Feed
donate Summary for Merkur 03/2009
The government took powerful action and announced it proudly – and yet this self-description is already wrong in its approach: politics may be able to communicate success but cannot take problem-oriented action, as Helmut Fangmann (with kind argumentative support from Luhmann) explains in the March issue (Number 718).
Three articles on sex and gender: Gerhard Amendt airs the dark secrets of feminist family constructs that see the "fatherless society" as the foundation for a violence-free world; Rudolf Helmstetter amiably inspects the often ridiculed sexuality counselors (books of love and enlightenment); Péter Nádas portrays two psychoanalytical case stories from communist Hungary in which pajamas have an important role to play.
The hit parade of (mostly) Dead White Males: Friedrich Vollhardt on a new biography of Lessing; Héctor Wittwer on Jürgen Habermas and his newfound love of religion; Heinz Bude on Marx, who is apparently on the rebound; Wolfgang Wieser on Darwin and what we should know about him; and Wolfgang Marx on Alan Turing and the mystery of consciousness.
And finally the two columns: on the basis of Rainald Goetz's "complaint", Lothar Müller considers the writer's blog; Jens Bisky explains in his first architecture column why we so dislike shopping in the newly built malls, arcades, and galleries. Friedrich Dieckmann also takes up architecture, with building in destroyed cities, and praises the Humboldt Forum jury¹s decision.
Helmut Fangmann
Observations on the construction of politics
Why politics manages success-oriented communication but cannot take problem-oriented action
Decisions in the political system aim to keep and gain power. The "correctness" of political decisions is measured alone on to what extent they maximise votes at least in the mid term. This ratio has no alternative but must be kept secret because it undermines the public legitimation of politics. From a systems theory perspective and through the eyes of Niklas Luhmann and Ernesto Laclau, it follows that politics cannot take problem-oriented "action" but rather can only espouse success-oriented communication. A political decision that can be made for this or that must therefore be presented as principally being of higher importance. To that end several boilerplate concepts are used like "welfare" and "social justice" – newly "innovation" has been added – with which everyone can associate exactly despite or because of its complete indecisiveness. Politicians of course know this, but why isn't the media capable of critically reflecting on the circumstances? Why do even the serious newspapers and intellectually discerning magazines fall for such myths that politics can or should finally "take action"?
Published 2009-03-02
Original in German
© Merkur
Focal points click for more 
Social media 
