Brain Food for Pioneering Spirits: To what extent does the power of institutions shape our daily life? That’s the question we explore in Room #943 of the Deep Talk Club, under our overarching theme of “Power & Violence.” 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.
Today we continue with institutional power. To what extent does the power of institutions shape our daily life is the question we’ll engage with. And so I’m really, really curious about the different impulses and perspectives that come in from you, so we can look together in dialogue at what insights we generate and in which direction the room takes shape today accordingly and what insights can be derived. So you’re all very warmly invited, as every morning, to join in again this morning too, to enrich the round with different impulses, so to speak, and open up perspectives in a multifaceted way. Institutional power, to what extent does the power of institutions shape our daily life? And we can gladly bring in the keyword violence too, if you’d like. So since we have the overarching theme of power and violence, we can definitely consider both aspects too. And another reminder, the room is recorded the entire time. Anyone who joins automatically agrees that it doesn’t just get recorded but also gets published accordingly. And we have three small room rules, a profile photo where you’re recognizable, first and last name, and at least one sentence in your bio. And anyone who doesn’t want that can gladly use the chat, to share various questions or trains of thought here, and then we can pick up on one thing or another accordingly. With that I’d like to mute myself this morning, to see who’d like to open the round with me today.
A very warm good morning, dear Marc. What do you say about the topic?
Good morning to the round. Yes, I wanted to, and have, focused my thoughts on starting with something positive, because I’ll get to it in a moment, since many examples come to mind of institutions exercising power that might not be so good. And that’s why I want to say first, fundamentally, that institutions basically set the rules, offer us a structure, and also offer solutions to conflicts and the maintenance of our social cohesion. That’s why they exist in the first place. And as far as I know, institutions are described as established, so anything that’s an established structure or organization, and that has effects, from government content, through education, through the economy, through healthcare and so on. And then it was incredibly exciting for me, because we now constantly keep using the word power and violence, I came across an article about how institutions do that, so how power actually gets exercised, and institutions exercise power and combine different types of power there, and I found that quite exciting too, to get clear in my head, so to speak, what different types of power there are. And among other things it listed that there’s a reward power, for example a punishment power, a referent power, or an information or also connection power. And if I now, as an institution, take companies, for example, or the one with referent power has, as an institution, information, for example the sports federation, which has a famous athlete, and if politics wants to enforce that we eat healthily, then it’s of course a referent power if I can win over a famous athlete who then bites into healthy bread or says, I only became world champion because I stuck to these and these athletic rules, and that generates it too. Or information power is a really special power for me as an entrepreneur, because we’re excluded from certain information if we don’t have the right networks, and that can cost me time in reacting in time to new occupiers and so on. So that would be my starting point for now.
Yes, wonderful, thank you so much. That shows how relatively diverse it is, what we can all consider and let flow in here. I find it nice that you started with the positive, because we’ve also said that power has two sides. On one hand the positive, on the other the negative, and it’s important to see this positive side equally, because it has a corresponding function too. From a functional perspective you’ve already mentioned some things, that it’s important to have certain rules, to avoid conflicts for example, to give orientation to social coexistence, and steer it into corresponding channels. That means we need that from a brain perspective too. We’ve already picked up and discussed this at various points, that it’s definitely important, so that we can feel comfortable and find our way within these channels set for us. Then there are diverse differentiations you’ve just opened up regarding power, which forms there still are. You can already notice it goes in completely different directions, whether it’s reward power or sanction power. So we already have both these areas in there again, thought in both directions too. And then the areas where power gets used, even if they’re institutions, that there are different areas, whether that’s healthcare, education and so on. You’ve already brought in various examples as areas too. I find that wonderful too. So a really, really diverse impulse to start with, and thus also very different possibilities to dock onto here too.
So I’d like to invite the others to join in here first too. Maybe certain aspects haven’t been addressed yet, or you want to dock directly onto one aspect or another and bring in concrete examples etc. Then you’re all very warmly invited to join in too, to shape this reflection room together accordingly and see in which direction the room develops accordingly. Please keep in mind that we record the room the entire time. Anyone who joins automatically agrees that the whole thing gets published too, and anyone who doesn’t want that can gladly use the chat to bring in one thought or another, so we can pick that up too.
Would you like to bring in further differentiations, examples etc.?
