The role of “national symbols” in political discourse

Abstract

The relevance of the study is due to the fact that, despite the certain popularity of “national symbols” in scientific and public discourses, “national symbols” as a category of political and social sciences is not clearly defined category, as well as their role in political discourse.
Therefore, the purpose of the research is to reveal the role of “national symbols” in political discourse. The research is based on systemic, interdisciplinary and discursive approaches, the use of which, to a large extent, has allowed us to achieve this goal. General scientific methods such as induction and deduction, analysis and synthesis, comparison and analogy, generalization and abstraction, as well as special scientific methods such as descriptive and content analysis, deconstruction and reconstruction, etc., were applied.
For some authors “national symbols” and “state symbols” are identical or almost identical concepts. They seem to be special, historically formed, distinctive distinguishing signs of the state established by national legislation (the Constitution of the state or its separate law), which embody its sovereignty and carry a certain ideology. Other authors, more reasonable, devide these concepts, understanding the category of “national symbols” much more broadly.
Political discourse, that leans on national context, and in particular on national symbols, that sets the metaphor of “nation” and is used in practical representation, will usually be reminiscent of the “nation”. And the existence of such a reminder is “normal”, ordinary situation in modern state politics.
However, “national symbols”, in particular the flag that hangs idly and does not sway in the wind, and the coat of arms engraved on coins, are not enough to preserve “our” usual understanding of the “nation”, the world and “our” place in it. They should unfold discursively. And for that, “banal words”, jingling in the ears of citizens or passing before their eyes, are required.