Symbols reflect social values and relationships

Résumé du document

We can define symbols as ''something that stands for something else'' and that would mean that symbols are always a reflection of something. Given that definition, we can say that the aim of the anthropological studies of symbols is to find the meaning of symbols and what they reflect. If I was to elaborate on the definition of symbols I would say that they are shared by all the member of one community and that the meaning of the symbols stops where the community ends. That would mean that the symbols can define and make a link between ?communities of meaning''. However if we look at these relationships between a community and its symbols we may wonder if the symbols that are specific of a society also reflect it. Thus we wonder if symbols can be the reflectors of social values and relationships, and if this is always true. Can we thus study symbols as something specific to a cultural and social context or as something universal. Can we guess the nature of a society by studying its symbols?

Extraits

[...] Here we can use the analysis of myth done by Alan Dude; even if his statement can be criticized I think that we should remember his approach. His idea is to find some elements in myth which reflect universal content, those contents can be culturally expressed but they come from the same underlying and transcultural psychological foundations. To conclude I would like to say symbol do reflect social values and relationships, but this link is not static. That's why the anthropological studies have to be a dynamic evaluation of the meaning of the cultural values and relationships on the symbols. [...]

[...] On the other hand, those who have long hair are much more outside the rule of the society, Hallpike's examples are here: anchorites, witches, intellectuals and hippies. Then I would say that according to Haspike the symbol of the cutting of the hair is a symbol for action, and this action is given as necessary by the society. Here the social control can be considered as the origin of symbols. So, as with Emile Durkheim's work we see that symbols are not only the reflector of a society but that the society has an impact on symbols. [...]

[...] But with the work of Durkheim it seems difficult to make a distinction between the symbols which express the whole society and the less important ones. Then, how the different symbols express the society, its values and its relationships? What is the mental process which leads to the evocation of the values in the mind in the members? How the different symbols have different impact on the members of the society? To tackle all those difficulties we can use the work of some anthropological studies which tried to describe more precisely the categories of symbols. [...]

[...] But once again, we see that the way that the classifications are done has an impact on the social values and representations. The classification of the universe is used to define some social relationships:'' the classification of the universe is part and parcel of social organization and the categories are useful in defining who can be admitted where, and who comes first and who comes second or nowhere at all.'' To conclude I would say that thanks to Hallpike's work we have in mind the need to avoid the if I were a horse fallacy'' and to keep the study as empirical as possible. [...]

[...] Those symbols are not sacred but very recurrent. They express elements difficult to explain by words or to feel directly. Then S.Ortner specifies her hierarchy by dividing elaborating symbols in two categories. First there are the roots metaphors (Stephen Pepper) which are a mean to elaborate conceptual categories thanks to metaphors: one type of key symbol in the elaborating mode which sort out experience to place it in cultural categories and to help us think about how it all hangs together''. [...]