Brain Food for Pioneering Spirits: is the mere threat of violence already a form of violence itself — and is Stockholm syndrome really just an odd psychological quirk, or a survival mechanism hiding inside every power relationship? In Room #909 of the Deep Talk Club, under our overarching theme “Power and Violence,” the group opens the first approach to violence with a quote from a Swiss newspaper on national security strategy, then works through the blurry line between psychological and physical violence, the escalation stages of conflict (Glasl’s model), separation of powers as violence turned constructive, and whether “power games” should really be called “violence games.” Listen in on the examples that came up and the perspectives that emerged in dialogue…
Note: This session was recorded live in German as part of the Deep Talk Club, so the video above is German-language audio only. What follows is an English translation of the conversation, lightly edited for readability — the back-and-forth between the moderator and participants is preserved, but the original timestamps and speaker names have been left out.
A very good morning to you. Today we’re continuing, as announced, with the first approach to the topic of violence under our overarching theme of power and violence, so today we’re putting the focus on the area of violence and, analogous to what we did yesterday, simply picking up various aspects, setting impulses to open up different perspectives, capturing your thoughts, and then seeing, in dialogue, which further aspects get added and in which direction the whole thing develops. On one hand, to find a slow entry into the topic, and on the other, to once again check the whole room planning, room design for the next days and weeks, and if needed to make adjustments or additions here too. Yes, and in that sense you’re very, very warmly invited to join again this morning, right from the start, and simply bring in your thoughts, and once more the quick reminder that we’re recording the entire room and that the whole thing gets published too. That means whoever joins automatically agrees to that. Then we have three small room rules to follow if you want to come up on stage: first, a profile photo in which you’re recognizable, first and last name, and at least one sentence in the bio. Whoever doesn’t want that for whatever reason, can’t speak right now or similar, of course also has the possibility to simply use the chat and join the exchange there, so that we can pick up on one thing or another too. Yes, and with that I’d like to mute myself first and see who’s joining this morning, hopefully right from the start.
A very good morning, dear Jürgen.
A very good morning, dear Yasemin. I hope you’re doing well, and everyone else already in the room. Regarding today’s topic and what I’d like to present, I thought about whether to position this contribution at least at the beginning, but I’ve decided to, because just like our topic yesterday, it’s a topic that really doesn’t tolerate any delay or waste of time. This contribution isn’t explicitly focused only on the topic of violence though, but rather it builds an essential bridge to yesterday’s terminology, power and rule. Specifically, I read an article yesterday in the Neue Zürcher Zeitung about the new national security strategy of the Federal Republic. And remarkably, in light of our room shortly before, the first sentence of this article caught my eye, and I’d like to quote it. It reads: “Peace is founded on power; it prevails when nations do not fight each other with military means.” End quote. My interpretation of this single sentence, which I find very apt — allow me the judgment — is the following. This sentence tells us that power is, or can be, a foundation of peace. We talked about the positive side of power yesterday. Because of this power, rule prevails — that is, it’s legitimized by power — we also discussed yesterday that not everything is rule, but power is a partial expression of rule. Not fighting each other with weapons, according to this sentence, stands for — and now we’re at the topic — renunciation of violence. But this renunciation also tells us that the possibility of using violence is certainly present, but the mere threat of violence already represents a form of violence in itself. I’d like to end there for now, and I hope I’ve given one or two initial impulses for the discussion around the topic of violence. Thank you so much for listening.
Thank you so, so much. There were already several different aspects in there. On one hand, building a bridge, so to speak, to yesterday’s room, and at the same time also further aspects, like it already becomes clear that there are obviously different forms of violence. So maybe we can look at that too. Violence doesn’t necessarily mean acting with weapons, so to speak, but there are very diverse forms here too. That’s one thing that came to me directly as an impulse from the closing sentence you said. And so I’m now really curious to invite the others too, and to look at this with different perspectives, or to open up different perspectives, gladly join in. On one hand you can add further points in the form of “I had this or that impulse,” whether that’s directly connected to what Jürgen said, or maybe also other aspects you want to bring in regarding the term violence. Then we also picked up yesterday, and I’d like to bring this in as an impulse to the room too, this aspect of separation of powers. Maybe we want to look at that too. That would be another possibility, and I’m quite curious. Jürgen, what was the reason, maybe as a follow-up question, that this quote also — I had the impression it occupied you too. Am I right about that?
