Symmetry and asymmetry are inherently cross-disciplinary (Weyl, 1952; Hofstadter, 1979; Hargittai, 1986; Washburn & Crowe, 1988; Darvas, 2007; Pelkey, 2022), but dedicated studies in this area usually default to the former while neglecting the latter and usually orient to mathematical theories and methodologies, with focal applications to physics, engineering, design, chemistry, and/or biology. These tendencies can be noted not only by surveying topics addressed almost exclusively in the subject’s relevant flagship journal Symmetry but also by surveying the thematic content of courses offered on the subject in prominent university curricula (e.g., Fields, 2024; Kunstatter & Das, 2022; MIT, 2005; Nanyang, 2021; Tufts, 2024; UBC, 2024). As such, dedicated journals, course-length studies, and book-length treatments of symmetry in academia are all usually undertaken as a general means to some specialized disciplinary end, and that end is usually framed or delineated mathematically with applications to the natural or technical sciences. In the process, various cognitive, social, and semiotic dimensions of symmetry that are equally relevant for developing insights into human understanding and experience are bracketed for convenience or neglected altogether—domains and dimensions of symmetry such as history, anthropology, folk art, archaeology, philosophy, language, linguistics, literature, poetics, phenomenology, aesthetics, psychology, communication, film studies, media studies, and culture studies. As a result, the opportunity to study symmetry and asymmetry in true cross-disciplinary perspective is rare, and symmetry/asymmetry studies are generally neglected in humanities and social sciences programs.