CRITICAL VISIONSIN FILM THEORY

CLASSIC AN D CONTEMPORARY READINGS

Edited by

Timothy CorriganUniversity of Pennsylvania

Patricia WhiteSwarthmore College

withMeta Mazaj

University of Pennsylvania

BEDFORD/ST. MARTIN'SBoston . New york

ffi*

HALL 77

STUART HALL

Encoding/Decoding

.jamaican-born and Oxford-educaied, Stuart Hail (b. rg:z) served as cjirectorof the Cen-tre for Contemporary Culturai Studies (CCCS) at the University of Birmingham fromi968 to rgzg. CCCS was estabiished by socioiogist Richa:-d Hoggart, u;hose work, alcngwith that of Raymond Williams and other pronrinent B;'itish Marxisis, rurned critical at-tention to the concept of "culture" in the posiwar period amid the rapiC expansicn ofmass media and consumer society, the breakup of coloniai ernpires, and disiliusionmentwith the Soviet Union. Many of the centrai frgures in British cuitui'al studles, inciudingDick Hebciige, Paul Gilroy, and Angela McRobbie, studied at the center-during lail'stenure. Although Hall is perhaps best knorarr': for his lrork on race and cuiturai identity,essays like "Encoding/Decoding" demonsirate ihe centrality of fr1m and media to hiswork. Hall was the recipient of an achievement award from the Society of Cinenra andMedia Studies in eoo5.

British culiural stuciies challenged the nineteenth-ceniury idea of "cuiti.rre" promul-gated by Matthew Arnold as "the best that is thought and known" r^rith a more anthrooo-logical understanding of cuiture as a "rrrhoie way of iife." Rooted in sociology as rn;e1l as thehumanities, it drerv on the writings of the ltalian Marxist Antonio Gramsci and focusedon working class, youth, and ir-nmigrant subculiures as \.rell as the i-nass meCia. Haii'sapproacn to ielevision differs from ihat of sociologicaily oriented American communica-tions studies in its Marxist politics, interdisciplinary methods, and the profound influenceof such French iheorists as Roland Bartnes, whose lvi'itings on semiotics provide a modelfor "Encod ing/ Decoding" (r973).

Hall's study of televisual discourse arises from the British context of national-lzed broadcasting, which is seen as having a more "official" voice than commerciailysupporied U.S. media. "Encoding/Decoding" reads at first l!ke a technical articleon communications, but important aspects of Hall's argumeni beiie this neutrai-ity and explain the essay's extremely influential status. Hall is concerned withhow messages Iike teievision news are conveyed in the "language" of a cuiture'sdominant-or in Granrsci's ter'rn, "hegemonic"-power relations. in semiotics, a

"code" must be shared by senders and receivers of messages for signification tooccur. Hall emphasizes that the social context in r,^vhich a message is exchanged (forexample social hierarchies or poiitical events) makes the moment of decoding opento various new meanings provided by audiences-they "get the message," but themessage is inflLrenced and may be altered by their specific situations. Thus someaudiences might produce "oppositional" readings of official rnessages, lvhile othersmight provide "negotiated" interpretations, in which some parts of the dominantmessage are rejected and some retained. Hall's essay has provided the basis forseveral decades of work on reception as it varies among locales, generations, com-nrunities, and subcultures.

'.::a".ii

ffi-' :-:ff---..E

:€.:,1:::,:i:a::r.=.;€, .,rr,.:..,.i:1i*-13

',-,,:....1i+.18

78 PART 1 EXPERIENCiNG FiLtu1: FROM PERCEPTiOnv TO RECEPTiON

READING CUES & KEY CONCEPTS

Hall siates ihat productior anc receDiion are t\r/c distirrct but nuiuiaily determinedmoments in the cornmunicailor Drocess. Noie his eniphasis on the relaiive autonomyof the auciience's Drocess of decoclng and consrder hor,v it opens up room for critiqueof dominant mean;ngs.

Hali draws on the vocabuiary of serriotics-codes anC messages, connotation anddenotaiion-to discuss hou; meaning is shapec in teievlsion. Consider his discussionof visuai messages and hoi.r ihey are n"ore easiiy taken for "reaiily" ihan ver-balcnes.

The terms "dominant," "negotiaieC," and "oopositionat" are used oy Hail to talk aooutdifferent points on a spectrum of i'esponse io the media. Think of an example of a cur-rent news media event, and consider now h.vpctnetlcaj audlence nrembers migrlt pro-duce these ihree types of i'esoonses.

': Key Concepts: Code/Message; ldeology; Articulation; Discourse; Hegemony;Connotation/Denotation; Production/Reception; Determination; Polysemy; PreferredReading; Dominant/Negotiated/Oppositional

Encoding/Decoding

i-"e*.t raditionallr', n)asq-corlrrurricrttiort: r'e:ealch hus corrceprrialized thc plocess ol*$-. commttnicatlon in terms of a circulation clrcuit or'loop. Tiris model has beerr

criticized for its linearitt'-sender/rnessage/receiver'-for iis concentration on thelevel olmessage exchange and folthe absence ofa structuied conception ofthe dif-ferent moments as a complex structure of relations. But it is also possible (and useiul)to think of this plocess in terms of a structure prodrrced and sustained rirror-igh thearticulation ol linkecl but clistinr:tive moments-prodr-rction, circuiation, distribu-tionlconsumption, reprociucrion. This rvoiild be to think of the process as a "complexstructure in dominance," sustained through tl-re articulation of connected practlces,each of n hich, hou'ever, retains its distinctiveness and has its oivn specific moda1ir1.,its orvn fbrurs and condirions olexistence. This second apploach, hon-rologous to rhatu4rich iorils the skeleiorr ol comn:oditv production offered in }Iarx's Grrridrisse andltt Ccrpital, has tl.re added adr.anrage of bringing out more sharplv horv a conrinuoLiscircuit-production-distribution-productiorl-can be sustained thror.igh a "passageof forms."' It also highlights the specif,citl. of the tblms in l,hich the producr of theprocess "appears" in each rnoment, and thr-rs u hat distingulshes discnrsir.e "produc-tion" lrom other tvpes of production in ot rr societ\. at.rd in modern media systems.

