Interdisciplinary exchange on democracy, justice and media with Prof. Dr. Alexander Danzer, Prof. Dr. Rico Behrens and Prof. Dr. Friederike Herrmann
After the start of the war against Ukraine in 2022, Federal Chancellor Olaf Scholz spoke of a “Zeitenwende” (historical turning point) in a government statement. Since then, the term has had a steep career and is no longer only used in the context of Ukraine. How would you describe the status quo in society, the economy and politics?
Prof. Dr. Alexander Danzer: I think the term "historical turning point" describes a lot of what we are seeing at the moment. While the economy used to call for the state to withdraw, such a demand seems completely strange today. The economy is extremely worried about the fact that the state appears so weak, so vulnerable. The crisis seems to become the new norm. In this context, I observe a certain political powerlessness. People seem overwhelmed by all of this, also because of the simultaneity of these facts. And as an economist in particular, I rub my eyes a little. They try to finance everyone, both the car and the train. Every potential voter should see themselves at the center of politics. Of course, this is not financially viable. For me, it is striking to see how little of what science knows flows into political practice. We are no longer an innovative country; we have also lost a great deal of our ability to innovate economically.
Prof. Dr. Rico Behrens: You mention the simultaneity of facts, Mr. Danzer, and the attempt to do justice to as many as possible. But inherently, politics has always had to deal with many issues at the same time. I would therefore like qualify the term "historical turning point" to some extent. In political education, we have had the concept of key challenges for at least 50 years. These challenges include the existential threat of war and the need for peace as well as the key issue of justice – with a link to economics and economic policy. The same applies to dealing with the media or issues of environmental destruction, which have also been on the agenda for decades. However, we relied on the fact that everything worked out somehow for too long. Due to the Cold War, rigid systems were facing each other, ensuring a relative balance. On the other hand, I perceive nowadays that democracy as a societal construct and form of government is under serious threat. This extends to the personal areas of life. Tolerance for ambiguity is decreasing. I would actually regard this as a historical turning point.
Prof. Dr. Friederike Herrmann: We need to distinguish which phenomena are really an expression of a historical turning point. Climate change has been discussed for decades. The digitalization of public communication is also not new. However, the war in Ukraine really is a historical turning point for me. I was socialized during the peace movement in the 1980s. The hope was to be able to make a difference in terms of "building peace without weapons". The upheaval caused by the war in Ukraine has been exacerbated by the war in the Middle East. The mood of helplessness is paralyzing – I agree with Mr. Danzer here. What worries me most is the public debate on migration and antisemitism, which I think is getting way out of hand. A general mood of crisis and overload is taking hold. Of course there are difficulties, but we are still extremely privileged compared to the rest of the world, which no longer seems to play a role in the public debate.
Mr. Behrens, let's take a look at the educational sector. You are involved in a project that is looking at how teachers in vocational schools can deal appropriately with right-wing extremism among students. What do the chances and limitations of schools lie as regards political education?
Prof. Dr. Rico Behrens: The limitations are where political education is expected take over the tasks of politics. For many years, politicians from conservative to liberal to left-wing have failed to develop real political solutions to the issues of immigration, asylum and the labor market. In political education, we work both preventively and reactively in all types of schools. However, the greatest heterogeneity can be found in the vocational school sector. The preventive field is actually quite well developed here. The addressees of political education are initially groups that do not have any established anti-democratic positions and attitudes. However, it becomes more difficult when you have to react to specific occasions. The chances of achieving something educationally diminish as young people become increasingly involved in anti-democratic groups. Then it is sometimes no longer just a question of positively influencing the individual student, but of keeping the school system itself in balance. Therefore: We also have to look at other students who are exposed to these tendencies, perhaps even as direct victims? Our project, which primarily aims to strengthen teachers, is located precisely in this tension field. School management teams also need support. They are gatekeepers for a democratic school culture. We have seen in recent years that there is still a lot of room for improvement here. This means that the focus must shift even more towards organizational development and professionalization.
If you compare the officially asserted importance of political education and its resources, you could get the impression that this is a classic topic for soap-box oratories.
Prof. Dr. Rico Behrens: The democracy-building function of schools can be found in every education plan, even before subject-specific knowledge. However, it is a fact that Bavaria, for example, comes in last in terms of teaching hours made available for this. This leaves little room for a more elaborate simulation game in which the participants take on the role of EU parliamentarians and discuss migration policy, for example. Another new time-intensive field would be the area of social media, where political information is highly emotional. The majority of political information is nowadays disseminated on social media. A challenge for political education, which tried to define itself as strictly rational after National Socialism. I think it makes sense to consider and offer media education and political education not in isolation, but in an integrated way. I would like to see even more of a ‘translation service’ from journalism here.
Ms. Herrmann, you conduct research at the interface of journalism and psychology on how disinformation and emotions are connected. What role can journalism still play given the relevance of social media, only a fraction of which is fed by journalists?
