​​MODULE 1 UNIT 5

Polysemic, Dominant, and Oppositional Readings

Goal: To identify the various interpretive stances taken toward media texts.

As the earlier unit on semiotics makes clear, symbols and signs can have multiple denotative and connotative meanings. The meaning an author or creator intends may not be what an audience interprets, and different audiences may interpret a text in different ways. Or audiences may interpret a text to denotatively mean the same thing, but have very different attitudes toward the text. As you might expect, ideology influences interpretations.

To explain these differences in interpretation, scholars have introduced the terms polysemy and polyvalence and identified three general categories of interpretation: dominant, negotiated, and oppositional.

Polysemy and Polyvalence

Although theories of hegemony might make you think all audiences interpret media texts in a singular, dictated way, media scholar John Fiske, in his influential book Television Culture, identified how different audiences can interpret mediated texts’ meanings in different and multiple ways.^[1] As your own experience arguing with friends about a movie, or music, or a YouTube video might illustrate, not everyone interprets and evaluates a mediated message in the same way.

Think back to the semiotics unit. Where do signs get their meaning from? Meaning does not reside in the sign or symbol itself, but instead in the interplay between symbols and between symbols and audiences. Marita Sturken and Lisa Cartwright, in Practices of Looking: An Introduction to Visual Culture,^[2] noted the symbolic meaning of an image “is not in the visual sign itself as a self-sufficient entity, nor exclusively in the sociological positions and identities of the audience, but in the articulation between viewer and viewed, between the power of the image to signify and the viewer’s capacity to interpret meaning.”^[3] Meaning exists in relationships, and ideology structures relationships and how people identify relationships between things in the world. Given the fluidity of meaning, it makes sense that meaning can be variable and fluid. It also means that to be a media critic, you need to develop the skill to identify the range of interpretations of a mediated message and where those meanings come from.

Fiske noted that audiences are not just passive recipients but actively and creatively engage with media. Fiske believed “a variety of readings”^[4] are possible because media messages are polysemous (poly meaning many and sem referring to sign or symbol, as in semiotics), with multiple meanings attached to them. This does not mean meaning is completely open, however, as a polysemic text “is not anarchically open so that any meaning can be derived from it.”^[5] 

As an example, consider a cigarette. If you see a character smoking a cigarette in a film, what does this symbolize? You might interpret the cigarette to mean the film is set in an older time, when smoking was more socially acceptable. You might think the cigarette symbolizes class, either lower or higher. You might think the cigarette symbolizes gender, depending on how the person smoking holds the cigarette. The cigarette can denote different things. But, it’s very likely that the cigarette doesn’t symbolize a refrigerator or a squirrel.

In summarizing the research on polysemy, rhetoric scholar Leah Ceccarelli refined Fiske’s definition to make clear polysemy refers to “a bounded multiplicity, a circumscribed opening of the text in which we acknowledge diverse but finite meanings.”^[6] Here, the multiplicity refers to “the existence of determinate but nonsingular denotational meanings.”^[7] 

The idea of polyvalence refers to a range of connotational meanings.^[8] Communication scholar Celeste Condit developed the idea of polyvalence because they recognized that sometimes “audience members share understandings of the denotations of a text but disagree about the valuation of these denotations to such a degree that they produce notably different interpretations.”^[9] The example of the cigarette can also illustrate polyvalence. When you see a cigarette in a film, do you have a positive or negative reaction? Does smoking a cigarette imply something positive or negative about the person smoking? As another example, two people may watch the same television episode, understand the plot in the same way (denotation) but have very different reactions to the story, thinking the lead character was heroic or was weak (connotation).

Dominant, Negotiated, and Oppositional Interpretations of Media Texts

Communication scholar Celeste Condit reminded that "[a]udiences are not free to make meanings at will from mass mediated texts" because "the ability of audiences to shape their own readings . . . is constrained by a variety of factors" including "access to oppositional codes . . . the repertoire of available texts" and the historical context.^[10] This is why media critic Stuart Hall identified three broad ways of interpreting media texts: dominant, negotiated, and oppositional.^[11] 

One way to think about this trivium is that dominant readings are hegemonic; oppositional readings are counter-hegemonic; and blended readings are a mix of the two. The polysemy and polyvalence of texts are what allows multiple interpretive possibilities. The goal of this Handbook is to give you the tools to shape your own readings and identify the ideological work being done in mediated texts. We hope to equip you with vocabulary, knowledge, and critical tools that enable you to become media literate.

