Symbolism
The same symbols can often be used to convey radically different messages by different people, sometimes leading to disputes over the "ownership" of symbols. Can you think of examples of such disputes and potential ways to resolve them?
Search This Blog
This blog is exclusively for students on the Theorising Social Life module of the Sociology degree at West Suffolk College.
A symbol is a sign or image that represents a community’s beliefs and values. The Swastika comes to mind when I think of controversial and disputed symbols; before it became known to the world as the symbol for the Nazi party, it was a sacred symbol of Buddhism and Hinduism. The fact the swastika was appropriated by the Nazi party has altered the way the western world understands the symbol. So vast are the differences between the Buddhist and Nazi understanding of the swastika that beliefs and values could not intertwine; the symbol appears in Buddhist paraphernalia such as prayer books, alter decorations and statues of Buddha (Nakagaki, T. 2018), yet for the western world, the symbol is associated with hate and of course, genocide. From a symbolic interactionalist view, each culture’s interpretation of the swastika effects the way they act, according to the meanings and values they associate with it. Most of the time, those who associate the swastika with peace and positivity don’t clash with those who consider it offensive as a Nazi representation. A time where a clash did occur was the 2016 Tokyo Olympic Games where the symbol was removed on non-Japanese maps to not offend visiting westerners, although it did remain on Japanese language maps. Understandably, this caused dispute from those who see the symbol as sacred. Despite attempts to reclaim the symbol as one of peace, it is my opinion that this example of what is now referred to as cultural appropriation has gone too far to ever be redeemed. Even in 2021, the swastika has been again claimed by hate groups as their symbol, for example neo-Nazi’s, white supremacists and the far right. Perhaps future generations will, as society moves further from the genocide, embrace the swastika as originally intended.
ReplyDeleteBringing the idea of cultural appropriation up to date, a less severe yet still controversial symbol that has been questioned in recent times is that of white women appropriating black culture through hair styles and terminology. There have been many recent negative comments towards white women who wear their hair in thin braids, use certain products or refer to styles and treatments a certain way. For many black people, their hair is symbolic of a cultural history; tribal associations in early African civilisations, conveying of messages during slavery (White and White, 2005) and empowerment during the civil rights movement. Such strong links to ancestral past increases the power of the symbol. Conflict theory states that conflict is unavoidable within society, I think that cultural appropriation is an argument that will continue for some time yet.
Symbols have a multi-layered role in society and are highly influential to individuals as we place meaning and emotions on them.
ReplyDeleteOne of the most powerful forms of symbolism would be those associated with sacred geometry. The cross is perhaps the most widespread and ancient of all symbols known to society. It has long been encouraged to give visible and tangible form to what is essentially, an invisible and intangible belief, but seems to have the power to reach deep into the unconscious mind which can affect subtle changes in the mood of the individual looking at it. There are many different adaptations of the cross, but the most recognized would be the one associated with Christianity. As talked about in the previous post the Swastika is a very emotive symbol but is still at its core an equilateral cross with its arms bent at right angles ( John Foley 1993). The negative connotations and emotions that are felt when the viewer looks at this symbol along with, as stated in the previous post its associations with other hate groups that have also taken it as a representation of their own, I don’t think, will ever leave it, it has now become ingrained into our social norms and values as a symbol of evil, due to its association with Adolf Hitler and the Nazi party.
Other crosses also have disputed ownership, one being St Peters Cross. In Christian doctrine, it represents the symbol of St Peter who was believed to have been crucified head down, by his request, as he thought he was not worthy of being crucified the same way as Jesus Christ, but for some people, the upside-down cross is a symbol of the occult, satanism, or even demonic interference. It is easy to see why individuals would think this, as the traditional symbol of Christianity and potential the most important is the cross, so to turn it upside down would indicate that it has anti-Christian connotations. The St Peters Cross has also been claimed by many different groups in modern-day society. It has been used by punk rock, heavy metal, and hip-hop bands as a means of expressing their dissatisfaction with the status quo and conservative establishment. Modern pop culture and media have also reinforced this meaning in horror movies and books, we just have to watch films like The Amityville Horror or The conjuring to see this.
When symbols are changed from their original meaning and claimed by other groups, it is difficult for the individual or society to remember their intended meaning. This may be because of social norms and values ingrained into the individual from institutions like family or education that shape our thoughts and feelings about that symbol or by repeated and constant representation in the now highly influential mass media and online social culture. This can make it very difficult to change the meaning of symbols but, I think, with equal coverage of each meaning, especially through mass and social media, hopefully, individuals and society as a whole could learn to share the symbol and its different meanings.
An example of such a symbol could be the use of Guy Fawkes masks as a change, or rather misuse or interpretation, in relatively recent culture of an old tradition. Guy Fawkes is a historical figure which appears in the UK holiday on November 5th, Bonfire Night, effigies of the man are traditionally burned and masks in Fawkes likeness worn. Bonfire Night signifies the 1605 Gunpowder Plot in which a group of English Roman Catholics conspired to murder James I alongside several ministers and members of parliament in hope that Catholics would take over from the Protestant rule which restricted their religious practices. More recent use of Fawkes’ masks has been used mostly by anti-government groups on social platforms as an anonymous face by those who could be called politics or social activists. The use of Fawkes likeness in what is described by some to be an anti-oppression, anti-corruption, freedom-fighting movement could actually be seen as slightly ironic in the sense that Guy Fawkes and his fellow conspirators were in no way freedom-fighters. Although the plot to blow up parliament was indeed in kin with anti-establishment movements, the intention to replace an oppressive regime with another oppressive regime in an act of what would now be deemed today as religious terrorism makes the masks use as a symbol of anti-corruption and so forth, whether through misinterpretation or ineptness, contradictory.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Giddens and Sutton in their 8th edition of Sociology (2017), Symbolic interactionalism, as the name suggests, focuses on micro-level interactions. Day-to-day interactions in society are said to be able to construct and transmit meanings through the use of symbols or gestures. Georg Simmel, theoriser of interactionalism, and following sociologists such as Herbert Mead suggest that although symbols are vastly important to communication, the same symbol can have many meanings applied to it such as hand gestures, object, etc. This can be seen with the given example of Guy Fawkes; a symbol can be interpreted by one group of people in its traditional sense while another group may see differently. By changing the meaning of symbols through misuse may develop problems in society, in this case a rise of fear or unease may be one of them. What was once seen as a costume piece to be used during a popular public holiday may now be associated with violence and unrest causing fractures in culture and community if seen and interpreted in a negative light. In terms of any resolutions, the scale of dispute and nature in which interaction and use of symbols must be taken into account. The representation of Fawkes that may be considered to be misinterpreted seems to be overshadowed by the debate over the nature of the movement and those involved. Due to the lack of interest on the topic and the fact most activity takes place anonymously online, attempts of resolutions through means such as education most likely wouldn't inspire much action or conversation.