What is the challenge? Recent events in German politics and beyond showcase the way polarization undermines debates and endangers democracy.

How we address it: Our program “Depolarizing Public Debates: Developing the Tools for Transformative Communication” has been exploring how political communication becomes polarized in climate debates. The group measures discursive polarization in the media, identifies the drivers behind it, and discusses the measures that should be taken to come to critical, yet constructive debates around sustainability issues. In the past month, THE NEW INSTITUTE hosted three guests who presented their perspectives on the challenges of political communication today, stimulating debate about the nature of the problem and possible progressive responses.

What is the shape of political contestation? Economic inequality, migration, the recognition of sexual and ethnic diversity, and climate politics are objects of heated political contestation in Germany as across Western democracies. The shape of the attitudinal structure underlying these old and new conflicts remains controversial: Do attitudes on new conflicts coalesce into a single divide or do they form multiple independent dimensions? Do new conflicts overwrite or complement older forms of redistributive conflict? And why do some conflicts become emotional and lead to public polarization? 

Steffen Mau is a professor at the Humboldt University in Berlin and has recently published the book “Triggerpunkte. Konsens und Konflikt in der Gegenwartsgesellschaft,” where he and his co-authors provide important contributions to the debate regarding the extent to which Germany is polarized. He shows that German society is not (yet) divided into two hostile camps, as is increasingly the case in the United States. Still, he observes the escalation of political discourse along several political cleavage lines, which he refers to as inequality arenas.

In his Weekly Lecture, Mau addressed what he calls “change fatigue,” where social transformation is perceived as disempowering and unmanageable. This does not necessarily lead to more polarization, but provides fertile conditions for inflaming conflicts despite a more or less stable background consensus by “polarization entrepreneurs,” that is, those who stand to benefit from creating conflict. Such “polarization entrepreneurs” rely on what Mau calls “trigger points,” which are words or concepts that stir up extreme affects in people, including people whose political positions are generally centrist. Once such words are used, a distorted debate ensues around topics where there is actually political consensus.

One common strategy in political science, activism, and even everyday conversations among citizens is the effort to resolve societal conflict by speaking rationally and empathically with ‘the other side’. Political “self-help” books on the topic are proliferating that seek to educate citizens on how to speak with people who hold conspiracy theories or other irrational views.

Astrid Séville, Professor of Political Science at Leuphana University Lüneburg, provocatively claimed in her Lunch Talk that the liberal democratic idea of depolarizing public debates is wrong-headed. The view that we could listen to irrational perspectives, calmly express ourselves to, say, the uncle at the barbecue taken in by conspiracy theories, misses the fact that the other side does not necessarily accept the norms of liberal political discourse. What does this mean for how we think of and practice liberal-democratic civility? What are its limits?

Key takeaways: Professor Séville claimed that we have to come to terms with the fact that an increasingly large segment of people do not accept the basic norms of liberal democratic culture and we therefore require the development of a political conflict culture. We must also reactivate the public sphere, such as membership in political parties, so that private individuals are not so overburdened with the tasks of defending democratic political communication.

As in many countries, German politics is at a decisive historical juncture. Despite a decline since January, the AfD is still the second strongest party, currently faring at 18.4% in recent opinion polls. If, as Astrid Séville claims, there are limits to rational democratic speech, as one cannot agree to the ground-rules and facts that guide meaningful political communication, then the following question arises:

How can the AfD be stopped? This issue drives Claus Leggewie, one of Germany’s pre-eminent political scientists, political activists, and the director of the Panel on Planetary Thinking at Universität Gießen. In his Weekly Lecture, Leggewie proposes two strategies: First, mobilize progressive and centrist societal forces, especially non-voters, which amounted to 23.4% at the last federal election. Second, speak with moderate conservative groups. Moderates want to be spoken with and to discuss their political views, and progressive politics should take this up.

Depolarising political communication goes hand in hand with creating political institutions and organizations that establish a world in common. For this, we need new concepts of the planetary commons and the institutions that would protect them. And we need to reform current institutions dedicated towards preserving the planetary commons, such as the international seabed authority. Two of our programs, “Governing the Planetary Commons” and “Reclaiming Common Wealth,” in collaboration with our fellow Frederic Hanusch, who is working on the concept of “planetary democracy", held two events on the topic.

Planetary commons: Together with program chair Louis Kotzé, Johan Rockström, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, gave a Lunch Talk at THE NEW INSTITUTE based on their recently published paper. It proposes a new paradigm for safeguarding Earth-regulating systems in the Anthropocene.

The discussion: The paper was presented at THE NEW INSTITUTE in a debate with our fellow Wakanyi Hoffman and Frank Adloff, co-director of the Humanities Centre for Advanced Studies, Futures of Sustainability of Hamburg University. The debate turned on the issues of how indigenous knowledge can form a basis for how the climate could be regulated, who is included in the concept of “the commoners,” and what this means for our concept of universality.

Want to learn more about the planetary commons? The next special newsletter on Commons and Commoning, written by our Director Anna Katsman, will be published next month.

The conference on “The International Seabed Authority as a Planetary Commons”, organized by THE NEW INSTITUTE program chairs Isabel Feichtner, Louis Kotzé, and Frederic Hanusch, brought together scholars around the questions of how we want the seabed to be used - or not: How can non-human actors, their needs and interests be represented in the International Seabed Authority? Can the International Seabed Authority be reformed so as to become a planetary institution for the governance of the deep seabed as a planetary commons?

Next steps: Some of the participants will attend upcoming meetings of the International Seabed Authority (as part of government and observer delegations) and are engaged in working out proposals for ISA reform. Some participants are working on convening a follow-up workshop. We will keep you up to date.

Thoughts to consider: German society is neither as polarized as it seems nor should the concept of polarization pave the way for depoliticization by reducing genuine political conflicts to issues that would be resolved if only the standards of the liberal script were applied. Democracies evolve through conflicts, which also challenge taken-for-granted assumptions about what counts as legitimate intervention. How can we better incorporate political dissensus? In his new book, "Wild Democracy," (“Wilde Demokratie”) our fellow Tim Wihl explains how the law can enable rather than prevent dissent that promotes democracy.

Contrary to popular opinion, which dismisses wild forms of protest as anti-democratic, legal scholar Tim Wihl makes clear that these very actions contribute decisively to strengthening and legitimizing democracy.

From adbusting and mass demonstrations to occupations and blockades, Wihl examines various forms of protest and explains why climate and farmers protests, mass demonstrations against right-wing extremism, and scandalous protest art enjoy special constitutional protection. Wihl argues resolutely in favor of helping an alternative constitutional way of thinking to break through. After all, civil disobedience is not a criminal offense, but a democratic achievement.

We have recently added an events page to our website. Here you can learn about upcoming and past events, and delve into the key ideas of our workshops, conferences, and various lecture formats.

To highlight one upcoming workshop in particular: "Indigenous Knowledge and Wisdom – Pathways to Human Flourishing”. This workshop on community, water and environmental stewardship will be held from March 25-27, 2024 and is open to the public. Indigenous leaders, scholars and practitioners will discuss how to reformulate the current understanding of sustainable practices and present new pathways for collective and culturally inclusive flourishing.  

Learn more about this workshop and how to register here.