"Abolish the fun society!"
Otherwise the social quality of life in Germany will be lost

The development of entertainment culture in Germany has reached a critical limit. Last year, the Federal Agency for Civic Education took a serious look at the question "On the way to a society of fun and ridicule?". In spring 2001, the Academy for Political Education in Tutzing organised the academic conference "Democracy in the fun society". And in mid-May, the Mainz Days of Television Criticism will be dedicated to the topic of "TV in the fun society." Is the TV success formula "You can't sink in the shallows" in danger of collapsing? The entertainment culture in Germany is currently under scrutiny. Professor Dr Horst W. Opaschowski, Scientific Director of the B-A-T Leisure Research Institute, takes a critical look at the social consequences of this development.
Is football part of the population's basic supply of valuable TV programmes? Is the Grand Prix d'Eurovision an event of outstanding cultural value? Should fun and entertainment programmes be an indispensable service offered by public television stations? More and more viewers are switching to flatter programmes and are coming to terms with the loss of quality, while news and political programmes are in danger of falling by the wayside. The shift in quality is associated with the spread of a fun culture in Germany, which has social consequences. For Professor Dr Horst W. Opaschowski, Scientific Director of the B-A-T Leisure Research Institute, a fundamental change in attitudes is emerging among the population. Having fun and enjoying oneself has become more important than socialising with others. The culture of fun is taking on a life of its own. And so his demand is: "Abolish the fun society! Otherwise the social quality of life in Germany will be lost."
Based on representative surveys of 2,000 people aged 14 and over, British American Tobacco's Leisure Research Institute asked the population what they really enjoy in life, comparing the years 1990 and 2001. Just a decade ago, the majority of the population (60%) were happy if they could live a carefree and carefree life. Only for the young generation of 14 to 29-year-olds did the joy of life have more to do with amusement (60%) than with carefree living (49%). Now a profound change in values is emerging across all age groups: a clear majority of the population has now also adopted the opinion of the younger generation and thinks first and foremost of their own pleasure when it comes to having fun (1990: 40% - 2001: 55%). Socialising with others has become almost secondary (1990: 53% - 2001: 44%).
The young generation of 14 to 29-year-olds in particular is now riding the fun wave of life more than ever (1990: 60% - 2001: 71%). For them, the main thing is to have fun - with or without friends. Being together with others has become less attractive in their scale of fun in life (1990: 60% - 2001: 56%). The zeitgeist is taking its toll: more than three quarters of young people (77%) are of the opinion that "helping each other" is "no fun"; the rest of the population does not think much more socially either (74%).
This is also confirmed by the results of a more recent survey conducted by the Allensbach Institute for Public Opinion Research at the same time as the B-A-T Institute in January 2001. The Allensbach Institute also speaks of a "profound change in values". Social motives such as charity ("being there for others, helping others") and social responsibility ("helping to create a better society") have become much less attractive in recent years. "The fact that the meaning of life lies entirely in the enjoyment of life" was "never addressed so directly in earlier years" (Allensbacher Berichte No. 5, 2001, p. 2).
The fun society is just a re-action to the stress society of recent years, a response to the crisis in the world of work, turbo-capitalism and the fast pace of the non-stop society. "The fun society as a transitional society cannot survive for long," says Institute Director Opaschowski: "People - initially unsettled and torn between stress and fun - will soon decide in favour of the stability of a new performance society. And that means: recognition is earned by those who achieve something in life - in their private lives as well as at work."
The fun society could soon take care of itself because viewers will quickly tire of some of the rubbish and nonsense and demand new, more intelligent TV formats that offer entertainment without neglecting information, culture and education. Fun in life does not therefore have to die. Quite the opposite: the fun principle as a driving force for personal behaviour and as a performance elixir for work is more likely to have a new future.

- Long version -

Early warnings.
Forecast from 1987

"Public broadcasters are riding the wave of fun and happiness. Television threatens to become a pure entertainment medium. The informational and educational functions of television are becoming less and less important. In the future, viewers will increasingly avoid cultural, educational and political programmes in order to find fun and entertainment around the clock.
