood rhetorically for this change and

framed again social policy and republican democracy with solidarity.

Apart from the political rhetoric, solidarity was institutionalised in the Fifth Republic

with the social services ministry as ministry of solidarity and solidarité nationale as political

code for social policy. Government actions in social policy were framed with solidarity like

the re-employment programme of the government of Mauroy: Contrats de solidarité-emploi.

Topical French publications which make the connection between republicanism and

solidarism a subject of discussion confirm and follow this lead. Indeed, Bruno Jobert

establishes that this traditional interpretation still has a high symbolic worth, but was changed

a little in content, commenting that,

L’argumentaire solidariste combinerait deux registres discursifs: la tradition républicaine d’une part, l’enseignement des sciences et particulièrement la découverte de l’interdépendence, de la ‚solidarité’ comme loi naturelle universelle d’autre part. (Jobert 2003): 73)

„La retour de la solidarité dans le discours politique français n’est pas une

reproduction du solidarisme républicain. La recyclage n’est pas la réplication. Il est une forme d’hybridation entre des répertoires anciens et des production symboliques nouvelles, en l’occurrence les préceptes de l’economie orthodoxe et du nouveau management public. (Jobert 2003): 81)

Jobert argues that in the Fourth Republic the interventionist role of the state was emphasised

and the republican solidarism has solved new problems like social exclusion. Two edited

books show that solidarity as political, sociological and juridical term is greatly demanded by

scholars.9 The political intention of some of the authors is quite apparent. As a rule, the

politico-cultural republican origin of the term is described as basis of the discussion and not

9 Bec und Procacci 2003 und C.U.R.A.P.P. 1992.

10

questioned. Even when an author like Jobert comes to the conclusion that republican

solidarism today also transports new interpretations, he refers to the cultural origin of this

connection as well.

3. Germany

3.1. The Political History of Solidarity

In Germany, the development of solidarity as a symbol of social policy happened very

differently. Solidarity became an accepted term in the German language much later than it did

in French. Though there is no reliable source to explain who really introduced the term first,

the first known sources are from Karl Marx and Lorenz von Stein (Bestor 1948; Fiegle 2003;

Wildt 1998). Both came to know solidarity as a political term during their stays in France and

chose it for their own texts. As already mentioned, Marx especially replaced fraternity with

solidarity to symbolise its exclusiveness as cohesion of the working class. Lorenz von Stein

was one of the founder of social science in Germany. He travelled primarily to France to

report the social situation of the workers and the poor, but he also observed the social and

political movements by order of the Prussian government. In his opus on the history of the

social classes in France, he used solidarity in the meaning of solidarity of interests (Stein

1959). There is no emancipatory aspect included in his interpretation. For example: if owners

acted in common in the general interest of capital (allgemeines Kapitalsinteresse), the social

consequences would be positive for the whole society. The workers should be integrated into

the capitalist system and receive career prospects through education, but they would remain

workers. Lorenz von Stein expected positive effects for all members of the society from the

solidarity of the capital and a capitalist-social reform More rights for the workers, like

ownership of means of production, would result in more content workers and better

productivity, with advantages for workers and owners. Stein also calculated the costs of the

class struggle and encouraged the entrepeneurs to act in solidarity against the workers to

protect the capital in the public interest.

In Germany, no elaborated theoretical consideration of solidarity existed like that which

did in France, apart from Marx’s and von Stein’s. Furthermore the interpretations of solidarity

were, as a rule, politically charged and more often object of political debates than of scientific

papers.

But Marx and Engels were by far more influential than von Stein and reached the

masses of workers by the effective political organisation of the Labour Movement in

11

Germany. This leaves us with a question, namely, who was popularising solidarity among the

workers apart from them and who was multiplicating the Marxist interpretation?

Ferdinand Lassalle, founder of the first worker’s party in Germany, used the term and

described solidarity as a moral10 principle and completion of the bourgeois-liberal (bürgerlich-

liberal) idea of his conception of democratisation. The universal suffrage for him was the way

leading to a better society without class struggle and violence. In particular, this was the main

conflict between Lassalle, his ADAV and the other more Marxist wing of the Labour

Movement with August Bebel and Wilhelm Liebknecht as leaders. They wanted to change the

government more than to be a part of it. By 1875, however, both wings were united as one

party, the SAP. Since 1878, this party has suffered under the anti-Socialist law, which

declared all Social Democratic organisations illegal.11

The German Labour Movement as disseminator of left-wing interpretations of solidarity

was indeed effective, but we do not find just the Marxist version or the propagandist class

struggle solidarity. The dissemination and popularising of terms like solidarity was possible

because of the centralist organisation of the party, the affiliated workers associations and

especially the Social Democratic trade unions, so called ‘schools of socialism’. The education

policy of the party and the variety of media reached as many workers as possible and

strengthened the worker’s bond to the organisation. Nevertheless solidarity as a political term

was neither strong nor popular enough to replace fraternity in Germany. Fraternity was

impassionately used in worker’s songs and in appeals to the workers and party members, or

together with the Freedom-Equality-Fraternity-Triad of the French Revolution which was also

very popular among the worker’s associations.12 Fraternity had a longer lasting tradition as

solidarity and was more often used especially to evoke feelings or to symbolise and

strengthen the emotional part of social cohesion. We find solidarity particularly in the

protocols of the Internationale as the resource of political and monetary support, for example

for workers in strikes. To voice the Internationale’s approval of the decisions of the Women’s

International Socialist Congress, the general congress declared its solidarity. That meant

battling for the aims of the women’s congress as well as for all other aims of the

Internationale:

10 here “sittlich” old fashioned used by bourgeois or Christian persons. 11 To list only some of the important sources for the history of the Social Democrats and the Labour Movement:

Abendroth 1985; Boll 1992; Fricke 1987; Ritter 1980; Volkmann 1998. 12 See the copied examples and Hitzer 2001.

