General uncertainty? The need for security in times of crisis

Climate change, wars, polarisation – studies show that many people feel overwhelmed by the crises of our time and are uncertain about the future. Are we losing control of our lives? What can we do to regain the level of security we need to shape our future with confidence? We discussed this with Susanne Waldow-Meier, futurologist and alumna of Freie Universität Berlin.

Ms Waldow-Meier, how do people react when they feel they are living in a time of crisis? Is there really a new kind of uncertainty or a new longing for stability?

Yes and no. As humans, we have an open relationship with the world, and this relationship offers both freedom and uncertainty. Historically, we have absorbed and tamed this uncertainty through culture, conventions, rituals and so on, which enable us to understand and manage our everyday lives as a collective.

On the other hand, let's look at our current context. The United Nations Human Development Report published in 2022 addresses a new complex of uncertainty consisting of four components:

On the one hand, we have the threatening planetary change in the Anthropocene that humans perceive. This is accompanied by the pursuit of far-reaching social change. In addition, there is talk of an apparently growing polarisation. These three trends influence each other and the daily uncertainty we have always faced.

We are experiencing diverse forms of crisis that are undermining democratic systems, for example, and many people feel they are losing control over their lives. This feeling of loss of control is rooted in real problems that are difficult to solve. The solutions require long, strenuous investigations and cooperation.

If we can observe such a feeling of loss of control, does this result in a new need for security, and if so, how does this manifest itself? Is there a trend towards so-called classic securities in life planning, such as a ‘secure job’, ‘home ownership’, ‘marriage’ and ‘insurance’. Are these the classics?

Both. The Rheingold Institute conducted a large representative study in 2023 with 1,000 participants on the topic of confidence in the future:

60 percent of people feel overwhelmed by current crises. Nearly 70 percent like to retreat into their private lives. People orient themselves towards collectives: towards a family as a small community, towards a club, towards the neighbourhood in which they live. Collective culture, in all its forms, is our anchor for feeling secure. We have created frames of reference in our lives, and these include things like the ones you describe. We use these frames of reference to explain the world to ourselves – we orient ourselves towards them. Even in the current situation, with its simultaneous crises and complexity, they give us stability, but the question is: do they provide us with solutions?

These classic sources of security – work, home, family, insurance – are, in a sense, what is considered reasonable. People behave reasonably, prepare themselves and hope that this will give them security for the future. Is it even possible to overcome fears and feelings of insecurity rationally? We see, for example, that the rise of populist parties that exploit these fears politically also comes from social groups that are actually doing well. Are all these classic rational security strategies perhaps not enough to look to the future with confidence?

I strongly believe that this is not enough. Reason has been our compass since the Enlightenment and is closely linked to the ideal of a sovereign, free individual. Our education system teaches us skills that are supposed to enable us to make judgements and perform well in order to cope with worldly demands that are predominantly cognitive in nature.

What we have learned and practised less is how to address uncertainty, doubt or exhaustion. Such experiences are taboo or pathologised.

At the same time – you mention right-wing populism – such emotions are used as a breeding ground for offering simple answers.

It seems to me that it is high time we found a different culture of dialogue, exchange and integration of these experiences. In my view, it would be very helpful to allow the experience of ‘We don't know exactly what to do next.’ Many people share such experiences; it could be very helpful to include them in debates.

We need spaces for this – we have very few at the moment, and so these feelings are finding expression in sometimes very abstruse ways. Democratic spaces for dialogue can be found in the education system, but also in town hall meetings, cultural venues, churches or clubs. There, people could realise: "Oh, we share this feeling of uncertainty. We may have different perspectives, but our values are actually very similar. What do we want?" Then a process begins in which people search together, according to the motto: We are not yet sure how things will turn out, but we are setting out on the path together. And this common ground alone triggers completely different emotions. You can observe this in many civic initiatives. Social cohesion emerges, not the kind that excludes, but the kind that includes people. People feel connected, even if they cannot yet clearly see the outcome. This creates positive, constructive feelings that can become the driving force for a shared future.

In this way, ‘reasonable’ solutions can be explored in greater depth. It's all connected: reason needs heart, and vice versa.

Speaking of collective action, is action in itself something that counteracts uncertainty? Do you feel less uncertain when you do something?

Yes. We are active beings who learn about the world through action from an early age. And in doing so, we create our own frames of reference, through which we look as if through glasses to understand how the world is structured and how we need to act in order to get along in it. When I do something, I experience that I have an effect. Then I can check whether that is the effect I was aiming for and make adjustments. This allows me to reduce uncertainty. It is a way of moving from powerlessness to active searching, trying and experimenting, and it is definitely a strategy that helps us.

What role does interaction with other people play? In connection with terrorism, for example, we often hear that people become radicalised in the solitude of the internet. Does loneliness perhaps set in a spiral of uncertainty and fear, and would community be a kind of universal remedy?

Yes. The German government's report on loneliness and studies, for example by the Institute for Social Cohesion, suggest that there is a link between loneliness and anti-democratic attitudes.

When you ask people what gives them orientation and stability, they often say it is living in a community. This does not have to be a traditional family; it can also be a shared flat or other forms of relationships. We live in relationships that give us orientation and stability in our everyday lives.

No insurance can compensate for this kind of quality of life. We cannot buy it either, but we can shape it together. All of this strengthens our feeling that we have resources to deal with uncertainty. We can strive to create such a culture. It does not eliminate uncertainty – which is ultimately impossible to eliminate – but we can always decide for ourselves how we treat each other. How we support each other, how openly we view each other and how respectfully we treat each other – that is definitely within our sphere of influence.

We have now touched on many approaches to how a sense of security can perhaps or probably be strengthened. Which of these approaches are particularly important? Are they the material aspects represented by insurance, for example, or are they emotional aspects on a very individual level, or are they social aspects such as integration? Can this be weighted in some way? Where do we start when we as a society are at a loss and feel insecure?

On the material aspects: our pursuit of prosperity is also a way of absorbing uncertainty. But when we look around, we paradoxically find that the feeling of uncertainty has not decreased in affluent societies. Rather, we fear losing our material resources again.

Of course, prosperity is a resource: when we experience these hot days and one person is privileged, lives in an insulated house and has the opportunity to take a cool shower, then that is naturally a resource that can contribute to resilience. In this respect, I do not wish to deny the importance of these material resources. In this context, I would like to emphasise how important a more socially equitable distribution of material resources is; important for the political agenda and at the same time for our daily experience.

Social and emotional connectedness seems to me to be particularly crucial as a coping strategy for dealing with uncertainty. The opportunity to participate – in family, clubs, school, the workplace, the neighbourhood, etc. It's about opportunities for participation in places where we can collectively cope with uncertainty; where we can consider: What is important to us here and now? If we then come to decisions and make wise use of material resources, then, in the best case scenario, the material and the social interlock.

Thank you very much!

Interview: Thorsten Kleinschmidt