Ritual - Revision history

TeraS at 18:59, 7 August 2014

2014-08-07T18:59:43Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:59, 7 August 2014
Line 60:		Line 60:

	Turner uses the example of the Isoma ritual among the Ndembu of northwestern Zambia to illustrate. The Isoma rite of affliction is used to cure a childless woman of infertility. Infertility is the result of a "structural tension between matrilineal descent and virilocal marriage" (i.e., the tension a woman feels between her mother's family, to whom she owes allegiance, and her husband's family among whom she must live). "It is because the woman has come too closely in touch with the 'man's side' in her marriage that her dead matrikin have impaired her fertility." To correct the balance of matrilinial descent and marriage, the Isoma ritual dramatically placates the deceased spirits by requiring the woman to reside with her mother's kin.<ref>{{cite book\|last=Turner\|first=Victor\|title=The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure\|year=1969\|publisher=Cornell University Press\|location=Ithaca NY\|pages=20–1.}}</ref>		Turner uses the example of the Isoma ritual among the Ndembu of northwestern Zambia to illustrate. The Isoma rite of affliction is used to cure a childless woman of infertility. Infertility is the result of a "structural tension between matrilineal descent and virilocal marriage" (i.e., the tension a woman feels between her mother's family, to whom she owes allegiance, and her husband's family among whom she must live). "It is because the woman has come too closely in touch with the 'man's side' in her marriage that her dead matrikin have impaired her fertility." To correct the balance of matrilinial descent and marriage, the Isoma ritual dramatically placates the deceased spirits by requiring the woman to reside with her mother's kin.<ref>{{cite book\|last=Turner\|first=Victor\|title=The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure\|year=1969\|publisher=Cornell University Press\|location=Ithaca NY\|pages=20–1.}}</ref>
	Shamanic and other ritual may effect a psychotherapeutic cure, leading anthropologists such as Jane Atkinson to theorize how. Atkinson argues that the effectiveness of a shamanic ritual for an individual may depend upon a wider audiences acknowledging the shaman's power, which may lead to the shaman placing greater emphasis on engaging the audience than in the healing of the patient.<ref>{{cite journal\|last=Atkinson\|first=Jane\|title=The Effectiveness of Shamans in an Indonesian Ritual\|journal=American Anthropologist\|year=1987\|volume=89\|issue=2\|page=342~~\|doi=10.1525/aa.1987.89.2.02a00040~~}}</ref>		Shamanic and other ritual may effect a psychotherapeutic cure, leading anthropologists such as Jane Atkinson to theorize how. Atkinson argues that the effectiveness of a shamanic ritual for an individual may depend upon a wider audiences acknowledging the shaman's power, which may lead to the shaman placing greater emphasis on engaging the audience than in the healing of the patient.<ref>{{cite journal\|last=Atkinson\|first=Jane\|title=The Effectiveness of Shamans in an Indonesian Ritual\|journal=American Anthropologist\|year=1987\|volume=89\|issue=2\|page=342}}</ref>

	===Rites of Feasting, Fasting and Festivals===		===Rites of Feasting, Fasting and Festivals===
Line 74:		Line 74:
	Nineteenth century "armchair anthropologists" were concerned with the basic question of how religion originated in human history. In the twentieth century their conjectural histories were replaced with new concerns around the question of what these beliefs and practices did for societies, regardless of their origin. In this view, religion was a universal, and while its content might vary enormously, it served certain basic functions such as the provision of prescribed solutions to basic human psychological and social problems, as well as expressing the central values of a society. Bronislaw Malinowski used the concept of function to address questions of individual psychological needs; A. R. Radcliffe-Brown, in contrast, looked for the function (purpose) of the institution or custom in preserving or maintaining society as a whole. They thus disagreed about the relationship of anxiety to ritual.<ref>{{cite book\|last=William A. Lessa\|first=Evon Z. Vogt eds\|title=Reader in Comparative Religion: An Anthropological Approach\|year=1979\|publisher=Harper & Row\|location=New York\|pages=36–8}}</ref>		Nineteenth century "armchair anthropologists" were concerned with the basic question of how religion originated in human history. In the twentieth century their conjectural histories were replaced with new concerns around the question of what these beliefs and practices did for societies, regardless of their origin. In this view, religion was a universal, and while its content might vary enormously, it served certain basic functions such as the provision of prescribed solutions to basic human psychological and social problems, as well as expressing the central values of a society. Bronislaw Malinowski used the concept of function to address questions of individual psychological needs; A. R. Radcliffe-Brown, in contrast, looked for the function (purpose) of the institution or custom in preserving or maintaining society as a whole. They thus disagreed about the relationship of anxiety to ritual.<ref>{{cite book\|last=William A. Lessa\|first=Evon Z. Vogt eds\|title=Reader in Comparative Religion: An Anthropological Approach\|year=1979\|publisher=Harper & Row\|location=New York\|pages=36–8}}</ref>

