Hegemony and Mass Culture:

A Semiotic Approach'
M. Gottdiener
UniversityofCalifornia,Riverside

The analysis of mass cultureinvolves a three-wayrelationship

among cultural objects, their industrialproducers,and social
groupsof users(i.e., the mass audience). Approachesto mass cul-
tureneglecttheinterrelationships betweentheseseparateanalytical
levels. This articlebringsout thisthree-wayrelationshipin its full
dialecticalcomplexityby applyinga semioticapproachto meaning
as it is created,communicated,and ideologicallymanaged. The
semioticapproach is contrastedwith Marxian hegemonytheory.
Because culturalobjects mean different thingsto differentsocial
groups, only semioticanalysis fullyspecifiesthe multiplicityof
meanings involved in mass culture. The semioticmodel views
meaningas being exchangedin threeseparate and qualitatively
different stages.Its applicationresultsin theproposalfora different
kind of textualanalysisthan thatused by contemporary mass cul-
tureanalystsand in the observationthatusersof mass cultureare
moreactive and creativethan previouslysupposed.

The analysisofmass cultureinvolvesa three-wayrelationship among(1)

culturalobjects that are producedby an industrialprocess,(2) a set of
institutionsthatproduceand distributesuch objectson a relativelylarge
scale, and (3) a collectivity(ies)
or social group(s)of thosewho use such
objects in contextsthat can includeuse withina creativeor transfunc-
tionalsetting.A mass cultural"object"can includeeverything fromper-
ceptualproducts(a televisionprogram)to highlysubstantialexperiences
(Disneyland).The distinguishing characteristics
of mass culturalforms
are foundin themeansbywhichitsobjectsare producedand distributed,
that is, by mass marketingindustries(Gans 1972a, p. 701) and in the
natureof theiruse primarily,thoughnot exclusively,forentertainment

l I wishto thankA. Ph. Lagopoulosand MartinKrampenfortheirhelpon earlier

versionsof thisarticle.Researchwas aided by an intercampusgrantfromtheAca-
demicSenateoftheUniversity ofCalifornia,Riverside.Requestsforreprints
should
be senttoMarkGottdiener, Department ofSociology,University
ofCalifornia,
River-
side,Riverside,California92521-0419.

? 1985 by The Universityof Chicago. All rightsreserved.

0002-9602/85/9005-0003$01
.50

AJS Volume 90 Number5 979

This content downloaded from 128.135.012.127 on July 26, 2017 15:35:41 PM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
 AmericanJournalof Sociology

(Wright1975,pp. 4-9). Finally,thecontentsofmass culturalproduction

involvepeople or eventsin societyas well as the objectsthemselves.
Over the years the threefoldrelationof mass culture-producers/
objects/users-hasbeen kept in the backgroundof analysiswhile three
mainorganizingtraditionshave dominatedthefield.Initially,analystsof
mass culturewere concernedwith whetherit was good or bad. This
debate, oftenpassionatelyengaged, has been covered in an extensive
literature(e.g., Gans 1975). The second tradition,coexistentwith the
first,has centeredon theLazarsfeldianschool'sstudyof media effectsor
influencesand utilizesmarketresearchtechniques(Lazarsfeld,Berelson,
and Gaudet 1948; Katz and Lazarsfeld1955). Recently,a thirdtradition,
termedthe "productionof culture"perspective,has emerged(Peterson
1976; Coser 1978). Accordingto thisview, the bestway to analyzemass
culturalprocessesis to focuson how mediaindustries function as complex
organizations.It assertsthatcorporate/bureaucraticdecision-making pro-
cesses,along withmarketingand distribution arrangements, so interpose
themselvesbetweenthe creatorsand the consumersof mass culturethat
organizationallogic has come progressively to characterizethe veryna-
tureof mass cultureitself(Peterson1976).
Each of the threemass culturetraditionshas amplifiedthe tripartite
relationshipamong producers/objects/users in some way. The firstap-
proach,forexample,has helped clarifythe natureof the mass cultural
object by distinguishing it fromobjectswitha moredevelopedaesthetic.
This cleavagein cultureis homologousto thestratified structure ofclasses
in modernsociety(Gans 1975).
The primaryfocus of the second traditioneschews the question of
relativemeritin favorofempirically measuringthesocialand psychologi-
cal effectsof mass culturalobjects and events. This researchhas ex-
panded our understanding of therelationshipbetweenhumansubjectiv-
ityand the socioculturalmilieu.The sum totalof workin thistradition
has uncoveredlittleevidencethatmassmediaproducesubstantive,direct
effects on individualbehavior(Gitlin1978).Instead,mass culturalevents
are mediatedforthe individualby otherswho are situatedwithintheir
own respectivegroupcontexts,an insightdevelopedmostfruitfully by
symbolicinteractionists (Fine 1977).
Finally,thethirdtraditionhas extendedour knowledgeofmass media
industriesthemselvesas being composed of complexorganizationsin-
volved in the everydaynecessityof producingand marketingmass cul-
tural products.Mass culturecan be analyzed, fromthis perspective,
accordingto the dynamicsof theparticularmilieuwithinwhichproduc-
tiontakes place, the specificcommonalities thataffectall culturalindus-
tries,and thecontingencies thatare mostoftenencountered in production
(Coser 1978). Most important,analystshave discoveredthat marketing

980

This content downloaded from 128.135.012.127 on July 26, 2017 15:35:41 PM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
 Mass Culture

and distribution may have a moresignificant effecton certainstylesof

mass culturethanthenatureoftheproductitself(DiMaggio 1977; Peter-
son and Berger1975).
Taken as a whole,however,some40 yearsofmass cultureresearchhas
leftknowledgeof the three-wayrelationshipin a ratherundeveloped
state. Advocates interestedin the intervening role of producers,forex-
ample, tend to lump usersintoa passive, undifferentiated mass (Hirsch
1978). Even wherethecompositionoftheaudienceis discussed(Peterson
1978), the relationshipbetweenusers and producersis relativelyunex-
ploredby productionof cultureadvocates. In contrast,thoseresearchers
focusingon theeffectsofmass cultureview culturalproductionas occur-
ringwithinan institutional black box, iftheyconsiderit at all. In short,
althoughAmericanmass cultureanalysishas contributed to our under-
standingof the producer/object/user relationship,it has done so in a
piecemealfashion.Furthermore, thereis onlya limitedunderstanding of
how thesethreeaspects are related.For the mostpart,interrelatedness
has been considered,but onlyas a derivativeinterestin themorecentral
discussionof mass culture'seffects.
Despite the assessmentabove, thereis, however,an additionalextant
perspectivethatdoes cut across thesethreeapproachesand thatarticu-
lates a synthetic view ofthe roleofthethree-wayrelationship in modern
society. This integratedapproach analyzes mass cultural industries
withinthe functionalcontextof capitalistdominationand is associated
withGramsci'snotionof hegemony(Gramsci1971; Femia 1975; Adam-
son 1980;Boggs 1976;Richardson1978;Sallach 1974).Hegemonytheory
is thedominantapproachofAmericanMarxiancriticsofmass culture.In
effectit synthesizes theaspectsofmediastudybyviewingmass cultureas
a fundamentalrulingclass instrumentused to maintainpoliticaland
social controlthroughtheproductionofideological"falseconsciousness"
(Lukaics 1971) or "contradictory consciousness"(Gramsci 1971) in the
mindsof the workingclass. Accordingto hegemonytheory,the media
industriesare onlyone of severalinstitutions thatdominateclass-specific
perceptionsof reality(Livingstone1976; Cheal 1979).
Thereare, however,seriouslimitations to theMarxiancritiqueofmass
culture,nottheleastofwhichis itsfunctional reductionism. The underly-
ingtheoreticalassumptionofthisapproach,whoseuntenability I discuss
below, impliesthatstructuralor institutional practicesare automatically
transformed into deep-levelpsychologicalones throughthe agency of
media control.Accordingto hegemonists, consciousnessis either"false"
(i.e., the masses perceiveillusionand notreality)or "contradictory" (the
massesare confusedand theirjudgmentis fragmented). Basically,thisis
a verysimplisticview of humanityand the natureof culturalexpression
in everydaylife.

