Dear Rainier,
very droll.
I made the mistake above of taking the question seriously and was on my way, if pushed, to designating culture a mental prison. Of course there are any number of courtly fools cavorting within the many mansions of culture who think it's all a bit of a lark, and they do afford levity and diversion in many quarters, where they're Wits among dunces; but in other, darker chambers, they're Dunces among Wits.

An interesting topic.

As I see it, the "cultural void of a dustbowl they call a country" comment to which Otokonoko took exception, alludes to the version of "culture" that has to do with what Sir Les Paterson termed "the Yartz".

To my specific knowledge there is a strong body of opinion in London that Sir Les represents all there is to know about Australian culture.

Which is, of course, desperately unfair.

Many have also heard of Dame Joan Sutherland, who lives in that other seething hive of culture, Switzerland. Quite a few will know those ambassadors of Australian radicalism and inventiveness, Germaine Greer and Clive James. But that's probably because they live there, write in their newspapers and appear on their telly a lot.

The more cultured Poms will be aware of the great Australian poet of the last century, Peter Porter. Who lived in, errr... England. From his early twenties until he died earlier this year. Wonder why.

We all, of course, revere our very own Nobel prizewinner, Patrick White. Don't we?

Although I suspect if you Googled "Voss". you would be far more likely to find yourself in the company of Brisbane Lions coach Michael, than Mr White's first literary success in Australia.

Then there are the Minogues, Kylie and Danii.

And Neighbours.

It's important also, not to forget that there are many of our sportspeople over there. Most of our senior cricketers play County cricket. A bunch of league players head North to play for Leeds or Warrington or whatever. Aussie soccer players abound, at all levels of the English leagues

Quite possibly, the sheer proliferation of these ambassadors of Australian culture provides some baseline from which we are measured.

Who knows?

But it has nothing to do with rubbing noses, Boaz.

Narrow? Nonexistent is more apt. Culture in OZ is mediocrity - the tall poppy syndrome – homogenization - standardization – risk aversion – copycat - we are a country that embodies the Peter Principle.

Pericles... yes it does.... along with many other things people do as 'culture'.

Culture?

Depends who one asks. Kerr (anthropologist) makes the point that culture can be broken-up into three kinds:

1. Technology, which transfers readily between societies.
2. Sociology, which will transfer slowly (decades)
3. Ideology, which is in entrenched.

Culture is a product of ecology and culture determines behaviour. Behavior tends to express itself deferentiately towards large (> 150 people) and small groups. Thus, we have culture in society ar large and culture in familial, workplace and other small groups, where relatonships tend be closer than say nation.

In many ways it is more like genus in science than say the periodic table. The boundaries are not always clear and there are various manifestions: e.g., organisational culture. Herein, the word "culture" generally requires an other word as qualifier.

Culture is far less than fully tangible yet it allows us to sensibly characterise phenomena in reasonable agreement with the manifest world.

Dear Oliver,
you do have an analytical mind (not necessarily a compliment).
What about an "ontology" of culture (which I'm working on)? And if you hold to your triad of cultural ologies, what about the etymology of culture--that is the problem of the scientistic view's being dependent upon an outmoded formalism, as well as contemptuous of ontology (these are more questions for me than you). Put another way, how much confidence do you have in "manifest" reality? Is it manifest (at all?) thanks to language, cognition or empiricism (or ontology), which all, according to poststructuralism, amount to the same thing.

<Culture is far less than fully tangible yet it allows us to sensibly characterise phenomena in reasonable agreement with the manifest world>

For me culture is far more a hindrance than a help-mate in characterising phenomena (suggesting an objectivity that isn't there) than it is a constant distortion within that enterprise. Moreover the scientistic enterprise implies a gross neglect of culture.