Reception Theory - Stuart Hall
… a beginners’ guide
In the latest in her series on key thinkers, Lucy Scott-Galloway explores the seminal work of cultural
critic Stuart Hall, whose ideas about the ways in which audiences/readers make meaning from texts
have been hugely influential on studies of the audience. She applies his theories to the recent film
Kidulthood.
Essentials
Stuart Hall is a leading sociological thinker of the late 20th and early 21st centuries, whose writings
often encompass media perspectives. Though generally thought of as a sociologist and cultural studies
theorist, he taught media studies in London in the early sixties. Rather than exploring how texts make
meaning, as was the predominant practice of his analytical forerunners, for Hall, the meaning of the
text is not inherently in the text itself. No amount of analysis can find the text’s one true ‘meaning’,
because different people who encounter the text will make different interpretations.
On the surface, this certainly seems to make sense. After all, we don’t all like the same characters in
our favourite TV shows or films, or dislike the same. But we are all seeing the same representations.
The technical and symbolic codes that construct the representations we perceive are the same – that is,
the denotation is the same. But from there, what the producers want us to think and what we actually
think might be two very different things. This reading, according to Hall, depends on our social
positioning – for example the level of our education and experience, and what our occupations are.
Reception theory
This approach to textual analysis puts most emphasis on the audience – meaning is made at the
moment of consumption. At that moment, the individual audience member considers the
representations presented to them in the context of their own values, opinions and experiences.
Therefore, people with similar socio-cultural backgrounds are likely to make similar readings of the
same texts.
It follows then, that if the audience’s values, opinions and experiences are similar to the producer’s,
then they are likely to ‘read’ the meaning of the text in the way it was intended – or at least very close
to it.
Encoding/decoding model
Stuart Hall took this new attitude towards audience consumption, which considered audiences as not
only active but also a group of individuals rather than an undifferentiated ‘mass’, and developed the
encoding/decoding model. This model was based on the view that meaning is the result of a
communication process, the stages of which he called ‘moments’. The first is the ‘moment of
encoding’, the second the ‘moment of the text’ and the third the ‘moment of decoding’.
Moment of encoding – the creation of the text, when forms, structures, codes and conventions are used
to construct a text with an intended meaning.
Moment of the text – the symbolic existence of the text as it is published or broadcast – the focus of
semiotics.
Moment of decoding – when an individual with a unique set of values, attitudes and experiences
encounters the text. Regarded as more the moment of ‘creation’ than the first stage.
Preferred/negotiated/oppositional readings
Readings of texts are dependent on who the audience is, and what their social position is, because this
influences their interpretation of the denotative codes. However the number of readings isn’t
necessarily infinite – Hall suggested there are limits to the readings that can be made.
When the text is created, the producers encode a meaning, which they (probably) intend. This is the
reading likely to be made by the target audience, as they would be most likely to share and accept the
text’s ideology
This is the preferred reading.
However, some people whose social position places them outside the text’s specific target audience,
may be more active in questioning the representations in the text. If they generally accept the preferred
reading, but challenge a few aspects, then this is a negotiated reading.
If their values and attitudes are very different or even in opposition to the target audience, they are
unlikely to accept much – if any – of the preferred reading, making instead an oppositional reading. For
example, a teenage mum is unlikely to accept the preferred reading of a documentary that represents
teenage mums as careless or unfit parents.
The difference between what is encoded (the intention of the producer) and what is decoded (the
meaning made by the audience) is known by Hall as the margin of understanding.
The same person may even read the same text in different ways if they encounter it in different
contexts – do you ‘read’ texts the same in the classroom as you do at home? You may make a preferred
reading when you are at home, consuming a text for entertainment and pleasure for example, but
challenge the representations and how they are constructed when you are studying.
Putting it into practice: Kidulthood
Hall’s theories are useful to illustrate how different audiences might make meaning from the 2006
Menhaj Huda film, Kidulthood.
The film is set in West London and recounts a ‘day in the life’ of a group of school kids the day and the
day after a classmate commits suicide due to bullying. In the DVD’s special features, the writer of the
film, Noel Clarke, responds to the question:
What’s your response [to the claim] that Kidulthood makes bullying and ‘happy slapping’ cool?
‘I don’t really care to be honest, because I know that the film’s not promoting or justifying anything
it’s merely ‘there’…it’s just a film that’s out there. And it is highlighting what happens in society.’
This is an intentional approach to understanding how representation works. Clarke appears to think that
the representations made in the film mean whatever they were intended to mean. He also suggests that
representations are a ‘window on the world’ that just reflect society. But, as Media students – and in
light of what we have learnt from Hall – we know otherwise. What has been encoded may be decoded
differently by different audiences.
A quick read of the interactive users’ comments on the International Movie Database (www.imdb.com)
shows that different audiences viewed the film, especially the extent of its realism, in very different
ways.
I loved this film. I found it very truthful about young urban people getting into fights and arguments
and it spiralling out of control.
It’s kinda cool to show the rest of the world how scary it can be in England. I’ve grown up on an estate
in Chatham and I can honestly say that what you see in this film is really what it’s like...apart from they
are so much younger.
I found this film a waste of 2 hours and the END may as well be the BEGINNING as it fails to get my
interest or take me anywhere.
I come from E15 (East London) and the stuff in Kidulthood happens all the time in my area.
All northerners and elsewhere don’t really realise that London is one of the roughest, crime-ridden
places in the world! Damn you Richard Curtis!
The main factors that appear to influence the way meaning is made from the film are the ages and
locations of the audience members. Those who live near to where the film is set appear to feel the film
is realistic, in terms of its representation of youth and their behaviour. This therefore supports Hall’s
view that the meaning made is influenced by social positioning. The final respondent above goes
further to hint at his/her understanding of representation – ‘damn you Richard Curtis’ suggests that the
audience member feels that director Richard Curtis’s representations of London in romcom films such
as Love Actually (2003) have given those without first-hand knowledge an inaccurate view of London.
