可以说，在All Hall的论文中最广泛地流传和辩论，“编码/解码’（1973/1980）对1970年代和1980年代的文化研究方向产生了重大影响，其中心术语仍然是该领域的关键词。这篇文章通常被视为标志着霍尔和CCC的研究，迈向结构主义的转折点，使我们能够反思伯明翰的一些主要理论发展。这篇文章着眼于电视话语中的沟通过程，挑战了一些最珍贵的观点，即媒体信息如何产生，分发和消费，以提出一种新的交流理论。基本上，在传统上，媒体信息的含义被视为整个通信过程中的静态，透明且不变时，霍尔认为，发送的消息很少（如果有的话），并且沟通是系统地扭曲的。
发件人，消息，接收者
‘Encoding/decoding’ arises primarily from Hall’s reservations about the theories of communication underpinning mass communications research. ‘Encoding/decoding’ opens with an account of the conventional model of communication to be found within mass communications research. This model moves in a linear fashion from the ‘sender’ through the ‘message’ to the ‘receiver’. According to this model, the sender creates the message and fixes its meaning, which is then communicated directly and transparently to the recipient. For Hall, this communication process is too neat: ‘the only distortion in it is that the receiver might not be up to the business of getting the message he or she ought to get’ (RED: 253). As we will see, Hall is especially interested in the way different audiences generate rather than discover meaning.
Hall’s essay challenges all three components of the mass communications model, arguing that (i) meaning is not simply fixed or determined by the sender; (ii) the message is never transparent; and (iii) the audience is not a passive recipient of meaning. Just because a documentary on asylum seekers aims to provide a sympathetic account of their plight, does not guarantee its audience will view them sympathetically. For all its ‘realism’ and emphasis on ‘the facts’, the documentary form still has to communicate through a sign system (the aural-visual signs of tv) that both distorts the intentions of producers and evokes contradictory feelings in the audience. Distortion is built into the system here, rather than being a ‘failure’ of the producer or viewer.
There is a ‘lack of fit’ Hall suggests ‘between the two sides in the communicative exchange’ (E/D: 131), between the moment of the production of the message (‘encoding’) and the moment of its reception (‘decoding’). This ‘lack of fit’ is crucial to Hall’s argument. It occurs because communication has no choice but to take place within sign systems.
斯图尔特·霍尔/公开大学
编码和解码的时刻也分别是进入和退出话语系统的点。语言不能反映真实的，而是代表我们构建或“扭曲”它。因此，即使在一个非常基本的层面上，“视觉话语都将三维世界转化为二维平面，它当然不能是它所表示的参考或概念。电影中的狗可以吠叫，但不能咬！”（E/D：131）。
While ‘the discursive form of the message has a privileged position in the communicative exchange’, communication is about more than language and discourse for Hall, and structuralism, in isolation, does not satisfactorily explain the lack of fit between the moments of encoding and decoding for him. Hall is ultimately more interested in the political than the linguistic implications of media messages, a fact he foregrounds in the 1973 version of ‘Encoding/decoding’:
尽管我将采用符号学的观点，但我并不认为这是对仅凭电视话语的内在组织的封闭式正式关注。它还必须包括对交流过程的“社会关系”的关注。（E/D73：1）
霍尔对沟通的社会和政治方面的关注是从他的论文的开始就显而易见的，该论文提出了基于马克思的商品生产理论的“发件人 - 媒介 - 接收者”沟通模型的替代方法。该模型包括大厅术语“矩”（例如循环和分布）的许多内容，但主要与生产/编码和消费/解码点有关。霍尔对马克思主义词汇的占用使他能够用电路替换传统沟通模型的线性。在此电路中，“发件人”已成为“生产者”，“接收器”是“消费者”。“接收”的地方在大众传播研究中具有被动的含义，标志着通信过程的结束，消费是一个积极的过程，导致生产或“复制”意义。Here Hall distances himself from the behavioural science of mass communications theory (where the viewer’s response is ‘like a tap on the knee cap’ (E/D: 131), an instinctive reaction), from the language-centred abstractions of structuralism, and from the expressive view of culture in culturalism. Where the ‘receiver’ represented the end of the line in mass communications research, for Hall ‘consumption determines production just as production determines consumption’ (RED: 255). What is being proposed here is an表达含义不存在的通信模型，也无法保证电路的任何特定时刻。生产，循环等过程既可以确定，又可以确定determining关于与他们相关的其他时刻：‘没有一个时刻能够完全保证它的下一个时刻。。。每个人都有其特定的形式和存在的条件”（E/D：128-9）。在这种情况下采用Althussereanvocabulary，Hall建议编码和解码是过度确定，相对自主moments.
