From the American dream to the American nightmare E-Book

Heinrich Anker

• Herausgeber: novum publishing
• Kategorie: Gesellschafts- und Liebesromane
• Sprache: Englisch
• Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2024

Seitenzahl: 372

Beschreibung

Conflicts in Western societies have been on the rise, and not just since the financial crisis of 2008. This is generally explained in economic terms - with growing disparities in wealth and income. The left should benefit from this with its redistribution philosophy. However, the right is on the upswing, even though its neoliberalism is fueling social conflicts. How is that? Behind the economic tensions lies a deep crisis of meaning. The right is exploiting this by offering simplistic set pieces of meaning. With success, because people strive for nothing so much as meaning in their own lives. The example of the USA shows how neoliberalism destroys people and societies. Possible solutions also come from there.

Leseprobe

From the American dream to the American nightmare

How neoclassical neoliberalism is destroying people and societies.

"One of the greatest reasons why so few people understand themselves, is that most writers are always teaching men what they should be, and hardly ever trouble their heads with telling them what they really are." Adam Smith

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction

Chapter 1: What makes people human - in search of a contemporary concept of man

Introduction

"Meaning" in the humanistic psychology of Viktor E. Frankl

"Meaning" in humanistic sociology

(Self-)transcendence - the hinge between the individual and society or between psychology and sociology

A reality check on the meaning-centered view of humanity

Chapter 2: Neoliberalism and the crisis of democracy are linked

Introduction

Right-wing populist to right-wing extremist or fascist tendencies in Western democracies

Kramer/Porter: Taking stock of 40 years of neoliberal economic theory and practice

Chapter 3: The dialogical structure of the world - meaning and understanding versus maximizing self-interest

Chapter 4: From Martin Luther to Adam Smith - from the reformation of the church to the reformation of society and the economy

Chapter 5: Adam Smith - the humanist scholar and revolutionary

Adam Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759)

"Sympathy"

The "impartial inner spectator"

The "invisible hand" - an unkillable myth

The freedom of the Christian has its price

A first look at the USA: The source of US-American exceptionalism

Chapter 6: Farewell to Adam Smith

Introduction

Thomas Malthus and David Ricardo: pioneers of economics as a natural science

Transformation of economics from a social science to a psychology

The ethical content of utilitarianism according to John Stuart Mill

The end of freedom and responsibility - a truncated reductionist utilitarianism enters the stage

The great hour of the usurpers

Chapter 7: The dawn of Anglo-Saxon neoliberalism - an outline of the history of dogma

Neoclassicism and the "marginalist revolution"

John Maynard Keynes - Time-out for neoclassicism

The "monetarist counter-revolution" - the era of Anglo-Saxon neoliberalism begins

The civil-religious dimension of neoclassical neoliberalism in the USA

Chapter 8: From the neoliberal market economy to the neoliberal market society

Neoclassical neoliberalism transcends its original boundaries

How did neoclassical neoliberalism become the mainstream of economic theory?

Chapter 9: Faith, hope, hate - facets of Trump's right-wing populism

Facets of a psychology of the usurper and demagogue

Chapter 10: USA - the neoliberal seed has sprouted

Neoliberalism makes itself invisible

Neoclassical neoliberalism - a clash of cultures in the USA itself

How Wall Street destroyed Main Street USA: financialization - the poisoned gift of the neoliberal Chicago sorcerer's apprentices

Neoliberalism is not only tearing societies apart, but also their people

Chapter 11: Neoliberalism - the result of destruction

Introduction

Neoliberalism undermines the collective meaning system of US society

Extreme income and wealth disparities make people and society sick

Neoliberalism as an economic doctrine - immense damage to the economic world itself

"As within, so without" - on the foreign policy perspective of US neoliberalism

Chapter 12: The instrumentalization of people goes beyond neoliberal economics

Introduction

Medicine

Big data, algorithms and artificial "intelligence"

The instrumentalization of people by the media

Chapter 13: Summary and outlook: From the neoclassical-neoliberal to a meaning-centered economic world and society

Introduction

The core of the USA's original collective system of meaning

The question of all questions ...

How can meaning be brought into the business world - and from there into society and to the people?

"Meaning" - a new sociological and economic paradigm

Is the orientation towards meaning also an ideology? Yes - but an open and adaptive one!