	Malinowski argued that ritual was a non-technical means of addressing anxiety about activities where dangerous elements were beyond technical control: "magic is to be expected and generally to be found whenever man comes to an unbridgeable gap, a hiatus in his knowledge or in his owes of practical control, and yet has to continue in his pursuit.".<ref>{{cite book\|last=William A. Lessa\|first=Evon Z. Vogt eds\|title=Reader in Comparative Religion: An Anthropological Approach\|year=1979\|publisher=Harper & Row\|location=New York\|page=38}}</ref> Radcliffe-Brown in contrast, saw ritual as an expression of common interest symbolically representing a community, and that anxiety was felt only if the ritual was not performed.<ref>{{cite book\|last=William A. Lessa\|first=Evon Z. Vogt eds\|title=Reader in Comparative Religion: An Anthropological Approach\|year=1979\|publisher=Harper & Row\|location=New York\|pages=36–8}}</ref> George C. Homans sought to resolve these opposing theories by differentiating between "primary anxieties" felt by people who lack the techniques to secure results, and "secondary (or displaced) anxiety" felt by those who have not performed the rites meant to allay primary anxiety correctly. Homans argued that purification rituals may then be conducted to dispel secondary anxiety.<ref>{{cite journal\|last=Homans\|first=George C.\|title=Anxiety and Ritual: The Theories of Malinowski and Radcliffe-Brown\|journal=American Anthropologist\|year=1941\|volume=43\|pages=164–72~~\|doi=10.1525/aa.1941.43.2.02a00020~~}}</ref>		Malinowski argued that ritual was a non-technical means of addressing anxiety about activities where dangerous elements were beyond technical control: "magic is to be expected and generally to be found whenever man comes to an unbridgeable gap, a hiatus in his knowledge or in his owes of practical control, and yet has to continue in his pursuit.".<ref>{{cite book\|last=William A. Lessa\|first=Evon Z. Vogt eds\|title=Reader in Comparative Religion: An Anthropological Approach\|year=1979\|publisher=Harper & Row\|location=New York\|page=38}}</ref> Radcliffe-Brown in contrast, saw ritual as an expression of common interest symbolically representing a community, and that anxiety was felt only if the ritual was not performed.<ref>{{cite book\|last=William A. Lessa\|first=Evon Z. Vogt eds\|title=Reader in Comparative Religion: An Anthropological Approach\|year=1979\|publisher=Harper & Row\|location=New York\|pages=36–8}}</ref> George C. Homans sought to resolve these opposing theories by differentiating between "primary anxieties" felt by people who lack the techniques to secure results, and "secondary (or displaced) anxiety" felt by those who have not performed the rites meant to allay primary anxiety correctly. Homans argued that purification rituals may then be conducted to dispel secondary anxiety.<ref>{{cite journal\|last=Homans\|first=George C.\|title=Anxiety and Ritual: The Theories of Malinowski and Radcliffe-Brown\|journal=American Anthropologist\|year=1941\|volume=43\|pages=164–72}}</ref>

