Culture, rather than being seen as a static, concrete entity (i.e. the
Nuer "culture"), is increasingly being reformed as an
idea ; a dynamic process involving
behavior,
symbolism, and
ideology which is
constructed in different ways.
Reifying "culture" into absolute categories of people ignores the fuzzy boundaries and incredible diversity existing within groups as well as between them. Historically, it has been used by colonial forces to homogenize newly discovered peoples for the purpose of domination, creating one universal identity for a given "culture" which serves to justify the creation of inequality and differential treatment:
"Oh...them? They don't mind long hours of hard labour for little or no pay. It's in their culture."
To be honest, I have been studying anthropology for five years now, and still can't get a firm grasp on what this word means. I am finally coming to the conclusion that this is the point; there is no absolute definition, only a only a vague process by which we define ourselves and are defined by others.
I am not trivializing the importance of the symbolism and ideology that we, as humans, are inclined to create, nor am I trying to give a new definition of culture. I am only giving a warning as to the implications of the use of this term in a global, post-colonial context, and how it may be used to "other" certain groups, casting them as permanently, immutably outside the boundaries of acceptance.
I also believe that any concept of culture rooted in stereoscopic vision, bipedal locomotion, and a generalized forelimb with opposable thumb (as noted above) ignores pretty much every meaningful process, constuction or symbolic system that has ever been created, as well as the complex ways these systems are interpreted and will continue to be interpreted in new and dynamic ways.