I found Haraway’s formulation of the term “natureculture” anintriguing problem with which to grapple. Though the word itself is abit clunky, Donna Haraway’s reconfiguration of human culture asnatureculture is a deft rhetorical move which redefines “culture” tosubsume the limits of “nature” in the constructed “nature/nurture”binary. This allows her to overturn colonizing, capitalist, andanthropocentric discourses and to discuss human habits in terms ofecologies and relations, webs of interconnectedness between organismsin their environments rather than as fixed systems for or controlledsolely by human interests. There is some difficulty inherent in the formation of the wordexpressing Haraway’s concept. I think that the problem with theverbosity of the term, however, goes beyond the fact that it has twoextra syllables tagged on that make it longer to say. The problemcomes from the meaning associated with those syllable noises. As Isee it, adding “nature” to “culture” in textual visualaurality (ortactility, or howsoever a textual meaning is sensed) as words and notsimply as a melding of concepts does serve in some way to reinforcethe binary, as the compound word still recognizes its constituentparts and puts them in immediate juxtaposition. The compound word iscombined, but not seamless and, in this way, does not feel whollyintegrated as yet. I think it might have been more effective tosimply use the term culture, which has the benefits of being anotoriously flexible term without being a mouthful, though I can seehow Haraway might have avoided a strict redefinition of just the termculture as it could be read as a return to the anthropocentricprinciples from which her discourse attempts to break away.