5

ENCODING/DECODING
StuartHall

r:

,;]
i: rli .t:

Traditionally) mass-communicationsresearchhas conceptualizedthe processof communication in terms of a circulation circuit or loop. This model has been criticized for its linearify - sender/message/receiver for its concentration on of exchange and for the absence a structured conception of the level of message the different moments as a complex structure of relations. But it is also possible (and useful) to think of this process in terms of a structure produced and sustained through the articulation of linked but distinctive moments- production, circulation, distribution/consumption, reproduction. This would be to think of the processas a'complex structure in dominance', sustainedthrough the articulation of connectedpractices, each of which, however, retains its distinctiveness and has its own specific modaliry, its own forms and conditions of existence. This second approach, homologous to that which forms the skeleton of commodity production offered in Marx's Grundrisse and in Capital, has the added advantage of bringing out more sharply how a continuous circuit 'passageof production-distribution-production - can be sustained through a forms'.1It also highlights the specificity of the forms in which the product of the process 'appears' in each moment, and thus what distinguishes discursive 'production' from other types of production in our sociery and in modern media systems.

ts;

From S. Hall, 'EncodinglDecoding', Ch. 10 in Stuart Hall, Dorothy Hobson, Andrew Lowe and Paul \Tillis leds), Culture, Media, Language (London: Hutchinson, 1980), pp. 128-38; an edited exrraq from S. Hall, 'Encoding and Decoding in the Television Discourse', cccs stencilled paper no. 7 (Birmingham: Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies, 1973).

STUART HALL

'object' in The of thesepracticesis meaningsand messages the form of signvehiclesof a specifickind organized,like any form of communication or language, through the operation of codes within the syntagmatic chain of a The apparatuses, relationsand practicesof production thus issue, discourse. 'production/circulation') in the form of at a certain moment (the moment of within the rules of 'language'. It is in this dissymbolic vehiclesconstituted cursiveform that the circulation of the'product'takes [Link] processthus 'means'- as well requires,at the production end, its material instruments- its - the organizationand combinaas its own setsof social (production)relations But it is in the discursiue form that tion of practiceswithin media apparatuses. the circulation of the product takesplace,as well as its distribution to different the must then be translated- transaudiences. Once accomplished, discourse if formed, again - into social practices the circuit is to be both completedand 'meaning' is taken, there can be po 'consumption'. If the [Link] no ing is not articulatedin practice,it has no [Link] value of this approachis to that while eachof the moments,in articulation,is necessary the circuit as a whole, no one moment can fully guaranteethe next moment with which it is articulated. Since each has its specific modality and conditions of existence, 'passageof forms' on each can constitute its own break or interruption of the 'reproduction') whose continuity the flow of effective production (that is, depends. Thus while in no way wanting to limit researchto 'following only those leads which emerge from content analysis'2we must recognize that the discursive form of the message has a privileged position in the communicative exchange (from the viewpoint of circulation), and that the moments of 'encoding' and 'decoding', 'relatively autonomous' in relation to the communithough only 'raw' historical event cative processas a whole, are determinate moments. A cannot, in that form, be transmitted by, say, a television [Link] can only be signified within the aural-visual forms of the televisual [Link] the moment when a historical event passesunder the sign of discourse, it is 'rules' by which language signifies. To put subject to all the complex formal 'story' before it can become a it paradoxically, the event must become a 'in communicatiue [Link] that moment the formal sub-rules of discourseare dominance', without, of course, subordinating out of existence the historical event so signified, the social relations in which the rules are set to work or the of social and political consequences the event having been signified in this way. 'form 'messageform' is The the necessary of appearance' of the event in its passage from source to [Link] the transposition into and out of the 'message form' (or the mode of symbolicexchange) not a random 'moment', is The 'message form' is a which we can take up or ignore at our convenience. at another level,it comprisesthe surfacemovedeterminatemoment; though, systemonly and requires,at another stage,to be ments of the communications as integratedintothe socialrelationsof the communicationprocess a whole, of which it forms only a part.

From this ge communicative with their pract technical infras analogy of Capi tion, here, const course, the proc framed through routines of prod ogies, institutio about the audier this production slon orlglnate th They draw top audience,'defini formations withi are a differentia within a more tri audienceis both to borrow Marx the production p skewed and stru consumption or 'moment' of the 'predominant' be message. Product identical, but thr totaliry formed b, At a certain po messages the f, in tions of producti product to be .r, which the formal message can have 'use', it must firs ingfully decoded. influence,entertai tive, emotional, i, moment the strucr minate moment t. social practices. V audience receptio terms. The typical ments- effects. us

52

[Link]/D rcoDtNG From this generalperspective, we may crudely characterizethe television communicative process follows. The institutional structuresof broadcasting, as with their practices and nerworks of production, their organizedrelationsand technical infrastructures, are required to produce a programme. Using the analogy of capital, this is the 'labour process'in the discursivemode. production, here,constructs message. one sense, the In then, the circuit [Link] course,the production processis not without its 'discursive'aspect:ir, roo, is framed throughout by meanings and ideas: knowledge-in-use concerning the routines of production, historically definedtechnicalskills, professional ideologies, institutional knowledge, definitions and assumptions, assumprions about the audienceand so on frame the constitution of the programme through this production structure. Further, though the production structures of television originatethe televisiondiscourse, they do not constitute a closedsystem. They draw topics, treatments, agendas, eyents, personnel, images of the 'definitions audience, of the situation'from other sourcesand other discursive formationswithin the wider socio-cultural and political structureof which they are a differentiated part. Philip Elliott has expressed this point succinctly, within a more traditional framework, in his discussionof the way in which the audienceis both the 'source' and the 'receiver' of the television message. Thus to borrow Marx's terms - circulation and reception are, indeed, 'moments' of the production process in television and are reincorporated, via a number of skewed and structured 'feedbacks', into the production process itself. The consumption or reception of the television message is thus also itself a 'moment' of the production process in its larger sense, though the latter is 'predominant' becauseit is the 'point of departure for the realization' of the message. Production and reception of the television messageare not, therefore, identical, but they are related: they are differentiated moments within the totaliry formed by the social relations of the communicative processas a whole. At a certain point, however, the broadcasting structures must yield encoded messages the form of a meaningful discourse. The institution-societal relain tions of production must pass under the discursive rules of language for its product to be 'realized'. This initiates a further differentiated moment, in which the formal rules of discourseand language are in dominance. Beforethis message can have an 'effect' (however defined), satisfy a 'need' or be pur to a 'use', it must first be appropriated as a meaningful discourse and be meaningfully decoded. It is this set of decoded meanings which ,have an effec', influence,entertain, instruct or persuade,with very complex perceptual,cognitive, emotional, ideological or behavioural [Link] a 'determinate, moment the structure employs a code and yields a 'message':at another determinate moment the 'message',via its decodings, issues into the structure of social [Link] are now fully aware that this re-entry into the practicesof audience reception and 'use' cannot be understood in simple behavioural terms. The typical processes identified in positivistic research on isolated elements - effects,uses, 'gratifications' - are themselvesframed by structuresof

53

Srulnr Hall
reception,'read announcedin c, there seemsson calledaudience of the communi, the lingering bel especiallyin its gramme is not a been almost im' municative pror behaviourism.\ violence on the we have continl were unable to The televisior tion of fwo type in Peirce'stermi T represented'.4 provided the sit, the visual discor planes,it canno the film can bar constantly medi has to be prodt product not of t the articulation intelligible disco coded signs too signs. There is apparent fidelitl the result, the el It is the result o Certain codes community or cr be constructedbe 'naturally' g universalify' in 'natural'visual no codes have ir alized. The ope: 'naturalness' of ality of the code has the (ideolol [Link] we