Literature used

Introduction

The guiding question of this work is: Why have right-wing populist to (proto)fascist movements been gaining strength in numerous countries in the Western world over the last 30 to 40 years, culminating on January 6, 2021, when a mob almost succeeded in storming the Capitol in Washington D.C. to prevent the election of John Biden as the new President of the USA? How was it possible for around 74 million voters to elect Donald Trump for a second time in 2020, despite his dysfunctional relationship with democracy? It can be assumed that this is a sign of a deep division in US society. However, the USA is not alone in this: The same phenomenon can be seen in a number of other Western countries. Why is this happening in Western countries, which are in a much better position than the rest of the world in terms of democratic freedoms and material prosperity? What is wrong with people that they are increasingly voting for parties and movements that proclaim the right of the strongest and propagate the salvation of "strong leadership" instead of a functioning democracy and find approval for this?

For most authors, the reasons are obvious: high average material prosperity in the western world masks growing income and wealth disparities.

There is nothing wrong with this view, but it does not take the final step: material worries and hardships do not explain the rise of anti-democratic parties and movements in recent decades. The insecurity and frustration of many people goes far beyond material existence: it touches on questions about the position of the individual in society; these in turn are linked to the most fundamental questions of human existence in general: "Where is my place in this society?" Or even: "Do I have a place in life at all?" "Am I wanted in this world?" "Does my existence have meaning?"

To recognize and understand the scope of the issue of meaning, it is important to look at what people's existential needs are, what they strive for, what motivates them, what gives them strength and confidence.

There are several branches of science that deal with the nature of man, i.e. the concept of man. The present work draws on findings from philosophy, neurobiology, anthropology, certain branches of psychology, evolutionary biology, and economic behavioral research.

They all point to the fact that what makes people human lies in their will to meaning. Man's search for meaning begins with questions about the "why?" and "what for?" of everyday actions and extend to the meaning of his existence, his position in the cosmos. We would lose ourselves in this if we did not simultaneously experience in interpersonal communication that, as a unique subject, we possess something that nothing and no one can take away from us: dignity, i.e. respect, recognition, value, importance. Without this appreciation, without this esteem as a human being among humans, he would not be able to build a solid ego identity and would not have a reasonably stable point of reference from which he could define his position in the big picture - he would be lost in it. Corresponding insecurities, which ultimately undermine people's self-worth, are the gateway for usurpers, demagogues and dictators with their superficially simple, seductive world explanations and world views for people in existential need and despair i.e. existential frustration.

The rise of Mussolini's Fascism and Hitler's National Socialism must be seen against the backdrop of profound social crises and upheavals. On the surface, these were material crises - without "1929", Hitler and his NSDAP would probably not have become Reich Chancellor - but behind them were even more profound problems: crises of meaning. The defeat of the German Empire in 1918, the shame of social decline and impoverishment, as well as the Weimar Republic as a symbol of society's disunity, contributed to economic hardship and the fact that many citizens no longer knew what or who they should adhere to in order to maintain their identity and their human dignity - their self-respect and the certainty of having a place in life. Spiritual hardships of this kind were the gateway to fascism and National Socialism.

Today, these gates are open again. This work attempts to link this development to the rise of neoclassical neoliberalism: It "forces" us with ever greater power to behave according to its concept of man, i.e. according to the radically materialistic, self-serving, asocial homo oeconomicus. This sick narcissist does not know anything like meaning and human appreciation - he excludes the most human aspects of human beings and causes us to behave according to the maxim of maximizing self-interest not only in economic life, but increasingly also in social life. However, something like society cannot develop on the basis of an absolute pursuit of self-interest - there would be no self-aware I and no corresponding you who could agree to cooperate on the basis of dialog and understanding, there would be no I and you who confirm to each other that they are human and, as individuals, are part of a larger whole and ultimately have a place in life, i.e. a meaning of existence.

If you believe that "the market commands", if you believe that "the laws of the market force people to behave in certain ways", if you believe that "if I don't do something (e.g. produce weapons), someone else will", if you believe that the market is a zero-sum game in which there are only winners and losers, if you believe that the "laws of the market" are irrevocable like the laws of gravity, if you believe that maximizing self-interest is the only way, to assert yourself in economic and social life, if you believe that your wage is compensation for the suffering you have endured at work, if you believe that the neoliberal pursuit of self-interest is the only way to achieve economic efficiency, then neoclassical neoliberalism has already "got you". The same applies if you are trying to save some of your quality of life by means of a "work-life balance", or if you are not bothered by the fact that the economy and politics want to encourage you to behave in a certain way by means of material stimuli. Democracy is based on citizens doing something because they think it makes sense. Material stimuli, on the other hand, are an attempt to gloss over the question of meaning and to condition and train citizens like Pavlov's dogs to behave in certain ways - preferably without them noticing. In neoclassical-neoliberal economic circles, nudging is considered so ingenious that it has been awarded the "Nobel Prize" for economics.