You’re right, yes. Because this topic — the essential term in the headline is security strategy. And if you break down this term, that’s, for me, a really essential life-sustaining thing, there are two essential functions for sustaining life, and now I come to a second point, remind me if I forget it again, namely the two dimensions that are also hidden in this quote, namely the personal-individual one and that of a community or a superordinate organization. But back to security, security strategy. Two essential components, that’s why they occupy me too, because I consider them life-sustaining, namely this feeling and also the status of being safe, safe as an individual and safe as a — and the strategy and its specific formulation of the strategy into certain tactics determine, or should also essentially guide our lives, I’ll say now, in the form of fundamental attitudes, of moral-ethical convictions that I attach to a life strategy. That’s my answer to your first question. That’s actually the motivation that triggered me through this headline, primarily out of this interest. And let me, if you allow, briefly get to this second level. I haven’t forgotten it. This sentence I quoted with the connection between power, rule, and violence. For me — you know that over the course of my career I’ve become a process-oriented type — to bring that into a process flow, to classify it, the topic of violence on the meta-level. And I’ll say right away why. For me, the process trigger is precisely this threat of violence, already as a form of violence. And the process core is then the specific application of violence with the most varied means, from physical means with bodily impact, but also with mental and psychological impact. And the third, one of the possible outcome sizes, is also a term that carries a lot of explosive charge, I find. That’s the resulting spiral of violence. And that’s, for me personally, a meta-level that I can both apply or reflect on for the conflict we’re currently experiencing through the war in Ukraine — or I should say better, how I reflect on it — but I also reflect on it as a potential process on the individual level, from me to you, from I to another. Threat of violence, provocation of violence, and then the spiral starts, that violence is answered with violence. We unfortunately also see that very often in the personal realm. Thank you so much for listening.
Yes, thank you so, so much. And here the question arises for me, whether the state is always initiated with a threat of violence, so to speak. So what does threat of violence actually mean? Is that verbal, or can that also happen nonverbally, for example? So does it really have to be a threat at that point? Or are there maybe other possibilities too? I’d find that quite interesting too. You can just briefly let that sink in and maybe think about it. In the meantime I’ll gladly bring in Sabine, because she probably wanted to connect here directly. And then we can also look again at whether we can relate to that point too.
Sabine, a very good morning.
A very good morning. I listened to Jürgen very attentively and can follow him there too, but I didn’t actually want to connect to that, I actually had something more… I think we always think only in one direction, or think primarily in one direction. Let me read it out briefly. Violence is any physical and/or psychological coercion against people and all actions that harm animals or things. Violence happens daily in public space just as much as at home, at school, and in the workplace. And I think the topic of psychological violence, we can’t really evaluate or measure that properly. So this psychological violence happens daily. With physical violence, when one person hits another, it’s clear he applied violence. But with mobbing, and the question is where does something like that start, whether that’s at school or at home or wherever, that happens daily too. So that’s a really interesting topic for me. And what I fully agree with Jürgen on, and I find that very interesting too, is this linking of power and violence. There it’s often not physical violence but really psychological violence, when a certain pressure is exerted somewhere.
Yes, thank you so, so much. And especially in this context, so psychological violence, also when we think in the direction of frameworks and sanctioning or something. There you’ll also fairly quickly notice clearly that something like mobbing or similar isn’t as easy to grasp as when, for example, there are physical bruises or similar. There are quite different characteristics you can pick up on, in quotation marks, that you can also define, whereas in this psychological realm it’s precisely not so tangible. And above all it’s therefore also very fuzzy, in quotation marks, because it also has a lot to do with perception and with experience. And especially with aspects like mobbing for example, where does it start and where does it end? And then it also has to do with the recipient, from when do I even experience this as being mobbed for example, and that means here too, if you look at the discussions around these topics, you’ll fairly quickly notice that it’s actually quite complex and not so easy to define, or to draw really clear lines. That’s why I also find this area especially exciting. And, well, I’ll leave it at that for now. Jürgen, would you like to connect here again anywhere?
