Introduction to the Notion of Symbolic Form

Abstract

This chapter deals with Cassirer’s central notion of a “Symbolic form”. Acknowledging the fact that nowhere does Cassirer give a clear definition of what a “Symbolic form” is, the chapter starts by dismissing two misconceptions that would too reductively label a “Symbolic form” either a conceptual framework (like Darwinism or formalism) or a methodological tool (like differential calculus or perspective). Rather, “Symbolic forms” are viewed as instituting powers that enable different modes of meaning production by inducing distinct semiotic perspectives on a symbolic material. This dynamical view has two far-reaching consequences on the way of understanding the notion of a “Symbolic form”. Firstly, although Cassirer himself had difficulties departing from the idea that Language and Myth were stepping stones towards the later accomplishment of conceptual knowledge, their role should be understood otherwise so that his later work on other “Symbolic forms” like Art, Law or Technology would be clarified. As a consequence, any “Symbolic form” should rather be viewed as an example of a stabilized semiotic perspective on a symbolic material. Cassirer, although shaky in his vocabulary, describes these various semiotic perspectives by using three operators he describes as Expression, Evocation and Objectification that are to be found in all “Symbolic forms” whatever their number. Stabilized “Symbolic forms” emerge at the intersection points of these operators.