On the flag issue

On January 18, 2014 in Landkreis Harburg, Germany, there was a demonstration held to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the Battle of the Paracel Islands between Chinese navy and South Vietnamese navy, which resulted in the Chinese occupation of the Paracel Islands.  The BBC Vietnamese website posted a picture with the caption “what do you think of this picture?”  The picture drew over 1000 ‘comments’, and close to 10,000 ‘likes’.

Biểu tình chống Trung Quốc tại Landkreis Harburg, Germany hôm 18/1

The picture depicts about two dozen people lining up on the side of a road holding both the official flag of Vietnam and the flag of the former South Vietnam.  For many who commented on the picture as well as my own observation, flying the two flags together is a rare phenomenon.  But why is it so rare a phenomenon and what does it represent?  As with any social phenomenon, there are different ways to look at it.  Here I will offer two (among many) sociological perspectives, namely the symbolic interactionist perspective and the functionalist perspective.

The symbolic interactionist perspective holds that human beings are symbol-using and symbol-creating creatures, and that this ability is in fact essential to the continuation of social life.  Of course, when we think of symbols, language immediately comes to mind, and undoubtedly that is one of our most important forms of communication.  But our ability to use symbols encompasses more than that.  A symbol is any entity or object which stands for more than itself and it is something which we endow with meanings.  In other words, the meaning of any given symbol is socially constructed.  We decide, as members of a given collectivity, what a symbol means for us.  Therefore the meaning of a symbol (and we can include language in this category as well) is not static and fixed, but rather is fluid and subject to change.  The flag of one’s country is a symbol which resonates for its members but as the situation in Vietnam demonstrates, it is not only possible for the meaning of the flag to undergo a change; it is often possible for the flag itself to change.  It should be emphasized however, that the yellow flag with three red stripes is not the official flag of Vietnam, while many Vietnamese in the diaspora still consider it to be their flag in a symbolic if not a legal sense.  Clearly, decisions regarding cherished symbols do not take place seamlessly and without resistance.

As I’ve mentioned, the ability to use, construct, and understand symbols is essential for the continuation of social life.  If we couldn’t understand what people are saying to us or understand the meanings of symbols, it would be impossible for the simplest interaction to take place.  In order to illustrate this, consider for a moment what would happen if we went to the store to buy milk and discovered that we didn’t share a language in common with the cashier, or worse, that she or he didn’t understand what milk is, or why we wanted to buy it.  The interaction would break down immediately and nothing would be accomplished.

Of course many of our interactions are more subtle and complex than that, but so much of social life is predicated on our ability to understand what others mean.  It doesn’t necessarily follow, however that we always agree on what’s important or that we always share the same meanings.  That is why from the point of view of maintaining social cohesion, it is so necessary for a society to construct symbols which bring their members together.   A flag is one such symbol, but as I’ve mentioned, even there it can be difficult for all members to agree on what the flag should be or what it should represent.

At this point it would be a good idea to say a few words on another school of thought in sociology which offers additional insights on the nature of symbolism, and by extension, on the meaning of the flag.  I’m referring to a perspective identified as functionalism/structural functionalism which has roots in 19th century Europe and 20th century America as well (see for example the works of Talcott Parsons and Robert Merton) .  One of the most important functionalists was the French sociologist David Emile Durkheim (1858-1917).  Durkheim argues that the maintenance of  cohesion is essential to order and the continuation of society.  In his view it is necessary for individuals to be socialized to accept their roles in various spheres of life, rather than attempting to bring about radical change which may threaten the group’s very existence.  The institutions in which all of us play a part include the division of labor, the family, the church, political life, the educational system –  and according to Durkheim these institutions are social facts.  That is, their origins are social rather than individual in nature – for example, no one person can be said to have created the English language.  It is only through our ability to play our roles within these structures that we develop into human beings, rather than creatures who at birth simply have the potential to become human – and for Durkheim it is particularly important that we recognize the debt we owe to society, that is to say, the degree to which our survival depends on our integration into the group.  Durkheim realizes that we are not always mindful of this and therefore certain mechanisms are necessary in order to bring our membership in society to the forefront of our consciousness.  In this connection Durkheim speaks of what he calls collective representations.  These are symbols which represent and consolidate a given  group’s identity.  Members of the group can rally around them, and according to Durkheim it is especially important to do this publicly and with appropriate ceremony.  The flag of one’s country is a collective representation of course, but other symbols may include cultural products such as literature, films, music, and national or religious holidays.  In short, anything that represents the group to itself, and in that sense takes on an almost sacred quality.

It would be impossible to do justice to Durkheim’s work given the limited space available here, but it is important to note that although he offers valuable insights regarding the nature of group cohesion and the role that collective representations play in achieving this goal, he tends to underestimate the difficulties involved in maintaining solidarity.  As I’ve noted above, the flag issue in Vietnam and in the Vietnamese diaspora demonstrates that agreement on values and their symbolic representations is not easily achieved.  When we speak about shared values, what do we mean by this? Whose values are these, and who benefits when decisions are made about what constitutes them and how they should be concretized?  Symbolic interactionists and functionalists (Durkheim and others) have immeasurably enriched our understanding of the importance of symbols and symbolic communication, but they often ignore the question of power differentials and related issues such as social stratification.  We cannot always agree on everything, and perhaps the tensions generated by such differences of opinion can themselves be generative and a useful catalyst for change.

Thus far I have only touched upon two among many sociological perspectives.  Please note that the aim of this blog is to present different sociological perspectives only.  Other views, such as historical and political, being outside of the scope of this blog, are therefore not considered.