过度确定
A Freudian concept Althusser used to great effect in ‘Contradiction and over-determination’, an essay in For Marx. By over-determination, Althusser means there are a number of determining forces, not just the economic, but the ideological and the political. Althusser’s notion of ‘over-determination’ implies a number of linked or articulated determinations. This breaks with the mechanistic move from base to super structure associated with ‘deterministic’ versions of Marx.
相对自主权
这个术语在霍尔和CCC的工作中特别有影响力。“相对自主权”意味着意识形态具有从经济上的自由程度。该模型中存在确定，但仅在“最后实例”中。阿尔都塞（Althusser）认为，尽管经济始终以某种方式决定上层建筑，但不一定是主导的
In order to illustrate these abstract theories of articulation, we will consider in more detail the specific moments of encoding and decoding, using media coverage of ‘9/11’ as an example.
2001年9月11日，两架飞机坠入世界贸易中心的图像被传输到全球观众时，该活动的含义似乎很清楚。北美已成为恐怖袭击的悲惨受害者。媒体报道显示了围绕该活动的悲剧感，显示出欧洲和美国收到新闻时的受众反应的创伤。然而，与这些哀悼场面形成鲜明对比，媒体还筛选了巴勒斯坦人们显然庆祝新闻的镜头。不同受众对同一事件媒体报道的反应反应表明，双子塔的崩溃没有单一的意义。除其他事项外，“编码/解码”阐明了为什么同一媒体事件的不同读数是通过探索媒体的意识形态作用以及其控制意义的程度并引起替代性的原因。
编码
Camera crews were present at the World Trade Center in New York some fifteen minutes after the first plane hit the North Tower. The second strike and its aftermath were broadcast live on television giving the event a certain immediacy as it unfolded before our eyes.
然而，产生的“ 9/11”的含义并没有自发地从孤立的那一刻进行自发流动。覆盖范围也取决于其阐明的较大通信电路。例如，尽管具有混乱，前所未有的感觉，但“ 9/11”的生产吸引了霍尔所谓的“广播机构结构”制定的预先存在的例程和规则。这些包括，如一位评论员指出
与机构联系以获取对相关站点和人员的访问权，观看，参加新闻发布会以及使用某些类型的纪录片来源。新闻格式的意外情况 - 符合死线，并从特定类别的人（目击者，权威人物）中获取“事实”，图片和报价。。。（Karim 2002：102）
In addition to these material structures, the encoding of ‘9/11’ was shaped by journalistic discourses on ‘violence, terrorism, and Islam’ that had been circulating in the West for ‘the last three decades’(E/D: 102).Within this context it is possible to make sense of Hall’s point that encoding is the point of entry into the discursive realm of communication, as well as a ‘moment’ constructed by the material context of production in which it occurs. For Hall encoding is the crucial moment at which ‘the institutional-societal relations of production must pass under the discursive rules of language . . .’(E/D: 130):
原始的历史事件不能，以这种形式被电视新闻广播传播。事件只能在电视论述的听觉视觉形式中表示。在历史事件在话语的标志下通过的那一刻，它遵守语言所代表的所有复杂形式的“规则”。为了自相矛盾的是，该事件必须成为一个“故事”，然后才能成为交流event. (Karim 2002: 129)
The news cannot be given to us in the form of a pure or ‘raw’ event, but is subject to the ‘formal rules’ (Saussure’s langue) of the governing system of language. While clearly television news is not literally ‘language’, the fact that it is a highly coded, or ‘conventional’ discourse makes the analogy a productive one. Desks, formal dress codes and postures, for instance are all ‘signs’ within television news used to convey or ‘signify’ values such as ‘authority’, ‘trustworthiness’, ‘seriousness’ and ‘objectivity’. Similarly, the individual news ‘item’ does not provide a window onto the actual historical event, but must transform it into a ‘story’. Disasters, scandals and murders can-not appear ‘in that form’, but must be produced discursively, that is encoded(placed within a set of codes or system of signs), before they can ‘mean’ or signify. For all its apparent immediacy, what viewers of the ‘9/11’ coverage saw that day was not the unreconstructed event, but an ‘aural-visual’ discourse: the selective combination of care-fully edited amateur video, eyewitness accounts and reporters’ narratives in order to produce a ‘story’.
