Solidarity refers to the act of making sacrifices in unison with others for the advancement of a cause bigger than oneself and perceived as just. While those sacrifices can be as small as walking out of class or as big as risking imprisonment and death, solidarity is defined by what people are willing to risk or give up for the cause. However, while symbolic yet toothless acts like a social media post are outward-facing displays of solidarity, they are not true acts of solidarity, as they are typically devoid of the acceptance of consequences which makes solidarity meaningful.
To more clearly delineate what is and is not solidarity in action, I compare the responses from Anheuser-Busch and The North Face, two large American companies, to backlashes to their pro-LGBTQ+ initiatives. After right-wing media attacked Anheuser-Busch for a partnership with transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney, stirring talks of a conservative boycott, the company quickly distanced itself from Mulvaney and pivoted any marketing away from the LGBTQ+ movement. Although it was willing to support the queer community in theory, Anheuser-Busch quickly caved when any material consequence to its support was threatened. That is not solidarity. Responding to similar threats of a boycott after launching its Summer of Pride campaign with a drag queen, The North Face did not relent, preserving its campaign and pro-LGBTQ+ messaging even as boycotts threatened its customer base. Evidently, the company’s decision makers believed their advocacy was more important than their material benefits, and sacrificed their stock prices and profit margins accordingly. Both companies may have had staunch supporters of LGBTQ+ rights. However, pure belief is not central to assessments of solidarity. Action is. The North Face, unlike Anheuser-Busch, was willing to sacrifice something for those values. That is solidarity.
Moreover, solidarity is an appealing model for bringing about justice because anybody—from an afflicted individual to a concerned neighbor to a large outdoor apparel company—can participate. In fact, typical solidarity movements require or at least appreciate the presence of people both inside and outside of the persecuted group in question. For example, as Susan Leigh Foster’s Theatre Journal “Choreographies of Protest” article demonstrates, the 1960 lunch counter sit-ins benefitted from the presence of both white and Black protestors. Obviously, they needed participation from African-Americans, whose presence at the segregated lunch counters stimulated the national reckoning desired by the protestors. However, also important was the participation of white allies, who, if approached by the server, could implore them to take their Black friend’s order first. This added a further disruptive quality to the protest, where servers stopped approaching white customers out of fear of them saying their friend had been there first. In this way, solidarity is a universal mandate, for almost nobody—in-group or out-group—can credibly claim that their participation in an act of resistance will not assist the cause.
Works Cited
Foster, Susan Leigh. “Choreographies of Protest.” Theatre Journal, vol. 55, no. 3, Oct. 2003, pp. 395–412.