The "oblect" oi tl'rese practices is meanings and messages in the forrn of sign-r,ehicles of a specific kind organized, like an\.forrl of communication or language,tirror,rgh the operation of codes rvithin the svntagmatic chain of a discourse. The ap-paratuses, relations and practices olprodr-rction thus issue, at a certain moment (themoment of "productiot.ri circulation") in the forrn of s1'r.nbolic vehicles coilstitutedu'ithln rhe rules of "language." It is in this discursive form thai the cilcuiation of the"prodr-rct" tnkes place. 1he plocess thus reqr.rires, at rhe production end, its material

' : .,: :

._: _., -...:t.:.

l-.= :r i-rai::

,,1 Fromthisgretmunicative preeeiB&eir practices a&,: imfrastructure*. a::bfuis is the "labsu::,.:,@*ssage. In cne se

.eess is not with*ut: and ideas: knolt'tra''.&::ed technical skr aad assumptions,ef rhe programme{ion structures ofraclosed system. Tl

HALL Encoding/Decoding

.Istruments-its ,,means,'_as lreli as its ou_n sers of social {production) relatious_:he organization and combinarion of practices u,ithin meciia uffu.u,urur. But ir is:n the dlsci,'si|e form that the circulaiion of tire produ., tut.r'ftu.e, as rr,e1 as itsiistribution to different aucliences. once accornpiished, the discourse r*lsr thenle translated-transformed, again-into social piactices if the circuit is ro be bothccmpleted and effecti'e. If no "meaning,' is taken, there can be ,o .,consumption.,,Il the meaning is not articulated in pra"ctice, it rras no effect. The i.arue of this ap_proach is that rthile each of the moments, in articulation, is necessar' to the circuiias a rvhole, no one noment can furlt, guarantee the next nloirenr rrith *,hich it isiirticulated since each has its specific modalitv and conaitiors of existence, eachcan constitute its o*'n break or i'reri-uption olthe ,,passag" orro.-r,. on l'hose con-tinuity the flou.of effective production (that is, ,,r"p.oa,_,c"tio",,l

a.p.nAr.Thus rvhiie in no rval'$anting to limit r*r"o,,ii, to ,,folrouiing onl' rirose 1eadsH'hich emerge from content anarvsis,". \{e mLlst recognize thar the discursi'e forn_rof the message iras a privileged position in the commnnicatir.e "r.iru,-rg.

(fror. theviervpoint of circulation), and ihat the nl.rrrents of ,.er.rcocling,' and ,,decoding,,,

though o'lv "relatii'eh'autonomous" in relatio, to the comrnrrl-ricatir.e pr.ocess asa rviroie, are determir?dre rroments. A "ran." historical ",.",r,

.ur.,,ro t, itt tltat forr,,be transrlitted b1', 5s1,, a terer-ision ne\\,scasr. Events can onh. be signified u.ithinthe aural-r'isuar forms of rhe reier.isual criscor.rrs;. ;; ;;;;;;ir;;, *.hen a hisrori_cai event passes uncler the sign of discourse, it is subject to ail the comprex fon.nal"ruies" bl'r'l'hich language signifies. To put it paradoxically, tire e\,enr must becourea "stor)"'before ir can becom" o ,o,,,rir,,ricaiire;;;;;;.1;r'ii;, ,r*r"r, the tbrnalsub-ruies of discourse are "in ciominance," u.ithout. of coulse, sr_rbordinating out ofexistertce the historical event so signified, rhe social relatio.s i. *,hich t5e rules areset to \\iork or the sociar and politicar conseqllences of trre er-ent having bee. signi_fled i'this *'a1'. The "message form" is the necessart,,,form of appearance,.of tireevent in its passage from sorirce to receir.er. Tirus the ,.unrpJ,i'ol inro arcl oui ofthe "message form" (or the mode of svmbolic excirangeJ is not a rardorn ,,moment,,,r'hich rve can take up or ig,ore u, o,,', .orrr..nience. ir." ,,,rr.rrug" io.n, is a deter_minate rnoment: though, at another reYei, it comprises the surface moYements ofthe communications s-yst^e} o,r.v and requires, at another stage, to be integratedinto the sociar rejations of the cornmunication process as a rthore, of *,hich it formsonlv a part.

Fronr this general perspective, u,e may crudely characierize the teler.ision com-tnutlicative process as follons. The instiiutional structures of broadcasting, *,iththeir practices ancl netn'orks of proriuctior., ih"i, organized relations and technicarinfrastructures, are required to produce a programme. using the attarog.r. of caTsitar,this is the "labour process" i. ttre cliscursii.e moae. production, here, construcrs thernessage' In one sense, then, the circuit begl,s here. of courr., irr" p."o*ction pro_cess is not rvithout its "discursive" aspect: ii, too, is framed ti.,.orgirJrt b\. meaningsand ideas: knoivledge-in-u^se concerning the routines olproductio,, historicallv de-fi ned technical skiils, professionar ideoiogres, institutio'al krorr.l.d;;, ;;il:iffi;and assumptions, assurnptions about the Judience ancl so on frarle the cor.rstitutionof the programme through this prociuctio, st*rcture. Further, tiiougri trre produc-tion strtlciures of television originate the television discourse, the-_v do not corstitutea closed sysrem. Thel,dra*,ropics, treatme,r,, .g.,,J"r, ;;;;;;,;;;'et, irnages ot

80 PART 1 EXPERIENCING FILM: FROtu1 PERCEPTION TO RECEPTION

the audience, "definitions ofthe sittiation" from other sources and other discursiveformations rvithin the lider socio-cultural and poiitical structure of nhich the),are a differentiated part. Philip Elliott has expressed this point succincth,, n'ithina more traditional framervork, in his discrission of the rva1, in u,,hich the audienceis both the "source" and the "receit,er" of the television message. Thus-to borroryX,Iarx's terms-circuiation and reception are, indeed, "moments" of the productionprocess in teievision and are reincorporated, via a number of skeu'ed and structured"feedbacks," into the production process itself. The consumprion or reception ofthe teier,ision message is thus also itself a "moment" of tire production process inits largel sense, though the latter is "predominant" because it is the "point of depar-ture for the realization" of the message. Production and reception of the telet,isionmessage are not, therefore, identical, but ther.are related: thet, are dlfferentiatedmoments n,ithin the totality forrned bt. the social relations of the communicativeprocess as a nhole.

At a certain point, horvevel, the broadcasting structures must 1,ield encodedmessages in tire form of a meaningful discourse.

