"Drama is culture" is an ambiguous assertion that is frequently mentioned, yet rarely clearly explained. This study aims to prove that drama is indeed culture by first examining both traditional and newly-extended definitions of culture and secondly, by analyzing dramatic contents and forms of three selected dramas, thereby establishing the concrete connection between the literary genre of the drama and the formation of culture. Despite the fact that, according to Raymond Williams, culture is "one of the two or three most complicated words in the English language," the attempt to define culture has been ceaseless. Among the various definitions of culture, C. A. van Peursen`s is notable in its unique approach. He considers culture not as static, but as dynamic; he views it as an act of doing and becoming, rather than as a collection of art pieces. To Peursen, culture is not the result of human activity, but an activity in itself. Considering that drama, by definition, implies action and doing, the similarity and correlation between the two concepts becomes apparent. The critical and constructive energy of our times has been typically focused on the transformation from the centralized perspective that views the world as a hierarchy of dichotomies, with reason and civilization at the center, to the decentralized one that attempts to do away with boundaries established by such reason and civilization. Churchill`s , Hwang`s , and Shepard`s prove to be positive examples of the effort to make a change to the decentralized from the centralized, world with its stubbom dichotomy of man/woman, west/east, civilization/nature, and so forth. These works indeed demonstrate how drama becomes a dynamic act of doing, i.e. culture by presenting the limitations of this centralized world and urging a movement toward a decentralized world.