[This is part of A Foundation for Rethinking Economics. It is in the form of a stand-alone paper; a draft of one to be submitted for publication - you may use it.]

On Culture (Mindset and Attitude) in Economics

"[I]f we learn anything from the history of economic development, it is that culture makes all the difference." [Landes 1998, 516]

Abstract

Economic activity is causing much harm, not least environmental destruction, climate change, addictions, obesity, other health issues and destitution. Many recognise that a radical culture change is needed to overcome this, but Ted Trainer is one of the few who have discussed this in depth, and advocates the culture of a "Simpler Way" as a solution. We agree with his prognosis but find five criticisms of his ideas. Two are minor and easily fixed; the other three are more substantial, and how they may be addressed is discussed here. 1. Trainer gives a rich yet rather confused picture of culture and its impact; we suggest a philosophically grounded set of aspects from Dooyeweerd to help separate out issues without reduction or over-simplification, in which culture might be understood as society's functioning in the ethical and pistic (faith) aspects. 2. Like Keynes, Trainer is too optimistic about human nature, especially potential willingness to fall in line with the Simpler Way; Dooyeweerd's suite of aspects can alert us to which aspects are being overlooked, and the idea of human sin as found in the Jewish perspective exerts a healthy critique of such optimism. 3. Trainer's prescription for changing culture is rather weak and likely to prove ineffective because the activities he proposes by which to change culture already presuppose and depend on culture already having been changed. With Dooyeweerd's idea that culture might be the functioning of certain aspects alongside others we can understand why this fails, but to actually change culture radically we may learn from the religions and their long experience of things relevant to what Trainer calls culture. We present a systematic understanding of nine contributions that religions might make to understanding how to change culture. There are case studies that show religious solutions can work to change culture at a deep level.

Intrduction

Gus Speth once remarked,

"I used to think the top global environmental problems were biodiversity loss, ecosystem collapse and climate change. ... I was wrong. The top environmental problems are selfishness, greed and apathy - and to deal with these, we need a spiritual and cultural transformation ..."

Among the many who have said that we need a change of culture, Ted Trainer stands out as one of the few who has discussed this in some depth. He must be applauded for this. Among his discussion of abandoning Capitalism in favour of what he calls "The Simpler Way" [Alexander 2014], he has a section in which he attempts to tackle head-on the issue of culture [in economics] and how it needs to change. He sees tackling culture as "the most important and difficult aspect of the alternative vision" of The Simpler Way. [TODO: Keep seeking other discussions of culture in economics.]

In explaining why we must scrap capitalism, in which his elaboration of culture may be found, Trainer [2022] begins,

"The Simpler Way cannot possibly work unless people hold ideas and values that are quite different to many of the fundamental elements in consumer-capitalist society. This is the main reason why many say the vision is unrealistic; it requires more saintly qualities than those that are most common today. However, the point is that regardless of the difficulties we just have to work for the eventual adoption of these dispositions because there is no other option."

There must be a shift in three "deeply entrenched attitudes and commitments", "from competitive to cooperative, from individualistic to collectivist, and from acquisitive to willing acceptance of living frugally and gaining life satisfaction from non-material pursuits." Such change in attitude and values "will be difficult to shift". He outlines a series of requirements:

"people would have to be conscientious, caring and responsible citizens, eager to come to working-bees, to think about social issues, and to participate in self-government"
"They must be sociologically sophisticated, aware of the crucial importance of cohesion, cooperation, conflict resolution, etc." [M]
"They must have some sense of the long and tragic history of human society, the failure to get beyond childish squabbling for wealth and power and the associated injustice, squalor and wars." [M]
"They must have a strong collectivist outlook." [M]
"They must understand and care about the global situation, recognising for instance that the Third World cannot have a fair share of global resources unless we in rich countries live much more simply." [A]
".. the new economy must be zero-growth ..." [M]
So "eventually the value put on getting materially richer must be completely abandoned." [M]
"People must eventually be happy to enjoy stable and secure lives within caring communities which are rich in interesting and purposeful opportunities to derive satisfaction without any concern to acquire more property or monetary wealth." [M]
"The main orientation would have to be to cooperate in providing for the welfare of all. ... when problems arise people must want to work out what is best for everyone." [A]
"Everyone must feel that it is a caring community with high levels of social cohesion, morale and pride." [A]

These are all elements required in the changed culture Trainer seeks. Most are to do with mindset ("M"), what people most deeply find meaningful, believe, expect, aspire to, and commit to, while a few are to do with attitude ("A"), of either selfishness or self-giving caring, and that attitude and mindset often reinforce each other. Trainer briefly offers reasons for why some of them are necessary.

He then argues for something akin to Degrowth (a steady-state rather than growing economy) for wealthy countries, though goes beyond that. He is sceptical about technological 'fixes' to ecological problems and about the belief of many that we can decouple economic growth from environmental damage. We need to reduce energy demand, because, he argues, full transition to renewable energy is not feasible. He wants competitiveness abandoned, not least because it proves inefficient, in that it diverts people's effort away from generating prosperity. However, people must not be forced to adopt the required attitudes and mind set, but, Trainer argues, it is not necessary for everyone to be converted to such beliefs and attitudes, only that be "considerable willingness" for it [p 138]. Socialist recipes of public ownership of the means of production are not necessary, but firms must run for the "public good" and though savings may be accumulated, excessive capital must not be. Desire for gain for self must be abandoned. Such a way of life would in fact be very enjoyable and satisfying, he argues, with a "multi-faceted familiarity" pervading social life, and "the presently huge dollar and psychological costs of social breakdown will probably be largely if not entirely avoided." He describes the social system of his vision as "Eco-village". That is his Simpler Way.

Though there are extant a few critiques of Trainer's vision, which we discuss first, his view of culture is not entirely clear nor workable, so we then offer four specific critiques of Trainer's vision, especially grounding it in philosophical understanding. We largely agree with Trainer's vision, so our critique is not designed to counter it as much as enrich it and enable it to become more effective in practice.

Extant Critiques of Trainer

Schwartzman [2014] makes two critiques of Trainer. One is against the presupposition of the need for Degrowth, rehearsing the familiar argument that the Global South needs to grow its economy; Schwartzman overlooks that Degrowth advocates already recognise this and are talking mainly about Degrowth in affluent cultures. The other is that 100% transition to renewable energy would be affordable and feasible, so energy demand need not decrease, and especially should grow in the Global South - though not through massive capitalist investment in renewable energy. Schwartzman might be correct, but so far his critique of Trainer has been on detail and makes little substantive dent in Trainer's vision. However, in the final paragraph he very briefly argues that a collapse of industrial civilization (which he believes Trainer expects) will not bring a utopia, but will be disastrous especially for the Global South. This is a more substantial criticism, and it is a pity that he does not develop it.

Alexander [2014] makes a more substantial but more appreciative critique. He appreciates in particular the courage, clarity and conscientiousness with which Trainer attempts to work out the radical implications of the vision, which most others tend to gloss over, proponents and opponents alike. He agrees with Trainer on much, including the need for a zero-growth economy among the affluent, that renewable energy cannot provide what is needed and that we therefore need to massively reduce energy demand by the affluent, and that the economic system would need to change from being motivated by personal gain and based on interest-charged debt, and even with the scrapping of the finance industry. Per-capita resource and energy consumption in the USA might have to be reduced by as much as 90%.

Alexander offers three main criticisms of Trainer. The first is in his wording. To speak of revolution, the scrapping of capitalism and the finance industry, and even to call for "collectivist" orientation is likely to put many people off - the very people who need to be brought on board if the needed overall willingness for change is to be achieved. Hopkins [2009], who probably has the same vision as Trainer, wants to bring such people on board rather than alienate them. There are ways to bring even right-leaning on board, by emphasising other concepts relevant to sustainability, such as responsibility and resilience rather than redistribution and justice [ref===]. So it should be possible to recast Trainer's vision in different concepts that align more with the values of a significant number of 'ordinary' and right-leaning people.

The second is that people's lifestyle does not exist in a vacuum. Some Simpler Way choices are made almost impossible for most people by current laws and policies. "This type of structural 'lock in', which is often subtle and insidious, can suffocate any attempt to create ways of life and social movements based on postconsumerist values, because current laws and structures make the practice of living more simply extremely challenging, even for those who already hold post-consumerist values." [Alexander 2014, 108]. If there is such lock-in, then it would require some top-down change, in addition to Trainer's anarchistic vision of bottom-up changes among individuals.

This links to Alexander's third critique, of Trainer's principled anarchism. Unlike Trainer, Alexander believes the state could have a role in moving to the Simpler Way.

