In Culture and Agency (1988/1996, CUP), I made the distinction between the ‘Cultural System’ (C.S.), that is all items logged into the universal cultural archive, and ‘Socio‐Cultural’ (S‐C) interaction, namely how we persuade others to accept our views. The two are distinct; but any adequate explanation in social science involving ‘culture’ must respect this distinction and needs must come in a SAC, namely always entailing ‘Structure’, ‘Agency’ and ‘Culture’. Although not accepting that culture (C.S) was or is ever fully coherent or shared by definition, I charter a precipitous decline in its free accessibility as part of the Commons everywhere, but most markedly when and where morphogenesis predominates today – adding new variety to the (C.S.) and fostering divergent (S‐C) aims. Together, their ideational opportunism greatly augments Fake News as opponents lock in conflict, particularly when social integration is already low. Such Fake News is especially harmful to personal and collective Reflexivity and the ‘data smog’ of social media induces a ‘presentism’ that generates cultural wantons (Harry Frankfurt's term) amongst both those lying and in receipt of their lies.

中文翻译：

---

新千年的文化狂热

在文化与代理机构（Culture and Agency，1988/1996，CUP）中，我区分了“文化体系”（CS）和“社会文化”（S-C）交互，即所有已登录到通用文化档案中的项目。即我们如何说服他人接受我们的观点。两者是截然不同的。但是在社会科学中任何涉及“文化”的适当解释都必须尊重这一区别，并且需求必须包含在SAC中，即始终需要“结构”，“机构”和“文化”。尽管我不接受文化（CS）的定义，或者曾经是完全一致的或共有的，但我认为，作为世界各地Commons的一部分，它的免费获取性急剧下降，但最明显的是今天何时何地形态发生占主导地位-为（CS）和促进分歧（SC）目标。一起，当反对者锁定冲突时，他们的想法性机会主义极大地增加了假新闻，特别是在社会融合程度已经很低的时候。此类虚假新闻尤其不利于个人和集体的反思，社交媒体的“数据烟雾”引发了一种“呈现主义”，在说谎者和说谎者之间产生了文化上的肆意（哈里·弗兰克的说法）。