Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ndmmz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-01T16:22:18.465Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Political Culture and Political Symbolism: Toward a Theoretical Synthesis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 July 2011

Lowell Dittmer
Lowell Dittmer
Affiliation:
State University of New York at Buffalo
Get access

Abstract

The concept of political culture embraces some of the most basic, perennially fascinating concerns in behavioral political science; because of certain ambiguities in its theoretical formulation, however, there has been a tendency for the term to grow fuzzy with continued use. Its connection with related concepts, such as political psychology, political structure, and political language, has remained unclear, with the result that political culture has been difficult to isolate as an independent variable. Thus it has come to occupy a position on the periphery of politics, and is usually presumed to reinforce the status quo.

This paper re-examines previous formulations of the concept and proposes a theoretical synthesis. The analytical framework is derived from semiological theory, a branch of science specifically designed for the analysis of meanings. The central variable is the political symbol. By analyzing the interactions of political symbols within a comprehensive semiological framework, the traditional concerns of political culture can be accommodated in a more precise and systematic way.

Type
Research Article
Information
World Politics , Volume 29 , Issue 4 , July 1977 , pp. 552 - 583
Copyright
Copyright © Trustees of Princeton University 1977

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Almond, Gabriel A. and Verba, Sidney, The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations (Princeton: Princeton University Press 1963)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 , Almond, “Comparative Political Systems,” Journal of Politics xviii (August 1956), 391–409Google Scholar.

3 Verba, Sidney, “Comparative Political Culture,” in Pye, Lucian and Verba, Sidney, eds., Political Culture and Political Development (Princeton: Princeton University Press 1965), 512–61Google Scholar.

4 Almond and Verba (fn. 1), 14–15.

5 Rosenbaum, Walter A., Political Culture (New York: Praeger 1975), 6–7Google Scholar.

6 Patterson, Samuel C., “The Political Cultures of the American States,” Journal of Politics xxx (February 1968), 187–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 Almond and Verba (fn. 1), 21.

8 Ibid., 14–15. This point is made in Pateman, Carole, “Political Culture, Political Structure and Political Change,” British Journal of Political Science, 1 (July 1971), 291–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9 Pye and Verba (fn. 3), 9.

10 Rosenbaum (fn. 5), 4.

11 Pye, Lucian, “Culture and Political Science: Problems in the Evaluation of the Concept of Political Culture,” Social Science Quarterly Vol. 53 (September 1972), 285–96Google Scholar. Cf. Lehman, Edward W., “On the Concept of Political Culture: A Theoretical Reassessment,” Social Forces Vol. 50 (March 1972), 361–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12 , Pye, “Political Culture,” International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, XII (New York: Macmillan and Free Press 1968), 218–25Google Scholar.

13 Lipset, Seymour Martin, The First New Nation: The United States in Historical and Comparative Perspective (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday 1967), 269Google Scholar.

14 , Devine, The Political Culture of the United States: The Influence of Member Values on Regime Maintenance (Boston: Little, Brown 1972)Google Scholar. Cf. Easton, David, A Systems Analysis of Political Life (New York: John Wiley 1965)Google Scholar.

15 Anthony Wallace, an anthropologist, has proposed a different framework for understanding cultural change, featuring the key concepts of “goal culture” and “transfer culture”; but aside from the work of Chalmers Johnson and Frederic J. Fleron, Jr., this promising conceptualization does not yet seem to have attracted, among political scientists, the attention it deserves. Cf. Johnson, Chalmers, “Comparing Communist Nations,” in Johnson, Chalmers, ed., Change in Communist Systems (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press 1970), 1–33Google Scholar; and Fleron, Frederic and Fleron, Lou Jean, “Administrative Theory as Repressive Political Theory: The Communist Experience,” Newsletter on Comparative Studies of Communism vi (November 1972), 4–42Google Scholar. Technology and Communist Culture, a major conference volume edited by Fleron and embodying his analytical framework, will be published shortly by Praeger.

16 Bertalanfly, Ludwig von, “On the Definition of the Symbol,” in Royce, Joseph R., ed., Psychology and the Symbol (New York: Random House 1965), 26–72Google Scholar; Whitehead, Alfred North, Symbolism: Its Meaning and Effect (New York: Macmillan 1927), 86Google Scholar.

17 Warner, W. Lloyd, The Living and the Dead: A Study of the Symbolic Life of Americans (New Haven: Yale University Press 1959), 216Google Scholar.

18 Firth, Raymond, Symbols: Public and Private (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press 1973), 426–28Google Scholar.

19 Cf. Robinson, Richard, Definitions (Oxford: Clarendon Press 1950)Google Scholar.

20 Bagehot, The English Constitution, as quoted in Smith, Whitney Jr., “Prolegomena to the Study of Political Symbolism,” Ph.D. diss. (Boston University 1968)Google Scholar.

21 , Lasswell, “The Triple-Appeal Principle: A Contribution of Psychoanalysis to Political and Social Science,” American Journal of Sociology xxxvii (January 1932), 528–38Google Scholar.

22 , Lasswell, Politics: Who Gets What, When, How? (New York: World 1958)Google Scholar.

23 , Lasswell, Psychopathology and Politics (Chicago: University of Chicago Press 1930)Google Scholar, chap. 10, “The Politics of Prevention.”

24 Lasswell, Leites, and others, Language of Politics: Studies in Quantitative Semantics (Cambridge: M.I.T. Press 1949)Google Scholar.

25 , Arnold, The Symbols of Government (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World 1962)Google Scholar.

26 Ibid., 219, 17.

27 , Edelman, The Symbolic Uses of Politics (5th ed.; Urbana: University of Illinois Press 1972)Google Scholar.

28 , Edelman, Politics as Symbolic Action: Mass Arousal and Quiescence (New York: Academic Press 1971), 12–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

29 Considerable evidence suggests, however, that condensation symbols may play as large a role in negotiations among small elite groups as in manipulating mass audiences; witness the long dispute over the shape of the table in the Paris peace talks between Washington and Hanoi, for example. Published transcripts of the Watergate tapes reveal an obsession with condensation symbols among elites that defied all attempts to manipulate them rationally.

30 Edelman, Murray, The State as a Provider of Symbolic Outputs (Madison: Institute for Research on Poverty Discussion Papers, University of Wisconsin, August 1973), 16Google Scholar.

31 Froman, Lewis A. Jr., “The Categorization of Policy Contents,” in Ranney, Austin, ed., Political Science and Public Policy (Chicago: Markham 1968), 41–52Google Scholar.

32 Zald, Mayer N., “Politics and Symbols: A Review Article,” Sociological Quarterly, VII (Winter 1966), 85–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

33 Deutsch and others, Political Community in the North Atlantic Area: International Organization in the Light of Historical Experience (Princeton: Princeton University Press 1968)Google Scholar; , Deutsch, The Nerves of Government: Models of Political Communication and Control (New York: Free Press 1965)Google Scholar; , Deutsch, Nationalism and Social Communication: An Inquiry into the Foundations of Nationality (2nd ed.; Cambridge: M.I.T. Press 1966)Google Scholar.

34 Eco, Umberto, Einfuehrung in die Semiotic, trans, by Trabant, Juergen (Munich: Wilhelm Fink 1972), 35Google Scholar, 52–53, and throughout; Rossi-Landi, Ferrucio, Linguistics and Economics (The Hague: Mouton 1975), 10Google Scholar.

35 Douglas, Mary, Natural Symbols: Explorations in Cosmology (New York: Pantheon Books 1970)Google Scholar.

36 Barthes, Roland, Elements of Semiology, trans, by Lavers, Annette and Smith, Colin (New York: Hill & Wang 1967), 10Google Scholar.