Unfortunately, Alexander appears to fall back on appealing to "people's immediate self-interest" to adopt the vision, in that they "could actually live better on less" [p 109] - the very self-interest that has caused the problem in the first place. He bases this on the assumption that "once our basic material needs are met, getting richer does not contribute much to our overall wellbeing" - which is a mistake we discuss below.

Below, we outline how both individual and structural change may be seen as inextricably intertwined, and achievable without depending on self-interest. We also address other problems with Trainer's vision, and suggest a way of overcoming them, which is based on philosophy and bringing in aspects of human living that Trainer and others overlook.

Trainer Critique 1: Confusing Picture

Trainer paints a rich picture of his Simpler Way, including all the things listed above and more. It is a picture that can inspire, but it is not one that affords clear understanding of what the problem is, how the dynamics of culture operate especially with regard to economic activity, or what to do about it, especially in the real world of today, where many have come out of the closet to actively resist environmental responsibility.

Though Trainer purports to understand culture as "Ideas and Values" [Trainer 2022, 136], most of the things he mentions, such as in the list above, are philosophically deeper than ideas. Culture does include values, but it is constituted in that from which ideas are generated, rather than in ideas as such. Ideas are like leaves, which fall to the ground randomly, while culture is like the tree itself which produces the leaves. Ideas are conceptions of something; which things are conceived of is influenced by culture, rather than ideas themselves being the constituents of culture, and a veritable complex plethora of ideas arises from relatively simple interactions among aspects of life that any given culture finds meaningful.

What we can say about culture, of the kind that determines how we do our economics, what we accept therein and to what we aspire, is that the influence of culture on these is hidden, such that we seldom think about it, powerful enough to form structural lock-in, and that it also determines other spheres of life in like manner.

To reduce the confusion, what is needed is a clear understanding of what the various aspects might be.

To clarify the picture about culture, without attempting to deny nor simplify its complexity, we need a clear conceptual framework by reference to which we can understand the aspects of culture, and how each affects the others, especially the economic aspect. Trainer sets great store on social aspects, but occasionally refers to others in passing, such as satisfaction and enjoying life. Two questions arise. Are there other aspects which he overlooks or at most gives only little attention to? How to the various aspects interact, especially in determining how we do our economics?

The conceptual framework we employ for this below recognises and fully accepts and even welcomes the complex diversity we find today. It needs to be a comprehensive framework, so that missing aspects will become visible. It also should encourage us in self-critique, because whatever we derive as an understanding and solution will need challenge and refinement, and especially to recognise to which aspects we are not giving due regard.

Trainer Critique 2: Keynes' Mistake

Trainer seems to be making the same mistake as Keynes [1930] did when he optimistically predicted that economies would grow until we satisfy our reasonable needs and then stop growing. They did not. Our desires kept growing ever more rapaciously, and still we want more, even though the ecological footprint of the USA is five whole Earths and three for half of Europe. Trainer predicts optimistically that we will come to our senses and reduce our demands and aspirations to become reasonably satisfied with Eco-village living. There is no evidence so far that we will do so (except a little from the special situation that was the 2020 Pandemic).

Keynes overlooked (a) certain aspects of human behaviour, (b) sinfulness of the human heart - selfish unconcern and idolatrous aspirations and expectations. We want ever more for ourselves, regardless of its impact on others, and the more that we want keeps on expanding according to what a materialist, individualistic culture tells us to want. The right-wing reaction to responsible 'green' living (which arguably is the direct result of left-wing arrogance) just refuses to listen to calls for responsibility.

Trainer also does not take sufficient account of the very proper delight people find in achievment, in which we form things according to our free innovation and imagination rather than by rote. This is both technological innovation (which has driven the economy and environmental destruction over the past seven decades) and individual creativeness that gives us delight in everyday life.

This is why it is doubly important to find ways to bring 'ordinary' people on board. The Eco-village lifestyle may have been appropriate for undifferentiated societies and economies, but we have yet to work out in what ways may its awareness of responsibility and self-giving may be relevant to today.

To rectify this flaw in Trainer, we need to distinguish clearly the various reasons for going beyond satisfaction (the delight in achievement in everyday life, self-centredness attitude and idolatrous mindset) and which are valid and which are not and and need to be changed. We discuss a foundation for discussing this below.

