Summary
The German sociologist Hartmut Rosa argues in his new book "Situation and Constellation" that modern societies increasingly turn people into passive executors of rules instead of enabling them to truly act. In an interview with Swiss Radio SRF on April 21, 2026, Rosa illustrates the difference with concrete examples: while acting requires situational judgment and discernment, complying reduces complex situations to rigid detailed rules. Rosa observes this erosion of discretionary space in children's rooms (Lego building), authorities, care facilities, and increasingly in political discourse.
Persons
- Hartmut Rosa (Sociologist, Friedrich Schiller University Jena; Director Max Weber College Erfurt)
- Simon Hulliger (Moderator, SRF Tagesgespräch)
Topics
- Action versus rule compliance
- Erosion of discretionary space in institutions
- Judgment and culture of trust
- Burnout and societal exhaustion
- Populism as a response to powerlessness
Clarus Lead
Rosa diagnoses a cultural turning point: where technical systems and bureaucracy entrench rules, actors lose the ability to act appropriately to the situation. For him, this also explains the growing appeal of populist leaders like Donald Trump, who promise to break free from constrictive constraints. At the same time, Rosa warns against a false dichotomy: discretionary space is not inherently a privilege of the powerful – in the care sector, for example, rigid rule systems render both sides (care workers and patients) powerless. The central hope lies in a "meta-supervision" that regains discretionary space while simultaneously controlling systematic discrimination.
Detailed Summary
Situation versus Constellation: The Fundamental Distinction
Rosa defines two modes of human action. Acting in a situation means responding to the complexity of a circumstance with judgment and discernment – for example, a referee who decides how strictly to penalize rule violations depending on the score, time in the game, and people involved. His judgment shapes the character of the game. In contrast stands complying in a constellation: an isolated detailed rule is technically applied, independent of context. The video referee staring at a frozen screen image to measure offside positions can no longer act – he only executes. This distinction runs through all areas of life.
Childhood, Work, Everyday Life: Where Discretionary Space Disappears
Rosa illustrates the trend with Lego play: previously, children received loose building blocks and built intuitively – the result was an expression of their personality and experience. Today they follow precise instructions for finished models that seem soulless. In the workplace, Rosa describes a colleague's experience who arrived a minute late at the library counter and couldn't get the urgently needed book – not because the librarian was hard-hearted, but because a technical system locked at 12 o'clock. A personal example: Rosa bought a ski pass online for the wrong day. The cashier at the ski lift sympathized but couldn't change the date. The system forced him to buy a new pass – 20 percent more expensive. The cashier became an executor of a system, not an actor in a situation.
The Paradox of Justice
Rosa accepts that there are good reasons for rule compliance: equal treatment protects the disadvantaged from arbitrary treatment. The video referee prevents corrupt or biased referees from deciding. But he warns against overdiagnosis: the colleague with the book waits six weeks during summer vacation – that is no longer just, only rule-compliant. In the care sector, the problem becomes acute. Swiss Caritas reformulated care needs into 22 strict modules and prescribed exact action sequences and time budgets for each person. Result: care workers could no longer respond to actual needs (missing bread, a crying patient, a starving cat). Both sides became depressed. Rosa therefore distinguishes between constellation justice (everyone equal) and situational justice (appropriate for this circumstance). Both have their place – but modern systems have lost the balance.
Populism as Longing for Agency
Rosa points to the political dimension: reducing complex crises to yes-no questions (weapons deliveries to Ukraine? Heat pump heating?) is constellation constriction. It deprives actors of the possibility of acting situationally. This sense of powerlessness, according to Rosa, explains the rise of Trump and the Brexit slogan "Take Back Control." Trump promises not to submit to any constellation (international treaty, court ruling, parliamentary norm) – only to follow his own judgment. Therein lies the emotional appeal: finally acting again, not just executing. However, Rosa warns: Trump destroys situations instead of using discretionary space appropriately, and lacking judgment becomes a risk in this process.
Culture of Trust as a Way Out
Rosa advocates for a "hermeneutics of trust" instead of systematic mistrust. Instead of abolishing all discretionary space, actors (officials, care workers, teachers) should bear situational responsibility – responsibility for the situation, not just for rule compliance. At the same time, meta-supervision is needed: systems that don't monitor individual actions but identify systematic discrimination (e.g., if teachers consistently favor boys). Caritas Hochrein proved that this works: with the new care model ("actual-time care"), care workers gained more discretionary space, costs didn't increase, and satisfaction rose.
Core Messages
- Modern systems transform actors into executors by reducing complex situations to rigid detailed rules.
- Discretionary space is not inherently a privilege of the powerful – rigid rule systems also harm the weak (example: care sector).
- The rise of populist leaders is fueled by longing for agency and control over situations.
- Both situational justice and constellation justice are necessary; the balance has been lost.
- A new culture of trust with meta-supervision instead of total rule control could regain discretionary space.
Critical Questions
(a) Evidence / Data Quality / Source Validity
Rosa relies on anecdotal examples (ski lift, library, video referee). Are there empirical studies showing that loss of discretionary space actually explains burnout and populism in a statistically significant sense?
The Caritas Hochrein example is presented as a success model. What control groups or long-term data prove that "actual-time care" is sustainably cost-neutral and increases satisfaction?
(b) Conflicts of Interest / Incentives / Independence
Rosa criticizes loss of discretionary space but also warns against misuse by the powerful. In practice, who defines when discretionary space is used "appropriately to the situation" and when not? Is there a risk that "meta-supervision" itself becomes a control technology?
Rosa's distinction between Trump as an actor who "destroys situations" versus legitimate use of discretionary space – how does one avoid this categorization being normatively biased?
(c) Causality / Alternatives / Counter-hypotheses
Rosa sees erosion of discretionary space as a cause of populism. Could not misinformation, income inequality, or geopolitical insecurity be more powerful? What empirical tests would distinguish between these hypotheses?
Can complex modern societies (healthcare system, air traffic, financial markets) operate on basic trust and judgment rather than standardization without creating safety risks?
(d) Feasibility / Risks / Side Effects
Rosa calls for "cultural retraining" toward a hermeneutics of trust. How exactly does that function in a plural society where groups have different moral standards?
If discretionary space is returned, how is systematic discrimination – regional, gender, or ethnic – prevented; in other words, exactly the risks that rule-based standardization originally intended to solve?
Further News
No further news; single-source format.
Source Index
Primary Source: Tagesgespräch Radio SRF (April 21, 2026) – Interview with Hartmut Rosa, Moderator Simon Hulliger. Audio: download-media.srf.ch
Reference Work (mentioned in interview): Rosa, Hartmut: Situation and Constellation. On the Disappearance of Discretionary Space (2026)
Verification Status: ✓ 21.04.2026
This text was created with the support of an AI model. Editorial responsibility: clarus.news | Fact-check: 21.04.2026