981

This content downloaded from 128.135.012.127 on July 26, 2017 15:35:41 PM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
 AmericanJournalof Sociology

In the followingI explorethe producer/object/userrelationin its full

dialecticalcomplexity.I proposean alternativemeansofcapturinginter-
dependency,using the approach of semioticsthathighlights the impor-
tant reciprocal linkages between producers and users as mediated
throughmass culturalobjects. This perspectiveis importantbecause it
focusesexplicitlyon symbolsand theirexchangeby specifying precisely
the places within social interactionwhere meaning is created, com-
municated,and received. The semioticapproach that I propose is in-
spiredbyrecentEuropean workthatderivesfromtheinternalcriticism of
the Marxian structuralist approach to ideologyand that definesitself
clearlyas beingopposed to "falseconsciousness"theory.Beforediscuss-
ing this culturalinteractionmodel, however,I will review this more
contemporary Marxian approachto culturalcontrolin orderto show its
differences fromthe prevailingAmericanone. This review should be
helpfulto the understanding of the semioticalternative.

THE CRITIQUE OF MASS CULTURE AS CULTURAL DOMINATION

By "hegemony"Gramscimeans the way in whichthe entireideological
complexofbeliefs,values, and perceptually based attitudesthatfunction
forthe reproduction and sustenanceof rulingclass dominationcomesto
saturateeveryaspect, and particularlythe social institutions,of society
(Boggs 1976). Accordingto hegemonytheory,the corporatedomination
ofmass culturein a class-stratified
societyhas as itsultimateconsequence
an industrialcontrolof consciousness(Ewen 1976; Tuchman 1974; En-
zensberger1974; Goldman 1982). The capitalistclass not only controls
theproductionof mass culturein orderto accumulatewealth,it also, by
dominatingthe beliefsystem(s)of theworkingclass, reproducesits rule.
In particular,accordingto hegemonytheory,theabilitiesoftheworking
class to thinkreflexivelyand to analyzethe social and individualcondi-
tions of everydaylife have been short-circuited by this consciousness
industry(Tuchman 1974, p. 38; Gitlin1979,p. 253). Consequently,cul-
turalhegemonyis one ofthereasonsthattheworkingclass does notrevolt
againstthe conditionsof its own oppression.
Hegemonytheoryis reductionist becauseofitsprimitiveunderstanding
ofhumansubjectivity.By assertingthatclass consciousnessis controlled
in theinterestsof thebourgeoisiethroughthemediationof mass culture,
hegemonistsassume the unityof all thoughtand beg the moreessential
theoreticalquestionconcerningtheconstitutive natureofthehumansub-
ject. Consciousnessitselfcan neverbe controlledin themannersuggested
by thistheorybecause it impliesthe existenceof a homogeneoushuman
subjectwho has been producedby modernity and whosementalstatehas
a reflexivethoughtcapacity that is indistinguishable fromeithercon-

982

This content downloaded from 128.135.012.127 on July 26, 2017 15:35:41 PM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
 Mass Culture

sciousnessor even subconsciousness.At its core,therefore, the assertion

of consciousnesscontrolcommitsthe fallacyof idealism,attributedto
Lukacs (1971), thatimpliesthatthementalactivityofindividualscan be
separatedso easily fromthe materialconditionsof theirexistencethat
consciousnesscan be "false."
The criticismof this hegemonictraditionhas been carriedout with
great sophisticationby European Marxists, beginningwith the anti-
humanistargumentsof Althusser(1971, pp. 127-79). More recentlythe
Marxian approachto ideologyand ideologicalcontrolhas been critically
refinedby Europeandebatesamongstructuralists, poststructuralists,and
"scientifichumanists"(e.g., see Hirst 1976, 1981; Clarke et al. 1980;
Coward and Ellis 1977; Adlam et al. 1977; Seve 1978). In some cases,
attemptshave been made to integrateAlthusser'swork with that of
Gramsci to revive and utilize the latter'shumanistpremises(Hibben
1978; Rossi-Landi 1972, 1978a). I shall returnlaterto the possibilityof
usingthiswithina semioticcontext.In Althusser'soriginalformulation
he strovefora morecomplexview of the humansubjectas a somewhat
contradictory amalgamofmentalstatesthatincludedpost-Freudian-like,
subconsciousinfluences.Althussermakes the distinctionbetweencon-
sciousnessand a second featureof thoughtthat is a mental capacity
organizedaroundthe "imaginary,"a capacitythatis qualitativelysepa-
ratefromtheordinaryconsciousnessofeverydaylife.The conceptofthe
imaginaryis close to Berger and Luckmann's(1966) notionof reality
construction, because it represents
theindividual'sinterpretation ofreal-
ity,constructedthroughreflexivethoughtcontemplating the experience
ofsocietalinteraction. Accordingto Althusser'soriginalformulation, peo-
ple cannotunderstandthereal forcesin thesocial formation thatproduce
social events,because thesefunctionin ways notreadilyapparent.Their
interpretation of the eventsperceivedby consciousness,therefore, is an
imaginaryone, and it is the representation of thisrealmthatAlthusser
terms"ideological."As Hirstindicates,"Mens [sic]conditionsofexistence
cannotbe manifestto themand in consequencetheylive theirrelationto
these (absent) conditionsin an imaginarymode. They live themin an
imaginarypresence'as if' theyweregiven.Ideologyis a representation of
this'imaginary'modalityby whichmenlive theirrelationto the(absent)
totalityoftheirexistence.Ideologyis not'consciousness,'it is a represen-
tationofthe'imaginary.'This 'imaginary'relationis nottheexperienceor
consciousnessof an already constitutedsubject-it is in the imaginary
thatthe subjectis formedas subject"(1976, p. 386).
This more contemporary Marxian theoryof ideologyis opposed di-
rectlyto the hegemonists'notionof false consciousnessbecause it sees
consciousnessand ideologyas two separate things.The studyof con-
sciousnessrequiresa theoryof the subject; hegemonistspresumethey

983

This content downloaded from 128.135.012.127 on July 26, 2017 15:35:41 PM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
 AmericanJournalof Sociology

possess this,but, in reality,theydo not. Once the studyof ideologyis

separatedfromthatofhumanindividuality, however,analystsare freeto
examinethe social processesassociatedwiththeimaginaryrelationitself
and its interconnection to sociallyproducedformsof representation on
the one hand and individualsubjectivityon the other.A wide rangeof
different poststructuralperspectiveshave recentlyappearedthataddress
thisproblematicby overcomingAlthusserianlimitations.These theories
includethose proposedby Hirst (1976), McDonnell and Robins (1980),
Rossi-Landi(1978b),and Seve (1978). It is notpossibleforme to consider
thisliteratureat thistime.Instead,it is moreimportantto notethatthis
recent,collectiveeffort has retainedAlthusser'sessentialcritiqueof"false
consciousness"theorydespitethetransformation ofitsoriginalstructural-
istpremises.Thus, thereis reasonableconsensusamongEuropeanMarx-
iststhat(1) althoughtherecertainlyare ideologicalinstitutional appara-
tuses that controlsocial relations(schools, churches,the state, mass
media)and (2) althoughtheseare notall reducibleto separatemanifesta-
tionsof the stateitselfas Althusseronce supposed,therecan neverbe a
consciousness"industry. " Consequently,thecontrolofideologyin society
is a muchmorevolatileand contingent processthanhegemonists suggest.
Recently,hegemonists have expressedmoreawarenessthattheirtreat-
mentof ideologyhas been comparatively deterministicand functionalist
and have strainedfora more dialectical,processualapproach to mass
culture.They now recognizethatthe relationshipbetweenmass culture
industriesand the mass audience is morecomplexthan was previously
thought.In particular,analystshave highlighted theexistenceofcultural
resistance(WorkingPapers in CulturalStudies1975)and of thecreation
ofalternativeformsofculturedefinedin oppositionto aspectsofdomina-
tion(Williams1977;Hebdige 1979).Yet theneedfora generaltheorythat
capturessuch a dialecticremains(Gitlin 1979). By followingthe post-
structuralist approach,however,it is possibleto discardall assumptions
in the analysis of mass culturethat concernthe effectof ideologyon
consciousness.As Rose (1977) has argued,thereare manysocial forms,
such as the law, that controlindividual values but do not rely on
dominatingsubjectivity.By dispensingentirelywitha theoryofideology
thatlinkspsychologicalstateswithsocietalones, the contingent relation
betweenmass cultureand hegemoniccontrolcan be captured.An analy-
sis of thistypeinvolvesstudyingthe relativesuccessof ideologicalpro-
ductionand reproductionat the level of social relationsthemselves.In
fact,a purelysociostructural approachto ideologyhas beenarticulatedin
Europe, usingthe analyticalparadigmof semiotics.This perspectiveis
most often associated with Barthes's work on culture, especially
Mythologies(1972). Other researchers,however,have successfullyap-
plied it to a wide varietyof culturalformsthatare notnecessarilywithin

