Q：In Encoding/Decoding, hall says,”In that moment the formal sub-rules of discourse are 'in dominance', without, of course, subordinating out of existence the historical event so signified, the social relations in which the rules are set to work or the social and political consequences of the event having been signified in this way.” How can we put this viewpoint in discussion with Pierre Bourdieu’s distinction theory?
Q: does the dominant-hegemonic position directly related to the “equivalence” that Hall mentioned earlier in the piece, which means a message can be decoded exactly as the way it originally intended?
Comments
Post a Comment