.Ihe instltution-societal relationsof production must pass under tl-re discursir,e rules of language for its product tobe "realized." This initiates a lurther differentiated moment, in rvhich the formalrules of discourse and language are in dorninance. Befble this message can ha\.ean "effect" (holr.ever defined), saristy a "need" or be put to a "use," it must first beappropriated as a meaningful discourse and be meaningfullr,decoded. It is this setof decoded meanings u.hich "have an effect," influence, entertain, instruct or per-suade, u,ith ver\,complex perceptual, cognitive, emotional, ldeological or behar.ioural consequences. In a "determinate" moment the structure employs a code andr.ieids a "message": at anotirer deternlinate nloment the "rnessage," via its decod-ings, issues into the slructure of social practices. \\re are non- fully atliare thai rhisre-entrv into the practices of audience reception and "use" cannot be understood insimple behavioural terlrs. The tvpical processes identified in positir,istlc researchon isolated elements-effects, uses, "gratifications"-are themselr.es framed b1.structures of understanding, as'u'e11 as being produced b1' social ancl economic re-lations, n'hich shape their "realization" at the reception enci ol the chain and rvhichpermit the rneanings signifled in the discourse to be transposed into practice orconsciousness (to acquire social use t.alue or poiitical effectivitl.).

Clearly, rvhat tr.e hat e labelled in the diagram "meaning structures 1" and "mean-ing structures 2" maynot be the same. Thevdo not constitrlte an "immediate identitt,."The codes of encoding and decoding ma\. not be perlecrlv s-vmrnetrical. The degreesof symmetry-that is, the degrees of "understanding" and "misunderstanding" iuthe cornmunicative exchange-depend on the degrees of s-vmmetr_v/asYmmetrl'(relations of equit alence) established betu.een the positions of the "personifications,"encoder-producer and decoder-receiver. But this in turn depends on the degrees ofidentity/non-identitl, bet'tr,een the codes il.hich perfectlr. or imperfecti\. transmit,interrupt or systematicaily distort rr,hat has been transmitted. The lack of fit betn eenthe codes has a great deal to do u'ith tlle structural differences of relatiou and posi-tion bet'ween broadcasters and audiences, but it also has something to do rvith theas),mnletrv beiu,een the codes of "source" and "receir.er" at the monlent of transfor-mation into and out of the discursive form. \\iirat are cal1ed "distortions" or ''nlisu11-derstandings" arise precisel-v frorn the lack o.f equiualertce betrveen the tir.o sides in

iiarner.r,orksri krrorl ledge

ieiationsri production

:echnical:rtiastruciure

lhr communicative excl;,i.:,

*.&terminateness," of :hi

The application cirj'&acr understanding of rfu

fl 1 ,re h*w it might aiso trzu

i:i,:::,amd response as weli. Se

"ffili*ns research befsrs.

'. . r.,ltd, nta\-be :::...' ::'.: serniotic pa:.--: .

- - . --:i: l"e knor., iit: .. .,

- :: r ]::,€ Cap, ii See::: - .

f1il.,,@xxe u*able to col$pre*{- .tr- ,e re r iri::. ;.:

|i1,,. taae r1'pes of disc*u.rse,mninologv, becaus* -:: :

i:'r5-&&s is a poinr lr.hlci: fu.s:'i : '.:a f lljlliC-r'f tr: - '- ;

-,'',-..-:,-,: \l:::r'.,..-i,

HALL Encoding/Decoding

_--> progrir]rllte a\

{' u,r,,'n' \, -iii,i :' i'.."r r..\

81

,e

,'Y

n

W

nd)fnr-ndre

ericodin g

meaningstluciures 1

decodirtg

meaningstnrctures f

fiameri orksof knou ledge

technicalinfrastructure

reiationsof production

technicalintiastfucture

:re comrrunicative exchange. once again, this deflnes the "relative autonomt"'br-rtjeterminateness," of the entrV and exit of the message in its dlscursive moments.

fhe application of this rudimentarr. paradigm has alreadv begun to transform:r understanding of the older term, television "content." \\re are just beginning to

!.e ho\{r it might also transform our understanding olaudience receptior.r, "r'eading".lld response as \\,e11. Beginnings and endings have been announced in communi--aiions research before, so u'e must be cautious. But there seems some ground for:::lnking that a new and exciting phase in so-called audience research, of a quite'::,r, kind, ma-v be opening up. At either end of the communicatir.e cirain the use:: ihe serniotic paradigm promises to dispel the lingering behaviourism u'hich

,:as dogged mass-media research for so long, especialiy ir-r its approach to content.-:ough we knorv the teler,ision programme is not a behar.ioural input, like a tap on:::e knee cap, it seems to har.e been almost impossible for traditional researchers to-- -rllceptualize the comurunicative process n ithout lapsing into one or other variant.-'ion-flying behaviourism. lve knorr,, as Gerbner has remarked, that represenra-

::;ns of violence on the TV screen "are not violence but messages about vioience":::.:a \re have continued to research the question of t,iolence, for example, as if u,e''el'e unable to comprehend this epistemological distinction.

The televisual sign is a complex one. It is itself constituted bv the combinarion,::u'o tVpes of discourse, r,isual and aural. I4oreover, it is an iconic sign, in peirce's.'::rlinology, because "it possesses some of the properties of the thing represented."*- :ls is a point rvhich has led to a great deal of confusion and has pror,ided the site of- r.!ense controverslr in the studv of visr-ial ianguage. Slnce the I'isual discourse trans-.:-ies a three-dimensionai u'orld into tl,o-dimensional planes, it cannot, ol course,: :he referent or concept it signifles. The dog in tire fllm can bark but it cannot bitel

.:.rlitv exists outside language, but it is constanth, mediated by and through 1an-

. : age: and n hat n e can knor.v and say has to be produced in and through discourse.-'iscursive "knorvledge" is the product not of the transparent representation of the:eal" in language but ofthe articulation oflarrguage on real relations ancl condi-,-'ns. Thus there is no inteiligible discourse u.ithout the operation of a code. Iconic

: lns are therefore coded signs too-even if the codes here ttork differentil. frorl

tlamerr'orksoi }in0rr'led_ge

relationsoi ploduction

d}S

-o

alre

)e

r-t--

Ld

Iisllt

:h)),e-

:hor

n-

CS

inry),

ofit,3n

si-he

)r-n-in

82 PART 1 EXPERIENCING FiLM: FROM PERCEPTION TO RECEPTION

those of other signs. Tirere is no degree zeio in ianguage. \aturalistn and "realisnl"-the apparent fldelitl' of the represerltation to the thing or concept reilreseltted-is the result, the effect, of a certain specific articr:lation of iangr-rage on the "rea1."

