Encoding and Decoding

The ‘Encoding/Decoding’ model was originally proposed by Jamaican-born British cultural theorist Stuart Hall in 1973. Hall was a founding member of the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies. A school that has been a key instrument in the development of cultural studies.

The Encoding/Decoding model can arguably fall under the broad topic of Semiotics.

At the time of publication, the Encoding/Decoding model of communication (1973) was part of a paradigm shift in media and cultural studies that would move society away from an effects model. Although in today's society, the premise of the article differs slightly - viewers simply decode information in imperfect alignment with its encoding by the producers.

Fig 1. The Encoding/Decoding Model of Communication

Hall's Model of Communication proposed three different viewer positions:

• Hegemonic/Dominant,
• Negotiated,
• and Oppositional.

Encoding and Decoding is the way that media messages are produced, dispersed and consumed. Hall's argument emphasises that the meaning is not fixed or determined by the sender or producer - the message is never transparent, although some viewers may receive it as so (depending on their personal circumstances, education, lifestyle, interests or experiences). The audience is never a passive recipient. 

Dominant/Hegemonic Reading

'The dominant definitions, however, are hegemonic precisely because they represent definitions of situations and events which are 'in dominance', (global). Dominant definitions connect events, implicitly or explicitly, to grand totalizations, to the great syntagmatic views-of-the-world: they take 'large views' of issues: they relate events to the 'national interest' or to the level of geo-politics, even if they make these connections in truncated, inverted or mystified ways' (Hall, 1973)

The dominant reading is where the reader fully accepts the preferred and posed reading. They will read the text in the way that the producer intended them to.

Negotiated Reading 

Decoding within the negotiated reading contains a mixture of adaptive (hegemonic) and oppositional elements. As a negotiated reader, you acknowledge the legitimacy of the hegemonic definitions but as well as this, on a more reserved level, negotiated readers also disagree with some of these ideologies and form their own opinion through agreeing and disagreeing with the viewpoints given. It is a partial belief and acceptance of the reading but adapts it in a way that would reflect the reader's own position, interests and experiences.

Oppositional Reading

An oppositional reading of a media text would imply that the viewer completely disagrees with. It is a complete rejection of the reading. This may occur due to social position, interests or experiences.

It is interesting to note that Hall 'referred to various phases in the Encoding/Decoding mode of communication as 'moments' (Chandler, 2014):

• The moment of encoding: 'the institutional practices and organisational conditions and practices of production' (Corner 1983, p. 266); 
• Secondly, you have the moment of the text: 'the [...] symbolic construction, arrangement and perhaps performance. [...] The form and content of what is published or broadcast' (Corner, 1983, p. 267); 
• Lastly, the moment of decoding: 'the moment of reception [or] consumption [...] by [...] the reader/hearer/viewer' which is regarded by most theorists as 'closer to a form of "construction"' than to 'the passivity [...] suggested by the term "reception"' (Corner, 1983, p. 267)

Hall refers to several 'linked but distinctive moments - production, circulation, distribution/consumption, reproduction' (Hall, 1980) as a part of the circuit or model of communication.

Bibliography

• Chandler, D. Aberystwyth University, (2014). Semiotics for Beginners. [image] Available at: http://visual-memory.co.uk/daniel/Documents/S4B/sem02.html [Accessed 7 Mar. 2017]
• Corner, John (1983): 'Textuality, Communication and Power'. In Davis & Walton (Eds.), pp. 266-81
• Hall, Stuart ([1973] 1980): 'Encoding/decoding'. In Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies (Ed.): Culture, Media, Language: Working Papers in Cultural Studies, 1972-79 London: Hutchinson, pp. 128-38
• Hall, Stuart. 1973. Encoding and Decoding in the Television Discourse. Birmingham, England: Centre for Cultural Studies, University of Birmingham, 507–17.

Critical Discourse Analysis and Orientalism

Critical Discourse Analysis is a way of analysing text (usually language) and 'CDA' is far more concerned with what text actually does rather than what it means. Stuart Hall describes it as the ‘production of knowledge through language’ (Hall, 1992, p 291). 

Critical Discourse Analysis has a particular interest in the relationship between power and language, it considers the political, gender, media and institutional discourses that testify to more or less overt relations of struggle and conflict. 

