Harmonizing to Hall ( 1997a ) . diction theories suggest that even though we may speak of ourselves from our experiences. the individual who speaks and the topic being spoken of are ne’er indistinguishable. Identity in this respect is to be conceived as a production which is ne’er complete- “always in procedure. and ever constituted within. non outside. representation”- ( Hall. 1997a ) as opposed to sing it as a complete fact which is so represented by the new cultural patterns. However. this position shakes the legitimacy and authorization upon which the term cultural individuality bases its claim.
There are two ways in which cultural individuality can be thought of. The first position sees it in footings of a individual shared civilization. some sort of a corporate ‘one true self’ that is concealing indoors many other more unnaturally imposed egos that people with a shared history and lineage clasp in common ( Hall. 1997b ) . Within this position of description of cultural individuality. our cultural individualities mirrors those historical experiences that we hold in common and the shared cultural codifications which offer us as a people. a stable. changeless and uninterrupted frames of mention and significance. under the shifting categories and fluctuations of our existent history ( Hall. 1997a ) .
Singapore was envisioned by her leaders as a multi-ethnic society in which the component cultural groups shared engagement in common establishments while at the same clip retaining their distinguishable linguistic communications. imposts and faiths. The cultural classs represented self-evident. natural groups that would go on their being into the indefinite hereafter. Singaporean individuality hence implies being an Indian. a Chinese. or a Malay but in relation to other groups. This theoretical account of ethnicity demands the denial of of import internal fluctuations for each cultural group and the acknowledgment of differences between the classs ( Tsui & A ; Tollefson. 2007 ) .
The 2nd position of cultural individuality recognizes that there are similarities and of import differences which make up what we truly are. We can non persistently refer with exactitude to one experience and one individuality without acknowledging the other dimension. This other dimension represents the rifts and discontinuities that comprise cultural singularity.
In this 2nd sense. cultural individuality is viewed as an issue of both “becoming” and “being” . something that belongs to the hereafter every bit much as it belongs to the yesteryear. Cultural individualities in this respect have histories and therefore alterations invariably. In other words. cultural individualities are capable to the uninterrupted drama of history. civilization and power ( Hall. 1997a ) . Identity is the name given to the different ways we are placed. and put ourselves within the narrative of the yesteryear.
This 2nd construct of cultural individuality is more distressing and less familiar. How can the formation of individuality be understood if does non continue from a consecutive line or a fixed beginning? The Singaporean individuality can be thought of as composed of two vectors that operate at the same time. These are the vectors of rift and difference. and similarity and continuity.
The Singaporean individuality can be seen with respect to the relationship between the two vectors. Similarity and continuity brings to fore the realisation that it is the experience of cardinal discontinuity that the Indians. Malays and Chinese portion and among these are in-migration. colonisation and Asiatic beginning. It is hence interesting to look at how the construct of individuality. linguistic communication and cultural differences were created and how these constructs are related within the context of Singapore. The analysis herein presented will be based in Hall’s position of the nexus between linguistic communication. individuality and cultural difference.
Relationship between Language. Identity and Cultural Difference
The relationship between linguistic communication. civilization and individuality has emerged to be a heatedly contested subject in societal scientific disciplines. The inquiries that chiefly arise concern the evident difference between cultural and cultural individuality. Are these types of individualities similar or should they be differentiated conceptually. Assorted bookmans hold changing positions on the function of linguistic communication in the definition of one’s individuality. A major inquiry that one may be compelled to inquire is whether a civilization or cultural group can be considered to be alone if it does non hold its ain linguistic communication or in the least its ain rendering of a common lingua.
Cultural individuality is cosmopolitan whether it is expressed with respect to humanity or otherwise since people from every portion of the universe are witting of some sort of specificity that sets them apart from others. In contrast. cultural individuality merely look to take topographic point within complex societies when it seems functional to separate persons into classs founded upon something other than age. gender or business. Ethnicity is associated with cultural individuality since one must do mention to cultural. lingual or spiritual specialnesss in order to categorise persons.
Harmonizing to Hall ( 1997b ) . civilization is produced by representation. Culture concerns shared significance and the medium through which we make sense out of things is through the usage of linguistic communication. It is done linguistic communication that significance is produced and exchanged. The lone mechanism of sharing significance is through a common entree to linguistic communication. In this respect. linguistic communication is cardinal to intending and civilization and has ever been conceived as the major bank of cultural values and significances.
However. one may be compelled to inquire how significance is constructed through linguistic communication. Harmonizing to Hall ( 1997b ) . linguistic communication constructs intending via its operation as a representational system. Language is one of the mechanisms through which thoughts. ideas and feelings are represented in civilization. In this respect. representation through linguistic communication is cardinal to the procedures through which significance is produced.
Our sense of individuality is derived from significance and hence significance is linked with inquiries about how we use civilization to specify and keep individuality and difference within and between groups. In every societal and personal relationship in which we participate. significance is invariably being produced. Meaning is besides produced through our look in and ingestion of relevant cultural stuffs.
Our behaviors and patterns are besides regulated and organized by intending which aid in the scene of regulations. norms and conventions upon which societal life is ordered and governed. The inquiry of individuality therefore emerges in relation to assorted other divergent minutes or patterns within the cultural circuits ; in our building of individuality and the shaping of difference. in the production and ingestion and in the ordinance of societal behavior. In all these cases. linguistic communication is one of the most of import medium through which we produce and circulate significance.