What is thought-provoking is the two-facedness, even helplessness of the state, politics and public media, which promise information and enlightenment, education and culture, but convey fun and games of chance, action and entertainment.
Fun is soon no longer fun, because the jokers are laughing their heads off more and more. The fun of having fun threatens to become a fun syndrome."
H.W. Opaschowski: Lecture at the conference "Quo vadis, Freizeit?" organised by the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Erziehungswissenschaft and the B-A-T Freizeit-Forschungsinstitut (documentation), Hamburg 1987, p. 16
In 1984, the year of Orwell, quizmaster Robert Lembcke is said to have once described the plight of German entertainment culture as follows: "I imagine hell as a place where the English cook, the Italians guard lorries and the Germans make TV entertainment programmes." In the meantime, the TV landscape has changed fundamentally and TV entertainment includes "relaxation and distraction to the point of escapism and escapism from reality" (Gerhards et al. 2000, p. 100). Television has now become a mass medium because it is first and foremost an entertainment medium. Today, entertainment programmes from Wetten, dass ... to Mainz, wie es singt und lacht are capable of achieving majority and ratings.
With the spread of television as a mass medium, entertainment has taken on a new quality. Television is always considered entertaining when it "evokes general excitement through novel messages, creates pleasant moods, background emotions or light feelings" (Winterhoff-Spurk 2000, p. 89) and, of course, also provides fun and enjoyment. Polarisers and provocateurs are increasingly in demand. Harald Schmidt and Stefan Raab can only be enthusiastically loved or mercilessly hated. Because they shamelessly explore the boundaries of taste and embarrassment.
Entertainment must polarise: Some see entertainment as a loss of quality, others as a gain in joie de vivre. The former fear the destruction of culture, while the latter hope for a new culture of entertainment. Both positions are initially irreconcilable. The confrontation comes to a head when the demand is taken seriously: "Work should be fun for those who have it. Happy work by happy people" (Schneider 2000, p. 27). This gives fun a motivating, even performance-enhancing quality. It follows from this: The new fun culture is not always fun. If you enjoy going to work, you don't have to be happy all the time. Today, almost everything in life that is not boring or annoying is simply fun. "Fun" has become a byword for carefree enjoyment of life. But fun is also often serious.
In the entertainment industry, it can be particularly fun not to laugh when you are forced to laugh because you can see through the audience deception. Kurt Felix, the creator of the TV programme "Verstehen Sie Spaß?", which was one of the most successful Saturday evening shows in the 1980s, rightly criticises an increasingly trained audience in the studios: "I hate it when a programme is artificially applauded, laughed at or even shouted at. When the studio audience is ordered to do halligalli or oil themselves up and roll around with pleasure. When the mood is feigned where there is none. Why are people so stupid as to cheer even the laxest punchlines? Because they are encouraged to do so by the television makers. And that is cheating the TV consumer" (Felix 2000; p. 190). The makers cheat the viewers in two ways: They sell the studio guests as well as the TV viewers for fools and abuse the audience as applause cattle. Are we getting American conditions? The Saturday evening TV programme XFL is currently causing a furore in the USA: whenever the audience is shown, either a woman is pulling up her T-shirt or a few viewers are fighting ...
When politicians become entertainers today, the entertainment trap snaps shut more and more often: because in the media age, politicians are also under enormous pressure to entertain, because they really have to "sell" their policies and can hardly communicate them without entertainment value. Politics is increasingly becoming a medium of entertainment. This easily leads to the fact that even political issues "that have nothing entertaining about them can be seen through this lens and staged in an entertaining way" (Klenke 2000, p. 37). The presentation of politics is then more like a staging of politics. One way out of the entertainment trap could be to return to the communicative core of entertainment and turn entertainment into interactivity. As with the remote control on television, new forms of communication could emerge in the Internet age.
