SWS - Study

3.4 Neglect of the cultural dimension

In debates about a political or socio-structural restructuring of society, the cultural dimension is often neglected and therefore easily hijacked by populist movements. These movements often give the impression of preserving religious or cultural traditions. In fact, however, they often betray the values on which these traditions are based. Culture refers to interpersonal dynamics that have manifested themselves in a particular place over a long period of time and, as a relatively stable structure, provide people with support and orientation. Those who want to promote the socio-ecological transformation must therefore take these culturally shaped dynamics into account and must try to use them where they are conducive to the transformation, and to change or at least consider them where they counteract it. Those who want to erect wind turbines, for example, should not only take into account the economic and political rights of the affected population, but should also understand the significance that the changed landscape has for them49 – and those who want to reduce meat consumption must be aware of the cultural value of food traditions that have grown over generations.


This cultural web of significance, in which people have firmly established themselves over generations and in which they find existentially meaningful references, changes slowly and is thus inert, but also stable. Those who keep this in mind can understand traditions in a new way, for example, in that the value of cherished festivals and holidays is not so much measured in the consumption of goods or meat, but that they have a far greater meaningful and community-building significance. Many religious symbols of different cultures often have agricultural references and invite us to rediscover the wealth of experience of previous generations and their approach to questions of sustainability and justice, and to thereby learn from each other.

If this is not done, cultural "inertia" can slow down rather than stabilise the desired social change: Then, the change endangers the orientation system of the culture, people feel insecure and forced into a corresponding blocking attitude. Those who want to prevent the transformation can manage this defensive reaction politically, for example by right-wing populists fighting the coal phase-out not only as a threat to prosperity, but also as the destruction of the cultural identity of miners and mining regions. Since culture, and above all religion, represent the deepest dimension of our experience, they are particularly susceptible to emotional instrumentalisation.50


Neglecting the cultural dimension can make transformation particularly difficult when change is cross-cultural and global. In this case, misunderstandings and conflicts may arise between the cultural perspectives involved, especially if a single cultural perspective dominates the others. The latter is firstly unfair, as it prevents a just participation of the different perspectives in shaping the transformation process. Secondly, important potentials of the transformation can then only be used inadequately. This becomes apparent, for example, when sources and forms of knowledge that do not correspond to the academic understanding of science (practical application knowledge as well as indigenous knowledge or knowledge from people with a migration background) are not taken seriously enough. Many valuable insights (for example, regarding the interconnectedness of all living beings or about other ideas of a good life) remain hidden and unused due to the dominance of a single, important, but not comprehensive understanding of knowledge and science.