Page 135 - Decoding Culture
P. 135

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

              Of course, Hall recognizes that semiotic frameworks of this kind
           had  already  changed  the ways  in  which  analysts  viewed  mass
           media 'content' - structuralist-inspired work on 'texts' was ample
           testimony to that. In line with CCCS commitment to active agency
           and  ideological  contest, however, he is more concerned with the
           likely impact on our understanding of audiences, and the ways in
           which they read and respond  to media messages. Making use of
           the analytic distinction between denotative and connotative mean­
           ings (by then well known from Barthes' application of it in his early
           semiology and in M y thologies) he relates ideology to the naturalized
           codes through which connotative meanings are established: 'it is at
           the  connotative  level of the  sign  that  situational ideologies  alter
           and transform signification'. The sign, already coded at the deno­
           tative level, interacts with the broader codes of a culture to 'take on
           additional, more active, ideological dimensions' (ibid: 133). This, of
           course,  opens up potential for polysemy in that given  signs may
           play  different connotative  roles.  But  this  is  not,  Hall  (ibid:  134)
           argues, a recipe for unrestrained significatory pluralism:  [ clonno­
                                                            '
           tative codes are not equal among themselves. Any society/culture
           tends, with varying degrees of closure, to impose its classifications
           of the  social and  political and cultural  world.  These  constitute  a
           dominant cultural  order.' We  decode  in terms of the  'mappings'
           that are available to us, and these mappings constitute the basis for
           ascribing  'dominant  or  preferred  meanings'.  Indeed,  'possible
           meanings will be organised within a scale which runs from domi­
           nant to subordinate' (Hall, 1997: 30).
              In this way the  structuralist concept  of coding is yoked to  an
           account of culture and  ideology in which  there  are 'structures in
           dominance' and within which the 'struggle in ideology' is contin­
           ued.  Limits are set on the polysemic implications of structuralist
           theories by postulating a social world in which there are dominant
           ideologies  through  which  hegemonic  control  is  sought.  But





                              Copyrighted Material
   130   131   132   133   134   135   136   137   138   139   140