This is a very long post and contains a lot of cut and past quotes. It is my notes on reading cultural theory.
Although much of my research will consist of a Bricolage of readings on constructing story and narrative in both Documentary and drama, talking to picture editors and even looking at films, I also wish to learn about how to read and use cultural theory. This should help me investigate the relevance of cultural theory in my research and also hopefully give me tools to read and understand texts which are not writings on theory (with a capital T). This post consists of notes from Matt Hills book, Doing stuff With Cultural Theory (2005).
Reading Cultural Theory
“l will consider how reading cultural theory actually tends to mean reading in a certain ways, reading, close reading and as analytical reading are all characteristic of theory culture’s contextualized agency, by which I mean its way of doing things with academic texts considered as ‘wholes ‘. These modes of reading can be contrasted with incremental reading, where parts of a text or skimmed for specific material.” (Hills 2005: 51).
Most people simply read a text but as teachers and students we reread it, we go over and over it, Hills argues that this is simmer to the way fans consume there favorite media, both carrying out ‘close reading‘.
“That’s people should consume texts… As complete wholes… [ and that] we should never attempt interpretations of texts unless we draw on information about every element of the text – ‘ the total system’. this ‘close reading ‘approach… Is perceptive one, rather than a description of one. [It] is only one, very limited approach: what we might call the scholarly mode of engagement, the province of academics and fans” (McKee 2003a:75).
This is opposed to the idea of skimming for specific quotes ” or dipping into an introduction or a conclusion, or analysing one scene in the film without having seen the whole text.” (2005: 53). The difference between fan and academic reading seems to be that academics ” Actively producing connections between Key texts and others in the intellectual matrix of cultural theory” (2005: 54). (analytical reading) and while fans tend to be bound to the constraints of the individual text. I guess another difference is that fans tend to internalize and relate what they read to there lives but academics are more interested in discussing and extending Cultural theory, externalizing it to society and cultures in general. Academics also may be familiar with key cultural theory works through repeated commentary (distant reading) rather than close reading.
“if reading cultural theory becomes a bit of a pain as well as considerably time-consuming and a challenge to our sense of self possession (as we get lost in series dark woods before finding illumination), then student readers distant reading of cultural theory via text book Pre-reading may be entirely sensible and rational response to this situation. not having fully internalized the value system of theory culture, students are likely to find reading cultural theory an unhappy experience.” (2005:57)
Hills warns against ‘efficient’ reading, which is strikingly incremental, “the reader knows what they are looking for and searches through the text for a specific bit of information” (2005:58) . Cultural Theory is not meant to be read ‘efficiently’, it requires distant reading for the initial stance. Analytical reading can be risky as as it can not be standardized so different readers produce different outcomes.
“I have argued for the value of analytical over efficient reading, but I have also begun to suggest that there may be shared limits to efficient and analytical reading: both trained academics and new students tend to exclude their reading relationship when they turn to established imperative frameworks (as many scholars do) or appeal to textual transparency (as many students do). (2005:61)
Hills argues that reading is carried out in a “taken-for-granted way withing cultural theory’ 61 although it has been studied as a practice ‘carried out by non-academic others”. (2005:61). Hills then introduces a few key texts of the they of reading.
Decoding, see-sawing and poaching
Decoding
Stuart Hall’s essay ‘Encoding/decoding‘ (1980), ” The influence of this 11 page essay can hardly be underestimated in cultural studies/theory” (2005:61). it is significant in that it separates the encoding and decoding movements in the existence of a mediated text.
The text is first encoded/constructed by the author, making meaning draws on ” conventions of language, relations and professionalism, which Hall terms ‘frameworks of knowledge, relations of production and technical infrastructure’ (1980: 130). Then, is a second movement a different set of ‘meaning structures‘ operate on the text (1980: 130). There are the codes through which readers encounter and decoding text - forms of meaning making that are linked, strongly or weekly, to the readers social and cultural identity…Audience members doc not merely receive the text, but actively read it via potentially different codes of meanings to those used by the text creator”.
