Group solidarity requires that members are committed to solidarity norms. Addressing the question of how such commitments are socially produced, the starting point of this article is Lindenberg's Theory of Social Rationality and its notion of solidarity frames. These frames consist of solidarity as a goal of action and associated stocks of knowledge and moral feelings. TSR makes it clear that solidarity frames are fragile and precarious. They must be regularly recharged with motivational energy and symbols in order to prevail (...) over compet-ing motives. However, TSR cannot satisfactorily explain how this works. This shortcoming is addressed by Collins' Interaction Ritual Chains Theory. It is argued that solidarity frames are a potential outcome of interaction rituals and it is clarified under which conditions this can be expected. A distinction is made between three essential types of rituals: identity rituals, governance rituals, and exchange rituals. (shrink)

Although solidarity is a key issue in sociology, surprisingly little attention has been given to the question what constitutes solidarity from a sociological perspective. In this paper I suggest a concept of solidarity which might work as a general framework for theoretical and empirical investigations. The central idea is that solidarity norms make up the core of the concept. Solidarity norms demand from their addressees that they transfer resources without compensation either to a collective or to individuals. It is argued (...) that there are two levels of solidarity to be distinguished: (1) the level of social systems where solidarity is manifested in solidarity norms and (2) the level of individuals where solidarity is embedded in commitment to solidarity norms. I differentiate between four universal solidarity norms which can be found in associations on every level of social aggregation: norms of provision, of sharing, of supporting, and of loyalty. (shrink)