#5 Armin Nassehi

Video Thumbnail

Armin Nassehi, a pro­fes­sor of so­cio­lo­gy in Munich and one of the field’s most dis­tin­guis­hed voices, gave a lecture at Bie­le­feld Uni­ver­si­ty on De­cem­ber 19, 2022, on “Making De­cisi­ons under Un­cer­tain­ty”. Bie­le­feld Uni­ver­si­ty stands in a dis­tinct tra­di­ti­on: It was here that Niklas Luhmann, whose systems theory was to have a pro­found impact on Nassehi, taught from 1968 until his re­ti­re­ment in 1993. The ques­ti­on at the heart of Nassehi’s lecture – How do we make de­cisi­ons? – could not be more timely in an era of global po­li­ti­cal turmoil and in­crea­sing sym­ptoms of crisis. Can we save the world by making the right de­cisi­ons? Are po­li­ti­ci­ans able to pave the way for such de­cisi­ons and build the ma­jo­ri­ty support they need to get their de­cisi­ons adopted?

Ac­cord­ing to Nassehi, de­cisi­ons are a key element of our modern li­fe­world. Ever­ything must be decided, nothing must be left to seeming chance. This thin­king main­tains that de­cisi­ons are per se a ra­tio­nal­ly groun­ded re­sour­ce that we, by buil­ding adeptly on our know­ledge and ex­pe­ri­ence, can access to tackle almost any chal­len­ge facing us. Nassehi, however, shows that such as­sump­ti­ons are con­struc­ts masking an il­lu­si­on. Ul­ti­mate­ly, every de­cisi­on faces the dilemma of having to to elevate a random fact or cir­cum­s­tan­ce to the status of a ra­tio­nal princip­le. Making the right de­cisi­on has nothing to do with selec­ting the best option from a set of avail­ab­le al­ter­na­ti­ves in order to create a piece of purely ra­tio­nal evi­dence. Rather, de­cisi­ons are often built on con­struc­tions of reality that are based on hy­po­the­ses and data collec­ted by the de­cisi­on-makers them­sel­ves, or per­sua­si­ons that nudge us towards certain in­ter­pre­ta­ti­ons of the world. Es­pe­ci­al­ly in the po­li­ti­cal domain, de­cisi­ons are fre­quent­ly or­ches­tra­ted in order to create a spe­ci­fic impact or outcome. By im­pli­citly shaping ar­gu­ments around a spe­ci­fic set of al­ter­na­ti­ve choices, po­li­tics itself limits the scope of what can be decided. The good reasons given to sub­stan­tia­te de­cisi­ons often prove to be highly sub­jec­tive po­si­ti­ons and as­sump­ti­ons. It is because all de­cisi­ons – and not just de­cisi­ons made in times of crisis – are subject to un­cer­tain­ty, except in set­tings where we can dis­tin­guish false and correct options in advance, that there is a need to set up such dra­ma­tic either-or si­tua­ti­ons. 

Beyond sober de­fi­ni­ti­ons, Nassehi’s lecture offers up a volley of examp­les – drawn in par­ti­cu­lar from the COVID pan­de­mic – that reveal how deeply our thin­king is shaped by the nar­ra­ti­ve that imposes on us a con­stant need to make de­cisi­ons, and how rarely we are able to ques­ti­on the ends it serves. Both in­tel­lec­tual­ly sti­mu­la­ting and en­ter­tai­ning, Nassehi’s lecture is proof that so­cio­lo­gy is not just about abs­trac­tion and con­cep­tu­al clarity, but can also en­com­pass urbane irony, re­la­ta­ble examp­les, and ac­ces­si­ble theo­ries.

Peter-André Alt

Date De­cem­ber 19, 2022
Length 72 mins
Title, series Making De­cisi­ons under Un­cer­tain­ty, Bie­le­feld Lec­tures
Lan­guage German
Video Bie­le­feld Uni­ver­si­ty