为了使编码的“消息形式”生成含义和“具有“效果””（E/D：130），必须由查看器解码。霍尔认为，电视论述不包含其生产者嵌入的固有含义（尽管正如我们已经看到生产/编码过程可在重要方面确保和确定其含义）。相反，观看的行为释放了其含义的潜力。因此，在解码的那一刻，电视信息获得了“社会使用或政治有效性”（E/D：130）。对于霍尔来说，解码是交流过程中最重要的，但最被忽视的方面。他建议这种忽视是由于电视论述使用“标志性”标志的事实。
标志性标志
美国哲学家查尔斯·皮尔斯（Charles Peirce）（其投机性语法（1931）在“编码/解码”中引用）在“索引”，“符号”和“标志性”迹象之间进行了区别，这些迹象在符号学中具有影响力。“标志性标志”是一个视觉标志，它与它指的对象（指南）非常相似，例如照片。
霍尔说，标志性的迹象倾向于抵抗有意识的解码，因为它们重现了观众使用的感知守则：
这使我们认为“牛”的视觉标志实际上是（而不是代表）动物，牛。But if we think of the visual representation of a cow in a manual on animal husbandry – and, even more, of the linguistic sign ‘cow’ – we can see that both, in different degrees, are arbitrary with respect to the concept of the animal they represent. The articulation of an arbitrary sign – whether visual or verbal – with the concept of a referent is the product not of nature but of convention . . .(E/D: 132)
下列的索斯，霍尔强调了标志的任意性质，尽管象征和象征之间以及视觉迹象与“事物”之间的关系似乎很自然，但实际上是传统的。霍尔继续将文化构造的标志的混乱与自然或普遍的引用与“含义”和“内涵”之间的语言理论混乱相关联。
表示和内涵
在最后一章神话, ‘Myth today’, and in符号学元素，巴特斯elaborates on the terms ‘connotation’ (a sign’s associated meanings) and ‘denotation’ (a sign’s literal meanings). At the denotative level there is a general agreement about the meaning of a sign. At the connotative level however, the ‘language’ of its advertising reveals associations that are marked by class and by ideology and which we may either agree or disagree with. It is for this reason that ideology operates mainly at the level of connotation for Barthes.
虽然指出“表示”和内涵之间的区别是错误的（实际上全部迹象是含义的，无论他们看起来多么“字面”）霍尔表明，这种区别确实具有分析价值。在指示性层面上，意识形态的含义似乎相对固定，含义级别是意识形态干预和竞争的重要部位，因为“意义和关联的流动性可以得到更充分的充分利用和转化”（E/D：133）。
霍尔在这一点上宣布语言是“多重的”：“该标志对新的重音开放。。。完全进入意义上的斗争 - 语言中的阶级斗争”（E/D：133）。多学分对解码具有重要意义，因为如果我们接受Volosinov的理论，那么电视信息的“接收”可能比首先出现的更具争议性。观众不再被视为被动地吸收生产者在那里种植的固定含义的被动吸收，“解码”必须一定要涉及在意义上进行的斗争，这取决于观众的社会地位。在这种情况下，生产者的“已经构成的符号”是“潜在地转化为一种以上的内涵配置”（E/D：134），由消费者进行。
霍尔在这里担心他所说的电视标志的“多性性价值”：它具有多个不止一件事，具有各种潜在冲突含义的能力。含义是多重的，而不是单数：听众的“工作”不是要发现嵌入信息核心的真实的核心含义，而是以“相对自主权”的程度产生含义。这就是为什么霍尔的消费者也是生产者的原因。
霍尔在这里没有说的是电视信息可能意味着我们想要的任何意思。更多的over, the finite number of meanings the televisual message is capable of generating are ‘not equal among themselves’ (E/D: 134) and therefore it would be a mistake, Hall insists, to confuse polysemy with ‘pluralism’ (which implies free, democratic choice). Society constructs a ‘dominant cultural order’ (E/D: 134) that generates what Hall terms ‘preferred meanings’.
