Misunderstanding is the norm rather than an anomaly in communication

Evidence

The semiological influence leads to the emphasis on the key role of the (largely unconscious) linguistic, visual, and cultural codes that underlie the communications process. In a fundamentally transformative reversal, this emphasis shifts the question of misunderstanding from being a marginal kink in a communications process otherwise presumed to be smooth to a central place in the analysis—where differential understandings of any message are seen as the norm. — Hall, Stuart, Essential Essays, Volume 1, 759

Categorization

• DEEPTHINKING: This inverts the entire communications-studies paradigm: differential reading, not fidelity, is the baseline condition — a claim that reframes what ‘communication’ even means.
• SEED: An essay angle: what everyday life (and online politics) look like once we take meaning-construction failure as the default rather than the exception.
• corroborated: 3 independent passages support this claim — Hall, Stuart, Essential Essays, Volume 1, 759
• XREF: connects to: Communication misunderstanding is the norm, not a marginal defect.; Messages are polysemic, so decoding never guarantees preferred intended meaning.; Decoded meanings, not messages, are what produce effects (+7 more)

Broader Connections

• Luhmann’s systems are not naturalistic people-networks but self-referential communicative processes #corroborates (0.75)
• Power operates partly through perception rather than explicit verbal communication #expands (0.72)