Even after the first few sentences it is clear that Armin Nassehi is satisfied with his new work Discomfort not aimed at a lay audience. Without a social science degree, it would be difficult to follow the sentences of the sociology professor. But the author is known through essays in major newspapers, advises politics (Friday 37/2021) and is considered an influential intellectual – reason enough to read up on the theoretical foundations of his diagnoses of the time.
The central question that runs through the book as a basic motif is: Why does society not solve its big problems when it obviously has the means and when it is known what needs to be done? The “overwhelmed society” is determined by the fact that it cannot solve its problems, the “unease” arises precisely from the fact that the contradiction between obvious problem-solving possibilities and a lack of practical solutions becomes apparent. Nassehi cites the climate crisis and the pandemic as reference cases for this situation.
But is the diagnosis that lies in the question of why the excessive demands even true? Do we actually know what to do? And are the problems really not being adequately addressed? These are certainly widespread judgments in everyday discussions, but sociological argumentation has to take a closer look.
And if you take a closer look, you quickly notice that the question of what to do is not that easy after all. The answers that Nassehi gives are very abstract: CO₂ emissions must be reduced. But what does that mean in concrete terms? Replace combustion engines with electric motors? Reduce mobility and transport entirely? Even if there were clear answers to these questions, it would remain questionable which actions are really possible. If the electricity or food supply collapsed because you had done “the right thing” to protect the climate, you would certainly not have done the right thing.
It is also questionable whether society is actually not doing what is necessary to solve the problems. Example pandemic: Of course, everyone is dissatisfied with the decisions made by politics – this is nothing new since the emergence of democracy. But won’t we perhaps say in six months that society as a whole and bottom line has come through the pandemic quite well after all?
Nassehi, like many others, believes that China got through the pandemic much better than Western societies – and he uses this for a detailed discussion of the Chinese model of consensus-building and motivation. Apparently, he does not think that Chinese society is overwhelmed and that there is no discomfort there. Unsurprisingly, he is concentrating entirely on the pandemic problem, China’s handling of the climate crisis is not an issue. The question of whether the number of infections and deaths, which depend on many conditions, is even the right measure to determine how well a society is coping with the pandemic remains open.
“What to do?” Asks Nassehi at the end. The answers remain theoretical. In the case of the climate crisis, what exactly could it mean to “overcome the almost exclusive focus on the social dimension and the sole politicization of problems”?
Perhaps, in panel discussions and lectures, in essays for large daily newspapers, this theoretical result can be implemented more concretely – with reference to the specific crises – in proposals for action. However, it would also be helpful to have a thorough discussion of the diagnosis itself, on which the proposals are ultimately based.
Discomfort. Theory of the overwhelmed society Armin Nassehi C. H. Beck 2021, 384 S., 26 €
.