Wayne, My aim was simply to dispute the assertion that culture is a sociopathological phenomenon. In doing so, it proved necessary to clarify that my definitions of "culture" and "society" are the conventional ones (and I cited Merriam-Webster to show what definitions I was using, which is not a case of the fallacy of appeal to authority). Even now, you apparently don't understand the definitions I'm using, since you summarized them in nearly identical terms, while I think the difference between culture and society is clear. To paraphrase what I said before, a society is a collection of interacting people with a group identity, and their culture is all the values, beliefs, and practices that they hold largely in common. Conflating the group with its shared ideas is like conflating the brain with the thoughts it produces.
On the other hand, I admit that I have no idea how you define "culture" and "society." I went over each of your messages in this conversation, and all I could discern on the matter was that you found the conventional definitions too vague and that you turned to etymology to try to come up with something more precise. At one point, you apparently equate "culture" more or less with hierarchy, though since most or all social animals have hierarchies, this would still lead me to believe that culture is not optional for social animals like humans. (And if it's not optional, it can't be pathological; how can you identify a pathology independent of a contrasting state of health?) If you ever offered definitions, I've missed them entirely after two attempts. As to why I have not addressed "the specifics of [your] previous attempts to explain [your] suggested definitions for the two terms", I think it boils down to my initial intention to dispute only one statement in your argument and my inability to find either your definitions for the two terms or your attempts to explain these definitions (unless you count the post in which you tell us you turned to etymology to find clearer definitions, but I couldn't discern from that what definitions you might have arrived at). I can't address specifics I can't find. I'm also not clear on why you want clearer definitions for such widely-used terms in the first place. It's not as though people are going to confine their usage of a term to whatever more rigorous definition you come up with. If you really want to talk about something more specific (less vague) than culture and society, either find other words to do so, or don't be surprised when people start arguing with you as though you were using the conventional definitions. Finally, I do not agree that the status quo needs a strong defense when there is no well-supported idea challenging it. Issuing a poorly-supported challenge to conventional wisdom is like throwing a dart at a castle, for all the impact it's going to make. You won't be burned at the stake for it; you'll just be ignored. It wouldn't hurt to offer a clear alternative to the status quo, while you're at it, and a road map for arriving at that alternative state. Even if we all agree that culture is pathological, what do we do next? Do we immediately abandon whatever it is you call culture and go hunter-gatherer? Jim Crants