12

Das Frauenstimmrecht. Dazu liegt folgende Resolution vor: ‚Der Internationale Sozialistenkongreß begrüßt mit größter Freude, daß zum ersten Male eine internationale sozialistische Frauenkonferenz in Stuttgart zusammengetreten ist und erklärt sich mit den von ihr aufgestellten Forderungen solidarisch. Die sozialistischen Parteien aller Länder sind verpflichtet, für die Einführung des allgemeinen Frauenwahlrechts energisch zu kämpfen. (Die Resolution wurde mit einer Gegenstimme angenommen, Sozialisten-Kongreß 1907, S. 40)

The German Socialists occasionally accentuated their strong international solidarity and

capacity to act and political alliance with all workers, as depicted here:

Singer: Im Namen der deutschen Delegation bringe ich den Arbeitern aller Länder den herzlichsten Brudergruß; ich bin in Mainz beauftragt worden, den Vertretern des kämpfenden klassenbewussten Proletariats mitzuteilen, daß die deutsche Sozialdemokratie nach wie vor entschlossen ist zur Bekundung und Bethätigung der internationalen Solidarität, daß sie Schulter an Schulter kämpfen will mit den Arbeitern aller Länder, bis das Doppeljoch der politischen Ungerechtigkeit und der wirthschaftlichen Unterdrückung zerbrochen ist. (Sozialisten-Kongress 1900, S. 3)

Apart from that in Germany solidarity was no typical term of the party manifestos in the 19th-

century, or at the beginning of the 20th. If it was mentioned in declarations, it was as the

strong and active cohesion between the working classes of the nations, for example with the

French workers during the Commune of Paris. Therefore it was the mor political and more

international alternative to fraternity.

Wilhelm Liebknecht was, at the end of the 19th-century, the decisive public intellectual

among the Social Democrats who defined another solidarity as replenishment of the battle-

and-strike solidarity. For him, solidarity was the highest moral and cultural principle. He

explained solidarity as the moral norm of compassion, treating everyone the way you want to

be treated. This behaviour would be the consequence of poverty and the realisation of their

common solidary interests. This realisation formerly only had consequences in smaller groups

like the family, but it developed with the industrialisation based on the division of labour into

a universalistic principle with general application. The task of the Socialist Movement was to

put this idea into practise:

Der Fundamentalsatz aller Moral: Tue deinem Nächsten, was du willst, daß er dir tue, ist das Produkt der Not, welche die Erkenntnis hervorrief, daß die Menschen solidarische Interessen haben. Freilich, diese Solidarität galt anfangs nur für den engsten Kreis der Angehörigen und wurde nur in einer langen Schule unangenehmer Erfahrungen allmählich erweitert, bis wir jetzt endlich so weit gelangt sind, daß die letzten Schranken der Solidarität bloß noch durch die Gewalt der Bajonette aufrechterhalten werden können. Der Begriff der allgemeinen menschlichen Solidarität ist der höchste Kultur- und Moralbegriff; ihn voll zu verwirklichen, das ist die Aufgabe des Sozialismus. (Liebknecht 1976 [1871]: 99)

13

He brought the utopian Marxist solidarity forward into the present. This speech was printed

and its popularity led to a high number of future editions and was even translated into

Russian. But In total Marxist international solidarity was more important, more often used and

more popular.

In the Social Democratic trade unions, solidarity had a more practical aspect and was a

part of every day life – for example, to buy shoes from a cooperative. Another context in

which the workers integrated solidarity as a political term in their minds were the May Day

celebrations and rallies. The May Day posters depicted many symbols and sometimes many

symbols at once like the copied examples illustrate.

It is valid that solidarity as a term of the Social Democrats and the international Labour

Movement was disseminated among the masses of workers by media, education, rallies and

celebrations.13 Solidarity was combined with political events and the class struggle to reach

political and economic emancipation. The Sozialistengesetz, the law which banned all

Socialist and Social Democratic organisations, did not reduce their sphere of influence; it

caused a stronger class consciousness and a stronger tendency to centralisation of the trade

unions instead. Germany's Sozialistengesetz polarised more than that it prevented, only

escalating the desire for class struggle and violence. Thus, the symbolic weight of the labour-

movement interpretation of class solidarity and its international aspects was even higher than

of the moderate, universalist version of Wilhelm Liebknecht. However, both were possible

and promised a better society with equality, mutual respect and reciprocity of support.

Further, both created a symmetric field of interaction between all members of solidarity.

In the meantime the Zentrum Party as Catholic interest group, discussed concepts of

social policy from a patriarch perspective with the intention of stopping any socialist

movement.14 They wanted to implement social security to stop the workers joining Social

Democratic associations and to preserve the ability to work with better conditions for the

workers.15 The Zentrum Party also used solidarity as the term to describe the well known

workers’ solidarity as precondition for assurances they paid by themselves on the one hand

and as group -solidarity of interests on the other. But two of the leading politicians of the

13 For example, the press of the working class illustrates German– 12 publications with solidarity in the title but

only one with fraternity, compare Eberlein 1968. 14 For the history of German Social Catholicism see Filthaut 1960; Görner 1984; Hürten 1994; Loth 1984; Loth

1991; Stegmann and Langhorst 2000. 15 This came from having read parliamentary speeches of Zentrumpoliticians.

14

party also wrote essays on the social structure of the society and the class struggle. Franz

Hitze (1851-1921) und Georg von Hertling (1843-1919). They were highly influential due to

their positions as professors of theology and their possibilities to publish. In their essays, we

can find Christian solidarity as a kind of modern compassion (f.e.: Hertling 1897; Hitze 1877;

Hitze 1880). This Christian solidarity could further motivate the entrepeneurs to help

improving the workers’ situation and the workers to support their interests by peaceful means.

Neither Hitze nor Hertling wanted to change the conditions of ownership or reach the political

and social emancipation of the workers. For this reason, the social-Catholic interpretation of

social policy and of solidarity was patriarchal and asymmetric.

With the beginning of the 20th-century, Jesuit Heinrich Pesch (1854-1929) began his

work on the solidarist society and founded the Catholic solidarism which remains significant

and prominent today (Mueller 1980).16 With the publication of the first volume of five on he

contrasted socialism and individualism and introduced solidarity as the middle of these

extremes. In Pesch’s work, solidarity is a principle of existence and at the same time a moral

principle (Pesch 1925 [1904]). He begins explaining what may be considered a law of nature

(of God as creator). Human beings are social beings, incomplete and interdependent so they

are forced to replenish one another. Pesch continues, arguing that, because of their rational

talent, humans recognise their incompleteness and interdependence and act morally. This

behaviour is supposed to subordinate the economic principle under the principles of

compassion, justice and solidarity.