,/'"*:i':?ilTT':t''*' \
encoding decoding
meanlng structures I

meaning structures 2

frameworks of knowledge relations ol production technical infrastructure

frameworks of knowledge relations of production technical infrastructure

understanding, as well as being produced by social and economic relations, 'realization' at the reception end of the chain and which which shape their permit the meanings signified in the discourseto be transposedinto practice or consciousness(to acquire social use value or political effectiviry). 'meaning structures 1' and Clearly, what we have labelled in the diagram 'meaning structures 2' may not be the same. They do not constitute an 'immediate identity'. The codes of encodingand decoding mav not be perfectly 'understanding' degreesof The de@he Ummg11g4l, inil-'misunderstanding' in the communicative exchange - depend on the degreesof symmetry/asymmetry (relationsof equivalence)establishedberween 'personifications', encoder-producerand decoder-receiver. the positions of the But this in turn depends on the degreesof identity/non-identity between the codes which perfectly or imperfectly transmit, interrupt or systematically distort what has been transmitted. The lack of fit between the codes has a of great deal to do with the structural differences relation and position between it also has something to do with the asymbroadcasters and audiences, but 'source' and 'receiver' at the moment of tranSformetry between the codes of 'distortions' or mation into and out of the discursive form. What are called

.misunderstandings'arisepreciselyfromtheta@

'relatlve lnes tI two sldes the communlcatrve e two sldes ln the communlcatrve excnange. Lrnce agalnr tnls qerlnes the

ffiateness,'oftheentryandexitofthemessageinits
discursive moments. The application of this rudimentary paradigm has already begun to trans'content'. We are just form our understandingof the older term, television beginning to see how it might also transform our understanding of audience

54

DECODING ENcoDINGi

'reading' and responseas well. Beginnings and endings have been reception, announced in communications researchbefore, so we must be cautious. But there seemssome ground for thinking that a new and exciting phase in soof research, a quite new kind, may be opening up. At either end called audience chain the use of the semiotic paradigm promises to dispel of the communicative the lingering behaviourism which has doggedmass-mediaresearch for so long, especially in its approach to content. Though we know the television programme is not a behavioural input, like a tap on the knee cap, it seemsto have to Le.n al..rost impossible for traditional researchers conceptualize the communicative process without lapsing into one or other variant of low-flying 'We of know, as Gerbner has remarked, that representations behaviourism. 'are not violencebut messages about violence':3but violence on the TV screen continued to researchthe questionof violence,for example, as if we we have distinction' were unable to comprehendthis epistemological is a complex one. It is itself constituted by the combinaThe televisionsign tion of fwo rypes of discourse,visual and aural. Moreover, it is an iconic sign, 'it some of the properties of the thing in Peirce'sterminology, because posseses This is a point which has led to a great deal of confusion and has represented'.4 provided the site of intense controversy in the study of visual language. Since world into rwo-dimensional the visual discoursetranslates a three-dimensional planes, it cannot, of course, be the referentor concept it signifies. The dog in th. fil- can bark but it cannot bite! Realiry exists outside language,[Link] is 11 and what we can know and sav I I constantly mediatedby and through language:

proa;.r n#;ilf.

[Link]"t."t

knowledge'is t but of the 'real' in language of ..p..[Link]"ti,on

the articulation of language on real relations and conditions. Thus there is no intelligible discoursewithout the operation of a code. Iconic signs are therefore coded signs too - even if the codes here work differently from those of other 'realism' - the signs. There is no degree zero in language. Naturalism and apparent fidelity of the representationto the thing or concept represented is the result, the effect, of a certain specificarticulation of language on the'real'. It is the result of a discursive practice. Certain codesmay, of course, be so widely distributed in a specific language community or culture, and be learnedat so early an age,that they appear not to be constructed - the effect of an articulation befween sign and referent - but to 'nearbe 'naturally' given. Simple visual signs appear to have achieved a universality' in this sense: though evidence remains that even apparently 'natural' visual codes are [Link], this does not mean that no codes have intervened; rather, that the codes have been profoundly naturalized. The operation of naturalized codes reveals not the transparency and 'naturalness' of languagebut the depth, the habituation and the near-univers'natural' recognitions. This ality of the codes in use. They produce apparently has the (ideological)effect of concealingthe practicesof coding which are Actually' what naturalized [Link] we must not be fooled by appearances.

