Distinguishing solidarity from identity in studies of nationhood: An alternative to the civic–ethnic dichotomy?

Abstract

This article argues for an analytic distinction between questions of collective identity and questions of solidarity in studies of nationhood. Whereas the former inquiry centres on group classifications and commonalities, the latter examines cooperation and patterns of interaction among group members. Although theoretical discussion of national solidarity is sparse, three central approaches in the field can be highlighted: understanding solidarity as a byproduct of identity, as a relationship between strangers and as an extension of sociability. The distinction between solidarity and identity bears on the much‐disputed dichotomy between ethnic and civic nationalism. Civic nationalism has been widely criticized for failing to account for group boundaries and shared culture. Yet its emphasis on patterns of interaction and cooperation should not be neglected either. Instead of addressing the civic–ethnic dichotomy as two types of national identity, one could benefit from differentiating between epistemological questions about (ethnic‐national) identity and those about (civic‐national) solidarity.

Testing the National Identity Argument in a Time of Crisis – Evidence from Israel

“…Third, most of the existing studies are cross-sectional and therefore cannot determine whether national identity influences social cohesion or vice versa. They reflect the assumption that solidarity is a by-product of identity (Kaplan 2021). That is, national identity is presumed to be a stable component of people's worldview that can be mobilized to promote solidarity.…”

The evolution of the civic–ethnic distinction as a partial success story: Lessons for the nationalism–patriotism distinction

“…The CED, and particularly Kohn's approach to the CED, was extensively challenged around the turn of the 21st century. Contemporary scholars have also revitalised criticism of the CED (see Kaplan, 2022; Tamir, 2019; Todorova, 2015). In our view, most criticisms can be grouped into four categories: critiques of linking the West versus East/non‐West binary to the CED, critiques of normative bias, empirical critiques of the CED and theoretical critiques of the CED.…”

“…Despite these inconsistencies, we see partial success in the way the CED has been freed from stereotypical distinctions and developed as a heuristic for understanding notions of nationhood. Nevertheless, the ‘inviability’ of the CED continues to be debated in the field (see, for example, Kaplan, 2022; Tamir, 2019; Todorova, 2015). This notion of the CED's shortcomings is usually invoked with the aim of introducing alternative frameworks for the study of nationalism, such as liberal versus illiberal nationalism (Tamir, 2019) or distinguishing between national identity and national solidarity (Kaplan, 2022).…”

“…Contemporary scholars have also revitalised criticism of the CED (see Kaplan, 2022;Tamir, 2019;Todorova, 2015).…”

A transnational millet in the Jewish state: A Judeo‐Spanish diaspora between Israel and Turkey, 1948–1958

“…To some extent, this general account about non‐Muslim migrants reflects the experience of Turkish migrants to Israel during its nationalistic melting pot era (Kaplan, 2022). In the 1950s, Turkish migrants to Israel established several dedicated organisations to represent the community and to facilitate its ongoing migration processes, and the activities of such bodies were occasionally reported by the Ladino press.…”