CULTURAL SOLIDARITY SELLS

By Barry Wade

TL;DR

• Solidarity is a Three-Part Engine. It is not a single feeling. It is a psychological machine. Brands must build all three parts: a cognitive "us" (Social Identity), an emotional charge (Collective Effervescence), and a validated worldview (Shared Reality).

• Digital Doesn't Create Echo Chambers. It Sorts Tribes. Social media accelerates polarization by stripping local context. It sorts users into global, non-local brand tribes (e.g., Apple vs. Android). Brand choice becomes a high-stakes, non-negotiable identity badge.

• Iconic Brands Sell Myths, Not Products. Brands like Apple and Patagonia win by identifying a cultural tension (e.g., conformity, consumerism) and providing a compelling "identity myth" that solves it. They arm a new "in-group" with sacred symbols to win.

• The Minefield is Real. Building an "us" creates a "them." Brands risk shattering trust with "performative activism" (e.g., empty social media gestures) or hypocrisy, where internal policies contradict the public myth.
  

The Cultural Solidarity Architecture

The human experience is a story of belonging. We are wired to form groups. This drive is the most potent, misunderstood, and untapped force in modern commerce. We call it cultural solidarity.

It is not a soft concept. It is a predictable, three-part psychological engine. First, we need a cognitive blueprint for "us" versus "them." Second, we need an emotional event to charge that blueprint with "social electricity." Third, we need a continuous story to validate our group's worldview as "objective truth."

Brands that understand this architecture move beyond selling products. They stop broadcasting messages and start building tribes. They become myth-makers, providing the symbols and rituals for a new community. In an age of digital fragmentation, consumers are desperate for this connection. They are not buying a jacket, a phone, or a coffee. They are buying an identity. They are buying a ticket to an in-group.

The rise of digital platforms has weaponized this. Social media is not an echo chamber. It is a sorting hat. It strips away messy, local context and re-sorts us along clean, global, partisan lines. Your choice of phone, car, or coffee is no longer a simple preference. It is a public declaration of allegiance. It is a tribal marker.

This report maps this psychological architecture onto modern marketing. It analyzes the cultural branding model where brands become totems. It explores brand opportunities across key sectors. It also confronts the ethical minefield of this work. Building an "us" necessarily creates a "them." The line between community and cult, between activism and opportunism, is thin. Mastering this force makes for a powerful brand strategy.

The Cognitive Blueprint

The foundation of any group is the cognitive line between "us" and "them." Social Identity Theory (SIT), formulated by Henri Tajfel and John Turner, provides the framework (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). The theory states we derive our self-esteem not just from personal achievements but from the status of our groups.

This unfolds in three steps:

1. Social Categorization: We mentally sort the world. We create in-groups (to which we belong) and out-groups (to which we do not). This sorting is automatic and primal. Tajfel's "Minimal Group" studies proved this.2 People favored their own group even when sorted by a coin flip.3 The simple act of categorization is enough to trigger bias (Tajfel, 1970, as cited in Turner, 1979).

2. Social Identification: We adopt the identity of our group. We internalize its norms and values. A student starts acting like a student. A Marine embodies the corps.

3. Social Comparison: We compare our group to others. This comparison is competitive. We are motivated to achieve "positive distinctiveness." We need our group to be better, smarter, or cooler. This drive for a superior identity is the engine of in-group favoritism.4

For brands, this is the bedrock. A brand cannot build a community until it defines the "us." Apple's "Think Different" campaign (1997) was a masterclass in SIT.5 It drew a line. "Them" were the conformist, beige-box PC users. "Us" were the "crazy ones, the misfits, the rebels." It offered a pre-packaged, high-status identity. It did not sell a computer. It sold positive distinctiveness.

The Emotional Gasoline

A cognitive category is inert. It is just a box. It needs an emotional charge. Sociologist Émile Durkheim named this charge "collective effervescence" (Durkheim, 1912).

He studied ancient tribes. He noted that everyday (profane) life was dull. But during rituals, the entire clan would gather. They would move, chant, and dance in unison. This synchronized action generated a "sort of electricity" or "social heat." Individuality melted away. A powerful, shared group consciousness emerged.

This intense energy needed a focal point. The group projected it onto a "totem" (a symbol, an animal). The totem became sacred. It was no longer just an object. It was the clan. It was their god.

This is not ancient history. It happens every day.

• At a football stadium, the unified chant transforms a team logo into a sacred symbol.

• At a music festival, the shared rhythm fuses thousands into a single, temporary organism.

• At a political rally, the shared anger or hope bonds strangers into a movement.

Iconic brands are modern totems. A football club's jersey is a profane object (dyed cloth). But in a stadium, it becomes a sacred object. The unified chant of 70,000 fans (e.g., at Manchester United's Old Trafford) is pure collective effervescence. That social electricity is projected onto the crest. The brand becomes the totem for the 'Red Devils' tribe.

