Symbolism - A Conceptual Framework
Literally, symbols can be defined as an object, word, or action that stands for something else with no natural relationship with what is culturally defined. Several things one does throughout one’s life are based and organised through cultural symbolism.
In fact, every field of human action and idea embodies symbolic meanings. But its scientific investigation gained popularity among anthropologists during the decade of the 1960s when Clifford Geertz, an American anthropologist and Victor W. Turner, a British anthropologist showed their interest in understanding the symbols used by people in their daily life, and in the social and religious process. The core of symbolism underlies the assumption that symbols are culture specific and have cultural meanings. In this regard Geertz deserves mention. He defines symbolism as ideas based on cultural learning. He believed that during encultura- tion a person learns the cultural meanings of symbols. People use the system of culture to define their world, express feelings, and make judgement. However, Victor Turner developed an approach to the analysis of symbolism in rituals. As per the idea given by Victor Turner, religion is the key to culture and ritual is the key to religion (Turner 1966:6 and Segal 1983:327).Symbols are used to define and convey a relationship between supernatural beings and humans. In this sense, relationships among humans, between humans and nature (objects/ symbols), and both with supernatural beings is conceptualised in rituals. People believe that these symbols convey the message of their sufferings to god and thus, help protect them from crises in life. So, such ritual symbols are also known as religious symbols. Symbol and religion are both interrelated and connected to each other. According to Clifford Geertz, the model for and the model of aspects of religious belief are mere transpositions of one another (Geertz 1973:118).
Religious symbols offer a model of the relations between the self and the world, and also a ‘model for’ how to act in this world (Geertz 1973:118); whereas Victor Turner argues that symbols can be used instrumentally, to trigger social action (Hoskins 2015:861). It follows that the crucial explanatory variable in the study of symbolism are culture, religion, rituals and cultural objects, and their meaning. As culture changes the meaning of symbols also change.A number of anthropologists following Geertz (1973) and Turner (1966) have contributed to the understanding of symbolism and in doing so they have enriched symbolic anthropology as a branch of discipline. In general, symbolic anthropology studies symbols and the processes such as myth and ritual by which human beings assign meanings to these symbols to address fundamental questions about social life. No doubt, the use of symbol lies at the core of human culture. It is through symbols that we create our culture and communicate it to group members and future generations. In brief, symbols are abstract human creations from a group’s non-material culture, such as belief, rules, and family patterns linked with the material objects.
Conceptualisation of symbolism by Geertz and Turner and its subsequent growth as a branch of symbolic anthropology give us an insight to formulate an analytical frame to study rituals and symbols. A simple analytical frame can be constructed with such elements as people of a culture, religious rituals they perform, and associated beliefs and objects they use. Undoubtedly, this study is designed within the scope of symbolic anthropology. It is evident from the fact that it studies objects (symbols) used in Dandakatta ritual of the Oraon, and myth associated with it. Further, it studies meanings associated with ritual and ritual objects. It is to be mentioned that Dandakatta ritual of the Oraon tribe has been purposely selected for the present study.
20.2
More on the topic Symbolism - A Conceptual Framework:
- Lawyers as Problem-Solvers in Crisis
- Harker C., Horschelmann K. (Eds.). Conflict, Violence and Peace. Springer,2017. — 456 p., 2017