5

ENCODING/DECODING

StuartHall

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
the level of messageexchange and for the absenceof a structured conception of
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 sus-
tained 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 articu-
lation 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
r: 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
i: 'production'
rli
.t:
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).
STUARTHALL

'object'
The of thesepracticesis meaningsand messagesin the form of sign- From this ge
vehiclesof a specifickind organized,like any form of communication or lan- communicative
guage, through the operation of codes within the syntagmatic chain of a with their pract
discourse.The apparatuses,relationsand practicesof production thus issue, technical infras
'production/circulation') in the form
at a certain moment (the moment of of analogy of Capi
within rules 'language'. It is in this dis-
symbolic vehiclesconstituted the of tion, here, const
cursiveform that the circulation of the'product'takes place.The processthus course, the proc
'means'- as well
requires,at the production end, its material instruments- its framed through
-
as its own setsof social (production)relations the organizationand combina- routines of prod
tion of practiceswithin media apparatuses.But it is in the discursiue form that ogies, institutio
the circulation of the product takesplace,as well as its distribution to different about the audier
audiences.Once accomplished,the discoursemust then be translated- trans- this production
formed, again - into social practicesif the circuit is to be both completedand slon orlglnate th
'meaning' is taken, there can be po 'consumption'. If the mean-
effective.If no They draw top
ing is not articulatedin practice,it has no effect.The value of this approachis audience,'defini
that while eachof the moments,in articulation,is necessaryto the circuit as a formations withi
whole, no one moment can fully guaranteethe next moment with which it is are a differentia
articulated. Since each has its specific modality and conditions of existence, within a more tri
'passageof forms' on
each can constitute its own break or interruption of the audienceis both
'reproduction')
whose continuity the flow of effective production (that is, to borrow Marx
depends. the production p
Thus while in no way wanting to limit researchto 'following only those leads skewed and stru
which emerge from content analysis'2we must recognize that the discursive consumption or
form of the messagehas a privileged position in the communicative exchange 'moment'
of the
(from the viewpoint of circulation), and that the moments of 'encoding' and 'predominant'
'decoding', 'relatively autonomous' in relation to the communi- be
though only message.Product
'raw' historical event
cative processas a whole, are determinate moments. A identical, but thr
cannot, in that form, be transmitted by, say, a television newscast.Events can totaliry formed b,
only be signified within the aural-visual forms of the televisual discourse.In At a certain po
the moment when a historical event passesunder the sign of discourse, it is messagesin the f,
'rules' by which language signifies. To put
subject to all the complex formal tions of producti
'story' before it can become a
it paradoxically, the event must become a product to be .r,
'in
communicatiue euent.In that moment the formal sub-rules of discourseare which the formal
dominance', without, of course, subordinating out of existence the historical messagecan have
event so signified, the social relations in which the rules are set to work or the 'use',
it must firs
social and political consequencesof the event having been signified in this way. ingfully decoded.
'messageform' is 'form
The the necessary of appearance' of the event in its influence,entertai
passagefrom source to receiver.Thus the transposition into and out of the tive, emotional, i,
'messageform' (or the mode of symbolicexchange)is not a random 'moment',
moment the strucr
'messageform' is
which we can take up or ignore at our convenience.The a minate moment t.
determinatemoment; though, at another level, it comprisesthe surfacemove- social practices. V
ments of the communicationssystemonly and requires,at another stage,to be audience receptio
integratedintothe socialrelationsof the communicationprocessas a whole, of terms. The typical
which it forms only a part. ments- effects. us