Yes, gladly. Thank you, Sabine, for your contribution and for the essential emphasis on this psychological violence. I tried earlier to grasp this conceptually, in contrast to physical violence, this psychological or psychologically exerted violence, but couldn’t pin down when violence begins. And really essentially, dear Yasemin, your hint about whether the other person even experiences this as violence, triggered me with a phenomenon that surely some of you know, this so-called Stockholm syndrome, which was, to my knowledge, first profoundly examined during the attack on the German embassy by RAF terrorists back then — I’m happy to be corrected — that those who not only had violence threatened against them but also carried out, in that some were shot, that this group increasingly approximated their behavior all the way to a kind of sympathy toward the perpetrators of violence. For me, I have to say honestly, that was absolutely strange behavior at first, but when you go further back, in various constellations of the exercise of power that go all the way to terror, apparently this is somehow rooted, ingrained deep within us as humans — I don’t know, maybe also out of a protective function, to recognize, I now have to live with violence and I redefine this violence. And in that sense, an outsider then shakes their head and says, how can that person even turn the situation around like that and change their behavior. That’s something that has occupied me for a long time too, and where I don’t have a clear answer as to how something like that comes about and under what use of means, from a certain point on. That makes it interesting too, with regard to the mode of operation of a state that maybe aims to say, well, if I know that I’ll eventually turn my violence into sympathy, then I might as well use this violence. Great topic. Great in quotation marks, please. Thanks for listening.
Thank you so, so much. Yes, and that’s one side, so to speak, that this can develop all the way to a sympathy or even love, from that way of looking at it, and that a certain protective reaction kicks in there, that of humans. So there are certainly various aspects at play here. And then on the other side, to open up this other pole too, on this mental level, there’s also this area where someone maybe feels mobbed or treated in such-and-such a way and experiences it as a form of violence, and the other person or people who may be involved in this interaction in some form see it completely differently or evaluate it completely differently. Really interesting in this context, I think, is something like mediation etc. as a measure, for example, where it’s also about victim-offender reconciliation or similar, where such measures are also taken and then both parties, so to speak, I’ll say now, sit at a table to talk about what happened, to be able to empathize with the other person a bit and get closer and resolve this conflict, in quotation marks. And it’s also totally exciting there, for example regarding who sees it from which perspective how, and that this is also sometimes very, very different. There we’re also back at this perception and experience, so to speak, at that point. So this obviously plays a really big role here too. So it’s very, very exciting to look at it from this perspective too. That means we’ve basically already opened up various aspects now. I’d also like to pick up the aspect of the spiral of violence again. Because there’s this well-known model by Glasl, for example, with the escalation stages. And there are essentially three stages, which are each further subdivided into three phases. And on the first level both sides can still win, in quotation marks, that’s how it’s depicted. On the second level one of the parties will come out of the events as a loser, so to speak, so both can no longer win. And on the third escalation level both lose. And interestingly both parties keep going anyway, because they’re in a kind of tunnel vision, so that it’s only about the conflict anymore, but no longer about resolving the conflict at that point. So we can also gladly pick up such models and maybe do a comparison. I’d have to check, I saw a video some weeks ago, Martin Wehrle I think his name is, who picked up this aspect of these conflict stages and applied this model to these developments in politics regarding these war events currently happening in Europe, and tried to bring in interpretations of which phase happened when and at which stage things developed. It’s totally exciting if you want to look at that, because you can do that in many places, not just, say, when it comes to wars, but also in everyday conflict situations, on the meta level too, to look at where this conflict is located, or at which point one already is, in quotation marks, and whether there’s actually still a possibility of turning back or not. Maybe someone else wants to say something about that or about the other points too.
