In this rebuttal to Linn's critique (see EJ802887), the authors state that, while Linn provides a thoughtful critique of the culture-centered approach by questioning its feasibility, he missed the idea that the very concept of effectiveness is brought under scrutiny by the culture-centered approach, with the focus being on examining the universal "value" of the very interventions that are typically taken for granted by campaign planners and evaluators. In their earlier critique of the Radio Communication Project in Nepal (see EJ802883), these authors pointed out that the mobilization of culture to push agendas, as defined by external actors, co-opts the participatory capacities of local communities by framing such participation under the agendas of elite actors. They argued that the culture-centered approach provides an entry point for engaging with communities prior to intervention development to identify the needs of the community based on attitudes of respect and openness toward the community. Therefore, from a process perspective, the culture-centered approach provides a critique of the dominant framework of health education by questioning the processes and opportunities for participation and by suggesting alternative frameworks for conceptualizing participation in the realm of health. Finally, contradictory to the claim made by Linn, although the culture-centered approach seeks to offer democratic spaces for community participation and sees equality as a desirable goal of health communication efforts, it does not assume that health educators and community members are equals; rather, it foregrounds and challenges the foundations of these very inequities.