A symbol is by definition a thing that represents or stands for something else, especially a material object representing something abstract.  The symbol is used in a variety of ways throughout Thomas C. Foster’s, “Is That a Symbol?”  In the chapter he discusses not only the meaning of the word but the various interpretations that can accompany it.  A main focus of the piece is correcting readers on their rudimentary idea of what a symbol actually is.  Foster works during this essay to identify a set of boundaries that a reader can use to arrive at a rational interpretation of a symbol.  

The first quote can be found on page 18 of the text when Foster writes, “Here’s the problem with symbols: people expect them to mean something.  Not just any something, but one something in particular.”  Foster seems to foreshadow a certain discrepancy in the routine definition of a symbol.  He opens the door for a different meaning which is that in reality there can be multiple meanings.  The average reader generally would assume that the first and many times most obvious interpretation is the only one.  Foster makes the readers aware that there is almost always more than one symbol, and many times an infinite amount.  Even more importantly, he makes it clear that all of the interpretations can be valid as long as there is logic and support behind them.  This relates to how a reader is able to come to a conclusion with few boundaries.  The boundary in this example would be that the reader is restricted to only one “correct” interpretation, while the actuality is that a symbol is open to numerous if not infinite interpretations, depending upon the subjective view of the reader.

Further down on page 18 of the text, Foster continues to describe the nature of symbols when he writes, “Symbols, though, generally don’t work so neatly.”  This quote expands on the thought that symbols are not as concrete and obvious as many people see them to be.  I say this because of the fragment of the quote that tells how they, “don’t work so neatly.”  The reason that this part stuck out to me is because when something is considered neat then this generally translates to it being on the surface, however when something is messy then it takes time to recover, and many times that thing is not what it may seem to be because of its mysterious nature.  Using this theory, it can be translated that symbols that are neat would be easily understood while in reality symbols are more frequently complex and their meanings are more subjective, as opposed to an allegory which is the objective counterpart of the symbol which has only one meaning.  It is through this concept that Foster another boundary, which is ironically that there is in a sense a lack of a boundary.  Foster presents the notion that symbols can often be hidden within the text and in order to find them the reader must constantly be searching for them, while also be thinking out of the box, or in other words outside of the traditional boundary.

On page 21 of the text, Foster brings a new aspect of the symbol into play when he says, “The problem of symbolic meaning is further compounded when we look at a number of writers emphasizing various, distinct elements for a given symbol.”  This brings an entirely new element into Foster’s depiction of the symbol.  This is that a symbol can have multiple meanings as opposed to the common belief that states that a symbol should have one primary purpose that is stand for one solitary idea.  Foster contradicts this claim when he states that writers factor many various elements into the symbol.  This style that writers have adopted adds more depth as well as more possibilities of the meaning of the given symbol.  The boundary that is incorporated into the meaning via this quote is how there can be multiple aspects fused into the same symbol.  This means that when the reader begins interpreting they should not use a boundary that involves concluding their analysis after one aspect of the symbol is realized.

The next quote that shapes Foster’s rant about the misinterpretation of symbols is found on page 23 of the text when Foster says, “The other problem with symbols is that many readers expect them to be objects and images rather than events.”  This adds an entirely new dimension to Foster’s point.  It is brought to the reader’s attention that when a symbol is mentioned it is generally assumed that it is an object or image and never believed to be an action or an event.  For example, everyone would notice the elephant as a symbol for the Republican party and the donkey as a symbol for the Democratic party, however no-one would ever assume that the actual actions of the candidates can also be interpreted as symbols repressing the party’s views and themes.  The boundary that is introduced on this page is more focused towards the base foundation of what a symbol can be.  This boundary is that a symbol should not be restricted to a specified object or image, but the reader should broaden their boundary to the point that a symbol could also be an idea that is included in the passage or an action that can have a more complex interpretation.

Foster continues to focus on different types of symbols that the scholar least suspects when he writes on page 23 that, “Action can be symbolic.”  This is yet another intriguing statement contributes to the boundary that is mentioned in the previous paragraph.  This specific quote is powerful, because it makes a direct claim about how an action can represent much more than just the outcome.  An event that is very relatable to this point occurred during the black rights movement in 1955 when Rosa Parks refused to move to the back of the bus.  Although on its face it may not have seemed like an extraordinary act the symbolism behind the act ignited an entire decade of protest and fighting for equal rights by the African American community.  This event was a perfect example of how an action could act as a symbol; and often times a seemingly insignificant act has the capability of making an immense difference.

During this stage of the work, Foster focuses on giving readers techniques on how to identify symbols through various processes that he and many other world – renowned poets have used.  He writes, “If we want to figure out what a symbol might mean, we have to use a variety of tools on it: questions, experience, preexisting knowledge.”  Too breakdown the quote even more Foster begins with questions.  When he says this he means question all the possible meanings that an image, word, or action could possibly have.  The next step as Foster says is experience.  He means by this is that context is everything when identifying a symbol and experiencing the tone and key events of the story are crucial to uncovering the symbols.  The final step is using preexisting knowledge.  This is when the reader makes the final connection between the symbol that occurred in the story and associates it with a readers own personal knowledge base in order to give it a real – life meaning.  Foster uses this method to explain how he arrives at the boundary that he uses to quantify the symbol.  This means that he uses this step by step technique in order to arrive at the proper boundary that is suitable for the magnitude and complexity of the specific symbol.

Throughout the text Foster did an exemplary job of explaining how set boundaries, and in some aspects a lack of them, are necessary to come to a logical interpretation of a symbol.  He not only gave the reader insight into how famous poets have embedded symbols into their works, but also gave the reader techniques that they could use to detect and dissect the meaning of the symbol more efficiently and at a higher rate. Symbols are extremely powerful tools in a writer’s repertoire and they are used in many ways that can help the writer further their particular view or thought without expressing it directly, and Foster reminds us to always be alert because they can make themselves present in a variety of ways that are often times not expected. 

 