Trainer Critique 3: Ineffectiveness

To the question of how to achieve the cultural shift needed for the Simpler Way, Trainer's answer is "cultural and educational" [p.153]. He relies on (a) logical responses to increasing disasters ("The coming difficult conditions will prompt these actions"); (b) social pressure ("Those who do not pull their weight will not enjoy good reputations"); (c) a change in economic policy so that firms are run "to serve the public good and meet needs, provide livelihoods to all, avoid anyone receiving income without working, and prevent capital accumulation" and investment is limited to "maintaining or rearranging a constant amount of productive plant"; (d) people will experience the satisfaction of living more simply ("We will see that cooperating, sharing and helping are not only in our own best interests but are satisfying").

While all these are important in bringing about change, they will not by themselves (even together) achieve it, and certainly not as quickly as needed. Difficult conditions, rather than evoking logical responses, can evoke stubborn anger and exacerbate self-protection. Social pressure can divide society rather than harmonise it. Economic policy has loopholes that the wealthy exploit if they wish. Experiencing satisfaction can make us complacent. In order to be effective, each one of these still presupposes the culture shift that Trainer seeks to bring about, so they cannot themselves bring it about. So the question remains, How can we bring about culture shift without authoritarian forcing?

A Philosophical Framework for Understanding Culture in Economics

Culture in economics is not some static, immutable granite edifice that cannot be changed, but is human functioning at both individual and societal levels. As such, there is hope of changing it - even though challenging.

The Dutch thinker, Herman Dooyeweerd, offers a useful framework by which we can understand culture in this way. He suggested (and argued in depth [Dooyeweerd 1955]) that human living has multiple aspects, simultaneously operating, which are irreducibly distinct from each other in terms of their meaningfulness and laws, but yet inter-dependent so that each calls on the others. (His was fundamentally a philosophy of meaning rather than or being or process, which, he argued, arise from and depend on meaningfulness.) Economic activity thus exhibits the following aspects (repeated from Chapter 6:

Quantitative aspect: stock levels; price; GDP;
Spatial aspect: location;
Kinematic aspect: movement of goods; movements in the economy;
Physical aspect: medium for currency (gold, etc;);
Biotic aspect: dependency of the economy on biodiversity and health;
Sensitive aspect: emotions and interaction of individuals to stimuli;
Analytical aspect: distinctions of value, suppliers, etc;
Formative aspect: production; economic planning;
Lingual aspect: money as token of value; communications;
Social aspect: buy-sell exchange; national / communal agreement on value of currency;
Economic aspect: value, frugality, conservation, waste;
Aesthetic aspect: harmony or fragmentation of 'the economy'; makes macroeconomics meaningful;
Juridical aspect: just or unjust transactions; legislation; equality; policy;
Ethical aspect: trust or distrust; generosity or self-protection; (attitude);
Pistic aspect: belief in, presupposition of, the workings of markets; what the economy is 'for'; aspirations and expectations (mindset).

In every human activity, we function in all those aspects, though sometimes more in one than in others. For example, in writing, the lingual aspect leads the others; in economic activity, the economic leads the others. But equally, the later aspects shape or flavour our functioning in earlier aspects. So, for example, whether we are selfish or self-giving (ethical functioning) determines how we enact economic exchanges and economic planning, and can determine whether we take trouble in writing or not.

Dooyeweerd's aspects offer a conceptual framework that can achieve several things that Trainer does not adequately. It can tackle the complexities of real life without over-simplification or relegating any issues, by enabling us to separate out multiple distinct ways in which any situation is meaningful, and thus reduce confusion. It provides a yardstick against which to measure ourselves and highlight any hidden missing aspects. In particular, because all human activity involves all aspects, it can help us avoid Trainer's Keynesian mistake, by alerting us to elements of human functioning that we might have overlooked. Because each is a different aspect of human activity, each generating different kinds of repercussion, then understanding these, and how each aspect depends on others, can help us understand the dynamics of economic activity. Because each aspect defines a different pair of good versus dysfunctional, it helps us understand more clearly what might be going wrong and point us in the direction of effective rectification. Chapter 11 of Basden [2020] offers examples of how these have been actually achieved in many different fields ranging from information systems to environmental sustainability.