52
 Er.rcoolr.ic/D rcoDtNG

From this generalperspective,we may crudely characterizethe television

communicativeprocessas follows. The institutional structuresof broadcasting,
with their practicesand 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. produc-
tion, here,constructsthe message.In one sense,then, the circuit beginshere.of
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, professionalideol-
ogies, 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 televi-
sion originatethe televisiondiscourse,they do not constitute a closedsystem.
They draw topics, treatments, agendas, eyents, personnel, images of the
audience,'definitionsof the situation'from other sourcesand other discursive
formationswithin the wider socio-culturaland 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
messagesin the form of a meaningful discourse. The institution-societal rela-
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
messagecan 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 mean-
ingfully decoded. It is this set of decoded meanings which ,have an effec',
influence,entertain, instruct or persuade,with very complex perceptual,cogni-
tive, emotional, ideological or behavioural consequences.In a 'determinate,
moment the structure employs a code and yields a 'message':at another deter-
minate moment the 'message',via its decodings, issues into the structure of
social practices.we are now fully aware that this re-entry into the practicesof
audience reception and 'use' cannot be understood in simple behavioural
terms. The typical processesidentified in positivistic research on isolated ele-
ments - effects,uses, 'gratifications' - are themselvesframed by structuresof

53
Srulnr Hall
reception,'read
announcedin c,
there seemsson
calledaudience
,/'"*:i':?ilTT':t''*' \ of the communi,
encoding decoding the lingering bel
especiallyin its
meanlng meaning gramme is not a
structures I structures 2
been almost im'
municative pror
behaviourism.\
violence on the
frameworks frameworks
of knowledge of knowledge we have continl
relations of
were unable to
relations ol
production production The televisior
technical tion of fwo type
technical
infrastructure infrastructure in Peirce'stermi
represented'.4T
provided the sit,
the visual discor
understanding, as well as being produced by social and economic relations,
'realization' at the reception end of the chain and which planes,it canno
which shape their
the film can bar
permit the meanings signified in the discourseto be transposedinto practice or
constantly medi
consciousness(to acquire social use value or political effectiviry).
'meaning structures 1' and has to be prodt
Clearly, what we have labelled in the diagram
'meaning structures 2' may not be the same. They do not constitute an product not of t
'immediate identity'. The codes of encodingand decoding mav not be perfectly the articulation
'understanding' intelligible disco
The de@he degreesof
Ummg11g4l, coded signs too
inil-'misunderstanding' in the communicative exchange - depend on the
signs. There is
degreesof symmetry/asymmetry (relationsof equivalence)establishedberween
'personifications', encoder-producerand decoder-receiver. apparent fidelitl
the positions of the
the result, the el
But this in turn depends on the degreesof identity/non-identity between the
It is the result o
codes which perfectly or imperfectly transmit, interrupt or systematically
Certain codes
distort what has been transmitted. The lack of fit between the codes has a
community or cr
great deal to do with the structural differencesof relation and position between
be constructed-
broadcasters and audiences, but it also has something to do with the asym-
'source' and 'receiver' at the moment of tranSfor- be 'naturally' g
metry between the codes of
'distortions' or universalify' in
mation into and out of the discursive form. What are called 'natural'visual
.misunderstandings'arisepreciselyfromtheta@
'relatlve no codes have ir
two sldes
two the communlcatrve
sldes ln the excnange. Lrnce agalnr tnls qerlnes
communlcatrve e lnes the
tI
alized. The ope:
ffiateness,'oftheentryandexitofthemessageinits 'naturalness'
of
discursive moments.
ality of the code
The application of this rudimentary paradigm has already begun to trans-
'content'. We are just has the (ideolol
form our understandingof the older term, television
present.But we
beginning to see how it might also transform our understanding of audience

