Zeitgeist - Gut Feeling Beats Reason!

(DE) At an auction for antiques and old, well-preserved furniture from all eras, I strike up a conversation with a lady. She is completely enthusiastic about all the pieces of furniture without exception and asks me what I think of a dark living room cabinet from the 1950s. Although I have a particular fondness for old furniture, which is why I went to this auction, this bulky piece of furniture is not my cup of tea, which I tell her. ‘Oh,’ says the lady indignantly, ‘you don't like old furniture, you only like modern IKEA furniture.’

She turns away from me, because in her opinion, anyone who does not love all old furniture without exception is an IKEA furniture lover and therefore, due to their taste, definitely no longer an adequate conversation partner for her.

Thinking in boxes

This experience serves as a parable that mirrors the current zeitgeist of polarisation and exclusivity. People feel more than they think, are more closed off than open, and interpret more than they ask questions.

Thinking in boxes is spreading.

They believe they can recognise or even sense someone's mindset, that is, their attitude, based on certain characteristics. Categories! Stereotypes!

Separation and division into us, the good and knowledgeable ones, and you, the bad or naive and misguided ones! The good ones go into the pot, the bad ones go into the crock. Demarcation and division into us, the good and knowledgeable, and you, the evil or naive and misguided!

At the latest, with the waves of the pandemic, this phenomenon was incorporated into our communication strategies, the media, and political debate. Black-and-white thinking, stereotyping, stigmatising those who think differently and having an irreversible, morally justified opinion have become the norm in a creeping process. Anyone who thinks differently is cancelled. There is no longer any healthy debate with other views.

Differentiation, balance, forming opinions through exchange, expressing doubts and asking questions to which one does not already know the answer have fallen into disrepute. Today, in 2025, these values and behaviours are dismissed as mere hesitancy, indecision, cowardice or helplessness.

It is attitude that matters, and only secondarily, analytical reasoning. Gut feelings dominate and often stifle objective, controversial debates before they have even begun.

Phrases that express attitude as a political concept

‘We stand firmly alongside...’ is a typical phrase used by politicians in the 2020s, first uttered at the beginning of the major conflicts of this period, namely the war in Ukraine and the war in the Middle East. An expression of solidarity without ifs and buts and without specifying who ‘we’ refers to. The government of a country? A particular party? The entire population?

This phrase asks nothing and explains nothing. It does not promise action and looks neither to the past nor to the future. But this phrase presumptuously determines which side an entire country must stand on, firmly, unwaveringly, regardless of what that side does.

This is ‘emotional’, even melodramatic political sentiment, and this kind of politics distances itself more strongly from other or even partially divergent sentiments or opinions. There is a particular missionary zeal in this.

In Germany, the war in Ukraine triggered intense emotional turmoil in both politics and among the population when it came to diplomacy or arms deliveries.

Arguments? None! Moral pressure not to abandon the Ukrainians? Yes!

In return, supporters of peace diplomacy were labelled as Putin's friends, and there was hardly any argumentative debate. Not even a proposal for both weapons and diplomacy could calm the emotions. ‘You can't talk to Putin!’ or ‘You can't trust Putin!’ were responses that merely expressed a feeling.

Ultimately, it all culminated in the feeling that you are an empathetic and compassionate person if you advocate for arms deliveries to Ukraine. And that you are an insensitive person if you consider diplomatic negotiations with Russia to be a solution. The more ‘warlike’ citizens and politicians refused to accept that destruction and death must be avoided.

The intention to proclaim the truth and bring salvation moves people more than understanding how world events work, the causes and consequences of wars, and keeping an eye on the respective puppet masters.

One is almost tempted to call out to people, in the spirit of Kant, to have the courage to use their brains.

But it is moral sentiment, expressed in people's attitudes, that prevails. Hence, the secret preference for pathos and heroism, even in Germany, which was believed to be immune to such things after its history.

Climate activist Greta Thunberg and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky are just the latest examples of this. The young activist was also revered in Germany, and people shuddered with delight when the girl accused the world's politicians: ‘How dare you ...!’

Similarly, Volodymyr Zelensky’s dramatic, emotional words, rather than his arguments, earned him standing ovations in the German Bundestag and the European Parliament.

The tendency towards pathos has been evident for some time.

