Content area
Full Text
There is no country that does not have its own symbols, for they "are needed to point out the presence or the power of the state."1 In the era of the nation-state, state symbols tend to be identical with national symbols: they are thought to be a visual manifestation of both the state and the nation the state represents. Benedict Anderson defines nation as an imagined community because its members "never know of their fellow-members ... yet in the mind of each lives the image of their communion."2 The question here is in what way and by what means the image of communion is conveyed to the minds of the members of a nation. Symbols are a very important part of this process.
Despite the great variety of symbols that may serve as markers of national identity, those that connect the state and the nation most closely are the national flag, coat of arms or emblem, and anthem. We should add national holidays to this list, particularly Independence Day, which is especially important for countries like Ukraine that gained independence recently. The dual purpose of national symbols is understood by the state elites. For example, an Indian governmental publication stated, "The National Flag, the National Anthem and the National Emblem are the three symbols through which an independent country proclaims its identity and sovereignty ... they reflect the entire background, thought and culture of a nation."3
John Breuilly reflected on the nation building and nationalism of new states by identifying several tools that are used to create a new national identity. One of the tools he identified is cultural symbolism, which manifests itself in flags, rallies, anthems, marches, and pictures of the leaders "with which nationalist regimes seek to imbue the population."4 He also noted that "the impact of all these things is largely unknown."5 His first statement implies that only new, "nationalist" regimes engage in such activities, whereas old, established nation-states get along without them, but this would be misleading.6 Breuilly is certainly correct to point out that there is a lack of research on how state-promoted symbolism is received by the population.
Traditionally, studies on national symbols have focused on what the national symbols are, that is, on their content, as well...