Michael Andrick: On Totalizing and Normalizing

Inconspicuous behavior often creates an oppressive standstill in discussions. Recognizing the pattern can get the conversation moving again.

Philosopher and author Michael Andrick Emmanuele Contini/Berliner Zeitu

Antoine de Saint-Exupéry is said to have believed that perfection is achieved not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away. Anyone who uses many, especially difficult, words is accused of living in an "ivory tower" and possibly despising their readers. Simplicity makes communication more likeable and efficient.

So far, less attention has been paid to a completely different linguistic behavior that has far more sensitive implications for public discourse: totalization. This is a kind of vandalism of abstraction that is worth investigating.

Churches in villages

Most everyday topics allow us to keep a manageable perspective and exchange views on equal terms. For example, if we want to clarify our views on the church in the village, everyone involved can understand what we say about it: Everyone knows the term "church," everyone knows the village, and everyone can go and see if the description of the stained-glass windows is accurate.

Everyone can freely contribute to such clearly defined issues and is able to learn together; no one is an "expert." This is how political discussions should feel, too, so that the experience of many people can be used to find solutions.

So what happens when a discussion is totalized? The totalization of a discussion is its conceptual expansion to the bigger picture—the frame of reference of the arguments is not extended to infinity, but certainly to the unmanageable.

At the same time, this creates the impression that every participant in the discussion must first grasp and consider an enormous complexity in order to even be able to speak to the issue at hand. The way in which this totalization is linguistically implemented often creates a morally threatening atmosphere.

Cash in general

Let's consider a rather unspectacular example. Fritz says, "We should definitely continue to have cash. I don't want to leave a data trail at the bank every time I shop." Fritz has a specific request based on a specific concern. Paul responds: "Cash is the most important tool used by organized crime to convert proceeds from criminal activities into legitimate assets. That's called money laundering . That's why we should abolish cash."

The totalization of the discussion occurs in Paul's reply in a very subtle way. The term "organized crime" inevitably leads us to broaden the scope of consideration to include all economic activities in society. Undoubtedly, wherever there is money to be made, the accumulation of dirty cash is theoretically possible.

Even just thinking about his retort, Cash-Fritz finds himself in a realm of meaning that no one without specialized training can grasp: the economy and crime , vast fields. Moreover, the evocative technical term "money laundering" suggests that the issue has already been clearly defined by others—presumably by Credit Card Paul, among others. It would be embarrassing if one were to make a mistake here. And finally, Paul's plea against cash implies that his defense attorneys are holding the stirrups for criminals or providing them with the washing machine for their "money laundering." The result is cognitive helplessness and emotional anxiety at the risk of being seen as uninformed and, moreover, immoral with an ill-considered response—which is not unlikely in this state.

Art of Normalization

We could describe Cash-Fritz's psychosocial situation as a big "Um, okay, well..." To better understand the structure of the discourse pattern of totalization, I invite the reader to invent one or two examples of Fritz and Paul dialogues themselves. If one takes the so-called "climate rescue" as the subject matter, one can easily pick out the totalizing discussion contributions in the daily press. Consumer-Paul and Flight-Shame-Fritz are constantly engaged in skirmishes on a battlefield that climate-concerned speakers have previously totalized with theses about, for example, the extinction of humanity ("the last generation") and the crossing of "tipping points of the ecosystem."

What to do if you fall victim to totalitarianism? How to escape the big "Um, okay, well..."? Normalization usually works in three steps. Those who totalitarianize claim to have complete control over the totality they are addressing: the economy, the climate, etc. So, they're sitting on their high horse, and in the first step, we bring them down.

The correct interpretation of a totality is always bound to be controversial. For totalizing calls all phenomena from a broad area into discussion. And so, above all, argumentation from a total perspective requires first clarifying what actually constitutes and encompasses the economy. Aristotle, Adam Smith, and Karl Marx have had very different views on this.

That's why a good way to start normalizing is to ask the question—preferably with a borderline-idiotic smile—"So you've figured out the economy and crime , and now you want to protect me from money laundering?" Follow with "Thank you!" And then: "What exactly do you mean by economy ? What exactly do you mean by crime ?" The big "Um, okay, well..." slowly changes sides and now occupies Credit Card Paul. (This also works with totalitarian "climate saviors" or "health advocates.")

In the second step, they demonstrate that they're not even making a fuss: "There were major data leaks that left people extremely embarrassed and socially embarrassed. Someone should be able to buy things they find embarrassing without having it documented. You need cash for that." They argue with well-known facts and return to their specific request.

Finally, it's worth pointing out that concerns that don't concern the big picture, but rather specific people in specific situations, are also valuable concerns. They also have the democratic advantage that—unlike saving the world as a whole—they can be discussed and decided among equals without the presumed universal insight of "experts."

Michael Andrick is a philosopher, columnist for the Berliner Zeitung, and bestselling author. His first collection of essays and aphorisms , "I'm Not In It – Notes for a Free Spirit," was published in May by Karl Alber Verlag.