The Oppositional Reading of Gucci x Dapper Dan Through Stuart hall’s lens

This critique deliberately adopts an oppositional position, as defined in Stuart Hall’s encoding \decoding model. Rather than passively accepting the message Gucci encodes in its promotional video , I choose to actively reject it , deconstructing the corporate narrative it presents. While aims to communicate progress, inclusion, and corporate redemption through its collaboration with Dapper Dan, this reading exposes the video as a calculated attempted to whitewash exploitation through symbolic gestures. As an oppositional reader, I see through the brand’s glossy portrayal and uncover the deeper structures of capitalist appropriation, racial commodification, and hegemonic manipulation that lie beneath.

The video is encoded with a dominant reading; Gucci is righting past wrongs by uplifting a previously excluded black designer , suggesting that fashion is evolving. The intention is to frame this partnership as a sign of social progress and brand accountability. But from my oppositional perspective, this narrative is not only misleading- it  is manipulative. The company’s portrayal of “inclusion” is superficial and self- serving. It  is designed to deflect criticism while maintaining the status quo of corporate control and profit. What Gucci offers is not empowerment, but an illusion of change designed to pacify critical viewers.

In the video, Harlem is used as a vibrant backdrop, filled with nostalgia and style. Yet as an oppositional viewer, I see that Harlem is not treated as a living, struggling community – it is flattened into an aesthetic, a marketable vibe. This aligns with Stuart Hall’s theory that signs and symbols are encoded to serve ideological functions. Harlem is turned into a brand asset, not a political subject. My rejection of this framing comes from the recognition that reals communities are being commodified, turned into fashion sets for profit-hungry corporations that offer no material benefit in return.

The oppositional position challenges the narrative of redemption for Dapper Dan. His earlier bootlegging work was a bold act of resistance against exclusion by high fashion- he took luxury logos and democratized them through subversion. But now, Gucci has turned that resistance into a capitalist product line. As an oppositional reader, I see this not as a success story but as co-optation. What was once radical has been sanitized, rebranded, and sold back to consumers as innovation. Gucci doesn’t uplift dan’s rebellion; it absorbs and neutralizes it.

From my oppositional standpoint, I reject the framing that this partnership brings about real change. Gucci still owns the means of production, controls pricing and distributes the product globally- Dapper Dan is a figurehead, not a decision- maker in the corporate ideological messages often work by presenting token gestures to create the illusion of transformation. I refuse to be convicted that featuring a black designer in marketing materials constitutes genuine progress when economic and racial hierarchies remain untouched.

From my oppositional standpoint, I reject the framing that this partnership brings about real change. Gucci stills owns the means of production, controls pricing, and distributes the products globally- Dapper Dan is a figurehead, not a decision- maker in the corporate structure. Inclusion here is symbolic, not structural. Halls model makes clear that ideological messages often work by presenting token gestures to create the illusion of transformation. I refuse to be convinced that featuring a black designer in marketing materials constitutes genuine progress when economic and racial hierarchies remain untouched.

The video is polished, emotionally resonant, and visually beautiful. But as hall warns, the encoding of visuals is not neutral- it works ideologically. From an oppositional perspective, I see the aesthetics, exploitative labor practices, and racial injustices that persist in the fashion industry. The video is not about Dapper Dan ; it’s about Gucci saving its image. It is spectacle -a media performance designed to generate profit and suppress critique, not foster real dialogue or equity.

Gucci encodes the message of mutual and shared creativity, but I reject this as false. This is not an equal partnership; it is a carefully managed PR strategy. Gucci is not accountable to Harlem. It does not distribute power. Instead, it instrumentalizes Dapper Dan to access Black cultural capital. This is a textbook case of corporate cultural appropriation cloaked in the language of collaboration. My oppositional stance calls out this unequal dynamic and demands real structural shifts- not curated “collaborations” built to serve brand optics

The dominant message suggests that fashion has become more inclusive. As an oppositional viewer, I reject this myth of progress. Representation does not equal justice. Seeing a Black face in a Gucci campaign does not change the reality that fashion continues to exclude, exploit and extract. This video is a part of a broader ideological project to convince consumers that capitalism can reform itself, that progress is happening because brands say it is. I resist this narrative entirely and see it as a tactic of pacification, not revolution.

Stuart hall describes hegemony as the process through which dominant groups secure consent, not just control. In this video, Gucci attempts to win over skeptical audiences by rebranding itself as inclusive. As an oppositional reader, I see this as an ideological maneuver to deflect accountability. Gucci doesn’t challenge the fashion system- it reinforces it while putting a new face on it. The goal isn’t justice- its consumer trust. I resist this ideological positioning and view the campaign as an attempt to resecure hegemony, not disrupt it.

Hall argued that decoding is a site of struggle, where audience can either accept or contest meaning. I choose to contest it. I decode this video in opposition to its intentions. This oppositional reading doesn’t merely critique Gucci’s message- it demands an alternative reality, one where inclusion is tied to ownership, redistribution, and reparative justice -not just marketing. Its our job as critical viewers to interrogate the messages we receive, especially when they come from institutions with a history of exclusion and exploitation.

Gucci’s message is that Dapper Dan has been “empowered”. But in the oppositional reading, I see the opposite; a creative genius has been exploited for brand redemption. The power remains with Gucci. The profit remains with Gucci. The system remains untouched. Representation without control is not empowerment- its window dressing for capitalism. I reject the idea that this video is a win for Harlem. It is a win for Gucci’s public relations team, and a loss for anyone who believed systemic change was underway.