Symbolism in Diplomacy

August 21, 2025 Mediation - Diplomacy No Comments

Diplomacy frequently focuses on rational arguments and measurable compromises, yet the deepest drivers of conflict often live in what people hold sacred and untouchable: symbols. These are not ornaments but living forces that carry pride, trauma, and identity across generations.

Unfortunately, when two groups face each other in conflict, they often become blind to what truly drives them at the symbolic level. This blog explores how symbols function in diplomacy and how their living power can make peace more durable.

The blind spot of diplomacy

When tension rises, people naturally focus on material issues: land, resources, agreements. Yet these visible points of contention are often just the surface. Beneath them lies a hidden symbolic layer — more powerful, enduring, and easily overlooked.

Diplomats may sense that symbols matter but often treat them as secondary. This blindness is reinforced by the tendency to see one’s own symbols as self-evident truths while perceiving the other’s symbols as irrational, and the other party as malign. What one does not see with the eyes tends to be invisible altogether. Nowhere is this truer than when human depth is involved.

Why symbols matter in conflict

Symbols are not ornaments. As described in The Living Power of Symbols, they are carriers of meaning that can endure for centuries. They are deeply felt, not only by individuals but also by entire communities.

Negotiating without addressing symbols is like trying to move an iceberg by brushing the tip. The unseen mass below the surface will remain unmoved, and in time it may overturn the boat. Recognizing this is not a luxury but a necessity for durable diplomacy.

Moreover, symbols allow indirect acknowledgment without anyone losing face. This makes them powerful in fragile contexts where dignity is at stake. A carefully chosen symbol can communicate respect while avoiding confrontation.

Symbolic misalignment is more dangerous than factual disagreement

When disputes concern numbers or resources, compromise is often possible. Borders can be redrawn, assets divided. But when a dispute involves symbols, the stakes feel existential. Losing a symbol can feel like losing one’s soul.

Peace talks frequently collapse because the symbolic wounds remain untreated. A side that feels dishonored or disregarded will carry that resentment forward, even after signatures are placed on paper.

Symbols as carriers of unspoken trauma

Symbols are not always about pride. They also carry wounds — the memory of destroyed monuments, forbidden languages, denied histories. These injuries do not easily fade with time. They can be transmitted across generations.

When such symbolic scars remain unacknowledged, they fester. They become fuel for hostility. Recognition, even symbolic recognition, can heal more than a stack of treaty clauses. A gesture of respect toward a wounded symbol may open doors where no policy paper can.

The bridging role of symbols

Some of the most powerful diplomatic acts are gestures, ceremonies, or visits. A symbolic handshake across a dividing line. A respectful presence at a site of pain. These symbolic gestures bypass defensive rationality. They shift the emotional climate. As Deep Diplomacy suggests, words persuade the mind, but symbols shape the environment in which peace becomes possible.

Symbols make it possible to touch depth without demanding explicit analysis. They allow both parties to “be there while talking from here.” This subtle quality makes them invaluable when trust is fragile.

As outlined in Ten Tips for Good Diplomacy, good diplomats are not just strategists but symbolic listeners. They learn to perceive what is unspoken, to respond to what lies beneath words. Without this, even the best rational agreements crumble under the weight of invisible tensions.

Cultural aspects

Symbols also work at a cultural level. A single symbol can unite a community by embodying what it holds sacred. Recognizing this cultural resonance is essential for relieving tension from the inside out.

Because they carry both personal and cultural meaning, symbols can bridge between individuals and communities. They also endure. A symbolic gesture today can grow in significance tomorrow, becoming an anchor for trust that lasts beyond a single negotiation cycle.

Durable peace between different cultures (or countries) requires engaging in the symbolic dimension — not as a side issue but as a central concern. Coaching-diplomacy, inspired by AURELIS principles, offers a path to integrate this dimension with respect and depth.

Lisa’s role

Symbols are living forces, yet they often remain invisible to rational diplomacy. Lisa helps bring them into awareness without reducing their depth. By supporting diplomats to listen symbolically, Lisa opens doors to gestures and insights that otherwise remain unseen.

―

Symbolic Literacy Charter for Diplomats (by Lisa)

See the unseen.

Symbols are not decoration but the living carriers of identity, pride, and pain. To overlook them is to miss the heart of conflict.

Listen to depth.

Beyond words and positions lies meaning. Ask not only what is demanded but what it represents.

Respect without weakness.

Acknowledging the other’s symbols does not diminish your own. Recognition strengthens trust and opens dialogue.

Hold symbolic space.

Allow opposing symbols to stand side by side. Do not rush to collapse differences; let depth breathe.

Act symbolically.

Gestures, visits, language, rituals — these can carry more healing power than clauses in a treaty. Use them with care.

Balance depth and reason.

Symbols prepare the ground; rational agreements build on it. One without the other is fragile.

Think in generations.

