Sure. Though of course it's not as if escaping one's own cultural context is either an option or desirable. It's academically interesting (or would be if we could come up with a falsifiable hypothesis-- and failing that it's still perfect for a net discussion :-) ). But it doesn't practically alleviate the day-to-day fact of being trapped on an L car surrounded by people apparently raised in a barn. :-) Or the incentives it creates to not be so, for those who want to encourage the use of public transit or other shared spaces. (That people have a culturally valid reason to talk conversationally in movie theaters isn't going to change the fact that it contributes to declining attendance as the alternatives improve.)
There's also an inherent asymmetry that favors the more intrusive custom over the less, such that the only way to even approach a balance is with some sort of fairness-based norm or other culturally negotiated settlement. Given a world evenly divided into a loud culture and a quiet culture, then perfectly mixed, you'd still get vastly more people asking "Why are they so noisy?" than "Why are they so quiet?" One custom obtrudes into the enjoyment of the other, where the other is barely noticeable to its counterpart until/unless it asks to be accommodated.
Not unlike smoking: a given culture can be smoking-tolerant or smoking-intolerant. But a train car with 99 active smokers and one nonsmoker is a smoking car, and a car with one active smoker and 99 nonsmokers is a smoking car. Same with loud cell phone use, strong perfumes, etc.: the inactive trait by its nature loses to the active trait unless an accommodating norm can be established. Fairness being presumptively identified with the active side getting its way 100% of the time strikes me as close to a reductio ad absurdum, suggesting that justice (however broadly defined and disputable in its details) almost certainly demands some concession to the other side once they're both acknowledged to exist. (Certainly I'd settle for a single enforced quiet car per train.)
Which isn't to say that the accommodations can't be pushed too far the other way. (While it's invariably to my increased comfort, I'd say smoking restrictions have long passed that point.)
no subject
There's also an inherent asymmetry that favors the more intrusive custom over the less, such that the only way to even approach a balance is with some sort of fairness-based norm or other culturally negotiated settlement. Given a world evenly divided into a loud culture and a quiet culture, then perfectly mixed, you'd still get vastly more people asking "Why are they so noisy?" than "Why are they so quiet?" One custom obtrudes into the enjoyment of the other, where the other is barely noticeable to its counterpart until/unless it asks to be accommodated.
Not unlike smoking: a given culture can be smoking-tolerant or smoking-intolerant. But a train car with 99 active smokers and one nonsmoker is a smoking car, and a car with one active smoker and 99 nonsmokers is a smoking car. Same with loud cell phone use, strong perfumes, etc.: the inactive trait by its nature loses to the active trait unless an accommodating norm can be established. Fairness being presumptively identified with the active side getting its way 100% of the time strikes me as close to a reductio ad absurdum, suggesting that justice (however broadly defined and disputable in its details) almost certainly demands some concession to the other side once they're both acknowledged to exist. (Certainly I'd settle for a single enforced quiet car per train.)
Which isn't to say that the accommodations can't be pushed too far the other way. (While it's invariably to my increased comfort, I'd say smoking restrictions have long passed that point.)