Dominant (or preferred)

Hegemonic ideologies are embedded in the symbols people use and the stories they tell, in movies, advertisements, news stories, novels, social media posts, memes, and episodic shows. When a reader (or viewer) takes the "connoted meaning from . . . a television newscast . . . full and straight . . . we might say that the viewer is operating inside the dominant code."^[12] The viewer does not challenge the ideology behind the newscast or the way in which it maintains hegemonic power.  For example, after the viewer takes the newscast's report on the explosion of tourism in Albania as good news, accepting the connotative meaning that what is good for the tourism industry is good for everyone. Dominant interpretations participate in the “of course” of ideology.

Sometimes, though, the encoded dominant meaning might not be so straightforward. Ceccarelli explained that sometimes authors create “strategic ambiguity” when they create texts that are open to interpretation because they are trying to navigate between two or more groups and so want to leave multiple interpretations possible.^[13] 

For example, Albanian government public relations, and stories in the Albanian media, may celebrate the booming tourist industry, while also pretending to crack down on the mafia-influenced and financed building and hotel development.

Negotiated

When engaging in a negotiated reading, the viewer accepts some of the hegemonic meanings, but also recognizes some exceptions.^[14]  Here the denotational meanings are understood, but some of the connotational meanings are challenged.  In this case, the viewer might take the rising Albanian tourism industry as good news, but might also realize that it is good news mainly for hotel and restaurant owners  and those with ties to the tourism industry.

Oppositional or Resistive

In an oppositional reading, the viewer decodes the denotational and connotational meanings of a text in the way intended by the creator, but challenges it from an oppositional perspective.

The viewer might understand that tourism leads to overdevelopment, higher housing and other living costs, pollution, and a loss of control over one’s own lived environment (think of the anti-tourism protests happening now in Venice and Barcelona).

Ceccarelli likewise notes that oppositional or “resistive readings” occur when audiences rebel against authorial intent.^[15] Although resistive readings are possible, they are not automatic or easy and require careful orchestration and choreography to make sure others see the text in the resistant way you intend. In other words, there are lots of powerful media and other forces pushing us toward a hegemonic reading. Without training and work, and sometimes the distance of time and knowledge of history, oppositional/resistive readings are unlikely.

Dominant readings as common sense: The story of the Marlboro Man

The dominant storytellers in society include major corporations, which tell stories that are beneficial to them through public relations and advertisements. Even short television commercials function as 30- and 60-second stories about how their products or services fit into the social order and solve problems in people's (characterized as consumers) lives; ads tap into broader cultural myths. Through repetition, these advertisements tell the same stories over and over, attempting to make their common appearances into common sense. The history of cigarette advertising illustrates this. As a little background, consider that the smoking of cigarettes was quite rare until the end of the 1800s because they were considered a luxury. But, with automation, the production of cigarettes became cheaper and companies needed to expand the population to which they marketed cigarettes. Although pipe smoking was considered a manly past-time, companies marketed cigarettes to all sexes; “by 1949, 81% of men and 39% of women smoked.”^[16] 

