I have been trying to get the concept of symbolic action "straight" in my mind. I may have erred in using the wrong terminology.
The behavior I find dangerous and counterproductive is when an action, in addition to the concrete material effects it has, is overloaded with symbolic import -- import that depends on everyone having the same secret decoder ring. It seems like a bridge partnership where "4 clubs" means "I am against the war in Iraq and want the troops out now." But bridge partnerships have to be agreed to beforehand in order to work. And to me, the symbol-lading project often seems one-sided.
I am clear that symbols are used to communicate -- red light means stop, green light means go, me wrapping my arms around my husband . . . well, you get the idea.
To me the problem comes from using a literary theory approach to real life. I love books and movies and enjoy to read criticism about them. But it seems to me that criticism has gone from talking about what the book/movie is about, to the cultural messages in the text (which makes sense: a movie's characters reinforcing the societal roles expected of women, queers, blacks, etc.) to messages that were unintended, between the lines/sprockets, subversive, etc. etc. It now seems that the book/movie is saying what the critic wants it to say.
Could this trend be the result of the production of doctorates? I mean: there are a limited number of texts/movies to write a Ph.D. about. Since Virginia Woolf and James Joyce and Alfred Hitchcock are not going to produce any more works, the only thing left to do is to manufacture more meaning in the works that already exist. Alternatively, people can start treating the real world as a text to which criticial literary techniques are applied.
I am not sure this is helpful. Take the lunch counter sit-ins of the civil rights movement. A concrete and symbolic action. People seemed to be on the same page with what was being done and what it meant.
Nowadays, however, it seems that an individual can freight almost anything with the symbolic meaning of her choice. Take Nader's candidacy: he says he will attract the votes of disaffected Republicans and Democrats. He is already overloading himself with symbolic meanings that seem to cancel themselves out. Now add the symbolic meaning that a voter may add on, and you have chaos (at least to me).
To me, this is the symbolism that has gotten out of control. I do not contest that people use symbols to communicate. I just think that people often attach symbolic meaning that a) has little connection to the concrete action being performed; and b) has little chance of being understood as intended.
Finally, as to action having no impact. I just cannot (or maybe will not) get my brain around that idea. I realize that my one vote is part of a larger action: an aggregate vote. But my experience is that my one vote does have impact. I never feel that my one vote is meaningless. In fact when that thought occurs, my reaction is that such a feeling is the result of conditioning from outside forces who wish to neuter my motivation in order to maintain control.
Also, if people begin to feel that their vote is meaningless, doesn't there come a time when (after apathy sets in) that a vote does have meaning? When does an individual action cross the line from meaningless to meaningful?
Brian Dauth Queer Buddhist Resister