	A.R. Radcliffe-Brown argued that ritual should be distinguished from technical action, viewing it as a structured event: "ritual acts differ from technical acts in having in all instances some expressive or symbolic element in them."<ref>{{cite book\|last=Radcliffe-Brown\|first=A.R.\|title=Structure and Function in Primitive Society\|year=1939\|publisher=Cohen and West\|location=London\|page=143}}</ref> Edmund Leach, in contrast, saw ritual and technical action less as separate structural types of activity and more as a spectrum: "Actions fall into place on a continuous scale. At one extreme we have actions which are entirely profane, entirely functional, technique pure and simple; at the other we have actions which are entirely sacred, strictly aesthetic, technically non-functional. Between these two extremes we have the great majority of social actions which partake partly of the one sphere and partly of the other. From this point of view technique and ritual, profane and sacred, do not denote ''types'' of action but ''aspects'' of almost any kind of action."<ref>{{cite book\|last=Leach\|first=Edmund\|title=Political Systems of Highland Burma\|year=1954\|publisher=Bell\|location=London\|pages=12–13}}</ref>		A.R. Radcliffe-Brown argued that ritual should be distinguished from technical action, viewing it as a structured event: "ritual acts differ from technical acts in having in all instances some expressive or symbolic element in them."<ref>{{cite book\|last=Radcliffe-Brown\|first=A.R.\|title=Structure and Function in Primitive Society\|year=1939\|publisher=Cohen and West\|location=London\|page=143}}</ref> Edmund Leach, in contrast, saw ritual and technical action less as separate structural types of activity and more as a spectrum: "Actions fall into place on a continuous scale. At one extreme we have actions which are entirely profane, entirely functional, technique pure and simple; at the other we have actions which are entirely sacred, strictly aesthetic, technically non-functional. Between these two extremes we have the great majority of social actions which partake partly of the one sphere and partly of the other. From this point of view technique and ritual, profane and sacred, do not denote ''types'' of action but ''aspects'' of almost any kind of action."<ref>{{cite book\|last=Leach\|first=Edmund\|title=Political Systems of Highland Burma\|year=1954\|publisher=Bell\|location=London\|pages=12–13}}</ref>
Line 110:		Line 110:
	Whereas Victor Turner saw in ritual the potential to release people from the binding structures of their lives into a liberating anti-structure or communitas, Maurice Bloch argued that ritual produced conformity.<ref>{{cite book\|last=Hughes-Freeland\|first=Felicia (ed.)\|title=Ritual, Performance, Media\|publisher=Routledge\|location=London\|page=2}}</ref>		Whereas Victor Turner saw in ritual the potential to release people from the binding structures of their lives into a liberating anti-structure or communitas, Maurice Bloch argued that ritual produced conformity.<ref>{{cite book\|last=Hughes-Freeland\|first=Felicia (ed.)\|title=Ritual, Performance, Media\|publisher=Routledge\|location=London\|page=2}}</ref>

	Maurice Bloch argued that ritual communication is unusual in that it uses a special, restricted vocabulary, a small number of permissible illustrations, and a restrictive grammar. As a result, ritual utterances become very predictable, and the speaker is made anonymous in that they have little choice in what to say. The restrictive syntax reduces the ability of the speaker to make propositional arguments, and they are left, instead, with utterances that cannot be contradicted such as "I do thee wed" in a wedding. These kinds of utterances, known as performatives, prevent speakers from making political arguments through logical argument, and are typical of what Weber called traditional authority instead.<ref>{{cite journal\|last=Bloch\|first=Maurice\|title=Symbols, Song, Dance and Features of Articulation: Is Religion an Extreme Form of Traditional Authority?\|journal=Archives European de Sociologie\|year=1974\|volume=15\|issue=1\|pages=55–84~~\|doi=10.1017/s0003975600002824~~}}</ref>		Maurice Bloch argued that ritual communication is unusual in that it uses a special, restricted vocabulary, a small number of permissible illustrations, and a restrictive grammar. As a result, ritual utterances become very predictable, and the speaker is made anonymous in that they have little choice in what to say. The restrictive syntax reduces the ability of the speaker to make propositional arguments, and they are left, instead, with utterances that cannot be contradicted such as "I do thee wed" in a wedding. These kinds of utterances, known as performatives, prevent speakers from making political arguments through logical argument, and are typical of what Weber called traditional authority instead.<ref>{{cite journal\|last=Bloch\|first=Maurice\|title=Symbols, Song, Dance and Features of Articulation: Is Religion an Extreme Form of Traditional Authority?\|journal=Archives European de Sociologie\|year=1974\|volume=15\|issue=1\|pages=55–84}}</ref>

