In the age of 'cutting ties,' solidarity is a survival strategy

In an era where "cutting ties" has become a prevalent survival strategy, individuals are increasingly advised to distance themselves from undesirable people and relationships. Sociologist Lee Seung-yeon, in her book 'Cutting Ties Society,' interprets this trend not as a personal psychological issue but as a structural product of a society obsessed with ranking. Relationships are treated as investments, and severing those that don't yield emotional returns is learned early. This leads to a paradox: people report greater loneliness yet actively choose isolation, deepening their isolation as they try to avoid hurt.

The market also practices "cutting ties," abandoning unprofitable bus routes, closing rural hospitals and banks, and discarding individuals deemed unprofitable. This mirrors personal "cutting ties" by simply erasing minus items from a ledger. However, certain things cannot be severed: aging bodies, sickness, and neglected neighborhoods. These issues don't disappear; they are merely pushed onto the most vulnerable. "Cutting ties" doesn't solve problems; it merely displaces them onto those with less power.

Caregiving exemplifies this. In super-aged societies, care is a daily burden for families. Children may place parents in facilities, but they often remain unaware of the daily reality within. Trust is paramount but difficult to verify through advertisements or government ratings. This trust, however, can be built when care providers are familiar neighbors within a cooperative, where members can scrutinize financial reports. Good care is synonymous with good neighbors, a model practiced by healthcare and care cooperatives nationwide. This involves a ownership structure that prevents profits from leaking to external shareholders, familiar operators, and proximity.

These initiatives represent an alternative to market logic. Instead of scattering during crises, they unite to survive. They are descendants of ancient mutual aid societies and inheritors of early credit unions formed by those excluded from industrial finance. While winner-take-all economies leave only the "A-list" and reduce others to zero, the social solidarity economy rejects such rankings. It broadens life and work choices. In the spaces abandoned by the market and unreached by the public sector, people pool their strength to rebuild care, jobs, food, and housing. Facing climate crisis, regional decline, and super-aging – problems the market and state cannot solve alone – these groups have long been creating alternatives.

The "Social Solidarity Economy Basic Law" aims to unify these diverse entities, cooperatives, social enterprises, community businesses, and social ventures, under a common legal status, moving beyond fragmented laws and inter-ministerial silos. The law, first proposed in 2014, has repeatedly failed to pass. It is now nearing its final legislative step, with the goal of passage in August. This framework is recommended by the UN, ILO, and OECD. Despite this, the law has been stalled not by practical debates but by ideological prejudice and political infighting. It is not a handout but a recognition of an economic reality that fills the gaps left by the state and market, granting it a legitimate name and place. Even without the law, these organizations have persevered through budget cuts, but their unclear legal status and fragmented support systems limit their sustainability. For those seeking survival through solidarity in an age of "cutting ties," enacting this law is the state's minimal responsibility. The field has waited 13 years; it's time for the National Assembly to respond. In a society that increasingly chooses isolation, the law must affirm that different ways of living exist. Solidarity is not sentiment; it is a proven survival strategy.

“

Cutting ties is not sentiment. It is a proven survival strategy.