Pemaknaan Simbol Representasional Lintas Agama: Sebuah Upaya Merumuskan Alur Rekursif Imposisi Makna Simbol

Michael Alexander(1*)

(1) Gereja Kristen Indonesia - Darmo Satelit
(*) Corresponding Author


Representational symbols of religious identity are open resource of meaning. Instead of reconstructing meaning, interpretation is a recollection of cultural traditions. Therefore, disputes over symbols occur because of conflicting values, perceptions, and worldviews. However, cultural traditions are not static dogmas preserved in religious cultural memory. They are dynamic because they are also influenced by contemporary relations between groups. This paper argues for the fluidity of construction meaning of symbols and the role of social interaction and synthesize two ideas. First, Roland Barthes' view on a social semiotic approach to representational symbol will be raised. Second, the idea of symbolic interaction that meaning is a social construction, defined through interactions between collectives, and manifested in the form of actions following interpretations that arise within the subject of meaning. Finally, the author will formulate a recursive semiotic model as a synthesis of the two discussed approaches. The fluidity of meaning will appear through the definition and redefinition that occur in the recursive process. The conclusion to be drawn is that social relations are the key to the formulation of symbolic meaning.


Representational symbols, social semiotic, symbolic interaction, recursive semiotic

Full Text:



Alexander, M. (2018). Pertautan Intoleransi dan Praktik Dominasi: Analisa Konflik atas Kasus Ikonoklasme di Klenteng Kwan Sing Bio – Tuban. In A. Ryadi & A. J. A. S (Eds.), Membongkar Rezim Fanatisme (pp. 79–88). Surabaya: Fakultas Filsafat Unika Widya Mandala.

Bauer, M. W. (2015). On (social) representations and the iconoclastic impetus. In Gordon Sammut, E. Andreouli, G. Gaskell, & J. Valsiner (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Social Representations. UK: Cambridge University Press.

Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method. Berkeley-Los Angeles-London: University of California Press.

Budiman, K. (2011). Semiotika Visual: Konsep, Isu dan Problem Ikonitas. Yogyakarta: Jalasutra.

Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108(4).

Leeuwen, T. van. (2004). Introducing Social Semiotics. London/New York.

Moeschberger, S. L., & DeZalia, R. A. P. (2014). Symbols that Bind, Symbols that Divide: The Semiotics of Peace and Conflict. In Peace Psychology Book Series. Switzerland: Springer.

Noyes, J. (2016). The Politics of Iconoclasm. London/New York: Taurus.

Rowley, M. (2014). What Causes Religious Violence? Journal of Religion and Violence, 2(3), 361–402.

Sammut, G., Andreouli, E., Gaskell, G., & Valsiner, J. (2015). Social representations: A revolutionary paradigm? In The Cambridge Handbook of Social Representations. UK: Cambridge University Press.

Schirch, L. (2005). Ritual and Symbols in Peacebuilding. Bloomfield: Kumarian Press.

Sunardi St. (2013). Semiotika Negativa. Yogyakarta: Penerbit Buku Baik.

Susan, N. (2014). Pengantar Sosiologi Konflik. Jakarta: Kencana.

Umiarso, & Elbadiansyah. (2014). Interaksionisme Simbolik dari Era Klasik Hingga Modern. Rajawali Pers.

Veltri, G. (2015). Social semiotics and social representations. In G. Sammut, E. Andreouli, G. Gaskell, & J. Valsiner (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Social Representations (pp. 234–249). UK: Cambridge University Press.

Wedepohl, C. (2014). Aby Warburg’s Theory of Memory. Bruniana & Campanelliana.


Article Metrics

Abstract views : 3499 | views : 3006


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2020 Jurnal Filsafat

Jurnal Filsafat Indexed by:

Google ScholarSinta (Science and Technology Index)

Jurnal Filsafat ISSN 0853-1870 (print), ISSN 2528-6811 (online)