Nila Kartika Wati
In the contemporary landscape of American social movements, a recurring pattern has emerged: the "burst of solidarity." These are moments of intense, collective action catalyzed by specific instances of injustice, state violence, or humanitarian crises. From the 2020 racial justice uprisings to the more recent nationwide mobilizations for Middle East ceasefire resolutions, the United States has witnessed an unprecedented level of mobilization. However, as the initial urgency of these crises recedes, organizations often find that the connective tissue between disparate groups begins to fray. To move beyond these episodic responses, civil society leaders are now advocating for a "transformative solidarity" supported by a permanent, well-funded infrastructure designed to sustain movements through the long arc of social change.
The Building Movement Project (BMP), a national organization focused on the nonprofit sector’s role in social change, posits that the current reliance on short-term "scaffolding"—temporary structures built for a specific campaign—must be replaced or supplemented by "durable structures." This shift is seen as essential for a multiracial and equitable democracy, particularly as the political environment becomes increasingly polarized and the challenges facing vulnerable communities grow more complex.
The Chronology of Episodic Solidarity (2001–2024)
The trajectory of modern solidarity in the United States can be traced through several defining "movement moments" that have tested the capacity of the nonprofit and philanthropic sectors. Following the events of September 11, 2001, organizations representing Arab, Middle Eastern, Muslim, and South Asian (AMEMSA) communities faced heightened profiling and hate violence. While initial support was high, it took decades for the advocacy for redress and repair legislation to gain significant traction in Congress, highlighting the gap between immediate reaction and long-term systemic change.
In 2020, the murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis and Breonna Taylor in Louisville sparked what many historians consider the largest protest movement in U.S. history. In Minneapolis, the response was characterized by a rapid alignment of immigrant rights groups, mutual aid networks, and racial justice organizers. However, as the "defund" and "reform" debates grew more contentious and national media attention shifted, local organizations were left to manage the long-term trauma and structural needs of their communities with dwindling resources.
By 2023 and early 2024, the cycle repeated with the emergence of local efforts nationwide to push for ceasefire resolutions regarding the conflict in Gaza. Over 100 U.S. cities passed such resolutions, driven by a broad coalition of labor unions, religious groups, and youth-led organizations. While these moments demonstrate the power of rapid mobilization, they also expose a systemic weakness: when a new crisis emerges, such as the environmental disasters seen in the Los Angeles wildfires or shifts in federal immigration enforcement, organizers often find themselves "starting from scratch" to build the relationships and protocols necessary for a coordinated response.
Defining the Six Practices of Transformative Solidarity
Transformative solidarity is distinguished from episodic solidarity by its focus on material shifts rather than purely symbolic gestures. According to BMP’s framework, which draws from Black, Indigenous, labor, and queer transnational traditions, this practice is built upon six identifiable pillars:
- Deep Analysis: Developing a shared understanding of how different forms of oppression—such as anti-Blackness, xenophobia, and economic exploitation—are interconnected.
- Accountability: Prioritizing the leadership and strategic wisdom of those most directly impacted by injustice.
- Redistribution: Taking calculated risks to reallocate power, funding, and social capital to marginalized groups.
- Interdependence: Operating from the foundational belief that the liberation of one group is inextricably bound to the liberation of all others.
- Conflict Transformation: Navigating the inevitable tensions and harms that arise within coalitions through generative repair rather than abandonment.
- Coordinated Action: Moving beyond individual organizational agendas to engage in unified strategy and collective mobilization.
For these practices to take root, a material shift must occur. At the individual level, this might involve a change in perspective regarding asylum rights after engaging with Black immigrant narratives. At the systemic level, it manifests as the passage of legislation or the fundamental restructuring of institutional values.
The Four Pillars of Solidarity Infrastructure
The Building Movement Project argues that the transition from a "spark" of outrage to a "sustained flame" of change requires intentional investment in four interconnected arenas: Skills and Capacities, Intentional Spaces, Scaffolding, and Durable Structures.
