Rethinking political symbolism: Government advertising and the Strengthening

Medicare campaign

Gwilym Croucher

Department of Political Science University of Melbourne

Refereed paper presented to the Australasian Political Studies Association conference

University of Newcastle 25-27 September 2006

Rethinking political symbolism: Government advertising and the Strengthening Medicare campaign

In the contemporary age of informational cacophony and fickle constituencies, the unilateral power of symbols would seem at the very least varied. However, what of the controversy incited by the burning of the Australian flag after the 2005 Cronulla riots? Are there still examples of strong (or even weak) symbols that invoke senses of collective identity, reverence and political passion, and that iterate political action? Political symbolism has often been set against the rational dimensions of political processes and institutions. At times this has meant that the analysis of political symbolism has been seen as ancillary to the real business of politicspower and interests. But is this adequate in the current image-rich age in which among other things there has been a massive growth in the professionalisation of political communication? This paper surveys key theoretical research on the nature of symbolism in the political context. It argues for a reconsideration of the role of symbolism in political analysis. In particular it will examine mundane forms of symbolism, symbolic forms that while seemingly innocuous and uncontroversial can entail strong or significant meanings. The paper will critically appraise how adequately existing political communication theory deals with mundane symbolism, and in the process suggest new ways to think about how governments communicate with citizens. These themes are explored through Australian federal government advertising, and in particular the case of the 2004 Strengthening Medicare campaign.

Introduction

Many of the once common badges of British empire have slipped from public

view in Australia over the last half century, removing overt and often grand

symbols of empire. While political symbols may no longer feature as

prominently in the public domain as they once did, the burning of an Australian

flag after the 2005 Cronulla riots demonstrates that some forms of symbolism

can still evoke political passions. Though the controversy spurred by such

action is undoubtedly less serious than it would have been in more distant times

and places, most people would acknowledge that the act invokes some

common understandings - it is still quite clearly an act of political symbolism.

The Cronulla flag burning is an obvious example of political symbolism, but is

certainly not an isolated one. Many seemingly banal political actions and

discourses are imbued with political symbolism.

This paper surveys some of the key literature which explores political

symbolism and argues for a reconsideration of its role in political analysis. It

proposes that alongside analysis that centres on power and interests,

consideration of political symbolism provides useful insights. Specifically, this

paper argues that what can be termed mundane forms of political symbolism

need to be considered. Like their grander symbolic peers, mundane symbolic

- 2 -

forms evoke political recognition, promoting normative or positive ideas about

politics. Mundane symbolic forms are often overlooked precisely because they

are mundane. This paper will exemplify the notion of mundane symbolism by

looking at a recent Australian government advertising campaign. Specifically, it

will examine the Strengthening Medicare campaign which advertised changes

to health policy during 2004.

Political Symbolism Some political actions are merely symbolic - they have little lasting value and

people may not pay them much attention. This view is often implicitly (if not

explicitly) present in political analysis. Positive political studies have tended to

treat symbolic dimensions as addenda to an analysis centring on manifest

political behaviour. This is a view also sometimes publicly proffered, as debate

from 2003 on the Kyoto protocol exemplifies,

Hopeless symbolism is a romantic notion; it might get you a cheer at a rallyor in an

airport lounge apparently, going by recent eventsbut it simply will not win any battles

(Senator Santo Sentoro to Senator Bob Brown, Senate 2003).

In part this is a consequence of an approach of political studies that views the

world in rational terms. This is an approach that searches for provable

causation, made all the more difficult with few opportunities in the social

sciences to definitively establish correlation as causation. Allowing room,

however, for concurrent analysis of the symbolic in action that is not often

thought to be analytically valuable symbolic meaning can provide some useful

insights.

Political action of all types involves meanings for participants and

observers irrespective of long-term consequences or effects (Kertzer 1988).

While symbolism may often be seen as only peripheral to political analysis, it is

central to much anthropological, cultural, and sociological research. Some

important research that explicitly engages with political symbolism includes

Cohen (1979) and Turner (1967), who both highlight the importance of meaning

to understanding political action (see also Haas 2002). Gusfield and

Michalowicz (1984) argue for the importance of secular forms of symbolism and

- 3 -

ritual. Other theorists have explored the role of symbolism in a variety of

applicable contexts. Melucci (1989) argues for the importance of symbolism in

understanding the evolution of social movements, while Smith (1991) and

others focus on the role of symbols in nationalism. Gamboni (2005) has

highlighted the symbolism inherent in the artistic representation of the body

politic in the post enlightenment period. Contemporary practices of political

communication, with the emphasis on highly managed, professional focus

group informed communications (see Bennett & Manheim 2001; Blumbler &

Kavanagh 1999; Bartle & Griffiths 2001) are certainly sites of, at times, overt

political symbolism. The increased media exposure of those who exercise

political power, coupled with the ascendance of television as a key medium of

political communication in the advanced democracies, means that such

communication is often seen as being constituted by slogans, gestures and

gimmicks; in short it is symbolically constituted.

There are moreover some notable texts that have explicitly focused on

political symbolism. Two seminal studies are Arnolds The Symbols of

Government (1935) and Edelmans 1964 The Symbolic Uses of Politics.

Specifically focusing upon the United States, Edelman (1964) argues that much

of the procedural mechanics of modern liberal democracy can be understood in

terms of the meanings it generates for the polity as much as the functions it

ostensibly fulfils. Much of the purpose of the act of voting in an election is in its

ritualistic characteristics, as it is in the vote that is cast. Indeed, he argues that

the most cherished forms of popular participation in government are largely

symbolic (Edelman 1964, 4). While much of the literature has tended to

dismiss political symbolism as ancillary, this perhaps overstates its importance.

