Key political symbols are an important but neglected topic in the policy sciences. As instruments of policy, they are used to fashion consensus and misused for purposes of exploitation. Scientific inquiry into the possibilities for maximizing consent and minimizing exploitation has been frustrated for lack of systematic, empirical methods - despite a rich theoretical tradition that has been available for decades. This article introduces suitable methods and reintroduces available theory through a case study of a key symbol, ‘Watergate.’ Originally a reference to a building in Washington, D.C., it became a reference to a complex of unresolved involving integrity in government. The process of dissociation from its original meaning provides cues that policy scientists might use to anticipate the course of issue expansion and simplification in connection with other policy issues, including the Iran-Contra arms affair.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Alker, H. R. Jr., and C. Christensen (1972). ‘From causal modelling to artificial intelligence: the evolution of a UN peace-making simulation.’ In Experimentation and Simulation in Political Science ed. by J. A. Laponce and P. Smoker, pp. 177–224. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Brunner, R. D. (1986). ‘Case-wise policy information systems: Redefining poverty.’ Policy Sciences 19: 201–223.
Edelman, M. (1977). Political Language: Words that Succeed and Policies that Fail. New York: Academic Press.
Elder, C. D., and R. W. Cobb (1983). The Political Uses of Symbols. New York: Longman.
Gold, G. (ed.) (1974). The White House Transcripts. New York: Bantam.
Graber, D. A. (1976). Verbal Behavior and Politics. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Kaplan, A. (1964). The Conduct of Inquiry: Methodology for Behavioral Science. San Francisco: Chandler.
Lasswell, H. D. (1954). ‘Key symbols, signs, and icons.’ In Symbols and Values: An Initial Study ed. by L. Bryson et al., pp. 199–204. New York: Harper.
Lasswell, H. D. (1977). Psychopathology and Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lasswell, H. D., and A. Kaplan (1950). Power and Society: A Framework for Political Inquiry. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Lasswell, H. D., N. Leites, and Associates (1965). The Language of Politics: Studies in Quantitative Semantics. Cambridge: M.I.T. Press.
Lasswell, H. D., D. Lerner, and I. deS. Pool (1952). The Comparative Study of Symbols: An Introduction. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Lippmann, W. (1965). Public Opinion. New York: The Free Press.
MacIver, R. M. (1965). The Web of Government. New York: The Free Press.
Medin, D. L., and E. E. Smith (1984). ‘Concepts and concept formation.’ Annual Review of Psychology 32:89–115.
Neustadt, R. E., and E. R. May (1986). Thinking in Time; The Uses of History for Decision Makers. New York: The Free Press.
Pool, I. deS. (1970). The Prestige Papers: A Comparative Study of Political Symbols. Cambridge: M.I.T. Press.
Sapir, E. (1934). ‘Symbolism.’ In Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences Vol. XIII, pp. 492–495.
Staff of the Washington Post (1974). The Fall of a President, New York: Dell.
Stone, P. J. et al. (1966). The General Inquirer. Cambridge: M.I.T. Press.
Sussman, B. (1974). The Great Cover-up: Nixon and the Scandal of Watergate. New York: Signet.
About this article
Cite this article
Brunner, R.D. Key political symbols: the dissociation process. Policy Sciences 20, 53–76 (1987). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00137049
- York Time
- Presidential Election
- Attorney General
- Dichotomous Choice
- Intermediate Sense