1. Skills and Capacities
The "mechanics" of solidarity require specific professional and interpersonal skills. Movement leaders identify trust-building, strategic scenario planning, and consensus-building as critical needs. Furthermore, the ability to analyze historical policy patterns and dismantle "wedge narratives"—which pit different marginalized communities against one another—is essential for maintaining coalition unity under political pressure.
2. Intentional Spaces
Solidarity cannot be built in a vacuum. It requires physical and digital "containers" where organizers can align their visions. This includes strategy sessions for geographic coordination, political education workshops, and healing circles. These spaces allow for the "quiet work" of movement building that often occurs out of the public eye but serves as the foundation for public-facing action.
3. Scaffolding for Rapid Response
In times of crisis, organizations need "network weavers" and coordinated response systems. Scaffolding refers to the temporary frameworks that allow disparate groups to locate themselves within a broader ecosystem. This involves skilled facilitation and "strategic sensemaking," helping groups understand the political context of a crisis as it unfolds so they can respond with clarity rather than confusion.
4. Durable Structures and Governance
To endure beyond a single campaign, movements require formal agreements. This includes decision-making protocols, resource-sharing agreements, and explicit accountability frameworks. For instance, establishing a "conflict transformation agreement" ensures that when tensions arise between coalition members, there is a pre-approved process for mediation and healing justice rather than a total breakdown of the partnership.
Supporting Data and the Philanthropic Gap
The call for infrastructure comes amid a period of shifting philanthropic trends. While many foundations pledged significant funds toward racial equity in 2020, data suggests that much of this funding was one-time or project-based. According to a report by the Philanthropic Initiative for Racial Equity, while grantmaking for racial equity increased, it still represents a fraction of total philanthropic giving, and "infrastructure" or "general operating" support remains elusive for many grassroots coalitions.
Philanthropic institutions are being urged to move away from evaluating solidarity based on short-term deliverables like "number of attendees at a rally" or "social media impressions." Instead, experts suggest that funders should invest in the "long-term health" of the ecosystem. This includes funding for:
- Multi-year general operating support for coalitions.
- Security and digital safety for movement leaders.
- Cross-movement learning exchanges and retreats.
- The development of shared technology and communication platforms.
When these investments are not sustained, the "overhead myth"—the idea that spending on administration and infrastructure is wasteful—severely hampers the ability of organizations to respond to the next crisis. Without permanent staff dedicated to "network weaving," the institutional memory of a movement is lost every time a specific campaign ends.
Analysis of Implications: Solidarity as a Civic Strategy
The implications of failing to build this infrastructure extend beyond the nonprofit sector; they touch the core of democratic stability. In a political environment characterized by heightened scrutiny and the targeting of social change organizations, solidarity is increasingly viewed not just as a moral choice, but as a survival and civic strategy.
If organizations operate in silos, they are more vulnerable to systemic efforts to divide them. Conversely, when solidarity is embedded into the everyday systems of civil society, it creates a "resilience network" capable of defending democratic institutions. The practice of solidarity fosters empathy and shared responsibility, which are necessary precursors to robust civic participation, including voting and advocacy.
The current landscape suggests that if the nonprofit sector does not intentionally choose to fund and staff these solidarity practices, the norm will remain one of "crisis response." In this scenario, communities remain fragmented, and the values of equity and justice become "negotiable" under political or economic pressure.
Conclusion
The transition from episodic solidarity to a transformative, infrastructure-based model represents a maturation of the American social justice movement. By moving beyond the "bursts" of activity sparked by tragedy, and instead focusing on the rigorous work of building skills, spaces, and durable structures, the sector can ensure that movement moments lead to lasting systemic change. This approach requires a fundamental shift in how time, money, and human labor are allocated, placing the "scaffolding" of the movement at the center of the strategy for a more equitable future.