As early as 1912, the link between lung cancer and smoking was noted, with studies confirming the connection in the 1940s. But it took until the 2000s for this information to break through a narrative that cigarettes were good. In the 1940s and 1950s, before overwhelming evidence existed about smoking’s health consequences, tobacco companies actually used doctors to market their product. The stories told in advertising was that smoking, or at least smoking this brand of cigarettes, was good for your health. In 1946, a Reynolds ad campaign used the slogan, “More doctors smoke Camels than any other cigarette.” How did Reynolds know this?  Well, they would give doctors a free carton of Camel cigarettes, and then ask them what brand they smoked.^[17] This campaign ran until 1954, but, as evidence mounted between the link between smoking and negative health outcomes, companies could no longer sell the story that smoking was safe. Instead, they embraced a narrative of individuality. But, to do that, cigarettes also had to redefine their image, particularly filtered cigarettes. Until the late 1960s, all filtered cigarettes were considered feminine. Real men, it seemed, smoked unfiltered. Marlboro, a filtered cigarette, was therefore considered a feminine product, a woman’s cigarette. This advertisement is part of The Stanford Research into the Impact of Tobacco Advertising (SRITA) collection and is in the Public Domain. In fact, in 1924, its slogan was “Mild as May” and “Early ads presented black-and-white sketches of listless flappers, slouched over an ashtray at a bistro table—or a sultry profile of a Gibson girl whose dark lipstick remained unblemished after a drag.”^[18] How to change this image?  Tell a different story.In 1954 emerged the story of Marlboro Man, a character who participated in the heroic myth of the stoic Western cowboy.^[19] From 1968 to 1989, the character was portrayed by Darrell Winfield, “the ideal poster child for the rugged, independent self-image Philip Morris wanted to sell its customers.”^[20] Even though no television ads for tobacco have been aired since the 1970s, you might recognize the reference to the Marlboro Man. Why? Because the ads told a powerful story and tapped into dominant narratives – and, the ad changed the narrative about Marlboro.

• Some cigarettes are masculine (Marlboro) and others are feminine (Virginia Slims)
• Smoking is a choice (not an addiction)
• Smoking is a way to show your individualism, that you are not controlled by others (even though you are actually deeply influenced by advertising and an addictive drug)
• If you feel a lack, buying a product can help you fill that void

The power of advertising – or even cigarette product placement in movies and shows, to tell a story of the desirability of smoking – is why television and radio advertising of cigarettes was banned in 1971 (at which point companies then shifted their emphasis to print advertising).^[25] By the 2000s and 2010s, most media companies also voluntarily refrained from showing smoking in movies targeted at young audiences.

Dominant readings as Common Sense: The Story of the KLA Soldiers

The dominant storytellers in society include major politicians, who, tell stories that are beneficial to them through publications and news reports. Dominant storytellers often tap into broader cultural myths. Through repetition, these stories get told over and over, attempting to make their common appearances into common sense.

During the 1998-1999 war in Kosovo, the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) soldiers fought against the much more powerful Serb army and were able to successfully lead Kosovo to its independence.  KLA was created in late 1997, after the acceleration of hostilities by the Milosevic regime against Kosovo Albanians.   It is around this time that people like Hashim Thaci, Azem Syla, Agim Ceku, Kadri Veseli, Xhavit Haliti, Rexhep Selimi, Ramush Haradinaj, Sylejman Selimi, Rrustem Mustafa, Jakup Krasniqi, and others were identified as the leaders of this guerilla group. All of them, without exception, entered politics after the war and have played or continue to play important roles in Kosovo’s political scene for over two decades^[26]. Through their political parties, the former KLA combatants managed to insert themselves into the mainstream political scene. In many ways, they have dominated that scene ever since. To this date, politics in Kosovo continues to be affected to a large degree by parties or politicians whose origins are traced back to the KLA.^[27] After the war and when the former KLA members started gaining political power in Kosovo, numerous autobiographical accounts from former soldiers and political leaders were published. The idea was to document the heroism (and the general heroism of other KLA soldiers) against a much more powerful Serbian army. The narrative of KLA heroism became a dominant way of interpreting all KLA soldiers and Kosovo in general.

Some of the books published by former KLA soldiers and then politicians are:

• Title: Kthesa e madhe – Ushtria Çlirimtare e Kosovës

Author: Jakup Krasniqi

Publisher: “Buzuku”, Prishtinë 2006, 302 pages.

