Proposal for a Commission Directive on the subject under examination has been solicited
Totalization in linguistic behavior, a concept often found in critical theory and postmodern thought, refers to the tendency to treat diverse social groups or phenomena as homogeneous entities in discourse. This practice, which can condense or shift meanings, presents social realities in simplified or essentialized ways, potentially obscuring differences and complexities [2].
The effects of totalization on public discourse are profound. By reinforcing stereotypes, limiting nuanced understanding, and promoting dominant ideologies, totalization presents a single, unified interpretation of social groups or issues. This simplification can restrict political and social dialogue by marginalizing alternative voices and perspectives, thereby shaping public opinion and power relations in particular ways [1].
Postmodernism critiques such practices by emphasizing that language is not a mirror of reality but is "semantically self-contained" and "self-referential," meaning meanings depend on differential relationships with other terms and are never fully fixed or present [1]. Hence, totalization in linguistic behavior constrains the fluid, deferred nature of meaning by imposing overly rigid, monolithic categories in discourse.
Totalization shapes public discourse by producing reductive linguistic frames that can control social narratives and influence ideological power structures. These frames, often criticized from postmodern and critical theory perspectives, are seen as obscuring social complexity and difference [1][2].
Examples of totalizing discourse can be found in various contexts, such as climate rescue, consumption, and flight shame discussions in the daily press. Even in the Fritz-and-Paul dialogues, totalization is evident when discussions expand to the big picture, making them unmanageable and potentially creating a moral threat.
Paul's argument against cash, for instance, implies a totalization of the discussion to all economic activities in society. He suggests that keeping cash due to privacy concerns about bank transactions aids criminals, and that its potential use in money laundering is a concern. Fritz, on the other hand, suggests keeping cash for purchases that are embarrassing without being documented [3].
Simplicity in communication is generally considered likable and efficient. However, as Antoine de Saint-Exupéry once said, "Perfection is not achieved when nothing more can be added, but when nothing more can be left out." In the pursuit of simplicity, totalization can lead to cognitive helplessness and emotional unease in respondents.
In the face of totalization, counter-arguments are necessary. Liberals must now give counter-arguments to the pre-totalitarian atmosphere that demands censorship and obedience in the name of noble ideas like health and security [4]. Concrete concerns affecting people in concrete situations should be discussed and decided democratically, ensuring that complexities and differences are not overlooked.
Michael Andrick, a philosopher, columnist for the Berliner Zeitung, and bestselling author, has addressed these issues in his first essay and aphorism collection "I Am Not There - Thought Notes for a Free Spirit," published by the Karl Alber publishing house in May [5]. The acquittal in the Ballweg Trial, a huge embarrassment for the state, underscores the importance of resisting totalization and upholding citizens' rights [6].
In conclusion, totalization in discourse, while seemingly efficient and likable, can have detrimental effects on public opinion and power relations. It is crucial to resist totalization and strive for a more nuanced understanding of social groups and issues, ensuring that complexities and differences are not overlooked.
The lifestyle of promoting simplified social narratives through totalization in discourse, as seen in climate discussions or the Fritz-and-Paul dialogues, can potentially marginalize alternative voices and perspectives, thereby shaping public opinion and power relations in a reductive manner. Counter-arguments against totalization are necessary to uphold citizens' rights and ensure a more nuanced education-and-self-development of the general public, fostering personal-growth and democracy.
