We have to talk!, Speech about divided society
Migration. You hear this term almost every day these days. Be it on television or the Internet. It is a topic that has never occupied people as much as it does today. Society is divided to an extent rarely seen. But how does it come to such a split, in which different groups face each other full of hatred? There are different interpretations of this.
For me, however, it is clear that the main causes are increasing digitalisation and the associated media behaviour.
First of all, it should be noted that the political attitude of each individual is strongly influenced by the environment in which he or she grows up. Parents, family and friends as well as growing up in a village or town play an important role. In addition, school is also of great importance, since a large part of the time of day is spent there, as is later the case with work.
In primary school the social groups are relatively mixed. However, the division after the fourth grade into grammar school and high school already causes a first separation into two different life worlds. Both parties are now shaped morally, ethically and socially in a different way.
It is becoming easier and easier for the students to stay in their "bubble". This is quite natural, because everyone looks for friends who tick similarly to themselves. Nevertheless, there are always situations in which one is confronted with different views, e.g. when politics is discussed in a sports club or choir.
Now digitalisation and the associated media behaviour come into play. Today, the Internet plays a decisive role. We live in a media society in which the mass media play a key role in the political mediation process. Extreme amounts of information flood people every day on the Internet.
Contributions can be published on the Internet at the touch of a button. The focus of most media is no longer on the quality of the information, but on the fastest possible communication, since media compete with each other. It is not uncommon for inaccurate reports or even false information to be disseminated.
In addition, more and more people are getting their information via Facebook or Twitter. And this is exactly where the problem lies: the preferences, hobbies and fields of interest of every user are analyzed completely automatically by such companies, for example through "likes" or frequently clicked pages.
This means that users are only shown for example posts and pages that they like. This does not only happen in social media. The ads on Google are also adapted to the behaviour of the user, for example. Thus a constant confirmation takes place to the own attitude in the Internet.
If one is confronted now in the football association nevertheless times with another opinion, then this is ignored and immediately stamped as wrong, because one sees oneself completely clearly in the right. A real discussion cannot come about in this way. Now the individual is not only stuck in a bubble when it comes to school, work, family or friends, but also in a digital bubble.
As an example: Tommy grows up in a family that feels abandoned by the government. This gives him a fundamentally negative attitude towards politics. On Facebook, he constantly sees headlines that speak of criminal acts by refugees. This confirms his image. He likes these posts and shares them, so Facebook shows him more of them.
More and more he is frustrated and reduces this displeasure in the comment areas where he feels understood and safe. After all, he can no longer understand how someone can gain anything positive from the refugee movement, which in his opinion only brings crime. By the constant confirmation, all see themselves in its "bubble" in the absolute right: The others should look times correctly.
Hate and the will for change develop. Something must finally happen.
The arguments seem idiotic and stupid. Here, too, numerous prejudices quickly emerge. For example, people living in Saxony are very often referred to as AFD voters, and this only because reports about for example Pegida are constantly on the net.
Now both sides are trying to convince each other, but due to the constant confirmation of the "bubble", there is a lack of willingness to compromise. One sees oneself in the right and the two sides isolate themselves more and more from each other. As a result, today we are experiencing a divided society in which the other side is devalued.
What can we do about it? We would have to argue more with each other face to face - not hidden behind anonymous Internet accounts. We would have to agree to treat each other respectfully and to refer to the values of the Basic Law - it was not without reason that this was negotiated together after the Second World War.
"E pluribus unum" is the motto of the coat of arms in the Great Seal of the USA: A new We can emerge from many individuals. That's exactly what we have to learn again: Only together can we be strong. Especially in times of complex, existential problems such as climate change, we must act as a closed society in order to master such challenges!
DE