75 years ago, the magazine "Der Deutsche Rundfunk" conducted a reader survey in July 1924. 8,000 readers responded to the question of what they wanted to hear on the radio. 83 per cent of radio listeners wanted operettas, nine per cent wanted sermons. Two decades later, the magazine "Radiowelt" surveyed its readers' programme preferences in 1946: Weather reports, news and cabaret (Winterhoff-Spurk 2000, p. 81 ff.) were now in demand in the post-war period. What will the programme wishes of viewers, listeners and recipients look like in the 21st century? Will enter-, info-, docu-, edu- or confrontainment mix?
The writer Umberto Eco has sketched out a scenario for the coming century in which people strive more for goods than for good and an end to ethics is a possible vision of the future. For centuries, every moral doctrine consisted of launching a model of behaviour that the individual should emulate. This could be the role model of the saint, the hero or the sage. Imitating a role model has always been a difficult art of living.
Today, on the other hand, "where television is increasingly moving towards presenting ’normal‘ people as role models, no effort is required to become like them. We want to become like them because they have been given the favour of appearing on screen. In many cases, people want to become role models not because of their ’normal‘ way of life, but because of their spectacular sins (provided these sins give them visibility and success" (Eco 2000, p. 13). Monica Lewinsky, Jenny Elvers or Zlatko are more effective role models (because they are easier to reach) than Mother Theresa from Calcutta. Today, TV and media presence decide who is a role model. The ego seeks and finds its stage for self-expression.
The current impression is that nobody has to work their way up from their parents' garage to the boards that mean the world. Television now stages everything itself - from auditions to public appearances. Pop stars are literally invented and constructed (e.g. the music band No Angels). The boundaries between fan and star, spectator and actor are becoming blurred. The implication is unspoken: Anyone can make it if they want to. There is a script, a role and a stage for almost every ego.
Instead of direct experience and personal experience on the streets and squares, in neighbourhoods and residential areas, there is the threat of a second-hand life: media-constructed standardised experiences that give the impression that you were there yourself - in a container, on the talk show stage or at a current TV event. The senses of recipients, viewers and consumers are only focussed on what experience makers have previously arranged and staged for them. Are our senses becoming impoverished?
As early as the 1970s, the American Jerry Mander analysed and criticised the structural pattern of a life conveyed by the media because it often only reflects half the truth under the appearance of authenticity. The basic principles of the media are, for example (see Mander 1979, p. 274 ff.):

• Violence is more effective in the media than non-violence.
• War is more effective in the media than peace.
• Death is more media-effective than life.
• Fear is more effective in the media than calmness.
• Competition is more effective in the media than co-operation.
• Activity is more media-effective than inactivity.
• The loud is more media-effective than the quiet.
• The spectacular is more effective in the media than the ambiguous.
• The unusual is more media-effective than the ordinary.
• The special is more media-effective than the general.
• The verbal is more effective in the media than the non-verbal.
• Brief information is more effective in the media than a lengthy report.
• Superficiality is more effective in the media than depth.
• The subjective is more effective in the media than the objective.

These are all media-effective or "media-friendly" ingredients that demonstrate or arrange highlights. This creates the image of an extreme society between seriousness and fun. But real life takes place "in between".
"The bad news is the better news" has always been a successful media formula. If, for example, more than two thirds of football reports in Germany today revolve around relegation issues and current sports reports resemble crisis discussions, disaster scenarios and rumours of redundancies (cf. Hoffmann 2001), while in southern European countries there are passionate discussions about champions and victories, then it becomes clear how selectively and one-sidedly the media reality often only reflects half the truth.
Seen in this light, the fun society is also just an illusory world constructed by the media and sold to people as reality. The demand "Abolish the fun society!" takes social responsibility for future generations seriously. Will children and young people still be able to distinguish between reality and illusory reality, between real life and reality from a retort or a container? What is still real about reality TV and real-life soaps? Do fun and action dominate the media world, while real life seems boring? So this is where the limit of social irresponsibility is reached: the media society releases its children - to where? Children and young people who grow up in such a media-mediated world, in which violence, competition and superficiality are the dominant principles, could lose their social sensitivity in the long term: Looking away would become more important than listening.
