Today’s readings apply Hall’s encoding/decoding model to popular culture texts and their viewers. How do you see these examples of “applied theory” helping explain this approach to cultural studies? How does Fiske & Dawson account of the Die Hard and its reception fit with your own take on the film?
Theories of Popular Culture
Class blog for AMST0355, Spring 09, Middlebury College
Perhaps this is a little off the mark for the proposed question, but I was very much drawn to Ang’s idea of “bad mass culture” and the “social climate emanating from an ideological climate in which ‘really’ liking [a] programme is almost taboo.” This idea ties into Hall’s “encoding/decoding model” in the way that many people decode a text in a particular way—whether by ignoring it, enjoying it, or mocking it. And while Ang’s article was engaging, I also found it dated. And while this is inevitable in a field as quickly shifting as cultural studies, I propose a more modern example: “Gossip Girl.”
Like in Ang’s article, I find myself rationalizing reasons for watching the show. The most popular response from my age group and gender: “I only watch for the clothes.” And while you could watch it on mute, people who “watch it for the clothes” never do. Circles of individuals sit around to watch “Gossip Girl” (and another great example, MTV’s ‘The Hills’) in order to make fun of it. Or, make themselves feel better by placing themselves in a superior position over the inane characters. Newsflash: You’re still watching it, and you’re still giving it ratings.
If you get a chance, read this great feature about “Gossip Girl” printed in the New Yorker. Wrap your head around this one Matthew Arnold:
http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/television/2007/11/26/071126crte_television_franklin
What Fiske and Dawson say about the relationship between power and audiencing violence speaks well to the Soviet experience with “westerns.” I put the term in parentheses because the ones we had (and still do – they are now classics) came from Yugoslavia, and portrayed successful attempts by Native Americans to repulse armies of oil-hungry, alcoholic cowboys. The young people who watched these films were raised to regard class as a greater differentiating factor between people than race, so they identified with their racial Other (the Native American), as opposed to their class Other (the white Capitalist).
Hall’s encoding/decoding model is well-illustrated in this case, because charges of alcoholism and imperialism could be leveled just as easily, if not more, against the Soviets as against the Americans. There is a similar relationship, but within a single film, in The Searchers between Ethan and Scar, who each see the other as Other, despite their obvious similarities.
Fiske’s and Dawson’s account of an audience of homeless men watching Die Hard demonstrates how diverse the interpretations of a cultural text can be. Fiske and Dawson explain that these men cheer at the death of Tagaki, who represents the evils of capitalism to them. These viewers appear to identify with the terrorists in their detest of capitalistic greed. Fiske and Dawson also notice that the viewers identify with John McClane only until he joins with the larger police force. Interestingly, the men are not concerned with how McClane triumphs at the end and wins back his wife. Regarding my own take of the film, I was originally shocked when I read these reactions. I had great respect for Tagaki and the system of meritocracy that rewarded him for his intellectual endeavors. I was relieved when McClane joined with the police, while I was able to acknowledge that power does not make people intelligent or morally civil (i.e. the FBI agents). But as I read more of the article, I became a lot more sympathetic to the way these men viewed the film, as I understood the influence of their situations on their cultural interpretations, which is true of everyone.
Fiske and Dawson argue that these interpretations of Die Hard have not only been created by the personal experiences and circumstances of these men, but also, and most importantly to Fiske and Dawson, by the homeless shelter itself. Though the homeless shelter is the only personal space these men have, all their experiences there are created by the institutional rules and regulations of the church it is connected to. Porn, gambling, and staying at the shelter from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. on weekdays are forbidden. The men must enter the shelter through a back entrance in an alley, and are almost continuously supervised. The cultural texts provided for them are religiously or educationally focused. Clearly, the men are marginalized yet controlled. Fiske and Dawson explain that because of this marginalization and suppression the men resist the rules in order to create living practices actually their own. They read porn under the guise of intellectual magazine covers; they do not sleep at night but stay up to have social interactions; they gamble. Breaking the rules gives these men some control over their lives. They resist the institutional and dominant presence in their lives.
