Symbols

Semiotics is the study of symbols. Semiotics has a triangular relationship. The signifier, the signified and the relationship between the signifier and the signified. People have placed tremendous value on the associative value as opposed to the relationship. Of particular importance is the relationship rather than the symbolic meaning. How the symbolic meanings arises is patently more important than what it signifies.

The signified is fluid in it's meaning. For example, dragon in western cultures is malevolent creature while in the Chinese culture- it is an auspicious one- in fact the Chinese are seen as children of the dragon. Similarly, in Russian culture, smiling is frown upon- and is seen as an insult to the host- but on the other hand, in most other cultures, it is a sign of friendship.

Therefore, the use of visual communication to deliver messages is not immutable and the signified should not be place with particular importance.  Of particular importance is that of the rising of the symbol in the first place.

Take for example, political symbols. A local one perhaps highlight better. The use of a ligthning symbol in red an encircled in blue while with a white background is of particular importance in the arising of the imcumbent party in the first place. In the pre-independence days of the departure of the British, a wave of cold war, rampant unemployment and poor social environment. These symbols communicate a practical value of which speaks to the common citizen who wanted action- seen in lightning symbols coloured in red, a relatively conservative outlook- seen in blue- and with a relatively pure and non reactive ideology seen in white. This is in contrast with the red base- of reactive and revolutionary basis- and with a ideological appeal, it had a similar effect who wanted to effect change in prevailing status quo.

Hence seen in this context, with the general retreat of communism and it's ideological clarion call- it is therefore no wonder the former party had won through. Similarly, seen in the light of the general demise of East Germany, the modernisniation of China and Vietnam, Russia, it is therefore seen from the general wave that the colour of choice in Singapore and many places around the region are therefore conservative and non-revolutionary in nature.

Therefore, a further step must be highlighted to see the importance in the relationship rather than the signified. As mentioned before, the revolutionary character of red has somewhat been doused- the association with abrupt change and disruptive character has been diluted to the point that it has been circumscribed within the existing capitalist system.

Take for example, a recent publishing manifesto of an aspiring opposition party with an worker agenda. The origins and history is fought on basis of worker's rights advancement- which is diametric opposite to the elites and capitalist within the market driven economy, but it's manifesto was based on achieving a First World Parliament. It really does not sound exactly revolutionary nor seem to allude to fighting for proletarian rights.

But it then must seen in the context of the advancement of Singapore society. Singapore is a advanced economy now and it can be considered as one of capitalist success stories with two sovereign wealth funds with equity ownership in many western capitalist companies and properties even. Hence to fight desperately against the capitalist and elites would then, be destroying the rice bowl of the very people they are fighting for- whom are practical in nature rather than doused in ideological fervour. Hence seen from this particular context, the relationship, the cultural context and power relationships can be seen therefore of particular importance than what it really signifies. Therefore seen from a strict linear relationship, the red is no longer a game changer but rather been circumscribed within a system- and the signified as shifted, insofar that the underlying context has changed.

Therefore very often, we act as Pavlov's dog- and thinking that voting or deciding based on a associative value is acting in one's interest. But we have disregard therefore the underlying interest, often materially in the instrumental use of symbols. Therefore I rest my case, in the use of symbols as a short hand for correct decision but rather an understanding of relationship between the signified and the signifier than it's simplistic associative value.

[ P/S: refer to the Boxer Rebellion which used symbols to trick it's adherents into thinking " knife and gun cannot penetrate it's body" - that is therefore the instrumental use of symbols to mobilize it's people]