CUST 100 Week 17: 29 January Stuart Hall: Encoding/Decoding Reading: Stuart Hall, ‘Encoding/Decoding’ (Coursepack)

N.B. If you want a semiotics refesher in relation to ‘Encoding-Decoding,’ please check the following site:

Daniel Chandler, ‘Semiotics for Beginners—Encoding/Decoding’ http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/S4B/sem08c.htmls

The domains of ‘preferred meanings’ have the whole social order embedded in them as a set of meanings, practices and beliefs: the everyday knowledge of the social structures of ‘how things work for all practical purposes in this culture’, the rank order of power and interest and the structure of legitimations, limits and sanctions.

And [encoding] cannot determine or guarantee, in a simple sense, which decoding codes will be employed. Otherwise communication would be a perfectly equivalent circuit, and every message would be an instance of ‘perfectly transparent communication.

Introductory remarks

This week we are going to look at the active role of the audience in the construction of meaning that takes place in the circuits of commodified culture

Hall’s basic thesis: circuits of communication reproduce a pattern of domination—meaning is interrelated with power

This takes place during a process of what Hall calls encoding and decoding

Encoding: refers to the creation of cultural texts (i.e. TV program) Decoding: refers to the interpretation of cultural texts

While Hall emphasizes the active role of the audience, he also realizes that interpretation is conditioned by the preferred reading that is encoded into the text upon production

This encoding is imprinted by institutional power relations and express a ‘complex structure of dominance’—ideology

Nonetheless, meaning (the preferred reading) is never guaranteed

So while we always have agency in the construction of meaning, our interpretation is always in relation to the preferred reading—even if it radically differs

Thus Hall situates meaning as polysemic not pluralistic

Key themes and concepts 1 Process of Encoding-Decoding 2) Semiotic aspect of Encoding-Decoding

1) Process of Encoding-Decoding

Hall offers a four-stage model for the process of communication (he originally wrote this paper specifically about television broadcasting)

He does so because he wants to understand how meaning is produced

Specifically, he wants to know two things: • 1) how do we actively participate in the construction of meaning • 2) how does dominant meaning gets reproduced

He emphasizes how meaning (the symbolic) always occurs in a specific context (material)

As such, he is implicitly critical of Behaviourist models (like ‘effects, uses and gratifications’ as used in Psychology) which focus exclusively on the interior interpretation of the individual

There are four ‘relatively autonomous’ stages in the production and dissemination of meaning i) Production—ENCODING ii) Circulation iii) Use (reception/consumption)—DECODING iv) Reproduction

Each stage “has its specific modality and conditions of existence”

In short, one stages does not strictly determine the following stage

Thus decoding often differs (slightly or greatly) from encoding—i.e. how a message is interpreted is not always the same as how it was constructed i) Production • both material and symbolic This is a set of material practices w/n a given media apparatus

The institutional structures of broadcasting, with their practices and networks of production, their organized relations and technical infrastructures, are required to produce a programme.

The symbolic is the actual construction of the message • is it where the message in encoded

The encoding is the key moment in the entire circuit of communication

2 key points about ‘encoding’ in production 1) The ‘event’ or content must be put into ‘message form’ • a privileged moment in the overall circuit/process • i.e. ‘raw’ events cannot be circulated (they must be ‘encoded’ first)

2) Encoding takes place via what Hall calls the “institutional-societal r/ns of production” • this production structure does not form a ‘closed system’ • it is w/n “a wider socio-cultural, and political structure” ii) Circulation There is a difference in how we perceive something that is circulated on a major network vs. community television

On a more basic level, there is a difference in how we perceive a visual image as opposed to the written word (C.F. Medium theory) • each medium as its own ‘conditions of perception’

In short, how the content is circulated is going to influence how it is received

The visual image of TV is a good example

The dog in a film can bark but it cannot bite.

In other words, TV violence is not violence; rather, it is a message about violence

Many (most?) have difficulty making this distinction because visual images appear as if they are transparent representations of reality

We often forget that visual images are themselves encoded

We must understand how ‘reality’ is both mediated and coded • reality is not natural • reality is articulated thru. codes • reality is mediated • reality is naturalized thru. codes

This brings us to another basic point made by Hall: Communication is not a process by which ‘reality’ is transparently represented

We need to look not for verisimilitude but for how reality is naturalized thru. codes

In short, reality only becomes reality thru. a process of codification

The operation of naturalized codes reveals not the transparency and ‘naturalness’ of language but the depth, the habituation and the near-universality of the codes in use.

Naturalized codes produce a seemingly natural or transparent recognition of reality that has the ideological effect of concealing the practice of coding

It is thru. the naturalization of codes that dominant meaning gets produced— thus constructing equivalency b/n encoding and decoding

We read signs as natural even though they are only ever coded

When codes are naturalized to this degree, Hall calls it an ideological effect— the practice and intervention of the codes (in ordering reality) are concealed iii) Use—Decoding Some of the most important details of decoding will be covered in section 2) below

Here I will outline the three key positions Hall outlines for decoding

This is the site in the circuit of communication where the audience is active

The preferred reading or encoding is not always fully accepted—although the encoding sets parameters and limits for decoding

Hall emphasizes the structural (not the individual) aspect of such variations

A) Dominant or Hegemonic A virtually identical equivalence b/n encoding and decoding • you receive the cultural text fully within the dominant code • the coding seems natural and transparent

B) Negotiated The preferred reading is accepted as ‘legitimate’ with some alteration • a mixture of adaptive and oppositional elements • overall the decoding is very similar to the encoding but there are specific modifications • full of contradictions and disjunctions

C) Oppositional The preferred reading is rejected • a clear understanding of the dominant coding • but it is wholly refused and replaced by a different set of codes that reflects the receivers alternative frame of reference

2) Semiotic aspect of Encoding-Decoding iii) Use—Decoding CONT’D

What is unique about Hall’s approach is that he inserts a semiotic paradigm into a social framework

This is important because semiotics were typically used for an abstract analysis of meaning (synchronic structuralist method)

Hall situates our active participation in the construction of meaning in both its material and symbolic context

Semiotics refresher in relation to ‘Encoding-Decoding’

Semiotics is the study of signs—dvlpd in the early 20th c. by the Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure

Sign (word/symbol and its meaning) = signifier (thing represented by sign) + signified (concept or idea of signifier)

Meaning is produced thru. a system of signs—codification

Denotation and Connotation

The level of connotation…is where already coded signs intersect with the deep semantic codes of a culture and take on additional, more active ideological dimensions.

Important conceptual tools necessary for understanding the process of encoding/decoding

The semiotic construction of meaning is broken down into two levels by Roland Barthes in the late 1950s (Mythologies)

Denotative level • the literal meaning of something

Connotative level • associative meaning • where the ‘struggle over meanings’ occurs (Volosinov)

Denotative-Connotative level and the construction of meaning

Denotative level • the level of meaning that is naturalized • coding (ideology) as deeply sedimented • a reflection of structural power r/ns • a reflection of the “dominant cultural order”

This level is part of what Hall calls “the structure of discourses in dominance”

In other words, it helps to produce the dominant or preferred reading (which is encoded into the message)

This dominant or preferred reading has both • i) the institutional/political/ideological order imprinted in them • ii) become institutionalized themselves (in encoding)

Connotative level Where our active participation in the construction of meaning takes place

When decoding is negotiated or oppositional, it occurs on the connotative level

But the connotative level always operates in r/n to the denotative level

If we take the negotiated or oppositional position, we are working against the preferred meaning • against “the orders of social life, of economic and political power, and of ideology”

Thus even oppositional readings are never an individual or private matter but are in r/n to encoding that is “structured in dominance” iv) Reproduction comes into place here

Dominant meaning needs to be reproduced in order to remain dominant—i.e. it must be decoded

Thus dominant meaning unfolds in a two-sided process

Of course, it can be broken—oppositional decoding—but that happens against sedimented meaning

ADDENDUM

We already covered semiotics in great detail. The following notes are taken directly from last semester’s lectures. You may find it helpful to review this material in relation to the ‘Encoding-Decoding’ model.

1) The Fundamental Elements of Semiotics

In order to understand the broader implications of semiotics and structuralism— especially on the discipline of Cultural Studies—we must first identify its component parts.

This approach replicates the new methodological orientation Saussure brought to linguistics

That is, first identify the elemental components of language and the logic of their internal r/n before examining how that overall structure changes or influences other fields.