Wird das ökonomische Prinzip in diesem beschränkten Sinne, als eine der Gerechtigkeit und Liebe, der Solidarität untergeordnete Norm verstanden, so behält es seinen hohen praktischen Wert für das gesamte wirtschaftliche Leben, indem es überall die die unnütze, vernunftwidrige Vergeudung von Stoff und Kraft von jeder gesunden Wirtschaft ausschließt. (Pesch 1924: 36)

The state should be the guarantor of an economic arrangement according to these preceding

principles, thereby allowing for the general welfare to be served. The solidarist definition of

the term is universalistic in a Christian sense. It includes all in the solidarist community as

children of God but its realisation is particularised mainly for the German society. The

organisation which had the possibilities of disseminating the Catholic interpretation of

solidarity at its disposal was the Volksverein für das katholische Deutschland17 founded in

1890 by Catholic leaders and members of the association of Catholic social politicians,

16 His principal work, a textbook of national economy, was edited 1905-1923. 17 Compare for the history of the Volksverein Heitzer 1979; Klein 1996; Müller 1996.

15

“Arbeiterwohl”. Arbeiterwohl was very influential in the process of founding the Volksverein

and the German Caritas18. One of its founders and leading persons was Franz Hitze. In

combination with the editorial work of public intellectual Franz Hitze and the theory of

Heinrich Pesch, the 1909 Volksvereindepartment of Volkserziehung (people’s education) had

all necessary preconditions to multiply the Catholic solidarity. The department published

numerous papers and manuals for every member especially manuals for parents and teachers.

This department, headed by Anton Heinen, first began its work with the intention of stopping

workers from joining the Social Democratic associations. In this context, the Christian

solidarity and other moral principles were taught together with Catholic doctrines.

The Encyclical Quadragesimo Anno of 1931 illustrates solidarity and subsidiarity as the

two main principles of the Catholic social theory. The bridge between Heinrich Pesch and the

Encyclical are the Volksverein as the mass organisation of the Catholic Church in Germany

and the adjoining Königswinterer Kreis. First, the Jesuit order continued the work of Pesch

and gave the task of research to Gustav Gundlach (1892-1963). The so-called solidarist school

has met regularly since 1930 as the Königswinterer Kreis of Catholic social scientists to

which Gustav von Nell-Breuning (1890-1991) also belonged. He formulated major parts of

the Enzyklika. Nell-Breuning and Gundlach remain regarded as very eminent representatives

of the Catholic social theory today.

The Catholic Church and associated organisations reached the masses much later than

the workers associations but were very successful in teaching and disseminating the Catholic

doctrines and popularising solidarity as well as encouraging further research on this principle

as Christian and social principle.

In concluding, we found in Germany five interpretations in two main contexts with the

potential of being part of the politico-cultural tradition and the chance of continuity also in the

20th century:

1. the term of cohesion for the Labour Movement

2. the forward-looking interpretation concerning the classless society

3. the class-integrative solidarity as highest moral and cultural principle of Wilhelm

Liebknecht

4. the solidarist solidarity of the Catholic Church

5. the technically interpreted assurance solidarity of the Zentrum Party as the Catholic party

18 The main charitable organisation of the Catholic church until today.

16

The analysis of the speeches by German Social Democratic Chancellors will show

which interpretation is still in use and if similar ones replace them, or even if completely

different key concepts symbolise and legitimise social policy.

3.2. Solidarity in the Speeches of German Left-Wing Chancellors Since 1949

In contrast to France, Germany had not had a left-wing government since World War II

before Willy Brandt took office in 1969. As a further contrast to France, Chancellor Brandt

did not start introducing a socialist era as Pierre Mauroy had. The manifesto of the Social

Democratic Party was less radical than that of the French PS. The SPD Godesberger

Programm (1959) was moderate and left much room for differing interpretations compared to

the French Socialist manifestos. It was nevertheless a reminder of the Labour Movement and

the aims of the workers. It recalled justice, freedom and solidarity as Grundwerte

sozialistischen Wollens (basic amounts of socialist will) and independent fundament of

socialist action.

Ten years after Godesberg, Chancellor Brandt was still confronted with anti-Socialist

and anti-communist propaganda from the Christian Democratic and Liberal parties. They

were coloring Social Democrats and Social Democratic policies as equivalent to Soviet-

communism. So, they defined freedom as the alternative to the ‘red S’ as danger for the

society and democratic system. The SPD was steadily forced to defend itself as a democratic

party. Chancellor Brandt’s solidarity was a key concept of democratic behaviour and social

responsibility, comparable with the integrative interpretation of Wilhelm Liebknecht and, to a

certain extent, with the French republican solidarity of Bourgeois and the PS. Mutual

interdependence and the need for social action in addition to social policy were emphasised in

his speeches on social policy, for example:

Ich meine folgendes. Reformen bestehen nicht in der Befriedigung von Gruppenegoismen, sondern in Veränderungen, die uns im Ganzen voranbringen. In einer arbeitsteiligen, hochspezialisierten Gesellschaft müssen sich alle Bürger ihrer gegenseitigen Abhängigkeit bewusst werden. Im Interesse unserer gemeinsamen Zukunft muss die Solidarität Vorrang gewinnen vor engem Gruppendenken. (Brandt 1971: 6394)

Another interpretation of solidarity in the Brandt era is the key concept of politicians against

political extremism, especially the left extremism of the student movement. Also Brandt and

his successor Helmut Schmidt used the Solidarität der Demokraten (solidarity of democrats)

to illustrate their political attitude as democrats. But this interpretation was bound to the time

of the student movement and first introduced by a Christian Democratic politician.

