The roots of symbolism can be traced back to ancient times. All traditional cultures can be said to be symbolic. But the word traditional, in this context, has a special meaning that differs from the modern understanding of the term. Nowadays, tradition usually means just custom, habit, or any inherited way of thinking and living.

In contrast, in a religious and metaphysical context, Tradition means the set of transcendental or divinely ordained principles that have been revealed to humanity in one way or another (e.g., via messengers, prophets, or the Logos). Once codified, this knowledge is passed from generation to generation to remind us of our ultimate origin.

In the next sections we will delve deeper in the traditional view on various aspects of symbolism, including its ultimate purpose.

Signs have a clearly defined meaning. They point to something specific, like an instruction to follow (e.g., driving signs). Although symbols also represent something else, they need some additional knowledge to be interpreted. Their meaning is not as standardized or easily exhausted as in a sign and a degree of intuition is required.

Figure 2. Comparison between a stereotypical sign and a symbol.

Symbolism is synthetic, involves a certain degree of intuition and is able to convey unlimited concepts. Language, on the other hand, is analytic and creates narrower limits for what is being signified. This makes common language more useful for applications were concrete and unambiguous knowledge is required. Symbolism, in turn, is the best option to transmit concepts and teachings that by their very nature cannot be completely exhausted by the rational aspect of the human mind.

This is why the transmission of metaphysical teachings in ancient traditions was done by using predominantly a symbolic language. This was considered by humanity as the best (and sometimes the only) way to transmit the higher truths of life so that they could at least be partially understood ². However, symbols were not considered as the whole truth they tried to represent. They were only thought of as a support, an aid, only to be used until the reality behind them was firmly grasped and they became unnecessary.

In short, symbols can be understood as catalysts of a special type of knowledge and were historically used as a kind of language useful to understand the deeper questions of life.

3. “We could adduce an immense weight of testimony offered by human faith and wisdom proving that the invisible or spiritual order is analogous to the material order. […] Let us recall the saying of Plato, taken up later by the pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite: ‘What is perceptible to the senses is the reflection of what is intelligible to the mind’; and echoed in the Tabula Smaragdina: ‘What is below is like what is above; what is above is like what is below’, and also in the remark of Goethe: ‘What is within is also without.’

However it may be, symbolism is organized in its vast explanatory and creative function as a system of highly complex relations, one in which the dominant factor is always a polarity, linking the  physical and metaphysical worlds.

[…] In his Letter number LV, St. Augustine shows that teaching carried out with the help of symbols feeds and stirs the fires of love, enabling Man to excel himself; he also alludes to the value of all things in nature—organic and inorganic—as bearers of spiritual messages.”

― J.E.Cirlot (1958). A Dictionary of Symbols. “Origin and Continuity of the Symbol”. Welcome Rain Publishers, p. xvi

4. “All that exists, in whatever mode this may be, necessarily participates in universal principles, and nothing exists except by participation in these principles, which are the eternal and immutable essences contained in the permanent actuality of the Divine Intellect. Consequently, it can be said that all things, however contingent they may be in themselves, express or represent these principles in their own way and according to their order of existence, for otherwise they would be purely and simply nothingness.

Thus, from one order to another, all things are linked together and correspond, to come together in total and universal harmony, for harmony is nothing other than the reflection of principal unity in the manifested world; and it is this correspondence which is the veritable basis of symbolism.”

― René Guénon (1929). Spiritual Authority and Temporal Power. In Fundamental Symbols: the Universal Language of Sacred Science. Introduction.

5.  “The true basis of symbolism is, as we have said, the correspondence linking together all orders of reality, binding them one to the other, and consequently extending from the natural order as a whole to the supernatural order. By virtue of this correspondence, the whole of Nature is but a symbol, that is, its true significance becomes apparent only when it is seen as a pointer which can make us aware of supernatural or “metaphysical” truths […]. The symbol must always be inferior to the thing symbolized, which destroys all naturalist concepts of symbolism.”

― René Guénon (1962). Symbols of Sacred Science. In  A Dictionary of Symbols, p. xxxi

6. “[…] In restoring the symbol to its status as an instrument of knowledge, our world is only returning to a point of view that was general in Europe until the eighteenth century and is, moreover, connatural to the other, non-European cultures, whether “historic” (like those of Asia or Central America for instance) or archaic and “primitive”.