Yes, what I find most exciting for myself, and at the same time also most difficult, I’ll call it the invisible power. And these thoughts come to me only later, when I read or engage with the topic. Health is also an institution, for example. And then it occurred to me that I read a report a few months ago. It’s great, we have a very good health system in Germany. If you travel through other countries, you really appreciate that in Germany, if I collapse on the street, an ambulance comes and first helps, without me first getting checked for a credit card. And at the same time there are institutions too, which I find quite exciting, that you don’t notice, because you don’t even talk about many things. So the invisible power in the health system would be, for example, I saw a report about the power of ophthalmologists. A fifth of ophthalmologists are in the hands of financial investors. Financial investors have discovered health as a huge market for themselves, and as I said, a fifth of ophthalmologists are affiliated with that, and now I don’t want, this shouldn’t turn into some conspiracy room. I do think a doctor also has the wish to help us, but for me as a patient, if I ask myself, well, I go to a doctor and they’re dependent on a financial investor, then they have certain interests. On one hand they’re a doctor and I hope they want to help me. On the other, they’re also an entrepreneur and have to serve their financial investors. And then I ask myself as a patient, of course, about the information this doctor gives me, whatever doctor that is, now for example an ophthalmologist, and they advise me toward a certain surgery, so exactly this surgery, where there might still be alternative treatment options, then I personally, well, I have a problem with that, it’s very, very hard for me to trust that this person is advising me objectively, showing me the possibilities of what can be done, and not showing me the possibility they recommend, namely because of their financial investors. You can imagine, if financial investors have a lot of money invested somewhere, they do want to help us too, but ultimately, if I’m a financial investor, I want to grow my finances and not just help. And I found that quite shocking, and I call this, sorry, that sounds a bit clunky, but I call this the invisible power. The power that’s not visible to me. When we walk through the city, we walk past doctors’ offices. We walk past countless banks. But what’s playing out in the background, you only find out through a small side note in the press or through a small conversation at Deep Talk Club etc., where you think about it and say, okay, how free am I actually? Of course, if I stick with the doctor topic, I have the free choice of a doctor. But I don’t see at the door whether they’re being supported by a financial investor or not. And I don’t know if there needs to be a labeling requirement for that. So it causes me a bit of unease, if I objectively or subjectively have the free choice to decide on a consultation, but don’t know at all who’s behind it.
Yes, wonderful, thank you so much. And that’s a nice example to illustrate that. We can of course extend that further from the ophthalmologists. In the medical profession in general, we also know this from GPs or similar. For example, every one of us has surely already received some medication for free as a sample from a doctor. That means, at many points there’s a pharmaceutical industry in the background that has certain interests and wants certain products distributed in the market, and accordingly provides product samples etc. And here a lot happens in the background. And that’s why I find it nice to differentiate again, between what’s obviously visible, so to speak, and on the other hand what only becomes clear on closer inspection, you could describe it that way. We also had Ernst Wolf with us, who pointed out quite different connections at the author’s breakfast too, and these aren’t things that are somehow spooky or can’t be researched, but to some extent maybe require us, regardless of whether it’s about the medical profession or other areas, healthcare or other areas, that we actually look at this more closely again and again, and see which interests might possibly be behind it, or which financiers play a role here, and to what extent this might lead to conflicts of interest. There’ll always be some, you won’t be able to avoid it completely, but at many points it definitely helps that we’re simply aware of it, and against this background maybe also make one decision or another for ourselves, independent of certain recommendations, for example. And so I find that a really, really important aspect too.
Marc, do you have further examples? You’ve really brought some nice things today. I find that really great.
Yes, I treated myself yesterday evening and was in an American room, and I was totally, well, I’m amazed again when you hear the topics they discuss there, that you sometimes feel, or I feel, like the little boy from the village. I’ve already heard many terms, but how intensively they discuss, for example, artificial intelligence. And now I’ll bring in another example I’ve never thought about before. I know we’ve already talked in the room that artificial intelligence exists, and you, dear Yasemin, wrote a book about it too, and in this room, which was a marketing room, various entrepreneurs discussed and said you should read something. I hope I understood correctly with my English skills, but Google is also thinking about and has developed strategies for how they’ll deal with AI in the future, and that means for us as entrepreneurs, if I now have the idea, Marc has a big company and a few hundred people work there, and I say I’ll just save on the people who make my website and create my website with AI-generated texts. Then it’s possible, so as I said, please google the truth again yourselves, because my English isn’t so on point, but I gathered from it that Google says, okay, if we determine that in the future websites have been edited with AIs, we won’t punish you, but we’ll just do something with search engines, with the ranking, and push you back down the ranks. And that’s of course a huge topic, because we all talk about AI, more and more companies will use it, and as an entrepreneur you just have to try out what effects that has, because if I want to be found, there are only a few search engines, and I’m dependent on these search engines, that I know exactly, if I were to use an AI and that really happens, that I lose my top ranking spot, especially if I’m in the B2C area, so business to customer area, where I live off of mass, where people have to find my shop, then Google of course has an insane power as an institution, because Google then decides who can still find my shop at all and who can’t.
