Symbols: Even Obama Must Learn Their Importance As He Visits India

On his visit next month to India, President Obama will not visit the Golden Temple in Amristar, the holy shrine of the Sikh in the north. The reason is because of a symbol -- a scarf, cap or handkerchief, to be worn on the head by both men and women who enter this holy site. Obama and his handlers are afraid of the perception that a head-covering might have from Americans back home, many which still believe he is a Muslim. Never mind most Americans don’t know the difference between Sikhs and Muslims; it’s the unfamiliar symbol that’s the issue.

Symbols are powerful tools of communication. Most people wear symbols everyday that identifies their religion (crucifix-Christians, turban-Sikhs, kufi (skull cap)-Muslims; their occupation (overall’s-farmers, suits-business leaders, scrubs-nurses and doctors; their social status (Wal-Mart-middle/low income, Dillards-middle upper, Neiman Marcus-upper income).

The first thing a Russian looks at when meeting someone is their shoes, women in India look at the fabric of another woman’s sari, kids around the world check out the kind of cell phone their friends have and of course the auto industry remains viable as people judge another’s status by the car they drive. By our symbols mankind are indeed walking/talking signboards.

A cross-cultural Christian worker must be aware of symbols and adopt or reject symbols based on knowledge of those symbols, not just having an emotional response. Though I would, out of respect, wear a covering into a temple, I might not receive tilak (red mark on forehead as a sign of blessing). I might touch the feet of a respected elder but not avoid touching a Dalit. Determining what symbols are culturally acceptable for believers to practice or accept is determined through observation and learning culture. It's a lame argument to reject a ritual or symbol based only on the fact that it is what Hindu’s, Muslims or Catholic’s do.

If President Obama had demonstrated an unequivocal faith in Christianity in the past perhaps he could wear a covering without worrying about what message it would send to his country back home. But politicians are very wary of symbols. Bill Clinton had to abandon the idea of riding an elephant when he was president visiting India when because he didn’t want the Republicans to capitalize on the powerful symbol of a Democrat president rinding on the symbol of their party. And he certainly didn’t want to ride on the symbol of his own party, a donkey, for that image, too, would be used as a negative symbol around the world.