Beyond Culture

“[S]tudying the models that men create to explain nature tells you more about the men than about the part of nature being studied.”

In a paradox, Hall underscores the tendency of humans to fixate on the model’s meaning rather than its design, performance, or purpose. More broadly, Hall implies that “men,” a generalized metonymy for all of humankind, reveal their own nature through artifacts of their own design.

“Culture is man’s medium; there is not one aspect of human life that is not touched and altered by culture.”

Hall’s alliterative description of culture highlights the creative aspect of this backdrop for human experiences. He emphasizes its universality with the repetition of “not,” and the repetition creates litotes, allowing Hall to underscore that culture’s intensive impact on all aspects of human life. Finally, Hall implies that culture has a dual role, both influencing and changing culture (“touched,” “altered”).

“The study of man is the study of his extensions.”

Hall is concise and epigrammatic, presenting a profound idea in a succinct manner; this statement serves as a central tenet encapsulating Hall’s perspective on the interconnectedness of humans and their extensions. Understanding human existence requires an exploration of the tools, technologies, and cultural artifacts that individuals create and utilize (i.e., extensions). The concept of extensions aligns with Hall’s emphasis on contexting, as the meaning and impact of extensions are deeply rooted in cultural contexts. Different cultures may have distinct sets of extensions that shape their ways of life, communication, and interaction. Thus, extensions are integral to Hall’s framework for studying the complexity of human behavior within cultural contexts and achieving cultural relativism.

“Everything man is and does is modified by learning and is therefore malleable. But once learned, these behavior patterns, these habitual responses, these ways of interacting gradually sink below the surface of the mind and, like the admiral of a submerged submarine fleet, control from the depths. The hidden controls are usually experienced as though they were innate simply because they are not only ubiquitous but habitual as well.”

Using an analytical tone, Hall wields a simile to ease the accessibility of his claim that patterns become deeply ingrained and control one’s actions from a subconscious, deep level. The admiral represents the hidden controls themselves that guide learned behavior, implying a strategic hold on one’s actions. Hall intensifies his claim by employing a tricolon to describe the patterns, which are even more memorable thanks to the repeated demonstrative “these.”

“The mental maps that we carry with us, based as they are on our own cultural experience, are little better than those Columbus had when he sailed west to find India in 1492. There are even great continents yet to be discovered—vast areas of human experience about which Western man knows nothing.”

Wielding the accessible metaphors of maps and a quest, Hall underscores the insufficiency of the intrinsic, unconscious understanding one has of their own culture. The internalized culture is sufficient in one’s own “territory,” but when moving into new contexts, externalization can change the perception of one’s self and others.

“[A]n unconscious undercurrent of synchronized movement tied the group together. […] I am sure that there will be composers who will know immediately what I am talking about and those who won’t, because they have been taught to look to other musicians for their music and to disregard the ocean of rhythm in which they are immersed in everyday life. Yet people swim in different oceans.”

Hall contrasts those who understand the theory of syncing and those who don’t, emphasizing that experiences and context can impact understanding. Hall uses the metaphor of undercurrents in the ocean to highlight the subtlety of shared rhythms and add depth to his idea. His final remark draws attention to the individual nature of cultural immersion and the complexity of cultural influences; cultures are just as vast, complex, and dynamic as oceans.

“The far-reaching consequences of what is attended can be illustrated by a characteristic fault in Western thinking which dates back to the philosophers of ancient Greece. Our way of thinking is quite arbitrary and causes us to look at ideas rather than events—a most serious shortcoming. Also, linearity can get in the way of mutual understanding and divert people needlessly along irrelevant tangents.”

Hall traces the roots of modern cultural misunderstandings to ancient Greek philosophy. Hall alludes to Plato, whose theory of ideas considers the physical world to be a copy of an abstract world, which is more real and enduring than the physical world. Thus, Plato, other philosophers in his school, and modern Western thinkers privilege abstract ideas over real-world events and people. Hall points to this philosophical framework as the disrupting force that prevents people from cultivating cross-cultural competence.

“Regardless of where one looks, one discovers that a universal feature of information systems is that meaning (what the receiver is expected to do) is made up of: the communication, the background and preprogrammed responses of the recipient, and the situation. (We call these last two the internal and external context.)

Therefore, what the receiver actually perceives is important in understanding the nature of context.”

Hall summarizes the components of meaning in information systems, emphasizing that meaning is not solely derived from the communication itself and implying that a holistic understanding of meaning requires consideration of not only the communicated message but also the recipient’s internal and external context. This broadens the scope of interpretation, and the latter-most mention of external context alludes to Hall’s earlier research on the connection between human space usage and behavior (or proxemics). Hall also acknowledges the subjectivity of perception and the diversity in how individuals interpret information in his final conclusion.

“The more that lies behind his actions (the higher the context), the less he can tell you.”

Hall captures a key aspect of his theory of contexts by using a paradox to highlight the relationship between cultural context and language; there is a correlation between the depth of cultural context and the challenge of linguistic expression because a profound cultural context adds complexity, history, and meaning to actions. Due to the layers of tradition and shared understanding, particularly in a high-context culture, Hall implies that cultural contexts are multifaceted and intricate rather than superficial. For these reasons, high-context cultures rely on nonverbal cues because the context is implicit rather than explicit (like in low-context culture).

“The classification system is an excellent example of how the majority of Western peoples have been trained to think. Since the days of Linnaeus, the system has been highly respected and occupies a prestigious niche in the edifice of Western thought. […] [T]he result has been, however, that whichever way we Westerners turn, we find ourselves deeply preoccupied in specifics, to the exclusion of everything else.”

Hall alludes to Carl Linnaeus, who developed a hierarchical system of binomial nomenclature to name and organize living organisms (i.e., taxonomy), contrasting his respected accomplishments with opposing effects in an antithetical statement. Hall uses intensifiers to emphasize his critique of Linnaean taxonomy, suggesting that focus on specifics is myopic. This historical perspective underscores the enduring influence of certain paradigms in Western thought; Hall implies that the Western emphasis on specific details impacts how individuals from Western cultures perceive and interpret information, potentially leading to a different understanding of context compared to cultures with different thinking patterns. In sum, Hall emphasizes the need for contexting to get a holistic understanding and build more integrative systems of thinking.

“As one moves from the physicist’s world of subatomic particles to living substance, one observes that things become even more uncertain and even less predictable as one ascends the phylogenetic scale. The essence of living substance is uncertainty. If uncertainty were taken seriously, the effect on research methods used in the investigation of complex life forms would be unmistakable.”

Hall underscores the inverse relationship between studying organisms and truly understanding them using adverbial intensifiers and a succinct sentence, breaking from his stylistic tendency toward compound sentences with several successive clauses. By highlighting the uncertainty of living organisms, Hall emphasizes the need for scientific research to embrace contexting and ensure adequacy rather than merely accuracy.

“In the West, we cling to the notion that there is such a thing as ‘the’ English language or ‘the’ French language, or ‘the’ Spanish culture or ‘the’ Navajo culture. The ‘the’ model is oversimplified. It does not do justice to either language or culture.”

Hall criticizes the oversimplified notion of a singular, definitive representation of languages or cultures (e.g., “the” English language or “the” Spanish culture). Hall argues against the reduction of diverse linguistic and cultural realities into singular entities, highlighting the inadequacy of such a model. In doing so, he implicitly highlights the diversity within languages and cultures that aligns with the concept of cultural relativity. This example resonates with Hall’s broader theme of Contexting as a Catalyst for Cultural Understanding, emphasizing that understanding languages and cultures requires an acknowledgment of the intricate contexts that shape them.

“Like Freud’s unconscious, the cultural unconscious is actively hidden and, like Freud’s patients, one is forever driven by processes that cannot be examined without outside help.”

