Ulrich Sarcinelli is a professor of political science at the University of Koblenz-Landau. He's an expert on symbolic politics.

DW-WORLD.DE: Ahead of the G8 summit there has been plenty of talk about the nearly total retrofit of the venue, the resort town of Heiligendamm. Is it critical for Chancellor Angela Merkel that the public's impression of the meeting is dominated by reports on security measures and the high costs of hosting the summit?

Ulrich Sarcinelli: I consider the debate about the costs as something typically German. Every host wants to show himself and his country from the best side. Something like that simply costs money ... You must also see that such an opportunity to present a nation and a special region is great advertising. In this respect, you have to be careful not to discuss it too narrow-mindedly.

Regular people will be excluded from Heiligendamm. Will that influence public opinion?

One important question concerns how the meeting actually proceeds: Whether it manages to use the appropriate event dramaturgy, the appropriate gestures, staging and symbols to avert the impression of a hermetically sealed event at which there is, so to say, no contact to normal life, to people's political everyday.

Does the symbolism at a G8 summit take center stage -- ahead of possible results?

The question is how substantial the results are. There are initially measurable results in agreements or in certain statements that as a rule were already negotiated by diplomats in advance. That is at the same time the face value of the event.

There is a danger at this kind of meeting that if there is little material of political substance than more a focus will be put on the surrogate politics, on the staging, which simply seems political. But in general you have to be careful that the symbolic politics are not put on par with the surrogate politics or some other placebo. Political negotiations always have two dimensions: a substantial one and a representative one. The question is which relationship these have to each other: how much symbolic worth refers back to the actual results.

What does the G8 summit actually symbolize?

For one the meaning of the nations taking part, of course. The readiness for cooperation is made clear, with an emphasis especially being put on the parties involved -- the heads of state and government. Different results can be reached depending on their function, role and the current political situation. The host, in this case the hostess, can set a particular course by providing the framework for discussions and starting political initiatives.

The G8 summit seems to some like a symbol for the arrogance of power.

Yes, this impression does come up. It is an exclusive summit, the circle of heads of state and representatives involved is in fact very limited. Right away that raises the question of what kind of relationship these industralized countries actually have with the states that are not taking part. Added to that is the growing importance of non-governmental parties that are not adequately involved in the organization or operation of these kinds of meetings. Overall, that polarizes the perception of "them up there" and "us down here." Additionally, the enormous growth in security precautions over the past few years creates the impression that what is happening is secluded and isolated from the population. That also adds fuel to the resentment.

Has the amount of symbolism in politics grown over the past few years?

I do not support that thesis. Our modern media system and especially the photographic media give the impression that political actions are symbolic actions. But you have to know that symbolic politics have always taken place. If you look at royal ceremonies from the Middle Ages, of modern monarchies or the customs of cities with long traditions, then you can recognize the highly ritualized practices, symbolization and stages behavior that has been practiced for centuries. So there has always been symbolic politics.

Then what's the difference with the symbolic politics of today?

The difference to today is the breadth of such representations achieve. In the past symbolic politics was mainly for the elite, a royal household, chosen member noblemen and only in exceptional cases accessible to the general population. Today symbolic politics has been quasi-democratized -- everyone can observe it. At the same time, the staging and ritualization is done in a different manner. The symbolic politics are not only decided on by the participating actors but also influenced to a high degree by the legality of the media democracy. There is a growing competition for the scarce commodity of attention. This often leads to the most spectacular action possible on the political side or an accordingly dramatic presentation on the part of the media in order to break through the audience's attention barrier. But that everything deceives should not also mislead one to the point that symbolic politics have always been a central component of political actions. Politics cannot be taken at face value.

Pablo Walden interviewed Ulrich Sarcinelli (ncy/sms)