Yes, wonderful, thank you so much, and here too we can bring in this aspect of dependencies again, that means these decisions don’t get made in isolation from each other, but based on interactions and chain reactions that might also not be quite so visible at first. That means, whoever followed this might have caught one thing or another regarding the fact that there really were different statements and considerations here, also from Google regarding this. And they’re not quite as free in their decision, in quotation marks, as it might seem or look at first, because Google isn’t the only search engine, and we know that, for example, certain, well the duration, so if the quality is high and people stay on this page long enough, you could compare that now like, there’s content created with AI that’s really, really good, which leads to a reader, because they get presented with high-quality content that’s interesting and delivers value, staying on this page for a very long time, while maybe other pages that are self-created or self-written might not deliver as much value, and accordingly the bounce rate is still relatively high. So the reader doesn’t find what they’re looking for on the page. And that’s one thing that gets looked at to some extent, and the other thing that plays a role here in the sense of dependencies is that Google isn’t the only search engine. That means, if Google were to ban that, for example, or it led to worse rankings, Google would simultaneously have to consider or note that there are other search engines that might handle this circumstance differently, in quotation marks. And that would then ultimately also result in a chain reaction, so to speak, which could lead to Google suddenly falling down the ranks, in quotation marks, because other search engines suddenly get used more or served more. And these are all aspects that also have an effect regarding institutional power again, so to speak. Namely, in this case, different organizations that are in dependency on each other, and against this background also have to, or may, make their own decisions considering what the others do. So you can of course handle it differently, but that might then have negative consequences, and you have to think about what the price is that you have to pay for that. So I find that a really, really nice example too.
Marc, would you like to dock onto this again?
Yes, thanks again for your explanation, dear Yasemin. I’d like to bring in another example from the working world, namely we’re an aging society, and if I imagine, I saw it on TV, someone was telling how they have a car repair shop, and it wasn’t the case, but it currently is, with 30 employees, and my master craftsman, whom I need to be able to run this workshop, is at retirement age, and the owner of this repair shop didn’t have a master craftsman himself, but he just hired one. So if this master craftsman leaves now, I’m not exactly informed about the legal framework, but as far as I understood, he needs this master craftsman, and many businesses are now threatened, because if they no longer have a master craftsman, they can no longer maintain their business location at all. It’s also good that there are regulations that you need a master craftsman for certain areas and so on, but the dependency and the responsibility that the person who then retires has, when he knows, if I go into well-deserved retirement now, then it could be that 15 colleagues no longer have a job. Please google this yourself too, because I’m not legally that well-versed in whether that really happens. But that’s also a dependency, if you run a company with a partner and this partner, who has a certain training or qualification, leaves the company, that the continued existence of my company could also be at risk.
Yes, that’s a really interesting point you’re bringing up here. I can’t judge for which areas that’s still valid or not. I know that with all these master-craftsman professions, there are quite a few of them, that legal relaxations have taken place, so that today it’s partly significantly easier in certain areas to found a company, for example, even without having a master craftsman certificate yourself. How that then affects the content of the work arrangement, so to speak, if you don’t have at least one master craftsman on staff, I can’t say anything about that legally or juristically. I haven’t followed that closely, but it’s definitely an interesting point. Especially because it opens up two areas here too. One is this moral aspect. That rather concerns the employee themselves who’s the master craftsman, who might go into a well-deserved retirement at some point and thinks about how that affects the other work colleagues. And then we have the corresponding responsibility that lies with the entrepreneur themselves, who runs this business, so to speak, to make sure a succession is there etc., that this happens in time, also in the sense of knowledge transfer and experience transfer at this point, to not economically endanger the business, in quotation marks, and not just secure jobs, but also ensure operationally that everything can continue running without major upheaval, let’s say. So these are aspects that flow in here too. Yes, so really, really diverse, and we can, interestingly, with institutions we might also think of things like fixed structures and so on, we get to organizations, associations and so on relatively quickly, where we maybe don’t come to as quickly, or don’t look at as quickly, is something like marriage. So marriage is also understood as an institution. So we could of course open up a completely different area here now too. Maybe you’d also like to look at that. What does institutional power look like, for example, in a marriage? We could look at that too and think about whether we see or grasp certain aspects here too, that for example also have an influence on our daily life. The question was to what extent the power of institutions shapes our daily life, and against this background to look at that too, that would be, I’ll call it, a somewhat more unusual institutional area, because with institutions we don’t automatically necessarily always think of something like marriage right away. So picking up such structures too and looking at them can also be quite interesting as an impulse here too.
Marc, would you like to dock onto this or another point again?