The 21st century will above all be an age of experience that produces events in series and propagates the "stay tuned!" around the clock: "Event in trend" and "Event is your friend". In concrete terms, this means always having to be there, wanting to experience everything and not missing out on anything. Instead of the information society predicted by experts, the future will belong to an infotainment society that cannot do without information and does not want to do without entertainment. The whole of life will become an event - that is the zeitgeist of the 21st century.
An experience generation is growing up that has to decide between consumerism and denial. While the mass of consumers can hardly complete an activity or watch a programme to the end due to a lack of time, the small group of deniers behave almost like a post-media generation: out of the media time corset and away from meaningless TV rituals, leaving behind clique pressures, group norms and superficial relationships. Instead of arbitrariness and non-commitment, they are looking for more consistency in life. Only an information and education elite can afford this - the masses largely remain in the cage of consumer culture: never quite there - but always on the move to the next media event.
The preliminary decision for the Grand Prix d'Eurovision in spring 2001 was supposed to be the countdown to the rocket-like rise of a German fun society. In reality, it backfired: Zlatko, Moshammer & Co. became the laughing stock of the nation. The viewers played along seriously, quickly saw through the cheap Gaga strategy - and punished the fun contestants accordingly. The performance turned into a crash. The cultural decline feared by cultural pessimists did not take place. Culture triumphed across the board, or more correctly: a new culture of entertainment that took the musical competition seriously without sacrificing fun elements.
Let's not kid ourselves: In the mid-1990s, the Grand Prix d'Eurovision was in danger of freezing into routine and ritual, especially for the younger generation. Deadly boredom was spreading. Guildo Horn, Stefan Raab and their disciples saved the Grand Prix from certain death and turned entertainment back into an event - a staged event that the media reported on before it had even taken place. The spectators went along with this bastardisation for a while - to save the Grand Prix. It was pure gallows humour. The much-criticised fun society - in a phase of uncertainty - was only a transitional phenomenon on the way to a new entertainment culture in which seriousness and fun must once again enter into a marriage of convenience.
It's time to say goodbye to the fun society, but the entertainment culture lives on. Because viewers remain relentless. In particular, voyeurs and the curious, who are more interested in the show than the music and bring TV providers high viewing figures, want their fun and their sensation every year. Otherwise the mass spectacle quickly loses its appeal. The Grand Prix will have to pass its real test in 2002, when viewers will no longer be interested in the slapstick, will no longer want to do without so-called fun candidates and will no longer want to listen to chansons with a hint of boredom. Whether we like it or not, the entertainment culture of the 21st century must always be a culture of fun. Something exciting and stimulating has to happen that moves and interests everyone, just like football or Formula 1 racing. Otherwise viewers will switch off. Fun culture as mere FUN-atism quickly outlives itself like a flash in the pan. But the fun principle as an elixir of life, i.e. as an expression of motivation, enthusiasm and joie de vivre, will become increasingly important in the future - in public life as well as in the private sphere.
The development of entertainment culture in Germany has reached a critical limit. Last year, the Federal Agency for Civic Education took a serious look at the question "On the way to a society of fun and ridicule?". In spring 2001, the Academy for Political Education in Tutzing organised the academic conference "Democracy in the fun society". And in mid-May, the Mainz Days of Television Criticism will be dedicated to the topic of "TV in the fun society." Is the TV success formula "You can't sink in the shallows" in danger of collapsing? The entertainment culture in Germany is currently under scrutiny.
Is football part of the population's basic supply of valuable TV programmes? Is the Grand Prix d'Eurovision an event of outstanding cultural value? Should fun and entertainment programmes be an indispensable service offered by public television stations? More and more viewers are switching to flatter programmes and are coming to terms with the loss of quality, while news and political programmes are in danger of falling by the wayside. The shift in quality is linked to the spread of a fun culture in Germany, which has social consequences. A fundamental change in attitudes is emerging among the population. Having fun and enjoying oneself has become more important than socialising with others. The culture of fun is taking on a life of its own. "Abolish the fun society! Otherwise the social quality of life in Germany will be lost": this can only be the demand for the future.