Using a simile, Hall emphasizes the connection between Freud’s unconscious and the cultural unconscious; just as Freud’s patients needed external assistance to explore their unconscious processes, individuals navigating the cultural unconscious also require external insights or perspectives to understand their culture and move beyond it (the central tenet of Hall’s work) in order to remedy intercultural relationships and improve the world, a key theme. By aligning the cultural unconscious with Freud’s concept (i.e., the unconscious as a reservoir of thoughts, feelings, memories, desires, and experiences outside of awareness but nevertheless impactful on behavior), Hall leverages the familiarity of Freudian ideas to make the concept of the cultural unconscious more accessible to readers.

“Why bother studying action chains or even thinking about behavior in this way when there is already complexity with which to contend? Why? Because people held in the grip of action chains can never be free of them unless they see the AC’s for what they are.”

Hall connects action chains (ACs), cultural context, and the necessity of transcending one’s cultural perspective in his rhetorical question, challenging the reader to consider the purpose of delving into the intricacies of behavior and action sequences. The metaphorical “grip” of action chains represents the unconscious influence these patterns have on individuals, shaping their behavior within the cultural context. Hall suggests that to ameliorate intercultural relationships, individuals must transcend the limitations of their own cultural lens and shed ethnocentrism. By stepping outside their cultural viewpoint, one gains the ability to see their actions within a broader, more conscious framework, fostering greater understanding and adaptability in intercultural interactions.

“In most of life’s struggles, there are no villains and no heroes, and no one is to blame, because the nature of the cultural unconscious is such that by definition only a few even know it exists.”

Hall likens life’s struggles to a narrative where individuals are often categorized as either heroes or villains. By using this metaphor, Hall suggests that cultural interactions are not as straightforward as a scripted story with clear protagonists and antagonists, thereby conveying the nuanced nature of human behavior within cultural contexts. In real-life cultural encounters, people may not fit neatly into the roles of heroes or villains, as their actions are often shaped by complex cultural influences and unconscious factors. To overcome this mindset, Hall invites readers to move beyond simplistic judgments and recognize the multifaceted nature of cultural struggles, where understanding and navigating the cultural unconscious becomes essential for meaningful cross-cultural interactions.

“We could ask ourselves, of course: How are we supposed to know? The answer is: Make haste slowly and make use of the most skillful, subtle interpreter of the culture you can find.”

Hall employs a rhetorical question followed by a direct answer, creating a hypophora. The use of the rhetorical question engages the reader by prompting them to consider the question before providing a clear and direct response. Hall relies on the ancient adage “Make haste slowly,” an aphorism rooted in the ancient Roman world (Latin: festina lente) that encourages a measured and careful approach. By wielding this aphorism, Hall suggests that rushing into cross-cultural interactions can lead to misunderstandings. Hall instead emphasizes the importance of seeking guidance and understanding from individuals well-versed in the intricacies of the culture in question.

“All one can say when studying any aspect of a strange culture is: there is a system; the people who live by the system can tell you very little about the laws that govern the way the system works (they can only tell you if you are using the system correctly or not); there is little relationship between the manifest way in which the system is expressed (the meanings derived from it) and how it is organized; the system is bio-basic—rooted ultimately in the biology and physiology of the organism; the system is widely shared, yet has within it the capability of distinguishing not only between two or more members of a small group but between hundreds of thousands an even millions of members of a given culture.”

Hall concludes the chapter with a degree of irony in the phrase “all one can say is this.” While the phrase suggests a modest ability to articulate understanding, the subsequent explanation goes on to provide a comprehensive and intricate exploration of the challenges and characteristics of studying unfamiliar cultures. The repetition of “there is” at the beginning of multiple sentences creates an anaphoric structure, reinforcing key points and lending a rhythmic quality to the passage. Throughout, Hall emphasizes the importance of understanding the system within which communication and behavior occur, underscoring the challenge of grasping the underlying laws governing cultural systems. The notion that a system is both widely shared and capable of distinguishing among a vast number of individuals introduces a paradox, further emphasizing the intricate nature of cultural systems.