What can be said about political actions, emblems, signs and objects is

that they have at least a symbolic element; they invoke meaning that can be

delineated from the literal reading (understanding) of the signs involved, be they

visual or auditory cues showing that they have intrinsically expressive

components (Kertzer 1988). Certain actions and images (political symbols),

however, produce meanings that are both widely understood and evoke

particularly defined responses. They are a signifier that is shorthand for a

complex signified (Firth 1973, 54-92). While a flag has a literal meaning in that

it designates a place and a state, it also connotes a variety of meanings about

people, nation and governance. This begs the question, how can we

- 4 -

distinguish then between any utterance, visual image or prose that refers to

politics and a political symbol? There are several important characteristics that can be used to

analytically denote symbols as a distinguishable category from other forms of

communication. While these characteristics are certainly not constrained to

political symbolism these are features that are important in thinking about it.

These features include the ability to evoke complex yet common meaning that

are manifest in various forms. As a starting point it is worth exploring the

slippage between the manifestation of, and meaning produced by, particular

symbolism. This relationship between embodiment, physical form and meaning

is illustrated through aspects of Indigenous Australian culture. The Indigenous

Australian dreamtime belief is complex and varies between the distinct cultural

groups and, significantly, it manifests through a variety of different forms. Like

many other societies around the world, indigenous cultures use items

weapons, tree carvings and possum skin cloaks that hold a combined value,

one that is directly instrumental and one that is symbolic (Murphy 1998). The

two values need not have had any direct relation. A tool could be a

representation of restricted knowledge that was unrelated to its physical

functionality. Indeed, physicality was often not important. Restricted knowledge

could also be embodied in many other less concrete forms as varied as body

painting, certain localities or natural phenomena (Murphy 1998, 330-339; Munn

1986). The significance of this for the purpose of this argument is the

equivalence in symbolic meaning between physical objects and less tangible

forms. There is, in effect, a slippage between the physical and the non-physical

in understandings of symbolic representation of history, culture and in

metaphysics in many Indigenous Australian cultures.

This same slippage between the symbols of Indigenous Australians can

be seen in many other societies, polities and cultures. A national flag is a quite

pervasive and commonplace symbol of nationalism. On one level it usually

signifies a particular state, and is mobilised to represent a nation. Though the

notion of a nation is often conceptualised in a similar vein to Benedict

Andersons (1991) imagined community, or as a part mythical construction

(Smith 2004), it remains negotiated to varying degrees. Yet its usage

permeates everyday communication, as ubiquitous references to the national

interest exemplify. For many activists the protests in Seattle in 1999, and

- 5 -

subsequent events that have come to constitute the anti-globalisation

movement, are symbolic and experiential actions that bespeak a multiplicity of

problems facing the world which go beyond those caused by the reconfiguration

of the global trading regime (McDonald 2006, 70-84). Without labouring this

point it is important to acknowledge the intangible nature of much political

symbolism. The physical manifestation is almost always secondary to the web

of shared meaning that is a political symbol. Political symbols are objects,

songs, rituals and phrases.

The complex nature of symbolic forms, items and events (and slippage

between them) means that at least in regard to political symbolism an obviously

important characteristic is that of mutual recognition. While the interpretation of

meanings may differ between individuals and contexts, symbols nonetheless

contain many elements that are commonly understood, irrespective of the value

judgment that is placed upon the meaning (Gusfield & Michalowicz 1984),

across disparate populations. The fact that many diasporas can share common

symbols despite their extensive dispersion (Skrbi 1999) exemplifies this.

Furthermore, symbolism has also played an important role in uniting groups of

people who share few other cultural or linguistic similarities. The reconfiguration

of a Polish state and society after the collapse of the Soviet Union was certainly,

in part, a result of the use of Catholic symbolism and Pope John Paul II (Kubik

1994).

Symbols are often composed of abstract meanings, acting as shorthand

for a series of characteristics that define a particular idea (Mach 1993; Firth

1973). Gusfield & Michalowicz (1984, 419) argue that complexity of the

meaning within particular symbolism impacts upon how widely recognised it is,

drawing a distinction between what is the ostensible meaning and the latent

meaning. The latter category suggests meanings that are not immediately

apparent but perceptible all the same. The latent meaning is suggested as

something that is beyond the literal or simple recognition of the symbol, but is

rather part of a process of recognition. A flag designates a particular spatial

region that forms the bounded area of a state. It also importantly embodies

notions about how a society is deemed to operate, and certain moral and social

values, or indeed sometimes religious ones (Friedland 2001), that ostensibly

- 6 -

are held by those who mobilise the flag to represent them.1 Cosktis (2005)

research on the Confederate flag in the United States demonstrates that even

long officially disavowed symbols maintain a significant social longevity.

Many symbols are defined by the conflict over their nature, ownership

and meaning. The ability of a symbol to invoke many different meanings, its

multivocality (Turner 1967), renders political symbolism constantly contested

and renegotiated between those who mobilise them and those who are

subjected to them; between elites and laypersons. As Harrison (1995)

demonstrates, at various times in the past power has been directly derived from

control over a societys symbols. The struggle over national symbols

throughout the twentieth century in Northern Ireland is a pertinent example of

the struggle over symbols of both state and nation. Mutual hatred between

Loyalists and Republicans has mobilised similar understanding of the meaning

of many common symbols of Northern Ireland (Morris 2005). The celebration of

the bicentenary of Anglo presence in Australia in 1988, which consumed much

government, media and communal focus, was fraught with public debate about

what the event meant. The controversy centred around whether the event

signalled invasion or settlement, whether commemoration of the event was an

appropriate vehicle for building national identity and what form of identity it

generates (Spillman 1997). As a symbol the commemoration of the bicentenary

was both complex and contested, and was difficult to reduce to a single physical

symbol, or even place. Notwithstanding the extension of this argument further

throughout this paper, it must be recognised that what may superficially appear

as quite simple symbols can often entail diverse and even contradictory

understandings and thus speak to complex power dynamics. Political symbols

often embody tension of common cursory recognition but not common

understanding, of both similarity and disjuncture.