It is the result of a discursive practice.Certain codes ma]', of course, be so rvidel-l' distributed in a specific language

community or culture, and be learned at so earh' an age, that thet'appear not tobe constructed-the effect of an articuiatioir benr-een sign and referent-br.it to be

"naturali\." given, Simpie r,isual signs appear to have achiel'ed a "near-univer-salitl-"

in this sense: thougl-r evidence remains that eveu apparentir "uatural" r'isua1 codes

are culture-specific. Hou'ever, this does rlot firean that no codes have inten'ened;rather, that the codes have been profor.rndh' rtattffnlized. The opet ation of naturalized

codes rer,eais ltot the trauspareilcy anci "natut alness" ollanguage but the depth, the

habituation and the near-universalitv ol the cocles itr use. Thet' produce airparenth'"naturai" recognitious. Ti:is has the (ideoiogical) eiiect olcollceaiing the plactices of

coding tvhich ale present. Bui u-e mllst not be fooied bY appearances. Actr.ralh', rti:atnaturaiized codes dernonstrate is the degree of habituation prodi.iced rvhen there is

a funclamental alignment and reciplocitl'-an achieved equir-aience-betlveen the

encoding anci decoriing sicles of an exchange of t.neatrings. The fi.urctioning of the

cocles on the decoding side n,iil frequentlr' assulre the status of naittialized percep-

tions. This ieads us to think that rhe visual sigr.r lor "con'" actuall]- ls (ratirer tl.ran

represents) the animal, con. Bnt if rve think of the visual representatiotl of a corv ina rnanual on anlmal husbaldlY-and, eyen more, of the lingpistic sign 'corr"-u'ecan see tlrat both, in diff-erent deglees, are rtrLtitrart't'ith respeci to the concept of

the anirnal thel' represent. The articulation of an arbitrarl' sign-u'hether visual or

verbai-n ith the concept of a refereni is ti:e product not of nattire but oi conven-

tion, apd the conventionalism ol discourses requires the inter\entiot.t, iire sup-port, of corles. f'hus Eco has argueC that iconic signs "look iike objects in the real

rvorld because the\. reproclu.ce the conditions (that is, the codes) of pelceptior-r in theyiet,er."-'f hese "conditiorts of perception" are, hon-er-er', the resuh olahighlr-coded'even if virttiallt' unconsciolts, set of operatiolls-decodings. This is as true ol the

photographic or telet.isual intage as it is of alrv oiher sign. Iconic sigr.rs are, hotrel'er,particularh, \,ulnerabie to belng "read" as natural because visual codes of perceptionare ver\r uririeir. distributed and because this t),pe of sign is iess arbitrary than a lin-guistic sign: the linguistic sign "cou"'possesses rtoneol the propertic's of the thingrepresented, rvhereas the r,lsual slgr.r appears to possess sorlte of those properties.

This n.ray help us to clarifv a conlusion in curtent liirguistic theorl'and to defineprecisely hotr. sotne key terms are being used in this article, Lingr.ristic theorl'fre-quentlr- employs the ciistinction "denotatiort" and "conuotation." The term "denota-

tion" is u,iclelv equated rvith the literai meaning of a sign: because this literal nleaning1s almost universallr, recognizecl, especiallr' rvl-ien visuai discout se is being emploved,"denotation" has often been conltised rrith a literal transcription of "rea1it1"' inlanguage-and thus rvith a "natrlral sign," one produced n'itllout the illter\-elltion of

a code. "Connotatiotr," on the other hand, is emplo1'ed sii:rplv to refer to less fixed and

therefore more com,erltionalized anci cl-iangeable, associative meanings, rvhich clearll'

r.art. from instance to instance and therefore must depend ort the lntervention of codes.

\Ve do rroruse the distinction-denotation/connotation-in this n'a-ri Frotn ourpoirrt of vietr', the distinctiot-r is an artall,tic one onlv. It is useful, in analvsis, to be

able to apply a rough ruie of thumb rr.hich distinguishes those aspects of a sign tvhich

appear to be taken, in anrmeari ing (clenorariorr) lropossible to generate (conrrvith distinctions in the rtorganized in a discourse ssualizedJ meaning. In actrancl the connotati\ie d.rire.tain the distinctior.r at a1l.appear to acquire their fiu'ith lvider ideological disrmeanings (that is, at the caf,xed itr natural perceptionof nreaniug ancl assocjatiolthe connotatir.e lelel of t].renification. At this lei.el rr.e rin and on discourse: here, lterms, enters fullr,into lhe r

fhis does ,rot ,rr"on that thdeed, rve coulci sal,rhat its irso flullr.universal and ,,natare mersh, uselul analvtic trror the pr.esencei abs"ira* oideoiogies and cliscourses ir

fhe Iei,el of connotatiortioning in rjifferent cliscursi.rr I reo d.t, corl ed sign s i ntersecadditional. inore actir.e ideo,l.ertising discourse. Iler.e, torura1," representatioll. E\.et\.valrre or.inlerence irhich ispon the connotational positio,a "u.aLm garntent,' (denotaticis also possibie, at its rrore cocokl dar,." And, in the specialfashionable st_tle of haurc cot,against the right r-isual backgcotlnote "io1tg autunn rvalk i:tions for the sign rvith the rvirthe nreans br- ir h iclr po\\ er a n,l,Jrer refer. sigrrs to ilte ,,nraps

those "maps of socia.i realitr-, Iusages, porrer anci irrrercsr ,,rr.Barthes remarkecl, ,,itar.e

a clcand it is til.ough rhern, so to r

guistic and semantic sr-stem. IThe so-called deiiotatir.e

complex (but lintiteci or ,,clorboundeci, is more opei-i, sr-lbje

HALL Encoding/Decoding

appear to be taken, in anY ianguage communiry at any poil1t in time, as its .,literai,,meaning (denotation) fi'om the ntore associatii.e meanings for the sign nhich it ispossible to generate (cotruoration). But anah.tic distinctio"ns musr not be conf*seclrvith distinctions in the real rrorld. There rvill be ver),fe*, instances in u.hich signsorganized in a discourse signifl, ortlyl|1"ir,,literal,, (tliat is, near-univeLsallr.consen-sualized) mear-iing. In actuar clisco,rse most signs u,i11 corlbine b"th;;;;;;;;;;1.;and the conrlotati\.e ospects (as redefined above). It ntat-, then, be askecl rvhr.tre re-tain the distirr*ion at all. It is largell.a rnarrer of analrric r,ajue. It ; ;;.;,,;. ,;;,appear io acquire their lull ideological value-appear to be open to al.ticulationn'ith n'ider icieological ciiscourses anci meanings-at the level of their ,,associati'e,,meanings (thar is, at tlte connotati\.e iet,ell_foihere ,,meanings,,

are /?olapparenth.fixed in naturai perceprion fthat is, rher.are not fulh.naruralizecl),

