How is the Shoah addressed in museums? How do museums extend the commemoration of this singular rupture in the history of humankind to other genocides? What can be understood as the universalization of the Shoah, and what consequences need to be drawn from it when it comes to the question of solidarity? On December 12, Dr. Leora Auslander and Dr. Mirjam Wenzel explored these questions and more at the Goethe Institut Chicago.

After the end of World War II, European nations promoted European unification as a “peace project.” What remained largely ignored was the obligation resulting from the colonial past of countries like Germany, France, and Great Britain. What kind of solidarity can be expected from the descendants of the colonizers – and those who were colonized? With its legacy of slavery, similar questions came to the forefront in the context of Black Lives Matter: Is there an obligation for white majority society to show solidarity to the descendants of enslaved people?

On November 22, at the Goethe-Institut Washington, Dr. Emily Marker and Dr. Monica van der Haagen-Wulff discussed the significance of historical injustices today – and how this plays out in the complex political environment we live in. The conversation was moderated by Dr. Steven E. Sokol, President and CEO of the American Council on Germany.

In cases where strong social cohesion is the result of proximity, common interests, and shared identity, solidarity is not a problem. Naturally, societies with higher levels of social cohesion are healthier and more resilient to external shocks. However, not all societies have strong social cohesion. How can we promote greater resilience in society? There is also an inherent tension between living for oneself and living for others. In this edition in the Double Exposure series with the American Council on Germany adn the Goethe Institut, Dr. Clara van den Berg (Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin, WZB) and Dr. Leah Gose (USC Dornsife’s Equity Research Institute) discussed the differences between community and society when it comes to solidarity, resilience, and social cohesion.

Today's societies are characterized by a high degree of diversity and complexity. Cultural, ethnic, religious, and linguistic differences can make social cohesion difficult. Against this backdrop, political and public institutions can foster solidarity across social groups. How do these different interest groups interact with public and political institutions? As polarization and populism reshape the political arena, understanding the role of interest politics is critical. Independent courts, political parties, and a free press can play a critical role in this regard.

On November 25 at the American Council on Germany, Dr. Delia Baldassarri and Dr. Jan-Werner Müller explored the forces promoting and disrupting social cohesion in today’s complex environment.

What unites individuals to engage in political struggles across geographical, social, religious, and political divides and perceived boundaries? How do solidarity movements challenge the interests and positions of powerful states and systems, both past and present? Solidarity work between minority groups and communities has fluctuated throughout history with common efforts and transnational solidarity has been integral to change and progress. However, international solidarities and their ideological differences have evolved overtime.

On October 28 at the American Council on Germany, moral philosopher Susan Neiman and scholar Keidrick Roy, discussed the intersection of politics, ethnicity, race, and solidarity in today’s complex world. What is political solidarity? How is political solidarity shaped by race, religion, and ethnicity? If there is no shared vision for the future, is collective solidarity hopeless? Together, they will explore how collective memory and history influences our political landscape and the challenges of encouraging solidarity across racial, ethnic, and ideological divides.

Showing solidarity with another one’s cause can build ties between different groups in society. But solidarity is also very demanding, it requires not only to view the cause as legitimate but also as worthy. A less demanding solution is provided through political compromise. Compromise also requires to regard the other side as a legitimate representative, but one does not need to make a common cause out of it. The different sides can still disagree about the best solution to the given issue, but they respect each other views and act in the strong believe that striking a compromise between the different views, even though this means loss on both sides, is better than no compromise. But how can societies in such heated environments as we find them today create an atmosphere of mutual respect and legitimacy of the other side’s cause?

On October 26 at the Goethe-Institut Chicago, Pola Lehmann and Johannes Gerschewski explored the value of compromise in democratic societies. Is there empirical evidence that political debates are becoming increasingly heated and polarized? What can we do to counteract this, and what are the limits of compromise?

"We hold these truth to be self evident, that all men are created equal". So begins the US Declaration of Independence. "Human Dignity is inviolable". So begins the German Basic Law. Can we still stand by the universalist humanism that's expressed in these statements? Or is the tradition of enlightenment universalism that they embody - based as it is in Kant's thinking - the expression of colonial Eurocentrism that crushes identities and enables injustice?

On September 25, the American Council on Germany and the Goethe Institut New York hosted a discussion with Omri Boehm, Associate Professor of Philosophy at The New School for Social Research.