Stuart Hall/REVISED According to Stuart Hall, culture is about shared meanings; language is the medium through which meaning is produced and exchanged (Hall, 2003, p. 1). In linking language to identity and culture, Hall uses the word "culture" in an anthropological sense, meaning to distinguish groups of people, whether they belong to a community, nation or social group, by their shared values. The shared values are manifest in literature, art, music and philosophy of the culture. The shared values shape customs and the very fabric of human life, ultimately influencing everything people do. Some shared values are seen in different cultures, while there are a few groups, often in relatively isolated regions of the globe, that have unique values unto themselves, producing customs, practices and beliefs that seem strange to the rest of the world. As Hall puts it, saying that two people belong to the same culture is to say "they interpret the world in roughly the same ways and can express themselves, their thoughts and feelings about the world, in ways which will be understood by each other" (Hall, p. 2). The way individuals make meaning also governs the way we set rules, norms and conventions in our society. Making meaning, which we do through language, shapes our identities as members of particular groups and provides the structure in which we live our lives. The purpose of this paper is to examine how Hall's notion of language, identity and culture explain differences between individuals from the western hemisphere and those from the Middle East.

Summary

Hall's Idea About Language, Culture, and Identity Difference

Hall defines language broadly. They are "systems of representation" (p. 4) and not confined to what we typically think of as language: written and verbal forms. He also includes the language of music, which certainly conveys ideas and emotions, as well as what he terms the "language of the body." This last language uses different means to express meaning. Without speaking, people convey ideas and feelings through their facial expressions, posture, hand gestures, clothing and hair styles. Individuals can use their outward appearance to convey their values and beliefs without uttering a single word aloud.

Hall defines language even more broadly when he includes the "language" of television as electronically produced dots on a screen, the "language" of colored traffic lights, and the "language" of an exhibition in a museum. None of these have intrinsic value or meaning; meaning has been created when people agree what these "languages" represent and what they are supposed to be saying to us. Objects, people and events in the world do not carry just one, true meaning which language must reflect. Instead, "meanings [are] constantly shifting as we move from one culture to another, one language to another, on historical context, one community, group or subculture, to another" (Hall, p. 7). It is the reason that translating a work of literature is so difficult, why a product or ad can be successful in one country and not another, and why jokes that are hilarious to one group fall flat with another.

Language is so nuanced, it is hard, if not impossible, to convey exactly the same shades of meanings when translating, for example, between Farsi and English. Even if the word choices are accurate as defined by language dictionaries, there are subtleties only understood by native speakers. As well, there is cultural context. Someone who has grown up in Algiers, for example, would have an extremely difficult time understanding the rural Mississippi life described by William Faulkner. Even if the words make sense, the do not convey the same meaning as they do to an American reader. American readers can be separated even further into northerners and urban dwellers; there is a relatively small segment of the population that has either seen or experienced the kind of life Faulkner writes about. The meaning the language conveys for them is shaded differently from those who also speak English but have a different understanding of rural southern culture.

Hall calls meaning a "slippery customer, changing and shifting with context, usage and historical circumstances (Hall, p. 9). A good example is the word "gay," which had an original meaning of "full of joy, merry; light-hearted, carefree." By the 1890s, the word was used as an adjective for "house" when one wanted to refer somewhat more politely to a brother. The slang meaning for "homosexual" began to appear in psychological writing during the late 1940s, apparently picked up from...

"Gay" is still used, including by homosexuals, to describe homosexual preference. It is also used as a pejorative expression (e.g., "That's so gay," meaning something is dumb, lame, or ridiculous). At one time, homosexuality was not discussed in polite company. It is now more acceptable to discuss, and language has evolved to provide more vocabulary to use.
In Japan, there is a sports drink called "Sweat." It is not difficult to decipher the meaning that Japanese manufacturers were trying to make. When a person is physically active, she perspires and must replenish liquids to avoid dehydration. Therefore, the drink is designed for people who sweat. However, native English speakers snicker when they hear the name of the beverage; it is as though the liquid in the can is actually sweat. It is very unappealing to a culture that has a different grasp of the English language and a different understanding of the concept of a sports drink.

As Hall points out in the beginning of his introduction, "Meanings can only be shared through our common access to language" (p. 1). Culture and national identity, which are a large part of personal identity, is shared through language. It is mostly spoken language, since speaking is so immediate and crosses all socio-economic barriers. People do not learn to speak in the same way they learn to read and write; more people have access to spoken language because the learning process is more natural, whereas learning to read and write usually happens as part of a formal education process, to which not all people have access. There is also body language, learned the same way as spoken language, by observing and modeling others. A blog titled LoveHabibi.com is "a blog for Arabs and Muslims worldwide looking for love and their place in the world." In a post entitled More than Words: Arab Body Language, writer Anisa Benmoktar explains the differences between moves, signals and gestures in the Arab and non-Arab worlds. For example, in most cultures, staring is considered rude. In Arab cultures, strong eye contact demonstrates interest and engagement during a meeting or discussion. Staring in public, however, is considered rude and staring at women is a definite taboo. An example of a mixed message is what the non-Arab world would call the "A-OK gesture." The tips of the finger and the thumb are made into a circle to signify that everything is all right. In an Arab country, it symbolizes the evil and is typically used to curse the person to whom the gesture is being made (Benmoktar, 2009).

Meanings, as Hall points out, mobilize powerful feelings and emotions that can be both positive and negative. "They sometimes call into question our very identities" (Hall, p. 10). This assertion is exemplified by the question of multilingualism and the decline of the Arabic language in Middle Eastern societies. Sati al-Husri, a Syrian writer and spiritual father of linguistic Arab nationalism wrote almost fifty years ago:

"Every person who speaks Arabic is an Arab. Every individual associated with an Arabic-speaker or with an Arabic-speaking people is an Arab. If he does not recognize [his Arabness]… we must look for the reasons that have made him take this stand… But under no circumstances should we say: "As long as he does not wish to be an Arab, and as long as he id disdainful of his Arabness, then he is not an Arab." He is an Arab regardless of his own wishes, whether ignorant, indifferent, recalcitrant, or disloyal; he is an Arab, but an Arab without consciousness of feelings, and perhaps even without conscience" (Salameh, 2011).

In contrast to Hall's broad definition of language, al-Husri's view seems much more literal and narrow. He defines as an Arab anyone who speaks the language or as anyone associated with an Arabic speaker. In referencing spoken Arabic, al-Husri is making a distinction from the literary standard Modern Arabic, derived from the language of the Quran and taught widely in schools. Spoken Arabic takes many variations and is used in places from the Middle East to North Africa. Looking further at al-Husri's quote, it is clear he believes "Arab" refers to both a spoken language and to an identity. In this, he and Hall are in agreement. The language makes meaning for this particular culture; the culture makes meaning of the language. The commonality of language, in al-Husri's view, bound together the Arab people. It is a view shared for most of the twentieth century by Arabs, Arab nationalists, and even (or perhaps especially) by westerners…