Many symbols are tied intimately to myths. These are myths that are

often ingrained in culture, even if they are only rarely acknowledged or

celebrated publicly, evoking symbols as their currency. While the term myth

1 Sheery Ortners (1973) category of summarizing as opposed to elaborating symbols is a pertinent formulation, as summarizing symbols focus meaning to some central canonical point, rather than opening up possibilities of meaning. If a flag signals the system of government in a particular state then it also signals the theoretical underpinnings of that system and indicates by extension that those who utilise the flag ostensibly hold those concepts to be important. For those that claim some ownership over the flag as a symbol are tied emotions, linked spatially and temporally. A flag is an affective phenomenon.

- 7 -

often denotes simplistic explanation of phenomena (that is does not exist, is

unreal), the sense in which it is used in this paper is to capture the notion that

societies tell stories about themselves as part of the process of identity

formation and reaffirmation. Myth can be in this sense itself shorthand that

captures essential elements of collective identity. The creation of the modern

Turkish state provides a good example of this (Cetin 2004).

Myths are a feature of every advanced industrial society (Fontana 1994),

they are not just the purview of ancient societies. We tell myths about the

formation and operation of society, about wars and famines. Myths can unite,

as the story of German and English soldiers reading each other Shakespeare in

the trenches of the First World War shows (Engler 1992). Myths can propose

who is to blame for social problems, such as the rotten west belief held by

many Serbs (Olovi 2002). Myths may be officially propagated or have a popular

life of their own, such as the myth and symbolism built up around American

presidents (Dunn 2001, Hinckley 1990). What defines a myth in this context is

therefore the notion that a narrative is utilised as part of defining what a society

is, and what it is not; what values it accepts and what values it does not accept;

who is in and who is out. Myths are not necessarily denoted and labelled as

such. They can be a simple repetition of a stereotype of who is to blame for

some perceived social ill. The single mother on welfare with several children

who is claimed to both destroy the social fabric and waste scarce resources

through her own moral deficiency is a classic example of a modern day myth,

as much as the ANZAC story, often held to define the Australian national

character, is one. The ANZAC story is certainly an enduring Australian

mythological form, Ken Inglis (1999, 61) suggesting that at times it has been

held with a quasi-religious reverence. In discussions of politics then, the

concept of symbolism often must make reference to the notion of myth.

Political symbolism often entails complex meanings which may be

contested, yet they evoke common understanding with slippage between the

form they take and the meaning they produce. Political symbols are often

encapsulated in myths. Not all symbolic and mythic forms are, however, as

contentious and acknowledged as flags. Some symbolic forms are mundane.

These are symbols that are rarely designated as such, yet are political symbols

that imbue meaning to stakeholders, citizens and agents within a state or other

community. These symbols can be the emblems of state, of nation, of policy

- 8 -

and of values. They are the everyday reminders of the political context that are

perilously close to the banal. They are seldom contested in the public sphere,

nevertheless they form a part of the broader symbolism that reflects the

priorities of a society.

Mundane Symbols, Political Practice and Symbolic Capital

Like their more overt symbolic peers, mundane symbols must evoke recognition

of the political; they connote or denote normative or positive ideas about the

organisation of groups of people, the primacy of a particular culture and the

distribution of resources within and between groups. What is distinct about

mundane symbols is their seemingly uncontroversial character as political

symbols. They are uncontroversial in the sense that the fact that they convey a

particular meaning seems unobjectionable, though there may be, on reflection,

contestable issues surrounding the particular idea(l). This is to suggest that

distinct from the agreed messages that are embodied in the symbol, the usage

of the symbols is uncontroversial, and often unacknowledged. As a category,

mundane symbols delineate political messages that are not overtly mobilised as

political symbols yet espouse meanings recognisable as such. They are the

cosy book ends that indicate the political, yet sit at the periphery of many

public debates, the badges of a particular normative political ideal or system of

governance, or signs that imply how things are done and what is important.

This is in stark opposition to many of the examples of symbolism in the first

section of this paper, with some of the most prominent symbols in political life

being highly contested with regard to ownership, meaning and validity. Over

the meaning and ownership of flags much blood has been spilt, over the

meaning and ownership of the emblems of the welfare state it has not,

irrespective of whether one likes or dislikes the vestiges of the welfare state.

Mundane symbols are embedded to a certain degree in the political culture.

Suggesting that it is worthy to focus on less contested and less

acknowledged symbolism is not to argue that mundane symbols are

synonymous with any communication that can be deemed to have political

connotation. They are communicative forms that entail all the potential

complexity of symbolism. Part of the usefulness in designating such

communication as symbolic is that it acknowledges that political actors can

- 9 -

mobilise very complex political meanings in what is ostensibly quite direct

communication.

The possibility of mundane symbolism as a distinguishable phenomenon

that can imply social and political understandings requires consideration of

several important concepts of communication. Media and cultural studies have

acknowledged the importance of framing as a way to understand how media

actors present certain information (Hall 1980; Entman 1993, 77). This is often

achieved through identifying the particular language and imagery used, coupled

with the content. This has been expanded by theorists such as Fairhurst and

Star (1996) to include the notion of framing in organisations. This points to the

fact that organisations can frame to a certain degree how members of a

particular organisation behave. Highlighting the mundane nature of many

political symbols is to suggest that to a certain degree these are exchanges that

are framed, but in such a way that they imply social and political values.

Governments can frame their view of the world for citizens and citizens frame

their view of governments to each other. The concept is useful insofar as it

draws attention to the fact that political messages must be situated in the

context in which they are to be understood. Mundane political symbols can be

seen as part of a perceived framing process, but certainly not synonymous with

it.

