ABSTRACT
Modem, and even more so, postmodern societies are based on individual rights and on their protection by institutions. The liberal state corresponds to a pluralistic society that includes very different options. However, the choices that are made are often not authentic ones but follow social trends and conformity. The conformity present in the ideal of ‘authenticity’ is one example, the paradox that the more an atomistic concept of individualism is promoted, the more the conformity in concepts of individualisation emerges. People want to be authentic and original, but they choose the same clothes, travel and behaviour, etc., as the expression of this authenticity. Pluralism in society is-this may be a paradox-its own greatest enemy. The same paradox exists for another icon of the liberal state and pluralistic societies, i.e., tolerance. Postmodern tolerance even has problems excluding intolerance from tolerance. Because solidarity is founded on a pluralistic concept, a societal solidarity integrating many differences seems only to be possible in times of great suffering and under the pressure of negative facts (witness Chernobyl). But, in most cases, the distinction between good and evil depends on experiences and on individual or societal options that differ very much depending on the kinds of persons and groups involved. Therefore, a solidarity that goes beyond simple pluralism can only be reached by transparency of interests and argumentation, and by a common understanding through narration and memory in which convictions are formed and need to be promoted or preserved.
