 However, culture critics have seized on immunology’s notions of autonomy as exemplifying modern notions of identity, where boundaries are contested, and the body becomes the localized site of battle between self and other (Sontag 1990; Haraway 1989; E. Martin 1994). These commentators cite the recognized permeability of living creatures, their symbiotic exchanges, and tolerance of myriad assimilated foreign materials to challenge the origin and cultural resonance of the atomistic framework. David Napier has characterized our “age of immunology” as an individualism marked by a preoccupation with the self and by an absence of transforming efforts to incorporate the foreign (Napier 2003). Active rejection enunciated with warfare metaphors so prevalent in immunology’s lexicon—“attack”, “defense”, “invaders”—dramatically illustrate this formulation, both in terms of the self/other dichotomy, as well as the privileged regard of individuality over community. On this view, the “immune self” appears as a metaphor to model Western culture, by invoking “immunization” as an explanatory model for understanding the core dynamics of post-industrial societies (Esposito 2011; Sloterdijk 2011). The metaphor’s wide application—from religion and metaphysics to housing and cities—invokes the dialectics of borders and exchange, individuality and communes, where the balance of intrusion and defense is invoked to characterize the “bubble” in which humans live. Note, these interpretations closely resonate with the dynamics of immunity regarded ecologically, as discussed above. 