54
 DECODING
ENcoDINGi

'reading' and responseas well. Beginningsand 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 so-
called audienceresearch,of a quite new kind, may be opening up. At either end
of the communicative chain the use of the semiotic paradigm promises to dispel
the lingering behaviourism which has doggedmass-mediaresearch for so long,
especially in its approach to content. Though we know the television pro-
gramme is not a behavioural input, like a tap on the knee cap, it seemsto have
Le.n al..rost impossible for traditional researchersto conceptualize the com-
municative process without lapsing into one or other variant of low-flying
'We
behaviourism. know, as Gerbner has remarked, that representationsof
'are not violencebut messagesabout violence':3but
violence on the TV screen
we have continued to researchthe questionof violence,for example, as if we
were unable to comprehendthis epistemologicaldistinction'
The televisionsign is a complex one. It is itself constituted by the combina-
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
represented'.4This is a point which has led to a great deal of confusion and has
provided the site of intense controversy in the study of visual language. Since
the visual discoursetranslates a three-dimensionalworld into rwo-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,but.it is 11
constantly mediatedby and through language:and what we can know and sav I I
, l ; ; : : i
knowledge'is t
of the 'real' in languagebut of
proa;.r n#;ilf. rr.rtp"t."t ..p..r.nt"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
'near-
be 'naturally' given. Simple visual signs appear to have achieved a
universality' in this sense: though evidence remains that even apparently
'natural'
visual codes are culture-specific.However, this does not mean that
no codes have intervened; rather, that the codes have been profoundly natur-
alized. 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
present.But we must not be fooled by appearances. Actually' what naturalized

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
of the codes on .h" ;;:.di"g ,ia. will frlquently assume the 'cow'
to think that the visual sign for
naturalized percepdons.ir,i, tJ"a, us visual
actually is (rather tn^n)'i"'"zrs) tfre animal' cow' But if we think of the
r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f a c o w i n a m a n u a l o n a n i m a l h u s b a n d r y _ a n d , e v e n mare ore'of
'cow' - we can see that both' in different degrees'
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'andthecon-
v 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'look
e i n t e r v e n t i o n , t h e S u preal
p o r tworld
'ofcodes.
like obiects in the
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
c o d e d , e v e n i f u i * " " f f y " n t o " s t i o t " , s e t o f o p e r a t i o n s - d e c o d i n g s ' T h i s i sIconic
as
image as it is of any other sign-
true of the photograpiri. o, televisual 'read' as natural because
signs are, however, p"iitt'I"'ty vulnerable to being
of
visual codesor p.r..fio.;;;;.ry widely distributed and becausethis type
'cow' possesses
sign: the linguistic sign'
sign is less arbitrary than a linguistic
noneofthepropertiesofthethingrepresented'whereasthevisualsignappears
to possesssome of.those properttes'
t...1
of its contextual referenceand
The level of connotation of the visual sign, is the
positioning in different di"o"iu" fields o1 meaning and association'
pointwherealreadycoded.signsintersectwiththedeepsemanticcodesofa
we might
dimensions.
moreactiveideological
ffi;il;;;r;;iii"""r, 'purely
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, position-
"" t-piL"i"n o, i*pliJ *t""i"g, depending on the connotational
'warm garment'
iit #t"*t alw"ys signifies a
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' an.informal sryle
connote a fashionablesryle of baute couture the
visual background and positioned by
of dress. But set "guin'i the right 'long
"nt,tm,iwalk in the woods''6 Codes of
romantic sub-code,it may connote of
wider universe
this order clearly .on*t relations fo' tht sign with the
the tnt"n' by which power a'nd ideology
ideologiesin a society' Thesecodes are 'maps of
discourses' They refer signs to the
are made to signify in particular 'maps of social reality'
meaning, into which ".'i"rr"r. is classified; and those
practices' and usages'power and
have the whole range of social meanings'

