As of: January 27, 2024, 9:00 p.m
Comments
Press
Split
In the Wieser Future Forum: Max Barnewitz (standing) explains to the conference guests the importance of constructive discussion.
© gösweiner
Under the title “Argue - What really helps against slogans and populism”, the social scientist Max Barnewitz examined the question of how to stand up to regular table speakers and demagogues in his interactive lecture at the Wieser Zukunftsforum.
Wies
– This year again, the Future Forum at the Catholic Rural Adult Education Center in Wies, led by Sylvia Hindelang, explored burning questions about our future.
The lectures focused primarily on the topics of climate protection, democracy and populism.
In this context, Max Barnewitz from the Bavarian Political Education Network discussed with the conference guests the question of how bridges can be built in times of rhetorical scarcity and polarization.
To do this, you first need a dispute: “In a society without dispute, the law of the strongest rules,” explains Barnewitz, adding: “The same applies to a society in which there are only hostile disputes.” Dispute must be seen as a learning opportunity: “By listening to a different perspective, I broaden my horizons.”
“It’s often enough to stay in dialogue”
It's not about adopting the other person's point of view.
“It is often enough to stay in dialogue.
Deal with our counterparts.” But what should we do if the discussion partner treats us with invalidations, generalities, underhandedness or opinionatedness?
Barnewitz gives the example of a particularly controversial discussion in which he was identified as a “left-wing slob” simply because of his appearance and was greeted with a wild tirade of abuse.
Barnewitz waited until the worst of his anger had subsided, introduced himself to the person and referred to the original question, which he had asked aggressively and in a loud tone: “What understanding of democracy do people like you actually have?” A lively discussion then ensued between the two of them It was not possible to reach an agreement on the content, but at least an understanding could be reached.
Sometimes “it’s better to retreat out of self-protection”
Of course, it is not possible or advisable to face such a confrontation in every situation, Barnewitz: “If the topic affects me emotionally, I should rather withdraw just for self-protection.” In any case, the basic prerequisite for an open-ended, democratic discourse lies in the willingness to overcome black and white thinking.
In social science we speak of dilemmas in this context.
On closer inspection, many annoying characteristics and every point of view that deviates from our value system also have something positive about them: “As soon as we become aware of this, we enter into an exchange with our counterpart.”
When dealing with so-called regulars and populists, this means: If we specifically look for the hidden desire and dilemma behind the commonplace, i.e. listen to our counterpart and appreciate their strongest argument, a field of tension can open up in which a constructive exchange becomes possible.
According to Barnewitz, our democracy needs one more urgently than ever today.