Enlarge image
North Rhine-Westphalia's Minister of Health Karl-Josef Laumann: "You have to get rid of the masks now"
Photo: Noah Wedel / Kirchner-Media / IMAGO
You could call it "falseism", the "l" is important. Clear. Falseism is the acceptance of gross nonsense as an entirely serious opinion. In the German public, falseism is omnipresent and sometimes disturbingly powerful. It quickly leads to dangerous political eroticism, where decisions are made on the basis of nonsense arguments. Even if falseism may seem simple at first glance, it is a thoroughly complex, social matter. Because everything revolves around the question of what exactly is utter nonsense, that is: What is so unique and detectable and easily explainable way that it will not be taken seriously
must
, because it leads dangerously astray?
A classic of falseism would be to include the opinion that the earth is flat in a discussion about measuring the planet.
This makes it easy to see what exactly one of the dangers is: Falseism can poison problem solutions and even prevent them.
Unfortunately, the diagnosis of falseism in everyday life is usually less easy - and still necessary, as can be seen from a current example.
Because, unsurprisingly, falseism has become evident again around the pandemic.
Government decisions based on factual nonsense
The North Rhine-Westphalian Minister of Health Karl-Josef Laumann is forcing the city of Krefeld to lift the mask requirement in the classrooms at Krefeld schools. The city would have liked to keep it, there are currently Corona cases in a total of 36 schools. In the press conference, Laumann revealed why: »I can only tell you that 3 or 4 weeks ago my mail situation was such that they said 'You have to get rid of the masks now! You are suffocating our children! ‹«
The quoted statement is gross nonsense. Average, healthy children don't choke on breathing through masks for a few hours (neither does adults, of course). The North Rhine-Westphalian government with its new Prime Minister Hendrik Wüst shows the danger of falseism in an exemplary manner, decisions based on factual nonsense. Which can also pose a threat to life and limb.
The overall situation is even worse because Laumann makes it clear in the course of the press conference that he does not believe in the nonsense himself, but rather knows the protective effect of masks very well. Most of the children are still unvaccinated, the air filter situation in schools is, cautiously, inconsistent to subdued and it is impossible to keep your distance in fully occupied classes. Masks are practically the only protection for children in classrooms - Laumann nevertheless prohibits the mask requirement.
The youth organization of the AfD, the somewhat more radical Young Alternative, formulated a kind of self-image around 2015. The statements can still be admired today on the »About Us« page of the JA state association of Baden-Württemberg. It literally says: "Even brave, questionable or insane opinions deserve to be heard." That we do not misunderstand each other: Of course, insane opinions
are
allowed to be
expressed
, but the fact that insane opinions
should be
heard
is already an insane opinion. A furious circular conclusion: falseism in its purest form. Because, as the Laumann example illustrates, in the end it is not just about "being heard". It's about how much consideration you can or may or may not be allowed to show nonsense.
Falseism as fertilizer for fascist movements
Falseism, if you peel it off layer by layer like an onion, is of course not new. A nucleus of current falseism could - as otherwise - lie in the "Third Reich", at least indirectly. When the Jewish philosopher Hannah Arendt returned to Germany in 1949 in order to analyze the country after her escape from the Nazis, she wrote: “The most prominent and also the most terrifying aspect of Germany's flight from reality lies in the attitude of dealing with facts as if they were acting mere opinions. 'This self-deception described by Arendt only works if the boundaries between facts and opinions are torn down. Conversely, one then not only treats facts like opinions, but suddenly also sees facts in opinions. At least faked facts.
In the press conference mentioned, Laumann said when asked whether the fear of masks was not humbug: "I would not deal with people's fears and say 'This is humbug'". That sounds kind of noble and yet it is the core of the problem, that is, the core of falseism. Because not all fears are created equal. Targeted and irrational but long-handed fears are the basis for most group-related enmity, from racism and anti-Semitism to the many gender and sexual hostilities.
In the word homophobia - one has to translate it as homosexual hatred - fear (Greek: -phobia) is still present in the word.
Enlightenment means to say in the case of certain fears: Sorry folks, this is whisked quark, educate yourself, develop yourself further, update your bent gut feeling spectrum.
Not all falseism leads to fascism, and Germany is not a fascist country and is not in immediate danger of becoming one again.
But falseism works like fertilizer for fascist movements.
Ruling by feelings can be quite legitimate
And yet it is dangerous to smell falseism wherever it is about feelings, fears or irrationalities. Feelings, especially those felt on a massive scale,
can
be legitimate and meaningful criteria for decision-making. The same applies to fears - there are fears that cannot simply be argued away with a pound of rationality and even have to be the basis of political decisions
.
That makes falseism a more complex issue than activists of any kind believe.
With regard to fears, you can tell from the questions that concern your own political camp.
For leftists: Why should one take the fear of nuclear energy and green genetic engineering seriously, but not the fear of multiculturalism that is often present?
For conservatives: Why should the fear of structural racism be exaggerated, but the fear of gender-equitable language must be countered with language police bans?
advertisement
Sascha Lobo
Reality shock: ten lessons from the present
Published by Kiepenheuer & Witsch
Number of pages: 400 pages
Published by Kiepenheuer & Witsch
Number of pages: 400 pages
Buy for € 22.00
Price inquiry time
03.11.2021 2.39 p.m.
No guarantee
Order from Amazon
Order from Thalia
Order from Weltbild
Product reviews are purely editorial and independent.
Via the so-called affiliate links above, we usually receive a commission from the dealer when making a purchase.
More information here
To explain and position yourself - personally I have a very clear stance on every topic addressed: Atomic energy no thanks, green genetic engineering necessary, aggressively value-based multiculturalism part of the solution, structural racism a problem to be combated, gender-equitable language an important aspect of social progress.
Nevertheless, I can partially understand the respective fears. They are based in part on arguments that cannot all be dismissed as falseism. The fear of nuclear energy can be impressively justified with Chernobyl and Fukushima, the fear of green genetic engineering is often esoteric, but the potential for mischief-making is great with genetic engineering. The fear of multiculturalism can be justified by many examples of drastically unsuccessful integration. Structural racism makes the life of non-white people more dangerous and can kill, the conservative fear of gender-equitable language is often a symbol of the fear of a sometimes authoritarian, progressive further development of society. So it depends on which fears are justified and how, in order to be able to saywhat is falseistic and what is not.
This is not trivial, because findings and statements that were considered useful or acceptable thirty years ago are no longer precisely what they are today. Because the public, society, and the world are evolving. In the 20th century it was normal to say "Doctors" and to mean women doctors, but the picture has changed in the meantime. Not all, but many, even arch-conservatives. Otherwise Friedrich Merz himself - enormously unsuspicious of the charge of progressiveness - would not say: "Citizens". But only "citizens".
This in turn explains the lack of understanding many progressives have in the conservative language police of gender opponents: On the one hand, to show through their own words that women are not meant by "citizens" - and on the other hand, efforts for precisely that reason To discredit language as a gender gaga. That is considered bigoted. This gives rise to perhaps the greatest difficulty surrounding falseism: consistency. So the question of where irrationalities are still acceptable and where they can no longer be included as relevant.
The greatest danger on the part of the progressives: To prematurely brand any emotion as falseism.
The greatest danger on the conservative side is turning falseism into politics against their better judgment.
Which fears are taken seriously and why has an incredible impact on society.
It is all the more important to decisively oppose falseism.