“Truth is printed on a page; reality is pictures. All of which conditions people to a flat, shallow approach to all sensory inputs. We live in an artificial, and for the most part two-dimensional, fragmented, manipulative world of advertising and propaganda.”

Hall critiques modern media, portraying it as artificial and manipulative while contributing to the lowering of cultural context in its reliance on two-dimensional communication. Through his critique, Hall implies that the reliance on visual representation limits the depth of understanding or engagement with the real world, prohibiting people from experiencing other senses or perceiving their reality in three dimensions. This preclusion prevents proper contexting, which in turn hinders progress toward cross-cultural understanding (the importance of which thematically features throughout Beyond Culture).

“Culture makes the average bright but may also dull the brilliant.”

Cultural norms and practices significantly influence how individuals perceive and remember information. Memory, in Hall’s view, is shaped by cultural context. The cultural emphasis on collective memory, shared narratives, or rituals can contribute to the enhancement of average memory capacities within a given cultural framework. Hall starkly describes in his programmatic statement how cultural constraints and expectations can impact exceptional individuals; brilliance, often associated with unique perspectives and sensory processing, might face challenges when cultural norms impose restrictions on unconventional sensory expressions.

“Anthropologists have known for a long time that all aspects of culture are interrelated. They also know that to change one thing is to change everything. […] [E]verything is interrelated, interdigitated, reflected in everything else, while overt culture is an extension of both mind and brain. Internalized culture is mind.”

Hall underscores the interconnectedness and interdependence of various elements within culture, by repeating “inter” as a prefix twice and using the phrase “reflected in everything else,” highlighting the complexity generated by unconscious cultural differences. The mention of overt culture as an extension of mind and brain implies the necessity of understanding the internalized aspects of culture. The interconnectedness highlighted here reinforces the importance of context in deciphering the layers of cultural meaning.

“Bureaucracies have no soul, no memory, and no conscience. If there is a single stumbling block on the road to the future, it is the bureaucracy as we now know it.”

Hall personifies bureaucracies, negatively characterizing them as lacking three distinctive human attributes. By highlighting the tricolon of missing attributes, Hall dehumanizes bureaucracies, encouraging readers to consider the deficiencies of institutions and how they hinder progress toward cross-cultural understanding.

“Understanding man, understanding culture, and understanding the world and unraveling the irrational are inseparable aspects of the same process. Culturally based paradigms place obstacles in the path to understanding because culture equips each of us with built-in blinders, hidden and unstated assumptions that control our thoughts and block the unraveling of cultural processes. Yet, man without culture is not man. One cannot interpret any aspect of culture apart from, and without the cooperation of, the members of a given culture.”

Using anaphora to create a parallel structure in the first sentence, Hall underscores the interconnectedness of understanding man, culture, and the world. The contrast between “understanding” and “unraveling the irrational” adds rhetorical flair, highlighting the complexity of the process. Describing cultural assumptions as “blinders” vividly conveys the idea of limitations imposed by cultural paradigms. Hall’s emphasis on cooperation for interpretation aligns with his advocacy for cross-cultural competence, a central theme. It echoes his belief that mutual understanding requires collaborative efforts between individuals from different cultures.

“A given culture cannot be understood simply in terms of content or parts. One has to know how the whole system is put together, how the major systems and dynamisms function, and how they are interrelated.”

Hall emphasizes the importance of viewing a culture holistically, treating it as a complex system rather than focusing solely on isolated elements. To comprehend a culture fully, one may need insights from various disciplines, including anthropology, sociology, psychology, and other social sciences. This interdisciplinary approach allows for a richer understanding of cultural phenomena. Hall highlights the complexity of cultures, suggesting that a reductionist approach is insufficient for a comprehensive understanding.