Pluralized cultural codes enrich rather than end the process of representation

Evidence

But although this breaks the one, true meaning into fragments and puts one in the universe of the infinite plurality of codes, it does not destroy the process of encoding, which always tells the imposition of an arbitrary “closure.” Indeed it actually enriches it, because we understand meaning not as a natural but as an arbitrary act—the intervention of ideology into language. Therefore I don’t agree with Baudrillard that representation is at an end because the cultural codes have become pluralized. I think we are in a period of the infinite multiplicity of codings, which is different. — Hall, Stuart, Essential Essays, Volume 1, 725

But although this breaks the one, true meaning into fragments and puts one in the universe of the infinite plurality of codes, it does not destroy the process of encoding, which always tells the imposition of an arbitrary “closure.” Indeed it actually enriches it, because we understand meaning not as a natural but as an arbitrary act—the intervention of ideology into language. Therefore I don’t agree with Baudrillard that representation is at an end because the cultural codes have become pluralized. I think we are in a period of the infinite multiplicity of codings, which is different. We have all become, historically, fantastically, code-able. We are in the middle of this multiplicity of readings and discourses and that has produced new forms of self-consciousness and reflexivity. So, while the modes of cultural production and consumption have changed, qualitatively, fantastically, as the result of that expansion, it does not mean that representation itself has collapsed. Representation has become a more problematic process but it doesn’t mean the end of representation. — Hall, Stuart, Essential Essays, Volume 1, 725

Categorization

• XREF: Contrasts with Baudrillard’s simulacra; echoes the reader’s work on how ideas relate to economic thought via ideology entering language.
• DEFINE: Clarifies encoding as the arbitrary imposition of closure—ideology’s intervention into language.
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Hall, Stuart, Essential Essays, Volume 1, 725