What should be the nature of bonds between ethnically diverse citizens, and what kinds of interventions serve to bind divided populations are pressing questions that will always produce open answers rather than complete theoretical closure. Pinning down an ironclad formula for the expansion of solidarity is next to impossible, given the empirical variability in conditions that give rise to conflict and call for contextual variability in institutional responses. Moreover, to the extent that solidarity's core demands of answerability and autonomy sit together in tension, normative definitions of the phenomenon can only ever court controversy. Different individuals will pass different value judgements on the extent to which one constituent element of solidarity can legitimately encroach on the other, ensuring solidarity remains a topic of lively debate within academic and policy circles.

Nevertheless, this book has approached the study of solidarity with the view that certain generalisations can be made about the kinds of institutional arrangements conducive to cooperative and respectful relations, despite the empirical world's unwieldy nature. It has also taken it as given that universally valid suppositions can be made around the meaning of solidarity, even though trade-offs often arise between the demands of answerability to others on the one hand and autonomy over oneself on the other.

I have argued it is mistaken to assume the promotion of solidarity is dependent on the identification of supposedly inclusive national essences, and the expectation that ethnically diverse and divided populations bring their identities in line with those essences. Such a proposal offers an easy to grasp route to solidarity, and for this reason, is favoured by politicians in their rhetorical appeals for unity to a popular audience. Yet while offering a level prescriptive certainty that might be comforting to some, the notion that the internalisation of common national values and cultural traits is what brings diverse people to treat each other justly is simplistic and normatively spurious. Not only is such a programme of solidarity promotion inconsistent with respect for the integrity of individuals; it functions to intensify, rather than allay, antagonisms and divisions.

If any generalisations can be made around the nature and conditions of solidarity, it is that the phenomenon is dependent on the treatment of citizens as free, respected and materially secure.