Building solidarity during COVID-19 and HIV/AIDS

While the WHO, public health experts, and political leaders have referenced solidarity as an important part of our responses to COVID-19, I consider how we build solidarity during pandemics in order to improve the effectiveness of our responses. I use Prainsack and Buyx's definition of solidarity, which highlights three different tiers: (1) interpersonal solidarity, (2) group solidarity, and (3) institutional solidarity. Each tier of solidarity importantly depends on the actions and norms established at the lower tiers. Although empathy and solidarity are distinct moral concepts, I argue that the affective component of solidarity is important for motivating solidaristic action, and empathetic accounts of solidarity help us understand how we actually build solidarity from tier to tier. During pandemics, public health responses draw on different tiers of solidarity depending on the nature, scope, and timeline of the pandemic. Therefore, I analyze both COVID-19 and HIV/AIDS using this framework to learn lessons about how solidarity can more effectively contribute to our ongoing public health responses during pandemics. Whereas we used institutional solidarity during COVID-19 in a top-down approach to building solidarity that often overlooked interpersonal and group solidarity, we used those lower tiers during HIV/AIDS in a bottom-up approach because governments and public health institutions were initially unresponsive to the crisis. Thus, we need to ensure that we have a strong foundation of respect, trust, and so forth, on which to build solidarity from tier to tier and promote whichever tiers of solidarity are lacking during a given pandemic to improve our responses.