Areas Focused on Concentration in Research and Teaching
1. The Comparative Analysis of Post-Communist Political Systems in Central and Eastern Europe (Poland, Czech Republic, Slovak Republic, Hungary)
The comparative analysis of democratization of political structures and cultures in post-communist societies is one of the chair's main areas of interest. The results of six international conferences with participants from nine Central and Eastern European Countries have been published in several volumes on the transition from authoritarian to democratic political cultures and party systems.
The analysis of the political systems of the so-called Visegrad states in the context of post-communist transition includes the following main topics:
- changing value orientations as well as changed patterns of political participation and voting behavior,
- the modification and application of concepts and research questions of the Western debate on communitarianism for the analysis of post-communist societies,
- objective and subjective conditions for the growth of democratic legitimacy in post-communist societies,
- post-communist party systems, especially "post-communist / socialist / social-democratic" parties,
- the development of new national identities and nationalisms in Central and Eastern Europe,
- formal institutions and informal mechanisms of political opinion formation and decision-making,
- comparative analysis of democracy deficits in the political cultures of Europe, as for example, between Poland and Germany.
2. The Political System of Russia (Russian Federation)
As with the Visegrad-States, we analyze structures and changes of the political system of Russia "between democratization and authoritarianism". Emphasis is on: The system of rule and its mechanisms; problems of legitimacy; structures of "asymmetrical federalism"; parties, elections and voting behavior - all in the context of Russian political culture and traditions, understanding Russian politics by looking at everyday "life worlds".
3. The Political Culture of Germany
At the center of attention is the analysis of the political culture of Germany after regaining its unity in 1990, tendencies of convergence and divergence between Eastern and Western Germany looking into their historical, political and social-psychological foundations. Emphasis is on: the role of traditions and po-litical systems for the formation of political cultures, value orientations and personality structures (cf. 4.), elections and voting behavior, political participation and civic involvement. In conducting research, it became apparent that new concepts and models for the analysis of post-communist systems including the process of political re-orientation following a period of dramatic systemic transformation are needed.
4. Political Psychology
Many political scientists give little attention to aspects of political psychology in analyzing political systems and their change. In Tübingen, research on political psychology began with the collaboration on a qualitative empirical study on the personality structures ("social characters") of a small group of East an West German elementary school teachers based on E. Fromms critical social psychology. In a pilot study conducted by a research group of the International Erich Fromm Society, the differences and similarities in personality structures were identified through psychoanalytically oriented interviews. The relationship between personality structures and politics in post-communist society (also in comparison with the FRG) are the topic of further publications and projects. Other activities in research and teaching also seek to better understand developments in Eastern and Western Europe with the help of political psychology. In addition to Erich Fromm's social psychology and social theory, research on authoritarianism and paternalist traditions is another area of interest in studying postcommunist political cultures and the specific problems of democratic consolidation in Central and Eastern Europe.
Other activities in research and teaching also seek to better understand developments in Eastern and Western Europe with the help of political psychology. A research group (J. Ueltzhöffer, R. Frankenberger, G. Meyer; until 2005 R. Funk) has by now worked on a detailed study on the relationship of society, personality structures and lifestyles or concepts in postmodern society (Nomos Publs. 2008). Theoretically and conceptually the authors combine five analytical approaches to study the postmodern "I am me orientation":
- An analysis of society concerning the systemic determinants of the development of postmodern personality structures and lifestyles.
- Milieu studies: concepts and results dealing with social milieus, i.e. lifestyles and everyday behavior in postmodern societies.
- Erich Fromm’s social psychology and his concept of productivity as a theoretical basis for the development of scales for gaining empirical data, in particular information on the postmodern "I am me orientation".
- An empirical field study on personality structures and their roots in social milieus.
- Interpretation of the empirical results using the theoretical approaches and hypotheses stated at the beginning as well as with a focus on the chances and contradictions of a successful and satisfying way of life, demonstrated on a model of personality structure and related life style ("the integrating personality").
