Suchergebnisse

The study of political symbolism examines how symbols influence political preferences, identifications, and behavior. It thus intersects with several areas of research in political science, including nationalism, institutional legitimization, political allegiance, social movements, and electoral behavior. The entry first discusses how scholars define political symbols and conceptualize their role. It then turns to the factors that make political symbols effective in influencing political attitudes and behavior. It concludes by discussing whether political symbolism is an inescapable feature of political life.

The discussion of symbols has proceeded as if they had meaning in & of themselves. An analytic perspective designed to facilitate more rigorous inquiry into symbolism as a soc phenomenon is set forth. The focus is on pol'al symbolism. "Symbol" is defined as any stimulus object the meaning, value, or signif of which cannot be derived from its concrete or physical form. 3 dimensions of individual symbolic orientation (ie, 3 ways in which the individual will relate to a symbol) are distinguished: (1) a content or informational dimension; (2) an affective dimension; & (3) an evaluative dimension indicating the symbol's perceived systemic importance. From this a 4-fold typology of pol'al symbols is derived: instrumental & expressive, instrumental, consummatory, & passive. Either may be high or low in associated affect & cognitive content. 4 types of stimulus objects in the universe of pol'al symbols are discerned: (a) symbols of the pol'al community or core values; (b) regime symbols or symbols relating to pol'al norms; (c) symbols associated with formal pol'al roles & instit's; & (d) situational symbols to include (i) gov'al authorities, (ii) non-gov'al personalities & groups, & (iii) pol'al issues. This analytic framework is applied to a discussion of ethnic & class diff's in the Amer pol'al system. M. Maxfield.

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 fromsemiological theory, a branch of science specifically designed for the analysis of meanings. The central variable is thepolitical 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.

STUDIES OF POLITICAL SYMBOLISM AND SYMBOLIC ACTION FALL INTO TWO COMPETING TRADITIONS: THAT OF MEANINGS, WHICH EMPHASIZES THE POSITIVE ROLE SYMBOLS PLAY IN THE INTEGRATION OF SOCIETY, AND THAT OF MASTERS, WHICH STRESSES THE USE OF POLITICAL SYMBOLS IN MANIPULATION. WHILE EACH OF THESE FRAMEWORKS CONTRIBUTES AN IMPORTANT PERSPECTIVE TO THE ANALYSIS OF POLITICAL SYMBOLISM, NEITHER, THE AUTHOR OF THIS ARTICLE ARGUES, IS SUFFICIENT UNTO ITSELF. SHE PROPOSES A MULTI-DIMENSIONAL APPROACH WHICH ACCOMMODATES THESE TRADITIONS AND INTEGRATES THEM INTO AN ANALYSIS OF INTERESTS WHICH YIELDS A FULLER APPRECIATION OF THE ROLE SYMBOLS AND SYMBOLIC ACTION PLAY IN THE LEGITIMATION OF POLITICAL POWER.