The more neoclassical-neoliberal economic theory and practice, and the more politics, which is increasingly determined by it, sets the screws in such a way that we behave according to the self-serving homo oeconomicus, the more disappears from our lives what makes us human: the insight into the meaning of our existence and our actions. With their simple, eclectic world views and explanations of the world, right-wing populist to proto-fascist forces succeed in quenching many people's thirst for meaning - superficially! - but ultimately to instrumentalize them for their own purposes, i.e. to strip them of their dignity as subjects.

Western, originally Christian-Jewish civilization is built on the principle of "faith, hope and love", while the principle of the right-wing populist to far-right movements that are hostile to it is based without exception on the triad of "faith, hope and hate". The latter is the snake oil with which right-wing populist and right-wing extremist circles try to win people over. Where people are insecure and frustrated and perhaps already upset, where they are tormented by a lack of meaning and hopelessness, it is easier to stir them up and incite them with hate than to appeal to the principle of love. For hatred, i.e. violence, is simple, basic, naked, direct, whereas love - the radical antithesis to violence - is a complex phenomenon on the one hand, but not in the least: we will come to the realization that meaning and charity have correspondences. What they have in common is the idea of service and the associated experience of meaning: "I am good for someone!", "I am good for something!", "It is good that I exist!", "I have a place in life!", "I am respected!" - the ultimate human need. This is even more captivating as numerous findings from the branches of science mentioned at the beginning indicate that the concept of man as a being in search of meaning corresponds to the current state of knowledge.

Why the example of the USA? It stands for neoclassical neoliberalism like no other Western democratic country, and nowhere else in recent decades has democracy been on the brink as much as on January 6, 2021, in the USA on the occasion of the storming of the Capitol. For this reason, this work attempts to illustrate the crises of Western democracies using the multi-layered crises in the USA as an example, to work out the causal role of neoclassical neoliberalism and to look for possibilities of a "cure" - there must be a meaningful answer to the nihilism of neoliberalism!

Nota bene!

When we talk about liberalism below, what is meant is the historically developed liberalism and not the term liberalism that is used in politics in the USA today.

Chapter 1: What makes people human - in search of a contemporary concept of man

Introduction

Concepts of man (motivation theories) and social institutions and systems are inextricably linked:

Depending on which needs or characteristics are ascribed to people, specific social, political, and economic orders and systems develop around them. Here are a few examples:

Assuming that man is by nature a bloodthirsty, violent being, Thomas Hobbes concluded that individuals must completely delegate their freedom to a superior being (the Leviathan) or a superior power (absolute rule), otherwise there would be no order and no peace. Hobbes thus became the mastermind of absolutism.

As a counter-project to this, Adam Smith assumed based on empirical observations that man is not an a priori violent being who must be locked in a cage, because man's violent tendencies are kept in check by two intrinsic counterforces: human empathy and human conscience. Because of these two inner controlling forces, man is capable of freedom and responsibility - the basic prerequisite not only for a free market, but for a free society as such.

As a further response to Hobbes' absolutism, the French Revolution gave rise to demands for liberté, égalité and fraternité on the one hand, and for the tripartite division of state power and authority into the legislative, executive, and judicial branches on the other - the six building blocks of democracy as a principle of social order.

Neoclassical neoliberalism sees itself as a natural science and refers to the Darwinian selection principle of nature. It calls for an economic and social order that aims to remove all obstacles, especially state legislation and control, from the path of the strongest.

Taylorism assumes that workers deliberately hold back their performance (loafing). Taylor's answer was scientific management: the breakdown of work into individual measurable work steps and the assembly line, which dictates the work rhythm.

In developing his conception of man, Adam Smith took a sociological approach: "What qualities of man - as an alternative to absolutism - make a free society and economy possible?" Adam Smith identified the human capacity for empathy and control through conscience as the cement of society. However, the utilitarians were already setting the course towards psychology: for them, the "engine" of the economy and society was the individual pursuit of happiness. They saw the happiness of the self in the happiness of the other, so that the pursuit of happiness of all individuals had to lead to the greatest happiness of the greatest number. Although their approach was already an individual, psychological one, it still had a social-ethical component in the maxim of the greatest happiness of the greatest number. This then finally fell away with the neoclassicist Edgeworth, and economics became pure mathematics and psychology based on the one-sided image of man as a radical maximizer of self-interest. As such, humans, like animals, can be conditioned and thus calculated - hence the title of Edgeworth's main work "Mathematical Psychics". Edgeworth's definition of human nature increasingly became the norm for behavior in economics. To this day, economic theory is therefore no longer based on the empirical knowledge of what people are like - Adam Smith's approach - but rather what they should or must be like: Humans are commodified, i.e. viewed solely as objects, for the economic system considered ideal by neoliberal-neoclassical economic theory.