56
 ENcoDING/DEcoDING

'written in' to them. The connotative levels

interest of signifiers, Barthes
'have a close communication
remarked, with culture, knowledge, history,
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')
complex (but limited or codes.But its connotative/euel,though also
bounded, is more open, subject to more active transformations, which exploit
its polysemic values. Any such already constituted sign is potentially trans-
formable into more than one connotative configuration. Polysemy must not,
however, be confused with pluralism. Connotative codes^re not equal among
themselves.Any society/culture tends, with varying degrees of closure, to
imposeits classificationsof the social and cultural and political world. These
constitute a dominant cultural order, though it is neither univocal nor un-
'structure
contested. This question of the of discoursesin dominance' is a
crucial point. The different areas of social life appear to be mapped out into
discursivedomains, hierarchically organized into dominant or preferred mean-
izgs. New, problematic or troubling events,which breachour expectanciesand
'common-sense
run counter to our constructs', to our 'taken-for-granted'
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
domains of meanings'have the whole social order embeddedin them
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
ref.er,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 Drocessconsists 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 one-
processwhich governs how all events will be signified. It consistsof the

57
 SrumrHeu
'work'
required to enforce, win plausibility for and command as regitimate
decoding of the event within the limit of dominant definitions in a
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. i.rterp.etative
level were
an individualizedand private matter.
euite the opposite ,..-r ro be the case.
The televisual practice takes 'objective' (that is, systemic) responsibility
pre-
cisely for the relations which disparate signs contract with one
another in any
discursiveinstance,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
'effectiveness' facilitating the
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,
cln.rot 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 readings.But '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 necessarycorrespondence
berween
encoding and decoding, the former can attempt to 'pre-fei'
but cannor pre-
scribeor 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

58
 Er'tcoorNc/DEcoDtNG

limits, audiencescould simply read whateverthey liked into any message.

No
doubt some total misunderstandingsof this kind do exist. But ,h. u"r,
,".rg.
must contaln some degree of reciprocity between encoding and decodiig
moments' otherwise we could not speak of an effectiu. .ori,nunrcative
ex_
changeat all. Nevertheless,this 'correspondence' is not given but constructed.
'natural'
It is not but the product of an articulation berween two
distinct
moments.And 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
'perfectly transparent an rnstance of
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 tele-
visual 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,reinforcesthe argument ,no
of necessary
correspondence'.It also helps to deconstru.t the .o-monsense
'misunderstanding' meaning of
in terms of a theory of .systematically distorted
commu-
nication'.
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 code.Thisi,
'perfectly th. id.ul]typic"l .are of
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 profes-
sional broadcastersassume when encoding
a messagewhich hasarready been
signified in a hegemonic manner. The proiessional
code is ,relatively indepen-
dent' 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
-their displaced
professionalcodings which foreground
such apparenily neutral-technicarques-
"'t1al qualiry, news and presentational uaiues,
::_::^:^: televisual quality,
protessronalism'and so on. The hegemonic
interpretations of, say, the politics
of.Northern 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 selectedand combined
lTlr*tr' through the operarion
ot the professionalcode. How the
broadcastingprofessionals'are able both to

