The aim of this article is to derive a theory of political symbolism from an analysis of symbolic conflict. By symbolic conflict I mean that dimension of political conflict which focuses on the manipulation of symbols. Drawing on a range of ethnographic examples, I argue that symbolic conflict is a type of competition for what Bourdieu calls symbolic capital, and that it can tab four prototypical forms: it can concern either the valuation of political symbols, their production, their proprietorship, or their survival as emblems of political affiliations. These correspond to the four central properties of a political symbol, which are the four ways in which such a symbol can be manipulated so as to appropriate symbolic capital.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Simon Harrison (1995) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched one closely related paper. Consider it for comparative context: