The Power of Symbols

“ I’m not suggesting that hypocrisy can be eradicated by turning thoughts inward, merely that recognizing the existence of one’s hypocrisy may go a long way to easing the widening gulf between [us]. ”

Note: For those who aren't familiar, the Ground Zero mosque controversy was about a proposed mosque going up in the shadow of where the World Trade Center once stood in New York City. You can read more about it on Wikipedia.

The controversy over the Ground Zero mosque seems to fracture people along lines (mainly) of liberal versus conservative, Democrat versus Republican. Trying to understand the difference in opinion, I have concluded that one of the real issues lurking beneath the controversy is the power of symbols. I find it curious that a similar struggle with a potentially negative symbol seemed to split people in similar ways but with different results, and I wonder why that is.

The Confederate flag has long been considered either a powerful symbol of a shared culture and heritage or a powerful symbol of a heinous era of this nation’s past. The mosque is seen as either a powerful symbol of a peaceful, equally valid and deserving worldview or a powerful symbol of one group’s deliberate misappropriation of a tragic event. The interesting thing for me is that defenders of the Confederate flag point to its cultural poignancy as worthy of remembrance but can’t see past the mosque’s symbol’s clash with the death of 3000 people. On the other hand, defenders of the mosque say it should not be judged solely on the face of its seemingly deliberate association with an act of terrorism but see nothing wrong with wholly disparaging the Confederate flag because of a singular aspect of its potent symbolic power.

Both sides of each debate seem to contradict themselves when the controversies are considered side-by-side. The simple fact emerges that no one wants to own up to their particular brand of hypocrisy. This self-indulgent refusal to self-reflect and recognize that sometimes positions are taken simply because they are desired to be held and not because they are founded on any certain or decisive logic has led to the massive chasm between the so-called Red and Blue. This refusal to honestly self-inspect beliefs has, in part, been fueled by non-stop news coverage and the explosion of political news and opinion sites on the Internet. With the ability to turn on the TV or surf the web at any moment and find like-minded individuals carrying cozy and familiar banners, people of all beliefs and rationales may find comfort in slipping into their personally favored demagoguery rather than being forced to deeply consider the issues and biases at hand with an open and honest mind.

I’m not suggesting that hypocrisy can be eradicated by turning thoughts inward, merely that recognizing the existence of one’s hypocrisy may go a long way to easing the widening gulf between the two predominant political positions. Once people understand that we all have foibles of choice, we may be more willing to accept the legitimacy of those same foibles in others. In the end, these two issues are similar in that they require the valuation of competing symbolism, determining which face of a particular symbol should be used to ultimately judge its overall effect. Is the Confederate flag a symbol of slavery and social injustice, or is it a symbol of a united South with its pastoral, rural heritage and culture? Is the Ground Zero mosque a symbol of an Islamic takeover of an American tragedy, or is it a symbol of a peaceful religion trying to overcome the negative influence of an extremist minority? How someone answers those questions is rooted in a system of personal beliefs that includes at least a tinge of hypocritical notions.

There is nothing inherently wrong with hypocrisy; hypocrisy is a beacon for free expression. What is wrong is failing to recognize, claim, and take ownership of hypocrisy, not just in others, but in ourselves as well.

Someone who believes in the power of markets may determine that the answers to those questions above may be definitively found in the outcomes with which they are related. As of this writing, there still is no mosque on the proposed site. On the other hand, there are only a few official displays of the Confederate flag remaining. If markets derive real valuations, then the outcomes of social issues may describe the valuations of the issues themselves, social actions forming the markets for pricing answers to social questions. But that is a discussion for another time.