Symbolic forms are context-specific and cannot anchor a definition

Evidence

Despite being so integral to previous conceptualisations therefore, symbolic forms find no place in this new ideological conceptualisation. As considered previously, symbolic forms are also socially, politically, geographically, economically, historically and theologically specific, specific that is to the contextual setting within which they are produced, constructed, recognised and decoded, where the ideological content they disseminate and the processes involved in their subsequent reception creatively and constantly re-interpreting and re-evaluating the symbolic forms in order to ‘make sense’ for that specific contextual setting. — Chris Allen, Islamophobia, 906

Categorization

  • DEFINE: Explains the deliberate exclusion of symbolic forms (labels) from the ideal-typical ideological definition central to Allen’s stance.
  • XREF: connects to: Context-specific symbolic forms can share identical underlying operative modes — Chris Allen, Islamophobia, 842; What is form in one context can be content in another. — Georg Simmel, on individuality and social forms_…, 53; Interpretation cannot be fully captured by any single definition — Freeman Tilden, Interpreting Our Heritage, 70 (+1 more)

Broader Connections