The sham of symbols
Posted by Ryan on March 23rd, 2006I mentioned previously that I am a big fan of Winston Churchill as an icon of courage and tenacity and some other neat-o qualities. I wanted to highlight Benjamin Franklin this morning as I am also a fan of the virtues he represents (at least his public persona). As I did some research, my post idea took an interesting and unexpected twist when I came across a little gem…
“Benjamin Franklin is famous for his sense of humor. In 1751, he wrote a satirical commentary in his Pennsylvania Gazette suggesting that as a way to thank the Brits for their policy of sending convicted felons to America, American colonists should send rattlesnakes to England.
Three years later, in 1754, he used a snake to illustrate another point. This time not so humorous.
Franklin sketched, carved, and published the first known political cartoon in an American newspaper. It was the image of a snake cut into eight sections. The sections represented the individual colonies and the curves of the snake suggested the coastline. New England was combined into one section as the head of the snake. South Carolina was at the tail. Beneath the snake were the ominous words “Join, or Die.”
This had nothing to do with independence from Britain. It was a plea for unity in defending the colonies during the French and Indian War. It played off a common superstition of the time: a snake that had been cut into pieces could come back to life if you joined the sections together before sunset.
The snake illustration was reprinted throughout the colonies. Dozens of newspapers from Massachusetts to South Carolina ran Franklin’s sketch or some variation of it. For example, the Boston Gazette recreated the snake with the words “Unite and Conquer” coming from its mouth.
I suppose the newspaper editors were hungry for graphic material, this being America’s first political cartoon. Whatever the reason, Franklin’s snake wiggled its way into American culture as an early symbol of a shared national identity.”
This story struck a chord with me as I have recently been thinking a lot about the temple and the concept of the whole garden story being one big allegory. The serpent in this allegory of course represents Satan. The father of all lies. The veritable manifestation of the concept of evil. And of course who would object? A venomous, cold-blooded, scaly, fork-tongued, slithery creature makes for a great Satan.
But along comes goofy old Benjamin Franklin using a disgusting serpent to be a symbol of what? Unity, Freedom, Patriotism, and working together for the common good. Come on now! That’s a shameless usurpation of bald eagle and/or lion territory. This symbolism swapping is confusing to the masses…
My point? Secular symbolism has long been heralded as a magnificent accomplishment - a remarkable display of depth and creativity. I still bitterly remember my high school teachers and college professors wasting countless hours of my life expounding on the extensive symbolism in “classics” such as The Great Gatsby and Catcher in the Rye.
Give me a break.
It’s not magnificent. It just makes people feel good to figure out the mystery. The supposed “classics” are nothing more than glorified Sudoku puzzles with words instead of numbers. They don’t teach anything new. They use the same old concepts and lock them up with a different combination for us to gleefully pore over until, in the end, we announce that “We’ve figured it out! Stealing is bad because Dick and Jane saw Spot run!”
Contrast this over-hyped symbolism to the simple parables of the Savior which can, with the aid of the spirit unfold the mysteries of Godliness to us. The recycled philosophies of men hold not even a candle to the stories Christ used to teach eternal truths to the simple men and women with whom He primarily associated.
Don’t get me wrong, I like a good fiction novel as much as anyone. Unlike my English teacher, however, I get no adrenaline high when I happen to figure out what the author was - in a roundabout, obscure way - trying to say. I just like a good story.
I agree with you on reading novels. I am currently taking a literature class and I love to read. I think it’s much like philosophy. There are a lot of good things to learn out there in literature and philosophy, but at the end of the day, answers are few and far between. There are only more questions.
If you want real answers, try the Gospel of Christ.
Comment # 1 left by Ian on March 23rd, 2006
There are only more questions.
Great point.
Comment # 2 left by Ryan on March 23rd, 2006
I have a question for you Ryan. Do you have too much time on your hands? Goodness man with all the writing you did on this post you could have written your “Just care less” book.
Comment # 3 left by My Dominion on March 23rd, 2006
So after reading that whole long drawn out post I really saw the symbolism of your rantings. You dislike symbolic stories. Does that mean you take every story in scripture for their literal meanings… Or would prefer to? I really feel that much of what is taught from the scriptures are symbolic stories and not literal examples of things that happened.
Comment # 4 left by My Dominion on March 23rd, 2006
I really feel that much of what is taught from the scriptures are symbolic stories
agreed. That’s why I qualified my statement with “secular symbolism”.
How much of the scriptures are fables and how much are accurate historical depictions? I don’t really know. I do know that I’d rather read stories couched in symbolism to lead us to Godliness at a pace we can handle rather than some story where the author mistook symbolism for substance.
Comment # 5 left by Ryan on March 23rd, 2006
Yeah You should be a Lawyer. Nice way to weasel out of that one! (no offense Wade)
Comment # 6 left by My Dominion on March 23rd, 2006
Symbolism is obviously a very powerful teaching method. Especially if your words may not all be written down, but must be remembered. Long after the specific wording of a text is forgotten, the symbolism will remain.
Comment # 7 left by Eric on March 24th, 2006
No offense taken. I disfavor most lawyers. Also, I’m not a lawyer yet.
Comment # 8 left by Wade on March 24th, 2006
Ryan:
Still contemplating the post…
Comment # 9 left by Wade on March 24th, 2006
Although I will not argue with you over Jesus’ simple representative stories, there are two points I will disagree. The Bible is full of “complex overdone” symbolism. Ever read the Book of Revelations or Isaiah? Considered the nuanced Christian interpretation of the Law and Temple of Moses? How much of the book of Hebrews have you come to understand without its reliance on symbols? The Gospel can be simple to understand. Ways that it is taught run the gamut from simple to complex.
I also disagree with you about secular symbolism; particularly literary. Story and character are very important. Too many authors try to write well, but don’t write good. If an author can both write good and write well, the symbolism enhances the rest of the story. It can challenge our ordinary world and make us think of ways to see beyond our limited self. Mostly a good use of symbolism connects things together and expands the mind and even spirit.
What I have learned, ironic to what you have said, is that understanding how to interpret “secular symbolism” has enhanced my ability to understand sacred symbolism. That is because the same methods are utilized - examine the evidence, compare the relationships, look for the keys, and interpret the pattern. The best literary teachers show you how to discover your own symbols and don’t force a particular view. The worst are the ones who say “this represents that, so remember it for the test.” You have truely not learned to read until you learn to read beyond the words.
Comment # 10 left by Jettboy on March 24th, 2006
Jettboy great post.
Comment # 11 left by Eric on March 25th, 2006
jettboy:
Excellent.
I, of course, do not agree but don’t have time for a complete response right now.
I just wanted to mention that i think you make some great arguments.
Comment # 12 left by Ryan on March 25th, 2006