Speaker: Good morning, I welcome you to the presentation of the current results of the ÖIF integration survey "What does Austria think?" with Integration Minister Claudia Bauer and Professor Dr. Rudolf Bretschneider. Madam Federal Minister, please. Federal Minister Claudia Bauer: Thank you very much. A very good morning to all the esteemed members of the media. Dear Professor Bretschneider. Few topics concern Austrians as much as integration and the success of integration. I believe this is also for good reason, because we have a strong interest in ensuring that coexistence in Austria works well, whether at school, in the workplace, in public spaces or in the neighborhood. People experience every day whether integration works, where it works, and conversely, where there are problems. And many feel that their concerns and expectations are not being heard sufficiently, which is why it is so important to listen carefully here. What are the concerns of people in Austria? Where do they see problems? What do they expect from…and conversely, what do they expect from those who have immigrated to Austria? And that's exactly what the study "What does Austria think?" also answers. It clearly shows where problems exist and where Austrians expect changes. And we must take these results seriously. And where there are problems , we must also take action. Before we discuss what follows from these concrete figures, we need the concrete figures themselves and let's look in detail at what the people in Austria are saying. And now I may hand it over to Professor Bretschneider. Rudolf Bretschneider: Thank you very much. Ladies and gentlemen. This is not the first study conducted in this context , but the fourth. It started in 2018, then 2020, 2024, and now 2026. And it's a study of the Austrian resident population, including a group with a migration background. Migration background is defined here as either not being born in Austria or both parents being born abroad. It was particularly interesting to examine this continuity in part, that is, which things have remained constant over time and which have changed. But of course, current events were also queried. The study was technically conducted by Peter Hajek's institute, Opinion Strategies. I was involved in the concept development with the ÖIF team. The study, both now and in the past, was intended to include 1,000 people and actually took place with them . Specifically, the study took place in February, from the end of February to the beginning of March 2026. The study date is important because sometimes unexpected things can happen that then influence the results in one way or another. But first let's delve into the study; I've also written a short essay about it , which addresses a few concepts, including cohesion and later division, that play a role in public discourse and here as well. A prominent Austrian sociologist, Manfred Prisching, wrote in a very nice book that was published not too long ago: "The world as it is now can be described with terms such as plurality, flexibility, individuality, diversity, multiculturalism, ambivalence or even liquidity." So, actually, very vague terms that also show a certain, yes, embarrassment in naming the uncertain world in which we live and of which we are aware . There is a beautiful old saying: "It is not things that disturb people, but their opinions about them." And these ideas are what we will discuss below . The first thing, if I can actually put it together, is the technical data again, with ministerial assistance. Social cohesion in Austria. I need to go into more detail now, because I can't see that far; I would have to use the other glasses. There you can see social cohesion, judged in a very balanced or inconsistent way, as you like . Very good, about half, and so very good, good, about half, rather bad, very bad also about half. This word and concept of cohesion, which you hear often in politics, often in connection with election campaigns, is something like an incantation. And this also expresses the feeling that something is missing, or that something is perceived as not solid, not to say as decaying or threatened by decay. And of course, one desires something like unity or cohesion. You will find this particularly pronounced if you look at individual groups of older people who may be thinking of more uncertain times than you perceive them now , but which they are reminded of. And besides, you hear about crises in every context . I will spare you the list of the various crises. You can see that things change when you go back. We have measurement points from different years. Recently, the assessments have become more similar again, but especially during the time of COVID and these phases, there was already a much clearer polarization than what we see now. Of course, political conflict and political disputes play a role. The question is, how can one discern connection, cohesion, or conflict ? That's how it plays out; in election campaigns, the lines usually diverge. Aspects of social cohesion. The question was: When people talk about social cohesion, they mean very different things. Which of the following aspects do you think belong to it? And there you can see that it is rather personal, psychological aspects or demands that are considered to represent cohesion here . Peaceful coexistence, tolerance and respect, helpfulness and charity, and understanding for fellow human beings, and less overarching rules, probably also shared values and goals, or working, paying taxes and contributing to the community, in which something like cohesion is usually expressed, if done properly . The negative influences on coexistence are, in my opinion, very interesting. These are not necessarily things one encounters very often, but probably things one experiences as particularly serious. For