984

This content downloaded from 128.135.012.127 on July 26, 2017 15:35:41 PM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
 Mass Culture

an ideologicalcontextsuch as thecinema(Metz 1971; Lotman 1976);art

(Lotman1977;Burnham1971);fashion(Barthes1969);thenovel(Barthes
1974; Eco 1979); poetry(Riffaterre 1978);modernculture,principallyits
aestheticallydeveloped forms(MacCannell and MacCannell 1982); and
even settlement space (Gottdienerand Lagopoulos, in press).
The essentialdifference betweenthe semioticapproachto cultureand
thosebetterknownin the UnitedStates(such as ethnomethodology and
symbolicinteraction, whichalso focuson symbolsand social interaction)
is the emphasisin semioticson objectivesystemsof signification and the
intersubjective basis ofmeaning.That is, followingSaussure,theproduc-
tion of meaningtakes place onlyby virtueof a social relation,because
languageis a sui generissocial construction. Althoughotherapproaches
focusingon interactingsubjects use a situationalconceptionof social
interaction,the object of analysisin semioticsis the sociallysustained
systemof signification, includingits materialobjects and theirinter-
dependencies, that produces and sustains meaning through socio-
structural interaction.At thistime,I will simplynotethisdistinction and
not enterinto a comparativediscussionconcerningthe differences be-
tweenthesemioticapproachand suchsociologicaltraditions in theanaly-
sis of cultureas symbolicinteraction.I propose to presenta semiotic
modeloftheproducer/object/user relation.Withinthiscontext,however,
it is neverthelesspossibleto make some brief,comparativeobservations.
First,symbolicinteractiondoes not possess a theoryof the culturalob-
ject. In thissenseit is an idealistinquirythatlacks a materialbasis forthe
groundingof individualbehaviorand social relations.In addition,be-
cause its main focus is on "interaction"ratherthan the "symbolic,"it
virtuallyignorestheroleoflanguageand meaningsystemsin theanalysis
ofculture(Davis 1981). Second,intrasubjective theoriesofsocial interac-
tion such as ethnomethodology fail to address the producer/object or
producer/user relation,althoughstudiesof creator/object do existwithin
thistradition.Such a limitationmightbe expectedofa microsociology. In
this way, however,ethnomethodology assumes that microdistinctions
can be exploredseparatelyand autonomously fromthelargersocial con-
text,even at theformallevelofabstraction.Accordingly, currenttheories
ofsymbolicexchangeare inadequateforan analysisofmassculturein the
global sense outlinedabove. Let us considerthe semioticalternative.

THE SEMIOTIC APPROACH TO MASS CULTURE

Accordingto Sebeok, semioticsaims to addressthe processof symbolic
exchangehead-on: "Semioticsis the studyof the exchangeof any mes-
sages whateverand ofthesystemsofsignswhichunderliethem. . . , the
keyconceptof semioticsremainingalways the sign"(1974, p. 108). The

985

This content downloaded from 128.135.012.127 on July 26, 2017 15:35:41 PM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
 AmericanJournalof Sociology

semioticsof mass cultureis one aspectofthesemioticsofobjectsbecause

of the central role that commoditiesplay in the cultureof modern
societies.But it is importantto reemphasizethepointthatmass cultural
productsrelyon people and eventsas well as on objectsfortheircontent.
The questionraised by a semioticsof objectsis: In what sense can I say
thatmeaningresidesin the materialworld?The answer:in no sense,as
long as I do not take human subjects into account. More specifically,
people are the bearersof all meaning,eitherin the isolationof personal
use or as theproductof complexsocial processesof groupinteraction.In
the firstcase, semioticanalysis mergeswith psychologicalinquiryand
therehas even been a proposalfora psychosemiotics (Morris1938;Kram-
pen 1979). In the second,social groupsof all kinds,includingstatusand
politicalcollectivitiesas well as classes, are understoodto be the bearers
of meaning. Here, semiotics merges with sociological inquiry. A
sociosemiotics,which avoids the sheer eclecticismof this merger,has
been proposed(Gottdienerand Lagopoulos, in press).
In what sense, then,can signification among objects be said to exist,
giventhesocial and psychologicalbasis ofmeaning?Thereare twotradi-
tionsin semioticsthatattemptto answerthisquestionbutdo so following
different assumptionsabout the epistemologicalnatureof semioticin-
quiry. The firstfollowsBarthes's "translinguistics" and the second in-
volvesrecentwork,inspiredmorebyPeircethanSaussure,on thesemiot-
ics ofobjects.Accordingto Barthes(1964),everyobjectbecomesa signof
its own function.Thus an automobilefunctionsnot onlyas a mode of
transportation but also as a commonly(almost universally)recognized
signofthatfunction.In theearlyworkofBarthes,this"universalseman-
tizationof usage" was extendedto everysystemof objectsthatcould be
structured as a systemof signification, thatis, possessedof paradigmatic
and syntagmatic axes (1964, p. 106). By so doing,he was able to analyze
such systemsofobjectsas dress,food,professional wrestling, and photo-
graphs,usinglinguisticanalysis.Accordingto Krampen,the logical ex-
tensionof Barthes'searlyworkwould be an assertionthatall ofcultureis
accessiblethroughlinguisticanalysis,and thisstatement is a fallacy.The
"linguisticfallacy"impliesthat"sinceall languagesare made up ofwords
and all wordsare signs,all thingsmade up ofsignsare languages"(1979,
p. 34). This "translinguistic"(Eco 1976)approachto culturehas unfortu-
natelycometo characterize"pop-semiotic" analysis,just as fashion,non-
verbal gestures,architecture, and so on have all been endowedanalogi-
callywiththe fallaciousstatusof language.
The linguisticfallacyhas been criticizedby some of the best semioti-
cians,includingEco (1976, p. 30), Ledrut(1973), and even Bartheshim-
self(1974). While workingwiththe Tel Quel group,Barthesrepudiated
his translinguistic approach to culture.His shiftto the studyof written

986

This content downloaded from 128.135.012.127 on July 26, 2017 15:35:41 PM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
 Mass Culture

language resultedin a positionthat no longerstressedan analysis of

culturalobjectsthemselvesbutfocusedinsteadon discourseaboutobjects
(see Adlam and Salfield1978). Such discourseis clearlya linguisticphe-
nomenon,and, in the special cases of prose and poetry,the object of
analysisbecomeswrittenlanguage. For Barthes(and JuliaKristevaand
JacquesDerrida,amongothers)semioticsafter1969becamethestudyof
thetextor discourse,mostespeciallyin writtenform(such an inquiryis
sometimesknownas "secondgeneration" or "philological"semiotics).For
example,althoughBarthesshowedthattheobjectsofDress constituted a
systemofsignification and thatDress was therefore amenableto semiotic
analysis,he observedthatthedresssignexistedonlyin Fashion,thatis,
in thediscursiveworldofwritingand speakingabout clothesratherthan
as somethingintrinsicto the object itselfor to its function.Thus, the
discourseof Fashion becomesthe code by which the clothingindustry
"clouds the calculatingconsciousnessof the purchaser"and achieves
momentarydominationof the market(Coward and Ellis 1977, p. 31).
Barthes'stheory,therefore, separatestheobjectitselffromtheideological
web surrounding it in whichthehaplessconsumeris entrapped.It is this
web thatframesthesemioticobjectofanalysisin thestudyofideology-
a modeofrepresentation thatBarthescalls the"simulacrum,"thatis, the
massculturalobjectliterallyintertwined withideologicallywovenconno-
tations,as distinctfromthe materialobject itself.
Baudrillard,in particular,has followedBarthes'sapproachby analyz-
ingmass cultureas ideologyand simulacrum,usinga semioticanalysisof
advertisingdiscourse.To him, the materialworld of commoditieshas
been transformed intoa symbolicworldofideologicalmeaningsattached
to commodities(1968, 1981). This ideologyof consumerism has reduced
all materialobjectsto their"signvalue," thatis, a meaningconstructed
throughadvertisingand consumermanipulationbythelogotechniques of
capitalistcorporations.It is thesignvalue oftheobjectthatsuperimposes
itselfupon the sign functionof the object, transforming the meaningof
objectsthatcomesfromtheireverydayuse intotheideologyofconsumer-
ism.Baudrillard'snotionofsignvalue and thetransformation involvedin
convertinguse values to ideologyand the materialobject to its simula-
crumis important,and I shall returnto it. At thisstageit is sufficientto
point out that the effectof ideologicalcontrolassertedby Baudrillard
operatesat thelevel of thesignand notthroughintrasubjective domina-
tion.
The second traditionin the semioticsof objects startsfromthe early
criticismof Barthes'stranslinguisticsand neverreallylooks back (unlike
Baudrillardand thelaterworkofBarthes).As Krampenhas indicated,it
reversestheBarthesiantraditionthatreducesobjectsto signsbyasserting
that signs can be reducedto objects (1979, p. 6). Such a reductionat-

