Humans are complicated pattern-recognition machines; our ability is so finely-tuned that we often see patterns where none exist.  Some scientists have theorized that this ability evolved as a way for us to sort through information and instructions for the best way to do things.  Others suggest that it is part of our socialization, as tribal identification, remembering faces and recognizing threats were once (and sometimes still are) survival issues.  

Ok, so what does that have to do with symbols, and can any discussion of symbols avoid Godwin's Law?

Stereotypes and archetypes are ways we compress information using this pattern-recognition ability, extending our current knowledge about something to give context to unknowns.  Often this is a problem (when we see patterns where none exist by relying exclusively on stereotypes and archetypes for referencing our worlds) but that doesn't mean they are useless, either.  Some theorize we evolved this reliance on them as a way of predicting how our prey or a local predator would act based on our previous encounters with them.  So, the story goes, our ancestors taught their offspring about which types of people, objects or places were safe and dangerous.

This is where symbols come in.  Symbols are a non-verbal culturally-based language using archetypes common to that culture to compress information and emotion into easily-recognized bites.  From a cave bear skull on a stick to a US Flag, symbols offer ready identification of anything.  You see a cross, you think Christianity.  You see a swoosh, you think Nike.  You see a swastika and you think Nazis.

Oops, Godwinned already.  I'll soldier on anyway.

Swastikas are a good example of the culturally-based nature of symbols.  In India they are a symbol of good luck.  Here in the West, Nazis imbued that symbol with hatred and anti-semitism.  Clearly, then, symbols can be fluid.  Corporate logos, for example, are just shorthand for the company itself; if the company has a history of good customer relations and high-profile charity work, the logo becomes filled with positive associations.  If, however, the company is scandal-ridden and does terrible things, their logo will carry negative associations.  Enron is a great example of this.

Other symbols are more ambiguous.  Take, for example, the silhouette of an apple with a bite missing.  Early Apple logos showed Isaac Newton sitting under an apple tree, a parable of gaining knowledge.  Later it became a more literal apple; Steve Jobs also liked the pun on the word 'byte', and added the rainbow colors to show that this computer could display colors and not just black and white. 

There's a great urban legend that the Apple logo is also a tribute to one of the fathers of computing, Alan Turing, who committed suicide by eating an apple laced with cyanide after being convicted of (at the time, illegal) homosexual acts.  This claim is often backed with the original logo's rainbow colors representing his homosexuality (though the rainbow flag wasn't designed until two years after that version of the Apple logo).  Suddenly their logo is a subversive indictment of stereotypes and bigotry, a call for understanding and celebrating our differences in the face of intellectual achievement.

This is a fascinating ambiguity.  It's believable enough, and the first time I heard it I was impressed with Apple for having such a subtle story behind their logo.  When I discovered that there was no truth to the urban legend, I was a little disappointed.  I really wanted it to be true, because it would mean that Apple had taken a political stance on homosexuality.

Alas, this is not the case.  Corporations rarely want to use existing symbols, charged with meaning as they are, to represent themselves.  They prefer empty vessels with which to fill with their own associations, good or bad. This is why logos tend to avoid charged political or religious symbolism.  This is difficult, because designers often want to use the symbols from their toolboxes as shorthand to say something about the company.

Consider the intention of the original designer of Apple's logo: the designer said that it represented knowledge, as in the Genesis story of Adam and Eve eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge.  it represents the fall of Man from innocence, and the beginning of original sin.  In many quarters this is viewed as a Seriously Bad Thing, so I guess their logo is a little bit subversive after all.