About the author:  Jakup Krasniqi was the spokesperson of KLA). After the war, he was part of the main political party created by one of the KLA leaders Hashim Thaci. Later Krasniqi created his own political party. Since after the war he has held different governmental and state positions. He served as the speaker of the Kosovo Parliament and was acting president of Kosovo  (28 Sept 2010-22 Feb 2011). He is the author of many historical books, but the book “Kthesa e madhe” is being used against KLA main figures, Hashim Thaçi, Kadri Veseli, Rexhep Selimi, and Jakup Krasniqi who are being accused of being involved in war crimes during the war in Kosovo; judicial process is being executed in the Hague by Kosovo Specialist Chamber.

• Title: Ushtria Clirimtare e Kosoves (English: Kosovo Liberation Army) - Zona Operative e Llapit (Llap Operational Zone)

Author: Skender Zhitia

Publisher:  Organization of Veterans of KLA, 2008, 343 pages.

Skender Zhitia is a former member of KLA. The Hague is using his book against the KLA's former commanders and soldiers.

• Title: Flake e pashuar (English: The Unextinguished Flame)

Author: Hajrush Kurtaj,

Publisher: Kosovo Institute of Histori, first published in 2017

About the author: Hajrush Kurtaj is a former KLA officer, commander of Kacanik Brigade from May 15 to June 11, 1999. He was part of Kosovo Protecting Force (TMK) and after the independence, he was appointed in the position of Director of the Civil-military department at the Kosovo Ministry of Defense.

• Title: Syri i Shqiponjes (English: The Eagle’s Eye)

Author: Ilaz Kadolli,

Publisher: A civil society organization called “The movement” was first published in 2017.

Screenshot on media coverage of promotion of the book written by former KLA member and official of Kosovo Defence Ministry

The KLA hero narrative also played into a long story of the less powerful Kosovans vs. the more powerful Serbs who occupied Kosovo after the Ottoman Empire left.           Since 1912, the mostly-Albanian population of the region have continuously faced oppression and domination by the larger Serbian population to the north. The Serbs in turn, after the 500 years–ever since the Ottomans conquered and ruled the region in the 15th century, have determined to rid the region of the ethnic Albanian population.      

During this century of oppression, Kosovo had become the center of Albanian resistance against Serb colonization, forced migration of ethnic Albanians, and oppression for decades. Post-war, in 1999, the Yugoslav army withdrew, and the United Nations established a new country.    

Professor Nita Luci, who investigated postwar remembrance and state-building practices, found out that in post-independence Kosovo, the cult of martyrs dominates. Mentioning the high number of war veterans who committed suicide years after the war, Luci writes that it is believed that those who never fought have been able to benefit from the welfare that the state guarantees and not those who have done the fighting.^[28] 

The dominant narrative about KLA was that they fought against Serbia and even though some may have been involved in some illegal acts they manage to create the cult of a hero around them. Their wealth exceeded far too much of what they could have gained with their income from working in any public institution. Very often, the news media reported that  they or their family members were involved in violent acts against less powerful people in Kosovo.^[29]

These acts were justified because they made common sense in the dominant framing of the KLA hero story. Some of these politicians or public officials –now book authors–were interviewed on political talk shows. Their success against all odds were well known and validated. And people from Kosovo, who had suffered during the war, may have liked the narrative and identified with it.

Some might also have had a negotiated reading of the hero story. Since the authors had gained significant political power after the war and thus had a strong motive to exaggerate their mastery and combat prowess, not everyone fully trusted the politician/soldiers’ stories.

More recently, twenty-five years after the war, these stories have been reexamined critically and given oppositional readings. The Kosovo Special Chambers in the Hague (established by Kosovo institutions in 2015) began investigating war crimes allegedly perpetrated by soldiers and leading Kosovo figures against civilians and used the dominant narratives published in numerous books to decry extreme violence and evidence of crimes against humanity. Because of these developments, the dominant narrative has shifted, and the stories are now being used as evidence of horrific acts committed against ethnic Albanian, Serbian, and Roma, including alleged pressure they exerted on political rivals of the KLA? In an interesting twist, the authors themselves and witnesses, now under court scrutiny, have denied the books, telling the court that they exaggerated the stories and also calling them “UNREAL FACTS”.^[30]“Please do not abuse with my notes. My notes for writing a book were used by the prosecution, but they are not evidence, said Jakup Krasniqi,” former speaker of the Kosovo Parliament in Hague.^[31] 

Examples of Polysemic Readings

This unit is meant to introduce you to the ideas of media polysemy and polyvalence, and point to the possibility of oppositional readings. Later sections in this Handbook will explore examples in more detail. For now, we quickly introduce you to two examples: one that identifies a dominant frame and another that outlines the characteristics of an oppositional interpretation.

