A
Discursive-Semiotic Approach to Translating Cultural Aspects in Persuasive
Advertisements |
NATIONAL SYMBOLS AND IDEOLOGY Every culture has its own set of sign systems. As shown and discussed, South Africa is a mixture of many cultures which have not yet gelled into a unanimous shared South African culture; it is fragmented. Also, there are conflicting interpretations of what constitutes South African nationhood. The closest to this is the (now coined) "rainbow nation" idea. Concretised manifestations of the ideologies prevailing within a society (within a broader culture) include national symbols. Due to South Africas chequered political history, many such symbols exist and new ones are created within the new democratic regime. In order to understand the relationship between national symbols and ideology in South Africa, one must look at the different shifts of power in the history of the country up to the democratic elections in April 1994.
(Tomaselli, Shepperson & Mpofu 1993-1995). In 1994 April the first democratic elections took place, with every person over the age of 18 being allowed to vote for a new government. |
The Afrikaner Nationalists who took over
power in 1948 left the monuments of the previous era intact. (This action contrasts with
what the Government of National Unity did after the 1994 elections.) The reason for this
could be that the new government wanted to create unity among the white population of the
country, despite the differences in cultural backgrounds. In semiotic terms this would
reflect the prospective mirror where new signs and symbols would be anticipated, and also
the interactive mirror where emphasis is placed on the collective identity that needed to
be created. The policy of separateness as implemented by the Nationalist Party contributed to the problematic symbolic status of nation and nationalism. This was compounded by the implementation of homelands, where people from the same ethnic group were given their own homeland. Other factors that played a part in the fragmentation of the nationalism included memories of British imperialism, Afrikaner self-determination, ethnic nationalism, and African nationalism. Tomaselli et al. (1993-1995) suggest that many differing aspirations have to be re-deployed into a common, wider vision of the future. However, the answer is not that simplistic. There are not enough national symbols that could unify the nation all inclusively, but the divide between different cultural and ethnic groups is too wide to bridge within one or two generations. A possible solution to the problem could be the creation of common signs and symbols, matters of national relevance and importance, and broad humanistic issues that would address the whole nation, including all the different cultures in the country. However, in terms of signs used in advertisements, it would be best to address the different cultural groups in their own idiom, and produce the best results. |
Significant nature of national symbols In the emerging New South Africa, national symbols are received in an emotional way. Old ones are being discarded (currently there is a renewed debate about the old name "Springbok" for the national rugby team). When a new symbol is created as an intended national symbol, the creators thereof decide upon a meaning and interpretation that these symbols must generate. However, this interpretation is for the benefit of generations to come. The meaning must be preserved for the future in order to achieve its original intention of unifying a nation or whatever other reason. Tomaselli et al. (1993-1995) are of the opinion that "for a future generation, the monuments will be a focus around which children will be expected to develop specific emotional attachments (emotional interpretants) in respect of their identity beyond the family". For those interested in semiotics, South Africa under the new dispensation offers many challenges and opportunities to establish new signs and national symbols. But for the translator or cultural mediator this could prove a nightmare. There are many national symbols, which often represent opposing political views and expectations. The challenge is to find common symbols for "new" nations, a process that is slowly taking place. The area in which it is most publicly seen is the sport scene. Sport, being a national obsession, has started to transform its exclusive image to that of a cultural barrier breaker. The national rugby team is called Amabokoboko, a new African name. The national soccer team is called Bafana Bafana, also a new name. A further example is the renaming of public buildings and amenities, dams, roads and airports. D.F. Malan Airport has been changed to Cape Town International, Jan Smuts to Johannesburg International, and the H.F. Verwoerd Dam to Gariep Dam. These names all refer to National Party politicians under the old regime and have been replaced by indigenous plant or place names, or the names of politicians who participated in the struggle for democracy. It is clear that one political party and ideology has been replaced by another and, as a result, the names of places too. In the new, democratic dispensation the shackles of the past have been cast off and more and more people in the white community are confronting their heritage and cultural values. Symbols of the past as embodied in objects, such as the old South African flag and paintings depicting historical events like Blood River, are displayed and seen as collectors items reflecting the past but not the future; these do not hold their original significance and meaning for the new, emerging generation. As a matter of fact, many of these objects and symbols such as Tretchikof paintings and three ducks in a row, have curiosity value but no cultural identity value, and are regarded as "kitsch", thus in a condescending way. |
|
||
[Index]
|