Symbolic communication

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In historical studies, symbolic communication describes a broad spectrum of communicative actions in order to achieve a specific goal, taking into account the respective social framework. This can be done through publicly staged acts and ritualized acts, mostly in non-verbal form. The development of historical ritual research is related to the increased reception of new cultural anthropological approaches in historical studies in recent decades.

Gerd Althoff described symbolic communication as "communicative [n] activities in which signs with specific meaning functions were used". Gestures, signs and rituals mentioned in the sources often have a symbolic quality. According to recent historical research, this aspect plays an important role above all, but not only, in premodern society in the context of public interaction (see also Symbolic Interactionism ). The decisive factor here is a “symbolic sign language” that must be understood by both sides: the actor and the viewer. The symbolic act is therefore not an end in itself, but earmarked. Furthermore, a pictorial representation of symbolic communication can also be used, for example memorial buildings .

Older research has largely ignored the demonstrative ritual and symbolic acts. Since the 1980s, symbolic communication, alongside the memorial sources and a new reading of the written tradition, has become a central component of a re-evaluation of the 10th century. The ritualization as the establishment and maintenance of order in the Ottonian Empire of the 10th century has been studied many times. In the historical research of the last few years, this research was increasingly extended over the entire Middle Ages and the early modern period . In the Middle Ages, which was even referred to as the “Age of Signs”, ritualized acts could express superiority, a request for forgiveness or claims to power.

Especially in the oral society of the early Middle Ages , but also in the following period, rituals therefore had an important function, they worked within a political order. A symbolic public gesture could, for example, express acceptance of the existing conditions by emphasizing the higher rank of another person. Equality could also be symbolized. In another case, a defeated person could admit his defeat in the context of a public deditio (submission) and ask for leniency. As part of symbolic research, such actions are examined for possible intended goals and partially reinterpreted, for example the aspect of the Honor Imperii in the medieval Holy Roman Empire , especially in the Staufer age . Hagen Keller has shown that the document was used in symbolic communication between the king and his loyal followers and that its function was not limited to the conclusion of a legal transaction. In early modern research in Germany, Barbara Stollberg-Rilinger in particular made symbolic communication fruitful for the early modern constitution of the Roman-German Empire. She has emphasized the political rituals as a constitutive part of the early modern constitution of the Holy Roman Empire.

Recently, however, ritual research was criticized because it overestimated certain actions (such as expressions of emotions) and interpreted them as calculated actions, which they are not.

literature

  • Gerd Althoff : The power of rituals. Symbolism and rule in the Middle Ages. Scientific Book Society, Darmstadt 2003, ISBN 3-534-14749-9 .
  • Gerd Althoff: Staged rule. Historiography and Political Action in the Middle Ages. Scientific Book Society, Darmstadt 2003, ISBN 3-534-17247-7 .
  • Gerd Althoff: Rituals - symbolic communication. To a field of historical medieval research. In: History in Science and Education 50, 1999, pp. 140–154 ( online ).
  • Gerd Althoff: On the importance of symbolic communication for understanding the Middle Ages. In: Frühmittelalterliche Studien 31, 1997, pp. 370–389.
  • Edgar Bierende, Sven Bretfeld, Klaus Oschema (eds.): Rites, gestures, ceremonies. Social symbolism in the Middle Ages and early modern times (= Trends in medieval philology. Vol. 14). de Gruyter, Berlin 2008, ISBN 978-3-11-020802-3 .
  • Geoffrey Koziol : Begging Pardon and Favor. Ritual and Political Order in Early Medieval France. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY 1992, ISBN 0-8014-2369-4 .
  • Geoffrey Koziol: The Dangers of Polemic: Is Ritual Still an Interesting Topic of Historical Study? In: Early Medieval Europe 11, 2002, pp. 367-388.
  • Ulrich Meier, Gabriela Signori , Gerd Schwerhoff : rituals, signs, images. Forms and functions of symbolic communication in the Middle Ages (= norm and structure. Vol. 40). Böhlau, Cologne et al. 2011, ISBN 978-3-412-20737-3 .
  • Barbara Stollberg-Rilinger , Matthias Puhle , Jutta Götzmann, Gerd Althoff (eds.): Spectacle of Power. Rituals in Ancient Europe 800–1800. Scientific Book Society, Darmstadt 2009, ISBN 978-3-534-21346-7 .
  • Barbara Stollberg-Rilinger, Tim Neu, Christina Brauner (eds.): Is everything just symbolic? Balance sheet and perspectives of the exploration of symbolic communication (= symbolic communication in the premodern ). Böhlau, Cologne et al. 2013, ISBN 3-412-21061-7 .
  • Barbara Stollberg-Rilinger: Rituals. Campus, Frankfurt am Main 2013.
  • Barbara Stollberg-Rilinger: Symbolic Communication in the Premodern. Concepts - research perspectives - theses. In: Journal for historical research 31, 2004, pp. 489-527.
  • Barbara Stollberg-Rilinger: Ceremonial, ritual, symbol. New research on symbolic communication in the late Middle Ages and early modern times. In: Journal for historical research 27, 2000, pp. 389-405.

