Advertisement

Individualising Solidarities

  • Liz McFallEmail author
Chapter
  • 10 Downloads

Abstract

Recent European welfare reforms have reconfigured solidarity in an individualised mode, a mode where an individual’s characteristics, lifestyle and history are to be taken into account in service allocation. Through most of the twentieth century solidarity worked across much of Europe as a means of defining the context, limits and justification of state intervention and the conceptual grounds for social legislation designed to absorb the greater risks faced by certain members of society. By the 1990s, this had shifted as the basic human desires for decent housing, healthcare, education and security began to be cast as a matter of individual market-based choices not solidaristic social policies. This was a context primed for ‘big tech solutionism’ and the claim that data analyses on intimate and super-massive, dynamic and historical scales would provide a new way of addressing stubborn, difficult and expensive societal problems.

References

  1. Baldwin, P. (1990). The politics of social solidarity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bayertz, K. (Ed.). (1999). Solidarity. London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  3. Dencik, L., Redden, J., Hintz, A., & Warne, H. (2019). The ‘golden view’: Data-driven governance in the scoring society. Internet Policy Review, 8(2). http://doi.org/10.14763/2019.2.1413.
  4. Donzelot, J. (1988). The promotion of the social. Economy and Society, 17(3), 395–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Eubanks, V. (2018). Automating inequality: How high-tech tools profile, police, and punish the poor. New York: St Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
  6. Ewald, F. (1991). Insurance and risk. In G. Burchell, C. Gordon, & P. Miller (Eds.), The Foucault effect: Studies in governmentality (pp. 196–210). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  7. Mayer-Schönberger, V., & Cukier, K. (2013). Big data: A revolution that will transform how we live, work, and think. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.Google Scholar
  8. McFall, L. (2019). Personalizing solidarity? The role of self-tracking in health insurance pricing. Economy and Society, 1–25. http://doi.org/10.1080/03085147.2019.1570707.
  9. Morozov, E. (2013). To save everything, click here: The folly of technological solutionism. New York: Public Affairs.Google Scholar
  10. O’Malley, P. (1996). Risk and responsibility. In A. Barry, T. Osborne, & N. Rose (Eds.), Foucault and political reason (pp. 189–208). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  11. Prainsack, B., & Buyx, A. (2017). Solidarity in biomedicine and beyond. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. United Nations Special Rapporteur (UNSR). (2019). Report of the Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights on his visit to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland United Nations General Assembly (A/HRC/41/39/Add.1).Google Scholar
  13. Vargha, Z. (2017). Performing a strategy’s world: How redesigning customers made relationship banking possible. Long Range Planning, 1–15. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2017.03.003.

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of EdinburghEdinburghUK

Personalised recommendations