	Bloch's model of ritual language denies the possibility of creativity. Thomas Csordas, in contrast, analyzes how ritual language can be used to innovate. Csordas looks at groups of rituals that share performative elements ("genres" of ritual with a shared "poetics"). These rituals may fall along the spectrum of formality, with some less, others more formal and restrictive. Csordas argues that innovations may be introduced in less formalized rituals. As these innovations become more accepted and standardized, they are slowly adopted in more formal rituals. In this way, even the most formal of rituals are potential avenues for creative expression.<ref>{{cite book\|last=Csordas\|first=Thomas J.\|title=Language, Charisma, & Creativity: Ritual Life in the Catholic Charismatic Renewal\|year=2001(1997)\|publisher=Palgrave\|location=Basingstoke\|pages=255–65}}</ref>		Bloch's model of ritual language denies the possibility of creativity. Thomas Csordas, in contrast, analyzes how ritual language can be used to innovate. Csordas looks at groups of rituals that share performative elements ("genres" of ritual with a shared "poetics"). These rituals may fall along the spectrum of formality, with some less, others more formal and restrictive. Csordas argues that innovations may be introduced in less formalized rituals. As these innovations become more accepted and standardized, they are slowly adopted in more formal rituals. In this way, even the most formal of rituals are potential avenues for creative expression.<ref>{{cite book\|last=Csordas\|first=Thomas J.\|title=Language, Charisma, & Creativity: Ritual Life in the Catholic Charismatic Renewal\|year=2001(1997)\|publisher=Palgrave\|location=Basingstoke\|pages=255–65}}</ref>

TeraS at 18:57, 7 August 2014

2014-08-07T18:57:59Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:57, 7 August 2014
Line 3:		Line 3:


	A '''ritual''' "is a sequence of activities involving gestures, words, and objects, performed in a sequestered place, and performed according to set sequence."<ref>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ritual</ref> Rituals may be prescribed by the ~~[[tradition]]s~~ of a community, including a religious community. Rituals are characterized by formalism, traditionalism, invariance, rule-governance, sacral symbolism and performance.<ref>{{cite book\|last=Bell\|first=Catherine\|title=Ritual: Perspectives and Dimensions\|year=1997\|publisher=Oxford University Press\|location=New York\|pages=138–169}}</ref>		A '''ritual''' "is a sequence of activities involving gestures, words, and objects, performed in a sequestered place, and performed according to set sequence."<ref>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ritual</ref> Rituals may be prescribed by the traditions of a community, including a religious community. Rituals are characterized by formalism, traditionalism, invariance, rule-governance, sacral symbolism and performance.<ref>{{cite book\|last=Bell\|first=Catherine\|title=Ritual: Perspectives and Dimensions\|year=1997\|publisher=Oxford University Press\|location=New York\|pages=138–169}}</ref>

