by Hugh M. Lewis

Heinz Werner, in his thorough treatment of the problem of human symbolization as organic process, defined symbolism as the capacity, uniquely human, for allowing one thing to stand for, or represent, another, so much so that we can refer to a form of symbolic displacement in which the symbol frequently becomes the stand-in, the proxy, and the effective substitute for the reality it represents.

The cognitive structure of symbolic behavior has been sufficiently analyzed and empirically documented, in terms of the gestalt pattern recognition functions, grouping, linking, and the use of analogical relational structures in the organization of everyday experience. The dialectical structure of this in mythology and in meaning has been aptly substantiated by Claude Levi-Strauss, and the semantic construction of symbolism in language elaborated by Giles Fauconnier. The use of logic and its influence to symbolism has been aptly demonstrated as well.

It is safe to say that human experience, understanding and the behavioral encounter and response with the larger world, is symbolically structured and preconditioned by previous symbolically organized experience that is brought to bear unconsciously upon the current moment of apprehension.

It is also safe to say that this experience and its symbolic structure is organized in a complex but fairly ordered manner that is available to our systematic study and measurement. In other words, the structure of symbolic logic that is characteristic of human cognition and cognitive function is available ultimately to our understanding and modeling, and guides our endeavors in learning how the brain functions organically, and in developing models of artificial intelligence.

I have in the course of my own anthropological research developed symbolic framing methodologies, in language, visual recognition, cognition, memory, and in behavioral applications, that yield direct empirical evidence to the structural patterning of human symbolic structure, its cultural and psychological patterns of variation, and its application to various kinds of problem sets. This kind of methodological framework has proven itself to be of great value in the facilitation of learning in many areas, at all age levels, in testing and evaluation, and potentially in rehabilitation. It has as yet unexplored value in linguistics and in language acquisition, in cognition and in cognitive development, and in social relations and human development and individual/group behavior. The productivity of this methodological framework, and its adaptability to a broad range of alternative applications makes it a preferred choice of techniques in the systematic study of human systems.

Theoretically, it leads to an empirically substantive resolution of the classic worldview problem, especially when we combine with this notions of complementary and relativistic frames of reference.

The application of symbolic framing methodologies points clearly to an empirical ground for the presumption that symbolic structure underlies human cognition, perception and behavior, and has a consistent order of its patterning that takes on predictable results in testing and experimentation. The implication of this is that by these methodologies we have significant empirical evidence to support a claim for the human symbolic construction of reality, as a natural process of human adaptation and survival that leads to cultural patterns of social organization.

It was in the research and development of these methodological frameworks that I was lead to development of a human systems framework, and by extension to natural systems and meta-systems frameworks of understanding. The discovery of general systems thinking was only after the fact of this development.

Theory and models of the human or anthropological construction of reality stem directly from this methodology and its application to real systems. Human reality may be said to be symbolically constructed, and even though we may be inclined first to see pragmatic or utilitarian functions in things we have and do, we can never fully alienate the symbolic components of those functions, or their implications for their value and function in the world. We can even make the case that the symbolic component of any constructed system is the primary function of that system, not matter what its other material or pragmatic functions may serve as well.

We refer to the symbolic transformation of experience as being when the symbols come to take the place of the real referents to which symbols originally referred, and hence human behavior becomes symbolically motivated and 'sublimated' in ways that may not otherwise be forthcoming from a person on the basis of purely pragmatic or functional considerations. This transformation occurs unconsciously and psychologically as much as it may occur in crowds or groups, or in social contexts. 

This symbolic transformation of experience is related directly to issues of child cognitive development as well as to issues of behavioral reform and rehabilitation of abnormal or aberrant behavior. Child cognitive development is symbolic in its growth and transformation, and this process is largely one of increasing differentiation of form and function of experience, and increasing degrees of displacement and flexibility of application of symbolic referents in behavioral response, upon increasing levels of sophistication. This process is directly tied to primary language acquisition processes, and for this reason language is considered intrinsic to the symbolic mechanism of human consciousness.

This reference of symbolism and symbolization is not merely the material forms of symbols, flags or religious icons, that are common and immediately apprehended as such, but refers instead to a very basic level of human cognition and apprehension of everyday experience in the world, in all or most areas of human behavioral involvement. Normal waking consciousness is as symbolically constructed as is our dreaming awareness. These two worlds become confused for schizophrenics, for instance, as it may become for normal people under unusual circumstances.

General Systems Essays, Vol. I