987

This content downloaded from 128.135.012.127 on July 26, 2017 15:35:41 PM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
 AmericanJournalof Sociology

temptsto groundsemioticanalysisfirmly withina materialistcontextin

orderto carryout an analysisofobjectsthatavoidstheradicalidealismof
thefirsttradition,as exemplified byBaudrillard'sanalysisofmass culture
(see Krampen1979, p. 12).
This secondapproachto semiotics,whichis opposedto theBarthesian
tradition,is exemplifiedby the work of Eco (1976) and Prieto(1975,
1979). It deals with the fullrangeof relationshipsbetweenindividuals
and objects,includinguse, statusas indexesas well as signs(following
Charles S. Peirce),and rolesin systemsof signification thatare not sys-
temsofcommunication, thatis, thatdo notpossesstheproperty ofsignal-
ing. Accordingto Krampen,the essentialconceptualdevice of thisap-
proachforidentifying theprocessand, in fact,thesocial basis ofsemiosis
is thephenomenonof"transfunctionalization" (1979,p. 36). Accordingto
thisperspective,a distinctionis made betweenthe use of objectsto fill
theirimmediatefunctionand a sociallysustaineduse oftheobject,which
producesa second-order meaningforthatobject. It is the secondaryuse
thatcreatessignification, and thisprocessis a social one. Furthermore,
when the second-orderuse of objects is explicitlydesignedto signal a
message,communication as well as signification
(intentionality) is said to
be present.For example,this approach distinguishes betweenan auto-
mobileused fortransportation and thatsame object used to representa
particularsocial status.In the second sense, signification is presentand
theobjecthas become"transfunctionalized." Furthermore, ifan individ-
ual purposelypurchased a particularcar in orderto signal its social
status,this transfunctionalization of the auto as meaningfulobject is a
formof communication in whichthereceiveris thesocietyas a wholeor
the "generalizedother."Finally, and mostimportantto the model pre-
sentedbelow, throughthe studyof this behavior,psychologicalreduc-
tionismis avoided by the isolationof those specificculturalcodes that
helpstructure individualresponseto theauto and that,therefore, govern
the behaviorsconstituting semiosis.A semioticsof mass culture,then,
musttracethewaysin whichobjectsproducedbyindustry are transfunc-
tionalized.However, because thiscan take place throughthe actionsof
producersas well as thoseof consumers,the transfunctionalization pro-
cess characterizesthe entireproducer/object/user relation.Finally,the
studyof mass cultureas signification involvesthe identification of those
codes that, in structuring the behavior of producersand consumers,
therebyexplainthemeaningful relationofhumansubjectsto objectsand,
in turn,to each other.Basically, therefore, the semioticapproachoften
involvesa historicalsociologicalstudyofcodes thathave beendiscovered
and identified by the analyst.
These two semiotictraditionsworkfromseparatepremises.Still,both
possess implicationsforan analysisof mass culture.The firsttradition

988

This content downloaded from 128.135.012.127 on July 26, 2017 15:35:41 PM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
 Mass Culture

(i.e., Baudrillard)emphasizesthe symboliclifeof objectsin societyand

the way in which mass culturecan be viewed as a mode of discourse
about objects producedby industry.The second (i.e., Prieto)acknowl-
edgesthatall of mass culturecannotbe reducedto merelythestatusofa
sign. Objects possess a materialexistence,and it is onlywhen theyare
used to signifysecond-order functions thattheycan be said to communi-
cate meanings.Here thesignbecomesan objectin thecommunicative act
and is manipulatedbytheintentionality ofthesender.Hence thesignhas
been reducedto an object, a tool of communication.In short,it seems
that both perspectivesconcern themselveswith separate aspects of
the signifying processand are germaneto a theoryof mass culturethat
stressestransfunctionalization and the archaeologicalstudyof the codes
thatgovernthatprocess. But can thesetwo traditionsbe reconciledby
some synthesis?I shall now attemptto do so by appreciatingthe many
ways in which the semioticstatus of the commoditycan be concep-
tualized, according to the varietyof codes that can be deployed in
signification.
Before I proceed with a semioticmodel of the producer/object/user
relationformass culture,two preliminary remarksare necessary.First,
otherapproachesto culturalhegemonyslightthevolatileand sometimes
contentiousnature of the mass culturemarketplace.As Gans has ob-
served,thereis a politicsof culturein society,"rangingfromgovernmen-
tal conflictsovercensorshipto adversecommentspeople make about the
culturaltastesof theirneighbors.The mostinteresting phenomenon,in
America,however,is the politicalstrugglebetweentaste culturesover
whose culturewill provide societywith its symbols,values and world
view" (1972b, p. 378).
So long as they equate the productionof false consciousnesswith
ideologicalcontrol,mass culturistsare unable to grasp the potentially
contentiousnatureof culturalpolitics.In fact,manyMarxistswould no
doubt dismiss Gans's conceptualizationabove as politicallynaive, be-
cause theybelievethatrulingclass ideologywouldfunction to hemin and
attenuatechallengesto culturalorthodoxy.Yet it has longbeen observed
thateven singularexamplesof media events,such as a news reportor a
televisionshow, can mean different thingsto different
people. Controlof
theparametersinvolvedin thepossibleinterpretations ofeventsmaylead
to the reproduction of rulingclass ideologyin mass culture,but it is not
guaranteedto producefalse consciousness.Therefore,ideologicaldomi-
nationof the mass cultureindustriesis also not guaranteedto controlor
even affectan audience'sbehavior.It is necessaryto specifyin concrete
detailthemechanismswhichgeneratemultiplemeaningsforany cultural
object and how culturalpoliticsprovidesthe backgroundfortheplay of
ideologicalconflict.This ideologicalclash takestheformofa contentious

989

This content downloaded from 128.135.012.127 on July 26, 2017 15:35:41 PM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
 AmericanJournalof Sociology

strugglebetweenseparateand oftenoppositionalcodes. An inquiryinto

thisstrugglebecomesa richarea ofresearchon mass culturalphenomena
(see, e.g., Gitlin1981; Hebdige 1979).
Second,mass cultureanalyststendto view theaudienceas a consumer
market.If "tastepublics"are discoveredto vary,thismerelysignifies that
producersmustsupplya varietyofproductsto satisfya stratified market
structure.Such a view of the mass culturepublic as an aggregateof
consumergroupsis reductionist in thatit failsto recognizethe broadly
based natureofgrouplifein modernsociety.The marketsegmentsofthe
mass cultureaudience are not made up onlyof consumers;theyinclude
individualsinvolvedin social networkswithcomplex,highlyvariegated
linkagesto thelargersociety.In short,theusersofmass cultureconstitute
heterogeneous aggregations or "subcultures."I use theterm"subculture,"
despiteits shortcomings (see Peterson1979),to fleshout the reductionist
pictureof the mass cultureaudience, because I wish to draw upon an
extensivebodyof workin mass cultureresearchcarriedout primarily in
the UnitedKingdom(see WorkingPapers in CulturalStudies1975). Ac-
cordingto Clarke et al. (1975), forexample,thestudyofsubculturescan
onlybe graspedas a "double articulation": first,withregardto a contrast
with some parentculture,a contrastblendingclass, ethnicity, and the
like; and, second,withregardto a contrastwiththedominantcultureof
the larger society. Thus, a socially stratifiedsocietyis composed of
numeroussocial groupsand networks,each pursuinga particularsubcul-
turallife-style. These groupsinteractwiththeirparentcultures,as wellas
withthe dominantideologyin society.In addition,thereis considerable
variationin theextentto whichany one networkis integrated intoeither
its parent cultureor the dominantone. Thus, some subculturesare
unique, but otherspossess moreamorphousboundaries,and any given
individualcan participatepotentially in morethanone subculturalcircle.
In short,by conceptualizingthe users of mass culturein subcultural
terms,I obtain considerablygreateranalyticalclarityabout both the
relevanceof social contextin media effectsand the role of users in the
creationofculturalstylesthaneithertheLazarsfeldianorthe"production
of culture"perspectivescan provide.
Recognitionof thesetwo aspectsof mass culture-its inherently poly-
semousnatureand itsaudienceofrelativelyheterogeneous subcultures-
also leads to the establishmentof two long-recognized principlesin the
semioticanalysisof culture.First,I acknowledgethe multicodednature
ofsocial lifeand the multiplicity ofsignsystemsthatcoexistin any given
society(Lotmanand Uspensky1978).The conceptofpolysemyas charac-
teristicof culturalperceptionhas been an establishedtenetof semiotic
analysissince Barthes'spioneeringwork (1964). Second, by grounding
analysisofthethreefold mass culturalrelationin thegrouplifeofindivid-

