We live in an age of emocracy. In stark difference to most of humanity’s history, emotions overtly govern our private, professional, and public lives[1]. In this and a few subsequent posts, I will explore the question of how, when, and why the shift from keeping emotions “under cover” towards today’s unembarrassed emocracy happened[2]. My first hypothesis is: The rise of emocracy was strongly favored by the invention and (later) popularization of psychology.
Emotions rule our world. This in itself is not news. Ever since Cain slayed Abel, and ever since Zeus fell in love with Europe, human behaviors have been driven by aggression, passion, and all their cousins. But in the last years, something has shifted: In the past, quite regardless of culture and environment, human beings mostly saw emotions as something unruly that had to be contained. In the very recent present, however, emotions have taken center stage in our personal, professional, and public lives. We live in an age of emocracy – but without ever having explicitly agreed on its constitution, principles, laws, and practices. This is a problem[1].
Egal, was passiert: Die Schuld bekommen dieser Tage immer einzelne Menschen. Der Fußballbundestrainer soll zurücktreten, weil die deutsche Fußballnationalmannschaft (inklusive Tross) in den Vorrundenspielen mies gespielt hat. “Das Drama der Angela Merkel” titelt selbst die meist abgewogene Zeitung DIE ZEIT in dieser Woche – und reduziert die komplexe Frage der zukünftigen Regelung von Zuwanderung nach Europa auf eine persönliche Machtkrise der Kanzlerin.
In diesem Jahr war ich zum zweiten Mal in meinem Leben auf der re:publica. Im letzten Jahr war ich zum ersten Mal dort, und im Jahr davor habe ich einige Vorträge über den Livestream verfolgt. Einerseits ist diese späte Bekanntschaft nicht überraschend: Ich mache nichts “mit Medien”[1], und ich habe erst seit Mai 2013 einen aktiven Twitteraccount[2]. Andererseits wundert es mich oft, wie spät ich die re:publica und ihre Netzgemeinde auf Twitter entdeckt habe.
So, you’re saying you want to go? I hear you – but wait. If you were a person, I’d write you a letter with a real pen, in real ink and on a real piece of paper. And I’d ask you to at least read it through to the end and listen to what I have to say before you go. However, I suspect that you’re not a person,
Right now, #MeToo is all over social (and other) media. The campaign – started in the wake of the recent revelations about Harvey Weinstein’s disgusting behaviours towards women – gained particular traction as (mostly) women started to post #MeToo as their status on social feeds, in order to indicate that they, too, had been sexually harassed or assaulted
First, get annoyed. Forget about happiness. Nobody ever got happy by trying hard to get happy. If you tried, you know you only ended up feeling unhappy about your shortcomings in being – or becoming – happy. So if you did try, stop it immediately.
JUSTICE
Mr. PITTSBURGH, a businessman
Mrs. PITTSBURGH, née PARIS, his wife [not present]
JUSTICE: Mr. Pittsburgh… [shuffling papers]. You want to get a divorce from your wife, Mrs. Pittsburgh, née Paris. Is that correct?
We live the age of algorithm. They’re the magic sauce which keeps our machines running. Their omnipotence has grown to a point where some see our bodies’ and minds’ inner workings as algorithms[1] – just like former epochs saw the universe or a mechanical turk in every human being. And – like all men-made gods – algorithms, too, are demonized,
I feel awkward about being liked[1]. On the surface, of course, just like all of us, I like to be liked[2]: I smile when someone gives me flowers or offers me a glass of wine; I feel uplifted when my words and actions – or even trivial things like pieces of clothing I’m wearing – receive a compliment; I nod in friendly appreciation when my posts of home-made bread, rainbow bodied avatars, or witty bits of wisdom uttered by my son attract responses in my social media feeds.
