J. B. Thompson's recently proposed `depth hermeneutical' method for the study of culture and ideology provides a clear and systematic account of the expectations of a critical approach to culture. However, in attempting to apply the method to one particular area of modern culture - science - certain unanticipated difficulties arise. In particular, there is exposed a crucial ambiguity regarding the relative status of the accounts offered by analysts and audiences, which if left unresolved threatens to undermine the whole intent of the method. This ambiguity is explored with reference to current research into one example of the public understanding of science - creationism - and the nature of scientists' discourse. It is suggested that the source of difficulty resides in Thompson's conception of the `mobilised meaning' of cultural products, a conception that artificially restricts the range of possible meanings a given cultural product may have, in such a manner as to accord priority - albeit unintentionally - to analysts' readings, thereby undermining the stated view of audience readings as critical appropriations. Consequently, it is considered doubtful that Thompson has been fully successful in his aim to go beyond the limitations of `semiotic' analyses.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Abercrombie, N., Hill, S. and Turner, B.S. 1980. The Dominant Ideology Thesis. London: Allen & Unwin.
2.
Armstrong, H.L. 1971. `An attempt to correct for the effects of the flood in determining dates by radioactive carbon', in Lammerts 1971:98-102.
3.
Bainbridge, W.S. and Stark, R. 1981. `Superstitions: Old & New', in Frazier 1981:46-59.
4.
Barker, E. 1979. `In the beginning: the battle of creationist science against evolutionism', in Wallis 1979:179-200.
5.
Barker, E. 1985. `Let there be light: scientific creationism in the twentieth century', in J. Durant (ed.) Darwinism & Divinity: essays on evolution and religious belief. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
6.
Barker, M. 1989. Comics: ideology, power & the critics. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Coffin, H.G. 1971. `A Paleoecological Misinterpretation', in Lammerts 1971:165-168.
12.
Collins, H.M. and Pinch, T.J. 1979. `The construction of the paranormal: nothing unscientific is happening', in Wallis 1979:237-270.
13.
Curran, J., Gurevitch, M. and Woollacott, J. 1982. `The study of the media: theoretical approaches', in Gurevitch et al. 1982:11-29.
14.
Evans, G. and Durant, J. 1989. `Understanding of science in Britain & the USA', in R. Jowell, S. Witherspoon & L. Brook (eds.) British Social Attitudes: Special International Report. Aldershot: Gower.
15.
Famularo, S. 1986. `Food for thought'. Pamphlet, Portsmouth: Creation Science Movement.
16.
Frazier, K. (ed.) 1981. Paranormal Borderlands of Science. New York: Prometheus Books.
17.
Gilbert, G.N. and Mulkay, M. 1984. Opening Pandora's Box: a sociological analysis of scientists' discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Godfrey, L.R. 1981. `Science & evolution in the public eye', in Frazier 1981:379-390.
20.
Godfrey, L.R. (ed.) 1983. Scientists Confront Creationism. London: W W Norton & Co.
21.
Gurevitch, M., Bennett, T., Curran, J. and Woollacott, J. (eds.) 1982. Culture, Society & the Media. London: Methuen.
22.
Habermas, J. 1971. `Technology & science as “ideology” ', in Toward a Rational Society: student protest, science and politics. London: Heinemann.
23.
Habermas, J.1973. `What does a crisis mean today? legitimation problems in late capitalism'. Social Research40:39-64.
24.
Habermas, J. 1978. Knowledge & Human Interests. (2nd edition) London: Heinemann.
25.
Habermas, J.1981. `New Social Movements'. Telos49:33-37.
26.
Hall, S. 1980. `Encoding/decoding', in S. Hallet al. (eds.) Culture, Media, Language. Birmingham CCCS: Hutchinson.
27.
Kitcher, P. 1982. Abusing Science: the case against creationism. London: MIT Press.
28.
Koestler, A. 1986. The Sleepwalkers. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
29.
Lammerts, W.E. (ed.) 1971. Scientific Studies in Special Creation. Grand Rapids: Baker Books.
30.
Lessl, T.M.1988. `Heresy, orthodoxy, and the politics of science'. Quarterly Journal of Speech74:18-34.
31.
Locke, S. 1987. `Science & Popular Culture: suggestions for further research'. Paper presented at BSA Conference in Science, Technology & Society, University of Leeds.
32.
Marsden, G.M. 1984. `Understanding fundamentalist views of science', in Montagu 1984:95-116.
33.
Montagu, A. (ed.) 1984. Science & Creationism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
34.
Morley, D. 1974. `Reconceptualising the media audience: towards an ethnography of audiences'. Mimeo, Birmingham CCCS.
35.
Morley, D. 1980. The `Nationwide' Audience: structure & decoding. London: BFI.
36.
Morris, H.M. 1971. `Science versus scientism in historical geology', in Lammerts 1971:103-124.
37.
Morris, H.M. (ed.) 1981. Scientific Creationism. (Public School Edition) San Diego: CLP.
38.
Mulkay, M. 1979. Science & the Sociology of Knowledge. London: Allen & Unwin.
39.
Mulkay, M. 1985. The Word & the World: explorations in the form of sociological analysis. London: Allen & Unwin.
40.
Nelkin, D. 1982. The Creation Controversy: science and scripture in the schools. London: W W Norton & Co.
Potter, J.1987. `Reading Repertoires: a preliminary study of some techniques that scientists use to construct readings'. Science & Technology Studies5:112-121.
43.
Potter, J. and Wetherell, M. 1987. Discourse & Social Psychology. London: Sage Publications.
44.
Scott, J. 1990. A Matter of Record: documentary sources in social research. Cambridge: Polity Press.
45.
Taylor, C.A. and Condit, C.M.1988. `Objectivity & elites: a creation science trial'. Critical Studies in Mass Communications5:293-312.
46.
Thompson, J.B. 1984. Studies in the Theory of Ideology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
47.
Thompson, J.B.1988. `Mass communication and modern culture: contribution to a critical theory of ideology'. Sociology22:359-383.
