22.08.2024 Gabriele Strasser 6307

Anne Otto: "You can learn to show attitude"

We are living in turbulent times and our society seems deeply divided on issues such as war, migration, climate change, gender and vaccination. This does not stop at the world of work either. So how do we deal with it when we encounter fundamentally different opinions or even discriminatory statements?

Find out in an interview with psychologist and author Anne Otto what helps you to consciously develop your own attitude and react confidently in awkward conversational situations. 

Ms. Otto, you deal intensively with the causes of hatred, racism and the shift to the right. How did this come about?

This began in 2015, when the political climate in Germany became more difficult. I had previously felt quite comfortable in our democracy and didn't think it was under threat. Then the facts began to speak more and more against democracy and in favor of more hatred and racism. I thought: "Help, where is it coming from now that there is so much hatred against refugees in need of protection, that people are openly saying things again that you only rarely heard before?". I wanted to know what was going on and what could be done from a psychological perspective.

I started writing articles on the causes of hate, followed by my book "Where does hate come from?". I got a lot of feedback for both. Many people asked me: "What should we do now?". Unfortunately, there is no one solution. But what I can say is: it helps if you are better oriented. Also on a psychological level.

How does it help to be oriented? 

First of all, it's about clarifying for yourself: "Where do I stand?". No one is without prejudice, so it is important to reflect on yourself. In relation to other people, it helps to be able to better assess who you are dealing with and where their statement is coming from: "This is now an entrenched prejudice", "You can't go on talking to this person" or "This is an insecure person who is repeating what others are saying". If I know more about the other person, I can interact with them better and stay in conversation.

You have already mentioned various conversational situations, which are also the subject of our campaign "Stay in conversation - show attitude". How do you understand this motto?

The campaign "Stay in the conversation - take a stand" consists of two aspects: the conversation on the one hand and the stand on the other. The "Staying in the conversation" part means that I want to know from people who are perhaps close to me or where I see a lot of resources: "How do you come to let yourself be convinced by anti-democratic forces or mob others?".

Where understanding and a willingness to talk are no longer appropriate, I can say on the other side: "That's not possible, the red line has been crossed here!". In my workshops and lectures, I experience time and again that most people don't know where their red line is. 

Among other things, you work with the conversation method of radical politeness. What exactly is this, and do you have an example of how a situation can be resolved using this method?

The principle of radical politeness introduces techniques that can be used, for example, to find out how the other person arrives at their opinion and only make factual, political arguments once a certain openness has been established in the conversation.

I can think of an example from our campaign workshop where we practiced framing conversational situations with radical politeness. One participant told us about a family celebration, I think it was a ninetieth birthday. The older people began to mock the fact that they were not cared for by Germans. They all repeated prejudices, some of them were openly racist. In a situation like that, you want to say something, but it would probably blow up the party if you said: "What are you talking about? You're crazy". According to the rules of radical politeness, it would be better to make an appointment with the person you care about and talk about it. In the difficult situation itself, however, I can say, for example: "I have a different opinion on this. I would like to talk to you about it". 

During the exercise in the seminar, a colleague kept asking in a very calm way: "Why is this bad for you, what are you worried about?". It may come out at the end that the person feels lonely. Then you can say: "I sometimes feel lonely too, but I draw different conclusions from it". And then you can go in with arguments - for example, what you think of Germany as a country of immigration. It helps to think about a few things that are important to you. 

What the participants could see from this example: The calmness and conscientiousness with which the questions were asked created a completely different atmosphere. However, there is no guarantee that this will work or that you will manage to get into an open discussion situation. Many people don't want to talk, or they want to provoke, don't allow themselves to be captured and jump from one topic to the next. I can then also say: "I don't think you want to discuss anything".

You can't solve an issue like this in a conversation, that would be asking too much. But I believe these conversation techniques are an opportunity to meet others again. At the same time, they also help us to recognize more precisely at which moments it is appropriate to show a clear edge and to signal to others at which point something becomes unacceptable. The inventors of these techniques are therefore concerned with both: remaining polite in conversation, but also setting themselves apart. Hence the suffix "radical".

What are the strengths of this method?