The Two Aspects That Constitute Culture

Late aspects not only depend on good functioning in earlier aspects for their full actualization, but they in return impact, shape and flavour the functioning in earlier aspects. This is particularly so for the final two aspects, the ethical and pistic, which impact all others. Whereas the functioning in the middle aspects (up as far as the juridical) is visible, that of the ethical and pistic aspects is less visible, seen only by the shape and flavour they give other aspects. For example, in much writing, we can tell what the writer believes, treats as important, and is committed to; by reading between the lines we can detect things like hidden agendas. We can also gain a sense of the attitude of the writer: generous or selfish. Likewise with all other aspectual functioning. Thus our functioning in the ethical and pistic aspects - our attitude and mindset - is powerful yet pernicious its impacts. It is not just individuals that function in these aspects; societies and communities do too, as pervading attitude and prevailing beliefs and commitments.

Understanding societal functioning in the ethical and pistic aspects can help us understand culture more precisely than Trainer does. If we examine Trainer's list of requirements above, which he ascribes to culture, we find pistic functioning in its manifestations as commitments, beliefs, aspirations, etc. in the following.

"conscientious ... eager to come to ... aware of the crucial importance of ... sense of the long and tragic history of human society ... strong outlook ... understand and care about ... value put on ... completely abandoned ... eventually be happy to ... main orientation would have to be ... must want to work out ... must feel that ... morale and pride."

We can find ethical functioning (attitude) manifested in:

"caring citizens ... beyond childish squabbling for wealth and power ... care about ... unless we in rich countries live much more simply ... caring communities ... any concern to acquire more [for self] ... providing for the welfare of all ... what is best for everyone ... caring community."

That these are elements of culture, and because culture is a less-visible force impacting all we do, it is therefore not unreasonable to provisionally define culture as society's functioning primarily in the ethical and pistic aspects. Since that is a clumsy phrase, we use the terms "attitude" for our functioning in the ethical aspect and "mindset" for our pistic functioning. Culture may be understood as a combination of attitude and mindset in which mindset is about various things that are meaningful (target aspects). We do not claim this is a complete definition, but rather is one that can be used for now as a basis for discussion. All societal culture involves society's ethical and pistic functioning (pervading attitudes and prevailing mindset).

What makes one culture different from another is (a) whether self-giving or selfishness is the attitude that pervades it, (b) what it is that, in our pistic functioning, we treat as of ultimate importance, and thus believe in, assume, are committed to, aspire to, etc. Most of the elipses ("...") above replace some of these, especially after a preposition like "to", "of", "about" or "on", and they are meaningful in a variety of aspects. These include "eager to come to working-bees" (meaningful in the formative aspect), "crucial importance of cohesion, cooperation, conflict resolution" (meaningful in the social and aesthetic aspects), "work out what is best for everyone" (meaningful in ethical aspect), and so on. Other aspects could many of them, such as "crucial importance of technology, competition, hard work".

There are two ways in which pistic functioning (mindset) is dysfunctional. One is when we commit to one or two aspects at expense of, or even ignore, others; this is what some call "idolatry". The other is when we believe that we may allow dysfunctional versions of aspects, including competition, greed, waste, enmity, corruption, etc. Either way, the economy will not work as well as when we give due attention to all aspects and commit to the good in each and avoid all dysfunction.

This offers us a systematic understanding of how culture operates in economics or other spheres of life. In particular, it reveals Western culture as selfish and having dysfunctional pistic aspects in both ways: idolatry of money and indeed economics as a whole, and promoting dysfunctions in various aspects such as cpmpetition, greed, waste, enmity and corruption. It is the impact of these on our functioning in earlier aspects, including the biotic (environmental destruction), that has led us to the parlous state in which we find ourselves and the planet and biosphere today.

Changing Culture

Notice the repetition of "must" or "have to be" in the earlier list from Trainer; changing culture is, to him, absolutely necessary and not merely a nice-to-have option. But how does such a radical change in culture to his Simpler Way come about - and what should and might we do to help bring it about?

According to Dooyeweerd, though there is 'causality' within each aspect, according how its laws link functioning to repercussions, there is none between aspects. (Retrocipative impact of later aspects on earlier is not causality.) That Trainer rejects various solutions can be explained by this (even though he knows nothing about Dooyeweerd's ideas of aspects). One example is technological fix of ecological or cultural problems - which is explained by technological fix being action in the formative aspect and the other two as problems in the biotic and ethical-pistic problems.

