Morning all Lach writes ++++ Oh, in an earlier post someone claimed I made no distinction between 'cyberculture' and culture writ large. No, I make a considered distinction between the two. 'Cyberculture' is a sub set of the cultural. It resides in - not apart from - the everyday ideas, policies and legalities through which we make our world. ++++ My response is that the word culture is a risky one: several anthropologists (notably Jonathan Friedman) and a number of others do too. Problem one: Ray Williams definition'A Whole way of life': relatively few people live in one of those, and they are always 'other'. Balibar's chalenging definition of neo-racism comes to mind: old racism was biological, neo-racism says 'yes we are all equal, but you are culturally unequipped to get a job/education/art show. I prefer communication/mediation because it doesn't force you into identity politics. On the 'text' issue: the principle that everything is interlinked, and that say Batman is a comic, movie, TV, game, CD etc; or that Melinda's work is cross-media - that's fine. Using the word 'text' to escribe that tends sometimes and in some contexts to suggest that reading, linguistics, speech acts etc give us privileged access to how they work. Similar problem at the opposite end when people develop 'visual culture': where's the audio? Once again media seems like a braoder, less defiite term . . . and as any East Anglian will tell you, the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil is only loosely translated from the ancient Aramaic as 'apple'. The green fruit in question is of course the marrowfat pea. That was the fall: Eve ate the peas, adam ate eve, the snake ate adam and unsatisfied by the result, set to devouring its own tail s
<<winmail.dat>>