Interpreting Symbols: Motivation and Reflection - Book Report/Review Example

Interpreting Symbols: Motivation and Reflection YOUR FULL YOUR INSTITUION OR SCHOOL Interpreting Symbols: Motivation and Reflection Cultural and social symbols are certainly ever-present across the sphere of human civilization, offering deep meaning to those who look to such for direction or expression. The scope of this paper is to consider the idea of symbols in the context of two statements regarding their impact and, in finding a different perspective from each author, opine as to the compatibility and variance between the two views. On the one hand, there is the school of thought that believes that symbols are "determinable influences inclining persons and groups to action" (Turner 1967: 36). Clearly, this implies that symbols are motivators. With a different perspective, there is the group which maintains that symbols are more of an embodiment of historical meaning, a "system of inherited conceptions expressed in symbolic forms..." (Geertz YEAR: 89). This perspective sees symbols as more reflective than directional and, though it might not deny some motivational aspects of cultural symbology, focuses on them as a repository for communication of heritage. First, I will discuss the fact that in one way, certainly, these views are at variance in terms of direction; one sees causative influence and the other derivative. Secondly, I will focus on the fact that these ideas are not necessarily as opposing as one might initially expect; there is a certain compatibility and agreement in terms of symbolic influence, regardless of its direction. Finally, to illustrate these points of both disparity and agreement, I will use the iconic symbols of Greek Orthodoxy to demonstrate the relationship. Variance: Causative vs. Derivative The greatest variance between the two perspectives is the relative direction of symbolic influence. For Turner, symbols motivate people to action. For Geertz, they reflect and communicate culture. In the first instance, the direction of symbolic influence is outward; the person looks to the symbol and sees something they should do. This position does not necessarily discard the notion that the symbol may be meaningful because of a shared history or culture, it simply doesn't focus on that aspect. Symbols are causative in that they influence and motivate a specific action. In the second instance, the direction of symbolic influence is inward; an individual sees the symbol and understands the cultural message for which it stands. This perspective does not deny the idea that action may follow understanding, but finds symbology important more as a repository of culture than as a personal motivator. Symbols are derivative in that an individual finds meaning and understanding from them. Thus, the two positions disagree most distinctly in the perception of the direction of symbolic influence. Compatibility: Symbolic Influence Directional variance aside, there is great compatibility between the two positions in that they both see great influence acting upon and emerging from individuals reacting to symbols. For the causative approach, the influence translates into action. In the derivative structure, the influence translates into understanding. Either way, an individual within a specific culture is impacted by the symbol. It should be noted that it is within this area of influence that cultural association is most vital. Symbolic influence has to occur within a specific frame of reference. As discussed below in the application of these ideals to Greek Orthodoxy, a person who lives outside the culture has no significant appreciation of symbolic influence; they are neither motivated nor enlightened. While they may be able to intellectually understand the significance of a particular symbol upon its associated people, or appreciate some cultural meaning inherent in the symbol, they are not personally impacted. Herein lies the key to the power of cultural symbols to influence a particular individual; they speak only to members of the culture itself. Application: Greek Orthodoxy To illustrate the principles discussed herein, an example is in order. Within the culture of Greek Orthodoxy, symbolic value takes the form of icons. These symbols represent different aspects of the religious faith, theology, and doctrines of the church. Beginning with the causative or motivational concept, the icons can be expected to be motivational. The adherents of the religion view the icons and are spurred to action within the expression of their faith. In another book, Turner furthers this idea when he states that "...one often finds in human cultures that structural contradictions, asymmetries, and anomalies are overlaid by layers of myth, ritual, and symbol, which stress the axiomatic value of key structural principles..." (Turner 1995: 47). For the faithful, any perceived contradictions or layers of myth that might surround the principles represented by the icons have no impact on behavior. The motivation to practice their faith derives from the icon, and though individuals from other faiths and cultures might dispute the accuracy of a particular event represented in the icon, this is unavailing to the practitioner. Hence, the symbol provokes to action, demonstrating the causative nature of this approach. Similarly, the notion that the icons contain a historical communication of the culture that is meaningful to the adherents is also applicable. As Geertz states in other writings, "[w]hatever, or wherever, symbol systems "in their own terms" may be, we gain empirical access to them by inspecting events, not by arranging abstracted entities into unified patterns" (Geertz 1973: 17). Note the relation of meaning to the historical aspect of events, and the distinction from Turner's view. Under this model, a member of the Greek Orthodox faith sees the history entailed in the icon and is instructed and strengthened in the culture by that experience. The adherent is not expected to create a unified pattern by arranging the entities; and therefore is not necessarily motivated to a particular behavior demanded by a derived pattern. While Geertz would not deny that a behavior might be perceived from the inspection of events represented in the icon, he sees its importance as a reinforcement of the cultural significance. To combine the two seemingly disparate concepts; the member of the Greek Orthodox church stands and views one of the icons of the faith and understands that he or she should take courage from that representation to act faithfully (Turner), while appreciating the traditional and rich heritage of the culture that the icon represents (Geertz). The compatibility of these two perspectives is actually articulated by the Greek Orthodox Church, demonstrating that the two different approaches are able to find accommodation within the mind of a single individual. Speaking to the legacy of the icons and church, Chirban states "[t]he environment we create for our children is important because the symbols in that environment are powerful in helping them identify who they are as people... [and] not only helps teach them the faith but also allows them to express and share the faith" (Chirban 1996: 186). In this statement, both Turner and Geertz would find validation for their relative perspectives. Clearly, the icons are expected to assist the faithful in expressing and sharing their faith. These are the classic behaviors that Turner associates with symbols: The icons exert influence on the individuals to engage in specific actions. Too, the icons help the parishioners to identify who they are as people, providing the cultural continuity and historical relevance that Geertz would see as representing in symbolic form the important tenets of the beliefs of their ancestors. Two completely different perspectives on symbols are yet able to be unified at the point of personal practice. Note again, however, that these meet only in the heart of the faithful. For an individual who is not a member of the church, the icons may be understandable or artistically beautiful, but they are not meaningful to the point of influence to either a specific behavior or a connection with the culture. In conclusion, there are two perspectives presented in the statements by Turner and Geertz. For the one, symbols are motivational. For the other, symbols are inspirational. In this way, the two positions are at extreme variance, particularly in terms of the direction of influence. At the same time, however, the two positions concur on the fact that symbols have influence on the members of a particular culture. Regardless of whether the influence creates and external action or an internal association, the influence is there. Finally, as applied to the iconography of the Greek Orthodox Church, the practical application shows that both perspectives are correct and not mutually exclusive. For a member of that culture, upon witnessing the sacred symbols, there is both action and association. Symbols, then, are distinct motivators and special representations of cultural associations. The fact that both events can occur simultaneously in the mind of one person demonstrates that the distinctions do not overcome the synthesis of cultural symbols. References Chirban, J.T. (1996) Personhood: Orthodox Christianity and the Connection between Body, Mind, and Soul, Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey Geertz, C. (YEAR) Religion as a Cultural System, Interpretation of Culture, PLACE OF PUBLICATION: PUBLISHER Geertz, C. (1973) The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays, New York: Basic Books Turner, V. (1967) The Forest of Symbols: Aspects of Ndembu Ritual, Ithaca: Cornell University Press Turner, V. (1995) The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure, New York: Aldine De Gruyter Read More