Yukun's Questions

1 Question about Barthes ”second-order semiological system”

In page 147, Hebdige’ “From Subculture”, he mentions Barthes’ classic opinion to analyze still images. Generally speaking, I agree with his opinion. But technically I don’t know if audience can be trained to understand connotation correctly or create more meanings. For example, most people didn’t know how to read pictures and understand visual information correctly 70 years ago. They were familiar with reading words but not images. Nowadays people have more ability to decode the images created by photographers than before. If most people can understand or recognize what photographers want to convey by connotation correctly, but it doesn’t mean that they should or will agree with the connotation with images, are they still part of hegemonic system? Or if most people have ability to decode image, can they transform connotation to denotation?======I know Hall doesn't believe there is pure denotation in the world.

2 Question about Hall’s denotation and connotation

In page 168,
“the terms “denotation” and “connotation”, then, are merely useful analytic tools for distinguishing, in particular contexts, between not the presence/absence of ideology in language but the different levels at which ideologies and discourses intersect.”

Here Hall assumed it is impossible to get rid of ideologies. And he also mention “ the class struggle for language”. Is it possible for the audience to misunderstand information provided by producers? Especially in photography, I believe images can reflect producers’ ideologies. But creation of images is more unpredictable than that of words. If the image can reflect the thought of the creator is a big problem. Sometimes pictures are indeed created occasionally.

3 Question about Ang’s convergence of perspectives

He spent many pages to illustrate the convergence of different perspectives. Though there are some convergence between critical theories and mainstream theories, he also distinguished the difference between them. Critical theories emphasize the structure power imposed on the audience. It reminds that Kellner’s article urged the return of political economy. I don’t know if the convergence includes political economy. How does political economy integrate with those two perspectives? Especially political economy is a macro-level approach.



4 Question about the growing acceptance of cultural studies (Parameswaran)

In P.201, the author indicated “Despite these tensions, recent developments indicate the growing acceptance of cultural studies in the field of journalism and mass communication.”

I am wondering why. Though the author list some advantages of cultural studies in this paper, I don’t think those reasons are powerful enough to explain it. Cultural studies are not new fields. Those advantages aren’t invented recently. Why do scholars in US start to accept cultural studies recently? Do they find the limits of their own paradigm? I don’t know if the backlash of globalization finally breaks the geographic isolation of United States and create new questions or situations which can’t be studied through behaviorism or quantitative methodologies. Most transnational issues should be studied though qualitative methodologies. Based on this reason, scholars here have to start to appreciate the advantages of cultural studies. I don’t know if this idea is right.

5 Question about globalization and the status of women

I don’t if I “decode” Parameswaran’s opinion correctly. For me, she believes globalization decreases the status of women. But I believe globalization increases the status of women. Though globalization triggers many problems such as labors, capital flow and tax…., those problems are not just gender issues and globalization also created many chances. Woman in the third world have more chances to leave their countries and go to foreign countries such as US, no matter by marriage or studying. Compared to their male classmates or friends in original countries, they are more powerful in class.