"";;#Iil;,;;_oinleaning altcl associario;t can be rrroie tulh erpioireci and transtor"r.o. i"',i',r.,tlre contlotative lettel of the sign that situational ideoiogies alter ancl transforrl sig-nification' At this lel'ei u'e carl see more clearly the acriile inrerr.ention of icieologiesin and on discourse: here, the sign is open to rle\y accentuations and, in \rolosinor-,sterms, enters f,lh,into the struggle or.er meanings-the class struggle in langriage.;This does not mean that tl-re denotative or "litera1" meanirig i, out"ri,l" ideologr,. In-cleed, n'e cotllcl sa1'that its icieological vaiue ls strong1r,,f,r-ed-because it has becorneso full1' universal and "natural." The terms .,denotation',

anci ,,connotatior,., then,are melell'useful anall'tic tools tbr clistinguishing, in partlculal. contexts. berrveennot the presence/absence of icieologv in linguage br.it the different ier.els at *,hichideologies arrd discorrlses irrtersect.

The level ofconnotarion ofthe visual sign, ofits contextual referelce and posi-tionlng in different discursive f,elcis of meailng and association, is the point *,hereolleady coded signs intet'sect u'ith the cleep semantic codes of a culture and take onadditional, more acrir..e icleological ciimeniions. l,\re might take an example lrom ad_yertising discourse. Here, too, there is no "pureh.clenot"ati'e,,, and certai'h-no ,.r-rat_ural"' representation' Everl visual sign in aclveltising connotes a qpaiitr,, situatior.r,value orinference, ivhich ir pr...rrt o*n irnpiication or impriecr meiining, deperdingo, the connotational positioning. In Bartrres's exa,rpre, trie s*,eater o1*,a1.5 sig,ifiesa "tYar,,t garment'' (denotationj ancl thr.rs the acrivit]r\.alue of ,.keeping rrarm.,, But itis also possible, at its more connotatiye revels, to sigirifr,,,the comiig of u-inter,, or.

,,acold dar'." And, in the speciarizecr sub-codes of fasirion, s\l.eater nrai. ar.o connote afashionable str'le of harte cout,ffeor, arrernatir elr-, an i,rf;r,;;i;..,,i1 ot a..rr. But setagainst the right visuai background and positioned trr tt ..orr"r,ii. ,rtr-.oa., it *uvcor)note longaurrrnrnualkirrihervoods."'Codesoirhisorder.1."I.ir..",r";.;;;;-tiotts for the slgn u'ith the rvider unir,erse of ideologies in I t".*,-r'rn"re cocies arethemeansbYrvhicrrpou,erandideologl,aremadetJsignifr rrp"r;l.,,,"rdiscourses.TheY refer signs to the "maps of meaning" into 1\,hich any culture is classified: a,.those'ruapsoIsociarl'eaiirr"rrarerher'lro]erangeotro.iol;;;;;;g;;;;;;;;"r:;;;usages, port'er and interest "n'ritteu in" to them. The connotatir.e lei.eis of signifiers,Barthes rernarked, "haYe a close communication u.ith culture, knorvledge, histor1.,and it is through them, so to speak, that the enr,ironrlenrai rvorlci irrr;;; ili;lguistic a,d sema.tic s\rstem. f'hey are, ilvou like, rhe fragments olideology.,,ro

Tlre so-calied denotative reuer of the televisual sigir is fixecr b' certain, r,er\.cornplex (but limited or "closecl") codes. Br.rt its connotative /rr,r,;;,;; ;;;;b(:r-trrded' is more open, subject to more aciir-e lransfo rntatiorts,1\,trich exploit its

83

PART 1 EXPERIENCING FILM: FROM PERCEPTION TO RECEPTION

polysemic values. An-v such alreadl' constituted sign is potentially transformableinto more than one connotatiye configuration. Po11.sem1'1nust not, honever, beconfused rvith piuralism. Connotative codes are r?or eqtlal among themselves. An).societt /culture tends, ivith var--ving degrees of closure, to impose its classificationsof the social and cultural and political n orld. These constitute a domirtaut culturalorder, though it is neither univocal nor uncontested. This questioll oi the "struc-ture of discourses in dominance" is a crucial point. The different aieas of sociallife appear to be inapped out into disculsive domains, hierarciricallr'organizedinto dontiilcu'tf or preferred nteortirtgs. Nen', problernatic or troubling e\.ents, u'hichbreach our expectancies and run counter to our "common-sense consti'ucts," toour "taken-for-granted" knorvledge of social struciures, must be assigned to theirdiscursir.e domains before thel: g6n be said to "make sense," The most cornmonu.a\r of "rnapping" them is to assign the netr. to some domain oi' other of the ex-isting "nraps of problernatlc social realitr.." \Ye sa1. d.atitirtartt, not "determined,"because it is alu'avs posslble to order, classifv, assign and decode an er-ent n'itirinmore than one "mapping." But \\.e sa\/ "dominant" becar-rse there exists a patternof"preferred readings"; and these both have the institutional/political/ideologicalorder imprinted in tl.rem and have themselves become institlrtionalized.Lr The do-ntaitts of "preferred meanings" have the u,hole social order embeddecl in them as aset of meanings, practices ar-rd beliefs: the er.erl.dav knorvledgc. of social structures,of "hou' things r,r,ork for all practical purposes in this cuhure," the rank order ofpo\ver and interest and the structure of legitimations, liilits and sanctions. Ti]usto clarify a "misunderstanding" ar the connotati\.e 1e\.e1, \\,e rlusr refer, tlu'oughthe codes, to the orders of social life, o1'economic and political po\\,er and of ideol-ogl'. Further, since these mappings are "structured in dominance" bnt i.tot closed,the communicative process consists not in the unproblematic assignment of everyvisuai item to its given position rvithin a sei of prearranged codes, bul of performa-tiue rules-rules of conlpetence and use, of logics-in-use-lvhicir seek activeh, toertJbrce or pre-fer one sefiIantic domain over another and ru]e iterls into and outof their appropriate meaning-sets. Formal semiologv has too often neglected thispractice of interpretttriue work, though this constitutes,ln fact, the real t'elations ofbroadcast practices in teler.islon.

