Encoding and Decoding of Messages
The transfer of information from one individual or group to another where the message is encoded transmitted then decoded by the receiving audience characterizes the communication process. In the article, Hall argues that decoding is a complex process that often dictates the interpretation of messages.
The article Encoding and Decoding by Stuart Hall talks about a model of communication characterized by an encoding medium and decoding audience for the transfer of information. The model by Hall adapts a framework of signs system in the study of communication shifting away from the previously employed behaviorist models. In the article, Hall compares two models of communication that is the traditional and encoding-decoding model. The conventional model follows a linear formation of the sender, message, and receiver. There is more to communication and the model’s dismissal of the multiple relations of moments that, in turn, make up the transmission process whole makes the method inapplicable. Hall proposes that it is vital to see the process as having complex structures joined by particular moments. Such moments are communication, production, circulation, consumption, and reproduction.
The other model is the encoding and decoding model. The two are determining moments that encompass the production, dissemination, and comprehension of the message. Hall explains that when using media as a channel for communication of events, the transmission cannot be in its raw format. Therefore, encoding is essential as it creates a way for the event to become a story before its communication. Additionally, the article states that decoding can take part in either the hegemonic, negotiated, or oppositional positions.
Hall’s theory of encoding and decoding as the primary basis for compounding information to pass and receive messages is useful in examining the communication and cultural aspects today. With any communication medium today, the sender hopes to give information unambiguously. More often than not, people perceive information in a way that was not intended by the decoder. Hall challenges the other theories that assume that the audience holds no power to interpret the message. The primary basis for communication is that there is a message or the depiction of an event, and the audience is free to come up with the desired interpretation. That is the reason he advocated for the three decoding positions.
In this modern world, media outlets are multiple, and they each have a different way to decode a story which it transmits to its audience. In simpler terms, this means that the media has lots of messages from varying sources intended for the same receiver. The challenge in this arises as the audience interprets the word in different forms, distorting the communication. Media outlets integrate Halls theory to mean that if they want the audience to take up the hegemonic position where decoding happens in the way the encoder intended, then they have to involve cultural affiliations or meaning inducing perspectives (McQuail, 2010).
The encoding and decoding model recognizes the heterogeneous nature of audiences. Hence, the outlets ought to subject themselves to the semiotic aspect as per the encoding-decoding model. In doing so, the media present a form of effective communication, which gives them a competitive advantage over their numerous rivals. It is also important to note that when transmitting a message, factors such as age, beliefs, life experiences, mood, and culture determine the decoding of the word. When information is received in the hegemonic position, it implies that “certain codes have been widely distributed and in a specific language or community learned from an early age” therefore the cultural inclination of an audience interferes with how and whether they receive or view a message (Hall, 2015).
The theorist Hall used the television discourse as there is diversity in the audience that is to receive the message. However, he demonstrates that the viewer takes up an active role when the decoding action is required. They depend on the cultural, political, and societal contexts, and that gives them the ability to interpret the message in various forms (Hall, 2015). Taking in Halls’s position regarding culture, as mass communication is occurring, each outlet tries to tap into an audience that is more inclined to the decoder. For example, a few years back, during the Black Lives Matter campaign, Pepsi made a commercial that caused an uproar as its interpretation took on the opposition position (Newsbeat, 2017). Cultural differences were the reason for this misinterpretation. Pepsi wanted to show unity, but a significant number of the audience took it to be offensive and took the spotlight from the Black Lives Matter message.
The example depicts that the design and transmission of a message are essential for effective communication, especially in this millennial age. Halls further stresses that messages “must contain some degree of reciprocity between encoding and decoding moments; otherwise, we could not speak of an effective communication exchange at all” (Hall, 2015, p. 515). He further states that the relationship is not natural, and there is a need for its production. If it were natural, then the communication cycle would be a perfect cycle that does not constitute effective communication (Mcquail, 2010). To ensure high communication standards, people need to develop a relationship between the decoding and the encoding while considering the cultural inclination of the intended audience.
Hall’s encoding-decoding model does lay the way for studying communication today as it lays the foundation for mass communication. His theory identifies the need for the correspondence of moments between the two processes to achieve effective communication. It also recognizes that the audience is active in its perception of messages received.
References
Hall, S. (2015). Encoding and decoding in the television discourse, stenciled papers No.7. https://blog.richmond.edu/watchingthewire/files/2015/08/Encoding-Decoding.pdf.
McQuail, D. (2010). McQuails mass communication theory. Sage publishers.