Page 101 - Communication Theory and Research

McQuail(EJC)-3281-06.qxd 8/16/2005 11:59 AM Page 86

86 Communication Theory & Research
interpretations on several issues and complex, oppositional decodings, while the
‘open, polysemic’ US drama was predominantly decoded in a quite linear,
closed, consensus-forming manner. This finding, which can be considered as the
crystallizing point of interest in this study, indicates that the relationship
between a polysemic textual character and multiple decoding is far from mechan-
ical. It should also be kept in mind that the (ever-changing) sociocultural
relationship between a community of readers and a text is crucial in structuring
political power. The political power of texts is only one potential factor in this
game (Jensen, 1990). [...]
One could question how far those remarks, especially the one on strong
narrative guidance, are attacking the concept of the textual polysemy of US fiction.
At least we can say that the polysemic character of US fiction has to be ques-
tioned as its main textual force. The success of US drama as a text has in this
sense to be seen in its inviting combination of several attractive textual, narrative
and technical features, working within a rich tradition.

Statements on the Impact of US Fiction Should
be Redefined, Revised and Contextualized

What then can be said about the impact of both programmes on the audience –
at least within the limits of the reception analysis perspective and by carefully
using the indicators presented in this study? As indicated at the beginning of this
article, the link between the decoded meanings and impact has to be considered
in the complexity of all elements in play within a specific context. Our case study
shows that it is no easy matter to interpret the decoding processes, possibly lead-
ing to effects, as some data incorporate multiple possible conclusions on impact.
If one considers ‘involvement’ as the pivot in the impact processes, then it is
safe to say that the data in our case study tend to minimize the impact of US
fiction, especially in comparison with domestic drama, or at least that one has to
consider the relativity of it.
If ‘dependence’ is seen as different from involvement and crucial to impact, it
is already a lot more difficult to conclude that the recipients were more depen-
dent on the domestic drama. In fact we have to speak here of different types of
dependence. On the one hand, the domestic drama gave rise to a forum for
‘introspection’: people were relating the characters, themes and situations in the
programme to their own lives. The American programme, on the other hand
was, as indicated, strongly guiding the recipient into its diegetical world. This
narrative force, supported by its technical, production and other qualities, clearly
tends to intensify the dependence of the recipient on the US fiction programme
during the decoding process.
This position can also be taken in relation to the concept of ‘negotiation
process’, which in the case of the US sitcom was not strongly developed from the
recipient’s point of view. As clarified further, its strong dependence on the
American narrative did not generate strong negotiative activities, so that the part
played by the viewer cannot be labelled as highly active.