Breaking the Chain: Symbolism, Behavior, and the Quest for Social Unity When Thinking About Hate and Corruption

We can continue to explore this hypothetical, philosophical, and theoretical thought experiment aimed at understanding how to create as much indivisibility as possible to foster social and economic health. One major detractor any society face's is hate and corruption, which not only limit full participation and contribution but also drain resources badly needed to foster a stronger society. To understand how these behavioral patterns emerge and how they shape society, we can turn to philosophy. The article included below is of symbolism so that would seem to be a fitting discussion for a rhetorical exercise. Keep in mind this can be any place, anywhere, any peoples and applies in general to the nature of humanity. The same problems in history since the beginning of civilization. It is a philosophical discussion so there is no right or wrong way to look at a problem or question in so long as insight is created and that insight leads to knowledge and purposeful choices (i.e. awareness). 

This picture was meant to
be thought provoking. 
New truths create new
 perceptual symbolic realities.

This is a philosophical discussion so
we should consider
how knowledge leads to insight
and how insight creates new perceptions
and how new perceptions form
our subjective realities. 
Plato discussed being free from 
the chains of limited
knowledge and insight
in a way that allows one
to see things differently closer to
as they are. i.e. the sun
that burns their eyes
when leaving the cave.

Philosophically, can you reverse hate
by creating new shared perceptions
new symbolism
that tie people together? 
Maybe maybe not? 🤷

In this learning example, we find that hate and corruption rarely arise suddenly or from a single event involving a single victim. Instead, these behaviors are long-running and deeply embedded in the psychology of the perpetrators. Their precursors can range from feelings of superiority to overt mockery of other races or religions—behaviors meant to strengthen in-group identity by degrading out-groups (Same mechanics in bullying behaviors). This is not specific to any one demographic; any race, religion, region, or group can engage in such behaviors at different times in history.

Patterns of corruption often intermingle with patterns of hate because both stem from similar tendencies: a lack of empathy and a willingness to exploit others for personal gain. Hate exploits perceived differences, creating rigid boundaries that produce unequal social cues and uneven levels of engagement, performance, and opportunity. At times, societies may even reward or reinforce these poor behaviors financially or socially. Awareness brings opportunities for purposeful choice so moral stories carry with them generation to generation values.

How we interpret the world—individually or collectively—depends heavily on symbols and the meanings we assign to them. Keep in mind that language is based on symbols and our language can be a reflection of our internal perceptions (Language as Symbols and Stanford-Human Mind Shapes Reality). The more heuristic and automatic our interpretations become, especially when unexamined, the more likely we are to arrive at conclusions detached not based in logic or fact but unexamined beliefs. There is always a distinction between the physical properties of something and the symbolic meaning we attach to it so how we perceive our world can change. (Think of the interpretation of the Coke bottle so different from our own based on deep cultural understandings and symbolism. Gift of the Gods). 

Hate rarely has anything to do with the actual targets; it grows from distorted thinking and is reinforced by behaviors that rationalize harmful actions. Ultimately, it is fear-based and reveals a lack of authentic inner confidence. Word choice, symbolism, microaggressions, and negative comments—when counterproductive or misaligned with the reality of the targets—say far more about how perpetrators see themselves and their world than about the people they aim to diminish. This is why many emphasize the value of individuals who can unite teams rather than those who spread toxicity as important consideration in leadership selection.

This brings us back to symbolism. Beliefs and values are often symbolic based in our cultures and language, and group-based symbolic behaviors may reveal underlying attitudes that can be activated under pressure—for better or worse (Mostly prosocial because it is most helpful but can sometimes go the other way.). Reducing hate and moving toward indivisibility may require understanding how symbolic cues contribute to harmful behaviors. One way to conceptualize this progression is: Symbolism → Micro-Aggression → Open Disdain → Acts of Hate. While difficult, it may also be possible to reverse this progression once hate has taken hold by redefining the underlying symbolism. Likely much easier if discovered and challenged early before open disdain by creating expectations (In theory).

According to the study below, symbolic displays are often precursors to actualized hate-based behaviors. This is an important insight. I also suspect that if we focused more on what unites us—shared values, shared commitments, shared purposes—we would better understand how to bridge differences and work toward goals that benefit communities and society at large. We all benefit when we are striving toward the same goals and outcomes. As general advice: build strong communities of togetherness, forgive small trespasses, and collaborate to create a better world that allows each person the opportunity to contribute their best with purpose. In theory, we can re-solidify and re-anchor our symbolism and sense of togetherness through cooperation and mutual reliance. That is why "isms" can be so distructive.

Symbolic and Realized Hate Aggression

*This is a philosophical, theoretical, hypothetical thought experiment for learning purposes only. One can agree, disagree, change around the elements etc. There is no right or wrong answer and each person will see something a little different. Philosophical dribble.