Page 117 - Decoding Culture
P. 117

110  D E C O D I N G   C U L TURE

          members  of the  CCCS as they  sought to grapple with  Screen's
          forays  into  structuralism  and  psychoanalysis, then a convenient
          place to embark upon an analytic dissection of the CCCS position
          is in their response  to  Screen theory.  On the face of it,  the  two
          approaches had much in common. Both initially rejected the tradi­
          tional mass culture condemnation of popular forms. Both sought to
          work with and amend the tenets of historical materialism as they
          (differently) perceived that mode of analysis. And both saw struc­
          turalism  as  initiating  a  radical  shift  in  theories  of signification,
          representation, and culture  more  generally.  They  parted ways,
          however, in how they made the move from structuralism to post­
          structuralism,  the  CCCS  viewing  Screen  theory's  growing
          dependence  on Lacanian concepts with considerable scepticism.
          Hall (1980c) conceptualized this shift in terms of a transition from
          what he called  semiotics  1  to  semiotics  2, the latter coming  to
          emphasize above all an attempt to theorize 'the subject' in psycho­
          analytic terms.  Semiotics  1  had  focused  upon  the  production  of
          meaning, and in so doing formed one of the major influences on
          the CCCS as well  as  on Screen.  Semiotics 2, however,  espoused
          additional theoretical and methodological positions that the CCCS
          considered to be fundamentally at odds with its own developing
          project.
             These differences revolved around three interrelated themes,
          all finally traceable to the CCCS' insistence  on maintaining a dis­
          tinctive explanatory role for the realm of the social. The first and
          most profound disagreement directly reflected this basic ontolog­
          ical difference between  the  two  schools  of thought.  Screen,  the
          CCCS argument  ran,  gave  ultimate  primacy  to  psychoanalytic
                                                           '
          processes, with the result, as Hall (1980c: 160) put it, that  [ ejxcept
          in a largely ritual sense, any substantive reference to social forma­
          tion  has  been  made  to  disappear'. Yet historical  materialism,  a
          theoretical  commitment  presumed  to  be  common  to  both





                              Copyrighted Material
   112   113   114   115   116   117   118   119   120   121   122