example, something I wouldn't have believed: fake news tops the list of mentions, followed by political Islam and large migration movements in the past and present, not necessarily in Austria or for Austria, but upheavals that are experienced as detrimental to coexistence and social cohesion. Global conflicts are also a factor, which is less surprising because they naturally have an impact on life in the country, possibly also through an influx of migration. And then something I would like to pique your interest in: digitalization, which accounts for 28 percent here, and AI. This is one of the few points that has increased significantly since the last survey and will continue to increase, and is certainly considered one of the media influences; fake news is another, one of the influences that impair social cohesion. If you look at the daily news reports in international, but also national newspapers, you will increasingly find alarming reports about the impact of AI on almost everything, not only on jobs and work processes, but also on cheating in schools and universities – not necessarily in Austria, but what isn't yet, may still come, at the latest upon discovery. But that will certainly be a point that will be worrying. A book by Safranski about "The Fourth Insult" was recently published. I don't know if it will be as big as the discoveries of Sigmund Freud or Darwin. But "The Fourth Humiliation" also plays a role when one feels overwhelmed and has the feeling of standing beside technological development and not even being an extra. Please excuse this remark from someone over 80 years old. Society and cultural identity. Cultural identity is a difficult concept in itself, but we included it at the time, and I am glad that we did, which is what cultural identity really is. In this context, it is certainly not understood as an engagement with and agreement with the great works of art and culture, but rather as an agreement with one's own ways of life, with the traditions, with the habits, with the lifestyle that one has overall in Austria. And you find this preoccupation and the worry about it, especially among older people, also among people with a lower level of education, which suggests that it is not about engaging with culture or high culture, but about a kind of feeling of threat from an encroaching world in its various forms and especially in its changes, and again, of course, this worry plays a role here when you look at who expresses it most. These are people who are worried about migration on a large scale, but also people who are worried about the effects of media society and AI, or about negative influences. And these concerns should be taken seriously in many parts of the world; I won't go into more detail now, but you can read a bit about it; there's almost a culture war going on over the question of the power to interpret – what is one's own? What is the other one? Are we in favor of unity and homogeneity? Are we in favor of the diversity and vibrancy of the world? This changes throughout history, even in shorter periods. And the dream of a homogeneous society was also politically represented in our immediate neighborhood, think of Hungary, until recently , but it is an illusion. I remember meeting the Minister for Family Affairs of the Hungarian government a few years ago, by the way. He was a very amiable man and spoke very seriously about the need to create and maintain a homogeneous society, which might be easier with the Hungarian language , but is also an illusion in a modern world. You can see that this has developed and that it has increased since 2018, and quite significantly at that. And precisely in the aforementioned groups. Older people are worried, concerned about the developments in Austria. The greatest potential for tension between social groups, defined here as locals/immigrants, left/right, poor/rich, city/country, young/old, man/woman, etc., can be seen here. I would like to begin by saying that it is quite remarkable that things often seen as divisive and causing tension in international affairs— namely, the existence of an urban-rural divide, or a generational conflict, or struggles between men and women—may exist, but certainly not as a major societal issue. Rather, the lines of tension that one perceives, or at least that one believes to perceive , even if one does n't necessarily experience them individually, are those between locals and immigrants. That is to say, this is something you actually experience all the time; you will see it in detail later, as at least one major problem area. The conflicts between left and right are less pronounced, and the conflicts between rich and poor are even less so. Although, of course, attempts are constantly being made to escalate the latter two issues in political discussions . Contact and experiences with migrants. That's where it gets interesting. Most of the frequent contacts, though not necessarily the most profound, occur in public spaces, which are the least controllable – for example, on public transport, while shopping, on the street, in parks, when walking, or in public facilities. This is an opportunity to make contacts, namely an opportunity to gain a positive impression. But of course, there is also the risk of perceiving negative things more intensely, which people unfortunately tend to do. We tend to perceive conflicts more easily than we see the positive aspects; unfortunately, this also applies to the news. But it is so. But nevertheless, contact still carries what the great sociologist of religion Peter Berger called "the possibility of contamination," that one simply becomes infected with what the others are in a good sense, and that the others are also infected by what one shows them as good, as a role model . At school and university, that too, but please take this with a grain of salt, as these are only very few cases underlying this, so you can probably forget about this percentage. At work, in the neighborhood, and among friends and acquaintances, contacts are less frequent and naturally occur within the circle of friends and acquaintances. Oops, did I miss something ? Rating the contact, yes, I'm already there. Did I show that first too? No. Contact evaluation. Naturally, the ratings of contacts with migrants in one's circle of friends and acquaintances are particularly often positive. You choose those you like to be around and avoid negative contacts. That's trivial. They are actually good in the workplace too, because you have to cooperate there; otherwise, if there is too much conflict, there is either mediation by the management or someone leaves or quits the business. But in the longer term, workplace contacts must be perceived as reasonably good, and they will be, at least on a small scale. The smaller the department, usually the better. In the neighborhood too, although of course there are already some neighbors you wouldn't necessarily want, but on the whole... It is difficult in public spaces. You don't choose it, and of course the various forms and the diversity of these forms can be challenging for everyone, and often the achievement – ​​I'm making this a personal observation – lies in integrating and tolerating each other; that is sometimes quite a lot. Integration and immigration. What constitutes integration? The question was: Which of the following characteristics must an immigrant or asylum seeker absolutely possess in order to be well integrated? It's between 24 and 26, you'll hardly see any difference. Unfortunately, you don't see any significant differences at all, because one line is very light, but hold on, look at the second, the second line, because something has changed there within two years. And that is quite remarkable, namely that respect for values and customs that apply in Austria has increased significantly in importance, from 66 to 75 percent. This means the awareness that it is important to convey values in the sense of manners, not necessarily high ethical values, but that people adhere to the customs and forms that apply. Everything else is pretty constant. Interestingly, those who have a critical attitude towards migration issues , that is, those who don't really notice them, make higher demands, i.e., they more frequently demand laws, rules, manners, good German language skills, etc. Those who have a more positive attitude towards migration and see it as an enrichment are more likely to perceive, or want to a greater extent, that immigrants participate in community life and have or maintain Austrian friends, i.e., that they integrate more socially. That is quite remarkable, at least. Problems with integration. What is perceived as problematic? And here I must say again, it is not about the frequency with which something is seen or perceived, but the severity of what happens when it does. Thankfully, it's true that acts of violence or things like that don't happen too often. But yes, but when they occur, they have a huge media impact and thus also an effect on subjective well-being. To use violence when one's honor is violated is absolutely terrible. This is perceived as very, very problematic. And I emphasize again, it is the severity, not the frequency, that we are talking about here, or a man who does not respect a woman because of her gender, as is said to occasionally happen with female doctors or teachers. Absolutely not. Of course, this is said to a greater extent by women than by the men surveyed. And only then do economic objections arise, which are seen as problems of integration. For example, the immigrants who don't work and live on social assistance, or those who isolate themselves completely , who reject things; if someone rejects something, then they obviously don't want to. But this too can happen; for example, if identities are strongly emphasized, then integration naturally becomes more difficult, because then one remains stuck in what one believes oneself to be or believes to be firmly established within oneself, and that is not just belonging and recognition. That brings me to the end. How much do people without a migration background, those on the left or right, and people with a migration background feel they belong to Austrian society? You won't see a particularly big difference. This is at least a quite pleasing result, if one does not take into account that it is perhaps not entirely pleasing that 26 percent of people without a migration background also have a certain distance from Austrian society . But that's another story. And how do you see yourself perceived and recognized by society? People without a migration background are significantly more likely to be recognized as such, while people with a migration background are recognized as such: 11 percent are recognized as such by all, but at least 49 percent, i.e. half, are recognized by most, and there is a somewhat larger group who do not see or feel recognized. Please? [Unintelligible] Here we are. Excuse me. Thanks.  But that brings us to the last one, which, however, has the redeeming flaw of not being properly labelled. Perceived recognition from society. Among people with a migration background, 16 percent say they are more recognized than before, 38 percent say they are somewhat more recognized than before, and some say they are not recognized at all, meaning that nothing has actually changed. But overall, a slight improvement in this sector. So you see a very mixed result. You can also view and read all the studies on the ÖIF website . Not only these, but also the four previous ones. And I hope you will find much material in it that you can use in your daily considerations. Thanks for the attention. Madam Minister, it's you. Bauer: Thank you very much, Professor Bretschneider, not only for the presentation of the study "What Austria Thinks", but also for the initial assessment. I believe it shows very clearly: Austrians have a very clear idea of when integration succeeds and what integration means. Allow me to highlight a few figures again. Around 3 out of 4 say that those who are well integrated abide by our laws and rules and also respect our values. That was always well over 70 percent. 