	Rituals of various kinds are a feature of all known human societies, past or present. They include not only the various worship rites and sacraments of organized religions and cults, but also the rites of passage of certain societies, atonement and purification rites, oaths of allegiance, dedication ceremonies, coronations and presidential inaugurations, marriages and funerals, school "rush" traditions and graduations, club meetings, sports events, Halloween parties, veterans parades, Christmas shopping and more. Many activities that are ostensibly performed for concrete purposes, such as jury trials, execution of criminals, and scientific symposia, are loaded with purely symbolic actions prescribed by regulations or tradition, and thus partly ritualistic in nature. Even common actions like hand-shaking and saying hello may be termed rituals.		Rituals of various kinds are a feature of all known human societies, past or present. They include not only the various worship rites and sacraments of organized religions and cults, but also the rites of passage of certain societies, atonement and purification rites, oaths of allegiance, dedication ceremonies, coronations and presidential inaugurations, marriages and funerals, school "rush" traditions and graduations, club meetings, sports events, Halloween parties, veterans parades, Christmas shopping and more. Many activities that are ostensibly performed for concrete purposes, such as jury trials, execution of criminals, and scientific symposia, are loaded with purely symbolic actions prescribed by regulations or tradition, and thus partly ritualistic in nature. Even common actions like hand-shaking and saying hello may be termed rituals.
Line 34:		Line 34:
	===Sacred Symbolism===		===Sacred Symbolism===
	Activities appealing to supernatural beings are easily considered rituals, although the appeal may be quite indirect or subtle, expressing only a generalized belief in the existence of the sacred demanding a human response. National flags, for example, may be considered more than signs representing a country. In the United States no one argues the flag is holy, but it stands for larger symbols such as freedom, democracy, free enterprise or national superiority.<ref>{{cite book\|last=Bell\|first=Catherine\|title=Ritual: Perspectives and Dimensions\|year=1997\|publisher=Oxford University Press\|location=New York\|page=156}}</ref> Anthropologist Sherry Ortner writes that the flag		Activities appealing to supernatural beings are easily considered rituals, although the appeal may be quite indirect or subtle, expressing only a generalized belief in the existence of the sacred demanding a human response. National flags, for example, may be considered more than signs representing a country. In the United States no one argues the flag is holy, but it stands for larger symbols such as freedom, democracy, free enterprise or national superiority.<ref>{{cite book\|last=Bell\|first=Catherine\|title=Ritual: Perspectives and Dimensions\|year=1997\|publisher=Oxford University Press\|location=New York\|page=156}}</ref> Anthropologist Sherry Ortner writes that the flag
	<blockquote>does not encourage reflection on the logical relations among these ideas, nor on the logical consequences of them as they are played out in social actuality, over time and history. On the contrary, the flag encourages a sort of all-or-nothing allegiance to the whole package, best summed [by] 'Our flag, love it or leave.'<ref>{{cite journal\|last=Ortner\|first=Sherry\|title=On Key Symbols\|journal=American Anthropologist\|year=1973\|volume=75\|page=1340\|~~doi=10.1525/aa.1973.75.5.02a00100~~}}</ref></blockquote>		<blockquote>does not encourage reflection on the logical relations among these ideas, nor on the logical consequences of them as they are played out in social actuality, over time and history. On the contrary, the flag encourages a sort of all-or-nothing allegiance to the whole package, best summed [by] 'Our flag, love it or leave.'<ref>{{cite journal\|last=Ortner\|first=Sherry\|title=On Key Symbols\|journal=American Anthropologist\|year=1973\|volume=75\|page=1340\|}}</ref></blockquote>
	Particular objects become sacral symbols through a process of [[consecration]] which effectively creates the sacred by setting it apart from the profane. Boy Scouts and the armed forces, for example, teach the "official" ways of folding, saluting and raising the flag, thus emphasizing that the flag should never be treated as just a piece of cloth.<ref>{{cite book\|last=Bell\|first=Catherine\|title=Ritual: Perspectives and Dimensions\|year=1997\|publisher=Oxford University Press\|location=New York\|pages=156–7}}</ref>		Particular objects become sacral symbols through a process of consecration which effectively creates the sacred by setting it apart from the profane. Boy Scouts and the armed forces, for example, teach the "official" ways of folding, saluting and raising the flag, thus emphasizing that the flag should never be treated as just a piece of cloth.<ref>{{cite book\|last=Bell\|first=Catherine\|title=Ritual: Perspectives and Dimensions\|year=1997\|publisher=Oxford University Press\|location=New York\|pages=156–7}}</ref>

	===Performance===		===Performance===

TeraS at 18:55, 7 August 2014

2014-08-07T18:55:30Z

Show changes

TeraS at 20:38, 8 March 2008

2008-03-08T20:38:14Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:38, 8 March 2008
Line 2:		Line 2:

	''For an example of a Succubi Summoning see: [[Succubus Summoning]].''		''For an example of a Succubi Summoning see: [[Succubus Summoning]].''