Jürgen, gladly.
Yes, I’ll gladly pick that up, because yesterday we had a term that makes it necessary to delineate this term from power. Namely that was the term “influence.” The exertion of influence, expressed linguistically in expressions like “I’m exerting influence on someone” and “I have influence over someone.” And because of that I looked for an equivalent for the term violence, for a term that maybe doesn’t specify the result as such, namely violence in its execution, but rather the process-based path to it, and the subsequent steps toward it. And the term “exerting pressure” occurred to me, which is also often used, including in political events, and is certainly also transferable to the personal level, in that I — yes, and now, exactly that’s it — from an individual perspective I find, to say, I’m exerting pressure on a person to bring about a certain change in behavior. From when does this pressure become violence? And ultimately, based on what you just explained, in this escalation spiral from win-win to lose-lose, that would ultimately mean, I’ve exerted pressure and I can apply the chosen means of pressure at any time, meaning use violence. So that would be, for me, a kind of underpinning that results from what you’ve just explained. But that’s it from me for now, and now over to Sabine. Sabine, would you like to connect here again?
Yes, in modern German you always say the case has now escalated. And you can surely see on your stages where I stand now and when it escalated. But that’s not actually what I wanted to say. I wanted to bring two examples or two cases that tie back to yours earlier, Yasemin. It was often shown on TV, when people turned to ISIS, who were normally quite ordinary people. And something happened there. They first found some kind of attachment somewhere. They found themselves on the Muslim side or in some kind of combat camp, and at some point that shifted into violence. And then they couldn’t get out of this cycle anymore and had to see how they could somehow flee or come back to Germany. That’s basically what happened to these people. They first feel comfortable, they’re first shown love, and suddenly they’re pulled to the other side and can barely get out of this spiral anymore. That was the one thing, and the second thing, power and violence — I thought of myself, when I finally said goodbye to the bank for good. There was a situation once, my new mentor had already gone to the bank again with me, and we sat in the committee opposite my then boss, quite a senior figure, and, and, and. And I actually wanted to fight, and at the beginning he said, Mrs. Kraus, if you were sitting here alone, I wouldn’t bother with you at all. But it’s also about the company you work for. This word, this sentence alone exerted so much power that I said in that moment, is it worth fighting? And then I left with my new colleague, and he said to me honestly, of course you can fight here, but he really doesn’t care, and it goes at the cost of your health. And here power was actually the trigger, where I then said, come on, let it go, draw a line under it and that’s it. You won’t change anything here, you’ve already said your goodbyes anyway. I thought, is this power violence — I mean, in that moment it was of course no physical violence, but psychological violence, but I believe that happens today in very many positions, we also often say “the top overrules the bottom,” and the one at the bottom has no power in that moment and gives up from that side, even though they might be in the right.
Yes, absolutely. And especially with the execution of the first point, another impulse came up for me too. We probably also have things like active and passive violence among the forms of violence. Let me pick up the example of the climate activists who glue themselves to the street and obstruct traffic. So to speak, one could discuss and maybe even passionately argue about whether that’s active or passive at that point. And while I was thinking about that, the next term came up directly too, namely resistance. So because precisely through this active and passive distinction, probably, the term resistance came more clearly to the forefront for me. Also to think again about from when is — so is resistance the more harmless, in quotation marks, form of violence, or from when does that become violence? Maybe we can look at that too. I’d find that exciting too at this point. Maybe someone else wants to connect here?
Gladly, Jürgen.
Yes, I’d very much like to connect there. We already had, if you remember, partly yesterday this topic, the legitimation of the application of means for a change of power. I had an example from the ’68 era that then escalated, which I brought up. That’s certainly an extremely difficult topic that, in my view, also has to be assessed in the respective concrete situation — that’s my personal opinion. You brought up the example of the climate glue-activists, and I’ll set the counterpoint, a counterpoint that everyone certainly has in mind, who were also convinced of themselves, considered this kind of violence legitimate, namely the RAF. Those are, or in Northern Ireland these conflicts between the Catholics and the Protestants, who both claimed for themselves this right to exercise violence against the ruling power. So my statement on that: it actually always requires an individual assessment of the respective situation. I did want to bring one more thing to you though, namely I haven’t forgotten your question, your hint about the separation of powers. I’ve already said something about this topic of separation of powers several times. In this context I just want to point out that the existence of this terminology within the framework of our free democratic basic order, that we have a separation of powers, these three pillars of the separation of powers are basically the best example that violence — or power — can also be positive. Thank you.
Yes wonderful, thank you so, so much, especially because we also talked about the positive side of power yesterday, so to also bring in this positive aspect of violence here too. Though, here’s another follow-up question maybe at this point, because the term violence is possibly — I don’t know whether violence per se can also be positive, we can look at that again too. But especially with this term separation of powers, so there a power, so to speak, is divided, in order to make something positive out of it again. So a certain distribution of power, so to speak, is undertaken, or of the oversight of power. Maybe we can look at that again. What exactly does separation of powers as a term actually mean at this point?
I’ll gladly let Sabine go first, I don’t want to be too dominant now.
Okay, then Sabine and then gladly right afterward Jürgen.
That’s kind, because I actually have to get on my bike right now. So I can say something briefly. Jürgen will certainly elaborate a bit longer on that. With separation of powers, I find that very interesting. That was just said to me again as separation of powers. There’s the word “power” in there. But actually the separation of powers is actually something positive. No side should assert itself vehemently. And that’s why we have this — now I unfortunately can’t hear you anymore, Sabine. That’s why we have this three-way division, I heard that much. Can you hear me again now? Yes, now we can hear you again. That’s the problem when you want to call in. I just wanted to say once more about separation of powers, there’s the word power in there. And actually the separation of powers, from the idea, is not violence at all, but actually a strategic division, yes, of the power relations.
Very interesting, I’ve never thought about that before. And now Jürgen may go.
Wonderful. Thank you so, so much. Jürgen.
Thank you very much, dear Sabine. I’ll gladly take up the stirrup you’re holding out, namely the question that’s really essential for me when we talk about separation of powers. What exactly are we dividing into these three pillars, legislative, executive, and judiciary? And it doesn’t end, in my view, with the realization, yes, power, but with the question, which power? Namely, it’s the power of the sovereign, of the people, of our community, which we hand over for a certain time through elections into precisely this three-pillar model. We thus forgo — I think everyone can understand this — the great danger of leaving it to each individual, to leave power to each person’s own attitudes, their own political views, and instead hand it over into a democratically based separation of powers, which tries to distribute this danger of one-sidedly directed and assessed power onto three shoulders. Basically, this three-pillar model of the separation of powers stands for nothing other than a division of what was originally each citizen’s own inherent potential for violence. That’s how I see it. And that’s why, as Sabine just said, this is certainly not the best form as a democratic basic structure. It’s, as they say, the exercise of power, but I don’t know a better one. And neither do I. Thank you so much for listening.
Thank you so, so much. That directly raises follow-up questions, like for example, if we transfer that to other areas. Are there also forms of separation of powers that maybe aren’t institutionally written down, so to speak, but still happen in some form, maybe also in private life, in professional life and so on. So maybe to check here too whether there are comparable forms of separations of powers. That would be interesting. What does that look like for example in companies?
Sabine, gladly.
Yes, I think so. We have, in companies, management board, supervisory board, works council, so we actually already have three powers divided there. And they ultimately also serve to oversee each other and to always go one step higher, or simply to put the sword in and say, this far and no further. And what I just wanted to say too, with the separation of powers we actually have the bridge to yesterday. With the separation of powers we’re dividing up power, aren’t we.
Yes, thank you. The question is whether we’re dividing power through that, or whether we’re simply, so to speak, trying to minimize the risk of the abuse of power at this point. What do you say to that?