55

SrunnrHn-l
a habituation produced when there is codes demonstrate is the degree of - an achieved tltlt-"1ff:t;::,:::: fundamental alignment and reciprociry exchange of meanings' The functioning the encoding "na a..oaittg sldes of an status of ,ia. will frlquently assume the 'cow' of the codes on .h" ;;:.di"g visual sign for to think that the naturalized [Link],i, tJ"a, us visual tfre animal' cow' But if we think of the actually is (rather tn^n)'i"'"zrs) representationofacowinamanualonanimalhusbandry_and,evenmore'of 'cow' - we can see that both' in different degrees' are the linguistic sign of the animal they represent' The arbitrary with respect to the concept visual or verbal - with the concept articulation of an arbitrary sign whelher ofareferentistheproduct"otofnaturebutofconvention'andtheconv e n t i o n a l i s m o f d i s c o u r s e s r e q u i r e s t h e i n t e r v e n t i o n , t h e S u preal tworld d e s . 'look like obiects in the p o r ' o f c o Thus Eco has "rgued ti"i ito"it signs (that is, the codes) of perception in the becausethey reproduce the conditions 'conditions of perception' are' however' the result of a highly viewer'.5 These coded,evenifui*""ffy"nto"stiot",setofoperations-decodings'Thisisas image as it is of any other sign- Iconic true of the photograpiri. o, televisual 'read' as natural because vulnerable to being signs are, however, p"iitt'I"'ty of widely distributed and becausethis type visual codesor p.r..fio.;;;;.ry 'cow' possesses linguistic sign' sign: the sign is less arbitrary than a linguistic noneofthepropertiesofthethingrepresented'whereasthevisualsignappears some [Link] properttes' to possess

t...1
of its contextual referenceand The level of connotation of the visual sign, is the fields o1 meaning and association' positioning in different di"o"iu" [Link]

ffi;il;;;r;;iii"""r,

Htrt' too' there is no take an example from advertising discoutse' representation' Every visual sign in denotative', "nd ..a"inly no "'"it'ral', value or inference'which is presentas advertisingconnotes" qu"lity, situation, positiondepending on the connotational o, i*pliJ *t""i"g, "" t-piL"i"n 'warm garment' alw"ys signifies a iit #t"*t ing. In Barthes's .*"-Jt, 'Leeping warm'' But it is also (denotation) and thus ihe activity/value of 'the coming of winter' or to signify possible, at its more connotative ieuels' 'a cold day'. And, in tnt 'ptti"lized sub-codesof fashion' sweater may also or' alternatively' [Link] sryle connote a fashionablesryle of baute couture the visual background and positioned by of dress. But set "guin'i the right 'long in the woods''6 Codesof "nt,tm,iwalk romantic sub-code,it may connote universe of relations fo' tht sign with the wider this order clearly .on*t power a'ndideology the tnt"n' by which 'maps of ideologiesin a society' Thesecodes are discourses'They refer signs to the are made to signify in particular 'maps of social reality' is classified; and those meaning, into which ".'i"rr"r. practices' and usages'power and have the whole range of social meanings'