	A ritual is a set of actions, often thought to have symbolic value, the performance of which is usually prescribed by a religion or by the traditions of a community by religious or political laws because of the perceived efficacy of those actions.		A ritual is a set of actions, often thought to have symbolic value, the performance of which is usually prescribed by a religion or by the traditions of a community by religious or political laws because of the perceived efficacy of those actions.

TeraS at 20:38, 8 March 2008

2008-03-08T20:38:00Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:38, 8 March 2008
Line 1:		Line 1:
	[[Category:Definitions]]		[[Category:Definitions]]

	A ritual is a set of actions, often thought to have symbolic value, the performance of which is usually prescribed by a religion or by the traditions of a community by religious or political laws because of the perceived efficacy of those actions~~[1][2]~~		''For an example of a Succubi Summoning see: [[Succubus Summoning]].''

			A ritual is a set of actions, often thought to have symbolic value, the performance of which is usually prescribed by a religion or by the traditions of a community by religious or political laws because of the perceived efficacy of those actions.
	A ritual may be performed at regular intervals, or on specific occasions, or at the discretion of individuals or communities. It may be performed by a single individual, by a group, or by the entire community; in arbitrary places, or in places especially reserved for it; either in public, in private, or before specific people. A ritual may be restricted to a certain subset of the community, and may enable or underscore the passage between religious or social states.		A ritual may be performed at regular intervals, or on specific occasions, or at the discretion of individuals or communities. It may be performed by a single individual, by a group, or by the entire community; in arbitrary places, or in places especially reserved for it; either in public, in private, or before specific people. A ritual may be restricted to a certain subset of the community, and may enable or underscore the passage between religious or social states.

TeraS: Start Entry

2008-02-24T18:12:01Z

Start Entry

New page

[[Category:Definitions]]

A ritual is a set of actions, often thought to have symbolic value, the performance of which is usually prescribed by a religion or by the traditions of a community by religious or political laws because of the perceived efficacy of those actions[1][2]
A ritual may be performed at regular intervals, or on specific occasions, or at the discretion of individuals or communities. It may be performed by a single individual, by a group, or by the entire community; in arbitrary places, or in places especially reserved for it; either in public, in private, or before specific people. A ritual may be restricted to a certain subset of the community, and may enable or underscore the passage between religious or social states.

The purposes of rituals are varied; they include compliance with religious obligations or ideals, satisfaction of spiritual or emotional needs of the practitioners, strengthening of social bonds, demonstration of respect or submission, stating one's affiliation, obtaining social acceptance or approval for some event — or, sometimes, just for the pleasure of the ritual itself.

Rituals of various kinds are a feature of almost all known human societies, past or present. They include not only the various worship rites and sacraments of organized religions and cults, but also the rites of passage of certain societies, oaths of allegiance, coronations, and presidential inaugurations, marriages and funerals, school "rush" traditions and graduations, club meetings, sports events, Halloween parties and veteran parades, Christmas shopping, and more. Many activities that are ostensibly performed for concrete purposes, such as jury trials, execution of criminals, and scientific symposia, are loaded with purely symbolic actions prescribed by regulations or tradition, and thus partly ritualistic in nature. Even common actions like hand-shaking and saying hello are rituals.

In any case, an essential feature of a ritual is that the actions and their symbolism are not arbitrarily chosen by the performers, nor dictated by logic or necessity, but either are prescribed and imposed upon the performers by some external source or are inherited unconsciously from social traditions.