I do think it goes more in the second direction, Yasemin, as a kind of preventive measure — and I found that a very good example that Sabine brought up, with the institutional, common structure of a corporation or larger company, into supervisory board, management board, and corresponding decision-making bodies. And I also see it, from my personal retrospective, as breakable down to major projects, to change processes, where I’ve also very often experienced that there were quite specific competencies there that, like in a parliament, approached a potential solution through discussion, through discourse, and prepared and made a decision. And this decision was carried by the placet of the project manager. Basically, in quotation marks, the project government. And besides that, in major projects, in my experience, there exist several kinds of staff functions. And some, and one really essential one, especially I can only speak for banking, for the banking sector, is this internal judiciary, the legal department, the audit department, the equality office, which checks whether the whole thing, in its decision-making path, in the decision-making process and in the specific decision, in the decision resolution, also meets the corresponding rules. That was a very great initial impulse, to extend this to this partial area. Thank you.
Yes wonderful, and then, when we talk about projects, so to speak, we’re also directly at the aspect of, for example, leadership, there’s disciplinary leadership as a superior, or also lateral leadership. And especially in this project context we also have this lateral area included. So that’s really exciting. And if we now transfer this to the next level, not just to look at, in quotation marks, corporate contexts, but to transfer it to the private sphere. What does it look like there, if we look at family structures for example. Just as an example. Do you have anything comparable that we can find there?
That’s not really my area of competence now, family. Maybe, if you allow it, dear Yasemin, Sabine can say more about that, or I’m sure she can say more about it from her wealth of experience.
Yes, I can say a lot about that. No, I think that’s also a kind of attitude. And I mean, I think everyone has their family, raised somehow, that works this way here. You also always hear, here elections take place, here there’s a say. Of course I can also set up my family relatively democratically and let everything through from the start. What always annoys me though is when I go to a restaurant and a small child is sitting there, barely sitting on the high chair, with an iPad in front of them with a movie, and that keeps them quiet. I could of course see that as democratic, but I think the opposite is actually the case. And what I’ve seen now with my son in Canada, which I’ve also noticed a bit as cultural differences in how families raise children. So I think in Germany we’re relatively early with that, giving children room to move, letting children develop, unfold. If I now look at the Asian context, from what I’ve picked up, I think it’s often the case that the head of the family is right and then everyone follows first. And I — you can maybe say more about that — the role of the woman is also a completely different role in some cultures than with us. So I think I can also open up a certain parliament there, and follow-up questions and decision-making bodies. That starts with where we go on vacation. Does one person decide that, or do we discuss it?
Yes, absolutely, and especially with the different cultures, which is also really exciting, precisely in cultures where one might think from the outside that the woman doesn’t play such a big role or doesn’t hold as much power, in quotation marks, it’s also very interesting, especially with these cultures, to look at what happens behind the scenes in the family, so that it needs to be differentiated once more, what’s presented outwardly in visibility, so to speak, and what influence a woman can indeed also have behind closed doors. So that’s also very exciting at this point. And in that sense there really are very diverse things here, so you can already see that it’s quite multifaceted overall. And then there’s also the aspect to consider, when we look at systems too, if we look at the whole thing as systems, maybe that’s another impulse we can pick up, then on one hand these are first closed systems in themselves, but beyond that there are also always influences from outside, so to speak. And especially the example of upbringing or socialization is a prime example of this, that certain things don’t only happen in the family, but here again, in the sense of separation of powers we could say, from outside various authorities, institutions have the task of also stepping into a preventive oversight role. Maybe that’s another impulse in that direction. Maybe someone else wants to say something about that.