17

Helmut Schmidt –Brandts successor as Chancellor– created the ‘ethos of solidarity’. He

combined the solidarity of all Germans with the necessity of governmental activities to

guarantee the power of solidarity:

Die Idee der Solidarität kann nur dann eine bindende Kraft bleiben, wenn wir die Initiative einzelner Bürger, von Gruppen und Verbänden einerseits und staatliches Handeln andererseits miteinander kombinieren. (Schmidt 1976a: 42)

For Schmidt solidarity was the term that symbolised an inclusive society, which would

integrate the weak and the poor of Germany. To achieve this end, he always saw the necessity

of governmental support. He also activated rhetorically the Catholic solidarism to get the

political support of the Christian Democrats:

Es kann aber sehr wohl und sehr gut christlich-theologisch begründet werden. Es kann auch sehr wohl sozialistisch begründet werden. Wenn man aus Solidarität gemeinsam die gleichen Ziele zugunsten der Schwachen und der Behinderten anstrebt, dann kann man es ja eigentlich auch gemeinsam tun. Man braucht dies ja nicht deswegen abzulehnen, weil man es im letzten Urgrund nicht gemeinsam begründet. Dabei zeigt sich in den letzten Tagen, daß sogar die Gründe und Werte, mit denen man es begründet, relativ nahe beieinanderliegen. (Schmidt 1976b: 17005-17006)

Yet a stronger warning for the Christian Democrats not to forget their own traditions and the

other values and ideas of the Catholic social theory is seen when Schmidt said:

Wenn man dieses Prinzip der Solidarität so in den Vordergrund stellt, wie gestern geschehen, was ist denn dann eigentlich mit der Kraft der anderen Motive, Denkanstöße, Argumente, die aus der katholischen Soziallehre entsprungen sind und die in den letzten fünf, sechs, sieben Jahren der politischen Auseinandersetzung in diesem Hause vergessen zu sein scheinen? (Schmidt 1976b: 17006)

Schmidt‘s interpretations of solidarity are near to the Liebknecht interpretation, but the most

likely comparison to the French interpretation of Léon Bourgeois who also described the

necessity of an active state to reach the full power of social solidarity. Helmut Schmidt was

operating strategically with key concepts to get the highest possible accord. We can also read

speeches in which he defends democratic socialism and criticises the capitalism of the

Christian Democrats; but the concept of solidarity is wide and allows for the integration of

Christian Democrats when political decisions need to be made.

Neither Brandt nor Schmidt used the two Marxist interpretations. This was quite likely

because of the political situation whereby every word related to socialism was billed as being

dangerous for democracy and freedom. But both used solidarity as a key concept of society,

democracy and social policy. Brandt created a symmetric field of interaction of citizens and

Schmidt emphasised the necessity of governmental activities to replenish the social solidarity.

18

In the speeches of both we can find their concepts of solidarity embedded in the tradition of

social democracy and Labour Movement without the specific Marxist solidarity of the Labour

Movement. We thus find both bound with the politico-cultural tradition of the Labour

Movement and the SDP. This does not mean that their concept of solidarity is that of 1890,

however. It is surprising that their interpretations of solidarity are that similar to the French

left-republican interpretation. This illustrates that the Social Democratic interpretation of

solidarity has changed according to the political situation and to the programmatic discourses

of the party. Additionally, the modern interpretation is transported with the traditional context

of the Labour Movement. It should be noted that the citizens are the subjects of solidarity for

both, and that the state merely has to replenish solidarity for Schmidt. At that time, the SPD

pursued a certain social policy. They increased social services and strengthened the principle

of insurance so that one citizen was responsible for the other. But the regulation was the task

of the growing bureaucracy and the whole legislative power in the hands of the government.

As in France, social rights are not codified in the Constitution so that social policy is a main

topic of election campaigns. The citizens were confronted with modernised terms of Social

Democrats linked to the state as the dominant agent of social policies. Nevertheless, because

of the increasing welfare, this framing had a positive connotation. The linkage between

governmental social policy and solidarity as a concept of left-wing social policy was

established just in this era of Social Democratic government and not like in France in the

early years of growing parliamentary power of the left-wing parties.

Chancellor Gerhard Schröder took office in 1998 after a period of 16 years Christian

Democratic government under Helmut Kohl. Schröder decided against the traditional socialist

vocabulary and against Socialist social policy. His vocabulary is the most similar to the

liberal, but his concepts vary depending on the context. There is neither politico-cultural left-

wing tradition of solidarity recognisable in his speeches nor a symmetric field of interaction

of the citizens. The only function of the term solidarity is to legitimise his policy and to

mobilise moral resources. Several examples can illustrate this break:

Staatliche Handlungsfähigkeit ist dabei kein Selbstzweck. Aber sie ist Mittel zum Zweck, um Solidarität in unserer Gesellschaft durch Politik zu organisieren, um Massenarbeitslosigkeit zu bekämpfen. (Schröder 1999b: 4828)

Diese Probleme werden so gelöst werden, daß die notwendige Solidarität

gewährleistet wird, ohne daß das Recht des einzelnen auf ein selbstbestimmtes Arbeitsleben eingeschränkt wird. Das ist die Aufgabe, die wir lösen werden. (Schröder 1999a: 3102)

19

So the relation between the citizens has changed into a state guarantee of solidarity as

equivalent term for social security. The government is held responsible for organising

solidarity. The “Who” of solidarity is no longer the citizen; it is only the government. This

does not refer to any tradition or semantics of Social Democrats or the preceding chancellors.

The only reason to frame his ideas with traditional terms is to reach accord and to legitimise

his policy. Other interviews and texts can substantiate this pragmatic use of traditional values.

For example,

Ich habe sehr viel gelernt durch Gespräche mit Oskar Negt, mit Jürgen Seifert und mit anderen Universitätslehrern. (...) Einen Lehrer aber in dem Sinne, daß ich sage, in dessen Traditionen bewege ich mich, den habe ich wohl nicht. Ich habe nie das Bedürfnis gehabt, pragmatisches Handeln auf theoretische Weise zu legitimieren. Mir hat das Ergebnis gereicht.“ (Herres and Waller 1999: 271-272)

This demonstrates the outcome-oriented use of theory and ideas. The next example out of an

interview with young Social Democrats illustrates the asymmetric interpretation of solidarity

and relations of interaction:

Aber die Solidarität, für die wir kämpfen, bedeutet doch nicht, daß man vom Staat bekommt, was man will. Von dieser ‚Mitnahme-Mentalität’, die bis weit in die gut situierten Mittelschichten hinein existiert, müssen wir endlich weg: ‚Ich habe eingezahlt, also kann ich auch bedenkenlos entnehmen.’ Das hat mit Solidarität überhaupt nichts zu tun. Sozialstaat kann nicht heißen: Wir nehmen, was wir kriegen können. Sondern: Der Jüngere sorgt für den Älteren, der Stärkere für den Schwächeren, der Gesunde für den Kranken. (Schröder 2003: 4)

What Schröder is saying is that the younger should care for the older, the stronger for the

weaker and the healthy for the sick. This is a shift in social democratic thinking because

solidarity is defined as asymmetric like aid or charity whereas social democratic solidarity

usually meant a relation between equal. But obviously the topical political rhetoric of

solidarity in Germany shows a variability of interpretations which questions solidarity as a

politico-cultural value itself. In 2003, liberal politician Wolfgang Gerhardt 2003 wanted to

prescribe the SPD a new definition of solidarity:

“Sie müssen jetzt den demokratischen Sozialismus etwas beseite schieben. Definieren Sie auch Solidarität neu. Die größte Solidarität ist nicht die Größe der kollektiven Sicherungssysteme in Deutschland. Die größte Solidarität, die jemand einem anderen unter dem gesichtspunkt der Menschenwürde geben kann, ist seine eigene Leistungsbereitschaft, bevor er andere in Anspruch nimmt.” (Gerhardt 2003: 25)

20

This definition sounds very similar to the Schröder-Blair or Schröder definition, and Gerhardt

managed to name the out-of-date solidarity SPD-solidarity and to demand a change in the

interpretation of solidarity. So SPD social policy could be improved by redefining solidarity.