This purely objective view does not do justice to human beings: they are always and everywhere both individuals, i.e. subjects, and part of society and as such "objects". There is an irrevocable tension between the individual and society, between subject and object, which real people must constantly balance.

Even if we assume that this tension is unavoidable, the question arises: Is there a concept that theoretically and practically combines psychology's view of the human being with that of sociology? Is there a concept of man that combines the subjective and objective sides? This is indeed the case: what connects the individual and society or individuals and social institutions is the existential human need for meaning - for the meaning of one's actions and existence. "Meaning" has a radically individual, but also an indispensable social, i.e. societal, dimension.

The concept of meaning in psychology and sociology is outlined below. On the one hand, reference is made to Viktor E. Frankl's meaning-centered or humanistic psychology, and on the other to humanistic sociology as taught by Walter Rüegg and Ruth Meyer Schweizer at the University of Frankfurt am Main and then at the University of Bern. An attempt is then made to link the two concepts in theory and practice in order to grasp the human being as a holistic being: as an individual on the one hand and as a member of society on the other – and both always at the same time.

"Meaning" in the humanistic psychology of Viktor E. Frankl

Viktor Frankl (1905-1997) is the founder of so-called logotherapy and existential analysis (LTE). He understood it as meaning-centered psychology. In professional circles, it is considered the third (and most recent) of the three major Viennese schools of psychiatry after Freud's psychoanalysis and Adler's individual psychology. In very simplified terms, Frankl, in agreement with Freud, attributes to humans a sexual drive - a will to pleasure (lust) - and, in agreement with Adler, an equally instinct-driven will to power. According to Frankl, however, what is genuinely human is a third dimension: the human will to meaning. According to Frankl, this is the human essence of the human being and consequently the strongest motivating force of all. Therefore, it cannot be replaced or compensated for by anything. According to the Frankl student Elisabeth Lukas [1998, p. 39]:

"People are prepared (...) to make sacrifices for the sake of a meaningful task and, if necessary, to leave needs unfulfilled. Physical and emotional well-being plays a secondary role in the search for meaning. In contrast, failure in the search for meaning cannot be balanced out by any kind of psychophysical well-being".

Frankl's concept of meaning is shown in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1: The three dimensions of Viktor Frankl’s motivation theory

All three dimensions of Frankl's theory of motivation, the spiritual, psychological, and physical, always work together. Humans share the psychological and physical dimensions with the animal world, while the spiritual dimension is unique to humans. In a first approximation, this spiritual dimension is the mediating instance between the human instinctual life (instincts, psyche) and the natural, social, and cultural external, surrounding and co-world of the human being. Frankl sees the freedom of the human will and the freedom of the human being (i.e. to take responsibility) as being founded in this spiritual dimension.

According to Frankl, "spirit" is an immaterial principle. The spiritual dimension expresses itself through two empirical characteristics: self-distancing and self-transcendence.

Self-distancingmeans that people are fundamentally capable of perceiving their feelings and instincts and objectifying them, i.e. detaching themselves from them: We humans not only think, feel and act, but we also perceive that and what we think, feel and act. And at the same time, we also evaluate it.1 To put it simply: thanks to our ability to distance ourselves, we are able to stand "above the matter".

Self-transcendence (transcending oneself) means that we humans can fundamentally detach ourselves from our psychic impulses and instinctive reflexes due to our ability to self-distancing. If humans are beings who, unlike animals, are not controlled solely by their psychic drives and instincts, we can - and must - orient ourselves towards something that is not just ourselves, but towards something that lies outside ourselves. An example: a ship can only find the harbor if the lighthouse is firmly on the shore and not on the ship itself. In line with philosophical anthropology, Frankl's theory of motivation - in which he agrees with Rüegg/Meyer - sees people as beings who are open to the world and not just fixated on their drives and instincts.

When people look beyond their instincts and drives, they look at other people and the natural world around them. This brings them into contact with culture: it is only thanks to the forms of communication determined by society that humans are able to conceptualize and meaningfully structure their social and natural environment, i.e. to name phenomena, assign them to each other and connect them in a meaningful way. And it is only thanks to phenomena determined by society, such as customs, norms, values, and beliefs, that we can act meaningfully ourselves and to interpret and evaluate the actions of other people according to their intended meaning.

