On Attacks, Campaigns and
Dialogue

In my view, such cases have not specifically been perceived as a threat to the cultural sector within the wider media debate. Instead, they have been discussed in the same way as attacks on politicians during election campaigns or on political institutions. The media reaction has been similar.

Clear forms of violence against public figures and institutions are condemned by all sides. It is rare for anyone to publicly defend such attacks. At least on the surface, a kind of common sense and a shared set of values are expressed here. However, when it comes to less clear-cut cases, such as provocations, threatening gestures and the like, things become controversial. And it is a familiar pattern that far-right players in particular explore the limits of what is permissible, asking how far they can go to keep a statement, an attitude or an action within the ambiguous realm of discourse. These players are attempting to normalise aggressive forms of communication in public debate.

Essentially, it is not about the individual person against whom the violence is directed, but what they stand for. In other words, it is about what they embody through their work. A characteristic of political violence is that its target is symbolic. This does not mean that the person is not in danger. However, the symbolic nature of the violence explains why people express themselves or behave in this way without knowing the artist or having seen their work. Currently, we are seeing populist and far-right players exploiting cultural events or individuals who conflict with their ideology.

In the case of right-wing extremists, it can be described quite clearly: they oppose any form of liberal thinking or action. And their idea of society is contrary to the nature of liberal cultural and educational institutions. After all, these institutions see themselves as places where open and free thinking is practised. They are spaces where closed worldviews are questioned, where people can adopt different perspectives, and where controversial and minority viewpoints are also given a platform. This is why cultural institutions are fundamentally places where social issues are debated.

Public criticism of cultural institutions must not only be tolerated, but it is also even desirable, because it allows positions on culture, politics and society to be negotiated democratically. However, anti-democratic criticism, particularly from right-wing populists, does not aim to engage in critical discourse. Instead of a substantive debate, there is a tendency towards scandalisation. This serves as a tool to reach a wider audience and mobilise voter groups, particularly on social media. This is the core of the strategy behind this type of sham communication, where local cultural events are interpreted and dramatized as supposed expressions of cultural decline. This activates trigger points in parts of the political public sphere, as the sociologist Steffen Mau would say, which in social media does not lead to critical discourse, but primarily to generalised outrage.

There are at least two groups. On the one hand, there is the activist or politically motivated group. This group drives campaigns primarily for ideological reasons. One should not hope for constructive dialogue with this group. On the other hand, there are people who follow these public communication processes from a spectator’s perspective, so to speak. Depending on the specific context, a different communicative approach would be helpful with this group. This is because the second group is often still open to discussion and willing to engage in dialogue.

To stay with campaigns from the right-wing populist or far-right spectrum: if they are directed against a theatre play that depicts transsexuality or gender diversity, there is no point in having any illusions. This ideologically motivated group is interested in tough political debate and interpretative authority. Seeking dialogue here would achieve nothing. However, such a programme could also provoke resistance among people with traditional values because they find the depiction of sexuality in art disturbing and are confronted with emotions that make them feel uncomfortable. In such cases, however, a dialogue format could certainly be possible and useful for achieving a genuine exchange.

My impression is that the narratives in these debates are often schematic and not complex enough, sometimes even on the part of cultural institutions. Ahead of the 2024 state elections, players from the cultural and scientific spheres—I see parallels between the two—have made a sincere effort to engage in dialogue with people who are open to right-wing populist or far-right positions. However, some of the communication is paternalistic, along the lines of: “We know we’re on the right side and are trying to help those who are misguided.” I think this kind of attitude triggers strong resistance because it suggests intellectual or moral superiority. Nobody likes to have the world explained to them. In this respect, I would appeal for a more open approach to communication when dealing with people who have different political views, adapting it to the specific situation.

You’ve described the two poles well. In the first example, people engage in open and honest dialogue, exchanging ideas in an attempt to learn from each other. And in the second example, however, there is a sham communication that is primarily directed at third parties or oneself. By this, I mean that it is not about understanding, but about loyalties and identities. Regardless of their political views, people often communicate to reassure themselves—who they are, what they want, how they argue. That’s why it’s important to ask yourself: What are my motives in this communication—for example, as the director of a theatre in dialogue with critical voices in my community? What is my counterpart’s concern? Is there an opportunity for exchange or not? Asking these questions can open the door to dialogue. There are many different contexts in which different forms of communication are appropriate. This means that, in the best-case scenario, you have to develop new approaches and break new ground. Consciously shaping your response to communicative attacks takes a lot of energy. However, this also gives you the freedom not to let yourself be pressured by every provocation and to avoid giving up on conversational situations too quickly.

To a certain extent, that’s normal, but it becomes problematic when cultural workers primarily communicate in terms of certainties during political debates. When there are things that are no longer discussed and justified appropriately. For example, a statement like “I don’t discuss Article 1 of the Basic Law” (“Human dignity shall be inviolable”, editor's note). This may seem appealing at first, but I think you have to promote it, and you have to do so through dialogue. You must be able to explain to those who question it why this article is central to the Basic Law and what we understand by it. Otherwise, democracy is taken for granted. This may also have to do with the fact that criticism quickly arises from within one’s own community if one does not carry particular certainties around like a monstrance. But I don’t think that gets us anywhere. Because in the meantime, these certainties are crumbling away at every turn. And then what?

Perhaps the following questions are helpful: What is the positive image we want to convey to the public? How can we create contexts for discussion in order to reflect on art together? How can we engage in open dialogue with a critical public? The defensive stance that is currently prevalent often gives additional reach to the negative images portrayed, particularly by far-right forces. Every theatre, every library, every museum should also keep an eye on those who hold completely different views from their own, but are open to discussion – and convince them repeatedly that freedom of art and culture is generally a worthwhile thing. If you think along these lines, new approaches to communication can emerge, small trails that break out of the pattern of superficial communication and enable genuine exchange.