Explanatory essays - The Power of Knowle: Essays That Explain the Important Things in Life - Sykalo Eugene 2025

Symbolism and its Cultural Significance in Different Literary Traditions: Unveiling the Tapestry of Human Imagination
Comparative literature and cross-cultural analysis

I remember the first time I read Gabriel García Márquez’s One Hundred Years of Solitude. Those yellow butterflies trailing Mauricio Babilonia like a lovesick fever dream? They wrecked me. In that Colombian world, they’re not just bugs—they’re love, fate, doom, all wrapped in wings. I was 19, reading it in a park, probably pretending to look deep for anyone passing by, and those butterflies felt like they were fluttering in my chest. Now, compare that to Haruki Murakami’s The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle. His birds, his wells, his weird, empty houses—they’re not just props; they’re Japan’s post-war psyche, all alienation and buried secrets. The butterflies and the wells don’t mean the same thing, but they’re both doing the same work: carrying a culture’s soul in a single image. That’s what symbolism does—it’s a shortcut to the gut.

Let’s get one thing straight: symbols aren’t universal. I used to think they were, back when I was young and dumb and thought a rose was a rose was a rose. Nope. In Western lit, a rose might scream love or death—think Shakespeare’s blood-soaked tragedies or Dickinson’s fragile petals. But in, say, Persian poetry like Rumi’s, a rose is often God, or the divine beloved, blooming in a mystic garden. Same flower, worlds apart. I read Hafez in translation a few years back, half-asleep on a train, and his roses hit me like a spiritual gut-punch, nothing like the gothic vibes of Poe. It’s like the same symbol is speaking different languages, and that’s what makes comparative literature so electric—you get to eavesdrop on those conversations.

Here’s where I get a little annoyed. People talk about symbolism like it’s a code to crack, like there’s a right answer if you just squint hard enough. But it’s not a puzzle; it’s a feeling. Take Toni Morrison’s Beloved. That ghost, that house at 124, the chokecherry tree on Sethe’s back—they’re not just “symbols” of slavery’s trauma. They’re alive, haunting the page, making you feel the weight of history in your bones. I read it during a snowstorm, tucked under a blanket, and I swear I could hear Sethe’s footsteps. Now, put that next to Chinua Achebe’s Things Fall Apart. The yam in Igbo culture isn’t just a crop; it’s masculinity, status, life itself. When Okonkwo’s yams fail, it’s not just a bad harvest—it’s his world crumbling. Morrison’s ghosts and Achebe’s yams aren’t shouting the same thing, but they’re both screaming about loss. Comparing them feels like holding two different broken hearts side by side.

Okay, I’m gonna swerve for a second, because symbolism gets extra weird when cultures collide. Globalization’s made literature this big, noisy party where symbols cross-pollinate. Think about Jhumpa Lahiri’s The Namesake. The train, that recurring image of motion and dislocation, carries Gogol’s Indian-American identity crisis. It’s not just a train—it’s the push and pull of two worlds. I read it in a café, scribbling notes like a nerd, and it felt like my own split identity was being called out. Now, compare that to Kazuo Ishiguro’s Never Let Me Go. The clones’ art, their little drawings and poems, symbolize their desperate grab for humanity in a cold, sci-fi world. Lahiri’s train is about cultural drift; Ishiguro’s art is about existential survival. But both are using symbols to wrestle with what it means to be caught between worlds. Globalization’s fingerprints are all over that tension.

Something that drives me up the wall is how Western lit gets treated like the default for “deep” symbolism. Like, sure, Melville’s white whale in Moby-Dick is a beast of a symbol—God, nature, obsession, take your pick. I read it in high school, hating every page until the end, when it finally clicked and I was like, “Oh, damn, this is wild.” But then you look at something like The Tale of Genji by Murasaki Shikibu. Those cherry blossoms falling in the Heian court? They’re not just pretty—they’re time, mortality, the fleeting beauty of life. Western readers might call that “delicate,” but it’s as brutal as Melville’s whale when you get it. The problem is, Eurocentric critics sometimes act like non-Western symbols are “exotic” instead of universal. It’s not exotic; it’s human. And comparative lit lets you call that out, putting Genji and Ahab in the same room to see who flinches first.

Let’s talk about how the internet’s messing with all this, because it’s a game-changer. Symbols aren’t just in books anymore—they’re in memes, X threads, fan art. I was scrolling the other day and saw people losing it over the lighthouse in Annihilation—is it alien, psychological, feminist? Compare that to the way K-pop stans on X argue about the moon in BTS’s lyrics, tying it to Korean folklore or global dreams. It’s not academic; it’s raw, chaotic, and kind of thrilling. Literature’s symbols are now public property, remixed across cultures in real time. It’s like Scheherazade telling stories on TikTok, weaving Arabian Nights into a global feed. That’s what comparative lit looks like now—less ivory tower, more group chat.

I’m gonna get personal for a hot minute. Reading globally has rewired how I see symbols. When I read Arundhati Roy’s The God of Small Things, the river in Kerala wasn’t just a river—it was love, caste, tragedy, all flowing together. I was reading it on a plane, trying not to cry in public, and it felt like Roy was whispering secrets to me. Compare that to Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment. Raskolnikov’s axe isn’t just a murder weapon; it’s his guilt, his rebellion, his whole messed-up soul. I read that in college, chain-smoking on a fire escape, feeling like I was Raskolnikov’s twin. Both the river and the axe are symbols, but they’re shaped by their worlds—India’s social fault lines, Russia’s existential dread. Yet they both cut to the same human core: what we do when we’re desperate.

Here’s where I get a bit cranky: not all symbols travel well. Globalization’s great for spreading stories, but it can flatten them, too. Western publishers sometimes push “accessible” translations that strip out cultural nuance. Take Rumi again—his nightingales and roses lose their Sufi soul when they’re turned into Instagram quotes. Or think about Indigenous lit, like Louise Erdrich’s Love Medicine. Her turtles and beads carry Ojibwe history, but to an outsider, they might just seem “folksy.” Compare that to something like Wole Soyinka’s Death and the King’s Horseman. The Yoruba rituals in that play are dense with meaning, but a lazy reading might reduce them to “African mysticism.” It’s not just a misread—it’s a theft. Comparative lit forces you to see those gaps, to ask why some symbols get to be “universal” and others get sidelined.

I could keep ranting, but I won’t tidy this up with some grand takeaway. Symbolism’s not a code to crack; it’s a window into how humans dream, grieve, and fight across cultures. Reading Their Eyes Were Watching God by Zora Neale Hurston next to Norwegian Wood by Murakami feels like catching two different lightning bolts—one’s the Florida heat of Janie’s pear tree, the other’s Tokyo’s quiet, snowy despair. Both are symbols, both are stories, both are human. So, pick up a book from somewhere far-off. Let its symbols mess with you. That’s where the world’s imagination lives, tangled and alive.