[NOTE: This three-part series was inspired by the work of “Activating Hope” https://www.humannovations.net/activating-hope and the mission of United Suicide Survivors International https://unitesurvivors.org/ . Part 2 explores the impact of communal wounding on solidarity and Part 3 shares 5 steps in building solidarity in the suicide prevention movement.}
Defining Solidarity
Solidarity noun sol·i·dar·i·ty | \ ˌsä-lə-ˈder-ə-tē , -ˈda-rə- \. Unity (as of a group or class) that produces or is based on community of interests, objectives, and standards.
Merriam-Webster
“Any movement that hopes to sustain commitment over a period of time must make the construction of collective identity one of its most central tasks.” (Gamson, 1991, p. 27)
“Solidarity…holds great potential for understanding the transformative power…for social justice.” (Rogers & Calle Diaz, 2018, p.64)
When I attended my first national suicide prevention conference, I was recently bereaved by suicide and overwhelmed. I got to the registration desk and was asked to choose a “division” with which to identify — clinician, researcher, prevention or loss survivor. I checked all the boxes and then wondered “where are the people who have survived suicide attempts”? When I brought up this question to more experienced conference attendees, I was told, “suicide loss survivors and suicide attempt survivors don’t get along. It’s just too painful, and people are too vulnerable.”
What I know now is that many suicide attempt survivors were at the conference, although -- with just a handful of exceptions -- most were not “out” for fear of prejudice and discrimination. What was also not acknowledged at the time was that many people who publicly identified themselves as suicide loss survivors were also closeted suicide attempt survivors. To complicate matters further, at that time, we had totally left out of the conversation people who had thoughts and feelings about suicide but had not made an attempt as well as the friends, family and caregivers who had been significantly impacted by another person’s suicidal intensity. All of these people had stories to tell and passion to offer our movement — but had not been given a significant seat at the table.
The suicide prevention advocacy movement has suffered as a result of this historical fracturing. In recent efforts to bring groups to the table, we have not always spent the time to bridge groups but instead have found ourselves pointing fingers and creating divisions within the movement. Some of the legitimate anger expressed by disenfranchised groups is discounted by other groups in positions of power. People continue to feel misunderstood and excluded within these communities that are based in deeply personal experiences. Thus, the “collective identity” of the suicide prevention movement experiences on-going fissures, cracks and chasms.
Social justice experts studying the dynamics of collective identity share that such within-group conflicts can become barriers to our ability to serve a common mission, and may actually be a micro-representation of a cycle of oppression.
“Throughout the research it became central to understand the kind of challenges that arise from building a collective identity. It was found that so-called communities are often diverse ‘within’ not only in terms of marginalization but also in terms of ideologies; this hinders any strategic engagement in collectivizing under a common banner. These fissures within the communities and under-representation in positions of power, further deny…equitable opportunities to access entitlements, which reproduces the vicious cycle of marginalization.” Naryanan, et al, 2020, p. 64.
Solidarity in Social Movements
In spite of differences across the groups of suicide prevention and suicide crisis response, solidarity is needed to move the suicide prevention movement forward. We must ask ourselves what we mean by “solidarity,” and how can we achieve it when we are working through conflict between subgroups of our collective identity?
Solidarity is often at the heart of social movements. It’s the idea that while we may have come to the table through different doors, we can find new ways to sit side-by-side and be transformed by each other’s presence as we struggle together to solve the very daunting and complex issues suicide brings. Featherstone (2012) defines solidarity as a “transformative relation . . . forged through political struggle which seeks to challenge forms of oppression” and which works to create “new ways of relating. Rogers & Calle Díaz (2018) summarized five common characteristics of solidarity:
1. It promotes a common good;
2. It is shaped by belonging;
3. It can be voluntary or compulsory;
4. It may occur within an oppressed community against an oppressive system, or
5. it can serve as a way for a privileged community to stand up for those who are less privileged.” (p. 65).
Stages of the Suicide Prevention Social Movement
In the book “Society: The Basics” Macionis defines social movements as, ‘‘the transformation of culture and social institutions over time’’ (p. 451) and suggests that a social movement is ‘‘an organized activity that encourages or discourages social change’’ (p. 453). In our 2012 article, “Tracking a movement: U.S. milestones in suicide prevention,” Dr. Danielle Jahn and I applied Macionis’ model of social movements to the evolution of suicide prevention social movement. According to the model, social movements often evolve in four stages. The first stage is an initial energy sparked by people who have been directly impacted. Often these efforts are unorganized, local, and fueled by the passion connected to shared belief that something is not right.
At the second stage we start to see grassroots-level organizing, where local communities start to develop strategies and evolve in a coordinated way. Here we start seeing different groups “acting in solidarity,” which is different from “acting in unison” (McCrea et al 2017). Acting in unison occurs when members all have shared norms and culture; different from acting in solidarity where members with diverse norms and cultures consciously and profoundly choose to yield to the interests of the larger community. This “linking of arms” enables people to learn from one another and form bonds of care across groups.
The third stage of a social movement is a bureaucratization, which happens when the movement develops a higher-level organization with standards and broader policy strategies across systems like education, healthcare and work. At this stage the fruits of the hard work of solidarity are born, but the voices of the people in the groups are sometimes marginalized.
I noticed evidence for this third stage challenge as we stood up the National Action Alliance for Suicide Prevention in 2010. Here high-level leaders in healthcare, policy and government agencies were invited to the table, but the voices of people with lived experience were in some ways tokenized.
Finally, in the fourth stage a social movement begins to decline when the efforts of change have been fully integrated or have become irrelevant. The suicide prevention movement has a long way to go before achieving full integration and is as relevant as ever.
