of Culture without defining it is tomake an abstraction ad absurdum.Theundefinability of the concept of art is a very common contemporaryelement. Art is not an object in thesense of a definable social practice anymore, since the object of art can bealmost anything today, and almost any material can be made into an artobject. However, in order to make hiscritique work, Zerzan needs to reactivate the sense and the creed on art asobject with definable characteristics. To be able to critique art, postmodern artists sometimes even ignoredthe concept altogether. Contrary to thistrend, Zerzan needs to believe in art as a universal in order to critiqueit. He reproduces the very same notionsof art and culture as universals in his critiques of them. This is where he starts from in all hiscritiques: at base culture, art, religion, language, etc. are universals thatenable his critique as such. His beliefin Utopia also stems from his universalism. All kinds of Utopian myths or discourses are for him a sign to the sameneeds and desires: a longing of a period of non-Civilization. That different cultures express these placesdifferently can be sidestepped for a universal longing. Differences in myths or in the ways that theyare differently used, for different purposes, never come to hisassertions. Clearly, if the longing ofdifferent cultures for a better life appears to Zerzan as the same longing, he mustbe indifferent to cultural difference as a whole. What if cultural difference was aninextricable link to understanding ecological variation and the promotion ofbiodiversity, as Ethnoecology has been claiming for decades now? Universalism is neither a base on which tofully understand cultural desires for a better world, nor a way for differentcultures to have their survival and living strategies unmistakably respected.Resistance always bearing the mark of universality is a creed of Enlightenmentheritage that today still proves its strengths and weaknesses in socialpractices. Within anarchism, so-calledpost-anarchist authors, with their own strengths and weaknesses, havequestioned the basis on which anarchism reproduces the subject of the Enlightenmentand its effects.[53] There is clearly a problem with therush to so-called progress without environmental and socialaccountability. Our industrial apparati have clearly been devastatingresources and lives of communities worldwide. Technology has been claimed as a solution to everything. There certainly are forms of culture tocritique, within these preoccupations. We may generalize in our critiques, and with this we will always beputting different vegetables in the same bundle, some of them clean, some evenpoisonous. Can alliance with peoplesconcerns, care with peoples needs, and engagement with suffering, hardship,day-to-day necessities exist within a renewed anarcho-primitivism? I believe it can only if anarcho-primitivismis critically revised and starts its preoccupations with social change fromreal life and not from Utopian futures, refusing to aggressively andirresponsibly charge others, whose life maybe primitivists know nothing about,with the toil of making life better. Primitivismas it dominantly stands today could only have gained such voice and supportfrom California, one of the richest places in the world. It is only from a moral, privilegedstandpoint, that a dominant primitivism can regard anarchy as living in our bonesand in the same line of reason if this is possible that