Micro-Landscapes of the Anthropocene

Concept: Symbolification


Symbolification : The process by which historical literary interpretation reduces an otherwise multifaceted ‘subject’ into an ‘object’, by way of using it only to signify something else.

Example: the symbolification of the dove: the dove is equated with peace symbolically, and thus we have ‘symbolified’ it. It has been reduced to a sort of icon that signifies something it is not, therefore objectifying the creature and detracting from its subjective existence.


This thought arose after discussing and considering the concept of ‘charismatic megafauna’, which is a term used in conservation to denote a creature with enough of a popular presence to gain a following for conservation efforts. An animal such as a lion or polar bear easily gains the public’s attention, and by association, gains funding and support. I considered the plight of many “unattractive” animals, and the struggle for conservationists to make them ‘marketable’, as it were. From this I tried to narrow my thinking towards avians, and their social reception. Birds are often viewed as things of beauty to be watched or listened to in wonder, which would explain their overwhelming presence in poetry. I wondered if poetry and the Canon’s avian literary presence didn’t do a disservice to birds, considering concerns of objectifying sentient creatures, and of course the ethical considerations of the eco-critical lens.

Arguably, representing a bird as a symbol for another thing detracts from the bird itself, and leads by its very nature to an anthropocentric interpretation of the meaning of the bird. As eco-critics then, perhaps it is our job to ‘de-symbolify’ not just the bird, but other creatures in literature. By removing the romantic notion of the bird, will we also remove our rose-tinted glasses further and look more towards the reality of the struggle our natural world faces? But no, ignoring the many diverse cultural symbols tied up in literary representations of the natural world would do a disservice to the work itself, as well as the lineage it is drawing from.

Instead, rather than suggesting that there is something inherently wrong with using animals symbolically, I would argue that it is our responsibility to be aware of the symbolic nature of many representations of non-human life, and to have the ability to look past this and consider the ‘subjectivity’ of these creatures in more depth. Instead of simply overlooking the historical interpretations, we should acknowledge them, but also offer an alternative narrative to the accepted reading of particular works. In doing so, we may encourage a deeper discourse around the rights of the animal ‘subject’, rather than simply allowing these creatures to remain symbolic ‘objects’ in our cultural imaginations.

 

Related reading:

Orr, Yancey. "Animal Magnetism: Perceiving Environmental Objects as Social Subjects among Balinese Looking at Roosters." Visual Anthropology 28.2 (2015): 127-36. Web.

Orton, David. "Both Subject and Object: Herding, Inalienability and Sentient Property in Prehistory." World Archaeology 42.2 (2010): 188-200. Web.

Skibins, Jeffrey, C. Powell, and Robert Hallo. "Charisma and Conservation: Charismatic Megafauna’s Influence on Safari and Zoo Tourists’ Pro-conservation Behaviors." Biodiversity and Conservation 22.4 (2013): 959-82. Web.

Small, Ernest. "The New Noah's Ark: Beautiful and Useful Species Only. Part 2. The Chosen Species." Biodiversity 13.1 (2012): 37-53. Web.

Weinfield, Henry. "A. D. Hope's 'The Death of the Bird': Between Romantic Symbol and Modernist Anti-symbol." Southerly 68.3 (2008): 161-71. Web.


 

This page has paths:

Contents of this path:

This page has replies:

  1. This concept of “symbolification” is very interesting to me. When the animal turns into a literary symbol, it becomes ‘of text’ rather than ‘of the world’. Symbolifaction not only “reduces an otherwise multifaceted ‘subject’ into an ‘object’” but limits it to signify but one of its characteristics. I imagine this would change how one views the symbolic animal in the real world, to keep with the example of the dove, when viewing the dove in the real world, the viewer is likely to think of it as a sign of peace rather than coming to their own personal understanding of the dove. In other words, symbolifiction seems to prescribe a certain meaning to animals, limiting their nuanced existence to a definable, single meaning. “Symbolifying” the animal assumes that as humans we know the animal completely, internally the dove may feel the very opposite of peaceful, but we cannot know that. Symbolification is an anthropocentric practice, the symbolified animal does not get to just exist for itself but instead becomes a tool of human literary representation. Defining an animal as a symbol of something restricts it, not so much in a physical sense but in how they are perceived. For example, calling a person a ‘pig’ is a traditionally negative descriptor, this negative connotation is likely to affect the public perception of the pig, and possibly even its treatment by humans. It is difficult for the “symbolifed” animal to change the way it is perceived since animals do not speak (or at least not in a way to be understood by humans), in this way animals are at the mercy of our “symbolifications” of them. Following the suggestions written by the concept-creators, I agree that we should look past these reductive definitions when perceiving animals in the real world, I believe we should put focus on our “symbolified” associations of these animals to consider how these have been shaped and aim to flesh out these reductive interpretations to create nuanced, subjective perception of these animals.

  2. Symbolification is defined here as “the process by which historical literary interpretation reduces an otherwise multifaceted ‘subject’ into an ‘object’, by way of using it only to signify something else”. The example of a dove is used — “the symbolification of the dove: the dove is equated with peace symbolically, and thus we have ‘symbolified’ it. It has been reduced to a sort of icon that signifies something it is not, therefore objectifying the creature and detracting from its subjective existence.”

    If I understand it correctly, I find the representation of chickens both in slang terminology and in literature to be an example of symbolification. For example, “don’t be chicken”.  

    To call someone chicken is to insinuate or mock their cowardice or timidity. It also denotes “[the chicken’s insistence] on petty details of duty or discipline”. The intent is to convince/ force/ coerce someone to complete a dare or engage in risk-taking behaviours in order to avoid the label ‘chicken’.
    Another example of symbolification is the phrase ‘to run around like a headless chook’. This idiom means to carry on in an uncontrolled, disorganised manner; running around without direction, in a panic, not calmly or logically. Moreover, it is a reminder of their title as dumb animals that are easily herded/ trapped.  
     

This page references: