Stuart Hall/Revised According to Stuart Hall, Culture

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 slang used by that particular population (Harper, 2012). "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 who considered most Middle Easterners to be Arab.

Salameh (2011) points out there is "an assumed linguistic unity of the Arab peoples," but this is a false premise. Contrary to popularly held belief, Arabic is not a single, uniform language. Salameh further explains, "[Arabic is] a codified, written standard that is never spoken natively and that is accessible only to those who have had rigorous training in it…[it] is also a multitude of speech forms." Thus, even within what is known as "the Arab world," there is a gap of understanding. Hall states that meaning cannot be considered to have completed cultural circuit until it has been decoded or intelligibly received at another point in the chain (p. 10). This is not to say that Arab peoples cannot and do not communicate with one another. However, it is to say that there is not a single identity associated with "Arab." Within the Arab peoples there is a division between those who can read the written standard and those who cannot. Symbols representing language distinguish those who have been formally educated and those who have not. Arabic is also a multitude of speech forms "differing from each other and from the standard language itself to the same extent that French is different from other Romance languages and from Latin (Salameh). This is an important point. The ability to speak one form does not necessarily mean one can speak another form. Likewise, a person who speaks French cannot speak Spanish without also learning that second language, even though there are similar words and grammar structure. A person who speaks French cannot be understood by someone who only speaks Spanish. Again, there are similar words, but the similarities are not sufficient to make the languages interchangeable. So it is with Arabic, yet there is the assumption that the language unifies a group of people that are really bound by physical geography. In his book Language, Memory and Identity in the Middle East, Salameh calls Arabic "a dead language." No Arab really speaks Arabic. There is no cohesive Arab nation, no collective Arab memory, and thus no living and pure Arabic language (Nisan, 2011).

It is important to make the distinctions about Middle Easterners and Arabs. There is the matter of national identity, which is important to one's individual identity. Borrowing from the example above, it is akin to calling a Frenchman a Spaniard, or vice versa. Language and culture are a huge part of who we are. Take those away, and a big part of personal identity is removed.

Examples from the Researcher by Taking the Middle East as a Context

to Show How Language Represents Culture

It is important to make the distinctions to provide the world population with a clearer understanding of Middle East identities. Middle Easterners encompass different languages, cultures and identities. After the horrific events of September 11, 2001, making the distinctions was more important than ever. Suddenly the world became a more dangerous place for all Middle Easterners because of the actions of a very few. Language, identity and culture became muddled. "Arab" was not only an umbrella word for all Middle Easterners, but it was a word that engendered suspicion and distrust and became synonymous with fear and hatred.

The hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. Citizens of that nation are commonly referred to as "Saudis," but of course the fact that the country name has "Arabia" in it gives rise to references of its citizens as "Arabs." In the weeks following the terrorist attacks, there was an upsurge of anti-Arab hate crimes. The hijackers did not act on behalf of all Saudis and thus they certainly did not act on behalf of all Arab nations or Middle Eastern peoples. Yet, in the minds of many "Arabs" were responsible for this heinous act.

Our conceptions of ourselves and of our social groups overlap (Smith, Coats, & Walling, 1999, and Smith & Henry, 1996, cited in Johns, Schmader and Lickel, 2005). Americans rallied together in a way that had perhaps not been seen since the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941. "Although all citizens of a country share their nationality in common, there is likely to some variability in the degree to which individuals identify with this social association" (Johns, et al., p. 333). There was little variability in the days and weeks following the terrorist attack. The tragedy unified the nation and made individual Americans identify strongly with Americans everywhere. The attack on New York was an attack on all of the United States and taken personally as an attack on all Americans. Even people who were not directly affected experienced a profound sense of grief and, in many cases, outrage. For some, the terrorist act could be distilled down to the simple "Arab vs. American," and hence anti-Arab sentiments took hold.

It was a difficult time to be a person with a Middle Eastern identity. There was the assumption by many that all Middle Easterners were Arabs. Just as Americans were united in their identity in the wake of the tragedy, it was assumed that all Arabs were likewise united by radical religious beliefs. Middle Easterners were viewed with suspicion. In this way, an identity was created. People who had previously shared little or no culture, language, and identity suddenly became part of a newly created identity. Americans and their allies distrusted "Arabs." Anyone thought to be an Arab was automatically under suspicion and was someone to be feared. This was particularly true at airports and on planes, although any form of public transportation was difficult at that time for people perceived to be of Arab extraction. There was little attempt to understand that "Arab" has a broad definition in terms of language, culture and identity; Middle Easterner has an even broader definition. When people are controlled by fear, they do not take the time to be logical and reasonable. The suspicion and outrage Americans felt became part of their national identity for a time, and it was directed toward an identity they had created for "the Arab."

Not all Americans acted in a hostile way toward Middle Easterners. In fact, in a study by Johns, Schmader and Lickel (2005), the majority of university students surveyed reported feeling shame on behalf of fellow Americans who were violent toward Middle Easterners or even made derogatory remarks. These students were not terrorist sympathizers but ordinary Americans who identified strongly with their country. They understood that one could not characterize all Middle Eastern people as "terrorists" any more than one could categorize all Americans as being racially-biased and violent. Still, the sample of students was small -- just 83. The sample was taken from a university population and therefore not representative of the nation at large. As suspicion of "Arabs" became part of the American culture and identity, suspicion became part of the Middle Eastern identity too. Those of us who looked like we were Arab were fearful that anti-Americanism and sympathy with terrorist groups would be assumed. We saw people look at us with suspicion. There was always prejudice against people who looked different and whose language, culture and national identity seemed so foreign to others in the world. With the attacks of 9/11, being an "Arab," or even being perceived as an "Arab," was fraught with new dangers.

How Does the Reading Help Me as a Researcher to Understand the Complex Interrelationship Between Language, Culture, and Identity Differences

When an individual identifies himself with a particular culture, its languages are comfortable and natural. They are the standards by which every other language is measured. As Hall shows, there is no language that is inherently good or correct. We use words, clothing, facial expressions, gestures and music to express ourselves. The languages we use are the norm; other people's languages, meanings, cultures and identities are the ones that are foreign. Hall's article reminds us of context. One's own language, culture and identity are perhaps foreign to someone else.

The Issues Hall Fails to Address in His Work

In summarizing his introduction, Hall states, "We should perhaps learn to think of meaning less in terms of 'accuracy' and truth' and more in terms of effective exchange" (Hall, p. 11). He is speaking about the absence of absolute truth in the global perspective. The A-OK sign has very different meanings to Arabs and non-Arabs. To the non-Arab, it is a positive gesture, one which expresses pleasure and confidence. To the Arab, the same gesture is a threat and connotes evil. It is the same physical movement, the connection of forefinger and thumb, but the meaning is completely different. To show the gesture with one cultural meaning to someone who recognizes it with the opposite meaning is to cause puzzlement, at best, and anger or fear at worst. It is a mistake easily made and the type of mistake that international business schools, cultural education programs and the like seek to teach participants to avoid. The consequences of erroneous communication through body language, even when unintentional, can be either laughable or disastrous, depending on the circumstances.