Hall rejected relativism in favor of arguing for adequate readings

Evidence

If we consider the principal example we have in which he offers a metacommentary on the decoding of his own work (in the interview with Justin Lewis and his colleagues on the encoding/decoding model itself, referred to in part III of the first volume), we see him quite prepared to insist on the need to define (and argue evidentially for) what constitutes a more (or less) adequate reading of any given text (his own quite definitely included) rather than resigning himself to any merely relativist position in matters of interpretation. — Stuart Hall, Essential Essays, Volume 2, 1184

Categorization

• XREF: Connects directly to Hall’s encoding/decoding model from Part III of Volume I — the very distinction between dominant, negotiated, and oppositional readings presupposes passages can be more or less adequately decoded.
• QUESTION: This is a valuable corrective to the common invocation of encoding/decoding as license for pure interpretive pluralism in cultural studies — worth chasing how Hall argued evidentially for better readings.