Dominant frame: the male gaze

In 1975, media theorist Laura Mulvey published an essay that identified a hegemonic dominant approach to media production and consumption: “the male gaze”.^[33]  It would become one of the most frequently cited essays in media studies. Mulvey critiqued cinema by arguing it not only highlights woman’s to-be-looked-at-ness but builds the way a woman is to be looked at into film itself. According to Mulvey, the dominant gaze in film was the male gaze. The eyes looking through the camera (film directors and directors of photography were almost always male), the eyes of the lead character (who was almost always male), and the gaze of the audience (who was presumed male) looked at women as passive objects of desire and males as active agents of action. We will review more of Mulvey’s theory in a later unit, but for now we just wanted to offer it as an example of how hegemonic ideologies influence the dominant way a media text is interpreted. If you view a visual text like a film or TV show through a male gaze, you are participating in a dominant interpretation, or dominant frame.^[34]

Hungary, Budapest VII. Photo ID 47212. Fortepan / Urbán Tamás (1977). Licensed CC BY-SA 3.0.

Oppositional interpretation to the male gaze

Because of Mulvey’s focus on sex difference, their theory elides other differences, like race. Not only is there a male gaze, but there is also a white gaze. Media theorist bell hooks pointed this out in their book Black Looks when they critiqued Mulvey’s work and noted: “Feminist film theory rooted in an ahistorical psychoanalytic framework that privileges sexual difference actively suppresses recognition of race, reenacting and mirroring the erasure of black womanhood that occurs in films, silencing any discussion of racial difference—of racialized sexual difference.”^[35] As an antidote to this erasure, hooks offered an oppositional way of reading dominant media texts by asking “From what political perspective do we dream, look, create, and take action?”^[36] 

Hooks’s point is that audiences can resist media hegemony by embracing an oppositional perspective. The characteristics of hooks’s oppositional gaze include the following:

1.  “[C]onsider the perspective from which we look, vigilantly asking ourselves who do we identify with, whose image do we love.”^[37] Here, think about through whose eyes you look, how you have been positioned as an audience, and with what characters you identify.
2.  Be critical of “colorful ethnicity for the white consumer appetite that makes it possible for blackness to be commodified in unprecedented ways, and for whites to appropriate black culture without interrogating whiteness or showing concern for the displeasure of blacks.”^[38] Here, you need to consider not just who is represented, but how and why they are represented.

An oppositional gaze recognizes that audiences are active in meaning creation, and they are as much a producer of media as a consumer. It also requires that you act, that you make conscious choices about what you consume, buy, and share. Because media representations are not only a reflection of social reality, but also actively construct it, to be a critical user of media, and not just be used by it, an oppositional gaze is necessary.

Ways in which this oppositional gaze can inform media criticism are explored in the units in the next section.

REVIEW QUESTIONS

1. How do people actively and creatively engage with media through polysemous and polyvalent readings?
2. What is an example of a dominant (or preferred) reading and how does this reading connect to the idea of hegemony?
3. What is an example of a negotiated reading?
4. What is an example of an oppositional (or resistive) reading?
5. How does the story about the KLA soldiers remind you of how a dominant reading can evolve?
6. How does the history of cigarette advertising illustrate the tobacco industry’s success at creating multiple dominant narratives to serve the company’s shifting needs?
7. How does the “male gaze” represent a dominant approach to media production and consumption?
8. How does Mulvey’s theory about the male gaze also represent a dominant critical approach to media analysis?
9. In what ways can people reevaluate and reinterpret the male gaze theory?