The opening of Kidulthood merges different modes of representation, using realist codes in production
and MTV-style visual trickery, such as split and sliding screens and cinemascope, in post-production.
Kidulthood opens with a close-up of feet playing football, covered in mud and evoking a stereotype of
a schoolboy. The diagetic soundtrack; voices in a playground, reinforce this. The film stock is grainy,
characteristic of British realist films, and the location shooting and handheld, restless camera jumping
from character to character at eye level and in shallow focus also adds to the sense of realism. Kids
chat to each other, on phones, are smoking in the playground, giving out invites to a party and play
football, in a realist representation of ‘every day life’. The dialogue is very specific to both region and
generation, language including ‘blud’, ‘bruv’, ‘hug him up’, ‘allow it man’, ‘innit’ and ‘oh my days’
may not be understood by people outside London’s youth culture.
But this scene is cross-cut with scenes that are more conventional of the gangster genre. The camera is
steady and close up, and the focus remains shallow, but the subject; Trife drilling (what we later realise
is) a gun, is in contrast to the harmless goings on in the playground. The drill is shot with key lighting
to the left, creating dramatic areas of light and dark. This juxtaposition of genres continues, as Trife
talks to his uncle in a car. Here we see further iconography of the gangster genre – replica guns, drugs,
and a menacing male figure who dresses in heavy jewellery and a long black leather coat.
In the 12th-minute of the film, a female character Katie switches on her stereo, and diagetic music
begins, The Streets’ ‘Stay Positive’. The music bridges to the next scene becoming non-diagetic, and
different characters are shown in split screen rolling from right to left, resembling a music video. The
technique indicates parallel action, as the female characters are shown taking a pregnancy test and
writing a suicide note, whilst the male characters are shown going for a walk, getting a hair cut, and
playing computer games. The music becomes diagetic again as Katie’s parents begin calling her to turn
it down, and the montage ends with their discovery of her body, after she has hung herself.
Kidulthood therefore uses codes of realism to construct a representation of youth in west London. It is
important to be aware that this representation is as constructed as any other, as choosing to represent
youth in London in this way encodes a particular ideological perspective.
The codes of realism used include:
• On location shooting
• Point of View shots
• Low resolution film stock
• Naturalistic lighting
• Handheld camera
• Eye level camera angles
Although some decisions may have been made for economic reasons (low resolution film stock is far
cheaper than the alternative options often favoured by Hollywood, location shooting means not having
to pay for and prepare a studio), the overall effect is that the representation looks more like ‘real life’,
and as a result, the preferred reading is that these young people are representative of ‘the youth of
today’ growing up in west London. The representations of young people are somewhat stereotypical;
themes of sex, drugs and violence are prevalent, juxtaposed to scenes of poor parenting or youths not
being understood by adults.
The target audience for the film, young people growing up in urban environments, are likely to find
these themes familiar, even if a little exaggerated for narrative purposes. They may therefore identify
with some of the characters in the film, most likely Trife, who stands out as the protagonist in the
opening scenes when he is the only one to stand up to the bully. However, if somebody from outside
the target audience were to watch the film, they would do so from the perspective of their own social
position.
What if the people watching the film were your parents, or even grandparents? Would they think the
same as you? What if the people watching the film were conservatives living in rural environments a
long way from a city? Would they find these characters and events believable? These are the people
who might make negotiated, or in some cases, oppositional readings. Whilst the preferred reading is
that this is a realistic film, some may think the representations of youth are exaggerated or
sensationalised, or made up altogether. Whilst bullying happens with unfortunate regularity and
underage smoking and sex occurs also, it is rare for a young person to drill guns for their gangster
uncle or for a pupil to commit suicide. The codes of social-realism and gangster are merged to such an
extent that for some, the film loses its realist edge. Whilst the writer of the film, Noel Clarke, refutes
the claims of sensationalism in the DVD’s special features, I think he fails to give enough credit to his
own imagination:
Some people have said that this [film] will influence society and influence young people. Whereas my
thing is that it’s the opposite way round. Society influenced the film. This film couldn’t exist if these
things weren’t happening already.
Furthermore, some may think that the film glamorises teenage pregnancy – the only characters who are
really likeable are Trife and Alisa. The climax to the narrative is at Blake’s party, when Trife and Alisa
decide to have the baby together, and the emotional response of the audience is to feel pleasure in their
union, and hope for their future. Some of the sorrow the audience feels when Trife dies is because he
and Alisa will never have their happy family unit.
Criticisms of Hall
How can a preferred reading be identified? How do we know if we have found it, and we are not
making a personal, negotiated reading, unless the producers tell us what it is? Would they tell us the
truth? David Morley (a theorist in audience studies) has suggested that the preferred reading is the:
reading which the analyst is predicting that most members of the audience will produce.
For example, when analysing this film with my class, we discussed the costumes of the characters in
the opening scene. Most are in school uniforms, with connotations of control and conformity,
reinforcing dominant ideological values of formal education. Sam, however, is dressed in a blue hoodie
with the hood up – and following recent moral panics around teens and hoodies, the costume carries
connotations of trouble. This, we suggested, signifies that Sam is an antagonist. The reading appears to
be obvious and transparent – but how do we know? Maybe, when Sam’s costume was decided, it was
chosen only because a hoodie is a casual item that signifies nothing more than the suggestion that Sam
is not a pupil at the school where the scene is set. Perhaps we are bringing our own socio-cultural
experience to the reading, to imagine that the hoodie signifies any more than that. So how do we know
when we are making a preferred reading, and when it is negotiated?
Lucy Scott-Galloway