We are trying to evoke a multidimensional and differentiated image of the personality structure of postmodern man in taking into account a psychological as well as a sociological perspective/approach. In this empirical study we want to establish the specific make-up and the anchorage of typical postmodern personality structures and determine the productive elements of a postmodern way of life. In our study we combine descriptive, interpretative and normative-critical statements. Furthermore, the participants’ responses are analyzed to show the motivation and the extent and ratio of productive and non-productive elements in a given personality structure. We not only want to empirically describe psychic and social reality and to establish central formative influences that affect the participants but also understand ways of thinking and indicators for action and ask about the humane quality of their way of life.
5. Civil Courage/Social Courage - Political Participation - Civic Involvement
Civil or social courage is needed in many areas of life, and this is not just the case since violence, xenophobia and right-wing extremism have increased in society. So-cial courage as democratic behavior is particularly in demand at the work place, in private companies as well as public administration, in charities and parties as well as in state institutions. Those often non-violent spaces are mostly neglected in the dis-cussion about social courage. The analysis and promotion of social courage should therefore not remain restricted to actual political contexts, manifest conflicts, several urgent emergencies or threatening situations where immediate spontaneous action is essential. Social courage should be understood as public action in everyday life, as an element of civil society. Social courage is about everyday freedom of opinion and the acceptance of contradiction up to respect for and/or non-discrimination of people who fight for justice and the non-violation of human dignity.
In addition to research on authoritarianism and conformity, we did research on "Civil Courage in Everyday Life" since 1996. We asked young people, just having vocational training both on the workplace and in schools (apprentices), how they experienced and perceive everyday life situations where civil and social courage was required. The central question was: What supports, what hinders courageous acting with social courage e.g. on the job, in school or in leisure time activities? We chose an action and situation-oriented approach, seeking to integrate individual, group-based and societal factors. The results of the study were published in 1999 in a book and in several articles to high public attention.
This project was a unique experience for the participants: Graduate students from a seminar formed a research group, in which student involvement was not limited to merely support research. Instead, they played a major role in conducting and carrying out research themselves, i.e. "learning by doing". A core team then worked for another year to have the results published.
Our interest in this topic lead to an initiative for a larger project including conferences and publications on social courage in everyday life. First in cooperation with the Federal Agency for Political Education (Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung) and in a later phase of this project also in cooperation with the Agency for Political Education of the State Baden-Württemberg (Landeszentrale für politische Bildung). This project ended with two major publications in 2004.
- Gerd Meyer: Living Democracy: Civil courage and courage in everyday life. Results of research and practical perspectives. Nomos publishing house, Baden-Baden. 2nd ed. 2007, 304 p., 34,- Euro
- Gerd Meyer/ Ulrich Dovermann/ Siegfried Frech/ Günther Gugel (ed.): Learning civil courage - analyses - models - teaching aids. (2nd ed. 2007 and available under www.bpb.de)
CIVIL COURAGE OR SOCIAL COURAGE IN EVERYDAY LIFE - THE CONCEPT
How do we more clearly define the term civil courage? What characterizes situations, patterns of behaviors, and motives characteristic for action with civil courage? Not every courageous action is equal to civil courage, or what we introduced as a synonym, looking at the broad spectrum of situations in everyday life, social courage).
We defined civil or social courage as a type of social action in certain situations which are characterized by:
- an event, which violates a person's subjective sense of justice or values;
- a conflict resulting from the violation of a person's values or sense of justice;
- pressure to act, but also scope of action,
- a public (i.e. more than two people are present),
- a genuine or subjectively perceived imbalance of power, which a possible disadvantage for the person who wants to act courageously, for instance in a minority/majority situation within groups or in a position of subordination or being dominated, often combined with pressure to conform;
- risks, i.e. the success of actions with civil courage is uncertain and very often disadvantages are more likely than advantages.
Often, but not always, a "culprit-victim" situation exists. However, civil courage is not limited to acute or single situations that usually require unexpected and immediate intervention. It may also include situations, in which dissatisfaction and pressure to act increases (slowly) over time, i.e. on the job, in institutions, and in the public realm. If someone wants to act courageously in these kinds of situations, he usually waits for "the right moment and in the right place" to articulate himself - alone or within the group, possibly with the help of others. Most, but not all of the time, social courage is displayed by an individual. However, groups can also demonstrate civil courage, especially in the political arena.
