The Core Ideas of Stuart Hall - Essay Example

Art and Identity: The Core Ideas of Stuart Hall Stuart Hall is by far among the most legendary, influential figures in the field of cultural studies. He is among the pioneers who helped in founding cultural studies as an scholastic discipline and he has also influenced the modification of the principles of social in relation to culture. Stuart was born in Jamaica where he joined the Jamaica College after which he became a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford University. He resided and worked in the UK from 1951 and in 1979, he became a university lecturer in the department of Sociology at the Open University in England. Most of Stuart’s writings are on the subjects of hybridity, identity, ethnic relations, multi-culturalism, and the principles of difference. Due to his massive use of Marx’s methods in the analysis of relationships between various cultures and the political economy, Stuart is regarded as a Marxist theorist. One of Stuart’s most popular works pertaining art and identity is “introduction: Who Needs Identity?" in Questions of Cultural Identity,” which he wrote in the company of Paul du Gay. Hall and Gay (4) concisely stipulate that, “identities are by no means ever unified” they continue to assert that in late contemporary times, identities are progressively more fragmented and broken. This can be construed to mean that identities are never singular, but instead aggressively proliferate across different discourses, activities, and contexts. They are dependent on a dynamic historicization, and are always in the process of modification and renovation. Identities are consequently established inside, not outside representation. Hall and Gay (4) assert that since identities are established in, not outside, the context at hand, there is a need to identify with them as fashioned in particular chronological and institutional points within particular discursive structures and activities, using precise and articulate approaches. They continue to affirm that identities materialize during particular modalities of authority, and can therefore be perceived to be more the end products of the marking of variation and segregation, than symbols of similar, naturally-constituted unity As a consequence, Hall and Gay (4) reckon that and identities are established by means of, not outside, difference. Hall and Gay (5) also point out that identities can only be used for identification and attachment due to their tendency to exclude, and be abjected. According to Hall and Gay, (5) all identities have their thresholds, surfeits, and ability to be amplified. In a bid to expound on the ‘deconstructive’ twist in cultural studies, Hall and Gay, (6) argue that, while it has been “put under erasure,” there is a need to keep on looking ‘identity’ as ‘identification.’ At a glance, Hall and Gay core ideas pertaining identity in a traditional and poststructualist view are as follows. At a traditional view, identity is the recognition of common origin or collective attributes between different individuals; it is an innate closure of unity and allegiance founded on the individuals with collective traits; it can be ‘acquired’ or achieved, sustained or discarded. At a poststructualist view, identity is a process of construction that is infinite. In relation to the Hall and Gay core ideas pertaining identity in Who Needs Identity?," I think identity is a very complex and broad topic. I think Halls core ideas about and identification is the most appropriate point of reference trying to explicate identity. People see themselves and identify themselves with a set of attributes of a particular group and for that reason, identities can be said to processes of construction because groups tend to evolve and change over time to adapt to the ever-changing society As a result, a person’s identity is bound to change over time and it keeps on changing. When peoples’ identities change their cultures also follow suit and this explains events such as globalization and colorization happened. As Hall asserts identities can also be created through difference. People can only establish their identities through the process of observation and socialization. They find themselves in what they are deficient in. Consequently; identity can only be created where two different parties interact and identity can only subsist where there is a conflict between parties with different concepts perceptions and principles. Drawing reference from Hall’s core ideas, I think this is the reason why society has made racial identity, such a major point of reference and this problem will continue to persist if because identity will always be viewed in terms of a group of people with similar and collective attributes. In Hall’s article “The Global, the Local, and the Return of Ethinicity” which he compiled in 1996, Hall commences with a section by the name “Narrating the Nation: An Imagined Community”. In this section, Hall establishes his ideas regarding national culture and the manner in which the narrative of national cultures is passed on. He starts by defining national culture which he says is a discourse; a process of establishing meanings that influence and put our activities and how we perceive ourselves in order. National cultures generate meanings their respective countries, which citizens can identify with. According to hall, These meanings usually integrate identities of both the past and the future of the country. Hall then poses the question, how are is this discourse told? He then explicates five major fundamentals of answering this question. The first element as Hall explains is the narrative of the nation: the anecdotes, occasions, and ceremonies, which are a symbol of the nation’s shared experiences and mind-sets. The second element is Origins, continuity, tradition, and timelessness: the facets of national culture that have subsisted since that nation’s establishment. The third element is The invention of tradition: the activities of a ritual or emblematic nature that are put in place to indoctrinate some specific principles, norms and codes of conduct through repetition thus automatically leads to continuity. The fourth element is the Foundational myth: they give a narrative of the chronological events that lead to the establishment contemporary norms and activities. The fifth element is Pure original people or "folk": here Hall argues that the foundation of national identity is usually rooted these people, albeit they are usually not the individuals who hold power. After discussing the five fundamentals of the narrative of national culture, Hall summarizes some key points which are fundamental in understanding national identity. He explicates that the narrative of national culture as a summation of historical and future identities, thus implying that the identity of a nation depends on what has transpired in the nation and what the nation predicts and hopes to achieve in future. Hall also refers to Immanuel Wallerstein, who is mainly known for the quote, “universalism through particularism and particularism through universalism.” In reference to Wallerstein’s citation, Hall affirms that at times national cultures attempt to go back into the past and do carry out their activities as they used to when the nation was ‘great.’ Hall reckons that, when nations endeavor to go back to the former glories and reinstate their old identities, their cultures are concurrently attempting to pursue modernity. They are trying to hide efforts to organize and become major contenders in international affairs. Hall epitomizes this by giving Britain in the 1980s as an example. he articulates that in retrospect, imperialism became contemporary glories while Britain was concurrently go through a kind of transformation in as it got ready for a new phase of international capitalist antagonism. Consequently, "universalism through particularism and particularism through universalism" according to Hall meant that national cultures are endorsing their older identities with the intention of assimilating their old glories and at the same time unique and better in the contemporary time and age. Hall stipulates that globalization is bringing about novel identity positions in the global arena, especially countries in the West. To Hall some the effects of globalization are the likelihood of an amplification of local identities, or materialization of novel identities. Hall articulates that dominant ethnic groups usually make the amplification of their local identities especially when they feel threatened the presence of minority ethnic groups. He refers to this process as “cultural racism” because the dominant ethnic group embarks on a campaign aimed at making members know that they should be one unified group that filters out any threats to their societal experience. Hall articulates that these campaigns are usually founded on the idea that the dominant group is more superior. The materialization of a novel identity on the other hand comes as a result of marginalized minority groups from all races coming together under where they form a new identity. To epitomize this, Hall gives the example of the concept of being “black” which he says is a term used to refer to all the minority ethnic groups regardless of their color, and even if they are from a culturally or linguistically different ethnic composition, the white culture usually sees the all to belong to the black culture. Globalization according to Hall has a pluralizing effect on identities. This is because it provides numerous possibilities and opportunities to mold their identification, thus making national identities more political and diverse. In the article, Hall seems adamant that national identities are usually not as united cohesive and homogenous as they are embodied. He explicates that Globalization, which construes to mean as a dynamic and multifaceted process of change has immensely disrupt national cultural identities. Hall argues that from 1970s, the extent, and speed of international integration have significantly augmented, leading to an acceleration of the flows and connection between countries. This rise affiliations and migration of people and merchandise between countries has led to three major effects on national and cultural identities. These include erosion of national identities due to establishment of cultural homogenization, amplification of “local” or particularistic identities, and the declining national identities are being replaced by new identities of hybridity “The Popular Arts: Minority Art, Folk Art and Popular Art” is yet another great work by Stuart Hall and Paddy Whannel. In this article, Hall and Whannel give a concept regarding popularity in scholarly literature. Hall and Whannel do not present a straightforward description of the term popular art. Instead, they view popular art as a classification between fine art and something more inferior in quality i.e. the products of the mass media which is also referred to as an art by Hall The difference between these 3 types of art is based loosely on their quality. Nonetheless, Hall and Whannel concisely point out some particular inherent characteristics of popular art. In popular art there tends to be a substructure of the popular where popular mind-sets and popular lingo are used by the artists who claim to produce this type of art. This is a very tentative perception of popularity, and the authors stress that the boundaries between their three types of art are porous. This means that popular art can progress towards art that is more superior or deteriorate into mass into more inferior art. Bearing this mind, it is usually very difficult to distinguish between the three types of art. The term popular art can have several definitions and a variety of meanings. However not all of them are practical. For example, using the definition of the word popular, popular art can be said to mean art that is liked by many people, listen to by many people, bought by many people, read numerous people, and idolized by many people. This definition is not specifically wrong. To this definition, Hall appends a derogatory twist: he refers to the definition as a market or commercial explanation of the term. Hall quite appropriately links this definition with the manipulation and disparagement of the culture of the people. Hall then comes up with a second, purportedly superior definition of the term The definition given by Hall to counter the supposedly inferior definition is very descriptive in nature. He terms popular culture as everything that is usually done by people and everything that has been done by people. This definition has an anthropological niche because it draws a lot of reference for cultural lifestyles, customs, and folkways of ‘the people’. This definition is almost similar to the first definition which Hall considered as narrow because it also associates popularity with the ‘common people’ and their way of life. At some point, even Hall reject his definition which he alleged would be more superior since it is difficult to clearly point out what can be referred to as popular culture and what cannot. This is because Hall’s definition failed to explain can be considered as “the people” and cab be considered as “not people.” As a result Hall decided to fix this by coming up with a third definition which he approves of Like the narrow definition, Halls 3rd definition is class-specific. The difference between Hall’s definition and the narrow definition of popular art is the class-specificity in hall’s definition is not negative (it is not negative, vulgar or insulting.) instead it is a definition derived from a Marxist perspective, which tends to be even positive (anti-hegemonic). This definition is undoubtedly of interest for any academic in seeking to find out the political and social facets of popular art and culture. Nonetheless, from a general point of view, one might get seeking to know the meaning of popular art and culture might get bewildered because Hall gives a very wide and general explanation of what it is. He uses the term “the popular” as opposed to “popularity.” He also includes facets of what could also be referred to as mainstream culture. Conclusion Stuart Hall is perhaps the most gifted and influential figures who has covered the concepts of art and identity. His core ideas regarding are thought provoking and insightful to say the least. His core ideas identity is predominantly based in the process of history and through socialization of an individual and a group of individuals. However, I feel that he should have considered the identity that develops due to lack of socialization an individual. For example, introverts do not develop their identities through socialization. I also disagree with Stuart where he claims that without socialization the collective culture would not change. It is known that introverts are the most innovative people; they come up with ground-braking inventions that change the way people think and live when they are alone. For example, Bill Gates, a self-proclaimed introvert came up with a technology that has changed the identities of nations and individuals all over the globe. Works cited Hall Stuart; Held David; Hubert David; and Thompson Kenneth. “Narrating the Nation: An Imagined Community" Hall, Stuart in Modernity: An Introduction to modern Societies” Blackwell Publishers, pp- 613- 618, 1996. Print Hall Stuart and Gay Paul. “Introduction: Who Needs Identity? 1969. Web Hall Stuart and Whannel, Paddy. “The Popular Arts: Minority Art, Folk Art and Popular Art” Hutchison Educational Press, pp 45-66, 1969. Print Read More