The problem of understanding culture and its use by people was first considered in the concept of symbolic interactionism, which was formed in the 1920s and 1930s as a reaction to the behaviorists’ “stimulus-response” approach. In the concept of this theory, special attention is paid to communication, through which the essential characteristics of society and the individual, their unity, achieved in the process of interaction, are manifested. Through the process of socialization, people can more or less consciously interpret stimuli and expected responses. The use of symbols transforms the process of socialization, freeing it from the boundaries of space and time. Hence, symbolic interactionism asserts that people’s relationships with physical or objective reality are mediated by the symbolic environment – the consciousness, self, and society that they have internalized. In other words, the meanings that people give to signs and symbols determine them and the reality they experience. Moreover, in the process of socialization, common cultural values control how individuals interact with the environment.
The COVID-19 pandemic became an unprecedented situations – millions of people were forced to isolate themselves at home, and a new reality had to set in. The medical mask has become an unofficial symbol of the pandemic: for some, it was the mark of reason, of people who understand the situation and abide by the rules, keeping themselves and others safe. For others, however, the mask became the symbol of oppression, of governmental control, and even world-scale conspiracy against humanity. The communication has changed, too: state leaders employed various narratives, often interweaving them with cultural meaning, to reach their people and ensure the community’s commitment to fighting the disease. Celebrities joined in on encouraging their fans to stay at home, and many new concepts were introduced that would later turn into other symbols of the world crisis: lockdowns, self-isolation, vaccination, remote work, and others. It is a prime example of symbolic interactionism, as through these new symbols of rapidly changing reality, many people all around the world shared specific and similar experiences.
An interesting example of how symbols integrated into political narratives during global crisis were the communication strategies employed by different states. A large-scale outbreak of a pandemic caused by a new type of infectious agent can lead to mass panic, aggressive stigmatization, and exacerbation of value contradictions up to a medical information war. Indeed, the Western and the Eastern worlds approached these issues rather differently. New political cultures formed on the foundation of authorities responses that can now be dissected and studied more closely. Kenworthy et al. (2020) states that, in order to design more effective interventions for future public health crises, a deeper, more complex understanding of political culture during such crises. A good example here can be considered the American society which was hit with a pandemic at a time when division in political views and parties was exceptionally strong in the country. Mass media symbolic representation of public health phenomena such as masks and influencing organizations – WHO, for example – became a crucial part of the new discourses and arguments.
Any society can simultaneously experience waves of individual and collective panic, as well as outbreaks of causal interpretations of the disease. States attempt to counter it with a rush of competing control strategies that aim either to contain either the disease itself or subsequent epidemics of fear and social decay. Airhinenbuwa et al. (2020) emphasizes how culture and its specific symbols is central to the engaging and effective public communication about mitigating healthcare risks during a crisis. Differentiation of meaning of universal messages such as mask wearing or social distancing in various cultures prompts new thoughts on how to approach public communication (Airhinenbuwa et al., 2020). Within this approach, cultural narratives and symbols – for example, wearing hijab in Muslim countries – are transformed to adhere to prevention measures, enhancing the impact and effectivity of state’s dialogue with the public through symbolism.
An appropriate example of such narrative relevant to the pandemic is the use of facial masks with representation of cultural symbols on them. Perach and Limbu (2022) proposed that activation of cultural values such as mutual trust and collective resilience can be performed through exposure to face masks with cultural symbols. The authors (2022) state that the face masks, which became a symbol of COVID-19 pandemic due to their significance in disease prevention, imbued with cultural symbols, facilitate solidarity in people, positively influencing public outcomes. Using religion, cultural heritage, and historical allusions, states can communicate the importance of community in overcoming the crisis, and promote their goals through meaningful images.
Another interesting example of this concept is the UK’s state response to the pandemic crisis. Döring and Nerlich (2022) discussed how metaphors and symbolical representation used by the government influenced overall representation of COVID-19 pandemic in media and public opinion of the UK. The authors (2022) explain how the state-proclaimed “war” on pandemic shaped British public narrative on COVID-19, turning protective measures such as distancing, isolation, and face masks into “weapons” in social mind. This symbolic narrative transferred onto the process of developing vaccines, transforming it into a “race”: between states and between society and the virus itself (Döring & Nerlich, 2022). Morgan (2020) dissects another perspective on the UK government’s response to the pandemic: he shows how state’s constant attempts to attribute meaning and moral narrative to every decision lead to miscommunications between stakeholders. Splitting the crisis into separate phases to develop a secular passage of “social drama” ultimately resulted in deaths of the UK citizens due to mismanagement (Morgan, 2020). This demonstrates the concept of culture’s relative autonomy, outlining its impact on public behavior and political legitimacy of state’s decisions.
The pandemic changed the world not only in terms of healthcare and economy but also in the area of symbolic meanings and interpretations. Major issues such as that can help better visualize and understand concepts that might seem complex to understand at the first glance. By connecting the COVID-19 pandemic, the symbols it brought with it, and narratives different states used to justify their decisions or encourage people helps gain better insight into the symbolic interaction theory. Indeed, reality and human perception influence each other constantly; however, it is not easy to track changes that occur gradually over time. The theory provides a framework for understanding how people develop their interpretations and what roles do symbols play in forming individual responses and beliefs. Moreover, it explains the connection between stimulus and response, offering insight into how social and cultural environment impacts personal judgement and reactions. Even with universal, significant symbols such as medical mask, people can perceive different emotions and meanings based on their background and environment. Symbolic interaction theory provides a theoretical framework on how to recognize, connect, and employ these meanings to manipulate individual and community responses. Through it, a more effective communication strategy can be formed for tackling future public crises.
References
Airhihenbuwa, C. O., Iwelunmor, J., Munodawafa, D., Ford, C. L., Oni, T., Agyemang, C., Mota, C., Ikuomola, O. B., Simbayi, L., Fallah, M. P., Qian, Z., Makinwa, B., Niang, C., & Okosun, I. (2020). Culture matters in communicating the global response to COVID-19. Preventing Chronic Disease, 17. Web.
Döring, M., & Nerlich, B. (2022). Framing the 2020 coronavirus pandemic: Metaphors, images and symbols. Metaphor and Symbol, 37(2), 71–75. Web.
Kenworthy, N., Koon, A. D., & Mendenhall, E. (2021). On symbols and scripts: The politics of the American COVID-19 response. Global Public Health, 16(8-9), 1424–1438. Web.
Morgan, M. (2020). Why meaning-making matters: The case of the UK government’s COVID-19 response. American Journal of Cultural Sociology, 8(3), 270–323. Web.
Perach, R., & Limbu, M. (2022). Can culture beat Covid‐19? evidence that exposure to facemasks with cultural symbols increases Solidarity. British Journal of Social Psychology, 61(3), 991–1010. Web.