Political symbols split into consensus-building versus conflict-marking functions

Evidence

Political symbols differ, however, in their basic nature, and consequently some are more likely than others to be related to ideological symbols such as the terms “liberal” and “conservative.” Cobb and Elder (1972, 1973) have argued that political symbols may pertain to four different sorts of political objects: the political community, regime norms, formal political positions, and situational settings involving nongovernmental actors or specific political issues. These various types of symbols play different roles in society; some serve as a foundation for social solidarity while others act as a basis for social differentiation and conflict. For example, symbols of the community (i.e., democracy, freedom) and the regime (majority rule, due process) tend to be sources of consensus and unity in society. In contrast, certain groups (i.e., the Black Panthers, women’s liberation) and political issues (i.e., busing, end the war) are symbolic of the lines of conflict in society. Within this context, the traditional nature of ideological concerns suggests that ideological labels should act as a basis for social differentiation. Thus, in the absence of substantial cognitive content, ideological symbols or labels are expected to derive their affect from their association with other symbols of social conflict such as various groups and issues. — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 1997 (#expands, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Flag interfaces cannot express civic defense of troubling content — Tarleton Gillespie, Custodians of the Internet: Platforms,…, 286; Broad populist coalitions require a common enemy and ambiguous symbols — Arthur Borriello and Anton Jäger, The Populist Moment: The Left After the…, 94; Political symbols either unify or divide depending on their object — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 1997 (+4 more)

Broader Connections

• Political symbols either unify or divide depending on their object #expands (0.95) — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 1997