Empirically, logotherapy and existential analysis are comparatively weakly underpinned and developed. However, Viktor Frankl has been joined by renowned, strictly empirically oriented "advocates". Frankl would probably agree with every word of the evolutionary biologist Gerhard Neuweiler [2009, p. 189] when he writes: "What distinguishes humans from animals, however close to them, is not so much their lightning-fast perception and analytical intelligence as their ability to control themselves, above all to keep their feelings, anger, rage, joy and euphoria in check [self-distancing - HA] and to place their reactions in the context of social circumstances and considerations that are directed towards longer-term goals based on interests and values [self-transcendence - HA]."

Neuweiler clearly expresses the characteristics that Frankl summarizes under the term "spirit" - self-distancing and self-transcendence.

In "Man' Search for Meaning" [Frankl, Viktor E., 1984, p. 17], the English edition of his 1946 booklet about his time in several concentration camps (... trotzdem Ja zum Leben sagen), Frankl writes: "happiness (...) cannot be pursued; it must ensue, and it only does so as the unintended side effect of one's personal dedication to a cause greater than oneself or as the byproduct of one's surrender to a person other than oneself." Frankl understands "happiness" as the result of successful fulfillment of meaning.2

In the "dedication to a cause greater than oneself", man distances himself from his own immediate interests, looks beyond himself, transcends himself and experiences himself as an active, effective being, capable of acting, helping to shape reality, enriching reality and, in this sense, powerful - "self-powerful". In "one's surrender to a person other than oneself", in service to a you, the person in turn detaches from themself and perceives themself in the mirror of this very you - i.e. on the path of empathy - as a valued, welcome being.3

According to LTE, the experience of one's own creative power, i.e. one's own effectiveness, and the experience of being valued, the experience of being significant for a you, a community, a group, a team, etc., are existential: they lead to the (self-)certainty of being "good" for someone or "good" for something, ultimately: "I have a place in life!" This is synonymous with the existential, unquestionable experience of the meaning of one's own existence. It is an individual, subjective experience of meaning.

According to Viktor Frankl, the meaning of action and existence are radically individual: 1. every individual is in a different place in life and has a different view of life, 2. meaning cannot be prescribed, otherwise meaning would in a sense lose its meaning.4

The social sciences must recognize that "meaning" is something radically subjective. But from a humanistic point of view, this is not the end of the concept of "meaning". The social sciences have a decisive contribution to make to the concept of meaning.

"Meaning" in humanistic sociology

Rüegg [1978, p. 56] defines sociology as a humanistic science as follows: "Sociology is a systematic empirical science that critically analyzes social action and its consolidated forms in their historical contexts of meaning andtheir effects on future human reality."5

Like Frankl, Rüegg [1982, p. 3] proceeds "from the anthropologically proven observation that man is not determined in his actions by instincts and species-specific learning processes, but as a cosmopolitan being is oriented towards symbols of meaning". In contrast to Frankl, for whom, as a psychologist, the perception of meaning is a question of the here and now, the sociologist sees that these images of meaning are "based on historical traditions that he [the human being - HA] actualizes and internalizes in his everyday actions, but which only provide security with regard to the future if they convey a transcendent and absolute meaning that transcends everyday experience" [Rüegg, Walter, 1982, p. 3] - a fixed star or lighthouse, one might add.

What is meaning?

Social values convey to the individuals of a group what action or behavior or, if necessary, omission is important or unimportant in a specific situation. For example, it is important that judges judge fairly. If this is not the case in a specific instance, a tension arises between AS IT IS (unjust judgment) and OUGHT TO BE (just judgment). It may be that someone does not accept this AS IT IS and stands up for a just judgment (OUGHT TO BE) and acts accordingly. Meaning is fulfilled in this action. Values (here: justice) are normative: they signal a gap between AS IT IS and OUGHT TO BE. Meaningfulness is the pragmatic side of values: it is the action that aims to close the gap between AS IT IS and OUGHT TO BE or to transform OUGHT TO BE in a new AS IT IS.

One such symbol is Swiss neutrality: due to the extreme poverty of the population of present-day Switzerland in the Middle Ages, many men served as mercenaries in the armies of various European royal houses. In the Battle of Marignano in 1515, the armies of the Duke of Milan and the French king clashed. As a result, Swiss mercenaries from both armies slaughtered each other. The Milanese army, which was supported by the Swiss Diet - the governing body of the 13 Swiss cantons at the time - also suffered a defeat. The shock of this self-destruction and military defeat is said to have given rise to the idea of Switzerland's neutrality. It remains an important part of the national culture to this day. The symbol of "neutrality" has become extraordinarily strong because it has proven itself several times in history. At the Congress of Vienna in 1815, it was one of the conditions for Switzerland to become an independent state, and during the First and Second World Wars, Switzerland was spared from becoming a party to the war thanks to its neutrality. However, it should not be concealed that Switzerland partially forfeited its innocence in these two wars, especially under pressure from the 'giant next door' called Germany ... nevertheless, neutrality is a guiding principle of Swiss foreign policy, which is repeatedly discussed before important decisions are made, as a symbol of a maxim or guideline that has proven itself in the past and could therefore, with some probability, also do so in the future. The symbol of "neutrality" does not need to be explained to anyone in Switzerland - it is very present. However, the interpretation of neutrality is controversial depending on the political coloring.