“Since there is no necessary correspondence between the encoding and decoding, the former can attempt to ‘pre-fer’ but cannot describe or guarantee the latter, which has its own conditions of existence. Unless they are wildly aberrant, encoding will have the effect of constructing some of the limits and parameters within which decoding will operate. If there were no limits, audience could simply read whatever they liked into any message. No doubt some total misunderstandings of this kind do exist. But the vast range must contain some reciprocity between encoding and decoding moments (Hall 1980:135-6).
There is a preferred reading (by the author) but the actual reading occurs through the action of cultural power (2005:63).
Hall sets out three ‘Hypothetical’ types of reading (and subsequently these have been consistently applied by ochers):
- Thesis – reading aligned to the ‘dominant’ position (1080: 136). Accept the preferred reading (laughing along with Brass Eyes/Drop the dead docky’s dumbed down, cliched sensationalist portrayal of the news.
- Antithesis – reading in complete contrast. Reject the way message is framed, question it. ‘oppositional’ reading. Reading top-gun as military propaganda rather than a celebration of military potency.
- Synthesis – reading with a ‘negotiated’ position. Preferred reading with some oppositional elements. Laughing at some elements of Brass Eye but being appalled by its take on pedophilia.
Hall’s ideas an be criticized in that there is more of a continuum than three readings (Le Doeuff 1989) and the objectivity involved in assessing the preferred reading can be problematic.
“The encoding/decoding model can hence be imagined and visualized as a kind of delicately balanced ‘see-saw model’, offering cultural theorists a way of keeping celebration and critique of reading in the air, without definitively tipping to the ground on either side.” (2005:64).
See-sawing
The second influential model of rekindling cultural theory/studies that Hills introduces as aspects of the see-saw quality. This is French theorists Michel de Certaeu’s theorizing of reading in The Practice of Everyday Life (1988) who’s ‘distinctive contribution….is his insistence on the power of the subordinate’ (1989:34).
“and yet the powerless or orbital, creative and active. They do not merely except the cultural order imposed on them, but instead practice ruses and trickery to turn forms of authority against themselves, to pull a fast one and to get away with fooling those in power.” (2005:65).
Fake’s innovation of de Certaeu’s relates not only to generalise consumption as tactical, but also deals with ‘tactical reading ‘. Cranny-Francis et al (2003) defines this as following:
“For some readers, the text is less a focus than a point of trajectory; meanings generated by a reading our extrapolated beyond the text into a reader/meaning making practice which states and reinforces the attitudes and values of the reader. It is… A reading which, at some level, empowers the reader. It is not necessarily a socially critical reading, and it is not necessarily a reading which accords the mainstream reading practice (2003: 129-30).
“Tactical reading, then, is a version of de Certaeu’s more general thesis that consumers use products imposed on them in creative and gleeful ways, but that’s the use uses nevertheless indicate a certain lack of strategic power ( Burnett 1998: hundred and 81). de Certaeu’s Argues that ‘reading is only one aspect of consumption, but a fundamental one’ (1998: 167) ” (2005:67).
Poaching
This Tactical-Reading has been termed textual-poaching by Cranny-Frances (2003:130), describing fans of TV shows as a near perfect example of de Certaeu’s tactical readers
“Like the poacher of old, fans operate from a position of cultural marginality and social weakness. Like other popular readers, fans lack direct access to the means of commercial cultural production and have only the most limited resources with which to influence entertainment industries decisions. Fans must beg… The network to keep their favourite shows on air, must lobby producers… ” (1992: 26-7).
And I guess in the networked age this has manifested itself in fan-generated media posted to websites such as YouTube, as the fans gain access to the methods of production. As Hills shows poaching is not a form of ‘misreading’ but in a way I would think a recoding of the media for the fans purpose. As technology becomes cheaper de Certaeu’s ideas seem even more powerful.