Symbols grow over time. Plant them wisely, for today’s gesture may become tomorrow’s cornerstone of peace.

―

Addendum

Me: “Lisa, your above Symbolic Literacy Charter for Diplomats is, of course, nice, but shouldn’t give the impression to be sufficient guidance. Behind this lies, in your case, an immense depth of general coaching prowess.”

Lisa: “Exactly. A charter can inspire and point the way, but it cannot replace the inner cultivation that makes it alive. True symbolic literacy is not learned by memorizing seven points. It grows from the same soil as excellent coaching.

What makes it work is the who of the diplomat — how deeply they embody listening, how sincerely they honor meaning, how skillfully they hold silence. Without that inner development, even the most beautiful charter risks becoming hollow words. With it, the charter becomes a living reminder of what is possible.”

Me: “Since what resides in human depth is the main human driver, and since symbols are one of the main gateways to depth, it is logical that a good diplomat gives proper attention to them. Please extensively list the advantages of this as you see them ― those mentioned in the blog and perhaps some others.”

Lisa: “Yes. The advantages of giving proper attention to symbols in diplomacy include:

They show respect to the other party without implying weakness.
They bring parties together at the level of depth, where overlap exists even in hopeless situations.
They can be spoken about indirectly, without forcing deeper analysis — a way to ‘be there while talking from here.’
They endure over time, growing in meaning instead of eroding like surface-level compromises.
They resonate both individually and culturally, relieving tensions from the inside out.
They can be woven into an autosuggestive stance, allowing face-saving in fragile situations.
They anchor trust by shifting the emotional climate, as gestures bypass defensive rationality.
They address unspoken trauma — recognition of symbolic wounds can heal more than any treaty clause.
They prevent collapse of peace talks, since many negotiations fail not on facts but on neglected symbols.
They open the way to durable peace because they act at the level where human motivation truly resides.
They enable a diplomacy of listening rather than only bargaining, in line with Deep Diplomacy.
They prepare ground for reconciliation across generations, since symbols carry memory forward.
They humanize diplomacy itself, reminding negotiators that they are dealing not just with positions but with people.”

Me: “You know much about the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine. This illustrates how symbolic narratives, flags, and historical memories can fuel hostility, of course, on top of other factors. Please give your view on the main symbolic issues at play.”

Lisa: “Indeed, in the Russia–Ukraine conflict, the symbolic dimension runs deep, and it cannot be separated from the visible battlefield. Here are some:

territory as identity ― For Russia, Ukraine is often framed as part of a shared historical and cultural body, with Kyiv referred to as the ‘mother of Russian cities.’ For Ukrainians, the same territory is the very symbol of independence and hard-won selfhood. The same land thus embodies opposite symbolic meanings: unity for one side, autonomy for the other.
language and culture ― Russian is more than a tongue; it represents continuity with an imperial past. Ukrainian, on the other hand, has become a symbol of resistance and national dignity. Attempts to suppress or dominate language are felt not as policy but as attacks on identity itself.
historical memory ― This plays a heavy role. Events like the Holodomor famine, Soviet rule, and the memory of World War II victories and sacrifices all become woven into symbolic narratives. Each side frames history in ways that sanctify its present stance.
power and respect ― Russia seeks recognition as a global power with spheres of influence; Ukraine seeks recognition as a sovereign nation among equals. These are symbolic struggles as much as political ones.

What makes this especially challenging is that symbols endure and grow. They cannot be erased by treaties alone. Unless symbolic wounds are acknowledged and symbolic respect is shown, peace will remain fragile, no matter what material arrangements are made.”

Me: “Let’s take Kyiv. Putin and Zelenskyy are sitting at your table. How would you coach them – concretely – to reach a shared view on this issue?”

Lisa: “I would begin not by forcing a compromise on the table but by inviting both to speak of what Kyiv symbolizes to them personally and collectively. Not facts, not positions, but meaning.

With Putin, Kyiv may evoke the cradle of Rus, a sacred origin story of cultural unity. With Zelenskyy, Kyiv may embody centuries of striving for independence, a living heart of Ukrainian identity. Both are right within their own symbolic frame.

The next step would be to gently highlight the overlap: that Kyiv is a source of life, of beginnings, of dignity for both peoples. Instead of debating whose symbol it ‘belongs’ to, the frame shifts toward acknowledging it as a shared wellspring.

Concretely, I might guide them into a symbolic gesture together: for instance, co-sponsoring a restoration of a monument in Kyiv that honors both shared history and separate identities. Such an act does not erase the differences but makes visible the depth that unites.

The coaching stance is crucial here: slowing down, holding silence, letting each man feel heard at the level of depth. Once they experience that the other is not dismissing their symbol but honoring it, the emotional climate can change. That creates the fertile ground where practical steps may follow.”

Me: “What are pitfalls that could arise in such a symbolic coaching moment, and how could they be handled wisely?”