I’d like to say something too, but not about your last point, rather about your second-to-last point, which I think we also shouldn’t let slip by, namely the delineation — you mentioned it — the delineation between power and violence. And what’s actually the difference? Let me try to set an initial impulse, starting from the common terminology, by saying, violence is more — and this isn’t meant to devalue it — something random, something situational is maybe better, not random. Violence and its application is something situational and always carries a portion, an essential portion, of arbitrariness within it. I’m stammering now, but it’s really quite difficult, I think, to draw a clear dividing line there. On the other hand, especially regarding this situational aspect — we also say an outburst of violence. Something was brewing in us and suddenly it comes out. You need a trigger for that and then it explodes. That’s the situational aspect. Power is something subtle for me. Namely, power is a permanent process, because whoever has power naturally has an interest in maintaining power too. And that means, as we all know, we change, our environment changes us, everything is in flux, panta rhei. In that sense power always has to adapt, in its effort to maintain this power. And again, in contrast to violence, which arises when I trigger it from a very specific situation, emotionally or especially through will. That’s what I wanted to add as an answer to your question or your hint. What’s actually the distinction between power and violence? Thank you.
Very, very interesting. Thank you so much. That raises a lot of question marks for me, namely regarding the term power games. I asked myself, shouldn’t that actually be called violence games? Someone who has power has an interest in maintaining that power too. We especially have, in interpersonal interaction, many situations where it’s maybe not even clear yet who has the power, but someone would like to have it. So we’re going a bit back to our origins here. So it’s going a bit in the direction of marking territory. And here, correspondingly, on the interpersonal, verbal level, so-called power games are then carried out. The question is, is that then actually a power game or is that then a violence game? I find that an interesting question in this context. Jürgen?
I’d like to answer that quite spontaneously, what occurred to me just now. It depends on whether the game is played with dominoes labeled “violence,” or whether these game pieces carry the title “conviction, open discussion, open exchange” or whatever. And I think, that’s also my interpretation, violence is a — how do you say today — a device, a means, a means to an end. And specifically for the purpose of gaining power and maintaining power. And in that sense, but I found this wordplay very interesting, shouldn’t it rather be called violence games instead of power games? There I’d say, you’re right, dear Yasemin, at the moment when violence is the means of the conflict. That’s my opinion on that.
Wonderful, thank you so, so much. Yes, gladly, Sabine.
Yes, I wanted to say again, with the power games, we see that daily in politics too, how today the party that was long in government rails against exactly the same things they didn’t tackle themselves a few years ago. Or I’ve also seen it now here with our mayoral elections. It often wasn’t even really about what am I going to do, because you could see that the programs were almost identical. Everyone wanted to do something for children, everyone wanted more daycare centers and so on. So that didn’t differ so much at all. In the end it was actually more about pointing out the other side’s misdeeds and mistakes, and that’s also a clear power game. That doesn’t show what am I doing better.
Oh wonderful. Yes, and then we also have a question from the chat that directly relates to our discussion right now. The question, how would you describe balancing out power? Jürgen, would you like to try that?
Yes, without now — I find the question very, very good. But I’d start — and I have to say, I need to think about that, because I’m so fixated on terminology. You know that about me, and I have my reason for it. I hope you know it too. But I’d spontaneously answer, the way our democratic basic order definitely tries to do it, namely through separation of powers. That would be my answer to that.
Oh wonderful, my dears. I find that really wonderful. Sabine, do you want to connect something too? Gladly.
Yes, and specifically, what I said about the mayoral elections, in the end it’s balanced out by the result after the count. Because then one party is pushed out and the other holds the power. A nice example.