Yes, that’s totally exciting what you said, dear Yasemin. On this topic of marriage, I once read a really great book. Someone gave it to me as a gift. I didn’t buy it myself right now. I think, if I go by the title, the book is called “Free, Love, Common-Law Marriage.” And it was about, exactly, the power of the churches and how marriage was actually contracted at all. So every one of us knows what marriage is and engages with the topic. But few know that marriage, as we know it, has actually, I think, only existed the way it exists for 100, maximum 150, 180 years. Because before that, I couldn’t marry into certain areas at all. So craftsmen stayed among themselves, certain castes stayed among themselves. And the church of course had a huge power there too, and exercises this power too, in that it also said who’s allowed to marry whom. And what I found especially exciting, whether this really happened I don’t know, is that there apparently were times in Germany when marriages were contracted where intercourse was part of it too, so that even people, it said in the book, so of course I can’t verify whether that was really the case, that intercourse was even observed so that the marriage would be contracted. Really, really bizarre things around the topic of marriage, but this freedom that we can marry out of love, dear Yasemin. If I love you and we’d stand up against our family too, and you’re single and I’m single, that we can decide to marry. This freedom has only existed for a maximum of 180 years, and I found that quite exciting too.
Yes, wonderful, thank you so much, and in this context of course it’s also totally exciting when we look at how the whole thing, I don’t even know if the term is right, gets romanticized, so to speak, so a romantic context gets set, to make it nice and attractive too. Then we’re very quickly at this aspect of marketing too, so the instrument, so to speak, that gets used here to increase attractiveness at this point. Maybe other levers that get used too, like something such as tax advantages you get when you’re married and similar. So that means, various means get worked with here too, both on the advantage side, so what advantages does this bring me, in quotation marks, and on the other hand also packaging the whole thing in a framework of romance, to convey the feeling, in quotation marks, that this is something I actually want too. I don’t want to question that or deny it, I’m married myself, so all good on that front, but that you become aware of the fact that different power structures are also active in the background here, and at the same time different instruments, so to speak, get used to create attractiveness. And there we’re definitely at this, for example also this reward power that was talked about earlier, so not via sanctions, so to speak. Indirectly these are also simultaneously sanctions, because a disadvantage occurs, for example, if I’m not married, I don’t have any tax advantages at this point, for example. That means, basically, many see what this reward aspect is. Namely, the moment I enter into a marriage, I also have financial advantages, because I save on taxes, for example.
Layla, a very warm good morning. What do you say about the topic?
A very warm good morning. That’s actually a bit crazy, isn’t it? That you get rewarded for the fact that, well if we now assume it’s the way Marc just said. So we can have love marriages. Marriage is something protected. I think it’s also about the model of the family. That the family is especially protected. But if it’s now actually the way you just said, Yasemin, that this is the case, that it has advantages. If I now consider, I’m unmarried, and I think I almost have to say, through no fault of my own, because I haven’t found the love of my life yet. I’ll find her someday, insha’allah. But if this is now a reward system and I now have tax advantages because of it, aren’t I then conversely being punished for not having found the love of my life yet? Just putting that out there, and all unmarried people too, by the way. Or is someone just trying to make it attractive? But what about the people who haven’t found it yet? Or is it such a small part that we don’t have to worry about it?
Yes, that’s an interesting question, especially against the background, if we have a lawyer here too, who can say something about it, they’re warmly invited to join in and bring in various things here too. Above all the question arises, and this isn’t just a moral topic, in quotation marks, following the motto, is that fair or unfair, but we quite quickly get into something like equal treatment and so on here too. How can you actually even argue this? From the state’s perspective it’s nice that we have a model of family, so to speak, in quotation marks, that this gets promoted here in some form, but how can that actually be legitimized, that people who are unmarried, or maybe quite consciously even decide against a marriage, get automatically disadvantaged at this point too, so to speak, or rather indirectly disadvantaged. So we’re all initially equal, in the basic form too, tax-wise. And because someone then enters into marriage, they get a different tax bracket, so to speak, and get other benefits. So I find this topic really, really exciting at this point. We probably won’t be able to clarify that today.
Marc, gladly, you can follow up here again. But that would be an interesting question, I think, to also look into more deeply under this principle of equal treatment and so on, or research yourself. Maybe we’ll open a room at some point and bring in a lawyer for that. I’d find that quite exciting.
Marc gladly, then Layla.
I want to bring in another aspect on the topic of marriage. What I find interesting, you said you have tax advantages if you’re married, so tax advantages. If I’m not married and live together with my partner, then I also simultaneously have disadvantages. Namely, I could also say, if I don’t have a tax advantage, then I also want to have the advantages of single life. That means, if my partner becomes unemployed and she goes to the employment office, and the employment office says, or social welfare office, I know it varies by state, so the responsible office then says, oh, she lives together with Marc, oh, he’s doing well. Then she gets fewer benefits, because then the income gets combined, then she basically gets, or I get punished, so I don’t have an advantage, because then I could also say, well, what do I have to do with this person? We are together, and we live together too, but we’re not married. There the state then holds up its hand and says, I’ll collect. And I find that quite exciting too, that as a married person you have advantages, but as a single person you can’t simultaneously use these advantages in certain areas, and the state, if it can get money, still gets the money regardless. Then you get treated as if you were married.
