Should symbols represent an ideal or a reality?
For example, Joe Plumber would think of himself as:
I am Irish/Italian/German/Indonesian/Phillies Fan/whatever.
I am American.
Or, if we are even more optimistic:
I am [insert ethnicity/classification from above]-American.
I am American.
Most people identify themselves by their ethnicity/smaller group first and as Americans second. Some even say that they are too ashamed to consider themselves Americans. Technically speaking, if you were born in the US or naturalized, you are American. You learn to say the Pledge of Allegiance and sing the anthem (or at least take off your hat and be quiet while it is playing) and all that fun stuff. Is this a sign of respect, tradition/habit, or, as Hayakawa would say, a reaffirmation of social cohesion? I'm not sure that the latter is even occurring.(Full Disclosure: I do not always say the Pledge and I would butcher the anthem with my horrible singing skills if I were forced to do so. And no, I am not an anarchist, terrorist etc just because I do not always participate in said activities.)
The original question posed by Mr. Lazarow was "Is it wrong to translate a national anthem into another language?" We have (almost) all agreed that the anthem reaffirms (or at least attempts to reaffirm) social cohesion/national unity. Yet, we have been arguing about the content/the actual symbols. I realize that Hayakawa is not the be all end all of semantic knowledge, but he clearly states that social cohesion is achieved through "accustomed sets of noises which convey no information, but to which feelings (in this case, group feelings) are attached." (Hayakawa 61)
Are all those people arguing about the "Under God" in the Pledge, the violent themes of the anthem, and the language of the anthem confusing the symbol with the thing symbolized/abstract purpose? Could we sing about the virtues of the American cheese and still have it relate to national unity (disregarding the fact that we would immediately lose the little international respect we have left)? Or are we just arguing over content because it is more of a tradition and less of an exercise in supposed national unity?
E Pluribus Unum,
Grace Yuan
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Symbols represent ideals. If they truly represented realities, wouldn't a gruesome battlefield scene arise at each recitation of "The Star-Spangled Banner"? In only this fashion would we be able to point to a seemingly tangible denotation. This is obviously not the case, unless one is living in an imaginary sphere of their own. And if that happens to be the case, well then, you most likely need more assistance than this comment is capable of offering.
The mystifying question is: How many people veritably register the meanings and connotations of the words they are singing?
If singing about the virtues of American cheese happened to be a traditional pastime, the population would feel just as attached to it as they are to the current national anthem. Any national song is worthy as long as it spurs the emotions that we percieve to be "patriotic or nationalistic".
Let's say I was standing in the middle of a crowd. This crowd commences to sing the national anthem. I stand and pay my respects, with my right hand held over my heart. I could either chose to avoid singing or compose lyrics of my own (preferably about American cheese). Would this be inhibiting the "patriotic or nationalistic" sentiments of those around me? Doubtful. Thus, are the components of the symbol signifigant, or rather, should we observe the symbol as a whole entity? I mean, the desired effect still exists, right?
Maybe I went off on a tangent of my own.
(Sam Maliha)
Post a Comment