A Semiotics of Solidarity: How words constrain social interaction

Social scientists operate with essentially contested concepts that require strong explicit definitions. To designate concepts, they use signs from the standard vocabulary. All native speakers understand the words ‘society’, ‘cooperation’, or ‘solidarity’ in banal communication, however, in specialized discourse they are used as terms that connote different meanings. To complicate matters, the meaning varies between disciplines and paradigms. This article analyzes the interdiscursive mistranslation of sociological terminology in the Latvian language. Empirical material consists of a corpus of documents on social solidarity. Since the establishment of the Republic of Latvia in 1991, ethnic and linguistic diversity has been perceived as a threat to national sovereignty. Under the pressure of the European Union, since 2001, the government has published policy documents introducing special measures to increase social solidarity. Policy makers adapt English-language terminology and refer to the authority of classical and contemporary scientists to justify state interference in private life. Critical reading of propositions reveals inconsistent usage of terms, erroneous translation of original texts, and a lack of analytical approach to argumentation. The contextual meaning of academic terminology suggests that policy makers mistranslate the 20th century sociology in the framework of the 18th century historicism that is a foundation block of ethnocultural definition of nation. Contemporary political discourse treats ethnocultural homogeneity as a necessary condition for solidarity. In the genre of government document, this discourse shapes legal institutions that enforce modes of social interaction contradicting the reality of modern pluralistic societies.