Recent stories about flags at the residence and vacation home of Justice Alito and his family remind me of something broader I’d been meaning to blog about: It’s disheartening, in our current era of polarized politics, how much political attention is focused on interpreting the meaning of phrases and symbols used by the opposing side.
The situation with the Alito flags is just one example, but this pattern seems to repeat itself. What does “from the river to the sea” mean? What is “critical race theory”? What does “all lives matter” mean? A significant portion of political discourse revolves around deciphering the meanings of these phrases and symbols.
There may already be an academic term for this phenomenon, but for now, I’ll refer to it as the “strange politics of meaning assignment.” Here’s the gist: In a divided political climate where communication between opposing sides is scarce, one can easily provoke their own side by offering a negative interpretation of the other side’s symbols or phrases. This is what they’re really saying, you declare. Now we can see their true colors. They are finally revealing their intentions. This is who they are.
While sometimes these assigned meanings may be accurate, often they are up for debate. A symbol or phrase may hold different meanings for different individuals. It could be innocuous or used in a context where its interpretation is unclear. In such cases, assigning meaning can lead to misunderstandings and conflicts. It can essentially create a false narrative about what those using the symbol or phrase actually intend.
As I have no personal insight into the specific meanings of certain flags, I cannot assess to what extent the Alito flag stories exemplify this dynamic. However, it appears that much of the political discourse in our society is plagued by this issue. A symbol or phrase is identified; someone from the opposing side asserts its meaning; and both sides are left with completely different understandings of the situation because they have attributed divergent meanings to these symbols or phrases.
This is not to suggest that there are no genuine differences in political beliefs or that some symbols and phrases are not deeply troubling. However, I question whether something essential is lost when we fixate on symbols and phrases instead of addressing the underlying disagreements directly.
