Enabling solidarity???
Solidarity's not a fixed concept.
It seems to change depending on several factors connected with levels, dimensions, and expression modalities.
The agreement at the base of the solidarity dynamic must be explicit and agreed upon in consideration of the real conscious and consciously chosen needs of the actors involved.
The starting point is always the structural identity and the real deep connection with him/herself inner deeper needs, also considering cultural attitudes and societal deformations.
Biases and assumptions in defining others on the base of their untruth attitudes, forced on them on the base of past dynamics are compromising always and in every case solidarity exercise. Stigmergy applied to humans can be an example of bias perpetration and compromise the reputation of an agent there where verification is not applied or applicable, retroactive verification is also not possible so trust is an asset in any case, this enables an effective solidarity mechanism and with it functional integration within groups, tribes, communities and so on...
Let's make a clear example:
if the real needs of one person are disqualified completely and instead forcefully substituted with other needs more congruent with the cultural and societal vision, so insertable in specific control dynamics and interest-based self-internalized attitudes by the members of the group exercising “care” for that person, the structural needs of that person will never be fulfilled bringing to a perpetual frustration condition.
The role that a person plays in the system it's not congruent with his/her real needs so its' nourishment and growth are irremediably compromised.
In a transactional reality where interest-based attitudes and accumulation, control over egoistic attitudes are the norms even with no money exchange these mechanisms, have been internalized and are acted out even in everyday relationships.
This is common in internal systems, family systems, community systems, and up to the scale.
This is formally allowed over than incentivized as there were people who act on the base of self-interest ransomed by the primordial fear of death, they can be easily exploited and enable exploitation and extraction mechanisms at a fractal level.
It's a redundant dynamic perpetuating itself automatically as internalized for survival reasons. When the system doesn't allow survival there where solidarity is enabled then the automatic answer is mutual exploitation within the limits of causing a conflict. From the geopolitical macro dimension to the inner dimension and vice versa.
Internalization of solidarity mechanisms seems to be necessarily connected with the need of creating trust, there where it's important to reinsure actors within their personal as well as social interaction. A systemic interaction enabling trust should necessarily consider internal psychological developments at a personal, cultural, and social level; within specific mixed groups, the importance of knowing where everyone is coming from is basic in the creation of the trust. Ransom-based dynamics in transactional realities are an asset there where money (or whatever other means of exchange) is also used in abusive ways.
Abuse and extraction go together, and compensative dynamics don't work. Trying to “offset” doesn't create trust there where extractive internalized, sometimes subconscious behaviors, play the control role at all levels of interaction.
The chain of intergenerational abuse is also linked with extractive attitudes. As the extraction changes targets in any given situation, context or structural functioning of the actors involved, shape-shifting can be an evasive protective mechanism to skip and limit such damaging attitudes; as it limits the individuation of key resources to extract – once inner transformation enables actors to acquire shapeshifting attitudes there the systematic extraction can be limited.
The extent to which such attitudes can be controlled responds to the full control of the structural constitution of the shapeshifter; meaning imprisoning or plagiarism associated with manipulative attitudes. Deprivation of the subject of basic life needs is an indicator leading to such conditions.
Shifting can be learned and it can be applied to different levels – inner, cultural, social, etc --- the important thing is to apply it within safe spaces and to not pair with people potentially willing to fully take advantage of it.
The majority of people interact on fixed schemes, this is another reason why not conventional interactions and divergent attitudes are often marginalized and isolated. A static system tends to self-conservation by limitation of evolution opportunities. Anomalies usually are the base of evolution, anomalous behaviors can also be but they have to be contained and analyzed for best application within the common interest and overcoming repressive reductionist dynamics.
Solidarity has been and is conceived as a divergent behavior. It is a not internalized attitude and performing solidarity results in risk calculation and analysis in conventional actors. This means that solidarity is expressed within the framework of personal interests satisfaction while from another point of view, the concept itself should be separated by such considerations. Solidarity seems to be of two typologies: conditional solidarity – bringing us back to transactional realities – and unconditional one. Serving spontaneously just trusting the service. This brings us back to the no-expectations even trusting a result will be manifested.
This is not sustainable within our actual system as such attitudes are anti-economic. Also, it's never clear how to assess the real conscious needs of the actors involved linked with their structural true nature. The transformative processes the system imposes on the individuals, it denaturalizes them to the extent they cannot exercise solidarity as they are lost in recognizing their needs which in reality is an over-imposition to adapt to the system’s mechanisms.
Important should be, and in connection with the conscious transformative processes internalized as “conscious shapeshifting”; invert the process and adapt systemic dynamics of interaction and transaction to people's structural needs, while educating them in shapeshifting just to adapt externally to modalities and levels enabled by a co-created system. This can be an experiment in groups, while structural individual needs (all different depending on the people) are acknowledged at first by the individual actors and then by that group. In this sort of process, the structural true basic identity of the individual is reinforced instead of merging into a pot of other's behaviors while the person grounded in its structural interior can conceive, open and interact in a more safe and secure way with diversity. Forcing people into identities that are not theirs and forcing them in renouncing to fondant parts of themselves within a “solidarity context” and with no effective information, agreement or authorization can create huge stability problems; destabilize the person, his/her system, his/her culture and nourish the way back to a static system creating reinsuring structures to reset such dynamics at its own advantage.
Reinforcing the core structural natural true fundaments of actors could be seen as an asset toward trust creation and solidarity enabling.
The insertion of new expressive modalities helps overcome such limitations, usually learning about new cultures and expressing using different languages activates different dynamics within people and groups.
Overcoming spoken interaction and opening to different levels of communication can be shocking as well as liberating. Effective information, gradual training, and transparent and clear agreements are all elements enabling such solidarity manifestation processes.
Strengthening the core in its true nature I have observed is the pathway toward stabilization of actors, dynamics, and systems. Reinforce stability to enhance flexibility.
From the micro to the macro evolution is a continuum populating transitioning transformations in space and time.