↑Steven Mizrach‘s ↑pages on cyberanthropology [Caution: MIDI-sound! ;-] are very prominently visible on the Web, as e.g. ↑Budka & ↑Kremser (↵2004: 222, endnote #1) rightfully have noted. Hence his views on the topic can not easily be neglected. Unfortunately I was not able to find any “regular” publications by Mizrach dealing with cyberanthropology or the likes, so I have to quote from his webpage ↑cyberanthropology. There he sums his vision of cyberanthropology up in six key phrases. Every phrase is annotated and explained—to read all ↑go there. Here are the six phrases:
 

Again the reduction to online interaction, see ↵less than cyberculture, plus a decisive twist towards the exotic and utopian. Budka & Kremser caught the ball and stated that Mizrach’s outline corresponds to the issues they will discuss in their paper (↵2004: 222, endnote #1), and that, despite of Escobar’s incorporation of biotechnologies (↵1994: 214), they “will limit the scope of cyberculture to information and communication technologies (ICTs)—the most commonly used term in relation to these new technologies—and how they are discussed in the discipline of social and cultural anthropology.” (↵2004: 214) When I started out with all this, I have to confess, I have been on similar tracks, was somehow overwhelmed by the impact and importance of ICTs, thereby blindfolded for a bigger picture. But meanwhile I every day get more convinced that “sociocultural anthropology and ICTs” of course is a part of cyberanthropology, but can not constitute it as a whole. In my current view a concept of cyberculture has to consist of the aspects ICTs, cybernetics as a topos, sociocultural appropriation, and cyberpunk—just as I tried to sum it up in ↵wtf is cyberanthropology?. This abstract is the state-of-my-art concerning the topic. Now I’ve got to get to grips and write it out in full.