Marx & Hall

It is clear from the reading, “The German Ideology,” by Karl Marx, that we are facing a time of upheaval not unlike that of Marx’s mid-19^th century. The whole premise of Marx’s work was to dispute the notions of the Young Hegelians of the day. The book is described as a collection of polemics. If you are like me, and did not know what that word meant, “polemics is the practice of disputing or controverting significant, broad-reaching topics of magnitude such as religious, philosophical, political or scientific matters. As such, a polemic text on a topic is often written specifically to dispute or refute a position or theory that is widely viewed to be beyond reproach” (thank you, once again, Wikipedia). So, this says a lot. Marx is setting out to dispute the, then, common German ideology of idealism.

Marx was making the case for materialism. He said that to produce and reproduce our material needs was a fundamental part of our existence. “Men can be distinguished from animals by consciousness, by religion or anything else you like. They themselves begin to distinguish themselves from animals as soon as they begin to produce their means of subsistence, a step which is conditioned by their physical organization. By producing theirs means of subsistence mean are indirectly producing their actual material life” (1A, pg 4).

Marx identifies several different stages of production in relation to the division of labor and internal intercourse, including tribal, ancient, and feudal. In each of these social stages, people interact with nature and produce their living in different ways. Tribal refers to an undeveloped stage of production. Ancient society was based on a ruling class of slave owners and a class of slaves; feudalism based on landowners and serf. He says capitalism is based on the capitalist class and the proletariat. The capitalist class privately owns the means of production, distribution and exchange, however, the proletariat lives by exchanging labor with the capital class for wages.

He points out just how crucial production and the intercourse of society are to the material life and the structure of society. As society moves from stage to stage, the old ways of production are thrown out and a revolution occurs. In the same way, Marx is suggesting the German people throw out their old Hegelian ideas and search for a new truth. He did not belittle the ideas of Hegel, whom he claimed to be a pupil of, but wanted to turn them on their head.

We are entering into a similar time of ideological change. With regard to communication, we have to completely rethink what has been the commonly accepted.

The second reading, “Encoding/Decoding”, too, points out a need to change a commonly accepted viewpoint. Stuart Hall, points out that traditional research on communication has been criticized for being too linear. Communication has been interpreted as a “circulation circuit,” consisting of only a sender, message, and receiver. Hall claims that there is a better approach, that was actually originally conceptualized by Marx. This approach utilizes a more complex conception of communication that includes production, circulation, distribution/consumption, and reproduction. In this new model, each element, although connected, is distinct and has its own special modality.

He goes on to talk about meanings and messages in communication or language. He asserts that encoding and decoding are fundamental processes in the communicative exchange. The message in its natural form must be encoded by the source and decoded by the receiver so that a symbolic exchange is produced. Because the broadcaster makes assumptions about the audience in sending the message, Hall supports the view that the audience is paradoxically both the source and receiver of the message. So, we must take a new look at how the meanings and messages are delivered and interpreted. . If the intended meaning of the decoder contradicts the meaning of the encoder, a misunderstanding results. A ‘misunderstanding’ may consequently arise as the meaning of the decoder contradicts the meaning of the encoder. Also, it is possible for the viewer to understand the message but purposely interpret it in an alternative way. If we are to look at these ideas in terms of new media, we see how the encoding and decoding of the present becomes increasingly more complicated. We have a whole dialogue on the internet where every point or counterpoint can be interpreted “incorrectly.” Ideas about communication will be (and are) completely evolving.

Both Hall and Marx saw a commonly agreed upon idea and turned it on its head. With the drastic changes occurring in today’s communication technologies, it will be time, too, for us to find the illusions in the American ideology. Like Marx, however, a lot of Hall’s ideas have been reconsidered and further complicated. Stuart Hall might be said to describe a classic Marxist conception of communication, while others (Roland Barthes, notably) would fundamentally challenge the idea of ‘misunderstanding’ in favor of re-appropriation—a much more “new media” idea.