Yes, absolutely, and it goes even a step further, very many people don’t know that at all. That means, if a couple lives together and then, for example, the mother or father, so a family member of the partner so to speak, gets sick or has to go into a retirement home or something, then the joint income also gets drawn on here, so to speak, because the two parties are living together here too, so to speak, and thus the income and so on also gets taken into consideration. So there are some legal regulations here that basically contradict each other again, so to speak. Namely, well, it’s okay if we now said, it’s basically okay if I get disadvantaged there, because it’s the model of family that’s supposed to be supported here. Okay, all clear. But if I then look in the other direction, then we suddenly grasp laws again that pull me in, so to speak, into such a partnership, into being taken into obligation too. Often even without me knowing that beforehand or being aware of it. It’s just written down somewhere, but actually no one talks about it. And only in the situation when I’m affected do I find out about it, because an office suddenly writes to me. Yes, then you’re quite surprised by the approach at this point. So that’s a nice example.
Layla. I think you wanted to add something, or Layla?
Exactly, I wanted to add something. I just wanted to say, at the beginning I wasn’t really at the moral level at all, but rather at the emotional level. That’s actually something sad for me personally, because something gets attributed to you, written, in the direction of, okay, it’s about equality. But if I now consider what equality means, and I understand the special protection of the family, and I also understand that there’s a burden there, but this being-married itself, if we now go by the life partnership, and I’m expressly, I’m a friend of marriage, and nevertheless it’s the case that, as Marc said, you get regarded as a life partnership where you don’t have the tax advantages. Now let’s move away from taxes, let’s really go into the hospital. There I also only have this decision-making power to a limited extent and don’t have it in focus right now. And it’s about, I think they’re currently working on bringing life partnerships and marriages into a similar position. I don’t know to what extent that’s already been achieved, but that’s of course difficult. Then you, well, I think about, do you get punished for being single? If you’re alone, then it’s already the case at work anyway that, well, yes, well, you have time. You don’t have kids. Yes, you’re unmarried. Then sentences like that come up too, sometimes on the side, well you don’t know how that is. And oh, you as a single, well for you it’s like this and that, and oh you have so much time. Yes, it gets portrayed very, very positively, what I supposedly have. But I don’t know, do I then have to be brought back down to earth in the same breath? And then do I have to be told, well, then you have to do this and that. Then you have to do this and that. You have to do it this way, which I can understand to some extent if it leads to equality. But if it leads to a disadvantage because I’m single or because I’m unmarried, then I find that difficult, because I understand the protection of the family. I understand that marriage is a sacrament. I can understand that. I know why that’s important. And nevertheless it’s actually the case that I think, well, not every person who’s unmarried is aware of that. And even if they do it consciously, it should still be their freedom of decision. It can’t be that we get punished for being unmarried, and that if I’m in the hospital with my partner and something happens to my partner, that I don’t have the same rights because I’m not married and not the husband or wife. I don’t know if that’s 100 percent the case. But I do think you don’t have the same rights and not the same decision-making power, and if you do, you have to fill out a lot of paperwork beforehand. I don’t know if it’s similar for the spouse. But I’ll research that and verify or falsify this information.
Yes, thank you so much. Especially in the health system, especially if we pick up something like hospitals or such, it’s actually the case that certain decisions are substantially easier if you’re married than if you’re the life partner. These are aspects where there are corresponding disadvantages that can lead to more administrative effort, to even provide corresponding proof at all. That it’s also in the interest of the sick person, for example, to co-decide on a surgery or similar.
Before I switch over to Jürgen in a moment, I’d like to add one more impulse. I brought in the impulse with marriage. As the next point I’d like to bring in the aspect of education. Marc already briefly mentioned it earlier on the side. Here we can also look at educational institutions and their influence on shaping opinions, norms, and values in this context. And quite specifically I’m thinking of school textbooks, for example. I’ll just leave that as an impulse for now, and one person or another can already think about it. In the meantime, let’s bring in Jürgen, and then we can look at maybe looking at this in the education context too, what that actually means.
Jürgen, a very warm good morning.
