My latest blog post from
http://standpointsoc.tumblr.com/Symbolism and language matter. How politicians and public figures talk about specific issues frames how we, as a public, perceive those very issues (which is not to say we don't think for ourselves. We do. But we do so within a framework of ideas where some ideas are more available for use than others). So, in March 2010 when Sarah Palin's Political Action Campaign released a map and list of targets with the message "We'll aim for these races and many others" there was outcry that she was inciting violence against these congressional targets by depicting them in the crosshairs of a gun. Doing so created an opening for some to see congress members as targets for potential gun violence, and not just for defeat in their reelection campaigns.
Congresswoman Giffords herself even argued that hateful anti-government words have consequences. "We’re on Sarah Palin’s targeted list,” Ms. Giffords said last March. “But the thing is the way that she has it depicted has the cross hairs of a gun sight over our district. When people do that, they’ve got to realize there’s consequences to that.”
Palin is also known for her gun rhetoric (she definitely knows her pro-gun audience and how to relate to them), often saying things like: "lock and load" and "don't retreat, RELOAD" in political speeches and tweets. Jesse Kelly, who ran against Congresswoman Giffords in 2010, even used gun imagery in his campaign (source):
After yesterday's tragic shooting of one of the congresswomen on Palin's "target list" (and the killing and injury of many others), Palin's map and list of targets is all over the web and in the news again (even though they've taken down the original PAC website). Rebecca Mansour, a Palin staffer has come out saying that "We never ever, ever intended it to be gun sights... It was simply crosshairs like you'd see on maps. It never occurred to us that anybody would consider it violent" and called any attempts to politicize the Arizona tragedy "repulsive."
So are these crosshairs that suggest gun violence, or are they a "surveyor's symbol" like this Palin website argued back in March? Does it matter if Palin intended the map to depict the crosshairs of a gun, or just that people might perceive that it does? How are these symbols (and Palin's accompanying "lock and load" language) interpreted by the general public-- those who are not surveyors or cartographers, and are probably more familiar with violent images in our culture than map symbolism? Here are my google image search results for comparison:
Searching for "crosshairs" and "gun target" (I only took images from websites that directly related to guns):
"
And here are some map symbols and symbol guides. I searched for "surveyor symbols" and "map symbols."
I had to dig really hard to find something sort of close to what Palin's map used (check out "control data and monuments" in right hand column):
Most of us are use to seeing map symbols and points on a map depicted like this:
So does the use of symbols that could very easily be interpreted as having to do with violence and guns matter? Certainly, Palin did not intend for the congress members on her list to be assassinated. But, as a friend of mine said on Facebook "You can't strike and throw matches and then act surprised when something catches on fire." Palin, and others who use violent language in attacking liberals, (and violence is largely used against the left by the extreme right) are not committing the violence themselves, but are inciting violence with symbols and words by empowering someone who already has extreme ideas and violent tendencies to commit violence. In sum, symbolism and language do matter. They have very real and tragic consequences.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
