Whether audiences choose to acknowledge it or not, all entertainment media carries some sort of inherent message. While media makers have control over the messages they’re intending to send, once a viewer interacts with a piece of media, it is rendered powerless to their subjective interpretation. This prompts many Hollywood big shots to attempt to keep up with audience mindsets, but this is largely a failing endeavor as the diversity of audiences is still underestimated. In Encoding, Decoding Stuart Hall generalizes these reactions into three encompassing categories: dominant, negotiated and oppositional.
Dominant (also known as dominant-hegemonic) represents an acceptance of the media maker’s intended message. Stuart Hall defines it as: “when the viewer takes the connoted meaning from, say, a television newscast or current affairs program full and straight, and decodes the message in terms of the reference code in which it has been encoded,” (101). Essentially, encoded messages are taken at face-value and while that may be indicative of a viewer’s true opinions, it also isn’t necessarily subjected to their personal feelings. Negotiated reactions imbue some of a viewer’s own opposition into their interpretation. It is “a mixture of adaptive and oppositional elements: it acknowledges the legitimacy of the hegemonic definitions to make the grand significations (abstract), while, at a more restricted, situational (situated) level, it makes its own ground rules,” (102). If negotiated readings represent the middle ground, then oppositional readings are true to their name and directly defy the encoded message. Hall does not give a straight definition for oppositional readings as he does the other two, but he connects an influx of oppositional readings to times of political upheaval (103). Oppositional interpretations are heavily reliant on a viewer’s acknowledgement of the message being sent to them and their abilities to defy these messages through the use of their own prior knowledge.
I chose to apply these three techniques to Sex and the City for two reasons. First, women in my peer group accept the show as a be all, end all of female fantasy. They refer to it as a guide book for both life and love, believing it to be a representation of peak femininity. The second reason is that I am inclined to disagree. While I have watched the show out of a cultural compulsion to understand the appeal, I often find myself cringing about how poorly is has aged since its original release and how vapid I find the content to be. I felt that this controversy between myself and others would provide rife material for exploring contrasting mindsets regarding the show.
The episode in question is Season 3, Episode 7, aptly entitled “Drama Queens”. To sum up the major plot arcs: Carrie fears her relationship with nice guy Aidan is too perfect and refuses to meet his parents as a result; Samantha becomes addicted to viagra; Miranda enjoys the comforts of her relationship with boyfriend, Steve; and Charlotte mistakenly excites the adoration of a married man before falling, quite literally, into a relationship with newcomer, Trey.
A dominant reading of the episode would buy into the glamour that Sex and the City is selling. The clothes are glamorous (I have to give Patty Fields credit where it’s due), the setting is glamorous, even the conflicts facing the characters are glamorous. New York is a clean and brightly lit city where writers can afford to live comfortably, even when they are spending $400 on a pair of shoes regularly. The problems faced by these four main characters are legitimate and furthermore, relatable. Men are difficult, enigmatic creatures whose selfish actions constantly plague the women that love them. And if a man is kind and seemingly perfect? Well, that’s no good either as he won’t deliver the elusive “butterflies” that are necessary to a relationship’s viability. As a character who engages in sex with a number of characters, but rarely monogamy, Samantha stands as an icon for female sexual liberation. Her addiction to Viagra is humorous and “on-brand”. Charlotte’s harassment of Dennis to be set up with his friend, Phil, is entirely rational. A good man is hard to find! A commitment to getting married is a worthwhile goal, after all, a woman can’t be single forever. Miranda’s newfound optimism and complacency with Steve is refreshing, as she’s usually a pessimist. Carrie’s treatment of Aidan is logical; she became so accustomed to drama with Mr. Big that she can’t help but be addicted to it. Relationship drama is normal and even indicative of true passion. While Carrie’s apology to Aidan and grand gesture are both romantic and examples of Carrie’s willingness to change for Aidan. It’s good to grow as a person and partake in progressively more mature relationships, but we’re also still sort of rooting for Mr. Big…
A negotiated reading mediates both personal and political opinions regarding the merits of the show. Carrie’s treatment of Aidan is understandable, but still unfair. Butterflies are fun and exciting, but emotional withholding can be a sign of a toxic relationship. With that being said, Carrie’s eventual acknowledgement of this fact and her willingness to apologize and change indicate her growth as a character. That she can purportedly afford her lifestyle is unrealistic, but fun to engage in such a fantasy. Samantha probably should not be taking any medicine that’s not prescribed for her, but the idea of a woman becoming addicted to viagra is so outlandish that the act is rendered humorous. She is constantly written storylines that revolve solely around sexual conquest, but given that there were so few sexually liberated female characters in the early 2000’s, she does stand as somewhat of an icon. Her independence and self-assurance are a welcome change, especially when juxtaposed with her friends’ constant lamentations on single life. For once, Miranda isn’t the dark cloud of sadness looming throughout the episode. Why can’t a woman be successful in her career and enjoy domestic monotony? This is perhaps the most realistic relationship Sex and the City has ever shown. While it is strange that Miranda’s defining character trait (general pessimism towards relationships) would change within the span of a few episodes, the episode’s exhibition of everyday life grants the show a realism that it typically lacks. Charlotte’s fervor for marriage is outdated, but she provides an interesting foil to the other women on the show. It is incredibly silly to think that a married man would fall in love with her after she left him increasingly aggressive voicemails and even sillier to think that he would chase her into oncoming traffic to alert her to this fact. That Charlotte would rather risk getting run over by a cab than participate in a difficult conversation seems petulant. On the other hand, Dennis’s actions could be construed as sexual harassment, in which case, Charlotte’s fear would be warranted. That a dashing, knight-in-shining-armor type would hop from the cab to save her, is also unrealistic, but again, the show is selling a fantasy of New York and its serendipitous nature, so some disbelief can be suspended.
An oppositional interpretation is perhaps where my opinions regarding the show more closely lie, though I can concede some of the opinions mentioned in the prior readings. Carrie is emotionally manipulative towards Aidan. She participates in a sort of reverse gaslighting, calling herself “nuts”, all while oblivious Aidan maintains his adoration. Adult relationships should not function as such and Carrie’s excitement over spotting Mr. Big should indicate her inability to commit to a healthy relationship given her current emotional mindset. Samantha should not be taking Viagra and if she’s sleeping with a doctor (!!) he should be the one to tell her that, lest she wind up dead following a blood clot. Of course Miranda is happy; she’s a white, Ivy-league grad making enough money to purchase property in Manhattan. You’re blissfully happy with your existence? Yeah, you should be. Charlotte’s obsession with marriage is horribly outdated. Over the course of the show, she doesn’t refer to any other goals other than getting married. It’s 2018, yes, and women are allowed to set any goals they wish for themselves, but it seems lazy that the writers couldn’t give her both career and personal goals like they do the other women. Furthermore, the central plot point of this episode indicates larger issues with the show overall. The women’s main issues are that their lives are too perfect. This is New York City. Granted, it’s becoming more and more gentrified with each passing second (hello, Amazon!) but there are certainly bigger issues plaguing the citizens of New York, genuine issues that could actually resonate with a larger audience than just ladies who lunch. Sure, fantasy is cool when it’s fighting dragons. But when it comes to spoiled city dwellers, the vapidity is painful.
Works Cited
Hall, Stuart. “Encoding, Decoding.” The Cultural Studies Reader, Edited by Simon During.
Star, Darren. “Sex and the City ‘Drama Queens.’” Season 3, episode 7, HBO.
Comments