[…] today we are well on the way to an understanding of one thing of which the nineteenth century had not even a presentiment- that the symbol, the myth and the image are of the very substance of the spiritual life, that they may become disguised, mutilated or degraded, but are never extirpated.

[…] The symbol reveals certain aspects of reality-the deepest aspects -which defy any other means of knowledge.

These degraded images present to us the only possible point of departure for the spiritual renewal of moden man. It is of the greatest importance, we believe, to rediscover a whole mythology, if not a theology, still concealed in the most ordinary, everyday life of contemporary man; it will depend upon himself whether he can work his way back to the source and rediscover the profound meanings of all these faded images and damaged myths.”

― Mircea Eliade (1961). Images and Symbols: Studies in Religious Symbolism. Princeton University Press, p. 9

In many traditional worldviews, the universe is the creation of the divine Intellect or Word, where all that can possibly exist is contained before time began ³. Therefore, according to this worldview, the whole of nature can be seen as a symbol of the transcendent or true reality. The real importance and meaning of the natural world would then be in its symbolic value, in helping us to get closer to our primordial reality, with symbols being able to represent certain divine ideas. Together, these symbols were thought to form a harmonious totality that, once correctly read, reflect the divine unity in our plane of existence.

Even man himself is considered a symbol of the Divine in most traditional worldviews (e.g.,  Adam and Eve being created in the image of God [Genesis 1:26-27] in Christianity, man partaking of the Buddha Nature in Mahayana Buddhism, or the correspondence between macrocosm and microcosm in esoteric teachings).

In fact, this theory of correspondences where the material (inferior) plane of existence can represent a transcendent (superior) reality, is the real basis and justification of symbolism in the traditional mindset. ⁴

The temporal world was thought to be the reflection of the eternal one ⁵, and this really has to be so for us to be able to obtain at least some intuitive knowledge about it through symbols. Otherwise, there would be no adequate object that could signify any metaphysical truth. This would leave us perpetually in the dark and completely abandoned in our quest for truth.

J.E. Cirlot, in his A Dictionary of Symbols, summarizes as follows the position on symbolism of renowned historian of religions Mircea Eliade: ⁶

1. Symbols have the mission of going beyond the limitations of man seen as a fragment, a piece of the All, while integrating this fragment into a wider totality (e.g., society, culture, the Universe).

2. The symbol, then, unites different planes of reality but without destroying the lower ones in the process. It is a union without confusion, because all the planes of reality are integrated into a wider system without being destroyed or fused together, therefore maintaining what makes them unique.

3. Given the above, if the All can appear contained within a significant fragment, it follows that each fragment is able to restate the All.

The idea of symbolism as a long-lost language is a common one^AAs can be seen in the titles of the books of famous authors, such as:
– “The Lost Language of Symbolism”, by Harold Bayley
– “The Forgotten Language: An Introduction to the Understanding of Dreams, Fairy Tales and Myths”, by Erich Fromm. However, as was discovered by a certain type of psychoanalysis, whenever the conscious layers of human consciousness are depleted of symbolic content, the unconscious is paradoxically overloaded with it as an automatic compensation mechanism.

This affirmation would be fully endorsed by the Swiss psychiatrist and founder of analytical psychology, C.G. Jung ^7,8, who found that in each person there is a rich internal symbolic life. Jung abandoned the central thesis of his master Sigmund Freud, for whom the key to human neurosis and inner psychic life was repressed sexual energy (libido). For Jung, the Collective Unconscious is instead composed of ancient symbolic archetypes pointing towards higher truths.

In Jung´s view, archetypes are not just images conjured by a repressed libido trying to sublimate a lower instinct in order to achieve some kind of release through other, more acceptable, means. Instead, they contain symbolic and spiritual value. Jung´s whole work is based on the discovery that each of us has inside a collection of ancient archetypical figures that can be integrated and used as guides to grow psychologically and spiritually.

Jung was, and still is, an enormously influential figure. His ideas are especially strong today in popular culture (e.g., in movies: Star Wars; in video games: Persona).