“and yet the powerless or orbital, creative and active. They do not merely except the cultural order imposed on them, but instead practice ruses and trickery to turn forms of authority against themselves, to pull a fast one and to get away with fooling those in power.” (2005:65).
Using Cultural Theory
Media students think they think already know the cultural objects that surround them so do not think they need Cultural Theory. (Harris 1992:4).
“The product and cultural theory foreign itself in runs as follows: we (writers and teachers) want you (students and readers) to actively make meaning and produce new readings but at the same time we also want you to passively (re-) produce meaning in reading that we can as a vehicle recognised as correct:
“The popular text… [Can]… Be pedagogically students into resistive readings which, with the assistance of the cultural studies teacher, can be corrected, revised and even asserted. It is however, difficult to see how this amounts to anything but a form of licensed poaching performed under the watchful, tutor the eye of gamekeepers in the employee of the literary apprentices [that is, the academy MH] (Bernett 1998:184) ” (2005:71).
Hills talks a lot about strategic-tactical reading. Strategic reading seems is ‘ reading that are correct and tactical readings That are instrumental or resistive is therefore overly simplistic.” (2005:72). By ‘correct’ I can only think he is referring to close/analytical reading. By using the term strategic – tactical reading this seems to mean there is a element of ‘efficient’ reading.
“The creativity of strategic tactical reading is contained via the notion that only certain theorists create and pioneer new theoretical frameworks, while others just apply theory. The former are what Michael Foucault calls ‘transdiscursive’ authors or ‘initiators of discursive practices ‘. These great individuals do more than simply produce readings, they produce the terrain within which later readings and ‘new books and authors can proliferate ‘”(1979:24-5).” (2005:72).
“Hills notes reading correctly and getting reasonable marks falls closest to strategic reading. Reading selectively and instrumentally in line within set of pre-established aims resembles tentacle reading but these both neglect creative reading. ” reading the works on cultural theory rather than simply recognizing and repeating it. “Such transformative reading introduce new ideas or new lines of thought by working through preceding concept… I am suggesting that we consider students at all levels of higher education as being capable of meaningfully critiquing and developing cultural theory in relation to their own interests and investments. Student readings can achieve strategic tactical aims, even if these readings may not always be revolutionary as those instigated by the most trans-discursive of authors. ‘ (2005: 77-8).
Strategic tactical reading Karen operates in any number of ways, and I will now, non-exhaustively and in no special order, outline a few of these”.
Strategic-tactical reading can operate in a number of ways, the non-exhaustive list below is in no particular order. These are ways of approaching the reading. The aim does not seem to be to choose the most appropriate but use a mixture (or even all) of them, ultimately the more that are used the deeper the possibility for understanding.
Focusing on theorists affiliation and group membership.
Does the author seem to align themselves to any specific theories, look at acknowledgments if available. Where are they biased. By looking at this you can get an idea of there social networks that accompany their work. Consider which theorists are cited approvingly and which are criticized.” Note this approach requires reading outside and beyond the bounds of the specific text in order to gain a sense of context… By building up an idea of how any given theory relates to the broader field - and theories into tetra matrix - should be at reading Cameron play tricks and routers with this sense of context by forgoing new links between writers, playfully positioning a theory in a different context to the one in which it usually supposed to operate or be fixed, or elaborating on the established context in such a way as to challenge how a theory by itself poached from its predecessors.” (2005:78).
Focusing on the rhetorical system of the given theory
How does it rhetorically seeks to persuade the reader of its legitimacy and validating? Does the author use certain classes and metaphors, or specific images, to achieve its aims? ” You can also consider how Paul uses scarce quotes – ‘ ‘ - are uncertain terms. He is rhetorically consistent in this practice. He systematically places in quotes works to destabilize certain ideas, or to indicate that he does not passively accept particular contact. [we] should, then, not only be on a lookout for who Reference quoted” (2005:81) but the intent of the type of quoting. Words may also be crossed out to indicate idea or term is being revised.