7 out of 10 say that good German skills are also required, and 7 out of 10 also expect that one works and can provide for one's own livelihood.   I think it can be summarized very, very simply: German, work, and values. This is the basis for successful integration. And for too long we have trusted, if I may make a political deduction, that all of this happens voluntarily, that it is made possible purely through course offerings. One in two people say: Most refugees are not making enough of an effort to integrate. And that's why the conclusion is clear to me: integration is not an offer, but an obligation. Anyone who wants to live here and have a future must also become part of our society. And we will achieve this very specifically with the Integration Obligations Act. This is a great opportunity for integration, so that we can become more binding, so that integration can succeed, so that we finally have clear rules here. Those who persistently refuse to comply, on the other hand, must expect consequences in the future. And in addition to clear rules for integration, we also need clarity about what has absolutely no place in our society in Austria. One in two people sees political Islam as having a negative influence on our coexistence. And thus, political Islam, as you know from the previous slide, is mentioned just as frequently as wars and terrorism. And only fake news was more frequent in this list and therefore considered even more dangerous for our coexistence. This is a finding we cannot ignore. Political Islam places itself above our democratic rule of law and wants to restructure our society according to religious rules . And we must not allow that to happen. And that is why we are working very specifically on a ban on political Islam, together with accompanying legal measures directly in the substantive laws, for example the law on associations and assemblies or the law on religious worship. I do not want to allow anyone in Austria to act freely who wants to infiltrate our society and transform our state into a caliphate. And we mustn't be naive about this, especially not out of a misguided sense of tolerance. We must also defend our free way of life, stand up for it. And this especially includes the freedom of girls and women. And here too, the attitude of Austrians is clear: 9 out of 10 see violence in the name of honor and lack of respect towards women as a problem. More than 8 out of 10 view it critically when pressure is exerted to behave in a demure manner. And almost two-thirds consider the headscarf of a schoolgirl under 14 years of age to be problematic. No girl should learn that different rules apply to her just because she is a girl . And for precisely this reason, starting yesterday, we are implementing the ban on headscarves for children, including very important accompanying measures. Girls in Austria should be free, visible and self-determined, regardless of whether they have a migration background or not, regardless of their religion or whether they belong to a religion at all. For me, the study is also a call to action for politicians themselves. As I said at the beginning: Many Austrians feel that their concerns and expectations regarding integration are not being adequately heard. And I want that to change. I want us to do more than just take note of this study and these figures . These figures must be followed by actual political decisions. We have already succeeded in doing this with the ban on headscarves for children, with the decision made last year. I expect the same in the implementation of the Integration Obligations Act and also in the ban on political Islam. Here we have very concrete legal matters where I believe we can take these concerns and expectations of the people in Austria very, very seriously and address them. Thank you very much. Speaker: Thank you very much. Please ask any questions. Mrs. Waldhäusl, please. Journalist: My question is actually directed to Mr. Bretschneider, namely when you look at this study in its entirety, against the background of what is called the shift to the right and also the election results in Germany. What does this tell us about the general political situation in the country? Does that explain anything? That 's one question. And to the Minister: You have now said, or we have seen, that fake news is the top concern of the people. I know you're not responsible for this issue, but still, what are the political implications of this? And then another question on a different topic, namely social assistance. Madam Minister, how do you assess the draft? Especially in light of the obligation to integrate, which you yourself demanded beforehand? Bretschneider: Yes, regarding the first question, although I have dealt extensively with politics and political analysis throughout my life, this study is not designed to explain the political environment or political phenomena. One would have to take political indicators, party preferences, etc., political inclinations as variables to be explained in a sociological sense and analyze history accordingly . That was not the intention, that is not the case, therefore these data actually offer nothing for a direct political analysis . On the other hand, it is of course true – and you don't need a detailed demographic analysis to see this – if you look at some European countries , especially if you look at them in the longer term , from Denmark to France, to Germany, to, say, Italy, that immigration phenomena, large migration movements like the one in 2015, and the policies that responded to them or did not respond to them, have had and continue to have an incredible political influence. But these are special analyses where one would then look at how personal involvement, perception, and subjective assessment affect how one is treated by politicians, namely condescendingly, worse, or neglected; This does not mean that it will happen, but rather how it is perceived in some of the new German federal states, that this has political repercussions. In that context, I can't say for sure, yes. Please? Journalist: That is, if you only look at the study results of recent years and compare them with the current ones. What are the most noticeable changes? Bretschneider: The most striking aspect, that's always the question, the old question: What did you yourself find surprising about the study? You shouldn't ask a sociologist that, because they supposedly find nothing surprising, since they've already seen it all. No, what is remarkable is the shift surrounding perception and the threat to cultural identity. This has struck me as very significant, and I believe it is something that should be analyzed more closely, not in relation to high culture, but in relation to lifestyle and ways of life. And also for answering the political question: How do we understand ourselves in our culture of life, in our political culture? If one were to conduct such a study thoroughly, it would make good sense if one were to exploit the whole thing politically, specifically regarding: We feel threatened, and who is threatening us? And what is the quick fix? In my opinion, that would not be a desirable situation. Otherwise, what is remarkable in 8 years, because 8 years is not a long time. Heterogeneity and diversity in society are also increasing. This is something we all don't notice because we live right in the middle of it; we experience the differences between tomorrow and today, or between yesterday and today, as minimal, if at all. Yes, but the composition of society is changing, specifically in its age structure. There are more and more elderly people, so 100-year-olds are no longer an exception. There are more and more people from different cultures. Within society, there are increasingly diverging or at least divergent lifestyles, made possible by a certain degree of financial independence among people, and by higher or different levels of education or training. This means that the diversity that exists in society and that irritates us when we encounter this diversity is increasing, even at intervals of 10 years. And there will be further irritation. To the extent, for example, that populations will shrink in a few, 20 years . And they will shrink radically, worldwide. But demographics is more than...[Unintelligible] ...is our destiny. No, she is not our destiny. What we make of it is our destiny. Bauer: If I may answer your second and third questions here. Regarding the issue of fake news and disinformation: I consider it incredibly important that we take appropriate measures to counteract it. Because fake news and disinformation, if I may add, are the breeding ground for conspiracy theories, for extremism, for people to separate and isolate themselves from society and to identify less with our cohesion. I also think, even though I am now trying to bridge the gap as Minister for Youth, that this is far more than just a youth issue. Fake news and disinformation, including the use of social media. In most cases, young people are actually more conscious and critical of this, because as digital natives they have significantly more experience . But I no longer see the problem as being limited to young people, where we must of course respond through youth work, especially through stronger media education, not only in the school context , but this is something that affects the whole of society. Because it is no longer just young people who spend most of their day in the digital age on social media platforms, where, especially through a wide variety of authors, unverified sources, and simply by providing information, sometimes even false information can be spread. I see this stronger media literacy as a very essential foundation, and it is also one of our focus topics as the Federal Government when it comes to implementing the social media ban . A ban alone will not be enough to curb fake news. But we shouldn't simply let the time we gain up to the age of 14 slip by, but rather focus more on media literacy precisely during this time, so that we have responsible young adults who can form their own opinions, who know how to do good research and who can compare information. And here too, yes, in the sense of a good democracy and good political education, one can also address and engage with these topics . That's absolutely essential for me . The social media ban is an important step, but it doesn't solve all the problems here; quite the opposite. This problem must not simply be swept under the rug. And what you see now at 11, 12, 13 years old, when you get your first smartphone, that only comes at 14, 15 years old. That's exactly how it shouldn't be. And the third question was about social assistance. Over the weekend, we received a draft of a possible basic social assistance law from the Ministry of Social Affairs. We are looking at this very, very closely. I can tell you what I have said in previous months, namely that our position is that we need a social welfare reform that is unambiguous and fair. It must be unequivocally clear that social assistance is only available as a last resort safety net . We have a generous social welfare system, and it should reach those