Over the past 15 years, there has been a growing awareness around the world that, as the suicide prevention movement evolves, all people with lived experience are needed. Suicide prevention efforts that have moved on to the second and third stages of the evolution must not leave behind the voices of people who have been there. This is crucial if we are going to keep the energy and relevance of the movement alive.
Levels of Engagement in the Social Change of Suicide Prevention
For all social movements, changes occur at various levels, and we can see evidence of how solidarity fuels this within the suicide prevention movement. On the individual level, internal changes such as attitudes, beliefs, aspirations, and motivations translate into external behavioral change.
Individual
For example, individuals immersed in the movement begin to examine their own biases about suicide and develop new behaviors such as sharing their story of surviving a suicide loss or living through a suicide attempt. Often, when those stories are shared, the storyteller receives validation and empathy from others who have experienced something similar, and the storyteller feels less alone. Through this individual change of behavior, the storyteller realizes they are part of a community.
Groups and Systems
Within groups, we begin to see changes in language and communication patterns. and social pressure to accept or reject collective perspectives. For instance, some workplaces are now making suicide prevention part of their health and safety priorities, and some faith communities are looking at ways to integrate suicide prevention into their religious programs and practices. At the heart of such system efforts are often groups of passionate people with lived experience with suicide.
I have witnessed many of these groups making efforts to be bold and do the right thing; and I have seen many of them start to express a sense of pride in their collective action. When people effectively open the doors for dialogue and support, the sense of solidarity takes hold. “We have your back” and “we are all in this together” can become contagious, and other groups start leaning in. A ripple effect of engagement across new groups is a common pattern after the first credible groups share hopeful experiences of change. Soon we see others who do not have lived experience inspired to be part of the effort as well – that is when we know we are approaching a tipping point through solidarity.
Solidarity in the Suicide Prevention Movement — A Call to Action
What has fueled the expansion of our social movement? In large part the spark was ignited by the science of Suicidology. Having quality research to debunk damaging myths and offer those suffering hope for healing has provided validation that change is possible. And I would argue that the passion and steadfastness of people with diverse forms of lived experience have accelerated that spark with emotional gasoline. Many are making meaning of difficult experiences by finding pathways to apply the “lessons learned” to help others.
That said, we’ve all blazed separate paths to the work of suicide prevention, and the paths of people with different forms of lived experience often have different origins and hurdles than those who got to the table via research and clinical pathways. Our diversity as a community is what makes our movement exciting — while it also threatens our experience of solidarity.
An additional challenge that the suicide prevention movement faces in its attempt to build solidarity across diverse groups is a lack of agreement on who the enemy is. The concept of solidarity usually assumes “shared opposition to a common, excluded enemy” (McCrea et al, 2017), and we are not always on the same page in naming the enemy. Is the enemy suicide? The psychosocial hazards that drive despair or prevent reaching out in this midst of it? Our draconian healthcare systems and policies? Or are the enemies those who hold prejudicial and discriminating beliefs about people who live with suicidal intensity?
As McCrea et al (2017) describe, solidarity is predicated on some basic foundations including:
A deep sense of interdependence
It’s not just that “we are in this together” but that we need each other. This interdependence is built over time as trust is fostered. Researchers, clinicians, advocates, public health professionals, and all people with lived experience –our reciprocal influence on one another makes us better.
Shared values and norms
Shared values and norms often emerge through collaborative endeavors and common historical experiences, which is why the American Association of Suicidology (AAS) and United Suicide Survivors International holds such promise for me. Diverse groups come together to learn from one another and partner on research, programs and advocacy work. For instance, the annual AAS conference brings us together and friendships are forged.
A sense of comradeship around a shared struggle
Even when the particular targets of the struggle shift from different vantage points, comradeship creates energy to persevere.
The work
Solidarity is built by acting in solidarity. This intentionality comes from creative ways we answer the question, “How do we find collaborative spaces to work respectfully with one another and strengthen our efforts?”
Thus, we have work to do in cultivating a sense of solidarity in the suicide prevention movement, and if we are successful, we will see even greater impact in saving lives and alleviating suffering. In the next two parts of this series on solidarity, we explore how communal wounding is impacting our sense of solidarity and how we can take steps to heal and intentionally act in solidarity.
References
Gamson, W. A. (1991). Commitment and agency in social movements. Sociological Forum, 6, 27–50.
Featherstone, D. (2012). Solidarity: Hidden Histories and Geographies of Internationalism. London: Zed Books.
Macionis, J. J. (2006). Society: The Basics. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
McCrea, Meade, R. & Shaw, M. (2017). Solidarity, organizing and tactics of resistance in the 21st century: social movements and community development praxis in dialogue. Community Development Journal, 52(3), pp. 385–404, https://doi.org/10.1093/cdj/bsx029
Naryanan, P., Mayana Sinha, D. & Bharadwaj, S. (2020). Participation, social accountability and intersecting inequalities: challenges for interventions to build collective identity with De-notified, Nomadic and Semi-Nomadic Tribal communities in India. Community Development Journal, 55(1), 64-82. https://doi.org/10.1093/cdj/bsz034
Rogers, R. & Calle Díaz, L. (2018). Exploring solidarity in teacher learning and activism for social justice, Journal of Curriculum, Teaching, Learning and Leadership in Education: 3(1), 64-71, Retrieved on March 20, 2020 from https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/ctlle/vol3/iss1/12
Spencer-Thomas, S. & Jahn, D. (2012). Tracking a movement: U.S. milestones in suicide prevention. Suicide and Life Threatening Behavior, 42(1), 78-85.
