Criticism of ideology: The good and the bad

Avoid “irritating topics” instead of falling out: Maybe it started with Corona. Everyone he told about his book had their own experiences to contribute, says Michael Andrick. »Whether man or woman, old or young, rich or poor, double doctor or unskilled worker, in the country or in the city – they all basically said the same thing: ‘I have to tell you something about it… we are already with this married couple friends for many years, and then…’ Then came mistrust, alienation, hostilities, sometimes the final division sealed with dramatic scenes – ‘because of Corona’, ‘because of the Ukraine war’ or ‘because they found what I said racist have

How can it be that a debate about factual issues so quickly turns personal? What should you call that? “Moralitis” sounds like an illness, and the connection to Friedrich Nietzsche’s satirical term “Moralin” may remain obscure to some people. “Moralinsauer” – this is a way to mock something obtrusively correct. “The result is the development of a moral sense of mission that does not require any reference to the diverse facts of the world and therefore deserves the name ‘fundamentalism’.”

There are numerous publications from Westend Verlag that can be summarized under the term “criticism of ideology”. Above all, the texts by Rainer Mausfeld (here only “Why are the lambs silent?” and “Fear and Power” are mentioned), “Power. How the opinion of those in power becomes the dominant opinion” by Almut Bruder-Bezzel and Klaus-Jürgen Bruder, “We are always the good guys” by Mathias Bröckers and Paul Schreyer, “Believe little. Question everything. Think for yourself” by Albrecht Müller… Michael Andrick chose a quote from Gustave Le Bon (1841–1931), who is considered the founder of mass psychology, as the motto for his book: “The most real tyranny controls souls unconsciously, because it alone cannot be closed fight.”

In order to counteract this “tyranny,” it must be made conscious. The author can be happy that his issue made it onto the bestseller lists at “Spiegel” and “Börsenblatt”. He wanted to address a mass problem and – a feat – reach people with different opinions. Because: “A society with a vibrant democracy and a pluralistic culture of discussion can… lead many strongly polarizing debates without being divided.” Division should be understood as an activity. He signals that he doesn’t want to take part in this simply by using the word “we”. Of course, it’s about political-economic power relations, about the state and ideology, but also about how politics actually deals with citizens. Being able to see through the circumstances can give you peace of mind. But the author of this book cannot and does not want to be calm.

Because these are dangerous conditions that we are in danger of sliding into. Actually us. There is a difference whether an opinion is expressed in the “Tagesschau” or at the dinner table, but both are connected and include a wide range of possible reactions. When it comes to the specific issues at issue, Michael Andrick intentionally doesn’t get into the trenches. The possibility of different opinions is not disputed, although the author’s certainly shines through. Stating that fronts are forming in society would not be enough for him. Rather, it is important to understand the concrete mechanisms of division, if only in order to immunize yourself against it.

“Anti-vaxxers”, “conspiracy theorists”, “lateral thinkers”, “swearers” – it sounds as if parts of the population are no longer right in their heads. How can it happen that moral condemnations take the place of the necessary “understanding about the common good”? Pluralism of opinions? There is. But at the same time, tendencies toward political control of public discourse become apparent. Moralization as an act of “discursive violence,” as an arrogant disregard for others, naturally results in counter-reactions. The unwillingness to tolerate other attitudes leads to the formation of bubbles among like-minded people and to the cementing of one’s own views and prejudices. Learning ability atrophies. “When we can no longer talk about certain topics without the risk of explosion, we lock ourselves in self-built walls.” Taboos and taboo assumptions are increasing.

“Compulsory confession and pedagogical mission”: The explosiveness of the chapters that deal with the ideological mechanisms of “moral” exercise of power for the purpose of a kind of “popular education” can hardly be surpassed. “Bulling down”, “causing controversy”, “blaming others for contact” – “You are considered a right-winger if someone on the right is seen next to you.” This is sometimes like “schoolyard bullying of the simplest kind”, but it can lead to serious consequences, especially for freelancers in the artistic field.

There are rumblings in the country and a government in crisis mode no longer trusts democracy. According to Michael Andrick, there is a danger that, in the slipstream of moralization and demagoguery, elements of totalitarian rule will gradually re-emerge. Warning of a shift to the right: “In the end, even today, a people hypnotized by fear could energetically consent to their own enslavement under a simplistic ideology and an all-powerful state that promises salvation and security.”

What can philosophy achieve against this background? At least that: helping people organize their thoughts, giving them terms to understand their experiences, in which they are not alone.

Michael Andrick: In the moral prison. Understanding and overcoming division. Westend, 173 pages, br., 18 €.
nd Literature Salon with Michael Andrick, April 10th, 6 p.m., Franz-Mehring-Platz 1, 10243 Berlin.