The opening sentence: “The changing nature of social and cultural life requires a new understanding of interconnections among types of audience experience, simple, mass, and diffused” (125). I didn’t really engage with a study on cinema in places I’ve never been. But it’s an interesting thesis, nonetheless. It’s true that our economic status and geographical location play a role in our engagement (and what we think about our engagement, and what we think about others’ engagement) with culture and society. We as the church need to be aware of these interconnections and work to bend and mend them, always looking for ways to build those bridges–highly complicated in our uncategorical society.

I know it’s typically postmodern of me, but I like the ideas Abercrombie (the clothing company? surely not!) & Longhurst assert about the “fluidity of identity formulation and reformulation” (qtd. 120) through engagement with culture–high or popular. We’ve already realized that identity is bound to culture (like religion), and here it surfaces again. As we encounter the world, through whatever means, in a way that activates our emotional (and consequently rational?) selves to respond and seek out others who respond, our identities are being shaped and formed and re-shaped and re-formed over and over in the relativism that is our secularized society. What holds firm is our foundation (can you hear the organ?) in Christ…but how to build bridges that won’t break in an ever-shifting culture?