990

This content downloaded from 128.135.012.127 on July 26, 2017 15:35:41 PM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
 Mass Culture

uals, I recognizetheprimacyofmeaningin all othertypificationsofsocial

behavior.This meansthat,beforethereis "mass" culture,theremustbe
"culture,"thatis, the conceptualformsand accumulatedknowledgeby
whichsocial groupsorganizeeverydayexperiencewithinsocial and mate-
rial contexts(Clarke et al. 1975; Lotman and Uspensky1978; Sahlins
1976).Sahlins,in particular,has insistedproductively
thathumanbehav-
ior is always meaningfuland that,consequently,social lifeis organized
firstand foremostaround systemic,symbolicmodes of interpretation
(1976). Thus, grouplifepossessesits own "relativeautonomy"fromeco-
nomicand politicalprocesses.The impactofmass culturemustalwaysbe
understoodwithinthesocial contextof thisongoing,localizedprocessof
meaningcreationand groupinterpretation.

A MODEL OF MASS CULTURE

The proposedmodelattemptsto specifythe productionand exchangeof
meaningsin the producer/object/user relationin greatdetail. According
to Eco, any object (e.g., an automobile)can be consideredin any offive
separateways:(a) physically,as a materialobject;(b) mechanically, as an
instrument or tool thatperforms a function,thatis, possessesuse value;
(c) economically,as possessingexchangevalue; (d) socially,as a sign of
some status;and (e) semantically,as a culturalunitthatcan enterinto
relationshipswithotherculturalunitsin a discourseabout automobiles
and transportation (1976, p. 27). These fivewaysofanalyzingany object
specifyits variegatedontologicalstatusin the grouplifeof social rela-
tions.That is, the significance of Eco's approachis thatit enables us to
thinkclearlyabout the separateways in whichsocial groupscan assign
meaningsto objects. For example,statuse specifiestheusual domainof
semioticanalysis itself.Both denotativesignification (the object auto-
mobile means "automobile")and connotativesignification (the object
automobilemeans "transportation") are includedhere. Status d repre-
sentsa separatelevel of connotationalso amenableto semioticanalysis
thatascribesa second-order level of meaningto objects,such as thatthe
objectautomobilemeans"wealth."It is safeto contendthatbothd and e,
while not the same, are representative of what Baudrillardcalls "sign
value" or the object signifiedby a sociallysustainedsign.
In Eco's schema,however,d and e are not the onlypossiblesemiotic
categories.Both of thestatuses,"use value," or b and "exchangevalue,"
or c, can be convertedthroughsocial interaction intosignsof thatfunc-
tionand enterintothe typeof relationshipdescribedby e. As indicated
above thereare twoapproachesto signification withregardto function.If
I followBarthes,any object can also be consideredas possessingsign
value (thisis the sourceof Baudrillard'sradical reductionism). If, how-

991

This content downloaded from 128.135.012.127 on July 26, 2017 15:35:41 PM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
 AmericanJournalof Sociology

ever,I followPrieto(1977) and Krampen(1979), I mustdistinguishbe-

tweenan object as an indicatorof functionand an object thatsignifies.
Krampensees meaningas the productof transfunctionalization, which
involvestheimputation,throughsocial interaction, of a secondaryfunc-
tionforan object in additionto its primarypurpose.This means that,
althoughany nonsemioticstatusof an object can be convertedto what
Baudrillardcalls "signvalue," thisprocessis specifiedbytheact oftrans-
functionalization and is notinherentin theobjectitself.Consequently,of
the fiveseparatestatusesof the object, d and e are semioticobjects of
analysis,whereas functionsb and c can be transformed into semiotic
objects of analysisthroughthe social processof transfunctionalization.
Furthermore, any existingsign value can also be reconvertedto other
meaningsthroughthe transformation of its social functioninto third,
fourth,and higher purposes of use. From the perspectiveof this
framework, statusa, the object itselfis consideredthe materialfounda-
tionforthesocial relationsofuse, exchange,and signvalues thatcharac-
terizethe role of objects in social organization,but it does not itself
possessmeaninguntilit enterssocial interaction.Finally,theentirepro-
cess is governedby the codes that structuremeaningfulbehaviorand
that, therefore,must be identifiedby analysis in orderto explain the
precisenatureof transfunctionalization.
The distinctionsabove accomplishmorethantheidentification ofsepa-
ratesemioticobjectsof analysis.They implythatany materialcommod-
itycan assumea multiplicity ofmeaningsthroughsocialinteraction. This
is so because thelatteris structuredbytheintersection ofseparatecodes,
ofteninvolvingcontentiousoppositions(Gans's "culturalpolitics"speci-
fied more precisely).Under the constraintsof the semioticapproach,
however,thesourcesof codes can derivefromonlythreemodesofsocial
interaction:the ascriptionof social statusthatis in parta historicalpro-
cess,thatis, signvalue perse; use value transfunctionalized to signvalue,
throughthe varietyof separate culturalactivities;and exchangevalue
transfunctionalized to sign value, especiallyundercapitalistrelationsof
production.In short,thesourcesofmeaningformass culturalobjectsand
events are specifiedby the semioticapproach as derivingfromthree
separate fieldsof social interaction,makingthe controlof meaningin
mass culturea highlyproblematictask. This explainsboth perceptual
polysemyand the contingent natureof the hegemonicprocess.
Beforeproceedingfurther, I mustemphasizeone additionalpoint.The
possibilitythatanyobjectcan be transfunctionalized bysocialinteraction
into meaningsthat are semioticobjects of analysisdoes not negateits
abilityto possessa nonsemioticstatus.Statusesa, b, and c existinitially
as sourcesoftransfunctionalized meaningsbutare notdirectconveyorsof
signification.In effect,I rejectthe radical reductionism of Baudrillard,

992

This content downloaded from 128.135.012.127 on July 26, 2017 15:35:41 PM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
 Mass Culture

whichviews all objects in societyas possessingsign values. In my ap-

proachtherecan neverbe a pure semioticanalysisof cultureat thelevel
ofthetextitself,because all culturalobjectsare producedby nonsemiotic
processesof economicsand politicsand are used nonsemiotically to per-
formfirst-order functionsand to providethe second-order statusof sign
value. For example,the wearingof a raincoatforprotectionfromrain,
and forno otherpurpose,may "mean" thattheuse ofthatraincoatis an
indicatorof climate.In thiscase, mass cultureinterposesitselfonlywhen
theraincoat,throughfashion,is wornforsecond-order effectsas well(see
Delaporte 1979).
This distinctionhas importantimplicationsforcriticisms of mass cul-
ture.It can be used to argue againstthe standardway in whichideolog-
ical hegemonistsperformtextualanalysisby endowingculturalobjects
with meaningsthat derive solely fromthe critics'own analyticalsen-
sibilities.I shall discusshow thesemioticapproachvariesfromthisform
of criticismin the conclusionbelow.
The producer/object/user relationat the core of mass culturecan now
be specified,usingtheabove distinctions. Because it has been established
that the meaningof an object is a functionof the use of that object in
social interaction, the symbolictransformations thatconstitute mass cul-
tural controlcan be specifiedby locatingpeople, objects, and events
withinthe social relationships of production,distribution, and reproduc-
tion. All that is needed is to focuson the separatesocial practicesthat
involveculturalobjects fromthe vantage pointsof separatesocial loca-
tions. The key aspect of mass culturalproductionand controlis the
processof transfunctionalization, thatis, the productionand controlof
ideologicalmeanings.I visualize thisprocessas operatingin threesepa-
ratestages.

