The assumption of culture as an 'integrated-closed system' suggests a bounded, self-sufficient entity where all elements cohere harmoniously, largely insulated from external influence. While appealing for early structural-functionalist analyses, applying this lens to contemporary societies poses severe critical drawbacks.

Firstly, this view fails to capture the inherent dynamism and fluidity of culture. Contemporary societies are perpetually evolving, adapting, and transforming through internal innovation, individual agency, and contestations. A closed system perspective cannot adequately explain these processes of change, making cultural analysis rigid and ahistorical.

Secondly, it fundamentally ignores the pervasive effects of globalization and interconnectedness. In our world, cultures are constantly shaped by global flows of information, capital, technology, migration, and media. To consider them 'closed' is to deny their porosity and profound interdependence, missing crucial external drivers of cultural shifts and hybridity.

Thirdly, it oversimplifies internal diversity and masks power dynamics. No culture is truly monolithic or perfectly integrated. Within any community, there exist subcultures, competing ideologies, social hierarchies, and varied individual experiences. Assuming integration overlooks internal conflicts, resistance, and the uneven distribution of power and resources that shape cultural expression.

Finally, such a perspective often leads to essentialism and stereotyping. By portraying culture as a fixed, bounded entity, it risks reducing complex human groups to simplistic, often rigid, categories. This hinders a nuanced understanding of human agency and diversity, potentially fostering xenophobia by creating an artificial 'other'.

Understanding contemporary society thus requires acknowledging culture as permeable, contested, and constantly in flux, shaped by both internal dynamics and complex global interconnections.