who, due to misfortune, illness, or unfortunately also death, find themselves in dire straits and families in need. That's exactly what it's for . This is exactly where we need to help. Social assistance is only fair if people and families who are employed and earn their monthly income through employment also receive a substantial increase. [Unintelligible] Bauer: As I said, we only received the draft a few days ago, we are currently examining it very closely and will of course continue to negotiate it within the coalition, as is usual when something is sent for coordination. Journalist: Today's headline is adding fuel to the fire regarding cohesion and integration. An Austrian man – an IS supporter – was shot dead in Turkey. The man had a suspended prison sentence , was being cared for by DERAD, but still came to Turkey and was shot dead there. This adds fuel to the fire, because of course many people will say again: The government can't get it under control, even people like that can leave the country. How can this happen? And that's why I'm asking you today: What can you do to prevent election results like the one in Saxony-Anhalt? Bauer: Yes, many topics, a very broad range of topics related to the specific case. I completely agree with this opinion; these are concerns that occupy the minds of people in Austria . And of course, there must be clear courses of action when people, after apparently having been imprisoned, have attended deradicalization workshops, and all of this has unfortunately led to nothing, namely that an IS supporter continues to plan attacks, in this case in Istanbul. This then led to an operation in Istanbul, which ended fatally for the IS fighter. So this is something that should give us serious cause for thought . This breeding ground for extremism, this breeding ground for terror, which happens very gradually, which is not immediately noticeable on a large scale, but which simply spreads into institutions. Although we also see, not only in last week's reporting on the connections between deradicalization work and the Muslim Brotherhood. We see the same thing in established institutions such as the State Security Service, where there was a specific incident a year and a half ago. So we need to be very vigilant here. What specific things can we do? And that is precisely the difference between opposition work, if I may draw a parallel here to your further question. That is precisely the difference between opposition work and government work. Namely, implementation, not just demands. I have outlined specific legislative proposals here where we can implement a ban on political Islam , where we absolutely must tighten the individual substantive laws so that, for example, terrorist organizations that are considered and prosecuted as terrorist organizations in Arab countries like Egypt and the Emirates or Saudi Arabia, that this must also be a matter of course in Europe and in Austria . Our laws must not be too lenient in the individual matters. Not that we have to let people go who, with a radical ideology, also try not only to endanger others, but also to influence and win them over to their side. And that works against us as a state governed by the rule of law. This works against our democratic coexistence, and that's why this clarity is necessary. This may not have been recognized by everyone yet, but it requires more than just one demand. This also requires appropriate action. And that is why, unlike others, we are working very concretely here on a solution, namely with the ban on political Islam, as well as with the integration obligation law. Here I can already see the many expectations, which were also very clearly illustrated in a slide at the top of the list, of what we expect from immigrants, which must also be implemented in a mandatory way within the framework of an integration obligation that is binding and no longer just a voluntary offer. Journalist: Madam Minister, there seems to be a certain contradiction in this study.   On the one hand, there are the concerns of the population regarding political Islam, specifically regarding honor-related violence and similar issues. On the other hand, it can be seen that when it comes to personal contacts with migrants at school, at work, in the circle of friends, these contacts are largely viewed very positively . How do you assess this contrast? And Professor, you said that this study should not be used for political exploitation and to stir up sentiment against migrants or anything else. What is your solution, so to speak, what lesson should be learned from it ? Or is there a way forward that can be taken to reduce many of these tensions and contradictions? Bauer: To be honest, this finding doesn't surprise me much either, that people, even if they only deal with immigrants in public spaces, still have very clear expectations and concerns when it comes to integration and immigration . This doesn't surprise me much, because, yes, I believe this urban-rural divide is a very clear area for action. There was also a slide where I think we saw over 80 percent of the people saying that immigrants often stay among themselves. And in urban areas, it's usually easier to retreat, to disappear into your own community , where there's no need to learn the language. And these problems are well-known, they are not only known in the cities, and I believe they cause concern and, conversely, also necessitate action throughout Austria. I don't want integration to depend on postal code precisely because differences might be apparent here . And of course, one can create a map here if one feels more comfortable identifying the integration hotspots . But ultimately, we need to introduce an integration obligation law where these clear standards and expectations apply to everyone throughout Austria. And that is