Enlarge image
Politician Spiegel: With responsibility comes personal responsibility
Photo: Markus Schreiber / AFP
The debate about Anne Spiegel's resignation is also an expression of a culture war that has been raging for a long time.
It is mostly representatives of two camps who are just speaking up - and each harnessing the story of the failed Federal Minister for Family Affairs and former State Minister for the Environment of Rhineland-Palatinate to their own ideological carts.
The first group I shall refer to here as modernists.
As a camp of those who value values such as performance, success and analytical-critical thinking.
Many of them say that anyone who holds a high office cannot afford to be as weak as Spiegel did in her last major appearance.
The ex-minister's emotional outburst is suspect to scary.
Some are even likely to secretly despise the minister – even if they appear to be understanding to the outside world.
The second group could be called postmodernists.
They are the ones who want to criticize and overthrow the conventions of modernity.
Her core values are empathy, authenticity and equal treatment of all social classes (in this case: women).
You say that Spiegel deserves our sympathy - as a victim of a merciless, toxic male-dominated meritocracy.
Many of them found the ex-minister's emotional outburst refreshing.
Some wrote that Spiegel gave the best speech of her life.
In the public discourse, modernists and postmodernists are often deadly enemies.
Hardly any attempts are made to synthesize arguments from both sides.
Only that would advance society.
Because both camps are right, but only a little bit.
The blind spots of modernism and postmodernism
The modernists rightly stress the principle of responsibility.
A state environment minister, who is responsible for natural disasters in the state of Rhineland-Palatinate, simply cannot pull out when a tidal wave devastates the Ahr valley there and more than a hundred people die.
And it must not lie to the citizens.
The postmodernists rightly criticize the culture of excessive pressure to perform - which often leads to people pushing their limits for a long time and then suddenly breaking down (like Anne Spiegel).
They rightly criticize the toxic climate in which top performers are ashamed of their weaknesses and sometimes feel compelled to hide their mistakes from the world.
If necessary, with lies (like perhaps Anne Spiegel, but certainly many others).
So both camps enrich the debate.
But both camps also have blind spots.
Many modernists downplay the constraints of a meritocracy.
Many postmodernists downplay Spiegel's irresponsibility.
Many modernists are harsh on Spiegel's weakness;
yet they overlook or ignore the human aspect of it.
Many postmodernists are more empathetic here;
but they overlook or ignore the fact that Spiegel also deliberately showed weakness in order to save her job.
More generally, modernists often exaggerate self-responsibility, believing that they can solve all problems themselves - and accordingly are solely responsible if they fail.
And postmodernists attribute too many flaws to the system.
They even partly excuse clear individual misconduct.
These are the classic blind spots of both camps.
They can also be found in dozens of other discourses, from the Ukraine war to the capitalism debate to #MeToo.
And both camps will remain blind in one eye if they don't start listening to each other.
Toxic polarities
The debate between modernity and postmodernity usually follows the following pattern: each camp emphasizes the positive aspects of its own point of view - and demonizes the negative aspects of the other.
You are just as blind to the negative aspects of your own view as you are to the positive aspects of the other camp.
Each crouches on his pole and looks down at the other's pole.
The result is an eternally identical culture war with eternally similar condemnations.
In the case of Anne Spiegel, modernists are reduced to cold performance robots – and postmodernists to naive hippies.
Such a debate is of little use.
It circles endlessly in a useless loop, in which everyone only confirms their own worldview.
The result is distortions like those of Anne Spiegel.
Crisis moments when everyone fails and everyone loses.
The minister who shied away from responsibility.
And her contraption that didn't save lives.
Not only – but also – because he let a central manager burn himself out until he could no longer reliably perform his duties.
how to do better
A polarity management that integrates the advantages of both poles and minimizes the disadvantages would be more helpful.
Top performers can then be optimally supported by the system (postmodern) - and at the same time continue to be measured by their personal performance (modern).
One would secure both the health of the manager (postmodern) and the functionality of the office (modern).
Executives could then receive more help, including emotional ones, especially when dealing with weaknesses.
An equally human and functional handling of exceptional private situations of top executives could develop.
And top offices could be decoupled more from individuals.
Even a co-ministerial system, in which several politicians rotate in the ministerial role, would be conceivable.
At the same time, top executives, with all the support, should continue to deliver.
Especially top politicians who decide about the well-being of millions of people.
Which means that with responsibility comes personal responsibility.
Anyone who realizes that they have taken on too much must not only protect themselves, but also the office they hold.
He has to withdraw from tasks at an early stage and, if necessary, resign from office.
As the Anne Spiegel case shows, more effective processes are also needed for this.
All of these are just initial ideas, there are certainly far smarter solutions.
In any case, it would be helpful to think of modernity and postmodernity together.
Because this is the only way to create something where everyone ultimately wins.
The revamped top performers.
The companies and institutions.
And the citizens whose lives partly depend on the performance of the service providers.
