According to reception theory, ‘the media attempts to transmit specific messages to audiences, but
audiences are free to interpret these messages in a variety of ways – or even reject them’.
How valid are reception theory’s claims about audience responses? (25 marks)
One of reception theory’s claims about audience responses (made in the above quotation) is that
audiences are free to create meaning out of material which has been encoded by the producer. Stuart Hall,
who created reception theory, underpinned his work on Saussurian semiotics, which treats words and
images as part of a system of meaning generation. Evidence of this sort of framework for encoding
meaning can be seen on the front covers of the two magazine products. Men’s Health clearly utilises a
colour palette which is designed to be both masculine and promote ideas of health (blue for medicine and
black and grey for masculinity) whereas the hand-written typeface of Oh Comely is designed to promote
thoughts concerning craft and individuality. Given that reception theory coincides with semiotic theory
(and other branches of linguistics) it would seem that reception theory’s claims are extremely valid when
considering the encoding of information. Given also that both magazines seem to have niche audiences
(men who think physicality is important to their masculinity and women who are creative and want to read
about a wide variety of people – Des Tan, who co-founded the magazine calls it “a magazine about
people”- respectively) it would seem unlikely for producers not to “attempt to transmit specific messages
to audiences,” and wider consideration of related media industries, such as advertising, would also seem to
uphold reception theory’s claim.
Another claim made by reception theory is that audiences are “free to interpret these messages in a
variety of ways”. Given that I only have the magazine extracts to use as evidence it is hard to see how I
could be able to ascertain the variety of reader interpretations possible but I can see that readers with a
large amount of cultural capital should be able to resist the messages about masculinity in Men’s Health
(where the use of the Hollywood star Vin Diesel and the section on ski-wear both help to link physicality to
aspirational ideas about affluence and happiness). Such an oppositional reading would view the magazine,
as a whole, with suspicion as being regressive and preying on the current crisis in traditional masculinity. It
would be possible for a reader to selectively consume the magazine to produce a negotiated reading
(focusing on the more practical sections such as the articles on fitness classes or bread consumption)
where they cut out the lifestyle articles (it would also be possible to imagine that some audience
members selectively consume the images of muscly men for their own scopophilic sexual pleasure – so it
would seem that the possible variation in meanings is fairly wide). Given that the magazine had a
circulation of 1.8 million in 2014 there is a strong indication that many people accept the preferred reading
of the magazine (where physicality and success are linked) and part with their £3.99 to consume it.
As far as I can see most resistant readings to Oh Comely magazine’s encoding would be rooted in
patriarchal and regressive hegemony. It would see the wide variety of female experiences and identities
represented as a challenge to the function of women in patriarchy (to be decorative, maternal, domestic
and even gender-stable – the presence of the gender-fluid Ash Allan is highly progressive). Iceberg press’s
magazine is a niche product (with a 25,000 copy circulation) which mostly reaches its readership by direct
subscription. The glowing reviews it receives in YouTube blogs like screensandquills and Kayleigh Cooper
demonstrate that there is a clear appetite for the preferred reading. For there to be resistant readings of
this product you would need to have to imagine a situation where the product fell into the hands of a
resistant reader; which given the small circulation would seem unlikely. The middle-class stylings of the
front cover-model (British Racing Green clothing, pastoral background and tailored clothing) would fit the
readership which is, according to the publishers, creative, female and in their late twenties and so would
not be a start for an oppositional reading but might cause the consumer rejection of the product on the
stands of WH Smiths for potential readers outside the niche demographic (however the magazine
represents a wider range of identities).
audiences are free to interpret these messages in a variety of ways – or even reject them’.
How valid are reception theory’s claims about audience responses? (25 marks)
One of reception theory’s claims about audience responses (made in the above quotation) is that
audiences are free to create meaning out of material which has been encoded by the producer. Stuart Hall,
who created reception theory, underpinned his work on Saussurian semiotics, which treats words and
images as part of a system of meaning generation. Evidence of this sort of framework for encoding
meaning can be seen on the front covers of the two magazine products. Men’s Health clearly utilises a
colour palette which is designed to be both masculine and promote ideas of health (blue for medicine and
black and grey for masculinity) whereas the hand-written typeface of Oh Comely is designed to promote
thoughts concerning craft and individuality. Given that reception theory coincides with semiotic theory
(and other branches of linguistics) it would seem that reception theory’s claims are extremely valid when
considering the encoding of information. Given also that both magazines seem to have niche audiences
(men who think physicality is important to their masculinity and women who are creative and want to read
about a wide variety of people – Des Tan, who co-founded the magazine calls it “a magazine about
people”- respectively) it would seem unlikely for producers not to “attempt to transmit specific messages
to audiences,” and wider consideration of related media industries, such as advertising, would also seem to
uphold reception theory’s claim.
Another claim made by reception theory is that audiences are “free to interpret these messages in a
variety of ways”. Given that I only have the magazine extracts to use as evidence it is hard to see how I
could be able to ascertain the variety of reader interpretations possible but I can see that readers with a
large amount of cultural capital should be able to resist the messages about masculinity in Men’s Health
(where the use of the Hollywood star Vin Diesel and the section on ski-wear both help to link physicality to
aspirational ideas about affluence and happiness). Such an oppositional reading would view the magazine,
as a whole, with suspicion as being regressive and preying on the current crisis in traditional masculinity. It
would be possible for a reader to selectively consume the magazine to produce a negotiated reading
(focusing on the more practical sections such as the articles on fitness classes or bread consumption)
where they cut out the lifestyle articles (it would also be possible to imagine that some audience
members selectively consume the images of muscly men for their own scopophilic sexual pleasure – so it
would seem that the possible variation in meanings is fairly wide). Given that the magazine had a
circulation of 1.8 million in 2014 there is a strong indication that many people accept the preferred reading
of the magazine (where physicality and success are linked) and part with their £3.99 to consume it.
As far as I can see most resistant readings to Oh Comely magazine’s encoding would be rooted in
patriarchal and regressive hegemony. It would see the wide variety of female experiences and identities
represented as a challenge to the function of women in patriarchy (to be decorative, maternal, domestic
and even gender-stable – the presence of the gender-fluid Ash Allan is highly progressive). Iceberg press’s
magazine is a niche product (with a 25,000 copy circulation) which mostly reaches its readership by direct
subscription. The glowing reviews it receives in YouTube blogs like screensandquills and Kayleigh Cooper
demonstrate that there is a clear appetite for the preferred reading. For there to be resistant readings of
this product you would need to have to imagine a situation where the product fell into the hands of a
resistant reader; which given the small circulation would seem unlikely. The middle-class stylings of the
front cover-model (British Racing Green clothing, pastoral background and tailored clothing) would fit the
readership which is, according to the publishers, creative, female and in their late twenties and so would
not be a start for an oppositional reading but might cause the consumer rejection of the product on the
stands of WH Smiths for potential readers outside the niche demographic (however the magazine
represents a wider range of identities).