‘Je suis Charlie’ made the rounds in 2015 after the Islamist terrorist attack on the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo. This kind of solidarity goes even further, is even more intense, even more captivating than simply standing by. The unaffected defiantly merge with the affected.

Who is this message aimed at? At the victims, according to the motto ‘You are not alone!’? At the perpetrators, according to the slogan ‘We will not be silenced and there are many of us!’?

Who is asking whether the satire in this magazine deserved criticism? Not death, not destruction, but the question of whether satire really can do whatever it wants. Hardly anyone dared to address this issue after the terrorist attack and the worldwide emotional solidarity campaign.

In any case, the spirit of this slogan has captured people's hearts and minds and has also appeared on other occasions, such as the killing of George Floyd by US police officers in 2020.

Instead of denouncing racism in US society and demanding a dream of equality and justice, as Martin Luther King did, people are trying to express the idea of equality as a human right with this simple slogan.

It is emotional and makes one feel good, as if one belongs to the righteous, because one is exhibiting the morally correct attitude. But it is not sustainable, because the movement subsides as soon as a new, similar case arises that is treated with the same individual emotional response. Causes, solution strategies and contexts are hardly discussed. Too complex? Not emotional enough? Too factual and not morally arrogant enough?

In any case, both ‘Je suis Charlie’ and ‘I am George Floyd’ ended up on T-shirts and served commercial purposes, which no one protested against.

Politics based on sentiment and shock leads us astray.

German Foreign Minister Anna-Lena Baerbock (Alliance 90/The Greens) apparently felt that the classic expression of solidarity, stating that Germany stands firmly alongside Israel after the terrorist attack by Hamas on Israel on 7 October 2023, was not sufficiently emotional.

She sought to rekindle the dramatic torch of brotherhood, saying, ‘These days, we are all Israelis.’ Many people were taken aback by this unusual statement from a German minister.

The fact that the spark did not catch on and sweep the masses may be because this statement has something to do with citizenship, rather than individual victims.

Perhaps people also instinctively recognised the absurdity, even the intrusiveness, of this slogan.

One can have mixed feelings about the State of Israel, just as one can about any other state. As citizens, Israelis are faceless and nameless, just like all other citizens.

The victims of terrorism, however, have faces and names, and we empathise with them first and foremost as human beings and not as citizens.

These Israeli victims also do not stand for a particular value, such as freedom of expression, as the editors of Charlie Hebdo claimed for themselves.

The Israelis who were killed, tortured, abducted and humiliated certainly had very different backgrounds, views and attitudes.

And in the months that followed, neither the German Foreign Minister nor any other politician said, ‘We stand firmly with the Palestinian people in Gaza!’ nor did they claim that we are now all Palestinians.

There would have been ten thousand reasons for emotional solidarity with the Palestinian population, and there still would be in 2025.

However, there is no official path for political leaders to express concern in this direction.

So what is the attitude that makes the Foreign Secretary, for example, emotionally Israeli but not Palestinian?

Isn't that a questionable attitude that assigns different values to human lives?

This alone makes it clear how ideological politics leads to a dead end and double standards. The gut feeling that underpins ideological and emotional politics is not a reliable foundation for judgement, evaluation, and action, i.e., for politics.

To show empathy, express solidarity, and stand against violence and terror, you don't need to change your citizenship, even if only in spirit. Nor is it necessary to adopt the role of a victim, which can often seem intrusive; instead, it is human and appropriate to convey empathy, humanity, grief, and horror.

At the same time, every politician and every human being is called upon to use their brain to recognise backgrounds, motives, connections, and so on, and with their help to classify events and find solutions.

The foreign minister, born in 1980, is a politician with conviction and concern, as is often found in her party, Alliance 90/The Greens. And she is a child of her time, our time! In today's world, people wear their convictions on their sleeves, even in the form of clichéd expressions of concern.

However, those in positions of responsibility in our society, including the media and ultimately society as a whole, remain stuck in the emotional realm. In that case, it becomes increasingly difficult, if not impossible, to act according to rational criteria. This leads to the formation of the often-cited opinion bubbles, in which everyone reinforces each other's gut feelings and which are inaccessible to those who think or feel differently.

And then like-minded people recognise each other by specific characteristics. Those who use gender-neutral language and ride cargo bikes are vaccinated against COVID-19 and support arms deliveries to Ukraine. It's that simple! To put it bluntly! (TA)