precisely what can inspire and promote good coexistence, if I summarize it correctly . I think we must take these concerns of people very seriously, regardless of how much contact they have with immigrants . But we see that where people in smaller structures also contribute to society, immigrants also contribute significantly more to society. It works better there, too. But we must take a closer look at the hotspots in particular, and these are known, visible, and noticeable to people, especially in urban centers, not just in Vienna, so that we can implement and enforce these clear integration rules here as well . Bretschneider: Yes, I was simply objecting to the fact that one question, then the question of cultural identity, was being politically exploited. Almost anything can be exploited for political purposes. With goodwill, this can be avoided. No, such studies cannot, rarely, be considered as guidelines for political considerations or even decisions . A clever colleague of mine once compared such findings with a nautical chart , that is, with a sea chart used in shipping. The map shows where there are deeps or shallows , where islands are, and where you might hit something if you navigate there. But the crew itself, the helmsman, the captain, and whoever is ultimately entrusted with it must steer or drive. Therefore, quick conclusions should be avoided based on studies. But what can be instructive or helpful is to reflect on individual findings and then develop something from them. So, what I have in mind, in connection with this cultural identity. There is this beautiful sentence. I believe it's from a Danish child psychiatrist. Identity is most secure where it is grounded in activity, that is, not in mere reflection, but in doing. And when we speak today of identity crises, of populations—and Fukuyama does this, for example, throughout his earlier books, not his latest—this is what we are talking about. And this insistence on and striving for identity as one of the origins of many conflicts, which are then also used – I'm not going into the American situation now, but which are used in political discussion. Thus, there is an increased effort to consider how identities can and should be shaped, and yet still be well integrated while preserving what someone is and where they come from; in other words, the question is how strong this approach is, how much of oneself one gives away, how much one takes in from something else. And that applies to the receiving society. But this also applies to arriving societies under modern conditions, namely under very confusing modern conditions. Because they are not arriving in some kind of closed, homogeneous society, but rather in a very diverse society that is partly even aware of this diversity . And that makes things very difficult. I see integration as one of the most important policy areas in all countries, namely the effort to manage sensible integration, and as an ongoing task, because it is not a matter to be dealt with, like changing the penal code for electric scooters or something else that one can simply do. And then the story is over. But this is a laborious and hopefully promising, sometimes even promising, activity. Speaker: Are there any further questions? Mr. Kurakin, please. Journalist: Now I have to ask a really stupid question, Madam Minister. This point, that people in Austria only view immigration positively when they are constantly in contact with immigrants , if I have understood these study results correctly, or have more contact with immigrants, what is the political logic that could be drawn from this? Bauer: Now I'm not sure if one can derive this result in such a way that... Bretschneider: Well... There's an old one, may I briefly mention it? There is a perpetual connection in social psychology. This general formula states that the more familiar you are with something, the more you usually find it appealing. Of course, that's not always true; it's a redeeming flaw. It is a correlation, but it is not 100 percent. This is not one. But of course, if you succeed in establishing or creating good contacts, or in helping others. Fine. But sometimes politics is there to prevent dangers. Bauer: The political implications of these contacts. Yes, they definitely exist, namely, as I have already said, the Integration Obligations Act: German, Work, Values. And especially regarding the employment pillar, I have very, very high expectations, and therefore I do n't think it makes sense to make employment or the job search dependent on the level of German language proficiency. These three pillars must happen in parallel for successful integration, because work is not just about self-preservation, which was a very high expectation, but also about making contacts with people, having colleagues, having a structured workday , getting to know people, and being able to use the language in practice. So it seems that integration is not only viewed more positively there, but can also only succeed there. And that is why I see the Integration Obligations Act as one of the most important opportunities for our coexistence, also with regard to values, values ​​of our cohesion, that everyone in Austria has an incredible number of opportunities right on their own doorstep to contribute to society, keyword clubs, keyword voluntary engagement. Here too, integration is not only rated better, but also more easily achieved. And that is the great opportunity we have. And thankfully, many people in Austria are involved in this area to ensure that this participation in society is possible for immigrants who want it, who are committed to it and make it happen . And that's a huge opportunity, let's not kid ourselves. Speaker: Okay, thank you very much. I may end the press conference. Farmer: Thank you very much. Bretschneider: Thank you.