Radical politeness is just one of several communication techniques that I present; elements from conflict communication or classic conversation management rules are also often helpful. The strengths of radical politeness lie in its political aspirations. It is about promoting democracy and staying in the conversation as citizens. For example, by saying: "I'm interested in your political opinion".

You also train yourself to argue, because in typical situations of helplessness, we often lack not only a suitable conversational stance, but also good arguments. Another strength is that you have to think about yourself: "What is my opinion and how can I prove it?".

Have you ever been in a situation where you were offended by a statement? How did you deal with it?

Of course I experience this from time to time. In my private life, but also in lectures or at public events. In a recent seminar on the topic of prejudice, I asked: "When did you realize that your prejudices had changed?". I actually wanted to know from the participants when they had given up a prejudice and what had helped them to do so. Then an older lady said in front of the whole group: "I didn't used to have prejudices against foreigners, but I do now". I was totally perplexed and thought: "What am I saying now?". Finally I said: "I think it's a shame that you see it that way. I see it differently to you, but we can't clarify it now in this setting. Maybe we'll talk again after the event." That wasn't good, but it was enough for the participants that I responded. Sometimes it's about saying something at all. 

I experience a great deal of uncertainty or bias in my workshops. People often don't even know how to say a single sentence when they think something is getting out of hand. They need encouragement to take the first steps.

Is there a conversation anchor in situations of speechlessness that helps in most cases?

Questions such as "What do you mean?" or "I don't quite understand that" are always helpful. Basically, as in many other communication situations, it's about asking again what is actually meant. People very often say vague things. It almost always works to say: "I don't agree with that at all, let's talk about it in peace". If it's a big overstepping of boundaries, I can also say: "I can't do that now" or "What you're saying here is inhumane".  

In your opinion, what are the limits of such communication techniques?

Sometimes you have to endure ambivalence and realize: "We can't find a solution here". But it is also not a solution to stop talking to each other. What will become of society if no one can talk to each other anymore? However, you don't have to make peace with everyone and take everyone with you. It's also a bit about "live and let live".

Does it also make sense to take a clear stance and discuss opinions in a work context?

Here it is particularly important to look at the situation and how people relate to each other. If, for example, a team member is latently ranting, rushing or expressing prejudices, you can't constantly talk to this colleague. If someone is particularly important to me at work, I could take the same approach as in the example of the family celebration, i.e. talk in pairs. And if someone in the team repeatedly goes in the direction of bullying, it is important to offer alliance and support.

Asking questions and arguing with radical politeness leads nowhere in such a case. It would be more appropriate to stand by the person being attacked. Or use other anti-bullying interventions: first try to resolve it within the team and if that doesn't help, talk to the manager. It is important to keep saying: "This is not okay" and to show your own position in this social structure. In other words, to take a stand.

What do you think is important for teamwork?

When people say: "We have so many conflicts in our teams because we no longer tick together politically", this often cannot be resolved. When people work together, you sometimes have to take the "emergency exit". This means asking ourselves: can we draw on our strengths as a team, function together as a working community and treat each other with respect? Our aim at work is to work together well and as equals. Nevertheless, I think it's important that no one is left alone and excluded. 

At work, we mainly have collaboration as a connecting element, it's less about personal relationships. What does that mean for the interview situation?

There is a difference between work and private life. Any conversations that become too emotional or loud or in which you rely too much on a sustainable personal relationship tend to be difficult at work. You have a credit in your good friendships and relationships that you don't have at work. Many people underestimate that. In this campaign, I also think it's important to think carefully about when and with whom you enter into a more in-depth exchange in accordance with the rules of radical politeness. If we approach things too impartially, if we discuss things too emotionally, we can also damage working relationships. 

Do you have any tips on what to do when talking and discussing don't help?

A benevolent attitude helps to bridge political divides or perhaps to get away from them. Here I can ask myself: What do I like about this person, regardless of the fact that I find their views terrible? What do I find good as a work colleague, on what level can I resonate with them?

Then it is important to realize what your own attitude is and where the red lines mentioned above are. If you know these, you will be able to talk to others in a more relaxed manner. A third tip is to see where you have things in common, such as hobbies, sports, shared experiences or contacts. Anything that brings you closer together.

Thank you very much for the interview, Anne Otto!

"Stay in the conversation - show attitude" campaign