Page 138 - Decoding Culture
P. 138

D
                                          I
                                    RESIST N G   THE  O M  INANT  131
          that preferred  reading as its key  reference  point.  Wren-Lewis
          (1983:  184)  suggests  that  ' [ tlhis is effectively to  reproduce the
          Screen position' and, while that may somewhat overstate the case,
          his  subsequent point is well made that this approach precludes
          understanding  the  subject's  role  in  constituting  signification.
          Signification  requires  involvement  of the  reading agent to com­
          plete the process of meaning construction, an activity which cannot
          properly be understood via a model that sees the message as con­
          tained within the text prior to reading. As Wren-Lewis  (ibid) goes
          on to observe:  [ tlhe fact that many decoders will come up with the
                      '
          same reading does not make that meaning an essential part of the
          text. The power of the text's signifiers to determine a specific set of
          readings will be constituted by historical subjects, whose place in
          society/history will  enable  them  to  form  the  same  associations
          and differences, the same signifying patterns.'
            So, while postulating a 'preferred reading' does not exactly repli­
          cate  the  terms  of  subject-positioning  theory,  the  encoding/
          decoding model does ask that  concept to  carry  a great deal of
          weight.  Morley  (1992:  121)  observes that its purpose was to link
          the general case about hegemony to specific processes of commu­
          nication, a task somewhat confounded by the fact that 'hegemony
          has on the whole been treated as an abstract concept - referring
          rather widely to the whole field of cultural process through which
          "dominant meanings" are constructed - without these particular
          processes  being  examined  in  any  detail'.  In  consequence,  the
          model only coheres by suggesting that broadcasters' products (as
          a direct result of their 'professional code' and, indirectly, the dom­
          inant-hegemonic code)  incorporate a preferred  reading; that the
          text itself can be semiotically understood as carrying this pre-deter­
          mined  (by the dominant ideology)  meaning; and that the 'reader'
          accepts, negotiates with, or rejects it. Without the 'preferred read­
          ing' to connect the elements, the model would be no more (or less)






                              Copyrighted Material
   133   134   135   136   137   138   139   140   141   142   143