优先含义
Hall’s notion of dominant or ‘preferred meaning’ allows him to address the political implications of polysemic signs, which have ‘writ-ten in’ (E/D: 134) to them, a variety of ‘social meanings, practices, and usages, power and interest’ (E/D: 134). Preferred meanings rely upon ‘common-sense’ or ‘taken-for-grantedness’ and reflect the ‘dominant cultural order’, which imposes and validates ‘its classification of the social and cultural and political world’ (E/D:134).
COMMON-SENSE
Gramsci用来指的是不同社会群体的“自发”假设和信念。如果“常识”的常识性观点可能将其视为一个积极属性，则Gramsci表明这是一种顺从思维的方式，表明对主导顺序表示同意。因此，必须对其进行质疑，并用“良好的感觉”代替。暗示某事是常识性的是将其置于疑问（“这就是事物的样子”），以呈现文化和特定的自然和普遍性的东西。然后，常识清楚地清楚地在与霸权的维持方面相关的意识形态角色，如霍尔指出：
它正是它的[常识性]“自发”质量，透明度，自然性，拒绝检查其建立的前提，其对变革或纠正的抵抗力，即时认识的影响。。。[那] 。。。在一个且同时使常识性“自发”，意识形态和无意识。（CMIE：325）
在“编码/解码”中，霍尔建议媒体消息通过其表演性质部分产生常识状态。通过反复的表现，分阶段或讲述“ 9/11”的叙述（以及其他类似媒体）的叙述，而文化上特定的阅读则不仅是合理的和普遍的，而且是常识性的。
意义和解释是在霍尔的层次上组织的：因此，主导的含义和读物将反映在制度，政治和意识形态层面上的主导文化秩序。电视新闻报道“ 9/11”旨在确保事件的主导或首选含义是对“文明”世界的“恐怖分子”攻击。在这些话语中，“恐怖主义”和“文明”被编码，并且（大概是经常）作为常识性术语被解码为常识性术语。然而，它们显然不是无价值或“无辜”标签，并带有西方主要文化秩序的意识形态烙印。另外，如果下属，则出现了“ 9/11”的叙述，其中美国的外交政策少于美国的外交政策与袭击有关。在这里，美国被认为是“恐怖分子”和“恐怖分子”作为自由战士或反帝国主义者。
正如霍尔所说，诸如“恐怖分子”之类的意义上的意识形态斗争揭示了“首选含义”既不是“单次或无争议”（E/D：134）：
In speaking of主导的meanings then, we are not talking about a one-sided process which governs how all events will be signified. It consists of the ‘work’ required to enforce, win plausibility for and command as legitimate a解码事件内的事件已在其上所表示的主要定义的极限。（e/d：135）
下列的Gramsci, Hall suggests here that culture and ideology are not external structures imposed upon us from above in a one-sided fashion, but sites of constant struggle and negotiation within which we are caught. If in the West the ‘preferred’ meaning and reading of‘9/11’ was of a ‘tragic’ event, it was a ‘signified’ that was not set in stone or uncontested. The news images of Palestinians apparently celebrating the collapse of the twin towers powerfully exposed that ‘tragedy’ was not an intrinsic or fixed meaning of the event. The twin towers emerged as polysemic, or multi-accentual signs following ‘9/11’, connoting, on the one hand, advanced democratic civilisation and, on the other, oppressive neocolonial capitalism.
