The Epistemic Requirements of Solidarity

ABSTRACT

The global age has confronted human beings with new and numerous challenges, from global poverty, to labour exploitation, to climate change. Many individuals, aware of such challenges, wish to act in solidarity, and give their contribution to countering them. Acting in solidarity in such contexts can be challenging, however, as which actions are most effective for reaching the desired goal is not obvious. Furthermore, an action that is intended in solidarity at times not only fails to promote the desired objective but proves detrimental to it. In this article, I wish to propose a reflection on a prior duty of solidarity action: the epistemic duty to acquire information about the correct way to promote a cause. By analyzing the anti-sweatshop movement and climate action, I will show how acting in solidarity has significant epistemic requirements that should be considered as part of the solidarity action itself.

KEYWORDS:

• Epistemic duties
• solidarity
• information

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 Sangiovanni, “Solidarity as Joint Action,” 343.

2 Bayertz, “Four Uses of ‘Solidarity’”; Prainsack and Buyx, Solidarity in Biomedicine and Beyond; Volpe “Doing Justice to Solidarity.”

3 Arnold and Bowie, “Sweatshops and Respect for Persons.”

4 Cravey, “Students and the Anti-sweatshop Movement.”

5 Traub-Werner and Cravey, “Spatiality, Sweatshops and Solidarity in Guatemala.”

6 Ibid., 388.

7 Ibid., 389.

8 Phau, Teah, and Chuah, “Consumer Attitudes towards Luxury Fashion Apparel Made in Sweatshops.”

9 In this essay, I do not intend to discuss the objection that individual boycotting acts are inconsequential as they are in themselves ineffective to produce any relevant outcome. Instead, I will assume that the action of an individual also has value in terms of its consequences.

10 Powell and Zwolinski, “The Ethical and Economic Case against Sweatshop Labor.”

11 Ferguson and Ostman, “Sweatshops and Consumer Choices.”

12 Ibid.

13 Williams, “Global Solidarity,” 18.

14 Ibid., 3.

15 Beckh and Limmer, “The Fridays for Future Phenomenon.”

16 Note that the success of the FFF is mainly in terms of the adherence of the youth audience and, thus, raising public awareness. It has not been successful in influencing policy: in this respect, for example, a German study reported rather poor results (see Scheitle, “Fridays for Future” Really Matter?).

17 Patterson and Mann, Public Disapproval of Disruptive Climate Change Protests.

18 Hart, Punishment and Responsibility; Sverdlik, “Pure Negligence.”

19 Hart Punishment and Responsibility, 148.

20 Rescher, Ignorance, 4.

21 Vanderheiden, “The Obligation to Know.”

22 Special Eurobarometer 513, 39.

23 Treen, Williams, and O’Neill, “Online Misinformation about Climate Change.”

24 Farrell, “Network Structure and Influence of the Climate Change Counter-Movement.”

25 Cook, Ellerton, and Kinkead, “Deconstructing Climate Misinformation.”

26 Matheson and Lougheed, “Introduction,” 8.

27 Vega Encabo, “Epistemic Merit”; Coady, “Testimony and Intellectual Autonomy”; Benson, “Who is the Autonomous Man?”

28 Rescher, Ignorance, 2.