i think that it's making an implicit distinction (which might not exist) between social and biological cause. the argument is that it's rooted in a social acti

i think that it's making an implicit distinction (which might not exist) between social and biological cause. the argument is that it's rooted in a social activity, which might be (implicitly, is) constructed / learnt, rather than innate. (and it's a better article than i expected - credit for being honest enough to detail the "defined by consumption" aspect in fairly neutral terms (or maybe it's just the male in me that finds that a little crass? don't you know that all value comes from winning the game?))