The Culture Iceberg Part 1: Introduction

Samuel Huntington in his Clash of Civilisations posits that “the fundamental source of conflict in this new world will not be primarily ideological or primarily economic. The great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural.” Verily, the most significant areas of conflict in the modern world are related to culture, and more narrowly, to the self’s interactions — in native as well as in foreign cultural environments — with institutions, ideas, and even extensions of the self, such as language.

In the 1970s, anthropologist and cultural researcher Edward T. Hall imagined culture in the iceberg model with two components — only 10%, constituting the “external” or “surface” culture, is readily visible, while 90% is “internal” or “deep’ culture, hidden beneath the surface. The overtly observable elements of culture are those most evident, such as language, rituals, festivals, traditions, familial and societal structures, and the shared stories that are carried on through the generations. The covert, non-observable elements include the subtle yet more impactful aspects: shared assumptions, social cues, cultural norms, worldviews, attitudes, aspirations, and the fundamental values upon which the society itself is founded.

Another major model emerging from Hall’s work is his broader categorization of cultures based on their “context”, which is the most cited theoretical framework with respect to discussions on intercultural communication in the corporate world and in literature related to cross-cultural comparisons (though it is not without issue). Hall relates the cultural metrics of “high” and “low” context cultures in order to better understand the differences in communicative strategies and behavior among various cultures. In what he terms as ‘high context’ cultures, those that operate with a high degree of presupposition, he says that “simple messages with deep meanings flow freely”, in contrast to low context cultures, such as Western societies, that require greater information to be transmitted or more context to be conveyed in order to transmit meaning. High context cultures therefore tend to be more collectivist, intuitive, and contemplative, with a stronger and more lasting sense of history and tradition, as opposed to low context cultures that are more individualistic, and shared experiences tend to change drastically from one generation to the next.

Language carries with it embedded cultural knowledge, and is significant marker of cultural identity. In fact, ritual in the Hindu conception is premised on the extraordinary powers of the spoken word and of sound itself — the śabda as a pramāṇa — and its ability to create avenues of communication “that extend our cognitive world far beyond immediate perception, and its ability to produce infinitely creative structures of recursive syntax by which new meanings can be generated” (Frazier, 2017). Just as language influences the speakers’ worldview (the linguistic relativity or the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis), so also, Hall theorizes, does the converse hold good. It is incontestable that cultural contextualization influences language and even non-verbal communication in tangible and heritable ways. Content, meaning and context during communication is often determined by cultural paradigms, and transmitted through language itself in combination with through societal conventions. Thinking in terms of Hall’s notion, the gradual loss of familiarity with indigenous languages have led to the creation of a discordant society, wherein all its members are not attuned to the same social cues, conventions, and mannerisms.

World over, low context communication is quickly becoming the baseline, the new normal. It is the inevitable consequence of the anglicization that Western corporate structures bring to any culture they set up in and interact with. In light of such observable truths, multiple scholars have criticised aspects of Hall’s model, especially his statement that low context cultures are more amenable to external influence and manipulation. The loss of “deep” culture, and the disappearance of unspoken context is the loss of culture as a whole, and is the reason for the downgrading of high context cultures into low context ones. Most societies in the world seem to be headed to this state of high entropy, erasing their own slates through the rampant adoption of the superficial milieu of a very unidimensional modern culture that characterizes the West today.  

In many ways, Hall’s model is quite shallow and does not apply to the way in which culture operates and manifests in Hindu society. It fails to account for some post-colonial realities and foreign influence on indigenous cultures — it can only apply a cross-section of certain societies at specific points in time. It also cannot explain the complexity with which inter and intra cultural interactions take place to not only create but also perpetuate and evolve culture itself. If historical happenings are to be accounted for, Hall’s iceberg must be reimagined as a mass of melted ice, a pool where deep and superficial cultures are both made of the same water and cannot easily be distinguished.

However, the usefulness of the model also lies in its apparent simplicity. Despite its glaring fallacies, it nevertheless serves the limited purpose of giving a glimpse into the social manifestations of culture and providing a paradigm with which to analyse certain trends observed in the modern world. Culture can be linked to context, and context is wholly dependent on worldview, which in turn is based in knowledge systems. Using this phraseology it could be argued that some of the major problems that Indian society currently faces could be attributed to a gradual de-contextualisation, or the loss of the shared collective understanding and subscription to the Hindu worldview.

In conclusion, while Edward T. Hall’s Iceberg Model offers a foundational perspective on cultural layers, its application is limited when confronted with the intricate realities of Hindu and other non-Western societies. The critique herein underscores the necessity for a more nuanced understanding of cultural interactions that go beyond mere surface and deep distinctions. As global dynamics shift, there is an urgent need to reevaluate and adapt our theoretical models to better reflect and respect the rich tapestries of diverse cultures, ensuring they are not overshadowed or reshaped by dominant external influences, but are understood in their full complexity and vibrancy.

Authored by Sai Priya Chodavarapu. Published by Brhat.