Material culture is the physical or technological aspects of a culture in our daily lives. In laymen's terms, things that show our social class, and how we live, materially. "Do we place a lot of emphasis on our material possessions or not?" Examples of this would be our cars, houses, clothing, computers (or other technological gadgets) etc.Non-material culture is the cultural adjustments to material conditions, or in laymen's terms our customs, beliefs, patterns of communication, and the ways we use material objects. Examples of this include, politics, economics, language, rules, customs, family, religion or beliefs, values, and knowledge.
thinking about how the source material applies to your question.
The Miller Test, or "Three Prong Obscenity Test," was established via the US Supreme Court's decision in Miller v. California, 413 US 14 (1973).The criteria a trier-of-fact must consider when determining whether material is obscene follows:"(a) whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards" would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, [Roth, supra, at 489,](b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and(c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. If a state obscenity law is thus limited, First Amendment values are adequately protected by ultimate independent appellate review of constitutional claims when necessary."In Jacobelis v. Ohio, 378 US 184 (1964) Court determined "obscenity" did not qualify for First Amendment protection, but were unable to agree on a definition or standard. Justice Potter Stewart's famous quote best summarized the dilemma of the Court:"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced...but I know it when I see it..."The Supreme Court attempted to address the issue a second time in Roth v. United States, 354 US 476 (1957), but the opinion in that case gave little more guidance:"The standard for judging obscenity, adequate to withstand the charge of constitutional infirmity, is whether, to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material, taken as a whole, appeals to prurient interest."The Miller Test incorporated the definition in Roth, which the Court held to be unconstitutional on its own, but expanded the criteria in an effort to introduce more considerations, as a proxy for objectivity. The "three prongs" listed above comprise the current obscenity test (2010).For more information, see Related Questions, below.
In that case, you have a basis upon which to formulate your arguments, either for, or against such teachings and/or theories.
The nonliving material surrounding cells is called protoplasm.
There are a number of things that may happen to substances that are less dense than the surrounding material. In most cases, this is what will cause them to float on the surrounding material.
The nonliving material surrounding cells is called the intercellular matrix. The matrix fills the spaces that are between the cells.
because of its denisty
A material that has a larger density than the surrounding material has the natural tendency to sink.