Brands must stop broadcasting. They must start orchestrating these moments. They must facilitate the rituals that turn profane products into sacred symbols.

The Group's Operating System

The peak feeling of a rally fades. A third mechanism is needed to sustain the bond during "profane" everyday life. Shared Reality Theory explains this maintenance phase (Higgins, 2009).

Humans have a fundamental need to know their inner states (beliefs, feelings) are shared.6 We need to know we are not crazy. This drive serves two purposes:

1. Epistemic: It validates our worldview. If you and I both agree a movie is a masterpiece, my subjective opinion feels more like an objective fact.

2. Relational: It strengthens our social bond. Discovering we share a belief connects us.

We are motivated to create this shared reality. The "saying-is-believing" effect proves this (Echterhoff, Higgins, & Levine, 2009). Participants described a person to an audience. When they tuned their message to match the audience's (supposed) attitude, their own memory of the person changed to match their message. They co-constructed a new reality simply to connect with their audience.

Brand communities are shared reality engines. They are the digital campfires where the tribe gathers. In online forums, members constantly share their feelings about new products, competitors, and brand values.7 This continuous communication reinforces their common worldview. It turns the subjective feeling of "Apple is creative" into the group's objective truth.

A brand's job is to host these campfires. It must provide the platforms and the narrative fuel (ads, stories, values) for the community to discuss, debate, and co-construct its reality.

The Commercialization of Community

This three-part psychological engine is the blueprint for Cultural Branding. Douglas Holt's model argues that iconic brands become powerful by offering "identity myths." They identify a cultural tension in society and provide a symbolic solution (Holt, 2004).

The brand becomes the leader of a new in-group, arming it with symbols (logos, products) and rituals (events, online forums) to challenge the mainstream "orthodoxy."

The digital age has put this model on steroids. The dominant theory of "filter bubbles" is wrong. Social media does not just isolate us. It actively sorts us.

Petter Törnberg's "partisan sorting" model explains how (Törnberg, 2022). In the offline world, your identity is complex ("a Republican in a liberal city who likes indie music"). Social media strips this local context. It connects you to other Republicans nationally. Your identity flattens and aligns along a single, partisan axis.

This same sorting dynamic now applies to brands. Your choice of tech (Apple vs. Android), shoes (Nike vs. Adidas), or car (Tesla vs. Ford) is no longer a simple preference. It is a public, digital declaration of tribal allegiance. Switching brands becomes an act of identity betrayal.

This creates immense opportunities and risks for brands.

Case Studies in Cultural Branding

• Patagonia: The orthodoxy is consumerism. The cultural tension is environmental anxiety. Patagonia's myth is the "responsible adventurer." Its "Don't Buy This Jacket" campaign was a pure identity play (Patagonia, 2011). It activated an in-group of eco-activists. The jacket is a totem. Repairing it (at Worn Wear clinics) is a ritual.

• McDonald's: The McDonald's "BTS Meal" (2021) was not a celebrity endorsement. It was a global flashmob. It was a moment of pure collective effervescence for a pre-sorted, global tribe (the BTS ARMY). It generated a 40% spike in McNugget sales in the US (Restaurant Business, 2021). The product was irrelevant. Access to the shared, global ritual was everything.

• American Express: AmEx does not sell credit. It sells membership. The entire brand is a Social Identity Theory play. The Green, Gold, Platinum, and Centurion (Black) cards are explicit status tiers for an in-group of successful professionals and travelers.8 The value of the Centurion card is not its utility. Its value is its absolute "positive distinctiveness" from the out-group (everyone else).

Be Careful of The Dark Side 

This power is a double-edged sword. The same engine that builds community also builds division. Though the psychological mechanisms are neutral, the outcomes are not.

• In-Group Love vs. Out-Group Hate: Social Identity Theory shows that the drive for "positive distinctiveness" often manifests as out-group derogation (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Building a cherished "us" almost requires a differentiated "them." In politics, this is tribalism. In marketing, it becomes affective polarization: Apple fans who feel genuine disdain for Android users. This tribalism can be good for loyalty but toxic for culture.

• Ethnocentrism: A group's shared reality can become so rigid that it views its own customs as superior and all others as "wrong" or "inferior."10

A potential mitigation is Allport's Contact Hypothesis (Allport, 1954). Prejudice can be reduced if groups interact under specific conditions: equal status, common goals, and intergroup cooperation. Fascinatingly, modern fNIRS (functional Near-Infrared Spectroscopy) "hyperscanning" studies validate this. When dyads cooperate, their brains show increased Interpersonal Neural Synchronization (INS) in the right temporoparietal junction (rTPJ), a hub for perspective-taking.11 This synchronization correlates with more positive out-group attitudes (Cui et al., 2024). Allport's 1954 theory is a practical recipe for inducing this pro-social brain state.

