Viewers Make Meaning

“We recognize ourselves within the cultural group or audience imagined by the image.” Though this may be a cynical perspective, such cultural groups or audiences lead to the development of a mass market society in which images, ideas, and attitudes are adopted en masse, thus creating a homogenous body that acts and responds similarly to different things. This concept lays the foundation for empowerment and disempowerment, in which people can feel empowered if they are familiar with a particular image, idea, or thing, and disempowered when not “in the know,” which allows for and perpetuates equality on some level.

The idea that the creator of images prefer that people have certain interpretations of their creation promotes the idea of common cultures and with that, commonalities in general. For example, if everyone acknowledges the local McDonald’s “M” as a negative symbol of the fast food culture of America, then that sign, to that particular viewer, will always carry a negative connotation. On the other hand, an innocent ten year old burger aficionado may see the yellow overarching “M” as a highlight of the day and may beg his or her parents to buy a happy meal. This idea also provides some of the underlying reason for commonality in that the common interpretation of symbols provides common grounds and with that, common knowledge, which may lead to conversation and eventually relations such as friendship or otherwise. This idea connects people of a society, culture, or general group together.

Regarding different types of readings, such as the dominant-hegemonic reading, negotiated reading, and oppositional reading, the most popular readings are dominant-hegemonic. In a society that so openly value freedom of thought and discussion, however, it is interesting to see that in schooling, interpretations are oftentimes placed upon people and commonly decided upon as the “correct” reading. However, in such a society, meaning can be given in a number of different ways, given a number of different contexts and is also oftentimes dependent on the person’s characteristics regarding interpretation. This is to say that the book is correct in foreseeing a possible movement towards negotiated readings and quite possibly oppositional readings, which is a comforting getaway from the typically restrictive, almost dictatorial dominant-hegemonic reading, which maintains, rather than questions and seeks change in the status quo.

Cultural meaning is indeed a “highly fluid, ever changing thing.” It is true that marketers try their best to associate their products with being “cool,” because that typically sells products most effectively, thus bringing in profits. However, the book makes culture sound so dynamic that it is changing at such a fast pace that it cannot be documented. Though it may be true in some cases, as our decade or so has not been given a name as did specific periods of time such as that of the “baby boomers,” culture at this time can be documented to some extent and kept up with so to speak, at least for a brief period of time. Also, this idea can be applied to the “American culture” and perhaps explain in some part why this culture is so difficult to define. For example, is it a fast food nation, a nation of immigrants, a melting pot, a capitalistic opportunist? All of the above?