FirstStage of Semiosis:Producer/User
In the firststage, producersproduce objects fortheirexchangevalue,
whereaspurchasersofthoseobjectsdesirethemfortheiruse value. This
use value is embeddedin a culturallifewhose meaningsystemspreexist
thefirststage of semiosisassociatedwithmass culture.The intentionof
the producer,therefore, draws on a different social practicefromthat
oftheuser.Exchangevalue is linkedwithuse value throughthediscourse
of sign value that is so superimposedon thisdiscordantrelationby the
"logotechniques"of advertisingand marketcontrolas to "cloud the cal-
culatingconsciousnessofthepurchaser"(Barthes1969,p. 9). Thus domi-
nation of consumerbehavior is not automatic,as advocates of "false
consciousness"theorybelieve. It is a relationbetweenproducerand user
thatmustbe superimposedon consumerbehavior.Successfulnessof its

993

This content downloaded from 128.135.012.127 on July 26, 2017 15:35:41 PM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
 AmericanJournalof Sociology

Producer - exchange value

Object producer sign value

(the mediation of
advertising codes)

User use value

FIG. 1.-The first
stageofsemiosis

controlvaries, as any advertisingpersoncan testify.The link between

exchangevalue and use value, which is characteristic of the producer/
user relation,is designatedas the firststage of semiosisformass culture
and involves the transfunctionalization of commoditiesfromexchange
value to an arbitrarysignvalue statusin orderforthemto be sold. The
successof thisrelationshipcannotalways be predicted.This relationis
illustratedin figure1. The studyof hegemonyin thisfirststagebecomes
the analysisof the logotechniquesof marketingand distribution thatare
used to seek and securerelativelystable consumermarkets.

Second Stage of Semiosis:User/Object

Objects involvedin the everydaylifeof social groupsare used because
theyperformsome practical function.As I have indicated,however,
theseuse values can also be transfunctionalizedby usersintosignvalues
thatsignify a second-order function.This bringsme to thesecondstageof
semiosisformass culture,that involvingthe user/objectrelation.This
second stage involvesthe creationof cultureby the users of objects, a
much-neglected aspectofthe mass culturedynamic.One exampleofthis
aspectof meaningproductionis illustratedby theprocessofpersonaliza-
tion(Willener1970),in whichusersmodifyobjectsof mass consumption
in orderto expresscertainculturalsymbols,or in connectionwithspecific
group practices,or for use in subculturalactivities.Members of the
Chicano subculturesof the Southwest,forexample,modifyautomobiles
to producea distinctive"low rider"form.This modification transfunc-
tionalizesthe primaryuse value of the automobile,transportation, and
transforms the object into a sign of belongingto a subculture.In fact,
theirsubstitutionof hydraulicfornormalsuspension,theirextrasmall
tires,and theirsmall chain-linksteeringwheels-all distinctive elements
in thelow riderlook-make such vehiclesimpracticalas modesof daily
transport(Plascencia 1983). In effect,thecommodity has becomeso per-
sonalized by subculturalpracticethat it has had its primaryfunction
attenuated.This second stage of semiosisis illustratedin figure2.

994

This content downloaded from 128.135.012.127 on July 26, 2017 15:35:41 PM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
 Mass Culture

Object W User sign value

(structured by user
codes)

user iw use value

FIG. 2.-The secondstageofsemiosis

Mass cultureanalystsin the UnitedStateshave neglectedthisstageof

semiosis.Production-of-culture advocates, forexample,in studyingthe
popularmusicindustry,have been carefulto show thatmuchofwhat is
producedderivesfromthedictatesofcomplexorganizational imperatives
(Peterson1978; Hirsch1978)and/ormarketstructure (DiMaggio 1977)in
industriesdrivenby the profitmotive.In contrast,prolificresearchhas
been carried out in the United Kingdom on the subculturesthat use
popularmusicas expressivesymbols(Hebdige 1979).This workincludes
studiesof teddyboys(Jefferson 1975; Cohen and Rock 1970),skinheads
(Clarke 1975),Rastafarians(Hebdige 1975;Davis and Simon1977),mods
(Cohen 1972),and therelationship betweenrockmusicand youthsubcul-
tures(Cohn 1970; Melly 1972). In fact,forovera decade, analystsofthe
Britishscene have all observed that youthsubculturesorganizetheir
activitiespartlyby usingaspectsofpopularmusic,regardlessofwhether
theseare the aspectsfavoredby the industryand oftenin oppositionto
whatindustry leadersintended.In thisway, thesesubcultureshave had a
profoundand lastingeffecton the kind of music that has eventually
becomepopularin any givenhistoricalperiod.
The transfunctionalization of objectsby usersin thissecondstageis a
major source of materialformass culturalsign values. Creatorsin the
cultureindustriespay carefulattentionto the codes that governsuch
activity.The more deliberatethe transfunctionalization processat this
stage, the more distinctivethe culturalelementsof the counterculture
producedby grouppracticewill be, in comparisonwiththemainstream.
For example,punkrockersin theearlystageoftheirformation (1976-77
in the United Kingdom)consciouslysoughtculturalformsoffensiveto
mainstream and incorporated
sensibilities themintotheensembleofpunk
subculturalappearance.In thisway, punkrockerstransfunctionalized all
aspects of the youthsubculture,includingfashion,music, dance, and
graphicdesign. This culturalproductionwas highlyinfluentialforthe
mass cultureindustry,even if the radical signifiers of punk have been
strippedby thatindustryfromits objects,as I shall discuss below. Fi-
nally,thephenomenonofpunkwas notunderstooduntiltheoppositional
codes structuring this subculturalbehaviorwere discovered,a process
thatculturalanalystslikeHebdige(1979)wereonlypartiallysuccessfulin
studyingbecause oflimitations in case studyefforts(a subjectbeyondthe

995

This content downloaded from 128.135.012.127 on July 26, 2017 15:35:41 PM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
 AmericanJournalof Sociology

scope of this article). In sum, therefore,the second stage of semiosis

requiresstudyin itsown rightwithcarefulattentionto thesubculturesof
societythat existoutsidethe mainstreamand that createmeaningsfor
their own expressive purposes, despite the formidablepresence of
ideologicaldominationin cultureindustries.

Third Stage of Semiosis:Producer/Object

There is yeta thirdstageof mass culturalsemiosis,one thatinvolvesthe
creationof meaningsby producersthemselves.The transfunctionalized
objects producedby social groupsand the needs that are generatedby
everydaylifeeventuallybecometheraw materialforculturalproduction
by the mass cultureindustries.This activity,representative of the user/
producerrelation,can also be viewedas a formoftransfunctionalization.
That is, if subculturescan take the objectsof mass cultureand provide
themwith second-ordermeanings,mass cultureproducerscan do the
same to thepersonalizedobjectsofsubcultures(see fig.3). In general,the
transfunctionalizationat thisstagetakestheformofsymboliclevelingor
trivialization.This constitutesa second, distinctaspect of ideological
controlin addition to that discussed in the firststage. Subcultural
signifiersare divorcedfromtheireverydaycodes and transfunctionalized
by cultureindustriesinto more marketable,less radical meanings.For
example, the signifier"punk rock" was sanitizedby the Top 40 radio
industryand changedto "New Wave." Whereasthe formerconnotesa
revolutionary thelatteris a marketing
counterculture, statementutilizing
the powerfulstimulus"new" to indicate a change in product.Conse-
quently,this thirdstage is extremelyimportantto the processof hege-
monic controlassociated with the studyof ideology(see Gitlin 1981).
Figure 3 illustratesthe complete,three-stagemodel of the producer/
object/userrelationand indicatesthe processof value circulationfrom
exchangeto use to sign,as well as thepointsat whichtransfunctionaliza-
tiontakes place.