we dimensions. might ideological moreactive 'purely

56

ENcoDING/DEcoDING

'written in' to them. The connotative levels of signifiers, Barthes interest 'have a close communication with culture, knowledge, history, remarked, and it is through them, so to speak, that the environmental world invades the linguistic and semantic system. They are, if you like, the fragments of ideologY''7 The so-called denotative leuel of the televisual sign is fixed by certain, very 'closed') [Link] its connotative/euel,though also complex (but limited or is more open, subject to more active transformations, which exploit bounded, its polysemic values. Any such already constituted sign is potentially transformable into more than one connotative configuration. Polysemy must not, however, be confused with pluralism. Connotative codes^re not equal among [Link] society/culture tends, with varying degrees of closure, to of imposeits classifications the social and cultural and political world. These constitute a dominant cultural order, though it is neither univocal nor un'structure of discoursesin dominance' is a contested. This question of the crucial point. The different areas of social life appear to be mapped out into discursivedomains, hierarchically organized into dominant or preferred meanand izgs. New, problematic or troubling events,which breachour expectancies 'common-sense constructs', to our 'taken-for-granted' run counter to our knowledge of social structures, must be assignedto their discursive domains 'make before they can be said to sense'.The most common way of 'mapping' them is to assign the new to some domain or other of the existing 'maps of \We say dominant, not 'determined', becauseit is iroblematic social realiry'. always possibleto order, classify, assignand decodean event within more than one ''mapping'. But we say 'dominant' because there exists a pattern of 'preferred readings'; and these both have the institutionaVpolitical/ideological brder imprinted in them and have themselvesbecome institutionalized.8 The 'preferred meanings'have the whole social order embeddedin them domains of gs a set of meanings, practices and beliefs: the everyday knowledge of social :structures, of 'how things work for all practical purposesin this culture', the rank order of power and interest and the structure of legitimations, limits and itanctions. Thus to clarify a 'misunderstanding' at the connotative level, we [Link],through the codes, to the orders of social life, of economic and ical power and of ideology. Further, since thesemappings are 'structured dominance' but not closed. the communicative Drocess consists not in the tic assignmentof every visual item to its given position within a set pFprearrangedcodes, but of performatiue rules - rules of competenceand use, tif logics-in-use which seekactively to enforce or pre-fer one semanticdomain bver another and rule items into and out of their appropriate meaning-sets. I semiology has too often neglected this practice of interpretatiue uork, this constitutes, in fact, the real relations of broadcast practices in on. In speaking of dominant meanings, then, we are not talking about a oneprocesswhich governs how all events will be signified. It consistsof the

57

SrumrHeu
required to enforce, win plausibility for and command as regitimate a decoding of the event within the limit of dominant definitions in which it haq been connoratively signified. Terni has remarked: By the word readins we mean not only the capacity to identify and decodea certain number of signs,but also the subjectiv..up".iry io put them into a creative relation between themselvesand with oth..-rignr,l capacity which is, by its-erf,the condition for a complete awareness of one's total environment.9 our quarrel here is with the notion of 'subjectivecapaciry', as if the referentof a televisionaldiscourse were an objective fact but th. [Link] level were an individualizedand private matter. euite the opposite ,..-r ro be the case. The televisual practice takes 'objective' (that is, systemic) responsibility precisely for the relations which disparate signs contract with one another in any discursive instance,and-thus continually rearranges,delimits and prescribes into what 'awarenessof one's total environment' these items are arranged. This brings us to the question of misunderstandings. Television producers who find their message 'failing to get across' are frequently concerned to straighten out the kinks in the communication chain, thus facilitating the 'effectiveness' of their communication. Much research which claims the objectiviry of 'policy-oriented analysis' reproduces this administrative goal by attempting to discover how much of a messagethe audience recallsand to improve the extent of understanding. No doubt misunderstandings of a literal kind do exist. The viewer does not know the terms employed, [Link] follow the complex logic of argumenr or exposirion, is unfamiliar with the language, finds the conceptstoo alien or difficult or is foxed by the expository narrarive. But more often broadcastersare concernedthat the audience has failed to take the meaning as they - the broadcasters- intended. vhat they reaily mean to say is that viewers are not operating within the ,dominant, or:preferred, code. Their ideal is 'perfectly transparent communication'. Instead, what they have to confront is'systematically distorted communication,.l0 In recent years discrepancies of this kind have usually been explained by reference to 'selective perception'. This is the door via which a residual pluralism evades the compulsions of a highly structured, asymmetrical and non-equivalent process. of course, there wiil always be private, individual, variant [Link] 'selectiveperception' is almost ,r.u., ", ,.I..tiu., random or privatized as the concept suggesrs. The patterns exhibit, acrossindividual variants' significant clusterings. Any new approach to audience studies will therefore have to begin with a critique of ,selectiveperception, theory. It was argued earlier that since there is no necessary correspondence berween encoding and decoding, the former can attempt to 'pre-fei' but cannor prescribeor guaranteethe latter, which has its own conditions of existence. unless they are wildly aberrant, encoding will have the effect of constructing some of the limits and paramererswithin which decodingswill operate. If therewere no 'work'