In speaking ol dontinant rtreanirtgs, then, n'e are not talking about a one-sidedprocess u'hich governs hon,all events rvill be signifled. It consists of the "'lvork" re-quired to enforce, n'in piatrsibilitt'for and cornmand as iegitin"rate a clecodingof theevent urithin the limit of dominant de{rnitions in n,hicl.r it has been connotativehrsignifled. Temi iras remarked:

By the rvord readittg',t'e mean not only the capacltv to identifl'and decode a

certain number of signs, br"rt also the subjectir,e capacin. to p-lut them into a cre-ative relation betu'een themselr'es and rvith other signs: a capacin,u'hlch is, byitseif, the condition tbr a complete a\vareness of one's total environllteni.r.

Our quarrel here 1s rvith the notion of "subjective capacitv," as if ttre referent of a tele-rrisional discourse rvere an objectir,e fact btrt the interpretatit.e leve1 n,ere an individ-ualized and prir.ate lnatter. Quite the opposite seems to be the case. The televisualpractice takes "objective" (that is, srstemic) responsibilitr.preciselv for the relationsrr.hich disparate slgns contract \yith one another in an1. discursit.e instance, and

84

ffi;.ffil:-

r:I..iilili i .r

i.lf.&!i. i."-t;::..::.-- :t: -j. -:, - -- - -*

HALL Encoding/Decoding

' 1 js continuallJ. rearranges, cierirnits and prescribes into what ,,a\l'areness of one,s:l environment,, these itents are arrangeO.

ihis bri,gs us to the question of niisrind^erstandi,gs. Teler.ision producers *.ho: j iheir message ,,lailing ro g*, r.rorr-,;ur" fr"qu",rtrl:c";;;,rtrd to straighten out'-.'xinks in rhe communicatio, crrain, ttrus racititatilg;;;;;i;;.ri'eness,, of their.::rnunication. N{uch research nhich cjaims ,h" ;bJ";;;,iiv Ii ,,pori.y_orienred

. -.rlysis" reproduces this adrninis,rJr,* gouf bv attempting ro discover horr. inuch' rlessage the audience recaris ancr to i,rrpr.or." the exten-t of u,derstanciing. No" .;:bt misunderstanrlings of a riteral r.r",r .i" exist. The .;;,r;; dr., ,rn, k'o*, the':ns emprol'ed, caanor follorv tire comprex logic of d;;;; or exposirion, is" ::iamiliar rvith the ranguage, nnar ti.. .llcepts too alierior ciifficult or is foxed b':-1' exposit,rY narrative. Bit more or,"r, u.oraaasters are aorraarn"a tirat the au_.::nce has failed to take the meaning u. rlr.,.--,h" t.o"a.*r"r.-ir:rtended. \v'at':r realry rnean ro sa\. is that .,ieureri ,.a ,,o, operating il.itl.rin the ,,ciominant,, or:::eferred" code. 'rheir ideal is "p".r".tr' transparent communication.,,

'.rstead,::at they ha\re ro confront is "rv.temait.ul" arr,o.,ed communication.,,rlIn receni vears cliscrepancies of tfri, iirra hat_e usuail1, 0"",

"rpf"lred br.refer_ce ro "serecri'e pe.cept io,." Th is i, ,t o ooo, ,ri;,,;;;;;,*Jrul'prrrrtirrn er ades:'r' compursions of a rrighrl. structured, asr-rnmerrical anci non_equivarent process.. course, rhe.e *.iil ari,.arrs be privare, i"ai,rra,lrj, ,;,;;;;,'J:;;;;gs. Brir .serecrire:erception" is armost ne'er as serecti'e, randora or pri'atizedl.',rr" concept s,g-'esis The parterns exhibit, across inctiviciual^r,arianis, ,G#;;;, crusteri.gs. An'',:l::XffiX::".oo.,|Xq',ffistuclies *'iri thererore hai,e,Ju"gi"',,,,h a critique oi

Ir rvas argued earlier thiL si nce tltere is.: ii c o d i' g u,., i a

". o J i, g, t h e fo r rn e. ;;; :;,; : :: :

fiJ- ;.T: ;:il:i?::;:: : :ffi :ii guarantee tr-re latter, *'irich has its o,r,r, aor-,ditiun, ot..,rrtor."l u,rta* ther. aret ildll'aberrant' errcoding ir il1 ha'e ,1." *rr"., ol corstrucring sorrre of rrre lirilir>:rnd parameters r'irhi,.,lrr.i, ,t".oJirrs, "rl operate. ir,rr".. ,i..." no rimits, audi_ettces could sinrph,read rvhatever ther_ilk"d irrro an\.message. _\o doubt some rota lmisunderstandings of this kinri do

"rirr. gr, trre r.ast range musr contain sortte de-gree of reciprocity betrt,een encoding arrJiecoaing rnomenrs, other*_ise rye courdiiot speak of a, efrecti'e communi.Iti,." "*.rrungJ at a1r. i.r."r-,r-r.,"rr, this .,cor_iesponde'ce" is not gi'en but co,structed. ii r, ,ro, ,,rruturrt,ibui,ir.

p.oar.t otur.,articulation betrteen t*.o cristinct "ro,r,"rrir. And trre former carnot cietermine orguarantee, in a simpre sense, ithich decocling cocres rviir t

