Structural racism is still a severe problem in the United States and other countries globally. Overcoming it requires recognizing the racial differences, barriers, and challenges posed by stereopsis, discrimination, and bias towards black people. To this end, people must form a common idea that unites them around the goal of overcoming inequality and motivates them to take action. This idea is often defined as “black solidarity”, which originated as a concept to unite people against racial oppression, discriminating politics, and a way to support black people (Muhammad, 2019). For example, on the first Black Solidarity Day, black people were asked to stay at home, not go to work or shops, to draw attention to the inequality of rights (Muhammad, 2019).
However, the characteristic that underlies solidarity is different depending on the view of the author who offers it. Shelby (2002), in his book, defined such a characteristic, which both formed the basis of many scientific and sociological theories, and has caused much criticism. However, the theoretical rationale and practical implementation of Shelby’s concept of black solidarity based on common oppression against racism demonstrates that this idea is effective and relevant in the current realities.
One of the issues that Shelby reveals is group solidarity. The author distinguishes some of the features that characterize the community as having group solidarity, and these features should be at the core of black solidarity. First, according to Shelby (2002), group members must identify themselves within the group by some fundamental characteristic as a whole. In other words, the group members must have a common defining trait, be it race, ethnicity, gender, or other specific traits, to have a basis for solidarity. Second, group members must share the values and goals that drive their community (Shelby, 2002).
These values can be such as respect for human rights, equality, and justice, and the goal is to establish these values in society. For example, in retrospect, the goals of black people were to abolish slavery and segregation, and the purpose of suffragists was to gain the right to vote and participate in political life.
Thirdly, an essential aspect of solidarity is the loyalty of the members to the values, goals, and principles of the group. Members must have faith in the ideals of the group and be willing to make an effort to accomplish tasks or commitments. This faith and loyalty are vital, as it determines the group members’ trust and their unity in the face of difficulties. In addition, dedication also usually manifests itself in the juxtaposition of “us” and “them”, which fosters a sense of community but does not always mean confrontation or conflict (Shelby, 2002). For example, LGBTQ + people understand their differences and the difficulties they face in the fight against discrimination; however, they strive for equality but not domination over straight people.
Finally, group solidarity is based on the mutual trust of its members (Shelby, 2002). Trust is fundamental to collaboration that enables the group to achieve its goals, as well as motivates participants to act and express support for their group and its members. People need to be confident that they can get help in the struggle for common goals. Consequently, these features are crucial for group solidarity as they form the basis for effective interaction between people.
By defining these characteristics, the author leads to a revealing of the central element and the value that should underlie black solidarity. According to Shelby, this characteristic and value should be common oppression by racism but not a collective identity. One of the central arguments for this choice is that collective identity based on thin identity will not be effective in the post-civil rights era. Thin identity in this context means the characterization of people according to their specific external characteristics, biology, or inheritance (Shelby, 2002). However, the author believes that the diversity of political views requires the ability for people to identify themselves in any possible way.
In other words, as Lawson (2006) points out, Shelby is arguing that all black people, regardless of whether they consider themselves “raceless” or “raced” can unite under black solidarity to oppose racism. Consequently, collective identity in this context is an ineffective and limiting foundation, since it is based on the inclusion of people in the group, depending on their self-identification with the black race.
Furthermore, Shelby’s second argument in favor of common oppression is the participation of non-black people in opposing racism. Black identity before the abolition of slavery and segregation was an appropriate concept, since, during this historical period, the privileges of white people were opposed to blacks, who were identified by skin color and inheritance (Shelby, 2002). However, in modern America, the legislation ensures civil rights and equality for all residents, and it is not only black people who are involved in the fight against racial discrimination.
Moreover, the fight against racism requires collective systemic change, which can only be ensured by the joint work of people of all races and ethnicities. Consequently, Shelby (2002) notes that the collective identity of blacks limits the participation of other citizens in the fight against racism. For example, some people still believe that the solution to black people’s problems should be left to blacks (Lawson, 2006).
However, common oppression is a more effective basis for black solidarity, since it is more understandable and universal for people. In other words, the fundamental characteristic of solidarity, in this case, is the desire to combat racism, and its values are liberality, equality, justice, and freedom. At the same time, other political positions or external characteristics do not restrict people, which makes the solidarity and movement stronger.
I agree with most of Shelby’s ideas for several reasons. First, Shelby (2002) argues that race should have less influence on the lives of black people. While this idea may seem contradictory to the concept of black solidarity, it is, in fact, the core of it. If people unite to fight racism, eventually, the race will not matter in society because bias, stereotypes, and inequality will disappear. However, if one uses the idea of a black identity based on appearance, heritage, or identification with the black race, they, most likely, preserve an attitude of difference and superiority. Thus, a globalized world in which origin does not matter in social interactions is unlikely.
At the same time, the concept of common oppression is universal for other societies; for example, Thompson (2019) expresses similar ideas about black solidarity in France based on the experience of anti-blackness. In addition, while Shelby discusses the concept in the context of black discrimination, the common oppression can unite people in the fight against discrimination in any racial or ethnic group.
Moreover, the anti-racist movements demonstrate that Shelby’s idea of the common oppression as the basis of black solidarity is effective. Marin (2017) argues that the experience of racial oppression is not enough to build solidarity, since it does not take into account economic and social factors and, hence, mix racial and social inequality. These ideas may be relevant because not all black people face the same manifestation of racism, and some types of discrimination may refer not only to racial characteristics but also gender, social, and financial status. However, practice and actual events show different ideas and results, since racism has the more significant influence on most black people’s lives.
The Black Life Matters movement can be traced back to decades, but the peak of the protests came in 2020 when thousands of people took to the streets (Merseth, 2018). Not only black people participated in the movement, but representatives of all racial groups who opposed discrimination and police brutality against black people. Moreover, back in 2016, Asian Americans organized protests and raised this topic to support black people. In general, according to the research of Merseth (2018), Asian Americans are more likely to support Black Life Matters if they have race-based considerations. Consequently, the idea that common oppression and opposition against racism is unifying for black solidarity is evident in the nationwide movement Black Lives Matter.
In conclusion, Shelby’s idea of common oppression as the basis for black solidarity is appropriate and relevant to the modern world. This idea is unifying for black people regardless of political ideas, appearance, or background as it has a strong value in core to fight against injustice. This idea also allows society to more effectively deal with problems related to racism as non-black people contribute their efforts against racial injustice. In addition, despite criticism by other authors, black solidarity based on common oppression demonstrates effectiveness in practice. Consequently, Shelby’s ideas are relevant and effective in the context of people’s social interactions in the United States and the world.
References
Lawson, B.R. (2006). We who are dark: The philosophical foundations of black solidarity. Notre Dame Philosophical Review. Web.
Marin, M. (2017). Racial structural solidarity. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 21(5), 586-600. Web.
Merseth, J.L. (2018) Race-ing solidarity: Asian Americans and support for Black Lives Matter. Politics, Groups, and Identities, 6(3), 337-356. Web.
Muhammad, A.J. (2019). Black Solidarity Day turns 50. New York Public Library. Web.
Shelby, T. (2002). Foundations of black solidarity: Collective identity or common opression? Ethics, 112(2), 231-266.
Thompson, V.E. (2019). “We have to act. That is what forms collectivity”: Black solidarity beyond identity in contemporary Paris. In F.E. Garrido, C. Koegler, D. Nyangulu, and M.U. Stein, Locating African European Studies. Oxfordshire, UK: Routledge.