The main difference between German liberal and left-wing interpretations of the term is

the “Who” of solidarity. The traditional Labour Movement interpretation first meant that all

workers and oppressed were in solidarity in opposition to the oppressors and the oppressive

capitalist system. The ideal society of the future was then based on the solidarity of everyone

with everyone else. But the liberal political interpretation of the FDP created an asymmetric

field of interaction between those who could pay and those who needed or already received

financial help.19

The main difference between the conservative and the more popular leftwing

interpretation in Germany is that the Christian Democrats define values as eternal and given

by God and interprete them referring to the indivuum. And they want the state to be a

guardian of these values. For the Social Democrats values are socially defined. That means

that no eternal values have to be defended and the society can initiate any changes of the

value-interpretations. This participatory concept of values obliges the Social Democrats to

stay in discourse with the society and to watch social changes attentively (Charlier 1978;

Schlei and Wagner 1976). Chancellor Schröder does not only misuse his interpretation power

to legitimate his concept of social policy with a traditional concept of social cohesion, he also

refuses to interprete values the social democratic way. This behaviour was also obvious for

Claus Offe, who identified Schröder’s increasing use of the conservative term “Gemeinwohl”

(public good) (Offe 2001).

The French and Social Democratic definitions of solidarity both meant a symmetric

field of interaction between equals. Becoming poor or sick was one of the risks concerning

everybody equally and the asymmetric situation was the case of active solidarity among the

equal members of solidarity. But the in Schröder’s speeches the emancipatory meaning of the

traditional solidarity was erased. Furthermore, the state is not mere the dominant agent of

social politics, Schröder holds the government for the only responsible to define the public

interest, maintaining that,

Gemeinwohl ist nicht identisch mit der Summe der Einzelinteressen. So vertretbar es ist, daß jeder für sich und seine Mitglieder streitet, so sehr ist es die

19 The FDP uses solidarity in their manifesto as a term for assistance and further demands a policy to create more

freedom for social interaction: less state=more possibilities for solidarity. This corresponds with liberal

definitions by French economists like in Charles Périn.

21

Aufgabe demokratischer Politik, das Gemeinwohl zu definieren und durchzusetzen. Das werden wir in diesem Hause tun! (Schröder 1999b: 4835)

In 1999 at least the parliament had the interpretation authority for Gemeinwohl, but 2003 it

was the government alone. In an interview, Schröder stated,

Aber die Regierung ist auch nicht verlängerter Arm der Gewerkschaften. Wir definieren das Gemeinwohl [Hervorhebung G.R.]. Daran haben sich die Vertreter der einen wie der anderen Seite zu orientieren. (Spiegel 2003: 32)

The interesting question for research on political culture and political semantics is how long

Chancellor Schröder needs and how much interpretation authority he can use to erase the

traditional meaning in the collective memory.

4. European Solidarity?

The case studies substantiated that the meaning and interpretation of political terms

depends on the politico-cultural history of the terms and the actualisation of the traditional

interpretations. Solidarity as emancipatory and inclusive key-concept of social policy and

democracy has similar contents in France and Germany but is embedded in distinct politico-

cultural traditions. While the French solidarity is linked to the left republican tradition and the

first extensive socio-political initiatives the German solidarity is linked with the labour

movement and the class struggle, but after World War II solidarity in Germany was developed

together with the political objectives of the social democrats into a left republican integrative

concept similar to the French. So there are not only differing politico-cultural traditions of the

term solidarity but also different links of the term with social policy. While solidarity in

Germany for the labour movement has been as a symbol of their struggle for emancipation

and the power of their movement, in France Léon Bourgeois was already starting social policy

and education policy with an elaborated concept of republican solidarity as symbol and value.

In Germany leftwing solidarity was transformed half a century later into a modern inclusive

concept of society and social policy. So in France solidarity is more a traditional national

symbol and in Germany it is more the leftwing symbol before also liberals and Christian

democrats started to use the term with differing definitions due to their political concepts.

Furthermore there is a difference in the solidarist movements, because ‘solidarism’ describes

two different movements. Solidarism in France was the left-republican movement with the

public intellectual Bourgeois as its leader. Solidarism in Germany was exclusive the social

Catholic elite movement of Catholic social theoreticians and economists with its popular

version disseminated by the Volksverein. In France solidarism denotes the traditional

22

mainstream of solidarity-interpretation, while in Germany solidarism denotes only this

specific scientific Catholic interpretation, which was influential for Christian democratic

parties and only partially for leftwing parties.

The paths to similar contents of the politico-cultural term solidarity in France and

Germany are different concerning historical context and politico-cultural process of

disseminating various interpretations. Chancellor Schröder shows, that another path can be

chosen so that frame and interpretation have nothing in common neither with French concepts

nor with German social democratic concepts. Before a common European solidarity can be

part of political texts and speeches, we ought to know the differing traditions and substance. A

common German-French left-wing solidarity can be interpreted as the emancipatory and

inclusive key concept of a symmetric field of social interaction. The historical politico-

cultural connection can be made by referring to the Labour Movement and all struggles for

emancipation, because the aims of the movements are represented in the concept of solidarity.

It would be a German-French construction based on common interpretations and parallels in

history. This construction is a very complex field of mutual cultural reception and

understanding. So how can we start a process of constructing common European

denominators of democratic thought and prevent European politicians from using terms as if

they had a European interpretation and pouring away the content of important politico-

cultural terms. Furthermore a European denominator of democratic thought like solidarity

could stop politicians changing the content of solidarity or misuse their interpretation

authority to legitimise policies far from solidarity.