In clarifying the notion of mundane symbolism it is worth noting Ajume

Wingos (2003) political veils. Wingo (2003, 4) defines the concept of political

veils saying [real] veils are cloth sheets that block a subjects direct perception

of an object political veils serve the same kind of veiling function in the

political sphere. Political veils consist of symbols, traditions, rituals and

mythologies. Importantly, Wingo (2003) views such veils as mediators between

the citizenry and the political structure, arguing that they need to be viewed as

presenting a superficial image and a deep image. The latter point highlights the

different understandings of observers depending on proximity, experience and

knowledge of a particular instance of veiling. One instance Wingo uses to

demonstrate this is the legendary status of Abraham Lincoln in the United

States; the Lincoln that is taught to American school children is not the Lincoln

of history (2003, 25). The argument here is that Lincoln the symbol does not

capture the complexity that was Lincoln the man. Wingos notion of political

veiling attempts to highlights the disjunction between political narrative and fact.

- 10 -

This is to say that there is a separate social reality, one that can be talked about

and represented. Mundane political symbolism, however, implies that a hard

disjuncture between political narrative and political fact can be problematical.

The uncontroversial characteristic of discrete mundane symbols is important in

this regard. It points to the fact that in the act of politically communicating there

is often significant (and sometimes quite contested) information present, but

that it is often uncontroversial and unacknowledged. This is to suggest that

there is not necessarily a macro system of meaning mediation as Wingo (2003,

4) sees political veils. Indeed, the notion of mundane political symbolism is

intended to help demonstrate that the complexity of a communication event

need not assume a macro system of meaning mediation outside that

communication.

Governments often mobilise political symbols. From wars to welfare

reform governments appeal to commonly understood symbols to promote their

agenda. This mobilisation of symbols is not limited to overt attempts at change,

it often also appears in more mundane forms of communication. When

governments communicate with a polity many characteristics can alter the

meaning (Corcoran 1979). Many ostensibly informational campaigns that are

undertaken by government communicate more than simple information for the

polity. While the literal meaning of a particular action might be quite banal and

seemingly unimportant but for its informational content, it may speak to larger

issues than those that are directly addressed. In few democracies do a majority

of the population pay great heed to much of the action in the political sphere.

There has been considerable debate surrounding the issue of a perceived

disengagement with public life, for example Putnams much debated Bowling

Alone thesis (1995; 2000). Leaving aside the extent that this malaise exists and

that many people within the first world are disengaged from, and indeed as it is

sometimes suggested, dispassionate about public affairs, people still have

political opinions. These opinions need not be well informed, logically

consistent or stable (Merelman 1998). Many seemingly politically banal actions

and communications mobilise political symbols that are mundane.

A simple advertisement that alerts the elderly to available services is

usually by itself a fairly uncontentious maker of public policy, rarely recognised

as a site of ideological contestation. It certainly may be seen to say a lot about

how the elderly are viewed at a particular juncture in time and indeed might be a

- 11 -

symbol of the treatment of the elderly in a society. However, if we view such a

communication as one of many communications about the way the elderly are

treated, and also consider the information proffered about other sections of

society, then another story can be seen to emerge. This is a story about how a

particular government interacts with its polity. So for example, if a democratic

government spends a considerable time talking about measures of social justice

then it is promoting the view that it, as a representative of the people, is wedded

to certain notions of equality. More importantly it is implicitly volunteering a

preferred balance between liberty and equality. A government will, intentionally

or not, promote a view about what values it deems to be important, and this is

partly done, I suggest, by the mobilisation of mundane symbols as the above

example demonstrates.

The mundane characteristics of some political symbolism is certainly not

limited to official government communication. Ronald Rotundas (1991) study

on the evolution of the word liberalism in the both United Kingdom and in the

United States is very telling concerning the diachronic vicissitudes of political

terminology. He tracks the changing usage of the term, demonstrating the

changing meanings that have been attributed to it from the time of Mills On

Liberty to after Roosevelts New Deal. What is striking about the term is that at

various points in the last two hundred years many different political groups

across several continents holding quite disparate political beliefs have mobilised

the term. Tracking the shifting usage of liberal, Rotunda concludes that its

mobilisation in England was initially very ubiquitous and while it would ultimately

end up referring to a specific party, it was for an extended period a positive yet

vague term. This to suggest that its usage was often quite uncontroversial, in

the sense that it has been applied to mundane symbols. In the United States a

similar phenomenon occurred. Various groups would mobilise the label in

support of distinct causes, some which did not necessarily conform to the tenets

of classical liberalism. Leaving aside contemporary uses of liberal, its

mobilisation for many years can be seen as fairly mundane as a political

symbol. Its use was both pervasive and uncontroversial, mobilised in many

instances for its connotative value (Rotunda 1991, 20-39). Before the label

came to have its present fixed meaning, it was utilised by actors in such a way

that it connoted a vague set of ideas about liberty and equality, so as to

- 12 -

enhance the primary argument being advanced. In this way the use of the label

liberal can be viewed as a mundane symbol.

If we accept that it is possible to delineate mundane political symbols as

a distinguishable category, it begs the question of why such meanings are

mobilised given that they are uncontroversial, and thus presumably accepted by

the addressees. Why mobilise meaning in a redundant way, why wear a badge

when it is unnecessary? The concept of symbolic capital is useful for thinking

about why certain symbols are mobilised. Bourdieu (1990; 1991) argues that

capital is not limited to the physical machinery of production and industry. He

argues that there is another very important form of capital that spawns from

markers and relationships. This is symbolic capital. For Bourdieu symbolic

capital is still very much related to its physical brethren, in that it is a means by

which things can be achieved in the real world. It is however essentially an

abstract concept that encapsulates, at it most basic, elements of relations

between people. As a form of capital it is recognised by markers that are

possessed by individuals or groups that allow them certain benefits. Crucial for

the concept is this acknowledgment of the symbolic recognition between

groups. Though it is a highly abstract concept, it still often has clear physical

markers titles, awards, institutions and buildings these are all badges that

indicate forms of symbolic capital. Its abstract nature means that it can be

neither borrowed nor lent, it is indivisible and yet negotiated.

Thompson (2000) argues that political scandal is ultimately detrimental

because it erodes the symbolic capital of a political actor, destroying trust and

an individuals reputation. In an inverted fashion, mundane symbolism can be a

means of generating and reinforcing elements of symbolic capital, such as trust

and reputation, values and beliefs. Through the mobilisation of mundane

symbols political actors can reinforce the symbolic capital they enjoy. It is a

means by which actors can mobilise meanings that are ostensibly peripheral to

the central communication yet are an expression of a broader symbolic capital

possessed. It is in some sense a symbolic value adding.

A distinctive site of symbolic capital and one that is illustrative of the use

of mundane symbolism is the democratic state. Bourdieus (1994) article

Rethinking the State posits that the state enjoys sway over a great variety of

distinct manifestations of capital. He contends that,

- 13 -

The state is the culmination of the process of concentration of different species of

capital; capital of physical force instruments of coercion (army, police), economic

capital, cultural or (better) informational capital, and symbolic capital. It is a

concentration as such which constitutes the state as the holder of a sort of meta-

capital granting power over species of capital and over their holders. (Bourdieu

1994, 5)

Bourdieus reinterpretation of the state for the purpose of this paper points to a

site of symbolic power within the state. He argues that it is a symbolic capital of

recognised authority (Bourdieu 1994, 8). A simply illustration of this falls to

much basic normative democratic theory. What a government communicates

has legitimacy if we concede that to a recognisable extent a democratic

government speaks as the people, through legitimacy drawn from popular

mandate. In their communication they enjoy a form of symbolic capital, that

being the legitimacy of government opinion. Additionally the significant

resources most democratic governments command (physical and informational

capital) contributes to government communication as representative of symbolic

capital through a presumption that governments have the resources and

expertise to do things properly. This formulation suggests that governments by

their very nature must enjoy a degree of authenticity and authority in

communication. The legitimacy of opinion that governments enjoy is a form of

symbolic capital. If a government mobilises mundane symbolism that speaks to

that legitimacy, as the above scenario of advertising services for the elderly

indicates, then this can be understood as an expression and reinforcement of a

governments symbolic capital. The ability of governments to express quite

complex ideas about the ordering of social priorities through everyday, often

uncontroversial, gestures and communications that is to say through

mundane symbols is an expression of symbolic capital.

The significance in differentiating a mundane form of symbolism is that it

forces focus on how meaning is mobilised by important political actors. If the

meanings that are portrayed are unprovable and complex, yet the mobilisation

is uncontroversial and unacknowledged as such, then it potentially has

implications for what role is ascribed to what are often thought of as relatively

benign political phenomena such as informational campaigns, beyond viewing

them as simple party political propaganda. It raises the question of whether

extra attention needs to be paid to what are ostensibly informational

- 14 -

communications by powerful stakeholders if a more holistic view of political

communication is to be established.

The Strengthening Medicare media campaign and mundane political symbolism

During 2002 and 2003 the Australian Commonwealth government undertook a

major policy review of the Federally funded healthcare system Medicare. As

these changes were being implemented the government ran a large media

campaign costing over 25 million dollars. The Strengthening Medicare

campaign is a useful case study illustrating the mobilisation of mundane political

symbolism. The television and print aspects of the campaign contain

symbolism that implies the proper role of government in Australian society, the

right to medical treatment, and the competence of the government in delivering

its desired outcome. It is a campaign that situates the government as a

protector of Medicare through an appeal to several political discourses, some

explicitly political, others more mundane. This was a campaign that ran in the

context of much criticism from policy and healthcare professionals about the

policy generally. Though the campaign was designated as informational, it was

also an expression of the symbolic capital that the government enjoys with

regard to its management of healthcare in Australia, and an expression more

generally of its capacity for good governance. This reinforcement of symbolic

capital is achieved because the campaign contains elements of mundane

political symbolism.

The Australian Medicare system, among other benefits, provides two

primary forms of subsidised doctors consultation. The government schedules a

fee for most medical services, which is either bulk billed directly to the doctor

or is reimbursed to the patient after the visit.2 The measures were designed to

2 For those doctors that choose to bulk bill, the government provides bulk remuneration without the patient being required to pay a fee at the time of the consultation (at the rate of 85% of the scheduled fee). For those the doctors that wish for remuneration above the government designated amount, they must charge an upfront fee for the total amount, with patients able to recoup the designated rebate (85% of the scheduled fee) from a government shopfront after the consultation. The reason that doctors are not allowed to both bulk bill a patient and charge the gap fee at the time of the consultation is that it is thought that patients would be more willing to pay a small gap fee at the time of the consultation, than to initially endure the out-of-pocket expense and then be required to visit a government shop front. Doctors were assumed to prefer being able to charge a small gap fee on top of non-bulk billing rather than the full cost of the consultation upfront (see Gray 2004 for an extensive discussion of Medicare).

- 15 -

encourage bulk billing as it was argued that patients would favour the cheaper

and easier bulk billing doctors as there was no out-of-pocket expense. Bulk

billing was also intended to minimise medical cost inflation, as it was designed

to be attractive to doctors and thus allowed the government a mechanism to

help control the cost of consultations.3

During the early part of the decade the percentage of doctors who bulk

billed decreased significantly. This prompted the government to introduce a

strategy to entice doctors back to bulk billing. In the context of generally

increasing national health care costs the government proposed a number of

changes to ensure the viability of the Medicare system. Originally proposed by

the Howard government in 2003 as Medicare Plus, the package included

measures to provide incentives for doctors to bulk bill certain sections of the

population, being those with concession cards and children, as well as

extending the safety net provisions. The government proposed to pay 100% of

the scheduled fee for concession card holders and children, which amounted to

an effective increase of about five dollars per consultation.4 The government

proposed that the safety net be extended via both reduced thresholds and

increased remuneration for certain sections of the population. The measures

meant that once a family or individual had reached the prescribed threshold

then the government would cover 80% of the total out of pocket expenses for

medical care, rather than just the gap amount (the difference between the

rebate amount and the scheduled fee).5

These provisions faced criticisms from several quarters. The main

contention was that the new measures would be counter productive with regard

to increasing bulk billing rates as they encouraged only certain sections of the

population to attend bulk billing doctors, specifically those that were already

often bulk billed by full fee charging doctors (Doctors Reform Society 2004).

