have had to acknowledge the significance of unconscious fac-
tors in the formation of myths and symbols.
Carl Gustav Jung (1875–1961) had less influence than
Freud on students of symbolism, but his research continues
to stimulate interdisciplinary studies, and it has won respect
in many depth psychology circles which are inimical to
Freud. By seeing symbols not merely as private symptoms of
unresolved repressions, but as expressions of the psyche’s
struggle for realization and individuation, Jung encouraged
a more positive assessment of many neglected esoteric and
mystical traditions from both East and West. His ideas af-
fected the work of the Sinologist Richard Wilhelm (1873–
1930) and the Indian scholar Heinrich Zimmer (1890–
1943). In contrast to Freud, Jung has not attracted much at-
tention from philosophers, but he has offered certain anthro-
pologists, such as Paul Radin (1883–1959), a balance to
Freud’s excesses. Mythologists such as Joseph Campbell and
Károly Kerényi (1897–1973), as well as numerous critics of
art and literature such as Herbert Read (1893–1968) and
Maud Bodkin, bear the stamp of Jung’s symbolic theory
clearly in their work. Although his methods of scholarship
and use of data were controversial, both during his lifetime
and afterward, Jung remains a testament to the power exert-
ed by the study of symbolism over the inquiring intellect.
PHILOSOPHY AND RELIGIOUS STUDIES. Although philoso-
phers and theologians have been interested in the problem
of symbols since the time of the Neoplatonists, twentieth-
century symbolic theory became something of a cottage in-
dustry among philosophers interested in or influenced by the
field of semiotics.
Charles Sanders Peirce (1839–1914) took the first im-
portant step in this direction. His distinctions among the
terms sign, symbol, index, and icon posed a number of fun-
damental questions that continue to intrigue many philoso-
phers; in fact, his research provided a stimulus for anthropol-
ogists and historians to forge similar distinctions in their own
work. In 1923, C. K. Ogden and I. A. Richards published
The Meaning of Meaning, which disseminated Peirce’s cate-
gories and stimulated interest in his ideas. American philoso-
pher C. W. Morris also incorporated new insights from se-
mantics and social psychology into the sphere of
philosophical logic.
Ernst Cassirer’s (1874–1945) work was much more am-
bitious in scope. He viewed the philosopher’s task as the
quest for the human spirit at work in culture, and coupled
this outlook with his neo-Kantian leanings to produce a the-
ory of “symbolic forms” as the basis to all human apprehen-
sion of the world. Although Cassirer’s apparent neglect of
criteria for verification has made him easy prey to later gener-
ations of scholars, his attempt to develop a consistent theory
of mind grounded in the symbolic function represents a bold
step beyond the purely logical frame of Peirce. His most no-
table successor in this regard has been Susanne Langer, best
known for her aesthetic theory.
Among contemporary philosophers who have grappled
impressively with the legacy of symbolic theory and with data
from psychoanalysis, anthropology, and linguistics, the work
of Paul Ricoeur stands out for the wide influence it has en-
joyed among students of religion. For Ricoeur, “thought”
needs something to “think about,” and what it thinks about
are symbols. The proper task of philosophy is hermeneutics,
which he understands as the recovery of meaning through
attention to the symbol-making function that begins with
language and carries over into every person’s attempt to be
rational.
Religious studies in the twentieth century have become
so closely bound to the study of symbols and the symbol-
forming process that one is almost unthinkable without the
other. The role that Mircea Eliade (1907–86) played in this
chapter of Western intellectual history is hard to overesti-
mate. In an impressive array of studies in the history of reli-
gions ranging from primitive societies to esoteric traditions,
Eliade gradually constructed a comparative view of the phe-
nomenon of symbolism that at once incorporates the gains
of other disciplines and informs them with fresh insight.
The study of symbolism has also left its impression on
modern theological studies. By introducing the philosophical
hermeneutic tradition into biblical research, Rudolf Bult-
mann (1884–1976) redefined the domain of scriptural
studies. In the area of systematic theology, Paul Tillich
(1886–1965), whose dependence on existential hermeneu-
tics is equally apparent, though at a more abstract level, ar-
gued throughout his work for the positive and indispensable
role that symbolism plays in religious language. Conversely,
he tried to show how the place of the symbol in human cul-
ture argues for the notion of an “Unconditioned” as a univer-
sal solvent of human consciousness.
GENERAL SYMBOLIC THEORY. A symbol usually is some-
thing concrete and particular that represents something else,
usually abstract and generalized. The symbol often becomes
a focal point for thoughts and emotions associated with its
referent, or a trigger for associated habits. While the symbol
itself is typically easily perceived, its referent may not be. In-
deed, theorists commonly define a symbol in such a way that
its referent is unclear, particularly with the powerful and last-
ing religious symbols, which generally resist direct connec-
tion to a single definable referent.
Theories of symbolism can be differentiated according
to the factors that are judged to be formative in the symboliz-
ing process (such as tradition and convention, biological
needs and processes, the occurrence of natural phenomena,
the structure of the human psyche, and divine hierophanies
and revelations). A common, though largely tacit, assump-
tion in most modern theories of symbolism is that the capaci-
ty to generate and use symbols is a core technology unique
to the human species. This assumption exists as a prerequisite
for, rather than an epiphenomenon of, the capacity for
higher-order mental activity. Cassirer made this point force-
fully in referring to symbolization as the root of all social8912 SYMBOL AND SYMBOLISM