The Boundaries & Cross-Cultural Variations

The psychological engine of solidarity is universal, but its expression is culturally bound. Strategies that work in one market can fail spectacularly in another.

• Individualism vs. Collectivism: This is the primary axis.

• In Individualistic cultures (US, Western Europe), the self is autonomous.12 Solidarity is a choice. It is a form of self-expression. Brand myths that emphasize rebellion, uniqueness, and personal achievement (like Apple's "Think Different") are potent. The goal is positive distinctiveness for the individual via the group.

• In Collectivistic cultures (East Asia, Latin America), the self is interdependent.13 Solidarity is a duty. It is about group harmony and social obligation. A "rebel" myth can be seen as disruptive. Brand myths that emphasize community, tradition, and family are more powerful. The goal is not to stand out, but to strengthen the group's cohesion.

• System Justification Theory (SJT): This is a powerful barrier to solidarity movements.14 SJT posits that people have a motive to see the existing social system as fair, just, and legitimate (Jost & Banaji, 1994, as cited in Wikipedia, 2025). This creates cognitive dissonance for disadvantaged groups. To resolve this, people may suppress their group's interests (group-justification) to protect their psychological need for a stable world (system-justification).

• The Brand Implication: This is a massive psychological barrier for challenger brands. Consumers are motivated to justify the market leader's dominance (e.g., "Coca-Cola is the 'real thing'" or "Microsoft is the standard for a reason"). A challenger brand is not just fighting market share. It is fighting a deep cognitive bias for stability.

The Ethics of Engineered Solidarity

When brands wield these tools, they assume significant ethical risks. Consumers are adept at detecting inauthenticity.

• Neuromarketing and Manipulation: The use of neuroscientific tools (fMRI, EEG) to optimize ads for subconscious emotional triggers raises concerns. While a "buy button" is a myth, these techniques can blur the line between persuasion and manipulation, potentially undermining consumer autonomy (Stanton, Sinnott-Armstrong, & Huettel, 2016).

• Performative Activism and Brand Hypocrisy: This is the greatest risk in modern cultural branding.

• Performative Activism is a superficial, opportunistic display.15 It co-opts the symbols of a social movement to gain relevance without taking any substantive action or risk. An example is a corporation posting a black square for Black Lives Matter in June 2020 while having zero Black executives and no change to internal diversity policies.

• Brand Hypocrisy is the deeper, systemic failure. It is an unbridgeable gap between the brand's external myth and its internal reality. A common example is a company changing its logo to a rainbow flag during Pride Month while its political action committee simultaneously donates to anti-LGBTQ+ politicians.

This is not just bad PR. It is a fundamental breach of the Shared Reality. The brand is revealed as a liar. It shatters the trust required for the psychological engine of solidarity to function. The community, feeling betrayed, will often turn on the brand with the same passion it once used to support it. The infamous 2017 Pepsi ad with Kendall Jenner is the canonical failure, a performative act so tone-deaf it trivialized a real movement (Mazilu, 2023).

Authentic brand activism, in contrast, aligns statements with internal actions. Patagonia's environmentalism is authentic. It is baked into its supply chain, its repair programs, and its "1% for the Planet" pledge. The myth and the reality are one.

Conclusion: The New Brand Story

Cultural solidarity is the invisible architecture of human society. It is the force that binds us, defines us, and gives us meaning. For decades, brands have been content to exist outside this architecture, broadcasting messages at consumers.

That era is over.

The new mandate is to become the story writer. The most successful brands of the next century will be those that build. They will build the "us." They will orchestrate the rituals. They will host the campfires.

This is not a marketing tactic. It is a fundamental shift in business. It requires moving from a logic of transactions to a logic of identity. It requires a new set in a new C-suite: the Chief Culture Officer, an executive who understands psychology, sociology, and narrative.

This work is complex. It is fraught with ethical peril. The brand that builds a tribe must accept responsibility for that tribe: for its cohesion, its actions, and its impact on the out-group. But the reward for this work is the ultimate market advantage: a community that does not just buy your product, but believes in it. A community that is not just loyal, but fused.

About Caisimi 

Caisimi is an identity intelligence platform and consultancy whose proprietary Psychodentity™ method combines personality science and identity construal to create predictive personas that beat demographic targeting. Its team applies advanced psychometrics and real-time digital intelligence to restore trust and deliver measurable growth in revenue, market share, and brand loyalty. Caisimi is launching a generative AI decisioning platform that turns these insights into real-time psychological targeting and brand experiences. For category-exclusive access or consulting, email [email protected].

© 2025 OBWX, LLC. All Rights Reserved. Psychodentity™ is a trademark of OBWX, LLC.