Originally Posted by cardboard adolescent

i think the more isolated, rural regions have a better idea of identity, mainly because they define themselves negatively against the perceived corruption and immorality of the big cities, or whatever. whether or not this actually translates to 'culture,' i'm not sure, i think of culture more as artistic/religious legacies which are perpetually reborn/reformed by new generations. and i think culture in that sense is mostly present in the cities, but it's a very confused, self-reflective sort of culture, which doesn't have the roots to be fully comfortable with itself. i think most of the issues one region of america has with the others are mostly superficial, everyone either thinks they and their group are morally superior or that they are more intelligent and everybody else is stuck in the middle ages. i'm tempted to say that california is the exception, where a genuine culture of ideas draws 'outsiders' in, but at this point it's mostly the weed, isn't it? the differences seem to me to be either consumerist (californians smoke pot, new yorkers go to art galleries) or endless religious bickering. i do think the personality of america is very schizophrenic, which is probably what you were getting at, to the point where two radically different personalities (the New York intellectual and midwest conservative, for instance) can both strike us as archetypally american, but there is no american as such. i don't think there's enough history behind these personas, however, to really lift them past their superficiality (the history that does support intellectuals and conservatives, say, is mostly borrowed from europe), and for this reason america doesn't really have a culture. and if it does, it's crumbling faster than anyplace else.

modernism, for instance, is usually associated with america and considered our cultural legacy, but it's just a rebellion against europe's formalism, for the most part.