The problem is more simple. Let me reformulate my statement. Most of us in the philologies don't know how to use the computer for anything other than text processing.

It's a sad situation. I'm finally able — for the first time — to teach courses in programming here at the Humboldt.

Programming — isn't that another form of alphabetization?

Yes, indeed, and quite an exciting form. Have you ever had the experience that what you write on paper actually happens? When you program a computer something is constantly happening. It's almost like magic. You write something, strike 'enter,' and then what you just wrote, happens, assuming there are no errors in your program. It's a form of alphabetization on an entirely different field, which also entails other routines. You learn not only to create paragraphs and footnotes, but also what a regression is and how to solve problems. I see this as being positive for cultural studies. I can't imagine that students today would learn only to read and write using the twenty-six letters of the alphabet. They should at least know some arithmetic, the integral function, the sine function — everything about signs and functions. They should also know at least two software languages. Then they'll be able to say something about what 'culture' is at the moment, in contrast to 'society.' Under 'society' falls much more, such as 'how to behave' or 'what to wear,' which are also part of 'culture.' I think, however, we understand 'culture' in terms of a system of signs. Cultural studies refers to and examines the most important sign systems.