Thoughts on Thoughts

 On page 125, Slack writes: “While working with a still- recognizable model of transmission, Hall’s encoding/decoding challenges the simple assertion of intrinsic identity by insisting that the components of the process (sender, receiver, message, meaning, etc.) are themselves articulations, without essential meanings or identities. This move compels a rethinking of the process of communication not as correspond but as articulation.” Which I, and I think a lot of comm scholars, would agree. This plays an important role in understanding communication but, importantly and especially, in emphasizing the many directions of power and/or influence that can exist within that articulated moment. In a word, an awareness of connection both to an individual and systems. I suppose my question is: shouldn’t more people have this knowledge? How do we share this beyond the academy? Why is Communication in undergrad always focused on public speaking/public relations/marketing etc rather than such consequential theorizing? 

In line with this, I want to discuss more the postmodernist take on the collapse/implosion of all meaning. It’s an argument I have been thinking about a lot and I think Hall adds more nuance to it. He argues that representation/meaning is not at an end, but rather the process of encoding has multiplied to create a plurality of codes. So, meaning does exist but, then I wonder, doesn’t it simultaneously not exist? What if we identify a different meaning than what should be read? I know this is pretty standard “communication does not equal the transmission model and often we read different meanings than what someone wanted to share” argument. Grossberg, too, points to the multiple/intersecting/assemblage ways of language (and reality). I am not arguing meanings should not be multiplied (indeed they are), but I guess I am wondering how this argument works under systems of power. In particular, I’m thinking about the ways multiple meanings exist but, often, it is hegemonic understanding that is written upon them. What does realities mean when only one reality is believed?  How do we get out of this trap? (If it is a real trap, or only one I made up in my mind).

Finally, last Q I have! On page 143 of the interview Hall shares: “This is a cultural transformation. It is not something totally new. It is not something which has a straight, unbroken line of continuity from the past. It is a transformation through a reorganization of the elements of a cultural practice, elements which do not in themselves have any necessary political connotations…” I am wondering the implications of this statement on current activist movements that are fighting/advocating for a new system/order: do we need to transform rather than build anew? When does transform just become reform, and how do we mark the difference?