The other main concern was with regard to the proposed safety net changes. It

was argued that they would fuel medical inflation as doctors increased the cost

of some medical services in the knowledge that the public would be picking up

3 Alongside the bulk billing system, there was also a government safety net in place since the early 1990s to cover excess gap amounts that families and individuals had to pay above and beyond the rebate amount. After families or individuals reached the threshold amount the Commonwealth government would cover excess gap amounts for the remainder of the year. 4 Other incentives to bulk bill were also introduced, including a greater levy for certain regions in Australia. 5 Children and concession card holders were granted an indexed threshold of $300 per year and all others $700.

- 16 -

80% of the cost once a certain amount was spent by an individual (Doctors

Reform Society 2004). At the time of writing bulk billing rates had increased in

Australia, yet the number of doctors who were charging above the scheduled

amount for some medical services had also increased (DHA 2005).

Furthermore during 2005 the total cost of the safety net had blown out to 1.2

billion dollars (DHA 2005). Despite the criticisms of the policy it does appear

that in the short term it has been successful in achieving its ostensible goals,

though at an unsustainable cost.

During 2004 the government undertook a major media campaign to

advertise the impending changes to the public. The campaign included both

print and television material. Press advertisements were placed in major

metropolitan newspapers. A national television campaign was undertaken,

which consisted of several variations on the same advertisement. A booklet

was sent to every Australian household detailing some of the changes,

accompanied by a letter from the Prime Minister outlining the need for the

changes. The campaign was designed by the Universal McCrann agency and

ran over a several weeks. The total cost of the campaign was over 25 million

dollars.

Tony Abbot, Federal minister for health in 2004 asserted that the

intention of the campaign was to correctly inform Australians of the impending

changes to the health care system (ABC 2004). There was criticism about the

intentions of the campaign from both the federal opposition and sections of the

Australian media (see ALP 2005, ABC 2004, ABC 2005) who suggested that

the campaign was effectively party political advertising for the imminent federal

election. In the recent Australian senate inquiry into government advertising

similar issues were canvassed.

The aesthetics of the campaign material support the overall presentation

of both the information and message. All the material and advertisements in the

campaign, except the letter from the PM, use a border representing steel edging

that bounds the green of Medicare. The use of this simple iconic device

reinforces the suggestion that Medicare is being strengthened, signifying this is

one of the central messages of the campaign. This is enhanced by the use of

an image of a child posing with arms raised, demonstrating his muscles.

- 17 -

Strengthening Medicare is effectively a policy brand, a phenomenon that is

increasingly common in Australia.6

The use of the Strengthening Medicare slogan is indicative of an

important theme that is present throughout the campaign material; that of the

need to preserve the national public health system. The lead line in the press

advertisements is that,

[for] twenty years, Medicare has been a central part of our world class health care

that has guaranteed affordable health care for all Australians. Now the Australian

Government is spending $4 billion over 5 years to improve Medicare so that it can

continue to protect all Australians long into the future.7

The television advertisements also contained similar statements, one claiming

that there is no doubt that Medicare is a vitally important part of Australias

health care system. Prime Minister Howards letter accompanying the booklet,

reminds the reader that Medicare is a cornerstone. This phrasing potentially

bears all the hallmarks of little more than trivial advertising slogans designed

only to persuade. This was certainly a suggestion made by prominent

commentators at the time (see Davidson 2005), dismissing it as merely cynical

spin by the government to build support for the changes, given the popular

support at the time for health spending and attention by government (Newspoll

2004a; Newspoll 2004b). However, it is a mistake to completely disregard the

campaign as a symbol because of this potential. Firstly, it is worth noting that

the coalition government has a history of being quite hostile to the Medicare

system. John Howard declared his dislike for Medicare while he was in

opposition during the 1980s. Secondly, irrespective of the truth of this vox

populi argument with regard to motivation, the fact that the campaign highlights

a link to the past demonstrates that there was a perceived value in

communicating that the current system needed to be saved rather than

replaced.

During the 1980s and 1990s the Hawke/Keating governments were

subject to considerable criticism for their program of deregulation of the

economy, so called economic rationalism. Substantial criticism was directed at

the wave of privatisation that accompanied the deregulation. The Howard 6 Recent examples include policy with names such as Working Nation, Work Choices. 7 Advertisements are available at http://www.health.gov.au/internet/wcms/publishing.nsf /Content/Strengthening+Medicare-2

- 18 -

government has been committed to a set of economic policies in the spirit of the

deregulation of the 1980s, and has maintained a commitment to privatising

publicly owned assets. Despite what ostensibly appears to be the case, the

changes to Medicare are not contrary to a desire for privatisation. As was noted

above one of the prominent criticisms of the policy is the fear that funds will be

diverted to private medical practitioners without adequate funding provided to

maintain the current standards of healthcare in the public system. Importantly,

though, the campaigns central message is quite the opposite, asserting that it

is designed to save the public system. The long term outcome of the policy will

by no means necessarily destroy Medicare as a public institution, though some

of the reconfigurations have certainly weakened the universal coverage of the

policy as the changes have mainly focused on providing increased benefits only

to certain sections of the society.

The position implied by the government through the campaign is that the

government is the protector of the public healthcare system, and regardless of

the outcome of the changes themselves, they are presented using a discourse

situating the government as saving Medicare. The messages are presented in

such a way as to imply that the government, through its safeguarding and

strengthening of health policy, is in some way protecting the people. Implying

that all Australians should have access to health care, it posits a notion of

equality that is more comprehensive than just an equality of opportunity.

