Stuart Hall’s Encoding/Decoding model (Hall, 1973/1980) represented a significant paradigmatic shift in how scholars conceptualise media communication. Rather than considering communication as a straightforward “sender–receiver” chain, Hall posits that messages undergo a far more involved process. Producers can encode meanings by the use of skills such as professional habits, ideological beliefs, and assumptions about who the target audience is. Viewers then grasp and decode these messages in methods that have been shaped by their own experiences, backgrounds, and cultural knowledge. Hall’s three possible readings-dominant, negotiated, and oppositional-betray how meaning is rarely ever settled. Rather, it is something with which people argue, to which they adapt, or reject, and this idea subsequently became core to later cultural studies research.
The strength of Hall’s model becomes clearer when placed alongside the work of scholars who followed him. David Morley’s Nationwide study (1980) showed that viewers from different social groups often walk away with very different interpretations of the same programme. This echoed Hall’s claim that reading a text is shaped by class, gender, or cultural positioning. John Fiske (1987) added to this that audiences do not passively “take in” meanings but actively create them by drawing on their own semiotic resources. Ien Ang (1991) pushed the discussion toward the emotional side of interpretation, showing that decoding is not just ideological but also tied to feelings and personal investment. These contributions collectively reveal how complex audience activity actually is, far beyond what older communication theories imagined.
Yet, Hall’s model does not perfectly map onto the current media landscape. Henry Jenkins (2006) states that today’s audiences are not only interpreting messages, but also creating and reshaping them through remix culture, fan labour and online sharing. Scholars of algorithmic culture, such as Tarleton Gillespie and Nick Couldry argue digital platforms play a significant role in what messages people even encounter in the first place. Algorithms sort, promote or hide content. New questions therefore emerge: do the platforms themselves become encoders? And what does decoding look like when the audience meets a message because an algorithm – rather than the individual – chose it?
Regarding my own communication, Hall’s ideas help me understand why messages I send rarely land exactly as I expect. When I write or post something online I find a way to naturally encode certain intentions through tone or wording, as i assume readers will interpret them similarly. But people read through their own interpretations, so what I see as constructive could be received as criticism, and even a simple emoji can be taken in a completely different way. This reflects Fiske’s point that meaning is plural and socially situated. In all, while later scholars have pointed out the lacuna in Hall’s model – particularly in an algorithmically driven and participatory culture age – his insight remains valid: meaning is not passed from one person to another like a sealed package. It is shaped, reshaped and contested by producers, audiences and now the platforms that sit between them.
References
Ang, I. (1991) Desperately Seeking the Audience. London: Routledge.
Couldry, N. (2012) Media, Society, World: Social Theory and Digital Media Practice. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Fiske, J. (1987) Television Culture. London: Methuen.
Gillespie, T. (2014) ‘The relevance of algorithms’, in Gillespie, T., Boczkowski, P. and Foot, K. (eds.) Media Technologies: Essays on Communication, Materiality and Society. Cambridge,
Hall, S. (1973/1980) ‘Encoding/decoding’, in Hall, S., Hobson, D., Lowe, A. and Willis, P. (eds.) Culture, Media, Language. London: Hutchinson.
Jenkins, H. (2006) Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. New York: New York University Press.
Morley, D. (1980) The “Nationwide” Audience: Structure and Decoding. London: British Film Institute.
