Mr Eggert (Director of the Interlink Academy),
Ladies and gentlemen,
It gives me great pleasure to welcome you. I am delighted that I have been asked to speak to you today, and I am very pleased that “Forum Media and Development” is meeting for the very first time in the Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg.
As Hamburg’s Senator for Culture and Media I would not like to make the mistake of telling you what you ought to be doing when it comes to the media and social development. That would be presumptuous and inappropriate.
Instead of this I would like to give a concise summary of the subject of social cohesion, social coherence and the role of the media in this context.
Despite the numerous differences between the various countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, and between Russia and Europe, a number of basic prerequisites must be in place in order to facilitate social cohesion, peace and progress, no matter where one happens to be in the world.
Such basic prerequisites are now more important than ever because we are confronted by a series of challenges to which the global community will have to find common answers.
Russia’s war of aggression in Ukraine has already had global repercussions.
At the same time we are on the threshold of an unparalleled moment in human history, a transformation process which is usually described as "climate change", though this is actually no more than a euphemistic expression.
In the light of such collective challenges there is a new urgency about the question of how social cohesion can be achieved in the vast majority of societies.
But we know only too well that common problems do not automatically lead to solidarity and a community spirit.
A cohesive society depends on…
A sufficient degree of socio-economic cohesion, i.e. one that is felt to be a sufficiently just and equitable distribution of wealth,
A sufficient number of shared ideas pertaining to what one has in common,
Not only equality before the law, but also equality of opportunity in societal terms,
A generally accepted way of dealing with conflicts, and, last but not least, communicative public that are accessible for everyone, that encourage societal self-understanding, and which thus create a common pool of knowledge.
In so many words, social cohesion is based on the freedom of each and every individual and at the same time on the equality of all. They are linked by communication, though this will only be a success if we can be sure that we have access to the same information and can tell the difference between facts and fakes.
If this is the case, then there is clearly a need for a sensible rivalry between different points of view, since this is what enables a democratic public sphere to function in a meaningful way.
At any rate that is the ideal scenario as described by the philosopher Jürgen Habermas and others.
It depends on the willingness to presuppose that other is ready for common understanding. It links the idea of truth and truthfulness to a consensus about these classics which can only be reached in open discourse.
This is what might be described as the ideal state of affairs. However, if we look around we will see that in many ways it is still a long way away. It may be fiction in a given situation but is still a powerful social force.
The joint search for the truth is not always deemed to be desirable.
We are witnesses to the fact that presidents no longer feel a need to tell the truth.
Moreover, they suppress it whenever they can, or they make it subservient to their personal requirements in a completely arbitrary way.
Tackling challenges together with others becomes impossible when fakes start to replace facts.
In 1997 Barry Levinson made an interesting satirical film called "Wag the Dog". Shortly before an election a president becomes the target of the media on account of sexual advances to a schoolgirl. Without further ado he fabricates a war with Albania, a country with which the Americans are not familiar. This hoax is designed to make people believe what they are told, and all kinds of cover-up techniques are deployed in order to ensure the president’s re-election.
Today it is the other way round. A head of state is waging a war on a neighbouring country and is covering up the fact with all the means at his disposal. Here the issue is the rise of popular opportunism and the activities of purveyors of insincere applause, and not of the encouragement of citizens able and willing to think for themselves.
We are all well aware of the global scale of such dangerous activities. And since no one is in the sole possession of the truth, it would be a good idea to look for it together and as a team.
Even in this country the willingness to reach some kind of understanding with those who hold different views is on the decline. The willingness to even listen is vanishing.
Digital communication channels make it possible to exchange information with everyone else. But algorithms make it difficult to establish a common knowledge base. Access to the world is tailor-made and personalized.
Here again the net result is a growing insensitivity and indeed emotionalization of the public discourse. People are either for or against, and the world is either good or evil.
Reason and rational discourse are further away than they have ever been. For example, debates on the corona pandemic, on the war in Ukraine, and on the so-called refugee crisis have a habit of coming back to very basic issues. Thus there have been and continue to be heated discussions about freedom.
However, people refuse to talk about the complexity of the world, and are openly in denial.
The central issue seems once again to be a rigid adherence to the notion that one’s own views are an embodiment of the truth.
This is characterized on the one hand by an insistence on the absolute veracity of one’s own point of view which goes beyond the usual kind of opinionated self-righteousness and in certain cases verges on the fanatical, and on the other by social exchange delimitation.
Both of these things – the notion of absolute veracity and the practice of delimitation – prevent the emergence of a constructive exchange of ideas.
The high emotionality of the debates might be construed as an indication of the fact that far more fundamental values and convictions (doxa) meet head-on over and above the factual level. But these collisions are seldom discussed in public.
Those involved try, for example, to demonstrate the incontrovertible truth of what they believe by adducing empirical "documentary evidence" or some kind of "scientification". (ref.: Alexander Bogner, 2021: Die Epistemisierung des Politischen.)
The subject itself is hardly ever talked about, but if and when it is, the position adopted seems to be one of self-defence.
The debate is often about the lack of XXX to participate which certain groups experience.