Focusing on the stories that we are told
How does this theory use specific narrative structures? what resolution, if any, does the theory or story have? Does the theory of narrative show its superiority all alternative theories? The way that the story is told, its structure and where and how it ends.
Focusing on the basic assumptions of any theory
What has to be true for the theory to work as it does? What are the essential aspects of the given theories and what do they assume? Even if theory appears to be challenging common-sense thought it still tends to to rely on a set of assumptions. For Example in Hulls encoding/decoding he assumes it is possible to entirely ‘bracket’ out the ‘subjective’ matter of reading.
“Have we missed something? But we can take solace in Miles’s argument that ‘the student of… Theory should not assume that he or she is somehow ignorant or stupid. More often than not… Confusion is caused by the fact that the theorist him or herself is confused ‘(2001:12-3). Readerly confusion can therefore be a useful guide to problems in theory, rather than sign of the readers lack of cultural competencies and training as an academic reader (though it can be this to.” (2005: 83).
Focusing on the conceptual distinctions and divisions that sustain the given theory; what opposing conception units is a world broken into?
Witch primary concepts are values and which are denigrated? This can be categorized as ‘deconstructing’:
“it challenges taken for granted… concepts… It is interesting is in uncovering the binaries that underpin the language… We used to make sense of reality… [d]econstruction aims to destabilize binaries by unraveling the way in which Binaries render the other side of the equation invisible and natural (2003:135-6)” (2005: 83).
Hills puts forward the idea that rather than accepting a binary opposition of strategy (academic’s correct reading) versus tactics (students instrumental reading) we can consider strategic-teactacle reading where theories are not just responded to ‘correctly’ but are critiqued and poached from.
Focusing on the limits of rhetorical explanation.
“What does a theory not say? What does it rule out is being outside its extremeties? All forms of critical theory are abstraction and models of the world. This means that they cannot explain everything ‘and will always possess limitations.” (2005: 85).
‘Symptomatic reading’ is a type of structuralist reading,
“What Althusser calls a lecture symptomale [is] a reading which ‘detects the undetected in the very text that it reads ‘, finding in the text a second text which ‘is articulated in the lapses of the first ‘ (Althusser et91996:23) … Although part of the aim of the symptomatic reading seems to be to pin down meaning… Its effect is also to open up meaning to a process of supplementation which need never end. The identification of gaps or blanks in the text serves as a simple illustration of this (Davis 2001:303-4).
This mode of reading suggests that ‘an interpreter might understand the author better than himself ‘(Broadwell1987:71-104). In this questioning of work
“We should question the work as to what it does not and cannot say, in these silences through which it has been made. The … order of the work is thus less significant than its real determinant disorder. The order which it professes is merely an imagined order, projected onto disorder” (1978:155).
Hills suggests “cultural theory is limited, I can’t say everything. It cannot be perfect all unquestionable, only ‘good enough’ (1092:67).” (2008:87).
Can focus on neologisms, on new terms that the writer coins, asking what work these terms perform in theory.
How do they push us to think differently about a situation?
“Neologisms usually carry certain imagery either directly, or in their wake. By introducing new metaphors into cultural theory we attempt to provoke new ways of thinking.” (2005: 98).
“Focusing only on Neologisms and the imagery allows a shrewd tactical readers to indicate how cultural theory attempts to estimate its new ways of thinking through such stock images, while also considering how Neologisms may partly work against a series expressed aims.”
Can focus on examples that the theory put forward to explain or sustain itself.
“Do these examples work in the way that the theorists tell us they do or can may be challenged what if we selected other examples?” (2005:90). New examples are particularly useful as they may not fit withing the framework and can expose its flaws.
Can focus on moments where the theorist defends their theory from possible attacks by other schools of thought.
“This very specific rhetorical device for defense is called ‘proiepsis’ Lachesis, meaning to anticipate the answer objections in advance.” (2005:90). This can indicate areas where the theorist thinks the theory needs defending against criticism, proiepsis can indicate tensions in the rhetorical argument.
