The Spectacle of the 'Other' - Stuart Hall - An In depth look at the representational practice of 'Stereotyping'

1988 Olympics - 100m Final

How do you read the picture?

Denotative -  The above image is the depicts Ben Johnson, a Canadian sprinter, winning the 100m race against Carl Lewis and Linford Christie. The five men are shown to have amazing physical stature and prowess.

Connotative - All of the athletes here are of the same race. We could read this picture, alone, to show a triumphant moment for a group that has been known to be discriminated against. However, the caption accompanying the picture hints towards this not being a triumphant or heroic moment for all of these men.

This appears to be true. The reading explains that Ben Johnson had taken performance enhancing drugs leading to his disqualification. Hall explains in this image that Johnson is both a 'hero' and 'villain'.

Meaning 'floats'. There are many meaning in this image and it isn't fixed. In order to fix we need to ask if there is a preferred or privileged meaning. The caption helps us here it is preferred meaning is both heroism and villainy. It is Johnson who fulfils the meaning by both winning the race, but suffering moral defeat for using performance enhancing drugs.

Hall argues that the connotative meaning has changes as well in light of the preferred meaning. The meaning in respect of 'race' and, therefore, 'otherness' has changed. This frequently happens when people who are different from the majority a subject to this binary form of representation.

'Reading' the above photograph of Linford Christie winning a different 100m race:

Denotative - Linford celebrates, with his arms outstretched to the crowd, on a victory lap of stadium. A union jack flag is draped over him.

The above image is the depicts Ben Johnson, a Canadian sprinter, winning the 100m race against Carl Lewis and Linford Christie. 

Connotative - We could read this image in terms of 'difference' and 'otherness' in terms of how people who are racially and ethnically different from the wider populace are being represented. We could as what it says about 'Britishness', a celebration for Christie in being both Black and identifying himself as a British person.  

Hall explains how images like the ones above also carry messages and connotations about gender and sexuality.

Carl Lewis Advert for Pirelli

Image of 'Flo-Jo' 3x Gold Olympic champion. Text showed a remark by this image made by Flo-Jos husband, Al Joyner:
"Someone Says my wife looks like a Man"

In the same article, this image of Al Joyner's sister Jackie Joyner-Kersee next to another caption from Al:
"Someone Says my Sister looks like a Gorilla."

Hall explains how images like the ones above also carry messages and connotations about gender and sexuality.

Multiple meanings are gained when all of these pictures are read against or in connection to each other. This accumulation of meanings is the representation of people of a particular race at any one one moment. This is called inter-textuality.

With the Pirelli advert, common assumptions of 'super-masculinity' regarding the identity of black male athletes is undermined by the 'femininity' expressed by seeing him in high heel shoes. The high heels are signifier here of femininity. The ambiguity of the meaning of this image is changed when we make connections with the other images we have explored above.

                                                       Why does difference matter?

Linguistic Approach

Saussure's argues that difference matters because it is essential to meaning or meaning can't exist without difference. We understand the meaning of the term 'black' or 'British'  not from the word itself, but in comparison to it's opposite 'white' or it's 'others', 'not-Pakistani' or 'not-French', respectively. 

The problem is with these binary oppositions is that it's a rather reductionist way to establish meaning inherent in something. It struggles to explain the complexities of something - a person may have both feminine and masculine traits.

Derrida explores this. He postulates that there is always a dominant side to a binary opposition when put into context. From the images explored above we have derived a meaning from them in understanding 'white' being the dominant notion here. This is understood through a relation of power between the two terms.

Theories of Language

Here, meaning arises through the 'difference' between two participants taking place in a dialogue.

Bakhtin argues meaning does not belong to one of the speakers, but arises in the give-and-take between the different speakers. For example, what is means to be 'homosexual' or 'heterosexual' is not fully defined by homosexuals and heterosexuals themselves, but it can be found in the negotiations between them and their 'others'. It is down to the participant to then take the word and apply meaning.

Anthropological Approach

du Gay, Hall et al argues that culture is dependent on giving things meaning by assigning them to different positions within a classificatory system. Marking 'differen' is the basis of this symbolic order that we call 'culture'.

This makes sense of binary oppositions as they are crucial in being able to determine clear differences between different things in order to organise them in this system. We can understand 'difference' in terms of whether they fit a particular category or not.

Mary Douglas is outlines how this allows for negative feelings and practices. When something appears in a category it doesn't belong due to it being ambiguous, it unsettles culture as it breaks the symbolic boundaries put in place undermining the purity of a category.

Stereotyping as a Signifying Practice

Stereotyping is the reduction of people to a few, simple and essential characteristics that are represented as fixed by nature. This can be found, and is central to, the representation of racial difference.

Richard Dyer - makes the distinction between types and stereotypes. Like the anthropological approach, we understand objects through the classificatory systems (defined by our culture) we are able to generalise them to. We understand something 'particular' through its 'type'.

Personality types are created when we come to 'know' something about a person; their occupation, gender or sexuality for example, and then attribute a type that can be characterised from them.

The stereotype occurs when we take a personality type and simplify and/or exaggerate them and then make them fixed. Stereotyping, then, is a way of reducing, essentialising and fixing somethings 'difference'. It also implements exclusion of anything outside the symbolic orders of classification. Stereotyping seems to come about when there is an inequality of power, with power directed against those who are not on the side of dominance in a binary opposition.