3.6 Reception Theory
3.6.1 Stuart Hall’s model of encoding and decoding
Stuart Hall’s seminal essay ‘Encoding/decoding’ (1980: 128 – 138) highlights the inaccuracies in, or the limitations of, the linear ‘sender → message → receiver’ model of traditional communications theory. The model received much criticism due to its linear structure, concentration on the level of message exchange and the absence of an analysis of the different moments of the mass communications process as a complex structure of relations (Nightingale, 1996: 21 – 39). Hall suggests that there are a number of factors that affect the decoding of messages which influence the final stages of the communication process (1980: 128 – 138). The process is not a straightforward one which perfectly transfers the original message from the sender to the receiver. The linear model assumes the message receiver successfully decodes the bundle of verbal and nonverbal signs in the intended manner. Misunderstandings in the communication process “arise precisely from the lack of equivalence between the two sides in the communication exchange” (Hall, 1980: 131). The degrees of symmetry, to use the words of Hall, depend on the positions or attitudes held by
87 the sender (encoder) and receiver (decoder) of messages who are both participating in the communication process. Problems in communication are encountered when the encoded meaning of a particular message or sign does not match the decoded meaning on the other side of the spectrum (Hall, 1980: 128 – 138). Some visual signs appear to have achieved an almost universal understanding. It is suggested that these ‘naturalised’ visual signs are culturally specific and can, even if it sounds absurd to think so, evoke different meanings and understandings for some people (Hall, 1980: 128 – 18). Communication can become increasingly difficult when two or more people from different cultures, backgrounds or life experiences exchange ideas and messages.
The use of the terms ‘denotation’ and ‘connotation’ are important when examining the way in which mediated texts and messages are understood and decoded. These two concepts are fundamental when determining whether or not televised rugby contributes towards efforts of nation-building. It is important to remember that televised rugby may not be universally accepted by South African audience members. Audience members have the ability to construct their own readings and perceptions of events when taking reception theory into consideration. Certain signs and messages could cause alternate readings of televised rugby to be read. These may or may not promote efforts of nation-building within a South African context. A sign usually will possess both denotative and connotative meanings (Hall, 1980:
128 – 138). Media researchers and scholars cannot assume that media messages sent by the encoders of the text will be decoded in the intended manner (McQuail, 1997: 101 – 102).
The term ‘denotation’ is the less problematic of the two and is generally perceived to represent the literal meaning of a sign (Hall, 1980: 128 – 138). The denotative sign has a physical correspondence to the object of ‘reality’ that is being referred to (Tomaselli, 1999:
29 – 50). A good example here that is related to the sport of rugby would be the Springbok emblem. The emblem that is worn on the jerseys of the South African term quite literally represents the South African rugby team. The emblem is widely recognised and often used in television broadcasts as a signifier for the South African team. This could be done, for example, on graphics showing the updated scores of televised games. ‘Connotation’ can be construed as more problematic in that it is used to represent the more flexible and associative meanings. Connotative meanings are less fixed than denotative meanings and result from the ideological backgrounds of the readers in question and are a result of human intervention
88 (Hall, 1980: 128 – 138; Tomaselli, 1999: 29 - 50). The sign becomes open to new interpretations which may not correspond with the more widely accepted denotative meaning.
To continue with the example used above, the Springbok emblem may contain connotative meanings that are not as clear cut as the denotative understanding. To different people the emblem could promote different feelings based on their cultural backgrounds and experiences of South African society.
Figure Three: South African players wear the Springbok emblem against Australia
Nauright (1997: 175 – 181) examines the Springbok emblem and some of the controversies that it has created. White South Africans may want to hold onto the Springbok emblem due to nostalgia and in efforts to define their cultural identities and heritage. Rugby, which has played a large role in the construction of a white South African identity, was seen by the ANC during the transition phase between apartheid and the democratic state as a way of reaching out to whites and ensuring that majority rule meant the survival of white culture, rather than its further demise through international sanctions (Nauright, 1997: 175 – 181;
Botma and Wasserman, 2008: 2 - 3). White South Africans were provided with a safety blanket of sorts with which to face the challenges of the new South Africa by remaining attached to their cultural symbols and ways of life (Nauright, 1997: 175 – 177). The emblem could embody success to white South Africans in that it was worn by the national team which has been considered one of the top rugby playing nations throughout its history.
89 Some could argue that the emblem is supported by those who are stuck in the past and unwilling to embrace the new political dispensation (Nauright, 1997). At the same time, the emblem could represent white supremacy. To black South Africans the same emblem could create feelings of anger due to the discriminatory nature of the apartheid regime (Botma and Wasserman, 2008: 2 – 3). The Springbok emblem could still represent segregation and unfair living conditions to many who experienced the hardships of apartheid. The emblem could have negative connotations attached to it such as: racism, segregation, lack of opportunity and exploitation. Efforts of nation-building in the new South Africa could be hindered by such connotative readings which differ immensely depending on one’s cultural background or political point of view (see Appendix 4). It would be naive for community leaders to assume that certain signs (both verbal and non-verbal) would be readily accepted by all sectors of society on a connotative level.
Hall identifies three ways in which mediated texts, especially those broadcast on television, can be handled by audience members (1980: 128 – 138). The first position identified is that of the dominant-hegemonic position. When a viewer of a specific programme engages with the text and accepts the preferred meaning embedded in the encoded message they are said to have operated within the dominant code (Hall, 1980: 128 – 138). The viewer has accepted the broadcast messages at face value and has decoded the message and constructed a meaning that corresponds with the intentions of the message senders (encoders). There are relatively few misinterpretations within the communication process and the desired meaning and result of the message is successfully transferred. The encoded messages make use of easily identifiable signs and help promote the already established hegemonic order. Broadcast professionals are linked to prominent elite members of society who interact in a manner to ensure that their views on events and situations are reflected. The ideas of the dominant cultures in society are represented through television and other broadcast media (Hall, 1980: 128 – 138; Nightingale, 1996: 24). The media may also be adopted as an arm of the ‘ideological apparatus’ and be used to inadvertently disseminate important messages which support the dominant order (Hall, 1980: 128 – 138).
The second position is that of the negotiated code. Mediated texts are decoded in manners which contain a mixture of adaptive and oppositional elements. The legitimacy of the hegemonic order is acknowledged whilst at the same time readers make their own rules
90 and position themselves in relation to the text (Hall, 1980: 128 – 138). Audience members do not blatantly accept the messages which are released. Codes are successfully identified but smaller and more specific elements dictate the relationship that the viewer has with the communication process. Factors which may not be influential to other readers come into play and affect the outcome of the process. The majority of misunderstandings in the communication process could arise from the contradictions between the hegemonic-dominant encodings and the negotiated decoding which may or may not result in the desired meaning of the message being established (Hall, 1980: 128 – 138).
The third and final position identified is the oppositional code. It is possible for the viewer to perfectly understand the denotative and connotative meanings of particular signs but decode the messages in a contrary or oppositional way. The reader decodes the message in the intended way but relocates it within in a different framework of reference and constructs a reading that intentionally opposes the preferred meaning (Hall, 1980: 128 – 138).
The message receiver may purposefully choose to reject the intended meaning.