A very warm good morning, dear Yasemin, and everyone in the room. Now I’d actually have two topics, after you addressed the education topic. But the essential thing from your discussion so far, in my consideration, the question that has accompanied me repeatedly across several rooms and the desire to define, which specific power actually characterizes institutions in our today’s case. Marc addressed it at the beginning, if I got that right, I always have enormous problems with the connection, he addressed that there are different aspects of power and manifestations of power, and your discussion regarding marriage as a constitution or institution of the family. That actually brought me to the insight, I dare not claim knowledge, but the insight, provisionally now, that I’d say the extraordinary thing about power with institutions is the power that they can mutually empower each other. And marriage, or the legal constitution of marriage, is, as the name already says, a legally based institution, so defined by the judiciary, one of the three powers, and steered into corresponding sanction and confirmation channels, so from the state side, also from the political side as an institution, and intervenes in one of the smallest cells of institutions that I know of, in my view, and that’s the family. The family is also an institution for me, because if you go by the general terminology of an institution, that there’s a structure or an organization that generates a benefit according to certain rules for those who participate in it, then for me the family, also the family unit, and that’s culturally very differently pronounced, is a very strong institution. And between these individual institutions that we’ve already had in the course of the discussion too, whether from the state side or culturally or also from the entrepreneurial side, which Marc addressed, health insurance companies, the insurance industry as an institution, there I think that the actual meta-level of power, because these institutions, is that of mutually empowering each other, and thus creating a partial institution again, namely generating a benefit for each other that they couldn’t generate alone in that form. So the example, let me say this briefly, the example of marriage is that both the church as an institution, and also the state, are interested in it for different motivations, which however essentially come down to the fact that the existence of a church, a religious direction, is based on these partial institutions, lives off them, intervenes in their functioning, and the state itself, through subsidy or tax policy, which you already addressed, underpins the whole thing, to ultimately generate a citizen shaped according to their taste. I know that’s somewhat provocative under certain circumstances, but, and so, I always say quite clearly, that’s my opinion on it.
Regarding education, I think, dear Yasemin, that would also be my request, to make that a separate topic again under the general aspect of power, because this lever that a state ultimately, on the top level, has grabbed or empowered itself with, essentially to have an effect on this, all the way to the drafting and content of the school textbooks you addressed. That’s a really essential component for me, I’ve already addressed this several times, which has an effect on many other sub-areas too, and in turn also determines and sustainably influences institutions through that. Thank you for listening.
Yes, wonderful, thank you so much. And you mean then as a room topic, power and education?
Exactly, quite right. Power of education, or power and education. But that’s exactly the point, yes.
Yes, wonderful, I’ll definitely take that with me. And in the coming days, so to speak, we’re already in the last round, the last days now, moving toward self-empowerment too. And in the course of next week we’ll round off the topic accordingly too. And so I can gladly look at which day, or where that fits well in, that we maybe pick that up too at this point. I find that great. Thanks again for this reminder too. I think, Marc, you wanted to follow up again, if I saw that correctly.
Yes, gladly. Once to Jürgen and once to you, dear Yasemin. You addressed the topic of school and books. And in the Netherlands a huge resistance is currently forming. And it’s also about the fact that school textbooks will in the future also depict same-sex married couples. And exactly what Jürgen described happens, namely the church, so the homosexuals of course say, this is a way of life, we want to be treated equally, and if we’re treated equally, then that also has to belong to normal life, and if it belongs to normal life, then it can of course also appear in a school textbook. The Catholic church and strictly religious Calvinists see it differently again. Those are exactly these power interests behind it, and it stays exciting to observe. And ten years ago this discussion already caused a stir once. A famous author, Linda de Haan, wrote a book, “King and King.” That also caused a lot of uproar, because the king didn’t want to marry a princess, but a king.
Thank you so much. With that I’d like to bring in Sabine too. Then we can gladly make cross-references again.
Sabine, a very warm good morning.
Good morning, I unfortunately couldn’t join earlier, because I have all the kids here and it was a bit loud here. Yes, I find the topic quite interesting, but also quite difficult. I’ll look at it from my side now, first from the family side. It’s the case now that the advantages, especially in the tax area with progressive taxation, often actually has something to do with the fact that the woman steps back because of the children and so on, and thus a balance gets created through the progression, and I actually find that more than fair, because you also have to admit, the moment I have a family, one of the parts will have to give something up, because otherwise it’s just not feasible, and this part can of course also be the man. But then the progression gets lifted too. So I don’t find it that bad, what Layla said earlier is of course also true. It’s often a legal problem, if I now have a mortgage and have two friends, so a friend couple, then I often tell them, they already have a few problems, the bank has no problem with them anymore. That all works, but what if something happens to one of them tomorrow? Then the other family is the heir and not them. And things like that, you have to think about that at that moment too. I mean, the whole thing, and I agree with you completely, I can of course also manifest through a contract. I don’t have to marry, I could just say, I’ll draw up a contract now and that’s the end of it. I can also make a will, so I have that. But in that moment you don’t think about so many things at all. And that married couples are a bit protected through that, I personally don’t find that so bad. Um, what was the second thing I wanted to say? Hm, I’ve forgotten now. It’s still too early in the morning. Sorry. If it comes to me, I’ll follow up.