The fundamental elements are as follows: a) Diachronic; b) Synchronic; c) Referent; d) Sign; e) Signifier (denotative); f) Signified (connotative); g) Signification; h) Langue; i) Parole a) Diachronic • the study of a system over time • traditionally, language was studied via changes in systems of meaning over time • this is called diachronic linguistics, or, philology • thus it was concerned with the origins of language and how language changed over time • i.e. tracing changes in the meaning of individual words from their origin in a source language (like Latin)—C.F. Williams Keywords

Saussure’s main contribution to the study of language (linguistics) was to break away from diachronic linguistics to synchronic linguistics • he felt we should first understand the overall shape of language before studying its change over time

Saussure developed a relational theory of language

Remember the chess board metaphor

b) Synchronic • the study of language at a given moment • the structure of language—hence structuralism

Saussure focused on the internal relations of the structured whole of language • an abstract, not empirical approach to the study of language

…his argument was that people had become so bogged down in the empirical fact of particular languages and their word-stores (philology) that there was no developed theory of language-in- general from which to make sense of the empirical data. (Hartley)

• synchronic linguistics became the norm over the 20th c. • the structuralist method that it founded spread to many other disciplines, including the study of culture and cultural texts

The basics of this synchronic approach is the isolation of elements (signs) and their internal r/nship w/n an abstract system (codes) of different sign systems c) Referent • what the sign stands for • it can be an object, condition, or event • it is part of the linguistic signifying system, not the inherent property of that externally existing thing • not an important concept for Saussure; used by later semioticians like C.S. Pierce d) Sign (word/symbol and its meaning) • anything—i.e. words, pictures, sounds, gestures—that stands for something else in the production of meaning • a core concept of semiotics • i.e. the red rose + love

All signs must have physical form; refer to something other than itself; and, be understandable

A sign has two components: signifier and signified

All signs have an arbitrary r/n to both a) signifier (the thing to which it refers); and b) signified (the concept it represents) e) Signifier • the material thing represented by the sign • i.e. the red rose—the flower itself • this is the denotative level

The signifier denotes

Denotation is the literal meaning of something—the surface level

What is denoted is the thing itself f) Signified • the concept referred to by the signifier • i.e. the red rose signifies love • this is the connotative level

The signified connotes

Connotation refers to the ideas or feelings that the sign signifies—a deeper level of meaning

What is connoted is the meaning of the thing itself

N.B. There is always the possibility that a given signifier has multiple signifieds (i.e. many different meanings)

For example, in England, the ‘red rose’ also signifies the Labour Party

This multiple meaning is often called polysemy g) Signification • the output of signs—communication itself • a concept of importance to Barthes • he organizes signification into three levels: 1) denotative (a tree); 2) connotative (tree connotes nature); 3) mythical (nature is bountiful) h) Langue (the language system) • the structure of speaking • the rules and codes—the underlying abstract system of signs and conventions • Saussure was interested in the structure of speaking, more than the act of speaking (parole) • this can be extended to the study of culture—e.g. the patterns or social organization of fashion would be its langue

It is langue which Saussure subjects to synchronic analysis, as he was concerned with the ‘deep structure’ of language i) Parole (speech) • the act of speaking • it is full of variable and accidental aspect—messy, as Sabina would say • because it is riven with individual variations, it is more difficult to systematize or submit to structural analysis • how we collectively implement linguistic structures • it also helps us realize how we may influence language thru. our particular usage • and if we extend this to the study of culture, we could isolate a single piece of clothing as an individual instance of parole

The chess metaphor: langue is the rules of the game; parole is an actual match

In short, langue is structure; parole is performance—like structure and agency

Meaning as arbitrary? There is no essential correspondence b/n signifiers and signifieds

Linguistic system work by marking difference, not expressing a natural meaning

Do not get confused by the arbitrary r/n b/n the signifier and signified

This arbitrary aspect refers to two things: • i) that meaning is relational, not essential • ii) the impossibility of a single, universal fixed meaning with which everyone, everywhere would agree

The whole point about culture (and systems of representation) is that it always tries to fix meaning

On an everyday level, we operate in a realm of relatively fixed meaning

However, this only comes about thru. linguistic and cultural codes, and, power r/ns (hegemony, ideology, myth, etc.)

Thus meaning gets fixed, but never permanently—it always remains open to contestation