Rüegg's humanistic-sociological concept of meaning is illustrated and explained in Fig. 2.

Fig. 2: The dimensions of meaning in humanistic sociology according to Walter Rüegg.

Source: Rüegg, Walter, "Der religiöse Bürger", in: Schriftenreihe der Aktion "Kirche wohin?", No. 2, February 1982, p. 4.

To the individual points in Fig. 2:

No. 1: Subjectivity/individual:

Rüegg [1982, p. 4] understands this to mean "human subjectivity, a person's self-understanding, the shaping of meaning and the fulfillment of the meaning of their individual core". This "eludes any external dimensioning in terms of consciousness, takes place within the person, and is therefore nontemporal and non-spatial." This corresponds to the concept of the individual in LTE. However, sociology, for its part, sees this subject as being spanned by the three meaningful dimensions of the social horizontal (the subject as part of groups and societies), time (past - future of the individual and society) and transcendence (maxims and beliefs that transcend space and time, are "ultimate", cannot be questioned further, are "eternally valid", "ultimate certainties"). These three dimensions are explained in more detail below.

No. 2: The societal horizontal/social dimension (x-axis):

In the here and now, people orient themselves towards their fellow human beings, belong to or form social groups themselves and orient their actions towards fellow actors and social institutions.

No. 3: The historical horizon/historical dimension (z-axis):

People seek the meaning of their actions not only in the social relationships on the x-axis, but also in the confrontation with their origins, the origin of their individual and collective existence, which includes learned customs, norms, values, and beliefs.

No. 4: Vertical of transcendence/supratemporal dimension (y-axis):

According to Rüegg, man's openness to the world means that he also perceives the future as open, i.e. undefined, and uncertain - as an opportunity, but also as a fear-inducing uncertainty. According to Rüegg, this is linked to the need for an order that is detached from all historical and social conditions, and which provides timelessly valid - absolute - answers to the "where from?", "why?", "what for?" and "where to?" of human existence. The vertical of transcendence transcends the natural and temporal towards the future, i.e. it is a fixed star that is independent of time and space and is therefore always there.6A particularly important example in the Western democratic world is the triad of "Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité". For over 200 years, it has been a maxim independent of time and place, which draws its strength from its history and also serves as a guiding principle for shaping the future - this triad is not only the all-pervasive guiding principle of state and society in France, but also serves as a guiding star for many NGOs fighting for human rights worldwide - the correlate to Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité. Insofar as transcendence "connects the core of individual self-understanding with the supernatural and the supratemporal, we can call it the religious dimension". [Rüegg, Walter, 1982, p. 5]. In other words, the fixed star "Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité" gives the individual a foothold, meaningful orientation, and strength if he or she adheres to it, i.e. feels bound back to it and takes it up again and again - in the knowledge that it is also recognized as a guiding principle by the other members of a group or society. The Latin verbs religare ("to bind back") and religere ("to take up again") characterize the content of the term "religion".

According to Rüegg, the religious dimension of meaning - which helps to transform the uncertainty of the future into confidence, fear into hope and determination - can take a wide variety of forms. They range from horoscopes, pseudo-scientific psychologies, tribal rituals, sectarian fanaticism, state cults and world religions to philosophical and scientific world views, insofar as they fulfill the claim of absolute validity from the perspective of a community or society - all the way to Heraclitus' "Everything flows", Camus' "Sisyphe heureux" and forms of A-theism, which also recognizes maxims - fixed stars - that can be regarded as valid regardless of time and place.

According to Rüegg, all these forms of religious expression are based on a symbolic order of future expectations that is coherent in itself and thus appears plausible to its followers. However, this order "only becomes effective in terms of action when it goes beyond the immediate relationship between the supratemporal vertical of religion and the individual dimension of self-determination and also encompasses the social horizontal and the historical horizon". [Rüegg, Walter, 1982, p. 6]. In other words, according to Rüegg, religious beliefs and maxims only develop their full meaningful effect when they are shared by all members of a group, i.e. when they are recognized as valid: Only when the I knows from the you and the you from the I that they are oriented towards the same fixed stars can they interact meaningfully with each other, i.e. when they follow the same "religion".