Before we discuss common denominators for democracy, we have to do research on the

possibly differing politico-cultural interpretations. We can record the fact that, not only the

politico-cultural traditions of solidarity differ between Germany and France, but the

development of the political semantics according to the prevailing political development also

do. Even if we find common denominators for European democracy we steadily have to

update them due to the lack of a general European political public. Another possibility would

be to construct common interpretations of key concepts which are sufficiently broad to

function as common denominators. The convent on the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the

EU was a discoursive process which involved the so-called “Civil Society.”20 The

contributions of the NGOs did not emphasise any specific solidarity concepts but used the

term in a kind of broad, preamble-esque meaning. Finally the democratic and emancipatory

20 The definition of who and what the Civil Society includes differs from author to author. The EU-commission

definition is very broad and includes enterprises as well as individual professors as NGO (Reisz 2002).

23

aspects of solidarity were not occurring in their texts. There was no politico-cultural tradition

transported, but there was no new European concept constructed either. There is still a lot of

scholarly and cultural work to be done before a European politico-cultural meaning of

political terms and values like solidarity can be realised.

Bibliography Abendroth, Wolfgang. 1985. Einführung in die Geschichte der Arbeiterbewegung. Band 1: von den

Anfängen bis 1933. Heilbronn: Distel. Ansart, Pierre. 1992. L'analyse critique des insolidarites (1820-1870). In La solidarité: un sentiment

républicain?, edited by C. u. d. r. a. e. p. d. P. (C.U.R.A.P.P). Paris: Presses universitaires de France.

Beecher, Jonathan. 1986. Charles Fourier: the visionary and his world. Berkeley/Los Angeles/London: University of California Press.

Bestor, Arthur E. 1948. The Evolution of the Socialist Vocabulary. Journal of the History of Ideas IX:259-303.

Bock, Hans Manfred. 1988. Die stufenweise Auflösung der Linksunion und die Perspektiven der Linksparteien in Frankreich. In Frankreich Jahrbuch 1988. Politik, Wirtschaft, Gesellschaft, Geschichte, Kultur. Opladen: Leske und Budrich.

Bock, Hans Manfred. 1989. Die Parlamentswahlen 1988 und die Suche nach der neuen politischen Mitte. Lendemains 52:94-101.

Bock, Hans Manfred. 1990. Von der Neuen Linken zur Nouvelle Gauche. Ein Rückblick auf den Parti Socialiste Unifié (PSU). Lendemains 57:133-141.

Bock, Hans Manfred. 1992. Von der Neugestaltung der Gesellschaft zur Erneuerung sozialistischer Moral. Zum Parteitag '91 und zum Nouvel Horizon des Parti Socialiste. Lendemains 65:106-116.

Bock, Hans Manfred. 1993. Absturz und Neuformierung. Der Parti Socialiste und der Legislativ-Wahlkampf 1993. Lendemains 69/70:296-307.

Boll, Friedhelm. 1992. Arbeitskämpfe und Gewerkschaften in Deutschland, England und Frankreich: ihre Entwicklung vom 19. zum 20. Jahrhundert. Bonn: Dietz Nachf.

Borgetto, Michel. 1993. La notion de Fraternité en Droit publique français. Le Passé, le Present et l'avenir de la solidarité. Préface de Philippe Ardant. Edited by M. Waline and G. Vedel. Vol. 170, Bibliothèque de Droit Public. Paris: Librairie Générale de Droit et de Jurisprudence.

Bourgeois, Léon. 1896. Solidarité. In Solidarité, edited by L. Bourgeois. Paris: Librairie Armand Colin.

Bourgeois, Léon. 1900. Solidarité - Justice - Liberté. In Solidarité, edited by L. Bourgeois. Paris: Librairie Armand Colin.

Bourgeois, Léon. 1901a. La dette sociale et le quasi-contrat social. In Solidarité, edited by L. Bourgeois. Paris: Armand Colin.

Bourgeois, Léon. 1901b. L'Idée de Solidarité et ses Conséquences sociales. La Justice sociale. In Solidarité, edited by L. Bourgeois. Paris: Armand Colin.

Bourgeois, Léon. 1902. Essai d'une Philosophie de la Solidarité. Paris: Alcan. Brandt, Willy. 1971. 6. Wahlperiode, 109. Sitzung, 24.3.1971, S. 6393-6398. In Deutscher Bundestag,

Stenographische Berichte, Verhandlungen. Brunot, Ferdinand. 1967. Histoire de la Langue Française des origines a nos jours. XIII vols. Vol. IX,

Deuxieme Partie: La Révolution et l'Empire. Paris: Librairie Armand Colin. Charlier, Michel. 1978. Der Sozialismus als Wille und Vorstellung. Das Grundwerteverständnis der

SPD in der Gegenwart. In Grundwerte-Diskussion: Der Streit um die geistigen Grundlagen der Demokratie, edited by K. Bayertz and H. H. Holz. Köln: Pahl-Rugenstein.

Comte, Auguste. 1907 [1838]. Soziologie. Mit einer Einleitung von Heinrich Wentig. Vol. 1, übersetzt von Valentine Dorn. Jena: Gustav Fischer.

24

Durkheim, Emile. 1988. Über soziale Arbeitsteilung. Studie über die Organisation höherer Gesellschaften. Mit einer Einleitung von Niklas Luhmann und einem Nachwort von Hans-Peter Müller und Michael Schmid. 2 ed. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

Eberlein, Alfred. 1968. Die Presse der Arbeiterklasse und der sozialen Bewegungen, von den dreißiger Jahren des 19. Jahrhunderts bis zum Jahre 1967. Bibliographie und Standortverzeichnis der Presse der deutschen, der österreichischen und der schweizerischen Arbeiter- Gewerkschafts- und Berufsorganisationen (einschließlich der Protokolle und Tätigkeitsberichte). Frankfurt am Main: Sauer & Auvermann KG.

EC. 2000. Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Official Journal of the European Communities, 18.12.2000.

European Convention, The Secretariat: Draft Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, Brussels, 18 July 2003, CONV 850/03.

Fiegle, Thomas. 2003. Von der Solidarité zur Solidarität. Ein französisch-deutscher Begriffstransfer. Edited by H. Kleger. Vol. 18, Region - Nation - Europa. Münster, Hamburg, London: Lit.