While the campaign certainly does not imply this to every addressee, and

indeed only to those that pay it any heed, the very fact that its message does

imply an ideological position that is outside the traditional purview of the

conservative government is noteworthy. It is also this very disjuncture that

seems to be implicit in much of the criticism that saw the campaign as simply

party political spin. The disparagement of the policy and condemnation of the

substantial amount spent on advertising, seemed to lack criticism of some of the

central connotations of the campaign itself, namely the set of normative

assumptions about the role of the state and the rights of individuals. The

aspects of the campaign that frame the message about what the government

purports to be important with regard to the policy change and those that imply

an ideological position can certainly be seen as uncontroversial in the sense

that has been applied to mundane symbolism. Some of the important meanings

- 19 -

generated by the campaign which hint about the role of government, were

scarcely acknowledged.

The central theme, that of Strengthening Medicare, certainly connotes

more than just the literal information presented. The campaign itself can

therefore be viewed as a signifier for a complex signified, it indicates a complex

set of ideas alongside providing information to the public on changes to the way

that Australians can access health care. The campaign is thus, at least in part,

an example of mundane political symbolism. The central connotations of the

Strengthening Medicare message can also be seen to enhance the

governments symbolic capital, as protector of national health care.

This is not to suggest that the symbolism was necessarily deliberate

(although the fact that populist themes were highlighted could perhaps be

attributed as being a creation of the focus group). An obvious inference to

make, if we accept that these meanings are present, is that those who devised

the campaign were well aware of such meaning, and thus some of the

symbolism can be said to be submerged. However, apportionment of intention,

irrespective of accuracy, does not invalidate the campaign as mundane

symbolism, for it is still an instance of uncontroversial symbolism. The notion of

mundane symbolism does not exclude deliberate construction of meaning.

Importantly, viewing it as mundane symbolism is also not to suggest that

the symbolic elements of the campaign are necessarily at the expense of the

ostensible function of the campaign, that of providing public information. The

fact that the campaign is both public information and political symbol is perhaps

its greatest potency as a mundane symbol. It appeals on more than one level,

which certainly is one of the campaigns strengths.

Conclusion Political symbolism is rarely central to political analysis, as it is often only

peripheral to complex political phenomena. It is, however, a mistake to discount

it in political analysis. As this paper has demonstrated, specifically focusing on

political symbolism in domains and ways that are rarely seen to contain the

symbolic opens up possibilities for analysis. This paper has identified several

important characteristics that need to be considered with regard to political

- 20 -

symbolism. While they may be manifest in a variety of forms, they are

shorthand for sets of complex social meanings. Even some of the most

contested symbols serve as a common referent.

The value in examining overt and contested political symbols, as in the

case of Northern Ireland, is obvious as they are one factor in understanding the

continuing tension. To suggest the importance of analysis of meaning imbued

in more mundane forms of political action is quite another. Viewing political

meaning through a concept such as mundane symbolism, as it has been

developed in this paper, is an attempt to shift brief analytical focus onto the

complexity of meaning that most political actions entail. This is not to suggest

that those meanings that are presented through mundane symbolism are

necessarily central, indeed they are often only part of a complex whole.

Ignoring them outright, however, potentially impoverishes analysis.

Applying a concept such as mundane symbolism to the Strengthening

Medicare campaign focuses attention on the complexity of meaning that is

often present in what appears otherwise straightforward communication by

political actors. Attention to forms of mundane symbolism also opens the

possibility to consider broader issues, such as how support for a particular

government is maintained on a day to day basis. Issues like healthcare

continue to have significant importance in the political arena, and therefore

provide interesting possibilities for thinking about how symbolic capital might

have a role in explaining the communication outcomes. The tendency to

dismiss much political communication as either completely benign or within the

realm of insidious spin unfortunately misses the point that it is rarely as simple

as either of these positions suggest.

- 21 -

References ABC [Australian Broadcasting Corporation]. "Government Advertising." The

National Interest, Radio National (Broadcast 15th January 2006). . "Abbott Says Medicare Ad Campaign Justified." The World Today,

Radio National (Broadcast 28 June 2004). Anderson, Benedict. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and

Spread of Nationalism. New York: Verso, 1991. Arnold, Thurman. The Symbols of Government. New Haven: Yale University

Press, 1935. Australia, Senate 2003, No. 14, p.17379, [http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard

/senate/dailys/ds301003.pdf] Australian Labor Party. Beazley Interview with Kim Landers ABC, 15th April

2005 [Available from http://www.alp.org.au/media/0405/rifll150.php] Bartle, John, and Dylan Griffiths, eds. Political Communications Transformed:

From Morrison to Mandelson. Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2001. Bennett, W. Lance. News: The Politics of Illusion. 2nd ed. New York: Longman,

1988. Bennett, W. Lance, and Jarol Manheim. "The Big Spin: Strategic

Communication and the Transformation of Pluralist Democracy." In Mediated Politics: Communication in the Future of Democracy, edited by W. Lance Bennett and Robert M. Entman. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001.

Blumler, Jay, and Dennis Kavanagh. "The Third Age of Political Communication: Influences and Features." Political Communication 16 (1999): 209-30.

Boorstin, Daniel J. The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America. 1st Harper colophon ed. ed. New York: Harper & Row, 1964.

Bourdieu, Pierre. The Logic of Practice. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1990.

. Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1991. . "Rethinking the State: Genesis and Structure of the Bureaucratic Field."

Social Theory 1, no. 12 (1994): 1-18. Cetin, Zafer M. "Tales of Past, Present, and Future: Mythmaking and Nationalist

Discourse in Turkish Politics." Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs 24, no. 2 (2004): 347.

Cohen, A. "Political Symbolism." Annual Review of Anthropology 8, no. 1 (1979): 87-113.

Corcoran, Paul. Political Language and Rhetoric. St. Lucia: Queensland University Press, 1979.

