Trigger Points: Exploring Social Divisions in Germany

Is Germany developing into a divided society? A Berlin research team has examined the “trigger points”, those particularly controversial hot topics and central conflict lines of inequality that promote polarization. Thomas Gesterkamp spoke to the sociologist Steffen Mau, one of the authors involved.

Steffen Mau, born in 1968, is professor of macrosociology at Berlin’s Humboldt University. Since 2021 he has been a member of the Federal Government’s Advisory Council for Integration and Migration. Before the current publication, he wrote the book “Lütten Klein”, a social history inspired by personal experiences about the prefabricated housing district in Rostock where the author grew up. In the immediate vicinity is the district of Lichtenhagen, which gained notoriety in the early 1990s through violent attacks on asylum seekers and contract workers. Marten Körner

Mr. Mau, in the introduction to your new book, you and your two author colleagues Thomas Lux and Linus Westhuser use two opposing terms that are intended to characterize the degree of social division: “camel society” and “dromedary society”. Why do you use this animal comparison?

Steffen Mau: We were inspired by the backs of animals. In the camel we have two humps, with a large trench between them. Here two social greeting groups face each other, the differences seem irreconcilable. The dromedary has a large hill, the edges taper off and are significantly smaller.

And which description fits Germany better?

Mau: So far it’s more of a dromedary. Because a fundamental division or a rift through the middle of society cannot be found.

From a historical perspective, you criticize the constant “division diagnoses”. These appear again and again in history, so they are by no means a new phenomenon…

Mau: That’s right, such diagnoses have always existed. Karl Marx already assumed a fundamental class conflict that would worsen over time. In reality, society has become more and more differentiated and has even pacified some divisions in the process.

They point to states with two-party systems such as Great Britain and especially the USA, where hostile milieus have been facing each other since Donald Trump’s presidency at the latest. Does majority voting encourage polarization or no longer fit with today’s diversity of societies?

Mau: Yes, because unlike the proportional representation system we have here, with majority voting the person with the most votes always receives the mandate. Coalition governments are rather unusual here, so a few large parties always dominate. There is less need for compromise formation because they can govern alone. The fight between the opponents is therefore becoming more intense and the alienation of the voting milieus is becoming more likely.

“Diagnoses of clefts have always existed”

In your opinion, is the traditional division into a “right” and a “left” political camp no longer appropriate?

Mau: Only to a limited extent. Of course, this distinction still structures the political space today, but the basic conflict is less dominant. New conflicts have emerged; issues such as migration, climate change and sexual diversity are making the situation more complicated. We see in the political science analyzes that compared to previous elections there is more voter migration, for example between the SPD, the Greens and the CDU/CSU, so the fronts have softened somewhat. What is new in Germany, however, is the rise of a right-wing populist and partly right-wing radical party, the AfD. This has created new areas of friction in the political debate.

One thesis of the team of authors is that there is a comparatively low level of “affective polarization” in this country. In your opinion, is the social division just made up?

Mau: There is a “split in the minds” or a “perceived polarization” that overemphasizes the actual drifting apart of society. On many issues, people are closer together and less uncompromising than one might think given the public debates. Instead of a split in the middle, we have a radicalization of the fringe.

In the empirical part of your book you examine in detail four central “conflict arenas of inequality”. What topics are these about?

Mau: We call one of these arenas the top-bottom conflict, which is about classic economic inequality and questions of distribution. The inside-outside conflicts are about migration, the us-them arena is about diversity and discrimination, and the today-tomorrow arena is about the climate issue. The last three topics mentioned are relatively new conflicts that are causing a lot of movement in society.

And what exactly “triggers” it?

Mau: On the one hand, we observe a lot of consensus, but also heated emotions when certain hot topics are raised, such as gender in language, cargo bikes in traffic or, on the other hand, off-road vehicles such as SUVs. Violations of ideas of equality, feelings of loss of control and demands for change are typical triggers that excite or make people angry. This then leads to particularly emotional discussions that cannot be captured so quickly.

“The AfD has created new areas of friction”

In your “taxonomy,” which you and your colleagues develop in the second part of the book, it is noticeable that you focus on the topics of social contrasts, immigration, identity politics and climate protection. However, you leave out other very controversial recent policy areas such as the Corona crisis and the Ukraine war. Is this due to the empirical data being collected too early, or what other reasons are there for this?

Mau: Our focus is on long-term inequality conflicts, not individual crises, which is why we left them out. Of course, there is also research that we have taken into account when it seemed sensible.

Do the political tableaus that you set up on this basis – with the Greens always at the top of the progressive scale, with the AfD far down as the negative side of the coin – still hold in view of the current lines of conflict? Many left-wingers are also against arms deliveries, and liberals in particular struggled with the restriction of civil liberties during the pandemic…

Mau: Yes, there are these rearrangements of political conflict areas, and new alliances are currently being formed. However, this is less noticeable in the conflict areas we examined, such as migration, climate and diversity. By playing on trigger points, i.e. social irritation zones, social conditions can also change quickly. A relatively large number of people are fundamentally in favor of more climate protection, but they are critical or even hostile towards the spectacular sticking or spraying campaigns of the “last generation”. If activists primarily manage such feelings, the political seating arrangement can change.

In your opinion, what needs to happen so that people feel less “triggered”?

Mau: Some topics require patience. Same-sex marriage, for example, was once a major trigger issue for many conservatives, but since its adoption in the Bundestag, its acceptance has been a widely shared consensus. How the media deals with particularly controversial hot topics is also important. You don’t have to jump over every stick and magnify every marginal aspect. Conflicts are not just there, they are staged and triggered. We are well advised to react calmly from time to time.

Steffen Mau, Thomas Lux, Linus Westhuser: Trigger points. Consensus and conflict in contemporary society. Suhrkamp Verlag, Berlin 2023. 540 pages, 25 euros.

2023-10-12 20:48:30
#crack #middle