EXCHANGE VALUE _--- PRODUCER a - Producer sign value II

(changed during production
through producer codes)

Producer sign value I

(changed during marketing OBJECT User sign value
through marketing codes) L (changed during use
user codes)
through
USE1 ______

USE VALUE USER - USE VALUE

FIG. 3.-The threestagesof semiosis

996

This content downloaded from 128.135.012.127 on July 26, 2017 15:35:41 PM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
 Mass Culture

My focuson the productionof meaningindicateshow the creationof

signvalues by producersis linkeddirectlyto culturalcreationrisingfrom
the daily practicesof subcultures.Undoubtedly,however,mass culture
industrieshave the abilityto manipulate,ifnotdominate,theprocessof
culturalproduction.This observationraisesthequestionof thestatusof
ideologicalcontrolin theprecedingmodel.In otherwords,in whatsense
is the AmericanMarxian critiqueof mass culturerepresentedby the
semioticprocessesdescribedabove? For mostAmericans,exposureto the
grouplifeofotherstakesplace throughtheagencyofmass culture.Stud-
ies oftheinternalworkingsoftheseindustries helpdocumentthefirstand
thirdstagesof semiosisin figure3 and provideevidenceforthe ways in
whichsubculturalmeaningsare firstalteredby an industryand thenfed
back to themainstreamaudience. In thissense,thesemioticapproachis
highlycomplementary to Gramscianand Althusserian analysesofinstitu-
tional ideologicalhegemony.My approach is usefulbecause it focuses
explicitlyon meaningproductionand transfunctionalization. As indi-
cated,industryproducersofcommodities changethemeaningsofobjects
in two ways. First,theygraftadvertisingsignvalues to theapparentuse
value of commoditiesin orderto sell themon the competitivemarket.
This activityis the firstaspect of ideologicalcontrolby "big business."
Second,thegrouplivesofobjectsand theirtransfunctionalized meanings
are again alteredby the cultureindustrieswhen such objects become
candidatesformass culturalproduction.This activityis a secondcompo-
nentof ideologicalcontrol.Togetherthesetwo stagesof ideologicalpro-
ductionconstitutea powerfulsocial practiceby which the user/object
relationis controlledforthe purposeof reproducingthe social relations
necessaryto capitalistproduction.Finally,the studyof thesetwo stages
centerson the codes used to structure thecreationof meanings.Clearly,
thesewill changeover time,as the historyof advertisingshows,even if
theintentbehindsuchactivitiesremainsthesame. In short,hegemonists,
by focusingon the intent,miss the richnessof the contentiousconflict
betweencodes as theyalterover time.
The model above, however,indicatesthat hegemonymay not be at-
tainedin any particularhistoricalconjuncture,a view close to Gramsci's
own conceptionof the nature of ideologicalcontrol.At each stage of
semiosis,values counterto the statusquo can seep in because cultural
creationis a processand nota schematically controlledproduct.Further-
more,approachesthatadvocateideologicaldominationfailto appreciate
theimportanceof therelativeautonomyofsubculturallife.In one sense,
the consumptionhabits of individualsare so manipulatedby the mass
cultureindustriesas to transform the productionof meaningby subcul-
turesintoa managedmarketpurchase.But thisdoes notalwayshappen,
because consciousnessitselfcan never be controlled.The grouplifeof

997

This content downloaded from 128.135.012.127 on July 26, 2017 15:35:41 PM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
 AmericanJournalof Sociology

individualsproducesculturalartifactsrangingfromthosesubtle,distinc-
tive touches of stylefound in individuals'appearances that are often
envied by fashiondesignersto active, totalassaultson mainstreamsen-
such as that of punk rock. In effect,even
sibilitiesby countercultures,
thoughaspectsof semiosisare controlledby industry, importantdegrees
offreedomremainfortheproductionofmeaningsthatare independent of
eitherthelogicof exchangevalue or thedominantculturalsensibility. In
fact,because subculturalsignshave lives of theirown and are meaning
conceptsat a deep level,theybecomesourcesofraw materialforproduc-
ersofmass culture.The two realmsofculturalproductionare dependent
on each other.

CONCLUSION
The producer/object/user relationat the core of mass cultureinvolves
threedistinctprocessesof meaningproductionand transfunctionaliza-
tion. The task of mass cultureanalysisbecomes one of linkingtextual
analysisofthemedia object withthesestagesofsemiosis.At present,the
relationbetween the mass media and the subculturesof users is less
appreciatedin the United States than in the United Kingdom.In con-
trast,recentstudiesin thiscountryhave detailedthe productionof cul-
ture at the industriallevel. The model presentedhere integratesthese
separatelevels of analysisby emphasizingthe transfunctionalization of
meanings that are derived from three sources.
distinct Case studies fol-
lowing this conceptualizationshould trace the production,circulation,
and transformation of expressivesymbolsamong industrialproducers,
distributors,and the heterogeneous aggregationsof subculturesthrough-
out the different stagesof semiosis.
The semioticapproach modifiesthe conceptof hegemonyas it is con-
ceptualizedbymanyMarxistcriticsofmassculture.Ideologicalcontrolin
modernsocietycan never attain closure and thereis a struggleover
meaningsfor culturalobjects and eventsthat both the dominantand
subordinategroupsin societymustface. Furthermore, thevolatilenature
of meaningproductionand sustenanceis characteristic of all stratified
societies.All modernstates, communistas well as capitalist,confront
similarproblemsin legitimating theirrules,even iftheirsocial bases for
statecontroldifferhistorically and ideologically.Consequently,the pro-
cess of hegemonyspecifiedby the threestagesof semiosishas a general-
ized applicabilityto all societiesthatmustlegitimatestratified patternsof
class, status,and power.
Finally,thesemioticapproachcalls fora new formoftextualcriticism
thatvariesfromthe currentpracticeofmass culturecritics.It rejectsthe
commonformof criticalreview that is based on the individualcritic's

998

This content downloaded from 128.135.012.127 on July 26, 2017 15:35:41 PM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
 Mass Culture

own interpretations of objects and events.Instead, understanding mass

culturefromthis perspectiverequiresa reading of contentioussocial
practicesin which the historyof productionand the stagesof meaning
creationand change can be laid bare. This involvesdisassemblingthe
creativecycle into its production,distribution,and subculturalusage
componentsthatcorrespondto thethreestagesof semiosis.Most impor-
tant,thisdeconstructionist mode of criticismis necessaryforisolationof
thevariousinfluences, frombothsubculturaland industrialsources,and
theirinteractionin thecompletecycleofmass cultureproduction.In this
way, it is possibleto recoverthe lost codes that possess deep, complex
culturalintentionsthat are oftenalteredideologicallyin the processof
hegemoniccontrol.

REFERENCES
Adamson,Walter.1980. Hegemony Politicaland
andRevolution:AntonioGramsci's
Cultural Theory. Berkeley and Los Angeles: Universityof California Press.
Adlam, Diana, et al. 1977. "Psychology,Ideology and the Human Subject." Ideology
1 (May):5-56.
and Consciousness
Adlam, Diana, and Angie Salfield. 1978. "A Matter of Language." Ideology and
Consciousness 3 (Spring): 95-111.
Althusser,Louis. 1971. "Ideology and the Ideological State Apparatuses." Pp. 127-88
in Lenin and Philosophy. New York: MonthlyReview Press.
Barthes, Roland. 1964. Elements of Semiology. London: Cape.
1969. Systemede la mode.Paris: Seuil.
1972. Mythologies. New York: Hill & Wang.
1974. SIZ. Translated by Richard Miller. New York: Hill & Wang.
Baudrillard, Jean. 1968. Les Systemesdes objets. Paris: Gallimard.
.1981. For a CritiqueofthePoliticalEconomyoftheSign. SaintLouis:Telos.
Berger, Peter, and Thomas Luckmann. 1966. The Social Constructionof Reality.
Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday.
Boggs, Carl. 1976. Gramsci's Marxism. London: Pluto.
Burnham, Jack. 1971. The StructureofArt. New York: Braziller.
Cheal, David. 1979. "Hegemony, Ideology and Contradictory Consciousness."
SociologicalQuarterly 20, no. 1 (Winter): 109-18.
Clarke, J. 1975. "The Skinheads and the Magical Recoveryof Community."Working
Papersin CulturalStudies,no. 7/8,pp. 99-103.
Clarke, J., S. Hall, T. Jefferson,and B. Roberts. 1975. "Subcultures, Cultures and
Class: A Theoretical Overview." WorkingPapers in Cultural Studies, no. 7/8,pp.
9-74.
Clarke, Simon, et al. 1980. One-dimensionalMarxism. London: Allison & Busby.
Cohen, S. 1972. Folk Devils and Moral Panics. London: MacGibbon & Kee.
Cohen, S., and P. Rock. 1970. "The Teddy Boy." In The Age ofAffluence,edited by
V. Bogdanor and R. Skidelsky. London: MacMillan.
Cohn, N. K. 1970. Awopbop a Loobop. London: Paladin.
Coser, Louis, ed. 1978. Special issue on the productionof culture. Social Research,
vol. 45, no. 2 (Summer).
Coward, Rosalind, and John Ellis. 1977. Language and Materialism. Boston: Rout-
ledge & Kegan Paul.

