Page 119 - Decoding Culture
P. 119

1 1 2  D E C O D I N G   C U L TURE

          concept of 'interdiscourse' and Ladau's non-Lacanian  account of
          interpellation, arguing for a  notion  of contradictory and  unstable
          processes of subject positioning which have to  be understood in
          variable social and historical contexts. Screen theory, he suggests
          (ibid: 169), 'constantly elides the concrete individual, his/her con­
          stitution  as a  "subject-for-discourse",  and  the  discursive  subject
          positions  constituted  by  specific  discursive  practices and  opera­
          tions'. Subjects, it must be recognized, have their own histories and
          operate in concrete social circumstances.
            This concern with multiple positioning leads immediately to the
          second  of the  themes  that characterize  the  CCCS response to
          Screen  theory:  the  opposition between textual determinacy  and
          textual polysemy. As we saw in Chapter 4, there is an unresolved
          tension in later Screen theory between the desire to see 'texts' as
          determining the subject positions from which they can be 'read' -
          a view powerfully developed in the first phase of subject-positioning
          theory - and a more typically post-structuralist emphasis  on the
          'productivity' of reading as that was conceptualized in, for example,
          Barthes' work after S/Z.  In the CCCS account, the significance of
          this tension in Screen's position is played down.  Screen theory is
          seen as irreducibly text-<iriven, with the Lacanian apparatus used to
          define fundamental unconscious processes of subject constitution
          which  are  replayed  in  reader-text  relations.  'But  this,'  Morley
          (1980a:  167)  argues, 'runs counter to two of the  most important
          advances  previously  established  by  structural  linguistics:  the
          essentially polysemic nature of signs and  sign-based  discourses,
          and the interrogative/expansive nature of all readings'.
             Again we have no need to arbitrate this disputed interpretation
          of Screen theory. All that  needs  noting is that the  CCCS position
          does indeed lean rather more toward viewing reader-text relations
          in  polysemic and  interrogative  terms than  did their  Screen  con­
          temporaries, a position that is hardly unexpected given the CCCS





                              Copyrighted Material
   114   115   116   117   118   119   120   121   122   123   124