Post #1165149
2026-04-12 09:33 UTC
“Symbols are often defined as things ‘standing for’ other things. But they do not represent these ‘other things’ unambiguously: indeed, as argued above, if they did so they would be superfluous and redundant. … they ‘express’ other things in ways which allow their common form to be retained and shared among the members of a group, whilst not imposing upon these people the constraints of uniform meaning.”
Cohen, "The Symbolic Construction of Community"
Replies (1)
-
@marick@mstdn.social 2026-04-12 14:52
@simulo Interesting - this ties into Gallie’s idea of “essentially contested concepts”, concepts that cannot, by their nature, be agreed upon.¹ … and the notion (from Barrett and Clark²) that concepts themselves are accretions of summarized experience “around” words. So, by their nature, they are diverse. (1/2)