37 Ibid., 58 ff.

38 Paul Ricoeur uses this term to refer to the symbol's propensity to evoke numerous associations. See his “Creativity in Language: Word, Polysemy, Metaphor,” in Straus, Erwin, ed., Language and Language Disturbances (Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press 1974), 49–72Google Scholar.

39 With certain terminological modifications, this figure was adapted from Barthes, Roland, “Myth Today,” in Mythologies, trans, by Lavers, Annette (New York: Hill & Wang 1972), 109–59Google Scholar.

40 Munz, Peter, When the Golden Bough Breads: Structuralism or Typology? (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul 1973), 60Google Scholar. See also Geertz, Clifford, “Deep Play: Notes on the Balinese Cockfight,” in , Geertz, ed., Myth, Symbol and Culture (New York: Norton 1971), 1–39Google Scholar.

41 Cohen, Abner, “Political Anthropology: The Analysis of the Symbolism of Power Relations,” Man iv (June 1969), 215–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

42 Walzer, Michael, “On the Role of Symbolism in Political Thought,” Political Science Quarterly Vol. 82 (June 1967), 191–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

43 Dieckmann, Walther, Sprache in der Politik: Einfuehrung in die Pragmatik. und Semantik der politischen Sprache (Heidelberg: Carl Winter 1969), 75 ffGoogle Scholar.

44 Morris, Charles W., Signs, Language and Behavior (Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall 1950)Google Scholar; and , Morris, “Foundations of the Theory of Signs,” in Neurath, Otto and others, eds., Foundations of the Unity of Science, I (Chicago: University of Chicago Press 1971), 77–139Google Scholar.

45 Stotland, Ezra and Hillmer, Max L., “Identification, Authoritarian Defensiveness, and Self-Esteem,” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol. 64 (1962), 334–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

46 Although “he” will be used throughout these abstract formulations for the sake of simplicity and succinctness, I do not wish to imply that all political actors are male.

47 Occasionally, of course, a candidate will retain his commitment to the symbols of opposition even after he wins incumbency. This seems a politically irrational (and therefore perhaps heroic) strategy, however, since he thereby jeopardizes his relations with other members of the elite and his privileged access to the symbols of legitimacy. In the same sense, it is irrational for a candidate to defend the status quo.

48 , Dittmer, “Thought Reform and Cultural Revolution: An Analysis of the Symbolism of Chinese Polemics,” American Political Science Review, Vol. 71 (March 1977)Google Scholar.

49 Izutsu, Toshihiko, Language and Magic: Studies in the Magical Functions of Speech (Tokyo: Keio Institute of Philological Studies, 1956) 37, 117Google Scholar.

50 Douglas (fn. 35), 8, 14, 19, 73, and throughout; Turner, Victor W., The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure (Chicago: Aldine 1969), 94–95Google Scholar. For a discussion of the progressive aspects of ritual, see Peacock, James L., Rites of Modernization: Symbolic and Social Aspects of Indonesian Proletarian Drama (Chicago: University of Chicago Press 1968)Google Scholar.

51 Barbara G. Myerhoff, “The Revolution as Trip: Symbol and Paradox,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, No. 395 (May 1971), 105–17; Zolberg, Aristide R., “Moments of Madness,” Politics and Society, 11 (Winter 1972), 183–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

52 Schneider, David, in American Kinship: A Cultural Account (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall 1968)Google Scholar, argues that “A symbol is something that stands for something else where there is no necessary or intrinsic relationship between the symbol and that which it symbolizes.” But it seems to m e that his own book can be used to demonstrate a “necessary” and involuntary aspect of American kinship and a clear metaphorical association between this aspect and the “voluntary” aspects of kinship.

53 Bevan, Edwyn, Symbolism and Belief (Fort Washington, N.Y.: Kennikat Press 1938), 134Google Scholar and throughout; Eliade, Mircea, Patterns in Comparative Religion, trans, by Sheet, Rosemary (New York: Sheed and Ward 1958)Google Scholar.