Coski, John M. The Confederate Battle Flag: America's Most Embattled Emblem. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2005.

Davidson, K. "A High Court Green Light to Propaganda." The Age 27th October 2005.

DHA [Department of Health and Aging]. Medicare Statistics - Tables 2005 [Available from http://www.health.gov.au/internet/wcms/publishing.nsf/ content/medstat-dec05-tables-a]

Doctors Reform Society. "Medicare Plus... Or Minus." New Doctor 81 (2004): 16-19.

Dunn, Joe P. "American Political Mythology from Kennedy to Nixon." History 29, no. 3 (2001): 102.

Edelman, Murray J. The Symbolic Uses of Politics. Urbana: University of Illinois

- 22 -

Press, 1964. . Constructing Political Spectacle. Chicago: Chicago University Press,

1988. Engler, Balz. "Shakespeare in the Trenches." Shakespeare Survey 44 (1992):

105. Entman, Robert M. "Framing: Towards Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm."

Journal of Communication 43, no. 4: 5158. Fairhurst, G, and R Star. The Art of Framing. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass,

1996. Firth, R. Symbols: Public and Private. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press,

1973. Fontana, David. The Secret Language of Symbols: A Visual Key to Symbols

and Their Meanings. San Francisco: Chronicle Books, 1994. Friedland, Roger. "Religious Nationalism and the Problem of Popular

Representation." Annual Review of Sociology 27, no. 1 (2001): 125-52. Gamboni, Dario. "Composing the Body Politic." In Making Things Public:

Atmospheres of Democracy, edited by Bruno Latour and Peter Weibel. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press, 2005.

Gray, Gwendolyn. The Politics of Medicare: Who Gets What, When and How. Sydney: UNSW Press, 2004.

Gusfield, J., and J. Michalowicz. "Secular Symbolism: Studies of Ritual, Ceremony and Symbolic Order in Modern Life." Annual Review of Sociology 10 (1984): 417-35.

Haas, Elbieta. Symbols, Power and Politics. New York: P. Lang, 2002. Hall, Stuart. "Encoding/Decoding." In Culture, Media, Language, edited by S.

Hall, D. Hobson, A. Lowe and P. Willis. London: Hutchison, 1980. Harrison, Simon. "Ritual as Intellectual Property." Man 27, no. 2: 225. . "Four Types of Symbolic Conflict." Journal of the Royal Anthropological

Institute 1, no. 2 (1995): 255. Hinckley, Barbara. The Symbolic Presidency: How Presidents Portray

Themselves. New York: Routledge, 1990. Inglis, Ken. Observing Australia 1959 to 1999. Melbourne: Melbourne University

Press, 1999. Kearney, Hugh. "Four Nations or One?" The Political Quarterly (1991): 1. Kertzer, David I. Ritual, Politics, and Power. New Haven: Yale University Press,

1988. Kubik, Jan. The Power of Symbols against the Symbols of Power : The Rise of

Solidarity and the Fall of State Socialism in Poland. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1994.

Lathrop, Douglas A. The Campaign Continues: How Political Consultants and Campaign Tactics Affect Public Policy. Westport, Conn.: Praeger, 2003.

Lippmann, Walter. Public Opinion. 1st Free Press pbks. ed. New York: Free Press Paperbacks, 1997.

Mach, Zdzisaw. Symbols, Conflict, and Identity: Essays in Political Anthropology. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1993.

McDonald, Kevin. Global Movements: Action and Culture. Malden: Blackwell, 2006.

Merelman, Richard M. Language, Symbolism, and Politics. Boulder: Westview Press, 1992.

. "The Mundane Experience of Political Culture." Political Communication 15, no. 4 (1998): 515-35.

Morris, Ewan. Our Own Devices: National Symbols and Political Conflict in

- 23 -

Twentieth-Century Ireland. Dublin: Irish Academic Press, 2005. Munn, Nancy. Walbiri Iconography: Graphic Representation and Cultural

Symbolism in a Central Australian Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986.

Murphy, Howard. Aboriginal Art. London: Phaidon Press Limited, 1998. Newspoll. "21/02/04: Thinking Now About Personal Income Tax and Federal

Government Spending. If the Federal Government Has a Large Budget Surplus, Do You Think This Surplus Should Be Spent...?" (2004a).

. "23/06/04: Importance and Best Party to Handle Major Issues." 2004b. Olovi, Ivan. The Politics of Symbol in Serbia : Essays in Political Anthropology.

London: Hurst & Co., 2002. Ortner, Sheery. "On Key Symbols." American Anthropologist 75 (1973): 1338-

46. Putnam, Robert. "Bowling Alone: America's Declining Social Capital." Journal of

Democracy 6, no. 1 (1995): 65-78. Putnam, Robert D. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American

Community. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000. Rotunda, Ronald D. The Politics of Language: Liberalism as Word and Symbol.

Iowa City: University of Iowa Press, 1986. Skrbi, Zlatko. Long-Distance Nationalism: Diasporas, Homelands and Identities.

Aldershot; Brookfield USA: Ashgate, 1999. Smith, Anthony D. National Identity. London: Penguine, 1991. . The Antiquity of Nations. Oxford: Polity, 2004. Spillman, Lyn. Nation and Commemoration: Creating National Identities in the

United States and Australia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.

Thompson, John B. Political Scandal: Power and Visibility in the Media Age. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2000.

Turner, V. The Forest of Symbols. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1967. . "Symbolic Studies." Annual Review of Anthropology 4, no. 1 (1975):

145-61. Wingo, Ajume H. Veil Politics in Liberal Democratic States. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press,, 2003.

- 24 -

Rethinking political symbolism: Government advertising and tGwilym CroucherDepartment of Political ScienceUniversity of MelbourneRefereed paper presented to theAustralasian Political StudiIntroduction

Political SymbolismMundane Symbols, Political Practice and Symbolic CapitalThe Strengthening Medicare media campaign and mundane poliConclusion