59
SrunnrHnu-
'relatively autonomous'codesof their own and to act in such a
operate with the Industrial Relationsl
way as to reproduce (not without contradiction) the hegemonic signification of suspectthat the great mr
events is a complex matter which cannot be further spelled out here. It must c o n t r a d i c t i o n sa n d d i s j u
suffice to say that the professionalsare linked with the defining elites not only negotiated-corporate de
'ideological appara-
by the institutional position of broadcastingitself as an most provoke defining r
tus',r2 but also by the structure of access(that is, the systematic'over- munications'.
'definition of the situation' in
accessing'of selectiveelite personneland their Finally, it is possiblef<
television).It may even be said that the professionalcodes serve to reproduce the connorariveinflectio
hegemonic definitions specifically by not ouertly biasing their operations in a globally conrrary way. F
dominant direction: ideological reproduction therefore takes place here inad- order to retotalize the n
'behind men's backs'.t3Of cou.se, conflicts, contra-
vertently, unconsciously, ence.This is the caseof t
dictions and evenmisunderstandings regularlyarisebetweenthe dominant and wagesbut'reads' everyn
the professional significationsand their signifyingagencies. sheis operatingwith wh:
The second position we would identify is that of the negotiated code or significant political morr
position. Majority audiencesprobably understand quite adequately what has broadcastingorganizatio
been dominantly defined and professionally signified. The dominant defini- eventswhich are normall
tions, however) are hegemonic precisely becausethey represent definitions of be given an oppositiona
situations and eventswhich are'in dominance', (Slobal). Dominant definitions strugglein discourse- is
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
1. Foranexplicationand
these connections in truncated, inverted or mystified ways. The definition of a argument,seeS.Hall, ,
hegemonic viewpoint is (a) that it defineswithin its terms the mental horizon, in wpcs5 (1974\.
the universe,of possiblemeanings,of a whole sector of relations in a socieryor 2. J. D. Halloran, .Undr
culture; and (b) that it carries with it the stamp of legitimacy - it appears Colloquyon'Understa
'natural', 'inevitable', 'taken for granted' about the 3. G. Gerbneret al., Vi
coterminous with what is : Functions(The
Annenl
social order. Decoding within the negotiated uersion contains a mixture of 4. Charles Peirce,Specul
adaptive and oppositional elements: it acknowledges the legitimacy of the Harvard UniversityPrt
hegemonic definitions to make the grand significations (abstract)' while, at a , J . UmbertoEco,'Articul:
6. Roland Barthes,'Rhett
more restricted, situational (situated) level, it makes its own ground rules - it 7. Roland Barthes,Eleme
operates with exceptions to the rule. It accords the privileged position to the 8 . For an extendedcritir
dominant definitions of events while reserving the right to make a more reading'(unpublished I
'local conditions', to its own morc corporate posi- P. Terni, 'Memorandul
negotiated application to
vision' (Universiwof L
tions. This negotiated version of the dominant ideology is thus shot through The phraseis Haberm
with contradictions, though theseare only on certain occasions brought to full Dretzel (ed.), Recent ,
visibility. Negotiated codes operate through what we might call particular or however, in a differenr
11. For a sociological forr
situated logics: and these logics are sustainedby their differential and unequal
relation to the discourses and logics of power. The simplest example of a ,^ outlined here but whi,
. dtscourse,seeFrank pat
negotiated code is that which governsthe responseof a worker to the notion of Kee 1971).
an Industrial Relations Bill limiting the right to strike or to arguments for a See Louis Althusser. .l
'national interest' economic debate the decoder Pbilosophy and Other
wages freeze.At the level of the
For an expansion of this
may adopt the hegemonicdefinition, agreeingthat'we must all pay ourselves in broadcasrins'.4th :
lessin order to combat inflation'. This, however,may have little or no relation 1972), and'Broadcastir
to his/her willingness to go on strike for better pay and conditions or to oppose AMcn Symposium, Univ

