Page 120 - Decoding Culture
P. 120

RESISTIN G   THE  O M  I N ANT  1 1 3
                                                    D
           commitment to a concept of active agency. This commitment did
           not always sit easily with their avowed historical materialism, how­
           ever, and the Centre expended much intellectual energy in trying
           to chart a safe marxist passage between the Scylla of textual deter­
           minism and  the  Charybdis of productive reading. This  led  them
           toward the concept of 'preferred reading' in an attempt to retain a
           Gramscian  concern with  ideological  dominance  and  hegemony.
           ' [ A] text of the dominant discourse does privilege or prefer a certain
           reading,'  Morley  (ibid)  suggests,  immediately after castigating
           Screen theory for losing sight of the polysemic emphases central to
           structuralism. Although this was to prove a difficult claim to sus­
           tain  in the  context  of the  CCCS' empirical  work,  their  evident
           desire to maintain a socially determining concept of ideology was
           to be formative in much of the Centre's thinking.
             This, the third theme, is perhaps best caught in the expression
           'struggle  in ideology'.  For the  CCCS the  operation  of ideology,
           while  real  enough  in  its  consequences,  is  never  an  automatic
           process of subject constitution or, indeed, of any other irresistible
           mechanism. Dominant ideologies can always be confronted; read­
           ings  always  contested.  The significance  of culture,  therefore,  is
          that it is a vital terrain on which the struggle between domination
           and resistance is fought. Screen's strongly text-driven analysis and
                                                                 .
           their use of Lacanian concepts makes it 'impossible to construct  . .
           an adequate concept of "struggle" in ideology'  (Hall,  1980c:  161).
          The work of ideology is precisely that; it must be worked at if it is
           to  function,  negotiated in  a context of potentially contradictory
           interpellations, polysemic signs and multiple readings. The relation
           between  classes,  discursive formations and  ideology is far more
           complex than Screen's concepts can encompass, and much of the
           CCCS project of the  late  1970s and  the  1980s  seeks to  theorize
           this relation more adequately.
             It is to this project that we must now turn - the CCCS attempt to





                              Copyrighted Material
   115   116   117   118   119   120   121   122   123   124   125