The Power of Symbolism

The Power of Symbols

The dictionary tells us that a symbol signifies, or is understood to represent an idea, object, or relationship. Symbols permit us to go beyond what is known or seen by creating linkages between concepts and experiences. All communication is achieved through symbols.

My good friend Alonzo L. Gaskill’s book Sacred Symbols suggests that symbols are metaphors. There are many types of symbols. Statuary is currently in the headlines. Its symbolism can be seen in action daily.

A metaphor is a figure of speech that refers to one thing by mentioning another. The word traces its origins to Greek … to transfer, or to carry over. Metaphors help us communicate concepts, relationships, ideas, and history. A visual metaphor uses images to create a link between different ideas. You can say that metaphors are a form of speech.

Controversy Not New

Controversy over the use of statuary goes back thousands of years. The Bible recalls the ire of Moses when he came down from the mountain to find his people worshiping statues of golden cows.

The Eastern Orthodox Church ordered the destruction of all statues after the split from Rome because it believed that it mimicked pagan practices. The Church embraced the use of icons instead.

Protestants after the Reformation stopped adorning their churches with statues of the divine and disciples to avoid semblances of idolatry.  The Roman Catholic Church continued to permit the veneration of Christ, Mary, the disciples, and the saints represented in statuary. What would Rome be without the great works of Michelangelo, Bernini, and others?

Symbols in Action

Not all statues are created equal. Some communicate valor, sacrifice, discovery, and inclusion while others evoke emotions of scorn, subjugation, and exclusiveness. Best examples of the former, in addition to the 9/11 Memorial in NYC, are:

·      The Statue of Liberty as welcoming immigrants seeking a better life.

·      The Vietnam Memorial as a monument to those who gave their lives.

·      Martin Luther King as the consummate force for racial quality.

·      President Lincoln who set the slaves free.

Best examples of those statues that generate controversy are:

A statue to Christopher Columbus might celebrate the landing of Europeans in the Americas in 1492 to some. To Native Americans, it is a reminder that his arrival brought many diseases to the new world.

When the Spanish colonies, one by one, began to peel away from Spanish rule toward independence, many Spaniards would demonstrate their anger about losing control of one colony after another by pelting Columbus’ statues with eggs, rotten tomatoes, and other indignities.

The statue of Father Junipero Serra along Highway 280 in California celebrates the role he played in converting Native Americans to Catholicism during the Spanish conquest of California. There are 23 Missions in California that commemorate that journey. To Native Americans, Serra is not a saint but the personification of evil. Many Natives were forced to convert, and thousands died resisting.

President Thomas Jefferson is venerated as one of the founding fathers of the Republic. He is credited the authorship of the Declaration of Independence. He was a strong proponent of democracy, republicanism, and individual rights. To many, he is the icon of individual liberty, democracy, and republicanism.

As a plantation owner, Jefferson owned hundreds of slaves. After the death of his wife, he had a relationship with his slave Sally Hemings. African Americans point out with disdain the discrepancy between his ownership of slaves and his liberal political views.

Robert E. Lee was a brilliant military general. A graduate of the U.S. Military Academy, he served honorably for 32 years in the U.S. Army and distinguished himself during the Mexican-American War.

When Virginia voted to secede from the Union, Lee led the Confederate Army into battle. After the war, he supported reconstruction, but he opposed freeing the slaves. Many southerners venerate him as a hero of the war and a postwar icon of the “Lost Cause of the Confederacy.” His popularity rose in the North, the Barracks at West Point for example were named after him. His statue to many is a symbol of Southern honor and national reconciliation. To African Americans he was a defender of slavery and oppression.

Iraqi Sunnis, for the stability, prominence, and riches brought to their country, celebrated Sadaam Hussein. Statues were erected throughout the country to celebrate him and his accomplishments. Fast forward to the Iraqi War of 2003. After he was ignominiously toppled from power, angry Iraqis from the Shia majority tore down his statues everywhere.

Implications

Some people are heroes to some, and devils to others, depending on the depiction or meaning with which they are associated. There is no reconciliation in sight between the opposing symbols. Many refuse to let go of their own symbols, decrying what they see as tyrannical methods by the opposition. Others clamor for a complete do away of any symbols they find offensive.  

Some folks decry the tearing down of symbols they venerate as the ultimate re-writing of history and the perceived erasure of their traditions or way of life. Others judge the past through the contemporary lens of what is right or wrong with history.

A Lesson from China

At the urging of Mao Zedong, the Chinese started the Cultural Revolution in the mid 1960’s. It would go on for about 10 years.  The goal of the revolution was to do away with (1) old customs, (2) old culture, (3) old habits, and (4) old ideas.

Red guards, mostly young people, forced suspected representatives of the old ideology to undergo re-education, jailing, violence, expulsion, and public humiliation.  The undertaking was done away eventually because of its negative effects on the public and the economy.

There are similarities with what is going on today in America. There is widespread support amongst the young mostly to erase any symbols that might offend some. It does not end there. Some go as far as advocating the imposition of left-wing thought as the dominant ideology. Some commit to fight racism, class distinction, gender disparity, capitalism, and perceived social injustices, with violent means, if necessary.

Extreme practitioners on both sides, such as the Black Bloc, Neo-Nazis, Black Lives Matter,  White Supremacists, Antifa, and other anarchists, resort to violence and property destruction to get their point across. They often wear masks to hide their identity; they come armed for combat, and they are not interested in dialog.  They do not want to hear the opposing views and their ideology. Their mind is made up: they are right, and everyone else is wrong. Speech they do not agree with is hate speech and must be obscured or prevented.

Reconciliation?

People are locked into their views and are not open to a balanced dialog. Each faction sees the other as evil, and evil see, evil does. The self-righteousness of both camps makes it tough to give in to the other. Constant demonization of one another is hardly the antidote we are looking for.

We are engaged in a win-lose game, except that it is not a game, our future as a nation is at stake. With an even split in the electorate, the ultimate outcome appears to be lose-lose. Some folks, I guess, do not mind losing as long as the other side keeps them company. Both sides are frozen, some in hate, others in fear. Some folks suggest that one type of hate is worse than another. I suggest that hate is hate regardless who initiates it, although I sympathize with those who reject fascism, Nazism, or totalitarianism, whether from the right or the left. In the 20^th century, millions of human beings suffered and were murdered combating this scourge. Suggesting that we go back is incendiary talk.

Here we are in the 21^st century debating hate. Hello! I thought we had moved forward, perhaps we have not!