By Elias Weiss, CeSCoS Fellow and Pre-Doctoral Researcher on the GH-Solidarity Project
Solidarity has become a new buzzword in global health discourse, often invoked as a guiding principle for addressing inequalities and crises. Yet, as I reflected during the recent webinar, “Navigating Health and Solidarity: Refugee Perspectives and Practical Challenges,” I could not help but emphasise something we all recognise: solidarity risks becoming a convenient label to rebrand philanthropy—a concept that has fallen out of favour due to its association with tax-avoidance schemes and the unchecked influence of billionaires in shaping global health agendas.
As Linsey McGoey argues in No Such Thing as a Free Gift, philanthropy frequently functions as a mechanism for tax avoidance and a tool for consolidating power, allowing wealthy individuals to influence global health priorities in ways that may not align with the needs of marginalised communities. This critique underlines the need to scrutinise the motivations and impacts of philanthropic actions, particularly when these actions are rebranded under the guise of solidarity.
The rise of solidarity as a replacement term becomes troubling when it is used superficially, without addressing the structural issues that philanthropy has historically failed to resolve. As Barbara Prainsack noted during the webinar, solidarity is fundamentally different from charity: it is rooted in equality and a shared recognition of relevant similarities, not in the hierarchical relationship between giver and receiver.
However, solidarity can also be misused. As I highlighted during the session, “parasitical solidarity” is a real danger—where the visible performance of helping obscures ineffective or even harmful actions. This form of solidarity often serves the interests of those enacting it rather than the people it claims to support. It becomes a performative gesture that prioritises institutional optics over meaningful change. To ensure solidarity remains accountable, we must ask critical questions: Who decides? Who benefits? And what changes on the ground?
Thomas von der Osten-Sacken’s intervention brought these issues into sharp focus. Drawing on his decades of work and experience in conflict zones, he reminded us that refugees are not objects of charity—but individuals with rights, dignity, and agency. His critique of the "wrong concept of solidarity" in refugee settlements, where untrained volunteers are left to care for deeply traumatised individuals, underscores the need for a rights-based approach. Solidarity must center dignity and enable self-organisation, allowing refugees to contribute according to their skills and expertise.
This is where open communication as equals becomes crucial. As Thomas von der Osten-Sacken emphasised, safeguarding dignity requires involving the recipients of solidaristic practices in the process. Refugees, for example, should not be passive recipients of aid but active participants in crafting solutions. When we assume their needs and wants without consulting them, we risk perpetuating the very inequalities solidarity seeks to address.
Global health actors must take this lesson to heart. The best way to ensure solidarity is practised effectively is to involve the people it aims to support in every step of the process. This means listening to their voices, respecting their agency, and co-producing solutions that reflect their lived experiences. Solidarity cannot be imposed from the top down—it must be built collaboratively, with dignity as its cornerstone. As scientists and members of the Global Health Solidarity Project, we have a unique responsibility to uphold such principles of solidarity. As we aim to develop a "solidarity index" for actors in the global health arena, particularly funders, we must build the capability to discern between rhetorical use of solidarity, its outright misappropriation, and genuine solidaristic practices. This index would evaluate the extent to which solidarity practices are accountable, inclusive, and rights-based. It would serve as a tool to distinguish genuine solidarity from its parasitical counterpart, ensuring that the concept remains a disciplined and meaningful practice rather than a hollow buzzword.
Solidarity, when practiced authentically, has the power to transform global health and enable the emancipation of marginalised people. But to realise this potential, we must move beyond rebranding philanthropy and commit to open communication, accountability, and dignity. Let us not forget that solidarity is not just a principle—it is a practice that demands action, reflection, and collaboration. To truly harness the emancipatory power of solidarity, we call on the global health community to join us in fostering practices rooted in accountability, inclusivity, and dignity, ensuring that solidarity becomes a shared commitment and collective action.
- Watch Elias Weiss’ Presentation at the Global Health Solidarity Webinar here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBT295pSgTo&t
- Watch the Conceptualisations of Solidarity Segment here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gci9eykNMGo
- Watch the conversation with Thomas von der Osten-Sacken here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lF3Fw7uZLw