Page 175 - Decoding Culture
P. 175

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

           theory's account of subject positioning and the CCCS' use of the
           encoding/decoding model.  Neither approach proved able to deal
           satisfactorily with the nexus of relations between culture, text and
           reader.  Lacking concepts  appropriate to  the  task they  tended  to
           submerge the  nascent 'active  reader'  in  models  that  prioritized
           determination by, respectively, psychoanalytic processes securing
           the subject or socio-political processes securing hegemony. It is not
           that exponents of either view were unaware of these limitations. It
           is,  rather,  that the  key terms with which  they theorized culture
           and communication were dualistic, inviting analyses in terms of the
           dominance of structures over specific social agents, or, in principle
           if not in practice, vice versa.
              I shall return to the perils of theoretical dualism later. For the
           present it is necessary to get some sense of how reaction against
           these views  in  the  1980s  precipitated  an  alternative  approach  to
           readership, a topic I shall approach by first considering aspects of
           David  Morley's work in the years following the Nationwide study.
           In Chapter 5 we saw some of the ways in which the CCCS study of
           Nationwide sought to apply the encoding/decoding model, which
           was already a step toward an active audience  conception in com­
           parison  with  older  traditions  of  media  research.  It  is  now
           commonplace to suggest that this study, especially in its most audi­
           ence-oriented  component  (Morley,  1980b) ,  demonstrated  the
           inherent limitations of the encoding/ decoding model, and, notwith­
           standing Morley's  (1992:  10-12)  own inclination to  dissent from
           this judgement,  there  is no  doubt that it marks an  initial move
           away from the terms of the classic CCCS position. The Nationwide
           study, as Morley suggests, may indeed have been retrospectively
           misrepresented by Fiske  (1987)  and Turner  (1990)  for example,
           but this does not mean that they are wrong in seeing it as an early
           sign of what was to become a marked conceptual shift.
              That shift is certainly apparent in Morley's next study, Family





                              Copyrighted Material
   170   171   172   173   174   175   176   177   178   179   180