Filthaut, Ephrem. 1960. Deutsche Katholikentage 1848-1958 und soziale Frage. Essen: Driewer. Fricke, Dieter. 1987. Handbuch zur Geschichte der deutschen Arbeiterbewegung 1869-1917 in zwei

Bänden. 2 vols. Vol. 1. Berlin: Dietz. Gerhardt, Wolfgang. 2003. Haushaltslage stimmt hinten und vorne nicht. Das Parlament 38/39:25. Görner, Regina. 1984. Die deutschen Katholiken und die soziale Frage im 19. Jahrhundert. In

Geschichte der Christlich-Demokratischen und Christlich-Sozialen Bewegungen in Deutschland. Grundlagen, Unterrichtsmodelle, Quellen und Arbeitshilfen für die politische Bildung, Teil 1, edited by G. Rüther. Bonn: Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung.

Gülich, Christian. 1991. Die Durkheim-Schule und der französische Solidarismus. Wiesbaden: Deutscher Universitätsverlag.

Halsall, Paul. 2001. Modern History Sourcebook [Internet]. Internet History Sourcebooks Project, 18.5.2001 2001 [cited 4.September 2001]. Available from http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1820fourier.html.

Hayward, Jack Ernest S. 1959. Solidarity: The Social History of an Idea in Nineteenth Century France. International Review of Social History IV-1959:261-284.

Hayward, Jack Ernest S. 1961. The Official Social Philosophy of the French Third Republic: Léon Bourgeois and Solidarism. International Review of Social History VI-1961:19-48.

Hayward, Jack Ernest S. 1963a. Educational Pressure Groups and the Indoctrination of the Radical Ideology of Solidarism. International Review of Social History VIII-1963:1-17.

Hayward, Jack Ernest S. 1963b. 'Solidarity' and the Reformist Sociology of Alfred Fouillée. The American Journal of Economics and Sociology 22:205-222, 303-312.

Heitzer, Horstwalter. 1979. Der Volksverein für das katholische Deutschland 1890-1918. Edited by K. f. Zeitgeschichte, 26, Reihe B Forschungen. Mainz: Matthias Grünewald.

Herres, Volker, and Klaus Waller. 1999. Gerhard Schröder. Der Weg nach Berlin. 2. aktualisierte Taschenbuchauflage ed. München: Econ & List Taschenbuch.

Hertling, Georg Freiherr von. 1897. Kleine Schriften zur Zeitgeschichte und Politik. Edited by G. F. v. Hertling. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung.

Hitze, Franz. 1877. Der christliche Socialismus. In Die sociale Frage und die Bestrebungen zu ihrer Lösung. Mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der verschiedenen socialen Parteien in Deutschland. Drei Vorträge, edited by F. Hitze. Paderborn: Bonifacius Verlag und Druckerei.

Hitze, Franz. 1880. Das Verhältnis von Kapital und Arbeit im Lichte paralleler Begriffe. Fünfter Vortrag. In Kapital und Arbeit und die Reorganisation der Gesellschaft. Vorträge, edited by F. Hitze. Paderborn: Bonifacius Druckerei.

Hitzer, Bettina. 2001. Schlüssel zweier Welten : politisches Lied und Gedicht von Arbeitern und Bürgern 1848 - 1875. Gesprächskreis Geschichte 43:1-222.

Hürten, Heinz. 1994. Deutscher Katholizismus im 19. Jahrhundert. Positionsbestimmung und Selbstbehauptung. In Katholiken, Kirche und Staat als Problem der Historie: ausgewählte Aufsätze 1963-1992. Paderborn, München, Wien, Zürich: Schöningh.

Jobert, Bruno. 2003. De la solidarité aux solidarités dans la rhétorique politique français. In De la responsabilité solidaire. Mutations dans les politiques sociales aujourd'hui, edited by C. Bec and G. Procacci. Paris: Éditions Syllepse.

25

Jospin, Lionel 1997: Séance 19.6.1997, S. 2835-2845, 2860-2861. In Journal Officiel de la République, Débats Parlementaires de l’ Assemblée Nationale.

Jospin, Lionel. 1999. Das "Jospin-Papier" Beitrag der Sozialistischen Partei Frankreichs zum 21. Kongreß der sozialistischen Internationale. Blätter für deutsche und internationale Politik 11:1391-1402.

Klein, Gotthard. 1996. Der Volksverein für das katholische Deutschland 1890-1933: Geschichte, Bedeutung, Untergang. Edited by K. f. Zeitgeschichte, Forschungen. Paderborn, München, Wien, Zürich: Schöningh.

Le Bras - Chopard, Armelle. 1992. Metamorphoses d'une notion: la solidarité chez Pierre Leroux. In La Solidarité: un sentiment republicain?, edited by C. u. d. r. a. e. p. d. P. (C.U.R.A.P.P.). Paris: Presses universitaires de France.

Liebknecht, Wilhelm. 1976 [1865-1899]. Kleine politische Schriften. Herausgegeben von Wolfgang Schröder. Frankfurt am Main: Röderberg.

Loth, Wilfried. 1984. Katholiken im Kaiserreich. Der politische Katholizismus in der Krise des wilhelminischen Deutschland. Düsseldorf: Droste.

Loth, Wilfried. 1991. Soziale Bewegungen im Katholizismus des Kaiserreichs. Geschichte und Gesellschaft 17:279-310.

Mayeur, Jean-Marie. 1973. Les débuts de la Troisième Republique 1871-1898. Vol. 10, Nouvelles histoire de la France contemporaine. Paris: Éditions du Seuil.

Mollenhauer, Daniel. 1997. Auf der Suche nach der "wahren Republik". Die französischen "radicaux" in der frühen Dritten Republik (1870-1890). Edited by D. H. I. Paris. Vol. 46, Pariser Historische Studien. Bonn: Bouvier.

Mueller, Franz H. 1980. Heinrich Pesch. Sein Leben und seine Lehre. Köln: J. P. Bachem. Müller, Dirk H. 1996. Arbeiter, Katholizismus, Staat. Der Volksverein für das katholische

Deutschland und die katholischen Arbeiterorganisationen in der Weimarer Republik. Edited by Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung. Vol. 43, Politik- und Gesellschaftsgeschichte. Bonn: Dietz.

Offe, Claus. 2001. Wessen Wohl ist das Gemeinwohl? In Gemeinwohl und Gemeinsinn. Rhetoriken und Perspektiven sozia-moralischer Orientierung, edited by H. Münkler, H. Bluhm and K. Fischer. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.

Parti Socialiste, PS. 1992. Un nouvel horizon. Projet socialiste pour la France. Paris: Gallimard. Pesch, Heinrich. 1924. Lehrbuch der Nationalökonomie. dritte und vierte neubearbeitete Neuauflage

ed. Vol. 3. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder. Pesch, Heinrich. 1925 [1904]. Lehrbuch der Nationalökonomie. dritte und vierte neubearbeitete

Neuauflage ed. 5 vols. Vol. 1 Grundlegung. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder. Reisz, Gesa. 2002. Die zivilgesellschaftliche Beteiligung an den europäischen Konventen. FJnsB

4/2002:67-73. Reisz, Gesa. 2003. Solidarität: Wandel und Kontinuität eines politischen Deutungsmusters in

Deutschland und Frankreich. Eine historisch-semantische und diskursanalytische Rekonstruktion. doctoral thesis, Fachbereich Gesellschaftswissenschaften, Universität Kassel, Kassel.

Ritter, Gerhard A. 1980. Staat, Arbeiterschaft und Arbeiterbewegung in Deutschland: vom Vormärz bis zum Ende der Weimarer Republik. Berlin: Dietz.

Schäfer, Ursel. 1989. Regierungsparteien in Frankreich. Die Sozialistische Partei in der V. Republik. Edited by J. Becker, H. Krauß and E. Weber, Schriften der Philosophischen Fakultäten der Universität Augsburg Nr. 37. Historisch-sozialwissenschaftliche Reihe. München: Ernst Vögel.

Schieder, Wolfgang. 1972. Brüderlichkeit, Bruderschaft, Brüderschaft, Verbrüderung, Bruderliebe. In Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe: historisches Lexikon zur politisch-sozialen Sprache in Deutschland, edited by O. Brunner, im Auftrag des Arbeitskreises für moderne Sozialgeschichte e.V. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta.

Schlei, Marie, and Joachim Wagner. 1976. Freiheit - Gerechtigkeit - Solidarität. Grundwerte und praktische Politik. Mit einem Vorwort von Helmut Schmidt. Bonn-Bad Godesberg: Neue Gesellschaft GmbH.

Schmelter, Jürgen. 1991. Solidarität: Die Entwicklungsgeschichte eines sozialethischen Schlüsselbegriffes. Inauguraldissertation zur Erlangung des Doktorgrades, Katholisch-theologische Fakultät, Ludwig-Maximilians Universität, München.

26

Schmidt, Helmut 1976a: 7. Wahlperiode, 241. Sitzung, 12.5.1976, S. 17004-17008, 17018. In Deutscher Bundestag, Stenographische Berichte, Verhandlungen.

Schmidt, Helmut 1976b: 8. Wahlperiode, 5. Sitzung, 16.12.1976, S. 31-51. In Deutscher Bundestag, Stenographische Berichte, Verhandlungen.

Schröder, Gerhard, and Tony Blair. 1999. Der Weg nach vorne für Europas Sozialdemokraten. Ein Vorschlag von Gerhard Schröder und Tony Blair. Berlin, London: SPD.

Schröder, Gerhard 1999a. 14. Wahlperiode, 38. Sitzung, 5.5.1999, S. 3099-3103. In Deutscher Bundestag, Stenographische Berichte, Verhandlungen.

Schröder, Gerhard 1999b. 14. Wahlperiode, 55. Sitzung, 16.9.1999, S. 4827-4836. In Deutscher Bundestag, Stenographische Berichte, Verhandlungen.

Schröder, Gerhard. 2002. In Vorwärts 25.10. 2003, www.vorwärts.net, last view 30.10.2003. Schröder, Gerhard 2003. „Es gibt keinen Respekt mehr“ Bundeskanzler Gerhard Schröder über den

Fehlstart seiner Regierung, die neu geweckten Reformhoffnungen und einen möglichen US-Angriff auf den Irak, Der Spiegel 2/2003, S. 33-35.

Scott, John A. 1951. Republican Ideas and the Liberal Tradition in France. Edited by F. o. P. S. o. C. University. Vol. 573, Studies in History, Economics and Public Law. New York: Columbia University Press.

Stegmann, Franz Josef, and Peter Langhorst. 2000. Geschichte der sozialen Ideen im deutschen Katholizismus. In Geschichte der sozialen Ideen in Deutschland. Sozialismus-Katholische Soziallehre-Protestantische Sozialethik. Ein Handbuch, edited by H. Grebing. Essen: Klartext.

Stein, Lorenz von. 1959. Das Königtum, die Republik und die Souveränität der französischen Gesellschaft seit der Februarrevolution 1848. Vol. 3, Geschichte der socialen Bewegung in Frankreich von 1789 bis auf unsere Tage. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.

Stephan, Ina. 2000. Die Parti socialiste. In Parteien in Frankreich. Kontinuität und Wandel in der v. Republik, edited by S. Ruß, J. Schildt, J. Schmidt and I. Stephan. Opladen: Leske und Budrich.

Stephan, Ina. 2001. Aufstieg und Wandel der Parti socialiste in der Ära Mitterand (1975-1995). Edited by H. Kern, E. Kuper, P. Lösche and I. Ostner, Europa- und Nordamerika-Studien. Opladen: Leske und Budrich.

Viard, Bruno. 1998. Pierre Leroux et les premières associations en 1830. Revue du MAUSS semestrielle 11,Premier Semestre 1998 (Une seule solution, l'association? Socio-Économie du fait associatif):21-27.

Volkmann, Uwe. 1998. Solidarität - Programm und Prinzip der Verfassung. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Waha, Raymund de. 1910. Die Nationalökonomie in Frankreich. Stuttgart: Ferdinand Enke. Wildt, Andreas. 1995. Solidarität. In Historisches Wörterbuch der Phisosophie, edited by J. Ritter and

K. Gründer. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Wildt, Andreas. 1998. Solidarität - Begriffsgeschichte und Definition heute. In Solidarität. Begriff und

Problem, edited by K. Bayertz. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamo. Willard, Claude. 1981. Geschichte der französischen Arbeiterbewegung. Eine Einführung. Translated

by P. Schöttler. Frankfurt am Main, New York: Campus.