Repressed resentment
Whatever your opinion may be of Sigmund Freund, he has definitely left behind some useful terms: ego, superego, drive and projection. The vocabulary, which has its origins in psychoanalysis, can be used to explain the public debate about refugees and asylum seekers in Germany. There is no other term that more aptly describes the current situation than Freud's "the return of the repressed."
Repression appears in online forums and social media these days. The forms of expressing it are cynical, usually coarse, impetuous, and sometimes full of hatred and acrimony. The primitive and often poorly-spelled writing conveys what readers and writers think of German refugee policy. And it wouldn't be exaggerated to say that not everyone is pleased.
The language of hatred
Actually, if you really think about it, many people are not pleased. The reservations are articulated in street talk, often at gutter level. Insults and taunts are directed towards journalists, who are sometimes referred to as traitors who should be exposed for what they are. Sometimes it seems like these critics want to take the law into their own hands. People who are not satisfied about the latest developments and their portrayal in the media are venting their anger on the web.
The aggressive forms of expression lead one to ask where the root of the rage lies. One of the answers is the fact that a public consensus prevails in a scope unseen until now in civilized establishments, like the media. It seems as though a silent understanding has been reached: In view of the enormous human suffering, human migration towards Europe has only been given positive press. Criticism or skepticism? No, thank you.
The silence shows one thing more than any other: Journalists are scared. They are scared to make critical comments, or ask critical questions to avoid inciting more hatred, abuse, arson attacks and even murder. Caution is advised as some people simply do not understand the difference between critical questions and raw hatred.
Restraint of expression in political debate
On the other hand, concerns about expressing unpleasant facts restrict the debate in a strange manner. Normally, German media does not shy away from arguing about the nation's problems - they are openly and keenly discussed. Journalists usually weigh up the pros and cons, extract frills from necessities and differentiate between what is feasible and impossible. Unfortunately, in the refugee debate, a thorough analysis has been almost fully avoided.
Yet, many questions are clear: Can Germany manage to integrate all the newcomers? How many refugees can the country handle? What is the social impact of the mass migration on work, housing and the welfare system?
Kafka revisited
Many people on social networks are annoyed because these questions are not being asked. At least sensitive individuals take an introspective approach: Are these skeptics, who consider themselves to be on middle ground politically, suddenly moving to the fringes of right-wing fanaticism? Do they belong to the good Germany or "Dunkeldeutschland" (Dark Germany) as German President Joachim Gauck refered to the arsonists and racists? Or have they suddenly turned into racists and nationalists, as Frank Kafka's character Gregor Samsa in the novel "The Metamorphosis" turned into a monstrous bug overnight?
The debate about the refugees seems strangely one-sided and comes across as a moral discussion – or least one with an underlying moral tone. That's not good for the nation. Peoples' online interactions illustrate how the repressed returns and, often, in the most unpleasant manner conceivable.
It becomes all the more important to portray this side, especially in the media. Despite all the vulgarity, the public debate on future challenges must be more open, more critical and diverse in the long term. Not asking questions doesn't mean they don't exist.
Have something to say? Add your comments below.