58

Er'tcoorNc/DEcoDtNG could simply read whateverthey liked into any message. limits, audiences No doubt some total misunderstandings this kind do exist. But ,h. u"r, of ,".rg. must contaln some degree of reciprocity between encoding and decodiig moments' otherwise we could not speak of an effectiu. .ori,nunrcative ex_ at change all. Nevertheless, this 'correspondence' not given but constructed. is 'natural' It is not but the product of an articulation berween two distinct [Link] the former cannot determineor guarantee,in a simpre sense, which decoding codes will be employed. otherwise communication wourd be a perfectly equivalent circuit, and every message would be an rnstance of 'perfectly transparent communication'. we must think, then, of the variant articulations in which encoding/decoding can be combined. To elaborate on this, we offer a hypothetical analysis of some possible decoding positions, in order to reinforce the point of'no necesr"ry.o...rpondence,.1i we identify three hypothetical positions from which decodings of a televisual discoursemay be constructed. These need to be empirically tested and refined. But the argument that decodings do not folrow inevitabry from encodings, that they are not identical,reinforces the argumentof ,no necessary correspondence'. also helps to deconstru.t the .o-monsense It meaning of 'misunderstanding' in terms of a theory of .systematically distorted communication'. The first hypothetical position is that of the dominant-hegemonic position. when the viewer takes the connoted meaning from, say, a tievision newscast or current affairs programme full and straight, and iecodes the messagein terms of the referencecode in which it has been encoded, we might say that the viewer is operating inside tbe dominant [Link], th. [Link]]typic"l .are of 'perfectly transparent communication' - or as close as we are lit eti to come to it 'for all purposes'. rfithin this we can distinguish the _practical positions produced by the professionar code. This is the position (produced by what we perhapsought to identify as the operation of " .-"r".o1.,) which the professional broadcastersassume when encoding a messagewhich hasarready been signified in a hegemonic manner. The proiessional code is ,relatively independent' of the dominant code, in that ii appries criteria and transformational operations of its own, especially those of a technico-practical nature. The professionalcode, however, operates witbin the 'hegemony, of the dominant code. Indeed, it serves to reproduce the dominant definitions precisely by bracketing hegemonic qualiry and operating instead with displaced -their professional codings which foreground such apparenily neutral-technicar ques"'t1al qualiry, news and presentational uaiues, televisual quality, ::_::^:^: protessronalism' and so on. The hegemonicinterpretations of, say, the politics [Link] Ireland' or the Chileai coup or the Industrial Relations Bill are principally generated by political and -ilit".y elites: the particular choice of presentationaloccasions and formats, the selectionof personnel,the choice of the sragingof debatesare selected and combinedthrough the operarion lTlr*tr' ot the professional code. How the broadcasting professionals'are able both to

