The Good Column: The client is not cooperating!

You catch mice with bacon. Language is used to control people’s thinking. (Well, let’s say better: what’s left of thinking today.) I’m not sure whether in a better future a left that sees itself as progressive wouldn’t do well to deal with language more intensively than before.

There is a reason why trash today is called “recyclable material.” And recipients of citizens’ benefit are now officially referred to as “clients” in this country. Which makes it sound as if they are cheeky, self-empowering, landlord-style claimants who dare to make claims. “Client: a person who commissions someone to represent his or her interests,” says the dictionary. So we’ve already come this far in Germany, one would like to exclaim: Now the poor bastards are already giving orders! And in front of everyone’s eyes, we are abusing our overwhelmed German authorities as their “interest representation”! They really seem to be doing well!

When you think of a “client” you inevitably imagine a dandy-dressed snot who says things like: “If I don’t get my citizen’s allowance this month, I’ll have to turn the matter over to my lawyer. The costs of the proceedings are borne by you.« Citizens’ benefit recipients, we learn, shamelessly make demands, have their interests represented and are privileged in other ways.

The “client” – obliged to pay homage to his patron and bow his head in respect to him – should also be obliging when commands are given to him. He should endure all sorts of harassment and be forced to perform humiliating activities at any time. But today that means something different. Today we talk about “cooperating”. »If benefit recipients don’t work with the job center cooperate“After all, they don’t have to be surprised if they become homeless or go hungry. Not only German authorities and politicians, but also corporate bosses and mafia bosses say: “Don’t worry, we have ways and means to get these people to cooperate.”

The Federal Minister of Labor also uses language that has long been reserved for cases of war and international violent conflicts: “We will therefore tighten the sanctions options against total objectors.” Anyone who talks like that threatens unarmed recipients of citizens’ benefits with “harsher consequences” and announces “severe measures.” , who apparently doesn’t want to hide the fact that a merciless campaign is actually being waged here, against people whose only crime is being dependent on social benefits.

This life-threatening language of technocracy, which is peppered with all sorts of combative vocabulary (“cheating on benefits”, “refusal to work”, “gray area”, “total sanctions”), which is intended to bring the unemployed into the proximity of criminals, has long since had nothing to do with actual reality . It is full of euphemisms and incomprehensible, bizarre neologisms and has become completely disconnected from people’s everyday lives. In some cases it has mutated into a pure instrument of reprimand and “sanctions”, and in other cases it is pure propaganda language and a means of denunciation.

The public discussion about citizens’ benefits and unemployment benefits in the sphere of politics and the media is characterized by the continued use and reproduction of this jargon, which has two main functions: 1. to denounce legitimate claims to a so-called welfare state as outrageous egotism; 2. to stigmatize innocent people and make them compliant.

For example, anyone who – in a state that calls itself “free” (and prides itself on it) – speaks of “total refusers” in connection with people who try to preserve a modicum of dignity and self-determination by rejecting the unreasonable is consciously engaging in agitation against people.

There may be more than one reason why a 58-year-old unemployed teacher doesn’t want to be forced to pick up dog poop in the park. Perhaps there are also good reasons why someone in this society no longer wants to work in the traditional way. And perhaps he doesn’t want that because he has recognized that work under capitalism is wrongly organized, wrongly distributed, degrading, stupid, pointless, harmful to health, dull, socially affirmative, system-stabilizing or environmentally dangerous (or all of the above). And perhaps this person’s decision is in a certain way exemplary and forward-looking.

In any case, one thing is certain: In fact, it is not the supposed “total refusers” that are a problem, but rather a reactionary policy that sees people exclusively as containers of labor to be exploited and completely utilized.