Murray Edelman

Murray Edelman (born November 5, 1919, Nanticoke, Pennsylvania, U.S.—died January 26, 2001, Madison, Wisconsin) was an American political scientist who was best known for his work on the symbolic and subjective nature of politics to reveal the latent meanings behind political activities and behaviour.

Edelman received a bachelor’s degree in social sciences from Bucknell University in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, in 1941. He then earned a master’s degree in history from the University of Chicago in 1942 and a Ph.D. in political science from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in 1948. He served on the faculty of the University of Illinois from 1948 to 1966. In 1966 Edelman joined the faculty of the University of Wisconsin–Madison, and he retired from there in 1990.

Edelman’s innovative and classic book The Symbolic Uses of Politics (1964) is the seminal work on symbolic politics, and it continues to exert a widespread influence on scholarly research. In it, Edelman explored the use of myths, rites, and other symbolic forms of communication in the formation of public opinion and policy. He drew a distinction between the conventional view of politics, which focuses on how people acquire what they want through government, and the reality of politics, in which political symbolism is used to influence a country’s citizens by placating them or compelling them to act. The book was centred on the notion that democracy is largely symbolic and expressive in function and has fostered vibrant scholarly debate. According to Edelman, political reality is concealed from the public through the generation of largely empty symbols by the political elite.

Edelman wrote 10 other books exploring the issues of which The Symbolic Uses of Politics laid the foundation. Those books include Politics as Symbolic Action: Mass Arousal and Quiescence (1971), which explored the generation of political perception and public opinion in democracies and mass political action, and Constructing the Political Spectacle (1988), in which he argued that even those who are the most well-versed in politics would exhibit characteristics of the dominant ideology—even if they developed and espoused ideologies that ran counter to it