59

HnuSrunnr
'relatively autonomous'codesof their own and to act in such a operate with way as to reproduce (not without contradiction) the hegemonic signification of events is a complex matter which cannot be further spelled out here. It must suffice to say that the professionalsare linked with the defining elites not only 'ideological apparaitself as an by the institutional position of broadcasting tus',r2 but also by the structure of access(that is, the systematic'over'definition of the situation' in elite personneland their of accessing' selective codes serve to reproduce television).It may even be said that the professional hegemonic definitions specifically by not ouertly biasing their operations in a dominant direction: ideological reproduction therefore takes place here inad'behind men's backs'.t3Of [Link], conflicts, contravertently, unconsciously, regularlyarisebetweenthe dominant and dictions and evenmisunderstandings professionalsignificationsand their signifyingagencies. the The second position we would identify is that of the negotiated code or position. Majority audiencesprobably understand quite adequately what has been dominantly defined and professionally signified. The dominant definitions, however) are hegemonic precisely becausethey represent definitions of situations and eventswhich are'in dominance', (Slobal). Dominant definitions connect events, implicitly or explicitly, to grand totalizations, to the great 'large views' of issues: they relate syntagmatic views-of-the-world: they take 'national interest' or to the level of geo-politics, even if they make events to the these connections in truncated, inverted or mystified ways. The definition of a hegemonic viewpoint is (a) that it defineswithin its terms the mental horizon, the universe,of possiblemeanings,of a whole sector of relations in a socieryor culture; and (b) that it carries with it the stamp of legitimacy - it appears 'natural', 'inevitable', 'taken for granted' about the coterminous with what is social order. Decoding within the negotiated uersion contains a mixture of adaptive and oppositional elements: it acknowledges the legitimacy of the hegemonic definitions to make the grand significations (abstract)' while, at a more restricted, situational (situated) level, it makes its own ground rules - it operates with exceptions to the rule. It accords the privileged position to the dominant definitions of events while reserving the right to make a more 'local conditions', to its own morc corporate posinegotiated application to tions. This negotiated version of the dominant ideology is thus shot through with contradictions, though theseare only on certain occasions brought to full visibility. Negotiated codes operate through what we might call particular or situated logics: and these logics are sustainedby their differential and unequal relation to the discourses and logics of power. The simplest example of a negotiated code is that which governsthe responseof a worker to the notion of an Industrial Relations Bill limiting the right to strike or to arguments for a 'national interest' economic debate the decoder At wages freeze. the level of the that'we must all pay ourselves may adopt the hegemonicdefinition, agreeing lessin order to combat inflation'. This, however,may have little or no relation to his/her willingness to go on strike for better pay and conditions or to oppose the Industrial Relationsl suspectthat the great mr contradictions nd disju a negotiated-corporate de most provoke defining r munications'. Finally, it is possiblef< the connorariveinflectio globally conrrary way. F order to retotalize the n [Link] is the caseof t wagesbut'reads' everyn sheis operatingwith wh: significant political morr broadcasting organizatio eventswhich are normall be given an oppositiona strugglein discourse is

1. Foranexplicationand argument, [Link], , see in wpcs5 (1974\. 2. J. D. Halloran, .Undr Colloquy on'Understa 3. G. Gerbneret al., Vi : Functions(The Annenl 4. Charles Peirce,Specul Harvard UniversityPrt , J . UmbertoEco,'Articul: 'Rhett 6. Roland Barthes, 7. Roland Barthes, Eleme 8 . For an extendedcritir reading' (unpublished I P. Terni, 'Memorandul vision' (Universiw L of The phraseis Haberm Dretzel (ed.), Recent ,
however, in a differenr 11. For a sociological forr ,^ outlined here but whi, dtscourse, Frank pat see . Kee 1971). See Louis Althusser. .l Pbilosophy and Other For an expansion of this in broadcasrins'.4th : 1972), and'Broadcastir AMcn Symposium, Univ

60

ENcootNc/DecoDlNG to act in such a c signification of rut here. It must rg elites not only ological appara'overFstematic the situation' in rve to reproduce : operations in a place here inad:onflicts, contrahe dominant and Totiated code or luately what has lominant defini:nt definitions of Linantdefinitions rns, to the great ;sues:they relate :ven if they make re definition of a mental horizon, 'ns in a society or acy - it appears 'anted' about the ins a mixture of egitimacy of the ract), while, at a ground rules - it d position to the :o make a more ? corporate posihus shot through ns brought to full call particular or rtial and unequal :st example of a :r to the notion of arguments for a ebate the decoder all pay ourselves nle or no relation :ions or to oppose ',[Link] r I r-r-L^. union organrz Bill at the level of shopfloor or [Link].i"l Relations

that o""' suspectthe -li'i";i'-';9

which ::'ff ::ff il::ff il1il;;;:'";;';;;h'g'*oni'-dominantencodingsand in mismatches the levels these It is