'Language is also a medium of domination and social power. It serves to legitimate relations of organised force. In so far as the legitimations do not articulate the relations of force that they make possible, in so far as these relations are merely expressed in the legitimations, language is also ideological. Here it is not a question of deceptions within language, but of deception with language as such'. (Habermas, 1977, P. 259)

The key theorist in the area of Critical Discourse Analysis is the French philosopher and social theorist, Michel Foucault. His book L'Archèologie du Savoir, or The Archeology of Knowledge, published in 1969 seeks to analyse and describe the history of discourse and instead of analysing the preconceptions about historical unity or continuity, Foucault describes the process of discourse in all its thresholds, differences and varieties: 

'The premise of the archaeological method is that systems of thought and knowledge [...] are governed by rules, beyond [...] grammar and logic, that operate beneath the consciousness of individual subjects and define a system of conceptual possibilities that determines the boundaries of thought in a given domain and period'. (Gutting, 2013)

Foucault was concerned with how social discourses created concepts that change over time such as medicine, sanity and insanity, and sexuality. His primary principle was that there is not some ‘thing’ called sexuality/sanity etc. that exists prior to discourse. Discourses, create and sustain them.

In their publication, theorists Fairclough and Wodak discuss the main principles of Critical Discourse Analysis, they summarise and explain:

1. How CDA addresses social problems, 
2. How the power relations are discursive, 
3. Discourse Constitutes Society and Culture, 
4. How discourse does ideological work, 
5. How discourse is historical, 
6. How the link between text and society is mediated.
7. Discourse analysis is interpretative and explanatory 
8. Discourse is a form of social action. (Fairclough and Wodak, 1997, p. 271-280)

One of the most famous branches or products of discourse analysis is Orientalism.

'Orientalism' is a Western product and process. Through discourse analysis's construction of the 'East', we 'understand' Eastern countries and cultures in a politically motivated way. 

Through definition and construction of 'the Other', ‘we’ the West, define and construct ourselves. The ‘East’ only has meaning in contrast with the ‘West’. Orientalism is simply a framework or a 'lens' that we use to understand the unfamiliar or the strange. It is a lens that is used to make the people of the 'East' appear different and threatening in comparison to those in the 'West'.

'From the beginning of Western speculation about the Orient, the one thing the orient could not do was to represent itself.' (Said, p. 283)

Said conducted a wide-ranging survey and through it found many tropes and comparisons with the West in relation to 'the Orient':

• The Orient as feminine, whereas the West is masculine,
• Decadent, yet we are controlled,
• Barbaric, yet we are civilised,
• The Orient as traditional, yet we are modern,
• Oppressive, yet we are progressive. 

Although Said's definition and analysis of Orientalism is arguably accurate and real, it has been accused of cherry-picking moments in history (Lewis, 1982) and there has been criticism due to the 'vacillation between discussing the Orient purely as a construction and positing the Orient as real place which the West has misrepresented' (Bhaba 1994, 72; Young 2001, P. 391) and while it may be a key discourse in relation to popular media, it may not be as hegemonic and unyielding as some theorists may think. 

Bibliography

• Bhabha, H. K. 1994. The location of culture. London and NY: Routledge.
• Fairclough, N. & Wodak, R. (1997). Critical Discourse Analysis. In van Dijk, T. A. (Ed.), Discourse as social interaction: A multidisciplinary introduction (Vol 2, pp. 258-84). London: Sage Publications Ltd.
• Gutting, G. (2013). Michel Foucault. [online] Plato.stanford.edu. Available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/foucault/#3.2 [Accessed 7 Mar. 2017].
• Habermas, J. 1977. Erkenntis und Interesse. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
• Hall, S. 1992. The West and the rest: discourse and power. In: Hall, S., and Gieben, B, eds. Formations of power. Cambridge: Polity.
• Lewis, B. (1982). The Question of Orientalism. 1st ed. [ebook] The New York Review of Books. Available at: https://www.amherst.edu/media/view/307584/original/The+Question+of+Orientalism+by+Bernard+Lewis+%7C+The+New+York+Review+of+Books.pdf [Accessed 7 Mar. 2017].
• Said, E. [1970]. 1995. Orientalism. Harmondsworth: Penguin

Semiotics

Semiotics is the study of signs. It examines how symbolic, written and technical signs construct meaning, as well as looking at how meaning is made and understood. There are many theorists that are involved in the different branches of semiotics, Ferdinand de Saussure being the key figure in the coining of the term. Theorists such as Charles Sanders Pierce, Roland Barthes and more recently, Stuart Hall and Daniel Chandler have also had a large impact on the study of signs. This blog post will discuss the different theories/ideologies posed by the theorists listed above.