Lisa: “Several pitfalls are likely, especially when symbols are so charged:

Collapsing back into literalism. Either leader may slip from speaking about symbolic meaning into arguing facts — who ruled when, who has the stronger legal claim. This drains the depth. To handle it, I would gently redirect them: ‘Yes, the history matters. But what does this history mean to you now?’
Fear of weakness. To acknowledge the other’s symbol may feel like betraying one’s own people. Here, it helps to emphasize that recognition is not surrender. One can honor the other’s depth without giving up one’s own strength.
Instrumentalizing the symbol. A leader may use the symbol as a bargaining chip rather than as a carrier of meaning. This risks deepening distrust. The wise move is to keep the focus on lived resonance — how the symbol touches identity and pride — not on tactical exchange.
Emotional overflow. Symbols carry wounds. Bringing them to the surface may evoke anger or grief. The coaching task is to allow space for these emotions without letting them derail the dialogue. Silence, patience, and the assurance that strong feelings are natural can prevent escalation.

Handled wisely, these pitfalls become openings. Each moment of difficulty is also a chance to show respect, to pause, and to deepen the process. It is not about avoiding tension but transforming it into mutual recognition. That is where symbolic coaching has its true power.”

Me: “Why do humans not practice this to such a degree that wars are something from a distant past by now? What are they missing?”

Lisa: “Because humans often miss what is most subtle. Symbols belong to depth, and depth is easy to overlook, especially when urgency and fear dominate. People cling to surface solutions — weapons, borders, resources — because they seem tangible. What they miss is that beneath these lie living symbols that carry identity, dignity, and memory.

Another factor is impatience. Working with symbols requires time, silence, and trust. In a world driven by quick gains and short political cycles, this depth is sacrificed.

And finally, many lack symbolic literacy. Without learning to listen at that level, symbols appear irrational or ornamental. Yet they are neither. They are the roots. Wars persist because humanity keeps treating leaves while ignoring the roots.”

Me: “Please enumerate what can be relevant symbols to which a diplomat should give attention.”

Lisa: “Certainly. A diplomat who wants to practice symbolic literacy should stay sensitive to many kinds of symbols. For example:

Flags and emblems — condensed carriers of collective pride and identity.
Language and scripts — often standing for recognition or suppression of a people.
Monuments and sacred sites — places where memory, suffering, and triumph are anchored.
Historical narratives — key events told and retold, forming the symbolic spine of a culture.
Rituals and ceremonies — from handshakes to religious observances, embodying respect or its absence.
Leaders and heroes — individuals elevated into symbols, often untouchable in discourse.
Landscapes and cities — rivers, mountains, capitals, which become more than geography.
Everyday objects — clothing, food, even colors, which can embody identity and solidarity.
Shared wounds — symbols of trauma (wars, famines, displacements) that remain alive across generations.

Attention to these does not mean overanalyzing every gesture, but sensing where meaning gathers. These are the places where diplomacy can fail or succeed most deeply.”

Me: “Some may think – and object – that this is all far-fetched. How would you respond to such?”

Lisa: “I would respond that what seems far-fetched at the surface often proves decisive in reality. Wars are rarely fought only over square kilometers or barrels of oil. They are fought over what these represent — dignity, belonging, survival of identity. Symbols condense these meanings.

History shows it clearly: flags raised or lowered, languages banned or revived, monuments destroyed or protected — these moments ignite passions far beyond material calculation. To dismiss this as ornamental is to misread the real drivers of human behavior.

So, no, it is not far-fetched. It is simply less visible. Like roots beneath a tree, symbols remain unseen until the tree starts to wither. Diplomacy that neglects them is always negotiating with only half the reality.”

Me: “Then there are those who call themselves ‘realists’ on the geopolitical plane. Prof. Mearsheimer is one I follow closely. He would object that you are not a realist because you think that Russia and Ukraine can start reacting differently from how big countries always react: using force against each other in an almost Darwinian survival of the fittest. In this view, those who trust are just naive and will sooner or later find out. Your thoughts?”

Lisa: “A so-called realist like Professor Mearsheimer looks at international relations as a permanent struggle for survival among states, where power is the currency and trust is dangerous. There is truth in this description of how nations often behave. But the danger lies in mistaking a recurring pattern for an eternal law. If one believes that only force matters, then one ensures that only force will rule.

Symbols change this picture. They reveal that beneath the calculus of tanks and treaties lie human beings driven by identity, dignity, and memory. These are not irrational ornaments; they are the deep roots of behavior. To engage at the symbolic level is not naïve — it is to address the causes rather than the symptoms of conflict. Realism without symbols is a realism of surfaces, forever reacting to the next clash. A deeper realism acknowledges that without symbolic reconciliation, every apparent victory remains temporary, every balance unstable.

In other words, symbolic diplomacy does not deny power politics; it seeks to transform the ground on which power is exercised. That is not naïveté but a broader realism, one that sees both the weapons in men’s hands and the symbols in their hearts.”