A Critique of Dieter Rams

“Dieter Rams is one of the most influential industrial designers to ever live. Even if you don’t know who he is, you probably use products that were inspired by his thinking everyday. He wrote the Ten Principles for Good Design, and they’re basically like the design bible. Designers must never question them. So that’s exactly what we’re going to do now.”

Elon Musk. Berlin. Opinions.

In this episode we find out what people in Berlin think about Elon Musk. Musk has just been named Person of the Year by Time Magazine and is known as an entrepreneur and visionary but also for causing controversies.

On the outskirts of Berlin, he is currently building the European headquarters of his car brand Tesla – a good moment for us to find out what Germans think about Elon Musk. Our friend Emanuel from yourdailygerman is with us on the streets today to ask the people!

Interestingly, but not suprising, most of the Germans are negative about Musk: egocentric, unrealistic, etc. Whereas as the non-Germans are more positive.

“Given Silicon Valley is in Germany, you’d think the Germans would be more open to innovation and the fruits of capitalism. Hmmmm.” (a comment on YouTube. Irony at its best.)

John Lukacs

From John Lukacs’ great work Historical Consciousness, 1968, Harper & Row:

“The history of a problem may be the principal approach to its diagnosis.”

“History for us has become a form of thought.” and “There is no field of human action that may not be approached, studied, described, and understood through its history.”

“The very purpose of historical knowledge is not so much accuracy as a certain kind of understanding: historical knowledge is the knowledge of human beings about other human beings.”

Systematic Thinkers

Systematic thinking is the foundation of all research. Germany has produced many great thinkers in the natural and social sciences. They are best known for their systematic approach.

Hildegard von Bingen (1098-1179) was the daughter of German nobility, but decided at an early age to join the Benedictine nuns. She went on to become one of the best educated and wisest of her era, advising secular and religious leaders throughout Europe. Hildegard’s fields of expertise ranged from theology to medicine, music, ethics and cosmology. Her discoveries and insights in the area of plant-based medicines are referred to today.

Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) was one of the leading philosophers of the Enlightenment Age. His Kritik der reinen Vernunft is considered to be the starting point of modern philosophy, creating a new, systematic approach to inquiry. Kant addressed not only the theory of knowledge, but also ethics and aesthetics, the philosophy of religion, law and history, as well as astronomy and the geosciences.

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749-1832) is considered to this day to be the greatest of all German writers. His work encompassed, however, also the natural sciences including botany, optics and the philosophy of color – Farbenlehre.

Carl von Clausewitz (1780-1831) was a Prussian General and military theorist. His Vom Kriege (On War) a systematic approach to strategy, tactics and the philosophy of war, became the foundation of military thinking in all Western nations. Clausewitz’ writings went beyond how wars are won to address the overall nature and meaning of war in the modern world.

Karl Marx (1818-1883) is renowned as a philosopher, political economist and social critic. Together with Friedrich Engels, Marx analyzed during the height of the industrial revolution the mutual influences and interactions between a society‘s consciousness and its economic system. Although Marxism has proven to fail in practice, it led to what many would consider significant social progress in public education, health care, social legislation. Marx’ writings contributed to the creation of labor unions.

Max Weber (1864-1920) was a German sociologist, legal scholar, and political economist. He is considered a founding father of modern sociology. Weber’s theories influenced greatly the so-called specialty areas of sociology: economics, religion, political power structures.

Karl Rahner (1904-1984) is considered to be the most influential Catholic theologian since Thomas Aquinas. His work opened up Catholic theology to a new and deeper understanding of faith. Rahner’s thinking influenced greatly the Second Vatical Council. Inspired by his studies under Martin Heidegger, Rahner synthesized Catholic theology with the philosophies of the modern era.

A German strength

Bonn served as the capital of West Germany from 1949 until 1990 and was the seat of government for reunified Germany until 1999, when the government relocated to Berlin. The city holds historical significance as the birthplace of Germany’s current constitution, the Basic Law.

Founded in the 1st century BC as a settlement of the Ubii and later part of the Roman province Germania Inferior, Bonn is among Germany’s oldest cities. It was the capital city of the Electorate of Cologne from 1597 to 1794 and served as the residence of the Archbishops and Prince-electors of Cologne. The period during which Bonn was the capital of West Germany is often referred to by historians as the Bonn Republic.

Unhistorical thinking

The Germans often consider Americans as a people to be either uninformed or uninterested in their own history, and equally uninformed about the recent history of given situations, allowing them to make decisions only based on the present. Americans appear to not think things through, not thoroughly. They can appear to Germans as Dünnbrettbohrer, literally people who only drill through the thinnest of boards.

From the German perspective their perception is not false. It’s what is behind the German cliché that Die Amerikaner gehen mit dem Kopf durch die Wand, that Americans try to go through the wall with their heads, meaning forcing solutions in situations which they have not fully understood.

But are Americans really so un- or a-historical? Partly, yes. I think of the region in which I grew up and the people there, me included. Philadelphia. Many of the most dramatic events of the American Revolutionary War against England took place in and around Philadelphia. Independence Hall in downtown Philadelphia is very well known and visited every summer by countless Americans and guests from other countries.

It is where the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution were drafted, debated, passed and signed. Philadelphia was the capital of the insurrection, Independence Hall the meeting point of the conspirators.

Several critical battles took place in the area. On September 11, 1777 British troops defeated the colonists under George Washington at the Battle of Brandywine. Two weeks later, on September 26, Philadelphia was conceded to the British under General Charles Cornwallis.

On that day Washington and his troops counterattacked in Germantown, roughly five miles north of Philadelphia, against just under ten thousand British soldiers. It was an attack by night, from four different directions, with the hope of forcing a quick surrender. Because communications among four groups broke down, and due to shortages of munitions, the attack failed. Washington and his men were pushed back to White Marsh.

There, between December 5th and 8th, British troops pursued and attacked the revolutionaries several times. General Howe had hoped to end the war before the winter had set in. Washington‘s men held, though. The redcoats pulled back into Philadelphia. Washington and his troops moved into nearby Valley Forge.

But how many natives of the Philadelphia area are familiar with these events? I certainly did not hear of them during grammar and high school. I don’t recall any school trips to the battlegrounds or to a museum. Nor did my parents interest us six children in them. Nor have I ever seen a documentary film on television about those battles in and around Philadelphia, my home region.

Why? Perhaps because the United States and England (UK) have been close allies in two world wars. Perhaps we Americans don‘t like reliving bad old times. Perhaps because the events, regardless of how momentous, go back to the 18th century, long before any of my ancestors immigrated to the U.S. from Ireland, Scotland and primarily from Germany. That part of American history was not a part of their history.

If Americans indeed have a less developed sense of history than the Germans, maybe because change in American history and culture is so ever-present. Maybe Americans, in comparison to Germans, are more tolerant of – open and willing – to embrace change, to drive change. 

The momentous decision in and of itself to immigrate to America, to leave the homeland behind, makes almost every other decision in life seem far less dramatic. Change is less intimidating to Americans. On the contrary, the more change is accepted as a fact of life, the less relevant are the past and continuity with the past, and all that much more important it is to be able and willing to adapt to new situations.

“We choose freedom!”

It’s been said many times that Konrad Adenauer – West Germany’s great chancellor from 1949 until 1963 – was a master of communicating the complex simply.

His extraordinary ability to communicate with the “average Joe” was particularly effective in the early post-War years in West Germany. During one of the great national debates in the Bundestag about West German foreign policy Adenauer contrasts starkly his policy to that of the opposition Social Democrats by shouting: Wir wählen die Freiheit! Between slavery and freedom, we choose freedom!

If you understand German, and if you are even only somewhat familiar with the history of modern Germany, and the history of West Germany after the Second World War, then you should listen carefully to this extraordinary interview with Konrad Adenauer from the year 1965 with the highly-respected political journalist, Günter Gaus:

“I am not convinced!“

Entschuldigen Sie, ich bin nicht überzeugt! – “Excuse me, I am not convinced!“ In 2003, at the International Security Conference in Munich, German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer ended the debate against his American colleague Donald Rumsfeld with this reproachful outcry.

But what had happened? Of what was Fischer not convinced? The debate was on the topic of aiding the intervention of U.S. military forces in Iraq. Rumsfeld wanted support from Germany, but the German government under the direction of Chancellor Schröder and Fischer strictly declined his request.

At the conference, Rumsfeld was making one last attempt at getting the still-doubtful Germans on board with his agenda. Nevertheless, his reasoning that Iraq was working on weapons of mass destruction, supporting terrorist groups, and ignoring the UN, was not enough to convince the German side.

The evidence was too scant, the intervention plans too poorly prepared, and the timing of the operation seemed badly selected. It would be better just to give diplomacy another chance, rather than send German soldiers into an adventure with an uncertain end and questionable justification.

Presumably, Fischer (a former participant in the student protest movement of 1968) was drawing on more recent German history to strengthen his resolve in declining. And in this case, he now has history on his side; the Iraq war indeed evolved into just the disaster which he had always warned it would be.

2003. The Munich Security Conference. Then German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer challenges then U.S. Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, “to make the case” for war in Iraq. Watch mins. 1:00 to 1:25, where Fischer speaks directly to Rumsfeld.

Auskunftspflicht

Auskunft, information. Pflicht, obligation. Auskunftspflicht. The obligation to inform.

When persuading (presenting, informing, describing), the Germans believe that they have an obligation to present all of the facts. The good, the bad. What works, what doesn’t work.

They do not believe that they should wait until critical questions are raised, exposing the negative or downside of what they are presenting or proposing. Competent, professional and honest are those who forthrightly reveal the less positive.

Are Germans more honest than others? Perhaps. Perhaps not. Who can judge? Not our topic.

If you are presenting to Germans, and they find that you have not forthrightly addressed serious weaknesses in your argument, proposal, concept, solution, they can draw one of two possible conclusions. Either you are not fully competent. You did not identify and address those weaknesses. Or you are well aware of them, do not have a solution, and have therefore attempted to hide, ignore or avoid the discussion.

Neither conclusion reflects positively on that presenter. The German audience is not only not persuaded. Far worse, the presenter has lost credibility. Germans have a shared logic. The presenter should address both the positive and the negative. And not wait for critical questions which tease out the negative. Auskunftspflicht. The obligation to inform.

Rarely the final step

Formal presentations are rarely the final step in a German decision making process. Rarely do German managers make a critical decision shortly after having listened to the presentation of various options.

Instead they will take time to reflect, discuss with their direct reports, get additional input from subject area experts, use colleagues at different management levels as sounding boards.

The act of persuasion in the German business context is seldom aimed at getting a specific decision. Truly persuasive argumentation seeks to influence, steer, route the thinking to or in the direction of a desired decision.

understand-culture
Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.