Page 176 - Decoding Culture
P. 176

THE RISE OF THE  READER  169
          T e levision  (Morley,  1986:  14 ,   where,  as he puts it himself,  'my
                                   )
          focus of interest had thus shifted from the analysis of the pattern of
          differential audience "readings" of particular programme materials
          [the Nationwide study 1 to the analysis of the domestic viewing con­
          text  itself  - as  the  framework  within  which  "readings"  of
          programmes are ordinarily made'. By interviewing 18 families (ini­
          tially parents, and then their children as well) he hoped to develop
          an  understanding of how television was viewed  and  used  in the
          domestic setting that forms its 'natural' viewing environment.  In
          the  event,  if there is a single  aspect that is fore grounded in this
          research,  it is gender and the ways in which gender-based power
          manifests itself in the routine practices of television viewing:  'the
          one structural principle working across all the families interviewed
          is that of gender'  (ibid:  146) . For all its evident significance, how­
          ever, that is not the aspect to which I wish to draw attention here.
          My concern is more with Morley's admirable theoretical intent 'to
          formulate a position from which we can see the person actively pro­
          ducing meanings from the restricted range of cultural resources
          which his or her structural position has allowed  them access to'
          (ibid: 43) .
            Now it is not clear to me - nor, to be fair, is it claimed by Morley
          (1992: 59-60)  - that F a mily  T e levision actually provides  us with
          this sort of access to processes of meaning production in a struc­
          turing  context.  Readers  of the  interview accounts  may receive
          glimmers of such insight, but only by constructing their own the­
          oretical analyses in the course of reading the material. Apart from
          gender,  which  is afforded a separate  discussion, there is no sys­
          tematic  account  of  'the  restricted  range  of  cultural  resources'
          employed by the interviewees in constructing meaning.  I  do not
          intend that observation  as  a strong criticism;  to  draw out  such
          processes from detailed interview data is a formidable challenge.
          But it does  lead me to  two  general  observations  about this and





                              Copyrighted Material
   171   172   173   174   175   176   177   178   179   180   181