This is evoked by their reactions to Die Hard. They support the characters who triumph over capitalism and who exist separately from official social powers. These reactions and interpretations of the film have arguably been created and constructed by their social marginalization and their resistance to the attitudes of dominant authority.
I found the observations of Fiske and Dawson as they observed homeless men watch Die Hard (as well as their general situation) to be quite revealing of deeper cultural tendencies. While these men live under the rules of the church, nothing is forcing them too — that is, nothing except the promise of shelter and safety. This recalls the Hobbesian idea (not from this class) of the state of nature…that in our natural state, humans are vicious and brutal and will live according to our innermost Id if we’re not controlled. Government, then, becomes a sacrifice that all of humanity submits itself to for the purpose of maintaining order. Any of us could choose to live outside the boundaries of government, but we would quickly find ourselves without protection or safety (fortunately, like the homeless men, we can often find a way to live outside the rules and not get caught).
Their understanding of Die Hard was, needless to say, quite different from mine. While I cheered for the “good guys” and booed the “bad guys”, I allowed my notion of good and bad to be defined by the film’s narrative rather than my personal feelings towards institutions. For example, on general principal, the police and I, well…disagree on numerous issues, however this did not stop me from cheering their arrival at the Nakatomi Tower because they were there to “save the day”. So while I “don’t like” the police, and in theory probably shouldn’t like the capitalist system which allowed Tagaki his rise to power, my convictions are not so strong as to root against such characters in a movie. Some of our theorists might say I’m still blinded by the cultural script — they might be right.
I also think Melissa raised an interesting point about Gossip Girl. I think the point can be applied to many network shows, which often suffer the unfavorable comparisons to cable shows which allow for a greater degree of explicit action (language, violence, sexuality, drug use, etc.). Too many times I’ve defended my fanhood of LOST to those who question why the fat guy hasn’t lost weight, why a helicopter can’t just come rescue the survivors, or why everyone on the show is so gorgeous. And while I fall into the category of “true fan”, these gripes do register with me and make sense on some level, leading me to ardently defend the show. I suppose Ien (wtf?) Ang would label me as ashamed of being a fan of LOST, although I personally feel that open dialogue about culturally significant shows is valuable on any level.
Ang’s notions of ‘bad mass culture’ and ‘good mass culture’ as well as Fiske and Dawson’s account of the homeless shelter both echo Hall’s emphasis on encoding and decoding.
Ang highlights the importance of the individual in the decoding of a text. Ang notes that ideology enables people to form images of themselves and others. The personal letters to Dallas reveal the numerous decoding possibilities. This variety evolves from personal experience that molds ideology which in turn shape how the viewer sees the show and how they see people that do not share their vision of the show.
While Ang highlights variety in decoding I believe Fiske and Dawson highlight variety in the encoding process. They discuss the large role environment (the shelter) plays in the meaning the homeless men extract from the Die Hard film.
One thing that I found interesting was that the homeless men identified with Bruce Willis’ character up until the point when he was no longer alone and aligned with the police (which represented social order). I found myself aligned with Bruce Willis’ character through out the entire film. However I think that it is important to note that my struggles with social order are much different than theirs and I am in a sense a part of the social order that the homeless men resist. This is also the same social order that alienates them. These difference means that we approach/encode a film like Die Hard very differently.
Today’s readings do a good job at exemplifying the mixed responses audiences may have to encoded cultural texts. As Hall points out in Tuesday’s reading, directors/creators encode certain interpretations in the texts they produce. Hall’s reception theory suggests that audiences do not always accept these encoded interpretations and sometimes oppose them completely (opposition) or partially (negotiation). One can see these different responses in Ang’s account of Dallas and Fiske & Dawson’s account of Die Hard.
In his essay on Dallas, Ang provides letters from Dallas viewers that portray the different interpretations of the series. For example, Letter 19 shows how the encoded interpretation is “dominant” and the letter writer has a preferred reading of the series. However, some fans are aware of the class-confirming nature of the show. As Letter 14 shows, some viewers enjoy the show but are also aware of the encoded interpretation and stay away from its negative influence (negotiation). As Letter 31 exemplifies, the awareness of the encoded interpretation leads some viewers to oppose the series and criticize it instead of following it as a fan (opposition).