It is important to remember that signs are polysemic, meaning that they have various different interpretations and meanings.

'The shortest definition is that [semiotics] is the study of signs. But that doesn't leave enquirers much wiser. 'What do you mean by a sign?' people usually ask next. The kinds of signs that are likely to spring immediately to mind are those which we routinely refer to as 'signs' in everyday life, such as road signs, pub signs and star signs. If you were to agree with them that semiotics can include the study of all these and more, people will probably assume that semiotics is about 'visual signs‘' (Chandler, 2002)

Saussure proposes a dyadic model of the sign, he defines a sign as being made up of the signifier and the signified. The signifier is a sign, a word, a colour or image, like the word 'tree'. Whereas the signified is the concept or meaning, or the associations that the signs refer to. Saussure explains how the sign is arbitrary, there is no natural reason why a signifier is linked to the signified, for example, there is no real reason why we decided to call a 'tree' a 'tree'. He also emphasises how the sign is relational and differential. It is relational because it only makes sense in relation to other signs in the same or a similar system and it is differential because it defines things by what they are not rather than by what they are. 

Fig 1. Saussurean Model  (Chandler, Aberystwyth University, 2014)

Charles Sanders Pierce, on the other hand, believed signs to be our only method of thinking and that signs function as mediators between the external world of objects and the internal world or ideas (Scott, 2014). Signs can take the form of images, objects, words, acts etc. but in fact, lack intrinsic meaning and become signs only when meaning is given to them by us. He explains that nothing is a sign unless it is interpreted as one and hence signifies something. (Peirce, 1931-58) He also stated that there were three different kinds of signs; 

• Symbol/symbolic: This is purely conventional, the relationship must be learnt. 
• Icon/iconic: The relationship of resemblance, something that physically resembles what it stands for (A picture, or portrait) 
• Index/indexical: The relationship of causality (for example, smoke from a fire or dark clouds as a warning for rain)

All media texts have two layers of meaning to them. You have the denotative level, which is what we actually see, the surface meaning. And you have the connotative level, which is what you associate with it, the deeper or hidden meanings that go alongside it.

Roland Barthes semiotic theory focuses on how signs represent different cultures and ideologies in different ways. His theory follows the ideas of denotations and connotations, these being the terms used to describe the relationship between the signifier and the signified. Barthes also uses the word 'myth' in relation to connotation; he uses the word to explain the hegemonic ideologies of the time. Barthes proposed that a myth is a chain of semiotic events which when experienced or seen by members of society creates a subconscious meaning.

Stuart Hall, who is most widely known for his work on the encoding/decoding model believes that the denotation and connotation process is an analytical tool. He argued that for those decoding readings there can be a number of unlimited readings and that the decoding process is 'polysemic‘. Hall also argues that it is extremely rare for signs to signify their literal meaning in the world and that most of the signs will combine both the denotative and connotative process and work hand in hand together to create meaning.

Lastly, and most recently, is Daniel Chandler. Chandler's particular interest lies in the visual semiotics of gender and advertising and has commented on the works of those listed above (and more) in his online version of Semiotics for Beginners for Aberystwyth University and in his book Semiotics: The Basics.

There is no simple way to define semiotics, as 'other than as 'the study of signs' there is relatively little agreement amongst semioticians themselves as to the scope and methodology of semiotics'. (Chandler, 2014) 

In reality, it is a loosely defined concept and practice.

Bibliography and Websites Accessed

• Chandler, D. (2001). Semiotics: The Basics. 1st ed. London: Routledge, p.1.
• Chandler, D. Aberystwyth University, (2014). Semiotics for Beginners. [image] Available at: http://visual-memory.co.uk/daniel/Documents/S4B/sem02.html [Accessed 5 Mar. 2017]
• Peirce, Charles Sanders (1931-58): Collected Writings (8 Vols.). (Ed. Charles Hartshorne, Paul Weiss & Arthur W Burks). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Scott, A. (2014). Charles S. Peirce’s Theory of Signs. [online] Charles S. Peirce’s Theory of Signs. Available at: http://www.angelfire.com/md2/timewarp/peirce.html [Accessed 4 Mar. 2017].
• Saussure, Ferdinand de (1974): Course in General Linguistics (trans. Wade Baskin). London: Fontana/Collins.
• Saussure, Ferdinand de ([1916] 1983): Course in General Linguistics (trans. Roy Harris). London: Duckworth. Silverman, Kaja (1983)