999

This content downloaded from 128.135.012.127 on July 26, 2017 15:35:41 PM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
 AmericanJournalof Sociology

Davis, Fred. 1981. "On the 'Symbolic' in Symbolic Interaction."Paper presentedat

the Society forthe Study of Symbolic Interaction,Toronto, August 26.
Davis, S., and P. Simon. 1977. Reggae Bloodlines. London: Anchor.
Delaporte, Yves. 1979. "Communication et significationdans les costumes popu-
laires." Semiotica 26 (1/2): 65-79.
DiMaggio, Paul. 1977. "Market Structure,the Creative Process, and Popular Culture:
Toward an Organizational Reinterpretationof Mass Culture Theory." Journal of
PopularCulture11 (2): 436-52.
Eco, Umberto. 1976. A TheoryofSemiotics. Bloomington:Indiana UniversityPress.
Enzensberger,Hans. 1974. The Consciousness Industry. New York: Seabury.
Ewen, Stuart. 1976. Captains of Consciousness. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Femia, Joseph. 1975. "Hegemony and Consciousness in the Thought of Antonio
Gramsci." Political Studies 23, no. I (March): 29-48.
Fine, Gary. 1977. "Popular Culture and Social Interaction:Production,Consumption
and Usage."JournalofPopularCulture11 (2): 453-66.
Gans, Herbert. 1972a. "The Famine in American Mass-Communications Research:
Commentson Hirsch, Tuchman, and Gecas." AmericanJournalofSociology 77 (4):
697-705.
. 1972b. "The Politicsof Culture in America." Pp. 372-85 in Sociology ofMass
Culture, edited by D. McQuail. Baltimore: Penguin.
. 1975.PopularCultureand High Culture.New York:Basic.
Gitlin,Todd. 1978. "Media Sociology:The Dominant Paradigm." Theoryand Society
6:205-53.
. 1979. "Prime Time Ideology: The HegemonyProcess in Television Entertain-
ment." Social Problems 26, no. 3 (February): 251-66.
. 1981.The WholeWorldIs Watching:
Mass Media in theMakingoftheNew
Left. Berkeley and Los Angeles: Universityof California Press.
Goldman, Robert. 1982. "Hegemony and Managed Critique in Prime-Time Televi-
sion." Theoryand Society 11, no. 3 (May): 363-77.
Gottdiener,M., and A. Ph. Lagopoulos, eds. In press. The City and the Sign. New
York: Columbia UniversityPress.
Gramsci, Antonio. 1971. Selections from the Prison Notebooks. New York: Interna-
tional Publishers.
Hebdige, Dick. 1975. "The Meaning of Mod." WorkingPapers in Cultural Studies,
no. 7/8,pp. 87-98.
. 1979. Subcultures. New York: Methuen.
Hibben, C., ed. 1978. Politics, Ideology and theState. London: Lawrence & Wishart.
Hirsch, Paul. 1978. "Production and DistributionRoles among Cultural Organiza-
tions." Social Research 45, no. 2 (Summer): 315-30.
Hirst, Paul. 1976. "Althusserand the Theory of Ideology." Economy and Society 5,
no. 4 (November): 355-412.
. 1981. On Law and Ideology. New York: Humanities.
Jefferson,Tony. 1975. "Cultural Responses of the Teds: The Defense of Space and
Status." WorkingPapers in Cultural Studies, no. 7/8,pp. 81-86.
Katz, Elihu, and Paul Lazarsfeld. 1955. Personal Influence. New York: Free Press.
Krampen, Martin. 1979. Meaning in the Urban Environment.London: Pion.
Lazarsfeld, Paul, Bernard Berelson, and Hazel Gaudet. 1948. The People's Choice.
New York: Columbia UniversityPress.
Ledrut, Raymond. 1973. Les Images de la ville. Paris: Editions Anthropos.
Livingstone, David. 1976. "On Hegemony in Corporate Capitalist States: Material
Structures, Ideological Forms, Class Consciousness, and Hegemonic Acts."
36:235-50.
SociologicalQuarterly
Lotman, Jurij. 1976. The Semiotics ofthe Cinema. Ann Arbor:UniversityofMichigan
Press.

1000

This content downloaded from 128.135.012.127 on July 26, 2017 15:35:41 PM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
 Mass Culture

. 1977. The Structureof the ArtisticText. Ann Arbor: Universityof Michigan

Press.
Lotman, J., and B. Uspensky. 1978. "On the SemioticMechanism of Culture." New
LiteraryHistory 9 (2): 211-32.
Lukacs, Georg. 1971. History and Class Consciousness. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT
Press.
MacCannell, D., and J. MacCannell. 1982. The Time of the Sign. Bloomington:
Indiana UniversityPress.
McDonnell, Kevin, and Kevin Robins. 1980. "Marxist Cultural Theory." In Simon
Clarke et al.
Melly, G. 1972. Revolt into Style. London: Penguin.
Metz, Christian. 1971. Langage et cinema. Paris: Larousse.
Morris, Charles. 1938. Foundations of the Theory of Signs. Chicago: Universityof
Chicago Press.
Peterson,R. 1976. The Production of Culture. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage.
. 1978. "The Production of Cultural Change: The Case of Country Music."
SociologicalResearch45:292-314.
. 1979. "Revitalizingthe Culture Concept." AnnualReview ofSociology 5:137-
66.
Peterson,R., and D. Berger. 1975. "Cycles in Symbol Production:The Case of Popu-
lar Music." American Sociological Review 40:158-73.
Plascencia, Luis. 1983. "Low Riding in the Southwest. Cultural Symbols in the Mexi-
In History,Cultureand Society:ChicanoStudiesin the1980's,
can Community."
edited by G. Keller et al. Ypsilanti, Mich.: Bilingual.
Prieto,L. 1975.Etudes de linguistique generales.Geneva:Librarie
et de semiologie
Droz.
. 1977. Pertinance et pratique. Paris: Editions de Minuit.
Richardson, Tony. 1978. "Science, Ideology and Commonsense: On AntonioGramsci
and Althusser."In Hibben, ed.
Riffaterre,Michael. 1978. Semiotics of Poetry. Bloomington: Indiana University
Press.
Rose, Niklos. 1977. "Fetishism and Ideology." Ideology and Consciousness 2 (Au-
tumn): 27-54.
Rossi-Landi, Ferruccio. 1972. Semiotica e ideologia. Milan: Bompiani.
1978a. L'ideologia. Milan: Isedi.
1978b. "Sign Systemsand Social Reproduction."Ideology and Consciousness
3 (Spring): 49-65.
Sahlins, Marshall. 1976. Culture and Practical Reason. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Sallach, David. 1974. "Class Domination and Ideological Hegemony." Sociological
Quarterly15, no. 1 (Winter):38-50.
Sebeok, Thomas. 1974. "Semiotics: A Survey of the State of the Art." Pp. 211-64 in
CurrentTrends in Linguistics, vol. 12. Edited by T. Sebeok. The Hague: Mouton.
Seve, L. 1978.Man in MarxistTheoryand thePsychology London:
ofPersonality.
Harvester.
Tuchman, Gaye. 1974. The T.V. Establishment. Englewood Cliffs,N.J.: Prentice-
Hall.
Willener,Alfred. 1970. The Action Image of Society. New York: Pantheon.
Williams, Raymond. 1977. Marxism and Literature.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.
WorkingPapers in Cultural Studies (Universityof Birmingham). 1975. Resistance
throughRituals. No. 7/8(Summer).
Wright,C. 1975. Mass Communication. New York: Random House.

1001

This content downloaded from 128.135.012.127 on July 26, 2017 15:35:41 PM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).