" .-pior..a. orherryisecommunicarion *'ourd be.a perfectlv

"qrir*t!,'r, .;;;;;;,;; "'** ir"..ug. *.ourdbe an insrance of ,,perfecrl"i.u";;;i#io_*rrrl.urion.,, \\,e must rhink, then, ofthe'ariant articuratio,s in ivhicriencoairrg)a".oaing can be combir.red. To erabo,rate on this, *'s offer a h'potheticat ur.url:r?, of some-possiirr* a.."aing positions,in order to reinforce the point of ,,rrn ne.es.u.r. .o..".pondence.,,r.\'\re identifl' threer'tvpotl'tetical positior-,, r.o.,, *hich decodings of a terer.isuardiscourse ma1, be constructed. These need to be empiricallr_ rested and refined. But

it il:xr.T : ::il,*::l lt-i I;aI ili :T :;;, 1,:.n' r,

",, i,. " Ji,!.,, n u,, h e,, a r e

t"relps to a"ro,,rt..,"iih" .o,.,r,ro,r-sense *""il;t;;:iliil,.:ttilxsiu,1'rt:;'"i::I:ol a theory of "sr.stematicaliy distorr"a ."l"l"""ication.,,

85

PART 1 EXPERIENCING FILM: FROiI PERCEpTTON TO RECEpTION

Tlre flrst irvpothetical position is that of the domirtartt-hegemonic positioit.\\Ihen the vietr,er takes il.re connoted nieanil'rg front, sar', a telerision ne\l,scast orcurrent affairs pl'ograinme fuli and straight, and clecodes the message in terrls ofthe relerence code in rrhicir it has been encocied, rve migirt sa]- that the vietr.er isoperatittg itlside the domirtant code. This 1s the ideal-fi.pical case of "perfecth- trans-parent comntunication"-or as close as 1vc. are iikeh'to come to lt "for all practicalpurposes." \\iithin this u,e can distinguisl-r the positions prociucecl br. the profes-siottol cod.e. This is the position (produced bv n'har l.e perhaps ought to identifi.asthe operation of a "metacode'') u'hich the professlonal bloadcasters assrinre uirenencoding a message n'hich has alreodybeen signified in a hegemonic rnalner. T5eprofessional code is "relativelr'indepencient" of the dorninanr cocle, in that it appliescriteria and transformational operations of its on,n, especialiv those of a tecirnico-practical llatl1re. The prol'essionai code, horver"er, operates u'itltirt the "hegemonr-"of tire dominant code. Irrdeed, it serves to reprociuce the clominant cleflnitions pre-ciselv bY bracketing their hegen-ronic quaiity arrcl operating insteaci rrith ilispliceciprofessional codings u'hlch tbreground such apparentlv-neutrai-teci-rnical questiopsas Yisual qualitr', nen's and presentational r.alues, teiei,.isr.ral quali6., ,,prot'ession-

alisrn" and so on. TIte hegemonic inte'rpretations of, sat., the politics of NortirernIreland, or tl:e Chiiean coul) or the trnclustriai Relarions Bili are principaliv gener-ated bv poiitical and militarl eiiies: the particular cl.roice of presentaiional occa_sions and formats, tire seiectiot-t of personnel, the choice of irlages, the staging ofdebates are seiected at-id combined through the operation of rhe proi'essional code.Horv tire broadcasting plofessionals are able botlt to operare rvit].r "relatjyely au-tonomous" codes of their orvn and to act in such a r\.a\. as ro reproduce Glot 1\,itir-ottt contradiction) the hegen-ronic signif,cation of events is a complex i-rlarter 1.hicl-rcannot be further spelled out here. it must suffice to sa\.titat the prot'essionals arelinked u.ith the defin ing elites not oniy b), ihe instirrltional position ol broadcastingitself as an "ideological apparatus,"" but aiso bv the slructr.re oi riccess fthat is, thesl'stematic "o\rer-accessing" olselective elite personnel anci theii "ciefinition olthesittiation" iu teievisiou). it mav er.en be said that rhe professional codes serye to re-produce hegemonic definitions speciflcailr.b .\t not ouerth,brasing their.operations ina dominant direction: ideological reproduction therefore takes-place here inadver-tcntl1', 1111g6nsciolrslv, "behind men's backs."ri of course, conflicts, coirtradictionsand eYen misurtderstandings reguiai'1r'arise Lretiveen tlle clominant and the profes-sional significations and tl.reir signifi.ing agencies.

The second position rve n'oulci identily is that of the iiegori atetl codeor position.Nlajority audiences probabivunderstand quite adequateil,rvhathas been dorni1a1t11,defined and plof'essionaliv signified. The dominant def,nitions, horver.er, are hege-monic preciselY because thev represent definitions of situations and events u'hichare "itt dominance" {globo-l).Ilotlinant definitions connect e\ients, impiicith.or ex-plicitil,, to grand totalizations, ro the great syntagnlatic \.ie1vs-of-ihe-.r,orkl: thev take"iarge r.iervs" of issues: theY relate e\rents to the "national interest', or to the level ofgeo-politics, even if theytnake these connections in truncated, inr.erted or r.nvstifiedrval's. The deflnition of a hegernonic r,ieu,point is (a) that it defines l,ithin its termsthe mental horizon, the universe, of posslble meanings, ol a utrole sector of rela-tions in a society or culture; and (b) that it carries rvith it the stamp of legitimacv_itappears coterrninous u'ith n'hat is "natural," "inevitable," ,,taken for granted,, about

'-1.:...

86

HALL Encoding/Decoding

the social order. Decoding r'r,ithin the negotinted uersiort contains a mixture of adap-tive and oppositional eletnents: it acknorvledges the legitirnacv of the iregernonicdefinitions to make the grand significations (abstract), rvhile, ar a more restricted,situationai (situated) Ievel, it makes its ou'n ground ruies-it operates with excep-tions to the ruie. It accords the prir,iieged position to the dominant def,nirions oler,ents u'hile reserving the right to make a more negotiated application to "local con-ditions," to its ou'n nTore corporale posirions. This negotiated r.ersion of the domi-naltt ideologf is thus shot through n'irh contradictions, though these are ot.rlv oncertain occasions brought to full visibilit\.. Negotiated ccldes operate through n hatt'e n:right call particular or situated logics: and tirese logics are sustained bl,theirdiflerential and unequal relation to the discourses and logics of pon'er. The simplestexanple of a negotiated code is that u'hich governs the response of a rvorker to thenotion of an Industrial Relatious Bill lirlitir-rg the right io strike or to arguments fora \llages freeze. At the leve1 of the "natioiral interest" economic debare the decoderma1,adopt the hegemonic definition, agreeing that "\ye must all pay ourselves lessin orcier to combat inflation." This, horvever, mav have little or no relation to his/herrviilingness to go on strike for better par.and conditions or to oppose the IndustrialRelations Bill at the level of shop-floor or Llnion orgairization. \Ve suspect that thegreat tnajority of so-called "misunderstandings" arise fiom the contradictions anddisjunctures bet\\'een hegerlonic-dominant encodings and negotiated-corporatedecodings. it is just these mismatches in the leveis rvhich most provoke deflningeiites and professionals to identifl'a "failure in commuuications."

