The Interpretation of Symbols

In contrast to Edmund Leach’s description of ritual as “occasional behaviour by particular

members of a single culture … It is therefore in no way, from the anthropologist’s perspective, a

“genetic endowment of the species” (Leach 1966: 158), Sperber argues that representations that

are hard to process cognitively are represented as symbols as a way of remembering the basics of

complex ideologies. Therefore, “Symbolism participates in the construction of knowledge”

(Sperber 1974: X11), is rational, and as a system of signs functions as a language if interpreted

correctly. As such, Sperber argues that one function of symbolism is social communication, but

does not perceive communication as a constitutive function of symbolism as symbolism, by

nature, has an unpredictable nature (Sperber 1974: 4-5). His views are validated by Victor

Turner’s detailed ethnography of ritual symbolism among the Ndembu of Zambia.

Turner (1967) compiled his interpretation of the properties of ritual symbols from three

sources; observable characteristics, those offered by lay informants and ritual specialists, and

from his own observations. Turner distinguishes between three levels of meaning in symbols, the

exegetical meaning or indigenous interpretation, the operational meaning, how something is

actually used in ritual, and the positional meaning in relation to other symbols. Positional

meaning can be exampled from the mukula tree, which relates to the color red, and hence is used

in rituals symbolizing “matriliny,” “huntsmanship,” “menstrual blood,” and “the meat of wild

animals.” Due to the multiplicity of meanings beyond the purpose of a specific ritual, Turner

refers to this tree as a ‘senior’ or ‘dominant’ symbol.

Turner’s contribution to the understanding of ritual and symbols and to anthropological

analysis is unquestionable. However, the tremendous multivocality of ‘dominant’ symbols raises

the concern that collecting definitions from multiple sources may be problematic. For example,

Fernandez has stated that the Star-Spangled Banner “means the United States of America and its

50 states, and has developed through many historic stages and stands for purity, valor and unity”

(Fernandez 1965: 917). However, one can speculate on the many different interpretations that

may be attributed to this symbol. For example, to the Native American Indian, the red may

represent the blood of their tribes, the white; the men who inhabited their land, and the blue, the

sky under which their nations once flourished. In countries sympathetic to the American way of

life, the flag may represent freedom of speech and democracy, yet to America’s enemies, tyranny

and immorality. The list could continue ad infinitum. If interpretations of a symbol can be so

diametrically opposed, it seems implausible that the primary function of symbols can be

communication. However, it follows that whatever meaning symbols do communicate, without

knowing the intention of the actor, the meaning may be unintelligible (Laidlaw and Humphrey

2006: 276).