dc.description.abstract | Solidarity and citizenship are intertwined in a very complex manner, where the former
usually operates as the “social glue” for the latter, holding together its formal components such as rights, duties, and membership criteria. The “we” that sets the parameters
for membership and equality is not only legally defined but also discursively produced
and maintained. Here, the rhetoric of solidarity plays an important yet ambiguous role,
as it can advocate for interdependence and full inclusion while at the same time
solidifying the exclusionary “we.” The aim of this article is to show how solidarity
reasoning—the question of with whom we should be solidary and why—plays a functional role in maintaining citizenship agendas, and how this reasoning changes to support and enable shifts in these agendas. The dominant solidarity narratives that have
supported prevailing citizenship agendas in Serbia (and across the post-Yugoslav
space) over the last couple of decades will be discussed, as will counter-narratives that
have served to destabilize hegemonic agendas by envisioning citizenship communities
differently. Today, the ambiguous role solidarity can play within a citizenship agenda
becomes especially obvious in neoliberal regimes, where, as I will show in the case of
contemporary Serbia, calls for solidarity can be deployed to foster very distinct, arguably mutually opposing, kinds of political subjectivities and citizen activism. | en |