For Hall, ‘preferred meanings’ are always contested and open to transformation in this way. The term ultimately reveals encoding and decoding as ‘an asymmetrical and non-equivalent process’ in which ‘the former can attempt to “prefer” but cannot prescribe or guarantee the latter, which has its own conditions of existence’ (E/D:135). What is more, the lack of ‘fit’, or ‘necessary correspondence’(E/D: 135) between the moments of encoding and decoding has little, if anything, to do with personal or individual ‘misunderstanding’ (although Hall concedes literal misunderstandings do occur) and everything to do with ‘systematically distorted communication’
部分是为了“解构“误解”的常识含义，霍尔通过概述了三个假设的立场来结束他的论文，可以从中进行解码。这些职位是从弗兰克·帕金（Frank Parkin）开发的阶级不平等和社会秩序（1971年），但避免了帕金工作的经济决定论。
1. The dominant-hegemonic position: where the viewer decodes the message in terms of the codes legitimated by the encoding process and the dominant cultural order. This would be an example of ‘perfectly transparent’ communication: the viewer who watches dominant European or American news coverage of ‘9/11’ and draws the common-sense conclusion that the event is nothing more than a terrorist attack on the ‘civilised world’.
2.谈判的立场：观众有可能采用和反对主导的电视法规的矛盾立场。‘它将特权立场符合事件的主要定义，同时保留对“地方条件”更加谈判应用的权利（E/D：137）。霍尔举例说明工人对报酬冻结报告的回应。工人可能会同意这种冻结符合国家利益，因此采取了主要的霸权立场。但是，这可能与她决定在车间或工会一级罢工的决定无关。另外，这将是英国穆斯林观众，他通过谴责对美国的“恐怖袭击”来回应“ 9/11”的消息，同时抗议伊斯兰教的建设为“不文明”，随后对西方穆斯林的种族虐待。
3. The oppositional position: ‘One of the most significant political moments’ (E/D: 138) for Hall, where the viewer recognises the dominant televisual codes and opposes them. Continuing his example from above, Hall imagines the viewer who hears reports of the wage freeze but decodes every reference to ‘national interest’ as ‘class interest’. Alternatively, in terms of the ‘9/11’example, recent news reports have suggested that British Muslims believe the so-called ‘war against terrorism’ led by the Bush administration is a ‘war against Islam’. This is an actual instance of oppositional reading.
最好将上述三个不同的位置理解为观众移动的连续体的一部分，而不是单独的静态观点，即听众一劳永逸地占据或拒绝。因此，霍尔将“反对派立场”作为“当下的“反对派立场”，“通常以谈判方式表示和解码的事件开始被赋予对立阅读”（E/D：138）。仅仅因为观众在开幕周中对公共部门的罢工表示同情，并不能保证在一周之后的支持。
Another point to make about Hall’s positions is that they don’t refer to the ‘personal’ (mis)readings of isolated viewers. For Hall, they are ideological positions concerning particular social groups. The examples used by Hall to illustrate his model indicate that he is thinking in Marxist/class terms (‘the workers’). However, Hall is clear that these positions can never be simply reduced to class: as the ‘9/11’ example suggests, social groups might be defined in terms of religion, ethnicity as well as age, sexuality, and so on.
最后，应该指出的是，霍尔的立场是假设的，它们并不是作为研究实际受众的规定模板。在这种情况下，霍尔一直是第一个指出的，他们“需要经过经验测试和精致”（E/D：136）。霍尔的一位前学生戴维·莫利（David Morley）进行了这些“测试”和“改进”中最具影响力的人。莫利（Morley）的研究来自英国电视节目的CCCS（1975-7）的媒体小组项目全国, a popular early evening magazine programme broadcast by the BBC. Morley tested the hypothesis of dominant, negotiated and oppositional readings by screening an episode of the show to different audiences grouped in terms of class, occupation, race, and so on. This ‘ethnographic’ approach revealed that audience responses are highly contradictory and are not rigidly determined by class or social position.
类别:文化学习,文学批评,俄罗斯乌克兰比分直播,媒体理论
大众文化
约翰·菲斯克和电视文化
后现代主义和流行文化
Your feedback helps improve this platform. Leave your comment.