My preference for more creative subjects – such as media and communications – as opposed to what I have studied in the past, including law, stems largely from the emphasis the former places on subjectivity, rather than objectivity. Legal theories and practices are largely derived from clear-cut, black and white concepts, of which there is only one real interpretation. Whereas media studies does not fixate on meticulous and definite methodologies and, alternatively, assists our construction of an independent view of the world.
This is because when we are using textual analysis – the process used whereby we can break down and interpret a text compared to another – we can justify many, rather than one singular – interpretation. And, just in this sense, when someone says that a text is more “truthful” or “accurate”, essentially, they are simply saying that that particular interpretation aligns with their worldview, more than anything else.
The most significant factor in a text’s interpretation, of course, is the context in which it is circulated. More specifically, however, there are three levels of context to which we refer that greatly assist our interpreting of texts in textual analysis:
- The rest of the text;
- The genre in which it was created i.e. codes used to communicate between the producer and the audience following a standard rule of signification; and
- The wider public context in which a text is circulated (how it is consumed by the public).