Remarks

  1. ↑ Gerd Althoff: On the importance of symbolic communication for understanding the Middle Ages . In: Frühmittelalterliche Studien 31, 1997, pp. 370–389, here p. 373.
  2. ↑ Gerd Althoff: Memoria, writing, symbolic communication. To reevaluate the 10th century. In: Christoph Dartmann / Thomas Scharff / Christoph F. Weber (eds.): Between pragmatics and performance - dimensions of medieval writing culture. Turnhout 2011, pp. 85-101.
  3. ^ Karl Leyser: Ritual, ceremony and gesture: The Ottonian Empire . In: Frühmittelalterliche Studien 27, 1993, pp. 1–26; Hagen Keller: Ritual, Symbolism and Visualization in the Culture of the Ottonian Empire . In: Frühmittelalterliche Studien 35, 2001, pp. 23–59; Gerd Althoff: Rules of the game of politics in the Middle Ages. Communication in peace and feud. Darmstadt 1997; Gerd Althoff: The power of rituals. Symbolism and rule in the Middle Ages. Darmstadt 2003, p. 68ff.
  4. ↑ In Germany, the Münster Collaborative Research Center 496 , which was funded until the end of 2011, should be mentioned here .
  5. ↑ See Klaus Schreiner : Rituals, Signs, Images: Forms and Functions of Symbolic Communication in the Middle Ages. Cologne et al. 2011, p. 7. The quote goes back to Percy Ernst Schramm .
  6. ↑ Selected examples from Gerd Althoff: The power of rituals. Symbolism and rule in the Middle Ages . Darmstadt 2003.
  7. ↑ Knut Görich : The honor of Friedrich Barbarossas. Communication, Conflict, and Political Action in the 12th Century. Darmstadt 2001.
  8. ↑ Hagen Keller: On the seals of the Carolingians and the Ottonians. Documents as "emblems" in communication between the king and his loyal followers . In: Frühmittelalterliche Studien , Vol. 32 (1998), pp. 400-441, in particular pp. 425f. Wilfried Treseler: Lothar III. and the privileges of the Montecassino Monastery. Symbolic communication during the conflict between emperor and pope in 1137 . In: Frühmittelalterliche Studien , Vol. 35 (2001), pp. 313–328.
  9. ^ Basically Barbara Stollberg-Rilinger: The emperor's old clothes. Constitutional history and symbolic language of the Old Kingdom. Munich 2008.
  10. ↑ Partly quite polemically pointed Peter Dinzelbacher : Why is the king crying: A critique of medieval pan ritualism . Badenweiler 2009. See also Philippe Buc : The dangers of ritual. Between early medieval texts and social scientific theory. Princeton 2001; Philippe Buc: The monster and the critics: A ritual reply . In: Early Medieval Europe 15, 2007, pp. 441-452.