Another example is that Trainer argues that though we must "scrap" capitalism, but he does not advocate socialism on the grounds that socialism demands public ownership of the means of production, which he believes is not necessary, and because a shift from capitalist bosses to socialist bosses is meaningless, and socialists "have given little attention to the fundamentally important role of cultural factors in a desirable society and in the transition to it" [p.151]. Socialism can only come about by a coup that "has the intention of implementing The Simpler Way, and then converting to it masses that don't understand it and don't want it" or election of a government with a Simpler Way platform - "But that could not happen unless the (cultural or ideological) revolution for a Simpler Way had previously been won." Ownership, coups and electons are all functioning in the juridical aspect, which cannot 'cause' repercussions in the aspects of culture.

So how can it happen? Whereas Trainer rejects top-down solutions, Alexander is more nuanced. We may understand this nuance via the aspects. In Dooyeweerd's theory, the later aspects depend on earlier ones for their fulfilment, but they "retrocipatively" impact, shape and flavour how we function in earlier aspects. Structural aspects depend on functioning as a societal whole. Psychical to lingual functioning is largely of individuals, while social and economic functioning are social but without any clear idea of societal whole. It is the aesthetic aspect that enables this, so post-aesthetic aspects are the ones that function in society as structures which influence our behaviour in earlier aspects. - which is individual or social. The juridical aspect concerns justice across the whole of a society, and as such is visible in the form of legislation, laws, etc.

The ethical aspect concerns attitude that pervades society, and the pistic aspect, beliefs, expectations, aspirations etc. that prevail throughout a society. These two aspects retrocipatively impact our functioning in all earlier aspects, for example as:

juridical functioning: the laws and policies we enact and whether we abide by them or seek loopholes;
aesthetic functioning: what we believe to be 'the whole' and what we take as enjoyable, and how much we selfishly demand our enjoyment rather than justice for those distant from us;
economic functioning: what we choose to do with our income, whether to serve our pleasures with what Adam Smith called "baubles and trinkets" or give away - at national and corporate as well as individual levels;
social functioning: whom we relate to and respect, and whom we ignore, and what institutions we form;
lingual functioning: the language we use and about what;
formative functioning: what we try to achieve, and which technologies and techniques we develop;
analytical functioning: which things we focus on as meaningful and important, and which we ignore, in both daily life and in scientific theory-making.

Our ethical functioning of atittude and our pistic functioning of assumptions, expectations, aspirations, beliefs, commitments, etc. are less visible than our functioning in these aspects. They thus explain the hiddenness, power and widespread influence of culture. They also might explain why whether of not the state is involved is not the most important question, in that the state is meaningful in the juridical aspect, not the ethical and pistic.

For this reason, we may reasonably, and at least provisionally, take them to constitute culture. And changing culture involves changing attitude and mindset, not just legislation, economic incentives, social structures, language, technology, etc. since these are meaningful in earlier aspects. They have some role to play but if we rely on them culture change will be very slow. But if we focus our attention on the ethical and pistic aspects (attitude and mindset) we can be more effective.

The Role of Religion

Trainer argues that a zero-growth economy requires "much more than changing the fundamentals of economic structures. It also implies "an utterly different worldview and driving mechanism" not just changes to economic structures. Religion fits this bill. Religion also happens to operate in the pistic and often ethical aspect. Trainer says that people will need "saintly qualities" in order to fulfil the vision.

Religions have long experience at understanding what saintliness is and how to encourage it, and in understanding the human heart and tackling the challenge of its stubbornness, complacency, selfishness, idolatry, so might we learn from them. Several refer to the meaningfulness of religion in fixing economics, though with varying degrees of detail. Here we go through nine contributions that religions can make, systematically.

Religion in general offers two things that Trainer does not. Religions offer a set of values that have stood the test of time; Trainer's values are from recent decades, some of which are in response to current crises, and some biased to left-leaning progressivism. Many religions affirm and expand on and deepen the former. Religions offer a Deity with authority that transcends all humanity, and all eras and cultures, and is compelling enough to demand change, whereas the only authority that Trainer offers is very weak: his own statements like "regardless of the difficulties we just have to work for the eventual adoption of these dispositions because there is no other option" and that of a logic that infers from growing difficulties that we need change.

Narrowing down, the Jewish religion offers five things. The first is a specific subset of values promoted by religions in general. For example, poverty is to be overcome by redistribution of wealth from rich to poor (not necessarily by state intervention, but because the rich were to have a generous attitude [Deuteronomy 15:7]). the purpose of lending was not to make money out of others but a system where the rich can support the poor, and hence charging of interest on loans within the Jewish economy was forbidden - just like Trainer and Alexander argue is necessary for a steady-state economy! The other four are new among most previous religions. One is the idea of a Creator God, Who sometimes acts in the world, which implies we are responsible to God (not just future generations or other species which Trainer acknowledges) for how we treat the planet. One is that humankind has a mandate to represent God to, and thus care for, the rest of Creation rather than merely treat it with respect, and God's actions (such as at Babel) are designed to steer humans to this end. Both those strengthen the authority of the call to ecological living over against the "self-interested, competitive, individualistic ethos built into present cultural and political systems". The third is the idea of human heart as the root of all we do and say - which, as we have argued above, is almost identical to what Trainer calls culture. The fourth is that human sin and a call to repentance. The human heart currently is "deperately wicked" and "stubborn" and the remedy is not education, information, economic incentives, or even legislation or policy, but repentance: the deep admission "We are and were wrong; we will turn about 180 degrees." This indeed is what Trainer calls for, but the Jewish religion puts it much more clearly and challengingly. It also tells us that the God Who acts will respond to true repentance with blessing.

But the Jewish religion says little about how hearts can be changed, except for promises that it would one day occur [Jeremiah 31:31-34]. It is the Christian religion that has an answer to this. Jesus the promised Messiah (Christ), fully Divine and fully Human, died to pay for our sinfulness and enable the Spirit of God to dwell within humans, changing heart attitudes (to "love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, humility, self-control" - which could be a definition of Trainer's "saintly"). What mere education, legislation and economic incentives are unable to, or only very slowly, is achieved by the Spirit of God working in us, and experience shows this can bring about change must faster. This change begins in the hearts of individuals, so that individuals want to live simply rather than being forced to (which Trainer warns against), and has proven to have society-wide impact. History shows several cases of this actually happening, one being the 1904 Welsh Revival, in which so many people accepted Jesus Christ and allowed the Spirit of God to change them, that after merely two months crime, wife-beating and drunkenness had largely ceased, so that that the publicans, police and magistrates had nothing to do. Such case studies are worth serious examination without bias (either pro- or anti-Christian), because they show that radical culture change might be possible despite structural lock-in (which is one of Alexander's criticisms of Trainer) and even without Alexander's presupposition of self-interest as a driving factor. Holland [2019] argues that, more widely, the Christian message brought into society a concern for the 'other', especially the marginalized, that Greek and Roman cultures lacked. Greg Scrivener [2024] argues that even many progressivistic values come from the same Christian root, bringing the "level of cooperation, responsibility, frugality and readiness to share and give, etc." that Trainer says is necessary.

It is in these ways, religion tells us, that Trainer's vision of The Simpler Way, or at least something very near it, can actually be fulfilled, and there have been actual cases to demonstrate it.

Conclusion

So, we have Dooyeweerd's aspects as a philosophical framework for understanding culture and religion as a practical framework for changing culture, and they work hand in hand. The following diagram depicts this.

Concepts around culture and how they relate to each other. 122,900

IG "erw:pix/culture.iff" -w4 -h3 -c -ra

Figure 1. Concepts around culture and how they relate to each other.

Culture is usefully understood as a combination of our functioning in the pistic and ethical aspects, which is hidden and retrocipatively impact and shape our functioning in other aspects. In place of the clumsy phrase "our functioning in the pistic and ethical aspects" we may replace them with "mindset" and "aatitude". Heart, a word found in various religions, and also in everyday intercourse, is the deep core of the human, which motivates and shapes our deeds, words and thoughts, and thus may be seen as synonymous with culture, except that "culture" is largely societal mindset and attitude while "heart" can be individual as well as societal.

Seeing culture as aspectual functioning helps us understand its impact on economics and other spheres of life, and also point clearly to how it may be changed, and how changes in culture relate to changes in behaviour meaningful in other aspects. Seeing culture as related to heart highlights the relevance of religion, especially in understanding how culture may be changed. The experience that various religions have accrued over centuries might be useful in thinking about how to change culture - especially the idea of spiritual revivals that have taken place in Christianity.

In this way, we may systematize our understanding of and dialogue with Trainer, rectify various flaws, fill in some gaps, and point to a way to make his vision more effective.