180083 VO Hate (2022S)

Objectives:
Elaboration of a differentiated, critical-reflected approach to subjects as society, social and cultural identities, identity and alterity, inclusion and exclusion; introduction to considerable issues of cultural and social philosophy.

Methods:
The lecture will approach these topics on the basis of selected texts, using critical philological procedures as well as perspectives of conceptual history and ideology critique.

Contents:
Shaping social identities correlate with linguistic expression, collective remembrance and cultural memory. Frequently they (also) seem to take place by means of in- and exclusions, in a way Carl Schmitt described and acclaimed as “friend-foe”-dichotomies, using “asymmetric counter-concepts” (Reinhard Koselleck). These concepts unfortunately seem to be specifically successful if accompanied with very “hostile feelings” (Aurel Kolnai).
So, which parts of their personalities people try to avert, who are affected by such feelings in combination with certain ideas of friendship and hostility? What is “social identity” supposed to mean? Does this term make any sense as a singular noun at all? On the other hand, do societies manage to avoid any concept of an enemy? Or are these concepts possibly elementary for feelings of social unity within groups of a certain size and complexity? Are there persons or groups who, maybe for reasons of bequeathed discrimination, are more suitable than others to be made foes by those who want to use that concept to push up their political agenda? Or may this allocation occur more or less arbitrarily? Are liberal political societies able or willing to countersteer?
It seems that social networks with their high degree of potential anonymity are quite suitable for the purpose of increasing aversive feelings like hate and rage. The messenger Telegram for example meanwhile seems to carry explicit calls for murder. In other internet-platforms, even within commentaries in online-editions of so-called traditional media, more and more frequently a quite drastic language is used. In the event that something quite ugly might be ignored, retweets or other ways of forwarding may help. The objects of hate might be in principle variable, hostile references on them seem to have an effect of formation of something like a social identity within certain groups. Maybe these groups only become something its members may call “we” if there is something like a foe that can heavily be opposed.
There are lots of historical examples for the use of rage and hate to reach political aims, if a group of people may be presented to another, mostly larger group as foes. So, for example the later so called 2021 United States Capitol attack, carried out by supporters of the than US-president Donald Trump. Before they did so, Trump incited them with an inflammatory speech, claiming “electoral fraud” without providing any evidence and accusing legislators to support this so-called fraud. When the attack was over, five people were dead and the institutions of representative democracy seriously damaged, not only within the United States.