Hall gets around to define what culture is stating that definitions are just models. Models are actually to be understood in the broad sense: parents are models for the young, mechanical models might explain the construction of a machine, grammar and the system of writing are models of language, ...
"The purpose of the model is to enable the user to do a better job in handling the enormous complexity of life. By using models, we see and test how things work and can even predict how things will go in the future." (p. 13)
Models are based on drawbacks: man's explanation of nature actually tells much more about man than about nature, the model or explanation just expresses how he sees the world. Accordingly, it is impossible for an anthropologist to define the things that make up culture. Every model about culture would just reflect the specific culture from which it originates.
Therefore, instead of developing generalized models he introduced two specific cultural models: language and time.
He quotes Saphir who says that "[L]anguage is much like a mathematical system which previsages all possible experience in accordance with certain accepted formal limitations.... [C]ategories such as number, gender, case, tense, mode, voice, 'aspect' and a host of others... are not so much discovered in experience as imposed upon it." (p.15) He gives an example of Navajo kids who in school had to learn how to express themselves in English and failed because the language didn't offer them the words they needed for articulating their experiences.
At this point I was thinking of the Inuit whose language offers them 10 or more words for the color white while we have only one. I always saw the language to reflect the daily experience while Hall introduces the idea of a language-model vice-versa: it sure reflects experience but it limits experience as well. (While at the same time it has to be questioned if language equals experience...)
While it sounds as if this as nothing to do with expatriates encountering different cultures it has to be remembered that language is one of the most obvious parts of communication and that it is the very use of words that shape how the other person is perceived. (I'll work on this later: perceived level of language treated as indicator for intelligence, English -> action-orientated, not only the right words but the right use, better have a professional translator, ...)
Another big concern of Hall lies in the modelling of time. He differentiates into monochromic- and polychromic time. Monochromic refers to time as linear, "segmented like a road or a ribbon extending forward into the future and backward to the past. It is also tangible; they speak of it as being saved, spent, wasted, lost, made up, accelerated, slowed down, crawling, and running out. [...] M-time scheduling is used as a classification system that orders life." (p.19) M-time people do one thing at a time, acknowledging the most time to the most important things, ... This means that life gets divided into units. This way time is shaping perception just as much as language is: I only perceive those things I put my attention, too.
Hall puts up a nice connection to space. Only upon the time arriving in the office, I am perceived as to be working. The fact that I might have been sitting at home or might have discussed the problem with friends at night, is not acknowledged as work. This becomes obvious in P-time-cultures. In those cultures, following Hall, everybody is always involved with everybody else. Time and space reveal many more layers which interrelate with each other. Work might not only be about sitting in the office but about being outside and making things happen.
Hall ends this chapter emphazing that models are learned. Language and its used are learned. Time is learned. Our perception of space is learned. Models are not existential in nature but cultural agreements. The problem is that they are felt to be natural.
Back to the table of content
Further to chapter two
"The purpose of the model is to enable the user to do a better job in handling the enormous complexity of life. By using models, we see and test how things work and can even predict how things will go in the future." (p. 13)
Models are based on drawbacks: man's explanation of nature actually tells much more about man than about nature, the model or explanation just expresses how he sees the world. Accordingly, it is impossible for an anthropologist to define the things that make up culture. Every model about culture would just reflect the specific culture from which it originates.
Therefore, instead of developing generalized models he introduced two specific cultural models: language and time.
He quotes Saphir who says that "[L]anguage is much like a mathematical system which previsages all possible experience in accordance with certain accepted formal limitations.... [C]ategories such as number, gender, case, tense, mode, voice, 'aspect' and a host of others... are not so much discovered in experience as imposed upon it." (p.15) He gives an example of Navajo kids who in school had to learn how to express themselves in English and failed because the language didn't offer them the words they needed for articulating their experiences.
At this point I was thinking of the Inuit whose language offers them 10 or more words for the color white while we have only one. I always saw the language to reflect the daily experience while Hall introduces the idea of a language-model vice-versa: it sure reflects experience but it limits experience as well. (While at the same time it has to be questioned if language equals experience...)
While it sounds as if this as nothing to do with expatriates encountering different cultures it has to be remembered that language is one of the most obvious parts of communication and that it is the very use of words that shape how the other person is perceived. (I'll work on this later: perceived level of language treated as indicator for intelligence, English -> action-orientated, not only the right words but the right use, better have a professional translator, ...)
Another big concern of Hall lies in the modelling of time. He differentiates into monochromic- and polychromic time. Monochromic refers to time as linear, "segmented like a road or a ribbon extending forward into the future and backward to the past. It is also tangible; they speak of it as being saved, spent, wasted, lost, made up, accelerated, slowed down, crawling, and running out. [...] M-time scheduling is used as a classification system that orders life." (p.19) M-time people do one thing at a time, acknowledging the most time to the most important things, ... This means that life gets divided into units. This way time is shaping perception just as much as language is: I only perceive those things I put my attention, too.
Hall puts up a nice connection to space. Only upon the time arriving in the office, I am perceived as to be working. The fact that I might have been sitting at home or might have discussed the problem with friends at night, is not acknowledged as work. This becomes obvious in P-time-cultures. In those cultures, following Hall, everybody is always involved with everybody else. Time and space reveal many more layers which interrelate with each other. Work might not only be about sitting in the office but about being outside and making things happen.
Hall ends this chapter emphazing that models are learned. Language and its used are learned. Time is learned. Our perception of space is learned. Models are not existential in nature but cultural agreements. The problem is that they are felt to be natural.
Back to the table of content
Further to chapter two