54 Ricoeur, Paul, The Symbolism of Evil, trans, by Buchanan, Emerson (New York: Harper and Row 1967)Google Scholar.

55 A seminal article was Jakobson, Roman, “The Aspects of Language and Two Types of Aphasic Disturbances,” in , Jakobson, Fundamentals of Language (The Hague: Mouton 1956), 55–82Google Scholar.

56 Cf. Lacan, Jacques, The Language of the Self: The Function of Language in Psychoanalysis, trans, by Wilden, Anthony (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press 1968)Google Scholar.

57 James W. Fernandez, “Persuasions and Performances: Of the Best in Every Body … and the Metaphors of Everyman,” in Geertz (fn. 40), 39–61.

58 Ortner, Sherry B., “On Key Symbols,” American Anthropologist, Vol. 75 (October 1973). 1338–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

59 Douglas (fn. 35).

60 Pranger, Robert J., Action, Symbolism and Order (Nashville, Term.: Vanderbilt University Press 1968), 157Google Scholar.

61 Stankiewiez, Edward, “Problems of Emotive Language,” in Sebeok, Thomas A. and others, eds., Approaches to Semiotics (The Hague: Mouton 1964), 239–65Google Scholar.

62 Cuthbertson, Gilbert Morris, Political Myth and Epic (East Lansing: Michigan State University Press 1975), 101–02Google Scholar.

63 Tudor, Henry, Political Myth (New York: Praeger 1972), 91CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

64 Cuthbertson (fn. 62), 102. For a good example of the analysis of mythical plot, see Turner, Terence S., “Oedipus: Time and Structure in Narrative Form,” in Spencer, Robert F., ed., Forms of Symbolic Action: American Ethnological Society Proceedings (Seattle: University of Washington Press 1970)Google Scholar.

65 Cuthbertson (fn. 62), 156–211.

66 Spencer, Martin E., “Politics and Rhetorics,” Social Research xxxvii (Winter 1970), 597–624Google Scholar.

67 Cf. Levi-Strauss, Claude, Totemism (Boston: Beacon Press 1963)Google Scholar; , Levi-Strauss, Structural Anthropology (New York: Basic Books 1963)Google Scholar; and , Levi-Strauss, The Savage Mind (Chicago: University of Chicago Press 1966)Google Scholar. For a clear exposition, see Gardner, Howard, The Quest for Mind: Piaget, Levi-Strauss, and the Structuralist Movement (New York: Knopf 1973)Google Scholar.

68 Note, however, that Edelman shifts his focus from the myth, which is not an immediately obvious source of contradictions, to the public polemic, which is.

69 Edelman, Murray, Language and Social Problems (Madison: Institute for Research on Poverty Discussion Papers, University of Wisconsin, June 1974), 4Google Scholar, 5.

70 Turner (fn. 50), 52; , Turner, Dramas, Fields and Metaphors: Symbolic Action in Human Society (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press 1974), 37 ffGoogle Scholar.; , Turner, The Forest of Symbols: Aspects of Ndembu Ritual (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press 1967)Google Scholar, 19–47. Turner erroneously refers to a semantic bipolarity, apparently assuming that the “ideological” and “sensory” properties inhere in the objects themselves rather than in the emotional predispositions of the subjects involved.

71 Turner (fn. 50), 52.

72 Dittmer (fn. 48).

73 That would include such obvious questions as mass reaction to changes in political symbol structure. See, for instance, Wilhoit, G. Cleveland, “Political Symbol Shifts in Crisis News,” Midwest Journal of Political Science, xiii (May 1969), 313–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

74 Benedict, Ruth, The Chrysanthemum and the Sword: Patterns of Japanese Culture (Boston: Houghton Mifflin 1946)Google Scholar.

75 Ortner (fn. 58).