Based on representative surveys of 2,000 people aged 14 and over, the British American Tobacco Leisure Research Institute asked the population what they really enjoy in life, comparing the years 1990 and 2001. Just a decade ago, the majority of the population (60%) were happy if they could live a carefree and carefree life. Only for the young generation of 14 to 29-year-olds did the joy of life have more to do with amusement (60%) than with carefree living (49%). Now a profound change in values is emerging across all age groups: a clear majority of the population has now also adopted the opinion of the younger generation and thinks first and foremost of their own pleasure when it comes to having fun (1990: 41.% - 2001: 55%). Socialising with others has become almost secondary (1990: 53% - 2001: 44%).
The young generation of 14- to 29-year-olds in particular is riding the fun wave of life more than ever before (1990: 60% - 2001: 71%). For them, the main thing is to have fun - with or without friends. Being together with others has become less attractive in their scale of fun in life (1990: 60% - 2001: 56%). The zeitgeist is taking its toll: more than three quarters of young people (77%) are of the opinion that "helping each other" is "no fun"; the rest of the population does not think much more socially either (74%).
This is also confirmed by the results of a more recent survey conducted by the Allensbach Institute for Public Opinion Research at the same time as the B-A-T Institute in January 2001. The Allensbach Institute also speaks of a "profound change in values". Social motives such as charity ("being there for others, helping others") and social responsibility ("helping to create a better society") have become much less attractive in recent years. "The fact that the meaning of life lies entirely in the enjoyment of life" was "never addressed so directly in earlier years" (Allensbacher Berichte No. 5, 2001, p. 2).
The fun society is just a re-action to the stress society of recent years, a response to the crisis in the world of work, turbo-capitalism and the fast pace of the non-stop society. The fun society as a transitional society cannot survive for long. People - initially insecure and torn between stress and fun - will soon decide in favour of the stability of a new meritocracy. And that means: recognition is earned by those who achieve something in life - in their private lives as well as at work.
The fun society could soon take care of itself because viewers will quickly tire of some of the rubbish and nonsense and demand new, more intelligent TV formats that offer entertainment without neglecting information, culture and education. Fun in life does not therefore have to die. Quite the opposite: the fun principle as a driving force for personal behaviour and as a performance elixir for work is more likely to have a new future.
Despite all the justified criticism of the excesses of a supposedly fun society, it should not be overlooked that in the subjective perception of the population today, the concept of fun also has serious life connotations. Two out of five German citizens primarily associate it with a feeling of freedom from worries, time pressure and lack of money. Specifically, living carefree, i.e. having no worries (41%), being without time pressure (40%) and not having to worry about money (40%) describe people's attitude to life as a mixture of freedom, voluntariness and joie de vivre.
Some population groups associate the word fun with very different ideas:
Compared to women, men emphasise more the freedom to "do what you want" (42% - women: 37%); "having no onerous obligations" (33% - women: 28%) and being happy about "a sense of achievement" (30% - women: 26%).
For women, enjoying life tends to start with social well-being: "Being with others" (46% - men: 42%) and "Having understanding for each other" (29% - men: 26%).
In the East German population, too, the social dimension of behaviour has a meaning that is associated with the concept of fun, such as "helping each other" (31% - West Germans: 24%).
West Germans, on the other hand, find it more enjoyable "to be entertained and sprinkled" (28% - East Germans: 22%). And they are happier when they can be "free from rules and regulations" (28% - East Germans: 23%).
Fun has become an integral part of people's consciousness and behaviour. Fun is a symbol for many things: an expression of inner contentment and quiet happiness as well as a high level of motivation: having fun means above all: having no worries at the moment, not suffering from time pressure or lack of money and doing something with pleasure and voluntarily. Serious thought needs to be given to rehabilitating the concept of fun. Today, fun has taken on the meaning of an elixir of life and comes very close to the feeling of happiness:

• Feel free and live carefree,
• be carefree, happy and exuberant,
• be surrounded by like-minded people and
• have a personal sense of achievement

- Today, all this means "fun", which used to be called "happiness".