[I _could_ have said socio-political but subcultures to me are (broad-definition) Religions to me. [Dawkins, et al] – as in, “money is their religion” form. My biases. smile emoticon – and no I’m not suggesting money is your religion, although I *did* see a supposedly unbiased History video yesterday that framed medieval wars in terms of “greed”; a clear case of modern Adam Smith bias, framing all past actions in terms of a “The rational man” whose only goal in life is increasing one’s net worth; an extremely biased view of history that’s easy to miss, because our capitalist times think in Adam Smith terms regularly, especially when it comes to internal motivations 🙂
intersubjective is the key. The exchange of subjective viewpoints that coincide can lead to a culture where a reality is considered Objective; after all, an Object requires a Subject. Mary ate the Tennis Racket. “The Tennis Racket was Eaten” removes a key piece of information.
Perhaps that’s why Scientists have to put their names on their papers. The Subjects are as important as the Objects they speak of…. which why it’s maddening when a media report says, “Scientists say…[blah]” and people buy it without thought. Which scientists? What was their motivation? Who were their influences?
Oh well – can’t fix some things. The shame is that the people who _do_ tend to ask these questions… sometimes go off the deep end into Strange Conclusion mode. Oh well.