Only the stabilization of religious ideas by means of social institutions, roles, and norms, which are also passed on to the following generations, conveys a perspective that goes beyond immediate purposes, points to the future, and creates meaning, which can take away our fear of the future. A counterexample: In the Scandinavian countries, life satisfaction was above average for a very long time because the welfare state - a state religion, so to speak - enjoyed a high level of approval among citizens. As a result, Scandinavians were able to look to the future with confidence and lead a comparatively carefree life. For reasons we will not go into here, this model is coming under increasing pressure, more and more people are beginning to doubt its validity and binding nature, and their own prospects for the future are darkening - fears and worries about the future are setting in, and distribution battles are breaking out on a scale never seen before. A similar phenomenon can be seen in the USA: the transcendent fixed stars of the Declaration of Independence, such as the right to equality before the law, the right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and security, as well as the right to a government that is committed to the common good, are losing credibility and unifying power, not least against the backdrop of increasing income and wealth disparities. People who feel connected to these maxims are finding that parts of society are adhering to them less and less for their own benefit. This gives rise to fears about the future, anger at not being respected, feelings of powerlessness and hatred towards certain population groups or (supposedly) self-serving elites who are blamed for their own misery. These conditions lead to social disintegration. At the same time, this is also a threat to the personal identity of the people in a society: What can you still hold on to? What is still valid? What does the future hold?

People live their lives and then experience and perceive their actions and existence as meaningful (see Fig. 3),

if he knows that his actions are in line with long-standing maxims such as the human rights that have existed for over 200 years (transcendence),

if he is part of groups in which these maxims are considered valid and the group members adhere to them (social dimension),

if these maxims have proven themselves in the past, prove themselves in the present and it can be assumed that they will continue to do so in the future (temporal dimension).

Adam Smith mentions a particular maxim: a society cannot exist if its members cannot assume or do not share the view that there is compensatory justice.

Fig. 3: The dimensions of meaning according to humanistic sociology

On the one hand, according to humanistic psychology, meaning is something radically subjective; on the other hand, every person is always involved in the three dimensions of the creation of meaning according to humanistic sociology: He is born into a group (social dimension) and shares its ideas of history, present and future (temporal dimension) as well as its idea of transcendence (religion in the broad sense). These three dimensions of meaning are given to the individual - they are objective dimensions of meaning. The individual then finds his or her individual, subjective meaning in the confrontation with these three objectively given dimensions of meaning.

If the social sciences must recognize that "meaning" has a radically individual aspect, psychology, for its part, must recognize that "meaning" always also has a social, i.e. societal, a temporal-historical and a transcendent dimension. Individual meaning-making is always embedded in the context of social, objective meaning-making.

How does this work together?

(Self-)transcendence - the hinge between the individual and society or between psychology and sociology

Social or collective systems of meaning are generalized - they come to individuals as given, as depersonalized and in this sense objective: "one" orients oneself towards certain values and norms, "one" interprets the past in a certain way, "one" looks to the future in a certain way, "one" cultivates certain religious, philosophical, and other beliefs.

Ideally, the collective meaning system of a group or institution serves its members as a framework or field of activity in which they can realize their individual meaning. The collective system of meaning is the objective meaning offered by a group or institution in which the individuals belonging to it can find and realize their own meaning. One example is the collective meaning system of the world-famous Mayo Clinic.

Its transcendent component is:"The needs of the patient come first! " This is the Mayo Clinic's primary offer of meaning to people who want to fulfill their individual will to meaning in the care and/or healing of suffering people. In this way, the Mayo Clinic becomes a means and a way for these employees to actively intervene in the world themselves, to bring something into the world and to experience their own effectiveness and appreciation.

Ultimately, it is this maxim anchored intranscendencethat brings the Mayo Clinic, its employees, and patients together and links their individual strivings for meaning into a greater whole - this is thesocial dimensionof the Mayo Clinic's collective system of meaning. This knowledge connects all "stakeholders", i.e. the employees - doctors, nurses, administration - and the patients and their relatives. Where everyone knows that they are all pulling in the same direction, such an institution, be it a hospital, an NGO, a private company, a sports club, etc., etc., can mobilize extraordinary synergetic forces - it "hums".

There is a third,temporal dimension: the Mayo Clinic was founded in 1889. And it has maintained its high standards ever since - they have been passed on from generation to generation, and the Mayo Clinic is flourishing. It is consistently ranked among the best and most renowned hospitals in the world, and it is an honorary title for doctors and nurses alike to have worked there or to work there. The power of the transcendental dimension (in connection with companies and other institutions, the term "mission" or "purpose" is often used today) and the strength of social cohesion across generations show that the maxim followed by the Mayo Clinic has stood the test of time. If we continue to cultivate it, we can look to the future with confidence.

