Professional Help and Solidarity

Siegfried Kracauer's Differentiating Approach to Friendship

“…Sometimes it is all of the above, 83 at other times no specific actors are discernible 84 ; (2) the Aristotelean notion of philia, a mainstay as a springboard for discussion, 85 even when narrowed to philia politike, is problematic because (a) philia has such an extensive semantic scope that it is able to include any kind of relationship of good will and (b) because it only pertained to the male elite of the Greek city states. 86 Philia politike can thus only be marshalled in modern context at the price of ahistoricism unless extraordinary circumspection is exercised in its transfer to modern social relations. 87 (3) A prevalent jettisoning of intimate friendshipprivate, personal, and self-orientedmay be accompanied by its misconceived devaluation as somehow hermetically sealed in the private sphere.…”

Human Rights, Transnational Solidarity, and Duties to the Global Poor

“…The indignation at human-rights violations in geographically distant and culturally foreign parts of the world would have had no consequences and would not have even materialized at all without the often cynical, selective, and cold gaze of the mass media. 33 Thus, the global expansion of media and technology make possible the expansion of the communicative networks through which NGOs and global social movements act. Brunkhorst views this type of political activity, which is part of the development of transnational civil society, as the beginning of a "globalization of civic solidarity."…”

“…Brunkhorst rightly views this as also generating communicative power. 35 Following Habermas, he argues that communicative power is found in the "spontaneous flow of communication" that exists within those public spheres that are not oriented toward decision-making, but toward discovering, thematizing, and solving problems. 36 Like Calhoun, Brunkhorst ties this conception to Arendt in arguing that communicative power is basically "the power to change the world through political action."…”

“…36 Like Calhoun, Brunkhorst ties this conception to Arendt in arguing that communicative power is basically "the power to change the world through political action." 37 It is in this sense that we can view the politics of human rights in terms of common political action that, though it may include elements of the reactive character of moral indignation, is not limited to it and has potential to generate more active solidarity as well. Thus, we have to focus not merely on worldwide affective responses, but on the on-going political project of constructing global publics that forms the backdrop that enables and encourages those responses.…”

“…He claims that when NGOs speak the "language of human rights" they rely on the gains that have been made in international law in the last 50 years toward making human rights valid as global law, but also rely on the "broad lifeworld background of a global 'human rights culture.'" 41 Moreover, he argues that the "human-rights culture forms the 'normative common ground' on which the 'different legal cultures' of the global society reach an agreement below the threshold of legislative elaboration and legal concretization." 42 Brunkhorst is certainly right to point to the level below the threshold of institutionalized discourse to identify the locus for a developing human rights culture.…”