Exactly, maybe it’ll come to you again in a moment. I can dock on here already. Yes, it’s an important approach you’re bringing in again. And certainly, at many points, the corresponding argument used, so to speak, that it also has a protective function. And there we’re back at the two sides, so to speak. We’ve already said earlier that there’s definitely a positive and also a negative side, regardless of which topic we’re looking at exactly. And here of course there are also protective functions involved. Nevertheless, maybe the note or the aspect again, at many points it unfortunately also gets taboo’d, that it’s not really talked about. So many don’t know, for example, that when it comes to divorce or such, that then for example, well no idea, also something like what was paid into the pension fund or such, that all gets divided, considered accordingly and so on. Many aren’t even aware of that, because it’s initially a love marriage out of this romanticization, so to speak, where you might not be so aware of it with all the beautiful love clouds, and because socially it’s also rarely talked about in general. Maybe at most somehow at some point, and that then immediately gets sidelined morally too with many, something like, no idea, contracts to secure yourself, even when entering marriage, so prenuptial agreements or such, also get discussed quite strongly morally, whether you need something like that. But especially when it comes to divorce, and if you look at the statistics of how high the divorce rates are, it would definitely make sense to look at this more closely and think about what and how you’d like to have it arranged. And here, through marriage, the framing, so to speak, in this case, if you get married in Germany, gets set by Germany. Per se maybe not wrong, because it also has a protective function, and nevertheless too little education at this point regarding what the actual consequences are. Normally, if you look at what procedure is behind it, just gathering the papers in Germany to enter into the protected marriage, in quotation marks, there should actually be much more thought given in the direction of counseling, so that you maybe also know what that actually means if it goes wrong. But there’s no sensitization on that at all at this point. And I find that, well, you could argue it has some kind of protective function, but on the other hand it also has a function, in quotation marks, from which you maybe can’t get out of the bind so easily anymore. And I find that then again somewhat reprehensible.
Sabine, I think it occurred to you what you wanted to say.
Yes, but before that I wanted to say, to what you just said, I agree with you completely. If I download an app here, I have to accept data protection and everything else. But if I go into marriage, there should actually also come some kind of, a leaflet explaining what all that means. And there I’m completely with you. Many don’t know what they’re stumbling into. Because they’re happy and in love. But there of course the original intention was also the protective function. Because if I then have the family and the wife has actually, well mostly the wife, of course it can also be the man, has stepped back, then I find it only fair if the pension gets split. Only there are of course also examples where it gets done completely differently, the woman, or the man, to stay on both sides, does this quite deliberately intentionally and then afterward the other gets fleeced. I experienced that myself in a work circle from a colleague who then considered whether to drive into the next tree or what else to do, he couldn’t afford anything anymore, because the mother with three kids got the right lawyer and really took him for everything. So that’s difficult too. The protective function was surely at the top intention, but it of course also gets exploited. What I still wanted to say about insurance law, there it’s also the case that if I take out liability or household contents insurance today, the spouse is automatically co-insured. But if I have a life partner living there, I have to name them specifically. Newer insurances are already a bit more accommodating about that and say, it’s enough already. But that of course also has to do with, otherwise one moves out tomorrow, the other moves in and so on, and I always have everyone co-insured, and if I have a liability claim tomorrow, it was surely the partner. So you have to understand the insurance industry there too. So I think everything we discuss here always has two sides, and the original background was actually always a protective function. Only that of course always gets fully exploited from the other side. And here it’s also always the same, we have this with tax matters too, when something new comes up, the first thing that gets looked at is how can I get around that and how can I turn it into a bargain. Definitely a big problem.
Yes, thank you so much. And the question arises for me in this context though, couldn’t you simplify that by just saying, with insurance law now, the life partner is basically, even if that changes, that’s the person who lives with you, so that you’re registered together somewhere in a joint apartment. And de facto, that someone moves out now and someone else moves in, is relatively unproblematic. I mean, whether it’s this person or that person, doesn’t really have any relevance for the insurance at this point at all. It only becomes problematic if you don’t limit that to this apartment or something, and then it’s like, oh no, currently XY is my partner, and then maybe it’s not even the partner, but you want to grab the money from the insurance here. But if it’s tied to the joint apartment with a corresponding registration that can be verifiably presented if needed, in the insurance case, I actually see that as relatively uncomplicated.
Sabine, I think you wanted to say something about this too.
Yes, but the insurance doesn’t require the registration certificate. So from that side you’d definitely have to tighten the whole thing up a bit, but the insurance told me in the past, please name the person so we know who it is. It’s not a big deal, but you have to know it, and if one moves out and you have someone else, you first have to remember to re-register that, otherwise if there’s damage, it’s not insured. So those are things. I currently have a problem with a statutory health insurance for my daughter. It’s really something, everything you have to know to be able to do things correctly. And then I always think of my foreign clients, how are they supposed to know that? And I think that’s the problem, that you’d actually need to get a checklist and memo for everyone first, so you can even do it correctly at all.
Yes, wonderful, thank you so much. At many points we probably need an additional checklist, similar to cookies. The question is whether we’d even read it then. So it always needs rooms in some way where we talk about it and maybe get sensitized to the topics a bit. Also possibly completely unexpectedly and not because it’s somehow on our daily schedule, but always having different possibilities, different rooms where we get pointed to it, to make ourselves attentive to one thing or another accordingly in the sense of educational work, and then it’s left to everyone whether they want to dive deeper into that.
