108

p What is of undoubted interest in Whitehead’s theory of symbolism is the aspect connected with one of the early attempts in bourgeois philosophy and sociology to analyse the particular features of social symbolism. The symbolic philosophy of art is given additional illumination in connection with this analysis.

p Whitehead considers the problems of social symbolism in the context of his views on civilization and culture expressed in various works and given their fullest treatment in the book Whitehead’s American Essays in Social Philosophy. According to Whitehead the progress of civilization (which to him is synonymous with culture) is based on a successful modification of behaviour-systems. Behaviour or actions are instinctive, reflectory and conditioned by symbols. The acts of behaviour itself, and particularly of habitual behaviour, can 109 become the instrument of symbolic expression (4, 120). The growing complexity and clarity of symbols determining behaviour is an important indicator of progress. Symbolic elements in social life are “no mere idle fancy" or “idle masquerade”, but the inner principle of the very fabric of human life. It is most important that the function of social symbols be clearly defined, so that it is possible to control and reproduce these symbols. Thus Whitehead was one of the bourgeois philosophers of the modern age who, as A. H. Johnson has pointed out, emphasized the function of symbol in society (10, 12).

p Symbolic elements in the life of ’Society, Whitehead points out, tend to “run wild”. Practical reason, the theoretical desire to receive facts and not symbols, is a constant source of criticism levelled against symbols, one of the characteristic elements of the cultural history of civilized people. Such criticism is valuable, argues Whitehead, because every society necessarily requires not only the successful adaptation of old symbols to the changing social structure (the interpretation of symbols changes more quickly than the rituals themselves), but also new forms of expression, repeated revolutions in symbolism. Thus, the feudal doctrine of subordination implied ceremony, and the doctrine of human equality acquires its own symbolism, the simplification or abolition of an official isymbolism being compensated for by a symbolism created by various associations and private clubs, etc.

p Whitehead does not give an exact definition of “social symbolism”. He prefers to talk about the use of ’Symbols for the most varied social purposes (communication of information, military commands, etc.). One of the important social objectives reached with the help of symbols is social unity. In the emergence of social life the striving for unity, social conformism, is achieved thanks to an instinctive reaction. With the development of reason this instinctive mechanism falls into decline and is substituted by various complex forms of symbolic expression. Nations and lesser social groupings and institutions can be integrated with the help of social symbols. As examples of social symbols of this sort we can take flags, coats-of-arms, national heroes, and great technological 110 achievements. Social symbols have two types of meaning: the first is pragmatic and consists in directing the individual towards the performance of a given action. The second is theoretical, and implies an elementary, vague concept, which is however capable of the organization of a heterogeneous society. The main task of social symbols such as flags, coats-of-arms, etc., is “the enhancement of the importance of what is symbolized" (3, 63). Thus, according to Whitehead, a social symbol conveys a value judgment with regard to the significance of the institution or group which it represents (19). One of the ways in which symbols achieve this end is the emotional “concurrence” of the meaning of symbols. We can see that Whitehead displays a clear understanding of the importance of the emotional factor in the influence of symbolism . As noted above, Whitehead remarks on the great role of emotions directly evoked by the symbols themselves, as well as on that of emotions connected with the contemplation of meaning. Common emotions are concentrated around habits, prejudices and language, and assist the preservation of social order and national unity.

p All that has been said above with regard to the social use of symbols also applies to art. Whitehead regards art as a vital factor in civilization. He links its very origins with the evolution of ritual behaviour, which supplements its own inner value for the life of a family or tribe by acquiring the role of an instrument of symbolic expression. Art, he argues, is highly effective in the expression of emotions and in the control of behaviour. Codes, rules of behaviour and canons of art are all attempts to impose the sort of “systematic” action which on the whole will promote favourable symbolic interconnections. Whitehead saw social symbols to have an advantage over the instinct particularly in their ability to retain both the common good and the individual point of view, whereas the instinct suppressed the individual. But it is precisely art, writes A. H. Johnson, describing Whitehead’s characterization of the role of art in civilization, and in particular great art, which emphasizes the importance of individual components as essential elements in the unification of the group to which the individual belongs. Whitehead 111 connects the educational function of art in society with precisely this one of its properties-to help the individual become more profound.

p The analysis of art as a social institution, of its functions of social control and of the role which symbolic means play in the realization of this function is an important task of the sociological analysis of art. It follows from this that the analysis of art from the point of view of social symbolism, undertaken by Whitehead, deserves the most serious consideration. His writings contain a true description of those symbolic functions performed by art in the conditions of bourgeois society. But his symbolic conception of art, as well as the theories of many other western sociologists (Duncan, Parsons et al.), is insubstantial from the point of view of method, which is connected, in particular, with the idealistic interpretation of symbolism in general and of social symbolism in particular.

p Whitehead’s sociological views, including his theory of social symbolism, are a component part of his “total” philosophical system.  [111•1  At the basis of these views lie the idealistically interpreted categories of his “metaphysics” ( individualization, creation, interaction, process, stabilization, value and God), as well as the idealist theory of the symbolic relation of the two modes of perception, whose principles, according to Whitehead, control any form of symbolism. It is quite understandable that all the weaknesses and vices both of his “metaphysics” and of his theory of the symbolic reference are also inherent in Whitehead’s theory of social symbolism.

It has already been noted that, according to Whitehead, the symbolic reference is introduced by the subject. However, it is doubtful whether it is fair to criticize the English philosopher because, having declared things to be simple signs, or symbols, he thereby declares them to be an arbitrary product of reason. Whitehead understands that social symbolism is a necessity and not a caprice, and he correctly connects changes in the system of social symbolism with those in 112 social structures. However, along with the overwhelming majority of western sociologists he is far from a scientific, materialistic explanation of the nature of social structures and the causes for their alteration.  [112•1  The socio-economic (and above all class) nature of social relationships as the primary cause of the emergence and functioning of social symbolism in the specific sense of this word was not, indeed could not be, the object of Whitehead’s idealistic sociological speculations. These latter do not go any further than the eclectic bourgeois theory of factors. Pointing to such factors of social life as ideas, economic activity, great people, the inanimate world, Whitehead does not ascribe primary significance to a single one of them. The English idealist’s insufficiently profound, and, in the last analysis, non-scientific view of the system of social symbolism cannot, of course, serve as a theoretical basis for an analysis of art in the system of social symbolism.