What we have learnt about solidarity during the pandemic also applies to other current crises, say medical ethicists Mark Schweda and Niklas Ellerich-Groppe. Their new podcast sheds light on yesterday, today and tomorrow.
Two and a half years after the start of the pandemic, Covid-19 is no longer a dominant topic and hardly anyone is talking about solidarity - are they?
Schweda: This observation falls short. The pandemic may have overshadowed other crises, such as the war in Ukraine and the associated energy crisis. In all of these crises, however, there is a lot of vehement talk about solidarity - and that is also one of the findings of our research: Solidarity is a crisis concept that is invoked to conjure up social cohesion that cannot be commanded or ordered.
Ellerich-Groppe: The fact that the public perception of the pandemic has somewhat diminished does not mean that the intense debate about intergenerational conflicts and solidarity in this context is over. It existed before the pandemic, for example when young people in the Fridays for Future movement blamed older generations for environmental damage, and it continues to exist when the consequences of the pandemic and, for example, the debt brake are discussed from the perspective of different generations. The pandemic has shown us something very fundamental: When we talk about crises, it is worth considering the generational dimension. Only then are we in a position to fully understand the problems, including their cause in the past and their effect on the future.
Does this mean that your research findings on intergenerational solidarity during the Covid-19 pandemic can also be applied to other crises?
Schweda: That is the aim. We wanted to learn from the conflicts during the pandemic as an example. The discussions about solidarity in different crises are not completely separate from one another. They are set off against each other: Who showed solidarity during the pandemic and therefore deserves solidarity now? During the first lockdown, for example, young people were made responsible under the motto "stay home for grandma" out of solidarity with the older generation. Over the past year, we have become increasingly aware of the individual psychological consequences of the lockdown measures for this group. Of course, this is in people's minds when there is now talk of restricting school operations in order to save on heating costs, because the same group would once again be the victims of a crisis.
Ellerich-Groppe: The media play-off between the generations can also be observed again now. Who is most likely to do without heat? Which generation is responsible for the current situation through its political decisions? The pandemic has once again shown us one thing: That we were at our best when we pulled together - without forgetting that different generations have different needs and bring different ways of showing solidarity.
What have you learnt about the dynamics of solidarity?
Schweda: In our work, we took a close look at the public media discourse from the beginning of the pandemic until mid-2021 and analysed a wide range of different print media. Media representation plays a major role in solidarity. The polarisation, the pitting of generations against each other, was strongly staged there. There is a danger that the media discourse will create contrasts that the population doesn't even realise are there, because economic differences, for example, play a greater role in the individual situation during the crisis than membership of a particular generation. After all, it makes a difference whether I experience the lockdown in a 300-square-metre suburban villa with a garden or in a two-room flat with four siblings and arguing parents.
Ellerich-Groppe: Solidarity works particularly well in crises if and as long as we have the feeling that we are affected together. But this is also the limit of solidarity: the willingness and ability to show solidarity decreases when our own problems increase. Resources are limited and anyone who suddenly has to juggle a job and homeschooling over a long period of time during the pandemic, for example, may lose their willingness to show solidarity. Solidarity largely depends on us understanding something as our common goal.
Schweda: However, this goal must be in reasonable proportion to the burdens that are demanded to realise it. If citizens get the feeling that they are only being asked to show solidarity because they have failed to find viable political solutions in good time, their willingness to show solidarity will quickly disappear. Solidarity is a scarce resource that is not infinitely available.
This and other research findings from the previous project are now being channelled into a podcast aimed at citizens. Why a podcast?
Schweda: This is due to the subject matter of the project itself. After all, we looked at public discourse and not only want to publish our findings in the specialist literature, but also bring them directly to the people. In particular, we want to bring a factual, differentiated perspective to an often unclear discourse. In addition, the pandemic has made us realise that science communication is incredibly important. Trust in science has increased, but there is a lot of uncertainty about how science works, why scientists say different things or change their views over time. That's why we want to use this format to make our work transparent and understandable.
Ellerich-Groppe: The challenge here is to convey content as comprehensively as possible from a scientific perspective on the one hand and to reach people with understandable and practical information on the other. This is sometimes contradictory. That's why we have the support of an editor who has organised and produced the podcast.
Who has their say?
Schweda: On the one hand, of course, we have many researchers on board, authoritative voices from German solidarity research such as the Chair of the German Ethics Council, Prof Dr Alena Buyx, or the solidarity researcher Prof Dr Barbara Prainsack from Vienna. However, non-academics also have their say, for example residents of a care home or Fridays for Future supporters.
Ellerich-Groppe: And it is precisely these different perspectives, in which potential for conflict but also commonalities become clear, that can create the basis for a new or stronger solidarity between the generations in the coming crises. Without the exchange and productive resolution of conflicts, it is hardly possible to become aware of the common goal. And perhaps our podcast can also make a small contribution to this.
Interview: Sonja Niemann