Civil courage is principally motivated by idealistic, non-materialistic motives, values, and interests. Moral convictions and ethical principles do not have to be consciously recognized or explicitly formulated as such. Acting with social courage means standing up voluntarily, noticeably, and actively for humane and democratic values, for other people's legitimate interests (secondarily also for one's own interests). Idealism and pure altruism are not the sole legitimate motivation and justification for social courageous action. Rather, we also consider commonly accepted values and interests (e.g. human rights, social justice), which are vitally important for the life, dignity, and freedom of a person, a group or an entire society as legitimate motivation and justification for an action to be rated as civil courage. Consequently, the "courageous" advocacy for xenophobia, authoritarianism and right-wing extremism, for war or violence under the rule of law, should, according to our normatively oriented concept, not be regarded as civil courage. In contrast, it is important and appropriate to include in the definition of civil courage, in particular for the sake of our analysis of the experience of young people, the courageous, but socially responsible advocacy for one's friends or for the members of one's own clique.
If somebody acts with social courage, then not only his or her sense of values and justice has been violated. He also voluntarily, actively, and independently takes responsibility upon himself for others as well as for himself. Acting with civil courage can be spontaneous or cautiously thought trough, rational or emotional. In many situations, in which social courage is called for, fear and other internal obstacles or thresholds have to be overcome. Civil courage, however, does not require reckless action or blind sacrifice. Someone demonstrating social courage is determined and convinced that he is doing the right thing. Someone acting with civil courage often (but not always!) does so independently of specific chances for success or external rewards (i.e. social recognition, improving one's career prospects).
We distinguish three types of acting (or not) with social courage:
- Acting or not ("intervening") in favor of others, in most cases in unexpected situations, in which one has to quickly decide what to do;
- To stand up (or not) for certain values, for other peoples rights, or legitimate interests, often without acute pressure to act, and especially in organized contexts or institutions. Frequently this type of social courage means to stand up for a number of people i.e. colleagues or people concerned.
- To defend oneself or stand to others (or not): Quite often the advocacy of shared values or justified interests of a group combine or mix with the actor's own legitimate interests, the latter though not predominating. In many cases, this type of action concerns the courageous defense against acute unreasonable demands and aggression, violent attacks in particular.
So, in most cases, civil courage is a type of prosocial behavior. Yet, with the third type, motives and interests that are predominantly ego-centered, either individually or collectively. Is non-violence a condition of civil courageous action? Certainly, non-violent action is usually preferable. Every available non-violent option is to be exhausted. Nonetheless, the question arises: Is the use of force justified under certain exceptional circumstances - for instance in situations of self-defense, or when all other options have been exhausted (help, calling the police) and if the use of force seems to be the last resort, to protect higher-ranking values (a person's physical and psychological well-being)? It needs further debate whether and in which way civil courage may include the defensive use of force under certain exceptional circumstances, especially if one considers our society's increasing willingness to use violence in everyday life, especially among young people.
The fields or areas of action and the social contexts or places where civil courage may occur strongly differ in the way in which they (pre-)structure a person's actions, hence the chances and obstacles for civil courage. Therefore, we examined a relatively broad range of situations and behavior patterns. We included some social environments in our analysis that are commonly considered to be "private". The social courage being demanded in a larger public, on the job and in politics is (or should be) first developed in these "private" places. Civil courage is normally demanded in everyday social interaction, i.e. generally far away from "high politics": in the school and on the job; in informal social relationships (for instance, among friends and in public places; in associations, or in any place where people are socially or politically active. Civil courageous action is always politically relevant, but not always political in the narrow sense of the term, i.e. directed towards the process of shaping public opinion and the decisions of public authorities.
This short text on social/civil courage is also available in the following languages: German, Spanish, French, Italian, Russian, Polish, Arabic, Chinese (short and long signs).