A theme, indeed it could be said, the point of this thesis, is to disrupt taxonomic, oppositional and systems approaches to the

interpretation of culture. In a poststructural post-modernist world view, categories do not work, models are limiting and structuralism, a la Claude Levi Strauss, is pass. Categories, much like theory, are only useful if the illuminate and expand ethnographic research. Grand theories, as Geertz (1973) once mentioned, cannot explain everything. Thus far, Domingos muddled up interpretations of Frigiliana have been held up as the standard bearer for a view of culture that is piecemeal and jumbled up over time (Gramsci 1971; Crehan 2002). Domingo is not representative of the group: Domingo is the group. His views are not tempered by self-interest: he is selfinterested. He may not the big man, or women, in the village, but who is representative of the group? Equally, a conscious choice has been made to avoid banal and insipid terminology that appears to denote the world as a fluffy, fuzzy, imbricated, interconnected heterogeneous gloop void of political interference and controlthus far. The point on which this thesis pivots begins with an old argument, a structuralist argument and a fundamental concern of Marxism: base and/versus superstructure. Indeed, the point of this these is not to interpret the world, it is to change it. For the purpose of clarity the first preposition of this thesis is as follows: base determines superstructure. The second preposition is the form that the superstructure takes is not determined by the base. This is a kind of oxymoronic argument that at once disrupts settled notions of the relationship between base and superstructure. In short, in order for this to be a Marxist interpretation of culture, which is not the same thing as an interpretation of Marx, the form that the superstructure takes must reinforce to primary economic base. I will dispense with the terms base and superstructure forthwith, in an attempt to maintain clarity. In their place will be the terms primary economy and primary culture. That is still too clumsy. Call it economy and culture for short hand. Economy needs no explanation, culture, on the other hand, refers to high cultural forms and pretty much everything else that exists in everyday life. The reason for a shift in direction toward rigid structuralism is oddly in keeping with a non-systematic approach to culture. That is to say, this is in keeping with an expressed desire to allow ethnographic informants to determine the direction that the thesis takes after all, they are supposed to be the ones who know best. When asked, three responses follow my inept questions relating to Festival 3 Culturas: (1)it is just commercial; (2) it is the best festival in the village; (3) it is a veil that masks corrupt politicians although the last account is rare and proffered by a Fulbright scholar. Of course there were more responses, the most poignant of which was, why do you keep going on about the festival? [ colourful