We found that solidarity played a key role in coping with the pandemic crisis in Germany, as in other European countries. At the same time, however, a change in behavior and attitudes became apparent: While solidarity was discussed very prominently and viewed positively at the beginning of the pandemic, this initial enthusiasm quickly waned. As the pandemic progressed, respondents increasingly emphasized the high individual and social costs they had to bear in order to protect themselves and others. These included being unable to visit family members, to take children to school or daycare, or to pursue hobbies as usual. Moreover, between April 2020 and October 2020, the solidarity initiatives that sprouted up at the beginning, such as offers to shop for each other, increasingly disappeared.
Accordingly, many participants told us that as the pandemic progressed, they increasingly focused on their immediate environment, i.e., family, friends or neighbors. Solidarity practices thus focused more on the social environment from which people expected mutual support if they needed it.
Nevertheless, participants still considered solidarity to be important for coping with the pandemic. In later phases of the pandemic, they increasingly demanded that scientific institutions, authorities and politicians should not only insist on individual solidarity but also practice such solidarity through concrete political measures. Politicians should create an environment that would make it possible or easier for people to show solidarity in their everyday lives.
Over the course of our study, participants' perceptions of who was harmed by the pandemic changed. In the later phases of the pandemic, this no longer only included the elderly but also children, young people, nursing and hospital staff, people in the arts and crafts, the self-employed, and small businesses. According to our interviewees, all of these people were shown too little solidarity by the authorities or when decisions were made. Our findings also indicate that social measures, such as financial relief, do not have to be aimed at everyone, but mainly at those who were perceived to be particularly burdened.
Our work shows that collective solidarity had a positive effect on people's motivation to protect themselves from COVID-19 infection, especially at the beginning. In future crises, it is therefore important to strengthen this collective solidarity in the longer term. For example, measures to support perceived disadvantaged population groups (such as children or people in assisted living facilities) can also strengthen the motivation of individuals to act in solidarity. People want to see state institutions contributing to solidarity and not just relying on the solidarity of individuals in human interaction. Solidarity seems to last longer when people feel that it is reciprocal.