Wonderful. Yes, my dears, I find it fantastic, this first approach, really from various perspectives. And we’ve really done quite a sweep today, I think that’s great, to carry out this first approach. And that shows that there are really a lot of terms in the room, so to speak. We’ll certainly pick up on some of those again. What we didn’t have so strongly today, which I’d also like to bring in, but which already came up a few days ago, is the term unconscious bias, so also something like what we just had, this, when I, basically, in a certain situation of being at someone’s mercy, so to speak, maybe out of protective mechanisms, develop a sympathy all the way to a romantic relationship that can even arise from that. Those are such extreme forms that the whole thing can take, in quotation marks. And in this context unconscious bias also plays a role, which is also something that can contribute to us maybe accepting a certain form of power or a certain form of violence as it is, because we haven’t learned or don’t notice that patterns are at play there, because we grew up with them. That’s certainly also a really, really exciting question in this context. What influence does that have too? And we can also look at that on the institutional level. Many things within the framework of socialization, so to speak, that we also see as a given. What role does unconscious bias actually play here in the context of power and violence? So to open up this question too. And there too we have — I believe Marc brought in the term “unconscious bias” again a few days ago, we picked that up, and we’ve now, under this overarching theme of power and violence, I think it fits in really well, to look at it from this perspective too, because we’ve already talked about the term itself several times in various rooms before, but we can gladly open up this perspective again under this overarching theme too. I think that’s also really, really exciting. And yes, in that sense really wonderful. Thank you so much for the various impulses you’ve brought in, the various examples that we’ve opened up through this exchange, which then also just arise impulsively, completely unexpectedly out of the situation, so to speak. And I’m really curious how the rooms will develop further over the next days. I’ll take one thing or another with me from the room today, to check the sequence etc. again. So no announcement for tomorrow’s room today, just tune in and see. We’ll of course be there again tomorrow at 8, and I’m already looking forward to the first topic we’ll discuss together then, and I’d like to move on to the closing round for today. Maybe there’s one more thing or another you’d like to add, then very gladly, and then gladly the closing word for today’s room. Who wants to go first? Jürgen or Sabine? Take your pick.
I’ll gladly start, because I’m also close to my destination below. First, sorry that it was certainly a bit louder in the background, because I didn’t want to miss this exciting topic. Thank you all so much. I think it gave me a lot, when you think about things you normally use in day-to-day business and that we went a bit deeper here. And this arrival-freeness is certainly also something that’s planted early in various cultures growing up. You first have to learn that differently. And I don’t think everyone manages that leap to another side and, for themselves, basically to override their beliefs. I wish you a wonderful day.
Yes, wonderful. Thank you so, so much. Jürgen.
Yes, I won’t get tired today either of thanking you, on one hand for this room, and on the other generally for the choice of topics, which always set so many trigger points. And that, dear Yasemin, I’ve learned from you. That can only be beneficial with regard to maintaining and expanding the neural network up there in the brain box. So heartfelt thanks again for that. And otherwise I’ll end today once more with a quote from my forefather of the German language, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, who said, “So I end then in a cold sweat, freed to say what I do not know.” Thank you so much for listening this hour, and have a nice day.
Wonderful, thank you so, so much. Yes, fantastic. I can tell you, I’m really looking forward to the next days and weeks on this overarching theme of power and violence. We’ll open that up from so many different perspectives. You can already see today, many things we actually use as a completely given matter of course and maybe don’t think about so deeply. And it’s a wonderful opportunity to open up different perspectives here, to look at the terms from different perspectives, and then to go deeper each time, to see how the aspects maybe connect with each other and what they have to do with one another. And, yes, Jürgen, you put it so nicely, ultimately that’s an activation of our neural network. That means, on one hand we make sure the strands grow longer, so they grow, and at the same time also establish a connection or link to the things that are already stored, also against the backdrop of our experiences and a treasure trove of knowledge that’s there. And that’s why I find it totally exciting to open up these different perspectives and establish these connecting points too. And I’m really curious, once we’ve worked through the next days and weeks on the topic of power and violence, to look together in exchange at what develops from that and what insights we then, so to speak, take away together toward the end of these several days and weeks. So, in that sense, it stays exciting. Feel free to join again tomorrow, when things really get going, and let yourselves be surprised. Over the course of the day we’ll then gradually start winding the rooms down. And I mustn’t forget to mention, we also again have wonderful experts and authors that we’ve of course invited on this topic. And I’m already really looking forward to that too. That means, for the various focus topics we open up, there will be corresponding links and bridges, so that on one hand we always have this reflective exchange with our own impulses against the backdrop of our own experiences that we bring in, and juggle thoughts, so to speak, and at the same time have the experts involved at various points too, to see their view on the whole thing and get a firework of impulses here again, which we can then keep working with. So, in that sense, it stays exciting. I’m looking forward to tomorrow, and I wish you a wonderful day. Until then. Ciao.
