How Microlet Drivers Sustain Community amid Transportation Transformation
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.69875/djosse.v3i3.410Keywords:
Social Solidarity, Microlet Drivers, Community, Informal TransportationAbstract
Changes in the transportation structure and growing competition from app-based transportation have created new pressures on the sustainability of microlet drivers’ communities. Under these conditions, social solidarity becomes important not merely as a form of social cohesion but also as a mechanism through which a community sustains itself amid economic change. This study examines how solidarity is practiced, maintained, and negotiated among microlet drivers in Tataaran II Village, South Tondano District. The study employs a qualitative approach, drawing on data collected through observation, in-depth interviews, and documentation. The data were interpreted using Émile Durkheim’s perspective on social solidarity. The findings demonstrate that solidarity among microlet drivers is grounded in shared occupational identities, common experiences, a sense of shared fate, kinship relations, and social and religious values, all of which are reproduced through everyday practices. Solidarity is further sustained through informal queuing systems at loading points, information exchange, technical assistance when vehicles encounter problems, rotating savings groups, deliberation, and collective social activities. These practices indicate that mechanical and organic solidarity do not necessarily operate as separate forms. Shared identities and experiences provide the basis for collective cohesion, while functional interdependence in organizing work and responding to economic pressures reflects an organic dimension of solidarity. Importantly, competition for passengers and the expansion of app-based transportation do not automatically erode solidarity. Instead, they increase the need for coordination, trust, and mutual support among drivers. The study argues that solidarity functions as an adaptive social mechanism through which microlet drivers manage the tension between individual economic interests and collective sustainability amid the transformation of the transportation sector.
References
Agamagomedova, S., & Gamidullaeva, L. (2025). Trust creation as a factor for the solidarity of government, business, and society in regional innovation development. International Journal of Innovation Studies, 9(1), 60–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijis.2024.10.002
Ahmad, M. R. S., Puspita, N., Fhath, M., & JT, A. R. (2025). Contested Urban Space: Informal Parking Practices and Urban Marginalization in Makassar City. DISCOURSE: Indonesian Journal of Social Studies and Education, 2(3), 170–178. https://doi.org/10.69875/djosse.v2i3.285
Alharbi, A., & Rucker, M. (2023). Discursive practices of the performative theory of solidarity discourse. Language Sciences, 95, 101515. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2022.101515
Alpert, H. (1940). Emile Durkheim and the theory of social integration. J. Soc. Phil., 6, 172. https://philpapers.org/rec/ALPDAT
Breidahl, K. N., Holtug, N., & Kongshøj, K. (2018). Do shared values promote social cohesion? If so, which? Evidence from Denmark. European Political Science Review, 10(1), 97–118. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773916000266
Creswell, J. W. (2002). Desain penelitian. Pendekatan Kualitatif & Kuantitatif, Jakarta: KIK, 121–180.
Falah, Z. (2023). KONSEP SOLIDARITAS ANTAR UMAT BERAGAMA DALAM PERSPEKTIF EMILE DURKHEIM. JURNAL YAQZHAN: Analisis Filsafat, Agama Dan Kemanusiaan, 9(2), 190. https://doi.org/10.24235/jy.v9i2.13137
Faye, D. A. P., Armilus, R., & Bahri, S. (2026). SOLIDARITAS SOSIAL ANTAR SOPIR PERUSAHAAN EKSPEDISI TIGA SAUDARA DI JALAN LINTAS TIMUR KOTA PEKANBARU. Jurnal Ilmiah Wahana Pendidikan, 12(7. A), 130–143.
Gofman, A. (2014). Durkheim’s theory of social solidarity and social rules. In The Palgrave handbook of altruism, morality, and social solidarity: Formulating a field of study (pp. 45–69). Springer. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9781137391865_3
González Pascual, M. (2023). Building Social Solidarity Through Mutual Trust. Nordic Journal of European Law, 6(2), 50–67. https://doi.org/10.36969/njel.v6i2.25411
Harkness, S. K., Cheshire, C., Cook, K. S., Stoica, C., & State, B. (2022). Exchange and the Creation of Trust and Solidarity across Cultures. Social Psychology Quarterly, 85(4), 351–373. https://doi.org/10.1177/01902725221120806
Harris, A. S., & Honig, L. (2023). Mutual Dependence and Expectations of Cooperation. The Journal of Politics, 85(1), 192–208. https://doi.org/10.1086/720646
Iskandar, A., Harifuddin, H., Amir, A., & Jalal. (2024). Arena Sosial dan Komunitas Marginal Perkotaan.
Koornneef, S., Knoben, J., Simons, T., & Vermeulen, P. A. M. (2026). Love Thy Neighbour: The impact of social cohesion on community economic resilience. Organization Studies. https://doi.org/10.1177/01708406261432829
Koster, F., Stokman, F., Hodson, R., & Sanders, K. (2007). Solidarity through networks. Employee Relations, 29(2), 117–137. https://doi.org/10.1108/01425450710719978
Lyle, H. F., & Smith, E. A. (2014). The reputational and social network benefits of prosociality in an Andean community. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(13), 4820–4825. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1318372111
Meijer, M. A. (2025). Public support for solidarity in healthcare financing in the netherlands [maastricht university]. https://doi.org/10.26481/dis.20250618mm
Mesra, R., Sianturi, E., & Tuerah, P. R. (2023). Declining Social Solidarity Between Microbus Drivers Among the Community of Tataaran II Village, South Tondano District, Minahasa Regency. LANGGAM: International Journal of Social Science Education, Art and Culture, 2(4), 29–37. https://doi.org/10.24036/langgam.v2i4.158
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. Sage Publications.
Misyak, J. B., Melkonyan, T., Zeitoun, H., & Chater, N. (2014). Unwritten rules: virtual bargaining underpins social interaction, culture, and society. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18(10), 512–519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2014.05.010
Sitepu, N. A. B., Lestari, I. A., Sirait, S. E., & Nismawati, N. (2021). SOLIDARITAS KAUM YUDAISME SINAGOGE SHAAR HASHAMAYIM TONDANO DALAM KEHIDUPAN BERMASYARAKAT. Jurnal PIPSI (Jurnal Pendidikan IPS Indonesia), 6(2), 63–70. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.26737/jpipsi.v6i2.2663
Slattery, M. (2003). Key ideas in sociology. Nelson Thornes.
Sugiyono. (2014). Metode Penelitian Kuantitatif, Kualitatif, dan R&D. Alfabeta.
Thijssen, P. (2012). From mechanical to organic solidarity, and back. European Journal of Social Theory, 15(4), 454–470. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368431011423589
Umaternate, Abd. R., Samau, A., Kerebungu, F., & Hasrin, A. (2020). Public Perceptions of Grab Online Taxi Activity in Sub-District of Tataaran 1 South Tondano District Minahasa Regency. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Social Sciences (ICSS 2020). https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.201014.032
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Elisabet Sianturi, Hamsah Hasmah, Nismawati Nismawati

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.