Fiske & Dawson focus on a different element of the reception theory. Instead of explaining the varieties in viewer responses, these authors focus on a particular case of “opposition” and demonstrate how personal background and life experiences can influence text interpretation. In their essay, homeless men from a church-linked shelter do not share the dominant interpretation of Die Hard by ‘un-aligning’ themselves from Bruce Willis because of his cooperation with the police later on in the movie. According to Fiske et al., homeless men’s backgrounds and living conditions (marked by institutional state repression) lead these men to have a negative approach towards police forces and thus have an oppositional interpretation of the movie (because they were supposed to align themselves with Bruce Willis throughout the whole movie).
The readings are pretty good at explaining Halls encoding/decoding theory- they prove it works. Texts are loaded with different possible interpretations and depending on social context different possible interpretations will come out.
The Dallas example is a classic, I’ve come across it before in other classes, but it was my first time reading the Die Hard article and I’m probably never going to watch Die Hard the same way again. I really like that Die Hard has this fight the social order element (I mentioned that on Tuesday) but I’ve never had a dislike for Tagaki before, until now. I think these homeless guys are on to something, from now on I’m going to turn off Die Hard after it gets all patriarchal and social order dominant, who cares if the McClanes are reunited? I just want to see Bruce Willis kick some ass.
Also, this is a little off topic, but has there ever been a similar study of homeless women and what films they watch? There was talk in the article about homelessness being structural, which I agree with, but it also talked about violence being a kind of symptom of the structure and I was wondering, if violence and structure are linked, does this mean homeless women would watch die hard in the same way?
In trying to explain the differences between ideology and hegemony theory to a friend today, I struggled to give him a hegemonistic reading of Die Hard, and therefore abandoned it as my example and used Tootsie instead. In Fiske & Dawson’s article, on the other hand, they showed that even such a (seemingly) ideologically blatant text can be decoded differently by viewing it through the eyes of what is perhaps the most “other” group in our society–the homeless. I found this approach fascinating, and also found that it evoked a more emotional response from me than most other essays, even those which I particularly enjoy…but that’s another story.
In any case, I thought their study was also effective in penetrating to some even deeper questions, and even seemed to suggest the possibility that portrayals of violence are subversive, and therefore necessary/positive in the world of culture as a site of struggle. The novel approach of examining culture from the standpoint of the most subordinated groups is to thank for this fresh insight, I think.
While the group Ang analyzed (Dallas fans) is not quite so repressed as the homeless, she also manages to reach surprising depths in her relatively short article. She questioned assumptions right at the heart of the “ideology of mass culture”, as she calls is (such as “substance”=good, and the lack thereof is bad). She even managed to squeeze in some discussion about the objectivity of aesthetic judgment, which is something of great interest to me, and I hope we’ll follow up on it somewhere down the road in this course.
I find it interesting that man of the Dallas lovers decoded the show based on their background. Some enjoyed seeing the struggle of several of the characters because they represent socio-economic distinctions between them and the audience. There also seemed to be this active identification with the show that caused the fans to admit their pleasure for it and defend it, leading to what Ang called the “populist” perspective, in which there is a “rejection altogether of any paternalistic distinction between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ and dismisses any feeling of guilt or shame over a particular taste.” Therefore, there appears to be a certain negotiation of principles at hand. And it is a shame that, once again, advertisers appear to try to actively take advantage of this guilty pleasure and attempt to sell it.
After reading the Fiske & Dawson article, I realized that I too have this guilty pleasure of enjoying violence in the attempts to struggle with social order. Unlike the homeless men in the experiment that enjoyed the rebellion against the police—the alienated terrorists taking down the authoritative cops—I am for the protective one-man-good guy army vs. the oppressive many-men-many-armed bad guy army. In some sense, the terrorists are taking away the rights of the innocent—bullying them—and it is important that those rights are restored. Nothing is more satisfactory than seeing one of those who fight back against those who threaten his rights. Thank you, Bruce Willis. Then again, as far as decoding goes, it depends on the person’s cultural background, and I have a different background than that of a homeless person, and therefore view who is the bully differently.