Hall and Law

Stuart Hall harkens back to the Marxist tradition in terms of maintaing that ideology, in its essential form, is at the root of much of what we choose to consume (in terms of media) and what is fed to us. However, he ripples the loose thread of free will and thought by examining the different possibilities afforded us when we consume the ideological media. This limits the influencing (see: brainwashing...) potential of what we view because, especially in the age of information, we have a greater understanding of the goings-on in our world. The supposed and inherent manipulations are more often viewed as such, and coupled with an evermore questionable moral construction, we embody an era very much contrasted to the traditional Marx-era views. Thus, when we observe Law and Order as a facet of this new era, the message is a clear one, however the reception is interrupted by a (by Hall's standards) more savvy viewing contingency, in terms of our understanding of the world around us. Whether you call it the infiltration of cynicism or "higher knowledge", there is an obvious distinction between the Marx era of information and our current ability to pursue the less and oft-beaten pathways.

Hall's expectations vary in his three anticipatory readings of a particular text. It is a rational (albeit limited) perception of the modern condition of consumption. If one were to accept the dominant, hegemonic reading of Law and Order, Hall concedes that the reader would accept that police are never corrupt, always follow the letter of the law, and are always right. He would also expect the reader to accept breaking the law is inherently wrong and evil; a blemish upon society, regardless of circumstance. The criminal is always wrong.

Hall then proposes the most convoluted and habitually leveraging situation: the negotiated reading. A viewer of Law and Order may extrapolate the findings of a given episode as good, bad, and occasionally grey. This reading is presumptuously (if accurately) ambiguous: the reader may find the cops to be inaccurately "clean" or righteous; they do not tread on ground that is morally or lawfully ambiguous, thus they are not realistic. Or the reader may find the criminals to be unrealistically evil or too inherently vilified. In any case, the reader finds a ground in which the the cops and criminals are not entirely realistic.

The oppositional reading is the final proposition Hall makes for any given reader. The entire premise of the episode is rejected; the cops and criminals are fake and ridiculous. The episode has no bearing on reality whatsoever, and thus does not support their particular belief system insofar as the reader rejects the notion that dramatized police procedurals cannot accurately depict the criminal justice system both in terms of cop-criminal morality as well as a sense of reality. This reader rejects Law and Order by its very nature as a representation of the system because of either its medium, character depictions, or any other potential facet of illegitimacy it might present.