In this paper, we examine how our notion of solidarity is utilized, according to the circumstances of our communities. Through an observation of how solidarity was called forth during the Covid-19 pandemic and an analysis of how the term is used in immigrant discourse, our research will show that the definition of the term solidarity changes and that throughout the history of philosophical thought it can be understood in various ways. However, we seem to treat it as if it is based on something concrete such as national belonging, shared history, same language, and the like. While this may be true, the wielding of the concept of solidarity is so much more complex and nebulous than the ideas, with which it was built upon.

In this paper, we present how solidarity was a buzzword during the pandemic, but there are several ways with which it can be interpreted both in words and in deeds. In migration studies, solidarity undergoes alterations because of shifting spaces, loyalties, and experiences. We will use the theoretical framework of Rahel Jaeggi in her work on this theme but we will peruse the works of other philosophers as well to show solidarity is an ethical concept, not just a political one. From Durkheim to Honneth, we will show novel ways with which we can have a deeper appreciation of the term. Jaeggi herself was influenced by Durkheim as she applies the idea of solidarity in the debate on welfarism and the healthcare system.  Examples of how Japan called for solidarity during the pandemic and how the Filipino concept of bayanihan is used when they move abroad grounds these discusssions.

Our usual notions of solidarity as a moral sentiment is founded on belongingness to a community is not as straightforward as we think. The phenomena of immigration and the pandemic has weakened this argument but there is a more expansive perspective which enriches the discourse on solidarity.

http://dx.doi.org/10.6667/interface.24.2024.230

This work joins the discourse on whether or not Murakami is a “pure”
Japanese writer. However, it attempts to analyze the problem using a philosophical
lens instead of a literary one. Using the concept of basso ostinato as articulated by
Maruyama Masao and further emphasized by the thoughts of Kato Shuichi, this
article attempts to pose a new way of looking at this question.

In everyday discourses concerning Japanese philosophy, its political aspects are rarely brought to light. It is usually the aesthetic and ethical philosophical traditions that are discussed, especially by Western academics. This may be the reason why a more thorough discussion of Japanese thought and behavior during World War II is seemingly inadequate despite the number of philosophers who already study it. In countries such as the Philippines, China, or Korea where the Japanese occupation remains a politically charged subject, an analysis of Japanese philosophy may provide a more robust understanding of the war experience. In this regard, the philosophical approach and political thought of Maruyama Masao remain relevant. In this paper, I discuss the two distinct ways in which his philosophy may prove essential in contextualizing Japanese philosophy in relation to the war and beyond it, that is, as a critical assessor of his country’s past and as a political realist with a cosmopolitan approach. These two ways are grounded in his discussion of autonomous subjectivity

This paper explores the limitations and possibilities of Habermas’ critical social theory and discourse ethics by utilizing the analyses of two of his former students, Nancy Fraser and Seyla Benhabib. Fraser shows us the limitations of Habermas’ position because it fails to take into consideration the female perspective and contribution to the labor force. This raises the question of migration within the gender framework. On the other hand, Benhabib argues for the potential of Habermas’ philosophy by reminding us of its universalist stance.

In this paper, we draw the profile of a citizen who possesses both a pragmatic spirit and a cosmopolitan élan; a citizen who – following the modern notions of a moral and political agent – is a rational and autonomous individual. This citizen is an immigrant. We start by showing that the immigrant, whether driven to move by economic or political need, is potentially an engaged and active citizen. Drawing upon John Rawls’ individualist notion of the self as well as upon the Communitarian concept of the individual, this paper presents the contemporary philosophical notions of who an ideal citizen is in this global or cosmopolitan era. With the help of Seyla Benhabib’s position on immigration and her analysis of the scarf affair in France, we argue for the political potential of immigrants and how this potential enriches our notion of citizenship. We contend that a more cosmopolitan approach leads to a creative and more flexible notion of citizenship.

Keywords: citizenship; migration; immigration; political agency; democracy; cosmopolitanism