It has a kind of existential quality, and this means that there is hardly any room for understanding, ambivalence and compromise.
Can the media mend these social mutual fractures? No, they cannot. Nor are they supposed to. They cannot protect people, and they cannot heal them.
Furthermore, we do not need a cuddly kind of society imbued with an exaggerated craving for social harmony in which everyone thinks that everyone else is very nice and very wonderful.
We need a society in which people respect each other and which is open for things which it does not know.
And that is what the media can promote.
Here in Hamburg the “Leibniz Institute for Media Research” is doing systematic work on the question of the significance of the media for social cohesion.
In this ongoing research process, which is based on expert interviews with journalists and members of civil society organizations, the team has described three categories which can help journalists to work in a "cohesion-sensitive" manner.
These are:
(1) attempting to reach all parts of society,
(2) depicting society as it is,
and (3) conducting a societal dialogue:
What has led to a situation in which journalistic media no longer reach certain sections of the population?
The personalized functions of digital platforms clearly play a significant role. However, so do the growing importance of social media and the associated changes in media utilization.
What needs to be borne in mind in order to depict social diversity in an appropriate manner?
Some people think that reporters ought to do more to make "everyone feel at home in the media".
At the same time journalists should show far more often what people have in common, publish reports on constructive approaches to problem-solving, and "create a kind of community spirit".
This refers to the differently distributed ways in which social groups can participate in a societal discourse.
There are certain obstacles, and they include deficits with regard to language teaching.
Here journalists will have to come up with some pertinent answers. It is a question of improving the level of digital information and news literacy. And it is also a question of providing spaces for debate in which people with different views can talk about them in a civilized manner.
However, it is also about the ability of journalists to conduct a dialogue – and thus quite specifically about self-reflection and the transparency of one’s own work.
A greater emphasis on attempting to reach all parts of society, on depicting society as it is, and on conducting a societal dialogue can also be useful when it comes to making journalists more "cohesion-sensitive".
Of course this is quite different to descriptions which gloss over the dark side of social reality. And we certainly do not need positive news to counteract the negative effect of bad news.
What is of considerable importance is the promotion of a positive outlook and the description of a range of experiences, i.e. critical analysis and evaluation reports.
When we think about the issue of global cohesion, the statements made by journalists in exile are of crucial importance.
They are the opponents and adversaries of manipulation. They are the ones who tell us what is going on, and they are the ones who tell us what is wrong.
Despite the prevalence of social diversity, social cohesion presupposes a shared understanding of what one has in common.
Trying to identify what this is has become more difficult in an increasingly variegated society.
The notion or vision of belonging to a specific group, despite patent differences with regard to origins, education and life scripts, is a precondition for solidarity.
Historically only the nation-state has managed to create this vision. However, we are all familiar with the associated dangers, which include a maniacal belief in homogeneity and nationalism.
Thus the challenge is to come up with points of departure or indeed building blocks for non-exclusive ideas of belonging to a specific group.
It is about the idea of a society that is inclusive in character.
The central tenet of an open society is that everyone has the right to say how he or she would like to live. And that we agree on the rules and regulations that prevent these freedoms from restricting other citizens freedoms.
This classical concept, which takes its bearings from the idea of the "citoyen", seems to be the precondition for a broad kind of societal solidarity and the idea of belonging to a specific group. Conversely, those who primarily define themselves on the basis of their own we-group will find it difficult to leave this "structure of affiliation" or to have a feeling of solidarity with society as a whole.
Narrators are needed when it comes to disseminating narratives designed to promote the idea that people have something in common.
It would not be altogether wrong to say that journalists are societal storytellers. In fact it used to be said that television is the nation’s campfire, and there is an element of truth in that.
But it would be a grave mistake to believe that it is the task of journalists, film makers and others to design and disseminate narratives which can strengthen and enhance social cohesion.
This can be the net result of what they are doing, but it is not their task.
Designing the narrative is the task of policymakers and of all those societal institutions which play a part in the political quest for the best course of action.
Journalism is focused on procedures. It is linked to the idea of a conversation of society – and it is responsible for this conversation. So it is not about taking sides but about fostering dialogue between different interests and opinions. We know from peace journalism that this can strengthen cohesion.
It is still the task of journalists to describe facts, and these can form the basis of a meaningful debate. They may no longer be the first on the "scene of the crime", since ordinary citizens may very well use their cameras faster and post pictures on the internet of what is going on far more quickly than anyone else.
But journalists are not only the people who can tell us what is happening right now. They can also tell us what might happen next. They can explain the context and help us to understand the ramifications of a specific event.
And they must continue to ensure that rival opinions voiced in social and political conflicts are clearly visible for all to see.
The media in general and journalism in particular can encourage the various societal groups to start talking to each other. They can initiate and preside over the ongoing process of promoting greater mutual understanding.
And they can point out that in any given society neither homogenization nor singularization is a desirable state of affairs. We need to strive for solidarity among the different!
Ladies and gentlemen,
As George Orwell once put it, "To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle".
This is a piece of advice we should take to heart. In fact, we should enter the fray again and again, and continue to struggle for all we are worth.