Encoding Decoding PDF

Preview

Summary

presentation notes...

Description

ENCODING/DECODING Stuart Hall -

-

The current model of communication has been criticized for how linear it is (sender, message, and receiver). It is better to think of this model in each distinct moment through the process, such as production, circulation, distribution/consumption and reproduction. This more precise model can be sustained through a ‘passage of forms’. These practices aim to convey meanings and messages in sign form through codes within a certain chain of discourse. The apparatuses are set within the rules of language. In the discursive form the circulation of the ‘product’ takes place. The process then requires ‘material instruments’ or in this case 'themeans’ and its social relations, which is in the organization and combination of these practices. If no meaning is taken from the speech, then there is no consumption. Each piece of the puzzle is important, but if one piece works, it does not guarantee the next part of the production, though the process only works if all pieces are in place. Each piece can cause its own disruption is the ‘passage of forms’. The encoding and decoding in the long communication process are determinate moments. A ‘raw’ historical event cannot be transmitted properly through a newscast. For it to be raw, it should be visual, and once it turns into words and descriptions it brings in the problem of language and interpretation. An event must become a ‘story’ before it can be communicated. This is when the rules of discourse come into play. It must be in ‘message form’ for it to go from source to receiver. Though the moment when it gets to the receiver and is translated out of message form it becomes a lot more complicated. The message form is only a small part of the whole process. The television is an interesting communicative process. It initially has a programme for the day, or the labour process of the discursive mode. The next step is a little confusing, because there are different perceptions about the in between television. Phillip Elliott is a man who believes that the audience is the sender and the receiver of the messages. If this is the case then circulation and reception are ‘moments’ in the process of television communication. The consumption is also a moment in the process. The reception is highly important because it is the “point of departure for the realization” of the message. A certain ‘determinate’ moment there is a code and a message made in the process. In coding and decoding each step in the process likely will not look the same. That is why at each ‘determinate’ moment we see different things. Talk of television ‘content’ has changed because of the analysis of the communication process.

-

-

-

There is new research on audiences. There is a lot of behaviouralism in mass media and it has changed how we approach content. The problem is that television is not a behavioural idea, so crossing into that field is a bad idea. An example of avoiding behaviourist ideas is saying that violence on TV is “not violence, but messages about violence” The televisual sign consists of visual aural components and it is an iconic sign. Reality may exist outside of language, but it is constantly mediated by language. There is no intelligible discourse without a certain code. Codes can appear so early in a person’s life, or can be so ingrained in language that people may not realize the code has been constructed and has gone through the process of decoding in their head. These codes have been “naturalized” in a sense because it is natural to know it. This shows the achieved equivalence between encoding and decoding in many parts of language. Iconic signs are vulnerable to being seen as natural, though they usually have a different or particular meaning that is not seen. There are only a few instances in the world where signs only refer to their exact ‘literal’ meaning. Both signs will combine their denotative and connotative values. At the connotative level is where the sign situational ideologies transform. The connotative level is referring to more associative levels or the less fixed areas. This is where we see an active intervention of ideologies and the sign is open to new interpretations. This is also the level where already coded signs mix with semantic codes and make new active ideological dimensions. For example, warm clothing may signify something to “keep warm”, but it also represents the coming of winter or cold days. Connotative codes are not equal among themselves. Many cultures end up trying to force their religious, social, or political views of the world on others. This is called a dominant culture order. Different areas of social life seem to be mapped out in certain discursive domains, organized into dominant or preferred meanings. Any troubling events must be mapped to their certain domain before they can make sense. The dominant orders are certain events that come up more often and are likely preferred within a culture. To clarify a misunderstanding at the connotative level we must go through codes to the social life that relates to ideology. Many interpretive works have been ignored in practice. When dominant meanings are mentioned, it is not the discussion of how all events will be signified. It is the ‘work’ to enforce or command for the decoding of an event in the limit of dominant definitions where it is connotatively signified.

-

-

-

-

-

Many television producers find it hard to get their message across so they try and smooth out the effectiveness of the communication process. The idea of misunderstanding is often misinterpreted. In most cases it is an issue of what the audience may recall from the codes sent to them. Though, that is not to say there are no misinterpretations. These ‘misinterpretations’ happen because of an audiences’ lack of terminology knowledge, or cause of a language barrier or other things with interpretation relations. This just means that the audience is not within the dominant or preferred code. What many want is ‘perfect transparent communication’, but many get ‘systematically distorted communication’. There is no guaranteed correlation between encoding and decoding. This means that a code cannot be preferred. Encoding may set bounds or certain parameters for the code, but it cannot guarantee the decoded message. There is of course a certain correspondence between the two parts or we would never be able to communicate. There are 3 positions from which decoding in television can happen. The first position is the dominant-hegemonic position. It is when the viewer of a certain broadcast knows all the terminology and can directly take the message with little error. The viewer lives within the dominant code. It is the perfectly transparent communication talked about earlier. For example, any opinions on a politician come directly from other, non-bias politicians. Or if discussing the military, the people reading the code are likely other members of the same military. The second  position is the negotiating code. This is where most of the audience listening to the code are able to decode it and know what is being said. This is because they understand the dominant code or sign. This type of position happens because dominant codes are usually global, or on a large scale. Dominant issues usually relate to the `national interest`, so it relates to a greater amount of people. If decoding in a negotiated version, then it requires a mix of adaptive and oppositional elements. It makes rules as a large universe, but also ones that are ground rules in this negotiated universe. It operates with certain exceptions to the main dominant rules. It operates with particular or situated logics. The third  position is beyond complete. It is the complete decode of the message in such a way that they can reframe it to another point of reference. This is a person who listens to a debate and hears the mention of national interest as class interest. This is with regards to the oppositional code. This is when things are decoded in such a way that it gives an oppositional reading. This is when the struggle in discourse is joined....