The idea that something is cultural and defined culturally is something that Miller, while right about, is not new in claiming.
Miller in our reading discusses the difference of Fasbook from Facebook and how the trini’s use of Facebook makes it Fasbook. I agree with Miller that Facebook is not a universal in the way one might think of universals. As a social norm there are few things consistent with the use of Facebook within and across cultures. I talked about FBO in my last post and compared that use with the trini use of Facebook and relationships. But event this discussion of being Facebook official and relationships is not a universal in the united states across ages and other groups of peoples.
Herein lies the befuddling aspects of theory, in theory you can generalize and conceptualize big pictures but in practice it can be difficult to muddle through the general back to the specific. FBO holds true for me and for many of my colleagues and cohorts, but how different that term may be used or interpreted at a state school (larger populations, different schedules, etc) versus another small liberal arts school.
Generally, I am arguing that of course culture dictates the use of technology. Of course trini Facebook would and does look different and is used different than Davidson Facebook. I would even argue that of course the idea behind Miller’s fasbook can be applied to a hillbook or a wildcatbook. In the end my argument lives in the idea that culture brokers the use of pretty much everything and that making claims towards this end is very anthropological.