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!

WORKFORCE FREEDOM OF SPEECH -- IMPACT ON TEAM PROBLEM SOLVING

Yesterday’s Headline

Google fired James Damore, the author of the internal memo espousing his non-conforming views of diversity.  Google’s CEO is reported to have said that Damore’s piece advanced harmful stereotypical views about the female gender. Damore will surely sue Google for wrongful termination.

Google and other high tech companies are being scrutinized by the EEOC for potential discrimination in hiring and pay equity. The news media has feasted recently on accusations of sexism and the macho culture of Silicon Valley.

My Initial Reactions

It is about time that we bring human resources policies to 21^st century standards.  No one can with a straight face justify policies that permit one employee performing similar work to be paid less than another because of gender nor can anyone with a clear conscience accept the notion that people should be denied jobs, promotions, and other benefits because of their gender, race, sexual orientation, national origin, handicap or age.

As a former Chief Human Resources Officer (CHRO) of a publically traded multinational company, it was my professional priority to combat discrimination and other remnants of a not-too-illustrious employee relations’ legacy. I discovered, however, that there is a difference between what senior executives espouse versus what they actually practice. Bias is so ingrained in most folks that we can be either oblivious to its consequences or blind to its existence.

Reality Testing

In the waning years of my career, I saw the emergence of well-crafted policies and narrative to convince employees and the public of the inclusion in the corporate credo affirmative action and diversity. These statements adorn many lobbies and conference rooms.

Departments to combat violations from the espoused policies have been created with powers to “police” and bring to “justice” those in management and in the employee population who do not adhere to the company’s talking points.

One of the unanswered questions is who checks on the cultural or diversity police? As the power of the police increases, in the eye of the general population, so does the likelihood that non-conformance goes underground, and that what folks would not say in public would be said in whispers or in code. Net-net, a good management intention morphs into a de-facto secret police.

Informers start to come forth to accuse managers of unsubstantiated discriminatory practices based on flimsy or concocted critical incidents. Employees could be labeled as fitting or not fitting the company culture thus silently dooming their future and hurting their tenure. Afraid to being labeled misogynists, racists, homophobes, xenophobes, or worse, some managers might take decisions that are not in the best interest of the corporation. This is not to deny or discount that there are real cases of discrimination!

Ultimately, the resulting lack of candor becomes corrosive as trust takes its toll, openness disappears, and the Teflon façade that masks an unhealthy work environment begins to fall apart. Sooner or later, the thin veneer will give way and the whole system starts crashing down like the paper house it may become.

Back to the Headline

I do not agree with what James Damore wrote in his infamous memo. However, I rise to defend his right to say it. An organization to be successful in the long run must cultivate and reward candor. When candor is shortchanged, stuff can go on in an organization that is undesirable or even illegal.

We laud the whistleblower about going public with wrongdoings, but we get rid of those whose ideas dissent from ours.  James Damore is entitled to the benefit of the doubt. We cannot ascribe to him motives or intent other than his interest in starting a dialog.   His right to speak without repercussions must be respected. The notion that speech with which we do not agree is to be shut off is, in my view, foolhardy.

Like the culture or diversity police before, speech police is not the antidote we need to combat stereotyping and discrimination. Let’s hear all opinions! Some will be laughable, others perhaps scary, but let’s air them out. Preventing people from speaking is akin to muzzling them, raising the likelihood that our civil discourse gets diminished.

We do not need to purge out those colleagues with different ideas. It defeats, in my view, the very notion that diversity is more than skin color or gender. Diversity of ideas is crucial to effective team problem solving and decision-making and must be protected.

We live in a divided nation. What is happening at Google mirrors what is going on in our society. You have those who are in and those who are out, those who have power and those who don’t, and somewhere in between.

Google’s Challenge

The CEO of Google missed a great opportunity of turning a lemon into great lemonade … How? By using the ruckus the memo created to defend Google’s commitment to candor. He has announced a town meeting with all employees. I don’t know what he might say, but I suspect he will not defend free speech. I hope I am wrong!

Great leaders get in front; they do not lead from behind!