I've had an instructive offlist correspondence with the irascible Bill L and will try to clarify a couple of points. 1. I sought in my last post to offer a very broad definition of culture as ditinct from say economics or biology, not of what marks the boundaries of one culture as opposed to another. What I sought indeed to suggest was that the nature of culture in general, if considered carefully, made it rather difficult to wall up the world into separate cultural compartments. 2. What riles Bill is what he sees as the assertion that one cannot criticize something someone else does without sharing in their culture. That, in those general terms, is not what I am arguing nor what I read Ajit to be saying. I am arguing that in specific contexts these critiques are used to push other agendas, as in the last century Mill's influential portrayal of the treatment of women in India was used very directly to support colonial rule. Perhaps the main thing Bill & I disagree on is whether we disagree, as I like Bill's statements of principle. I'm happy to let anyone criticize anything they like, but when it comes to deciding which to take seriously I do worry about critiques that seem both minimally informed and to repeat a long line of lurid and distancing portrayals of 3rd world culture. To me this seems to be a particular concern; Bill perhaps still sees it as overly general. But I do think we can agree on the importance of understanding each particular situation and the politics implicated in it. Best, Colin