His influence, as well as the undeniably regular and consistent presence of these ancient archetypes in most traditional mythologies, led the comparative mythologist Joseph Campbell to introduce the term Monomyth, which also has played an important role in modern movie making and other works of fiction.

For example, George Lucas discusses this influence at great length in the authorized biography of Joseph Campbell, A Fire in the Mind:

“[…] It came to me that there really was no modern use of mythology… The Western was possibly the last generically American fairy tale, telling us about our values. And once the Western disappeared, nothing has ever taken its place. In literature we were going off into science fiction… so that’s when I started doing more strenuous research on fairy tales, folklore, and mythology, and I started reading Joe’s books. Before that I hadn’t read any of Joe’s books… It was very eerie because in reading The Hero with a Thousand Faces I began to realize that my first draft of Star Wars was following classic motifs… So I modified my next draft according to what I’d been learning about classical motifs and made it a little bit more consistent… I went on to read The Masks of God and many other books.”

Also named The Hero’s Journey, the Monomyth is the common narrative template found in most mythologies and in its simplest form involves a hero who is called to go on an adventure, undergoes a real or symbolic death and rebirth by facing a series of existential challenges, and comes back home transformed into a leader and healer of men, having transcended his previous limitations.

Symbolism has not always been held in high esteem, however, especially in modern times. During the nineteenth century, it was mostly looked down and sent to the fringes of the acceptable. This was a time of constant and exciting scientific discoveries and technological inventions that greatly changed human life. Symbolism just seemed like a relic of a dark past that had not yet discovered Reason and the scientific mindset. Nevertheless, the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, thanks to figures such as C.G. Jung and Joseph Campbell, saw a revival of interest in symbolic thought. This has culminated in today´s popular culture, which is oversaturated with it.

Most of us have been exposed to copious amounts of ancient symbolism since childhood. Be it via cartoons for children, fairy tales and folk literature, music videos, video games, comics or even public events like the Olympic Games´ opening ceremonies. Our current world is unmistakingly symbolic. Symbolism is now everywhere and it reaches farther than ever thanks to modern information technology. The only decision we can make regarding this fact is: do we want to actively learn more about those symbols to which we are unavoidably exposed to or do we prefer to passively consume them?

Symbols present two main but opposite dangers: not taking them into consideration at all and overanalyzing them.

We have previously mentioned how mankind can suffer the consequences of completely removing the symbolic from our life. Since symbols can not be erased, they are transferred to the unconscious layers of our minds. We will now speak of the other main danger, one particularly prominent in our times.

Symbols are demanding. They hide as well as reveal, each person obtaining a shallower or deeper understanding depending on their own capacity and previous knowledge. Because of that, it would be unwise to use them when the topic at hand can be discussed in a more straightforward manner, as symbols have also the potential to obscure.

Given this potential, there exists the danger of a dishonest use of symbolism. As previously mentioned, modern media is becoming increasingly symbolic. Nowadays, it seems that adding multiple layers of meaning to a work of art adds a certain aura of prestige, refinement and depth to it. But we should also be weary of symbolism used in a pretentious and overcomplicated way, not looking to enlighten us but just at providing an appearance of depth that is not really there.

In a traditional world, symbols were only used to guide us. Today, they can be misused as a mere game. It may be entertaining to have to play a detective game to try to understand the possible meaning of what is shown, but if the real depth and meaning was not there from the beginning, it will be a waste of time. Modern films and TV shows are especially notorious for this pedantic use of symbolism.

This is another of the differences between modern times and traditional ones. This age is one of smoke and mirrors, where the truth is not easy to find and sometimes not even looked for.

7. “Modern man does not understand to what extent his ‘rationalism’ has placed him at the mercy of this underground psychic world. He freed himself from “superstition” (at least he believes so) but in doing so he lost his spiritual values to an alarming degree. His moral and spiritual traditions have disintegrated and he is paying for this collapse with a disarray and dissociation that is rampant throughout the world.”

― C.G. Jung (1964). Man and His Symbols

8.  “The psychological mechanism that transforms energy is the symbol.”

― C.G. Jung (1970). On Psychic Energy. The Structure and Dynamics of the Psyche. Collected Works, Volume 8 (Part 1)