With an eye on the time, I’d like to move into the closing round for today at this point. Let’s do it backward, Sabine, you’ve already spoken, so let’s take the closing word so to speak, and if Layla and Marc have additions, gladly the addition and then the closing word for today, so highlight or similar for today again.
Sabine.
Yes, a really interesting topic, quite controversial to discuss, whether it’s protection, advantage, or whatever. Yes, I found my opinion on it recently. So I mean, I’m married, I often feel protected here, but I understand the other side too. But I also understand, I often see that the other side exactly sees, when there’s a new law or such, how do I exploit that? And from that side there are often restrictions too. Difficult. I wish you a great day.
Thank you so much. I’d already seen Layla, you had flashed earlier. That’s why I’d like to continue with Layla, you can gladly follow up again, and then add the closing word for today directly.
Exactly, thank you. I just wanted to briefly say once more, I come from a family myself, so I find this with the protection of the family great. And I also find the construct of marriage great. What matters to me is just that free decision should be encouraged. And if marriage should be encouraged because of the age pyramid, I find that understandable. But here too it’s about achieving equality and maybe not somehow, under certain circumstances, someone then having to suffer disadvantages because of it. On your topic of education, I just wanted to briefly say, I find that quite interesting, maybe we can talk about that more sometime. So there are quite fixed images there, typically girl, typically boy. And I want to encourage you to also read children’s books sometime. Next time take a school textbook and look at typically girl, typically boy, take a children’s book directly, preferably Conni first. And look at how women and men get portrayed. And then think about whether that’s still contemporary and whether that’s something you want in children’s heads or not. Just as an impulse. Yes, thanks for the round. Thanks for the impulses, and a nice day to you all.
Yes, wonderful, thank you so much. I’m really already looking forward to this topic. Really great too from Jürgen that he gave the hint again. So we’ll gladly pick up power and education. And then we can gladly go into this deepening of books and school, or school textbooks too. So I’m already totally looking forward to that. That’ll surely be great.
Marc.
I’d like to say in conclusion once more, institutions serve to maintain our social cohesion, and for me it always becomes clear again with every topic to look behind it at which interests are represented for whom, and just briefly, for example from the economy, the Supply Chain Act will affect all companies in Germany, and I’m very grateful to Jürgen who sent me an article about the Supply Chain Act, it’s about the topic of coffee, that in the future you’ll of course also have to prove where the coffee comes from, how it’s grown, and these are very, very large, powerful coffee suppliers, and that’s good too, people get protected, and through this power that they have with this Supply Chain Act, thousands of people also get excluded, namely these small coffee farmers who can’t meet these requirements of the Supply Chain Act at all. That’s not even conceivable to capture. And thus a large area of the market also gets excluded, even though the basic idea of protecting people is always great. And that’s why you really have to look closely at every law, at which interests are represented by which institution for what purpose, and who uses that.
Yes, great. Thank you so much. I think really a huge amount has come together again. Ulla also shared in the chat, spouses have to financially support each other, and then with partnerships and so on it was about the keyword here, needs-based community in the Social Code. Maybe to pick that up as a cross-reference too. One person or another can read up on and research the various aspects addressed here today, whether online or in the corresponding law books and texts, it’s definitely worth going deeper afterward at one point or another, picking up various aspects here as impulses, to see, not just to have had a reflection room, so to speak, where we talked about various topics, but one thing or another where you might say, oh, I somehow didn’t know that, maybe to dive into this deepening yourself too, and do educational work for yourself, in quotation marks, to learn more about it. It always has, as we see today too, both sides. So it’s not just positive or negative, but we need it on one hand. It has good aspects, and at the same time it also has aspects that can be disadvantageous, especially if we’re not familiar with it or don’t engage with it, and then at some point a surprise effect occurs. And yes, surprises that are unwanted always have an aftertaste, and so it makes sense to really look at this more closely here, to dive deeper. Maybe there was one thing or another we addressed today where you say, huh, I didn’t know that at all, I should look at that more closely. Then it’s worth digging deeper here, so to speak.
I don’t want to announce the room for tomorrow yet, even though the rooms are actually set. Because we’ve now said we want to pick up power and education, and we don’t have all that many more rooms taking place until next week to round off the overarching theme of power and violence, I’d like to look dramaturgically at where we best embed that now and how we restructure that, so that it all still makes sense logically, so to speak. And accordingly, let yourselves be surprised, the rooms are set, but there might have to be a change accordingly here, also in the order, and that’s why it doesn’t make sense from my point of view now to announce the room for tomorrow. It might stay the same, it might change. Depending on what makes sense order-wise, I’ll change that in the course of today, and then you’ll find out which topic serves as the continuation topic tomorrow.
In that spirit, take care, looking forward to tomorrow again at 8 here at Deep Talk, and yes, until then. Ciao!