Finally, it is possible for a vien'er perfectlr,io understand botir the literal andthe connotatir.e inflection given b), a discourse but to decode the message in agloballv contrary \\,a].. He/she detotalizes the message in the preferred code inorder to retotalize the message u'ithin some alternative frarneu.ork of reference.This is the case of the vierver nho listens to a debate on the need to iimit rvagesbut "reads" er,erv mention of the "national interest" as "class interest." Ile/she isclperatiirg\r'ithu'hat1!emustcallan optpositiortolcode.{)neof rhen.rostsigniflcantpoliticai moments (the-v also coincide rrith crisis points rvithin the bloadcastingorganizatiotls thetnseh,es, for obvious reasons) is the point rvhen events ivhich arenormally signified and decoded in a negotiated u'av begin to be given an opposi-tional reading. Here the "politics of significatior-r"-the strtiggle in discourse-isjoined.

NOTESThis article is an edited ertract tron "Encoding and Decoding in Television Discourse," CCCSStenci]led Paper no. 7.

1. For an erplication and commentary on the methodological ir-nplications of Ilarx's argu-nlent,seeS.Hall,'Areadingof)Iarx'sLBSt-h/tt'o(luctiorttotlteGrtutdrisse, inI1?CSti(1974).

2. J.D. Halloian, "Understandir-rg television," Paper for the Councii of Europe Colloqur. on"Understanding Ielevision" (Universitl' of Leicester 1973).

3. G. Gerbner et al., \/iolertce itt Tli Dratrta'. A Stttcly of T-ertds o-rtd St'iitbolic Frriicrloirs (TheAnnenberg School, University of Pennsr'lr.ania 1970).

1. Chatles Peirce, Specu/atiLte Grctntntar, in Collected Pa7-rers (Cantbridge, I1ass.: Harr.ardUniversitv Press 1931*58).

87

88 PART 1 EXPERiENCING FILM: FROM PERCEPTION TO RECEPTION

Urnberto Eco, ",\rticuiations of the cinematic code,"' in Cirwttattlit:.;, tto. l.

see tl.re argurrent in S. LIall, "l)eterrlinatioi'ts olnervs photograpils," in li?cS3 (1972).

\roloiinor', X{artism Artd |-lte P}tiiasoph',' rtf Lattguage (The Senrinar Press i973).

For a sinrilar clarification, see Ilarina Camargo Heck. "ideological dimensiotls of mediamessages."

Roland Barthes, ''Rhetoric of the image, ' in It?C-S i (i97li.

Rolarrrl tsartlres, Eletnertts of Sertiiolc,tgt' ,Cape i967).

For an ertendeci critiqr"re of "preferred reading," see Alitt-t 0'Shea, "Preferred Ieading" (un-

published paper, CCCS, Unilersitl' of Birmingham).

P. Terni, "it{emorandurn," Council of Europe Colioqur ol1 "Understandlng Television"(IJniversit-v of L,eicester 1973).

The pirrase is I-labermas's, in "St'stematicalll'disiorted crtntnunicatious, 'in P. Dr-etzel (ed.),

Recent Sociolog-1,2 (Collier-]lacmiilan 1970). it is used irere, hou'ever, in a diit'erent rvav.

Fol a sociologicai fortnularion n-hich is close, in some u'a1's, ro the positions oullined here

i:r-rt n,hich does not parallei the arguinent abor.rt the rheorv of discorirse, see F rank Parkiu,

Class Inequalitt,nnd Polirical Oider (\lacgibbon and Kee 1971).

See LouisAlthusser, "Ideoiog\.and iiitoiogical srale.ipparalr-lses," in Lenin arttl Pltilosoplrl'aiul Otlter Essa'l'J ().elrLeit Books

,]971).

For an e:rpansion of rl-ris at-gument, see Stuart Hal1. " lhe e\iernali internal diaiecric inbroadcasting," 4rlt Sl,,ntposirutt orr Broadccisting (Universitt' ol \lanchester 1972), and"Broarlcasting antl the srate: ihe independencei iurpartialirl'cor-rpiet," {,\lCR Svmposium,Universitl'of Leicesier i976 TCCCS unpubllshed paper)

JU D ITH MAYN E

Paradoxes of Spectatorship

The lucid writing of Judith Mayne (b. r948), Distinguished Professor of Cinema Studies at

the Ohio State University and recipient of a Guggenheim Fellowship, helps make even the

most dilficult concepts in film iheory accessibie. A specia jist in French cinema and feminist

film theory, she is the author of eight books, including Kino and the Woman Qttestion fi989);Privctte lllovels, Public Fiims (rg88); Directed by Dorothy Arzner (''gg+): Claire Denis (zoo5); and

The Woman at the Keyhole (rggo), a selection from which appears in Pa rt 4 of this volume.

The reception of French fiinr theory during the 197os and l98os in England and the

United States was enthusiastic, rviih critics in the emerging discipline especially atti'acted

to the linkage of neu/ ideas about subjectivity and ideology to the influential cultural

instituiion of the cinema. These ideas were articulated most forcefuily ln the concept

of spectatorship, through which individual viewers experience a film's unfolding. As the

seminal essays by Christian A/etz (p. q) and Jean-Louis Baudry (p. l+) demonstrate, theo-

rles of spectatorship aoply the insights of psychoanaiysis and Marxist ideological critique

to the cinematic apparatus or institution, positing an icjeal viewer who is receptive to thepsychic and social messages propagated by classical Hollyivood films and ihe dominant

5.

6.

7.

B.

9.

10.

11.

12.

t,

15.

14

16 .aji:,;i .:;:l .:+I, rtr!::g:-.ltttr.

,.,,.:^i:.i1,;11,i1. 159-q5..',1, ;;ir.;.

{.5t:::::r,:ir::i. it)i?.:t,.j: :-1f:...,.

t, .i:1fa:f-"q}r-,',?3+i{ri.ri....;:::;ji:.s::r'

:Hd'/ri +{€. :rL

l@r{iK:ry;:.&r#*tex:

,,fu*.re*x';:,s