::::*:'::1",t"', #:'r["#jl:

d;:;ll;gt "".a iust 'failure in comnegotiated-co,qo:."'.t to professionals identifya provok" o.r,n,[Link]*, mosr tH;[:Ti, both the literal and to porriut. for a viewer perfectly understand in the to decode message a i"flection glutt' Uy u di"o""t but the connotatlve codein in the detotalizes message the preferred *"y.;;i'J. globattyconrrary o r d e r t o r e t o t a l l z e t n e m e s s a g e w i t h i n s o m edebate " t the needto w o r k o f r e f e r a l t e r n i v e f r a m e limit on to listens a of This is the case the vilwer who ence. wagesbut'reads'.".tr."tt"ionofthe.'nationalinterest'as'classinterest''He/ code'O'neof the most *i,n "uh"t *t must call an oppositional ;r.";;;.g significantpolitical-o-t"t'(theyalsotointidtwithcrisispointswithinthe is reasons) the point when o.g"ni'"iiot' tn"*'itu"" for obvious broadcasting way beginto in and decoded a negotiated which "r. not*uit"G"iii"a events 'politics of signification'- the Here the be given an oppositio"li """ai"g' ,t..f,gI. in discourse is ioined'
NOTES l. of implication-s Marx's on theme^thodological and For an explication commenrary Grundrisse" of M"'*'' t\ii7it'Zau'tioi to the see arsument' S' Hall,'A reading

'i;1.i_r:,l3lJ] .understanding of Europe paper television,,. for the councrl 2. -colloquv 'undt"iin;"fi#*f[q,' 1973)' of Leicester (Univeriiw on andSvmbolic ioi'ni' ;' rv Drama:';"ii"iyof Trends ,' Gerbner ot', 3. G. 1 of Pennsvlvania970)' u"iutrsiry
Functions([Link]"t;;t;iti'ooi' Mass': in coti""d Pipers (cambridge' 4. charles v"irrr, sp";):io;;i'"e;";';)' " 1931-58)' Press i"iu"ta University n 'e'titt'l"tions of the cinematic code" in Cinemanttcs' o. 1. UmbertoE.o, 'Rh;;;;i; 5. | (re7r\' ;f the image" in wPcs 6:. R;i;il;;;h'.', 1967\' il-h;; Eleientsof,semiologv,(CapeseeAlan o'Shea' 'Preferred ilffi ;. tgia-i"g]' t;i;**;i;;;;?t;;d o' For an extended 8.

1973)' of (iJniversitv Leicester;6y.r.l"tically ;it;' in communications', P' distorted H"U.r,iril"'i" i, 10. The phrase It is used here' 1970)' 2 (Collier-Macmillan Dretzel kd.\, Recent Sociology

of Birminsham)' 'Understanding ;."d;;'lffi;;ritr'"a"i"pticics' Universiw Tele'tt.-o""i""t'i{H;-;]i91eu'opi 6ottoq"v"on 9. [Link],

r.

l:X'::;l':rtit;l:n:f;ion

lz.

about_the ""i- p"-[.r rhe argument herebut ;ii:ffi;;; outrined and order (Macgibbon ""a po7;'i/,ot ,.. discourse, r'"t'r'*iltii ;Zi";;i";;;itit" and Kee1971). .ldeology state apparatuses', in Lenin
see Louis Althusser, and ideological

positions some-wavs'.:.".*' is,cl:s:'in which theorvot

1971)' LeftBooks iit.i"inv ""'doii'-' iuov't'1N"* Stuattllall"Tht t*tttn"Vinternal dialectic 'e" of 13. For an expansion this "'gutt"t' (Universiry Manchester n'iiiting
'of'ity ng', jence/impartial couplet" in broadcasti 4th Syiposiu.m o' 'l 97 21, and'n'o"at"'t#g ind the""""f""inJtpe'n paper)' i e75 (ctcs unpublished Svm Rr"rcR pos,'*,'J;i;'?'i;"'i;';;;;;;'

6l