Enlarge image
Protest in front of the New York Museum of Modern Art 2021: Sometimes differences of opinion give rise to major divisions
Photo: Anadolu / Anadolu Agency / Getty Images
SPIEGEL:
Mr. von Scheve, are we living in particularly emotional times?
Scheve:
Emotions are definitely being expressed more than before.
But that doesn't mean that there are more feelings or more intense ones than before.
Rather, emotional reflexivity in society has increased.
SPIEGEL:
That means?
Scheve:
Today, societies pay much more attention to emotions; they constantly reflect on their own collective emotional state.
Social media plays a role; it's easier to communicate, especially feelings.
It is certainly no coincidence that I am researching emotions.
It is an expression or a consequence of this diagnosis.
SPIEGEL:
The German cultural scene is currently being shaken by a particularly emotional topic: the situation in the Middle East.
Positioning is constantly being demanded and implemented, open letters are signed, calls are made.
How do you explain that?
Scheve:
On the one hand, with the need to articulate political positions and demands and to make one's voice heard.
On the other hand, with belonging to groups and political camps.
When the self-image of such groups is attacked, feelings really boil over, and at some point it's no longer about content.
The cultural sector is no exception; here too, people want to feel like they belong, to show solidarity or to differentiate themselves from others.
Obviously, the attitude towards the Middle East issue is currently particularly important for the collective self-image.
SPIEGEL:
Are attitudes and feelings different things?
Scheve:
Attitudes are always emotionally based, and feelings are an expression of our attitude to the world.
SPIEGEL:
Large parts of the cultural sector are currently taking a critical stance towards Israel, often very loudly and unforgivingly.
Are they the only ones showing feelings or are the other side showing feelings too?
Scheve:
Strong emotions can be found on all sides of the conflict.
The relationship between Germany and Israel is part of a historically based collective identity, which is why many people feel an emotional connection to the country.
Others claim that these feelings obscure the view of the current conflict.
They are not least concerned with challenging a culture of remembrance and the collective emotions associated with it.
SPIEGEL:
In politics, when you talk about emotions, you often mean: anger, hatred, incitement.
Does mourning, for example over those who died in Israel and Palestine, have a place in the political debate?
Scheve:
Of course, the question of who we can or even have to mourn for and under what circumstances is a highly political matter.
SPIEGEL:
Can grief become a weapon?
Scheve:
Emotions are always the subject of normative evaluation and produce social exclusions and affiliations, and grief is no exception.
SPIEGEL:
At the end of this year's Berlinale, terms like genocide and apartheid were used, and people showed up wearing Palestinian scarves.
This also seemed to serve to create a mood and feelings.
Scheve:
In the cultural sector you are practiced at articulating feelings and positions, presenting them convincingly to others and generating and sustaining resonance; that is an essential part of culture.
In science, for example, many researchers would probably be suspicious of so much emotion; think of Christian Drosten during the pandemic.
At some point he only wanted to talk about technical matters and not about his own state of mind or the mood in the country.
At least that was my impression.
The political power of the cultural sector is great
SPIEGEL:
The virologist Drosten was heard because of his professional qualifications.
Very few artists are also political scientists - they are people with political views.
How great is their power?
Scheve:
Great, because many people see the cultural sector as a social institution and moral authority; they ascribe to it the role of a pacesetter or seismograph.
Conflict issues are at least negotiated very differently there than in politics.
SPIEGEL:
Things are just as emotional in the Bundestag.
Scheve:
Politics is an affect-laden area and always has been, and populists in particular know how to take advantage of this.
Nevertheless, for many people, the legitimate place of great feelings is primarily culture, including sport.
They expect more objectivity from politics.
SPIEGEL:
You research the state of mind of societies, collective emotions.
Not everyone in a society feels the same way.
Scheve:
Often enough, the differences in opinion even lead to a state of social division; we then speak of affective polarization.
Then all that matters is being able to divide the world into an in-group and an out-group - an emotion-driven process.
This affective polarization has increased in recent years in the US, think of the binary between Democrats and Republicans.
SPIEGEL:
But they also exist in Germany.
Scheve:
Not nearly to that extent.
But the actors have become louder and so have their feelings, which gives the impression that things have gotten a little worse.
SPIEGEL:
The US philosopher Judith Butler calls the Hamas massacre in Israel an "armed resistance," and this is also the subject of heated debate in Germany.
Is this a factual assessment – or does it address the emotional level?
Scheve:
Both.
And both can be argued about.
First of all, it is Butler's interpretation of reality.
Strong feelings often arise when an interpretation of reality does not match one's own perception.
Butler apparently only wants to debate with those who accept her concept of resistance.
It places an interpretative template on an existing conflict and makes this template the prerequisite for a debate.
This is a normative impetus that creates and reinforces resistant emotions.
SPIEGEL:
Who decides where a rational position ends and an emotional one begins?
Scheve:
Interestingly, emotions have recently become a controversial topic themselves.
Which feelings are appropriate, who decides that anyway?
An example from the climate movement: When Greta Thunberg says »I don't want you to feel hope.
“I want you to panic,” she sets out an emotional regime.
SPIEGEL:
Why are so many intellectuals taking part in this hardening of the debate?
Otherwise they are promoting consideration and dialogue.
Scheve:
Probably only a few have an interest in hardening the debate.
But yes – the space for differentiation and nuances sometimes disappears.
Instead of agreeing to disagree, these differences turn into rejection and even disgust towards those who think differently.
This can make the exchange impossible.
SPIEGEL:
Many people are currently worried about new excesses.
The Venice Biennale or the Eurovision Song Contest may soon have to think about security precautions to protect Israeli participants.
Scheve:
In my opinion, there has been, at least recently, a certain common sense in the cultural sector, a great deal of liberality, and a sense of togetherness across very different positions.
This consensus seems to be breaking down and differences are becoming, if not greater, then at least more visible.
We last noticed this during the pandemic.
Think of the series “Close Everything,” in which actors ridiculed the corona measures in online videos.
This has led to harsh criticism and strong emotions, especially within the cultural sector.
SPIEGEL:
The feelings only subsided when the pandemic was over.
What awaits us first in Middle East discussions – an objectification of the discussion or an end to the conflict?
Scheve:
Debates are never just conducted on a factual level, and an end to the conflict is not in sight for me at the moment.
SPIEGEL:
If sentiment has turned into resentment, what is still possible?
With such strong feelings, can rejection still turn into rapprochement?
Scheve:
It's not about rapprochement at any price.
It is more important to allow for nuances.
This applies to political disputes as well as to emotions towards political opponents.
Instead, many people apparently feel pressure to make a commitment - and hardly dare not have a clear opinion.
Or just to ask for objectification.