Who decides on the meaning of a symbol?

[Risus]

The Conservatives are number one

Hmmm, I would think that that symbol is what the glibs think of Canadians... U\Your favorite leader PET did tell the rest of Canada to fuddle duddle...

 

[Machjo]

Hmmm, I would think that that symbol is what the glibs think of Canadians... U\Your favorite leader PET did tell the rest of Canada to fuddle duddle...

Well, seeing that the 'L' appears in reverse in that symbol, maybe it's the anti-Liberal symbol? It does seem to clearly intend an upper-case 'L' for the official Liberal Party an not a lower-case 'l'.

But I guess we'd have to ask Liberalman to know for sure.

 

[JLM]

Seeing that certain symbols can have multiple meanings depending on the user (a good example is the Swastika, used in various cultures across the world), and the cross (which can represent the Christian Faith as well as certain secular countries, and possibly other meanings too when shaped as a sword), who determines what a particular symbol means?

It would seem to me that the only fair answer would be its user. A good examples is literature. Who determines the true meaning of the text? Of course it's the author. The rest of us can only speculate.

Anyone who would use the swastika to mean something else would be of questionable sanity or have an ulterior motive. A cross is a little different, placed between 2 numbers it means "plus". I'd suggest go by the context.

 

[Praxius]

True. But we need to consider the target audience too. For example, if the Swastika has a particular meaning to your group that is different from the common meaning, but your intent is on communicating a particular message to other possible members of your group and not the general population, then you don't care how they interpret it. To take a few examples:

If I'm speaking over a cell phone to a friend in French, and he asks me in French what I'm watching on TV, and I answer that it's a film about arctic seals (phoques), and an English-speaking friend sitting next to me hears the F word in English, well, considering I wasn't addressing him, I don't care what he heard, because my focus was on communicating with the French-speaker over the phone. Likewise if I'm talking about the colour 'nigro' as it is in some languages. In some other languages, it's merely a noun denoting the colour black and has no relationship whatwoever with the word Negro or the n-word, except possibly etymologically.

So looking at it that way, if we think of a symbol as a part of a language, then the target audience does matter. If I'm not the target audience, I have no more right to be offended at the symbol as an English-speaker does upon hearing the French word phoque (which is not intended for him anyway) or the word 'nigro', etc.

But we're not talking about language and meaning, we're talking about graphical representations displayed in a public viewing for either all, or a good portion of the population to see.

Comparing a publicly viewed symbol/logo to verbal communication would relate if the verbal communication was with a megaphone out on the street.

Saying a word to your friend on a cell phone someone may be offended by would equate to perhaps drawing an offending symbol on a notepad and handing it to your friend to see. Someone may be offended by your phone conversation, and also someone may be offended by looking over your shoulder to see the notepad and the symbol/logo as they pass by.

Putting something in a magazine/newspaper, the side of a truck, on a billboard, on a page of a phone book, a commercial on TV, the side of a building, etc.... you're basically throwing out that symbol/logo to anybody in the public to view, regardless if they're interested or not, offended or not, etc.

Regardless of who you're target audience is going to be in viewing your symbol or logo, you have to keep in mind all of those who will be seeing that symbol who may not relate, might take it the wrong way, become offended, see something as a threat, and so on.

You may think there's nothing wrong with what you're doing, you may even have enough money to fight your point in the courts, and perhaps you may even win.... but you may also lose....and in the end, is it really worth all the hassle over a symbol? If you already know something is going to offend a bunch of people, regardless of how stupid you think their reasons are, do you want to go through that hassle, and even worse, do you think your client wants to have that burden on their business and be identified with such a controversial situation & symbol, rather then their company and its services?

You may even alienate future prospects, as other companies may see you as more hassle then you're business and services are worth. Of course all the attention might even make you more popular, more known, and thus get more customers.... but it's risky, and might even limit/narrow your perspectives to just controversial businesses.

Every action has a consequence.

 

[AnnaG]

Anyway, my point was that the meaning of a symbol is not only dependent upon the author but the interpretation of the observer.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Swastika is an ancient, holy symbol in many religions, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism etc. Even the Christian cross is a modified Swastika. It wouldn't surprise me if that is where Christians got the idea of the cross.

 

[Praxius]

Swastika is an ancient, holy symbol in many religions, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism etc. Even the Christian cross is a modified Swastika. It wouldn't surprise me if that is where Christians got the idea of the cross.

Wouldn't surprise me either... but when it comes to comparing which swastikas are evil (Nazi) and which ones represent religion or a culture, the Nazi Swastika is placed on a 45 degree angle (Diamond), while others are normally in a boxed design or have rounds in them, etc.