Prof. Dr. Friederike Herrmann: I find it very exciting that emotions are becoming a topic in political education. All communication is naturally underpinned by emotions. We are not rational beings – that is wishful thinking. In fact, communication science and practical journalism have also ignored the importance of affect for decades. I currently perceive a helplessness in the face of heated, emotional discussions on social media. In communication science, this may also have something to do with the fact that emotions have been a blind spot in research for so long. We are now trying to implement strategies in community management that pick up on the affective discussions on social media, for example, and in the best case can detoxify them to some extent. Traditionally, editorial offices check facts, which is important and correct, but is not sufficient as a reaction to emotionally laden communication or even misses the actual problem. This can quickly come across as lecturing and moralizing and only lead to emotions continuing to run high. Ambiguity tolerance decreases in crisis situations in particular. I am following on Mr. Behrens' call for more translation services from journalism here: Journalism has traditionally focused on criticism and control. In my opinion, the future task of the media is to engage in even more constructive journalism that opens up perspectives and provides impetus for solutions in order to bring these into society.
Mr. Danzer, emotions and narratives also play a major role in business. You have looked at the causes of food waste from a sustainability perspective. Is sustainability a narrative that is only intended to boost sales among a certain client groups or is it actually indispensable for the economy?
Prof. Dr. Alexander Danzer: As Ms. Herrmann and Mr. Behrens mentioned, we still usually assume that people are rational. But they are not in all situations. In Germany, we live in a largely saturated society that has everything and continues to invent and devise goods and services. And consumers often buy things without questioning much. Consumer behavior is a major source of the climate crisis, which of course calls some product innovations into question. Nevertheless, I think that companies can be a powerful source of innovation for important new products or production processes. In this respect, sustainability is not a marketing gimmick to arouse needs. Many of the achievements we take for granted today were created by companies that wanted to make money from them. So we must not lose sight of the economic incentives, alongside taxation and fair distribution, of course. Because it is also true: Private consumers cannot reduce their CO2 emissions as much as a steel industry that may be subsidized by the state. Innovation can be achieved through incentives, subsidies or regulation. Politicians really do have a responsibility here. And this, it seems to me, is rather concealed and pushed off.
How can regulation and innovation be brought together?
Prof. Dr. Alexander Danzer: I believe that, in addition to the clever minds in research departments, a lot of it is down to the mindset. We need to broaden our horizons and teach skills that were not in demand until recently. Nobody practiced change management 30 years ago. Change is what today's graduates will have to manage. Today more than ever, companies are facing the challenge of adapting to an uncertain future.
Question for the group: What role does science play in change? It has already been mentioned that some knowledge has been available for a long time but is not being used.
Prof. Dr. Friederike Herrmann: In the digital world, journalism must moderate public discourse in a new way and enable a civilized exchange and provide topics in the first place. One role of communication science in the field of transfer research can be to demand this as a task based on democratic theory, to investigate the effects and also to develop concepts for this practical task in accompanying research. Our cooperation partners in community management, for example, i.e. those who work as journalists in the field of social media, say quite clearly: "We need science for this!" Of course, journalism is only one part of social media communication – but if we succeed in establishing a more constructive discourse there, it can also have an impact on the outside world.
Prof. Dr. Rico Behrens: In the political decision-making process, we need a revitalization of participation below the level of associations, parties and organized interests – the keyword here is deliberation, i.e. public joint reflection on good solutions. Initial attempts have been made, such as the "Citizens' Council on Nutrition" at federal level. From a scientific point of view, we are still at the beginning when it comes to the question of how such processes need to be organized in order to be effective. For me, this would be an important field where science can contribute to the transformative capacity of democratic processes.
Prof. Dr. Alexander Danzer: I am undecided whether it is good or bad when science has the same status as a lobby group. The point is not that science should always prevail, because science is also fallible and knowledge is only provisional. With this in mind, my wish is that politicians would sometimes be a little more courageous. That you also allow yourself to try something out in a specific region first. Experience shows that in countries that are more willing to experiment, the population is also more understanding. Imagine you are the Minister of Culture and have 100 million euros at your disposal. Will you provide one hundred projects with one million euros each or will you only finance two or three particularly effective ones? Of course, you need to know: What does effective mean? And what is the aim of politics? This also raises the question of transfer: How well can politicians and scientists communicate with each other and communicate their issues to society? For science as a system, we also need adequate resources to be able to attract the generations that will solve all these challenges.
![[Translate to English:] Symbolbild Mensch in der digitalen Gesellschaft](/fileadmin/_processed_/2/1/csm_AdobeStock_840000070__1__825a4e79ce.webp)
![[Translate to English:] Proteste Ukraine-Krieg](/fileadmin/_processed_/9/4/csm_AdobeStock_70986110_1aa78d7441.webp)
![[Translate to English:] Shopping - Einkaufstaschen](/fileadmin/_processed_/5/d/csm_AdobeStock_178092516_4227f48d31.webp)