60
 t

ENcootNc/DecoDlNG
',ation.We
r I r -ofr -shopfloor
L^. or union organrz
Bill at the level
to act in such a t-h.Ind.trr.i"l Relations
c signification of thattheo""' -li'i";i'-';9
suspect ::::*:'::1",t"', #:'r["#jl:
rut here. It must ::'ff ::ff il::ff il1il;;;:'";;';;;h'g'*oni'-dominantencodingsand
It is in the levelswhich
thesemismatches
rg elites not only d;:;ll;gt "".a iust 'failure in com-
negotiated-co,qo:."'.t to identifya
ological appara- provok" o.r,n,ng-.li*, professionals
'over-
mosr
Fstematic tH;[:Ti, both the literal and
the situation' in porriut. for a viewer perfectlyto understand in a
the message
glutt' Uy u di"o""t but to decode
rve to reproduce the connotatlvei"flection in the preferred code in
detotalizesthe message
: operations in a globattyconrrary*"y.;;i'J.
place here inad- 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 maedebate
a l t e r non
" t the
i v e need
f r a mto
e wlimit
orkofrefer-
vilwer who listensto
:onflicts, contra- ence.This is the caseof the
he dominant and wagesbut'reads'.".tr."tt"ionofthe.'nationalinterest'as'classinterest''He/
code'O'neof the most
;r.";;;.g *i,n "uh"t *t must call an oppositional
Totiated code or significantpolitical-o-t"t'(theyalsotointidtwithcrisispointswithinthe
reasons) is the point when
luately what has broadcasting o.g"ni'"iiot' tn"*'itu"" for obvious to
and decodedin a negotiatedway begin
lominant defini- eventswhich "r. not*uit"G"iii"a 'politics of signification'- the
Here the
:nt definitions of be given an oppositio"li """ai"g'
-
Linantdefinitions ,t..f,gI. in discourse is ioined'
rns, to the great
;sues:they relate NOTES
of Marx's
implication-s
:ven if they make andcommenrary on theme^thodological
l. For an explication t\ii7it'Zau'tioi to the Grundrisse"
of M"'*''
re definition of a arsument'seeS' Hall,'A reading
mental horizon, 'i;1.i_r:,l3lJ] .understanding paperfor the councrlof Europe
2. -colloquv 'undt"iin;"fi#*f[q,' television,,.
'ns in a society or (Univeriiw 1973)'
of Leicester
on of TrendsandSvmbolic
acy - it appears 3. G. Gerbner ,' ot',ioi'ni' ;' rv Drama:';"ii"iy
'anted' about the u"iutrsiry of 1
Pennsvlvania970)'
Functions(Th.At"t;;t;iti'ooi' Mass':
in coti""d Pipers (cambridge'
ins a mixture of " charles v"irrr, sp";):io;;i'"e;";';)'
4.
i"iu"ta University Press1931-58)'
egitimacy of the 'e'titt'l"tions of the cinematiccode" in Cinemanttcs'no. 1.
5. Umberto E.o,
ract), while, at a 'Rh;;;;i; ;f the image" in wPcs| (re7r\'
6:. R;i;il;;;h'.', 1967\'
ground rules - it ;. ilffi il-h;; Eleientsof,semiologv,(Cape seeAlan o'Shea'
'Preferred
t;i;**;i;;;;?t;;d tgia-i"g]'
d position to the o'
8. For an extended of Birminsham)'
Universiw
;."d;;'lffi;;ritr'"a"i"pticics' 'Understanding
Tele-
:o make a more 'tt.-o""i""t'i{H;-;]i91eu'opi 6ottoq"v"on
9. P.Terni,
? corporate posi- ;it;' (iJniversitvof Leicester1973)' in P'
;6y.r.l"tically distortedcommunications',
hus shot through 10. The phrasei, H"U.r,iril"'i" 1970)' It is used here'
(Collier-Macmillan
ns brought to full Dretzel kd.\, Recent Sociology2
call particular or positions
whichis,cl:s:'insome-wavs'.:.".*'
rtial and unequal
r. l:X'::;l':rtit;l:n:f;ion ""i- p"-[.r rhe argument
theorvot
about_the
outrinedherebut ;ii:ffi;;; ""a order (Macgibbonand
po7;'i/,ot
:st example of a ,.. r'"t'r'*iltii ;Zi";;i";;;itit"
discourse,
:r to the notion of Kee1971). .ldeology state apparatuses', in Lenin
and
and ideological
arguments for a lz. see Louis Althusser, 1971)'
iit.i"inv ""'doii'-' iuov't'1N"*Left Books
ebate the decoder 'e" Stuattllall"Tht t*tttn"Vinternal dialectic
13. For an expansionof this "'gutt"t' (Universiry Manchester
n'iiiting
all pay ourselves in broadcasting', 4th Syiposiu.m o' 'of'ity couplet"
jence/impartial
'l 97 21, and'n'o"at"'t#g ind the""""f""inJtpe'n
nle or no relation i e75 (ctcs unpublishedpaper)'
:ions or to oppose Rr"rcR Svmpos,'*,'J;i;'?'i;"'i;';;;;;;'

6l