Enlarge image
Protest action by members of the »Last Generation« in Berlin
Photo: Christian Mang / REUTERS
The "last generation" has an important concern that is relevant to survival - and yet it is socially and politically very problematic.
The most important reasons for this are the panic-inducing end-of-the-world communication on the one hand, and their toxic self-aggrandizement to the point of the savior complex - who, if not us!
- on the other hand.
And yet the "Last Generation" is urgently needed.
That sounds at least paradoxical, possibly even spectacularly nonsensical.
But it is logical in the current escalation of the climate catastrophe.
Harmful doomsday communication
The self-designation »Last Generation« probably comes from a tweet by Barack Obama in 2014: »We are the first generation to feel the effects of climate change and the last generation that can do something about it.« So the threat of doomsday is already inherent in the name ;
accordingly, the global fear scenario can be found in the entire communication of the movement.
For example in the form of almost contextless quotes on the website: »We still have two to three years in which we can still leave the fossil path of annihilation.« Or: »This is a fossil war.
It is clear that we cannot go on living like this.
It will destroy our civilization.« Or: »We have a choice: Collective action or collective suicide.«
Annihilation, war, destruction, suicide - the message is clear: This is where young and very young people are mobilized against the offensively fueled fear of the end of the world.
The rationale of the activists of the "last generation" is essentially: But it's the truth, the world is really threatening to end because of the climate catastrophe!
There is no doubt that this danger exists.
Nevertheless, it is dangerous to communicate in this way.
It's not about the truth here, but about the way it is communicated and the supposed lack of alternatives to one's own interpretation.
Because that's how radicalization works: by drawing such a bad scenario that any means to avert it seems okay.
Presenting a catastrophic option as the lesser evil because the alternative is even more catastrophic: this is part of almost all extremism.
And this always develops its own escalation dynamics in people's minds, which means: beyond a certain point, extremism can no longer be caught, not even by those who fomented it.
The "last generation" isn't at that point yet.
But her desperate path leads there.
The fundamental falsity of communication is that from the point of view of the "last generation" there is only one way out: to do exactly what they propose.
Even if, of course, it will never be enough, as with all radicalizations.
Assuming that the federal government would immediately try to implement the current demands - the "last generation" would still not go home and play Playstation.
Instead, make new demands.
This is the inertia of the radicalization apparatus, where anything is conceivable except stopping.
The goal of the »last generation« cannot be reached during the lifetime of people living today: the all-clear on climate change.
This circumstance in connection with the absence of all gray values, the resulting disdain for all other problems, which finally leads to the lack of alternatives in one's own interpretation of the situation: these are not just the ingredients of a quasi-religious, fundamentalist attitude.
Unfortunately, against their will, it is also the best argumentation aid for those enemies of climate protection policy, who now like to claim that there is nothing more that can be done anyway.
Because someone who says, like the “Last Generation”, says: “The window will close in two years!” also means indirectly: In three years from now, nothing really matters.
And what should the next generation actually do?
Call yourself "The really very last generation"?
Toxic self-aggrandizement
more on the subject
Picture Adhesive Gallery: Climate Activism in Museums – The Collected Works
Missed climate goals: Why the drivel about the end of the world is irresponsible An essay by Ullrich Fichtner
Response to protest actions: Anger proves them rightA comment by Sophie Garbe
The redemptive self-aggrandizement of the »last generation« has an understandable function in communication: it serves at the same time as motivation and resilience against all kinds of resistance. The »last generation« sees itself, as can be seen, for example, on the Twitter accounts of leading members , as a movement of self-sacrificing heroes.
In this way, the activists of the "last generation" are not only ready to carry out the most dangerous actions for themselves.
They also have a narrative that makes insults, motorist violence and even arrests bearable for them, according to the motto: I am a hero for a good cause!
My suffering has meaning because I sacrifice myself.
Which, again, is part of a typical savior narrative.
However, because the people of the "last generation" are not necessarily viewed by everyone as salvation heroes, the pursuit of heroism is accompanied by a great deal of misunderstanding from the start.
And in the form of the implicit narrative: we have to convince the others, they haven't understood it yet, only we know.
Supplemented by a false but well-functioning circular argument, according to which the people outside simply do not understand what is at stake, otherwise they would have been on our side long ago.
The self-aggrandizement, perceived by parts of the public as arrogance or redeemer extremism, makes the »last generation« appear like a sect.
Which, together with the desire to convert, which is built into all redemption movements, also explains the disproportionately violent counter-reaction of many conservatives.
It doesn't matter that many conservatives have nothing against conversion on their part, as long as it goes their way.
But why is the »last generation« needed so badly now?
On its own, there is something strongly counterproductive about a last-generation-style societal struggle.
There's the old cultural technique of "subversion through over-affirmation."
This means that if a few radicals support it in their own way, it can hurt a public cause.
To cite an example, if there were ever a movement for heavier fines for parking offenders, it would suffer the most damage if part of the movement advocated the death penalty for parking offenders.
advertisement
Sasha Lobo
Reality shock: Ten lessons from the present
Publisher: Kiepenheuer&Witsch
Number of pages: 400 pages
Publisher: Kiepenheuer&Witsch
Number of pages: 400 pages
Buy for €22.00
price inquiry time
12/14/2022 3:42 p.m
No guarantee
Order from Amazon
Order from Thalia
Order from Yourbook
Product reviews are purely editorial and independent.
Via the so-called affiliate links above, we usually receive a commission from the retailer when you make a purchase.
More information here
But the »last generation« is not alone.
She belongs to a social trend that could be called »climate youth«.
And here the "last generation" fulfills an important function: in its radical nature, it makes the other parts of the climate youth appear all the more reasonable, smarter, more tolerable.
Suddenly even conservatives with a penchant for downplaying the climate threat are forced to see Fridays for Future for what it is, at least in Germany*: a movement of smart, non-radical communicating activists fighting to save the world without Wanting to abolish democracy and basic values.
Young people who care about the matter, who are very emotional about it - but with whom one can talk in contrast to the »last generation«.
The "last generation" has to a certain extent replaced Greta as the enemy of the diesel fraction.
Of course there are links and mutual sympathies between Fridays for Future and »Last Generation« and the »Last Generation« is regularly defended by leaders of climate youth.
But the difference becomes all the more visible: some put the end of the world at the center of their communication, others the opposite, namely saving the world.
Some argue almost exclusively emotionally, others science-based.
Some rely on escalation and conversion, others, such as Luisa Neubauer, on explanation and conviction.
Those in the "Last Generation" probably won't like to hear it.
But her greatest merit is to have shown that the main part of the climate youth is not radical, but realistic.
In their communication as well as in their demands.
*I don't want to write more about Friday for Future without pointing out that the Swedish headquarters of the movement has an extremely problematic anti-Semitism/anti-Zionism streak that seriously endangers the movement.