Institutions with a mission that transcends their own selfish interests (profit maximization, self-preservation) - these can be any kind of institution, from hospitals to private and public companies, administrations, NGOs, commercial enterprises, but also groups, starting with the two-person partnership to communities, associations, clubs, etc. - function as offers of meaning to individuals. If they accept them, they can live their own will to meaning within this institution. Such institutions have the function of GIVING meaning, and individuals can FIND meaning within them. Institutions that can maintain a dialogical, participative, and constructive tension between the giving and finding of meaning are self-reinforcing systems.

The interaction of the collective and individual systems of meaning is cascaded. The Mayo Clinic's collective sense-making mission - "The needs of the patient come first!" - does not hang in the air: it can be tied to the maxims of the Declaration of Independence of the USA of 1776 - one of the ultimate sources of thecollectivesystem of meaning in the USA - e.g. the maxims "Life" and "Pursuit of Happiness". With its mission, the Mayo Clinic places itself at the service of US society and people's lives. It wants to heal the latter so well that they can continue to lead a meaningful life ("Pursuit of Happiness").

What begins with the highest maxims of the USA continues in the Mayo Clinic on an even more concrete level. The maxims of the Mayo Clinic must then be broken down to the various units, then to the subunits and so on, right down to the individual. Their work content must be defined as a service to the respective higher-level units. The work content must be designed in a participatory manner with the employees performing it in such a way that they recognize a meaningful contribution to the Mayo Clinic as a whole or, if necessary, to the maxims of the Declaration of Independence and can make the best possible contribution with their skills - an important source of the experience of belonging, self-worth and a sense of existence for employees and patients.

If communities, groups, institutions, and organizations orient themselves in freedom and responsibility towards common highest maxims, they can intertwine with each other for the purpose of serving these maxims. This creates a dense network that can develop high synergies with regard to the shared maxims. It is no coincidence that the Western democracies have developed extraordinary clout in this respect. It is also no coincidence that the healthcare system in Western democracies is in crisis today: there is a lack of common understanding among the players as to what health is.7Under the sign of neoclassical neoliberalism, health has been taken away from medicine and handed over to economics - except at the Mayo Clinic ...

In the following, some key aspects of the interplay between the subjective, individual search for meaning and the objective, societal creation of meaning will be highlighted:

Collective sense systems are spanned by the three dimensions of transcendence, social relationships, and the temporal-historical dimension. The collective, generalized system of meaning provides individuals with the outer framework of their own system of meaning and their own realization of meaning.

Due to self-distancing and self-transcendence, all individuals have their very own view of the world; for this reason, their own system of meaning is not congruent with the comprehensive generalized one, nor with that of other individuals.

Every person is born into an already existing collective, generalized system of meaning (meaning-giving), but thanks to the ability to self-distancing and self-transcendence, has discretion and leeway in relation to this system (meaning-finding).

It may be that these margins are very narrow: As a prisoner in Robben Island, Nelson Mandela was left with one last freedom: that of his thoughts. Even in so-called totalitarian institutions such as the military, people, as mentally gifted beings, develop strategies to evade total surveillance and control and to conquer freedom [Goffman, Ervin, 1983]. 8

The three dimensions of the generalized meaning system are interdependent. Changes in one dimension entail certain changes in the others. Changes in the three dimensions of the collective meaning system also lead to changes in the meaning systems of individuals and vice versa.  

Collectives and institutions are robust, i.e. outwardly adaptive, and inwardly integrative, when there is a tension between the collective and the individual sense, and as long as this tension can be balanced in a constructive - participative - way.

This balancing is functional if it is able to give individuals the experience of their own social effectiveness and esteem and thus ultimately the experience of the meaningfulness of their existence, the experience of being a subject, the experience of being listened to and being effective, i.e. being able to co-determine their own destiny.

Social units are stable as long as they are able to offer individuals the experience of the meaningfulness of their existence.9

A reality check on the meaning-centered view of humanity

The meaning-centered view of humanity developed here will be subjected to an initial brief check below. One challenging phenomenon is the question: how is it that people who have fallen into the wake of an idol, a demagogue, a usurper or even a dictator, an ideology, a conspiracy theory, or a sect can no longer be dissuaded from their stance by rational arguments or appeals to "common sense"? One such example is National Socialism. It was a beacon when Goebbels shouted into the crowd at the Berlin Sportpalast on February 18, 1943: "Do you want total war?" And thousands of people responded with a threefold "Sieg Heil!" - ecstatically accepting their own deaths.10