Response to Stuart Hall's Speech

In his speech, Stuart Hall argues that identity is a complex and unstable concept. It cannot be explained using one definition. It does not remain the same for a person over the course of their lives. He also argues that there are certain social collectivities that we have used to try to stabilize our identities. These social collectivities include class, race, gender, and nation, and they have been undermined both socially and politically multiple times through the years, which brings to light the question of how effectively stabilizing they really are. Hall addresses this question by saying that no, these collectivities have not been overly successful, especially in the last fifty years, in keeping identity stable.

In light of our recent music unit, Hall’s speech has multiple connections to the way music can be used to define a person. Music, like the concept of identity, cannot be explained using one specific definition. Everyone has their own interpretation of what a song means and whether or not it is considered good or bad. We all hear and interpret music differently. A song can mean something special to someone and at the same time be considered annoying or stupid to someone else. It is what we take from a song that allows it to define us and provide others with further insight into who we really are.

Music could easily be considered one of the things that undermined the social collectivities Hall mentioned in his speech. Music is very much connected to political and social issues (think Where is the Love? by the Black Eyed Peas) and by listening to certain songs, our opinions on political or social issues can either change or become more intense, which in turn changes our identity, even if just a little. The way a person interprets a song can easily connect them to someone who is of a different race or class from them, which makes it nearly impossible for Hall’s social collectivities to hold true in identifying a person.