Stuart Hall’s debate

Stuart Hall’s Identity Discussions

Stuart Hall’s identity discussions raise fundamental problems about how society evolves and embraces new phenomena throughout time. Stuart defines identity as what differentiates one person from the rest, a group from another, a nation-state from another, and so on. Stuart Hall, on the other hand, maintains that the formation of identities is a continuous and relative process rather than a single ad isolated one. This resulted in the emergence of new and old identities, with the former deriving from the latter. According to Stuart, the new identities strengthened by technological breakthroughs and the growth of Western cultures are just a validated mirror of previous types of identities. replicated into the new phenomena so that we have the westernized Japanese identity, the westernized Indian identities, etc. only infer that the new or emergent identities only seek to expand the existing roots and formalities of the old identities. In essence, the old ways continue to influence the new ways in a more profound way.

Overall Perspective on New Identities

Overall, Stuart maintains that the new identities have not managed to stand alone to develop their individual identities but instead leaned on the old identities to advance their cause. This organization of thought reflects Immanuel Kant’s ideas of immaturity. Kant maintained that immaturity is the inability of one to use their understanding without relying on the guidance of another. Kant calls this the self-incurred immaturity. Consequently, we can see Hall’s description of the new identities and the old identities being reflected in Kant assertion of immaturity and dependencies. The new immature identities depend solely on the old ones to develop concepts, theoretical paths, and mannerisms for them. For instance, the modern societies depend largely on the western mannerisms/ cultural identities hence cannot stand on their feet without the assistance of the western forms of identities. Based on these perspectives, the current cultural societies (new identities), other than the western identity, can be regarded as the immature identities whose core practices are guided solely from other quarters.

Language and Meaning Implication

The concept of language and the meaning implication is underpinned in different but rather complementing ways in the works of Jacques Derrida and Friedrich Nietzsche. The debates about language and linguistic meanings is an elaborate and complex undertaking in the works of the two authors. The main contention between Derrida and Nietzsche is the linguistic relationships between words and their meaning implications. Nietzsche’s work is very hard to understand since he does not offer justification to his allegations but rather chooses to leave them open for interpretation by readers. We can only attribute Nietzsche’s implications on language and meaning based on his debates about language and its symbolic interpretations. Of key importance in Nietzsche’s arguments is his reference to metaphors and linguistic concepts in a bid to discern the underlying truth implied in a statement. This concept is very important in understanding Nietzsche take on language and the meaning implication.

Use of Metaphors in Language

Nietzsche seems to support the argument that metaphors (the linguistic structures) can be used as explanatory models to illustrate the complexities of meaning in language. According to Nietzsche, by simply looking at the words, we cannot discern meaning out of them but rather the meaning implication is abstract and depends on the persons speaking or writing the texts. In these arguments, Nietzsche’s take corresponds with those of Derrida on various fronts. For instance, Derrida maintains that communication cannot be used as a priori transmission of meaning implications. According to Derrida, there exists a multiplicity of meanings in communication aspects. Consequently, a word can be used in different scenarios or in the same scenario to imply the same or different meanings depending on the speaker’s preferences. As such, mere communication cannot be used as a vehicle or a means of transport for meanings to enable understanding of the truth. That is, the meanings of spoken or written words do not imply the inner thoughts or intentions of the speaker directly or consistently but are rather subject to contextual interpretations. These observations deconstruct the former theories that meaning and thoughts (intentions) are expressed in words spoken by an individual. By taking a contrary position, Nietzsche and Derrida take the realists position in interpreting meanings in language by dissociating it from the word in its written or spoken form and placing these in their immediate contexts for better understanding.

Freud’s Description of Symptom

Sigmund Freud’s description of the term ’symptom’ has been utilized in a very constructive way in the writings of Jean Baudrillard. According to Freud, the construction of a symptom describes a substitute for something else which never happened but instead, existed in imaginations to represent the real happening. Baudrillard arguments regarding the simulacra resemble Freud’s definition of the symptom in its totality. According to Baudrillard, the modern cultures and identities are a representation of realities (symptoms) and not the ideal cultural ideologies as they ought to be. The media constructs define and disseminate an unreal culture and identity. The media then constructs an ideology around this constructed culture and convinces the society to adopt it without actual referencing to the ideal cultural identities. In this way, therefore, Jean Baudrillard’s ideologies about the modern, unreal culture and the identities surrounding is a direct construction from Sigmund Freud’s symptom. It is an existing ideology which is a representation of ideologies that never existed, same as Sigmund’s description of symptoms.

Postmodernist Views on Simulacra

The interpretation of culture and simulacra is the subject of discussion in the majority of the postmodernist theorists. Although the word dates back to the 16th century, designating representation of reality, its application is evident in the present scenarios. Derrida and Baudrillard views on simulacra are similar on various fronts. Attributing the concept of simulacra to the postmodern societies in which the media (television, the internet, billboards, etc.) have consistently shaped the perceptions, actions, and reasoning of the people, the influence of Simulacra as the shaping theory has remained largely predominant in shaping the dominant cultures. Both Baudrillard and Derrida agree to the fact that the dominant western culture simulated through the media has not only reduced culture and behavior to a mere representation of reality but has also made it unreal in all perspectives.

Influence of Dominant Culture

According to Baudrillard and Derrida, there is always a dominant culture in the society which acts as the pathfinder to the other scenarios around the world. The popular modern culture, on the other hand, is the western culture, propagated by the media and the popular advertisement channels. The ideologies of the dominant culture, therefore, functions to construct new ideologies in other societies which in turn shapes the perception of reality. Due to these, the constructed reality is a mere simulation of a non-existent ideology, simulacra. However, the obsession of the society with the simulacra more than the reality has made it rather difficult to discern the facts, the genuine reality. Although Baudrillard insists on ’absolute simulacra’ as the onus of the present dominant culture, Derrida holds to the opinion that this can change, only if reality was constructed based on the genuine ideologies and not simulated perceptions.

Influence of Mass Media on Modern Culture

The modern mass culture is very different from the old cultural identities which dominated the societal thinking, language, behavior and mannerisms of the centuries before. Three thinkers Stuart Hall, John Berger and Jean Baudrillard, have addressed the aspects of the modern mass culture in rather similar ways. Based on the arguments of the three, the popular culture is constructed by the media rather than inherited. Consequently, Baudrillard, Berger, and Hall have laid specific claims on the influence of its various instruments, including the Disneyland, advertising, and the TV, all operating in a 24/7 world. Hall’s discussions on the old and new identities complement the observations made by Baudrillard regarding the simulacra and the reality in the ideological making. According to the two thinkers, the modern mass culture (what Stuart Hall refer to as the new identity) is characterized by a misconception of reality rather than reflecting the true nature of reality in itself. The media, in its various segments (TV, advertisements, billboards, etc.) constructs the reality and defines the perception of the society regarding the concepts and precepts of the mass (popular) culture or identities.

The popular culture, according to Baudrillard, Berger and Hall is the culture of the developed societies, primarily the western societies and is transmitted/ propagated across the world through the media. In this way, the mass media constructs the ideologies around an individual regarding the language, identities, and behaviors forcing the popular ideologies on culture to shift systematically from the realities of the individual cultures to adopt the identities created by the media. This is what Baudrillard and Berger refer to as the ’simulacra,’ a representation of reality; itself, not real. Primarily, the three thinkers agree to the fact that the modern mass culture isn’t real in its various perspectives but is rather constructed to simulate/ resemble the real cultures instead.