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:59, 7 August 2014
Line 60:		Line 60:

	Turner uses the example of the Isoma ritual among the Ndembu of northwestern Zambia to illustrate. The Isoma rite of affliction is used to cure a childless woman of infertility. Infertility is the result of a "structural tension between matrilineal descent and virilocal marriage" (i.e., the tension a woman feels between her mother's family, to whom she owes allegiance, and her husband's family among whom she must live). "It is because the woman has come too closely in touch with the 'man's side' in her marriage that her dead matrikin have impaired her fertility." To correct the balance of matrilinial descent and marriage, the Isoma ritual dramatically placates the deceased spirits by requiring the woman to reside with her mother's kin.<ref>{{cite book\|last=Turner\|first=Victor\|title=The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure\|year=1969\|publisher=Cornell University Press\|location=Ithaca NY\|pages=20–1.}}</ref>		Turner uses the example of the Isoma ritual among the Ndembu of northwestern Zambia to illustrate. The Isoma rite of affliction is used to cure a childless woman of infertility. Infertility is the result of a "structural tension between matrilineal descent and virilocal marriage" (i.e., the tension a woman feels between her mother's family, to whom she owes allegiance, and her husband's family among whom she must live). "It is because the woman has come too closely in touch with the 'man's side' in her marriage that her dead matrikin have impaired her fertility." To correct the balance of matrilinial descent and marriage, the Isoma ritual dramatically placates the deceased spirits by requiring the woman to reside with her mother's kin.<ref>{{cite book\|last=Turner\|first=Victor\|title=The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure\|year=1969\|publisher=Cornell University Press\|location=Ithaca NY\|pages=20–1.}}</ref>
	Shamanic and other ritual may effect a psychotherapeutic cure, leading anthropologists such as Jane Atkinson to theorize how. Atkinson argues that the effectiveness of a shamanic ritual for an individual may depend upon a wider audiences acknowledging the shaman's power, which may lead to the shaman placing greater emphasis on engaging the audience than in the healing of the patient.<ref>{{cite journal\|last=Atkinson\|first=Jane\|title=The Effectiveness of Shamans in an Indonesian Ritual\|journal=American Anthropologist\|year=1987\|volume=89\|issue=2\|page=342~~\|doi=10.1525/aa.1987.89.2.02a00040~~}}</ref>		Shamanic and other ritual may effect a psychotherapeutic cure, leading anthropologists such as Jane Atkinson to theorize how. Atkinson argues that the effectiveness of a shamanic ritual for an individual may depend upon a wider audiences acknowledging the shaman's power, which may lead to the shaman placing greater emphasis on engaging the audience than in the healing of the patient.<ref>{{cite journal\|last=Atkinson\|first=Jane\|title=The Effectiveness of Shamans in an Indonesian Ritual\|journal=American Anthropologist\|year=1987\|volume=89\|issue=2\|page=342}}</ref>

	===Rites of Feasting, Fasting and Festivals===		===Rites of Feasting, Fasting and Festivals===
Line 74:		Line 74:
	Nineteenth century "armchair anthropologists" were concerned with the basic question of how religion originated in human history. In the twentieth century their conjectural histories were replaced with new concerns around the question of what these beliefs and practices did for societies, regardless of their origin. In this view, religion was a universal, and while its content might vary enormously, it served certain basic functions such as the provision of prescribed solutions to basic human psychological and social problems, as well as expressing the central values of a society. Bronislaw Malinowski used the concept of function to address questions of individual psychological needs; A. R. Radcliffe-Brown, in contrast, looked for the function (purpose) of the institution or custom in preserving or maintaining society as a whole. They thus disagreed about the relationship of anxiety to ritual.<ref>{{cite book\|last=William A. Lessa\|first=Evon Z. Vogt eds\|title=Reader in Comparative Religion: An Anthropological Approach\|year=1979\|publisher=Harper & Row\|location=New York\|pages=36–8}}</ref>		Nineteenth century "armchair anthropologists" were concerned with the basic question of how religion originated in human history. In the twentieth century their conjectural histories were replaced with new concerns around the question of what these beliefs and practices did for societies, regardless of their origin. In this view, religion was a universal, and while its content might vary enormously, it served certain basic functions such as the provision of prescribed solutions to basic human psychological and social problems, as well as expressing the central values of a society. Bronislaw Malinowski used the concept of function to address questions of individual psychological needs; A. R. Radcliffe-Brown, in contrast, looked for the function (purpose) of the institution or custom in preserving or maintaining society as a whole. They thus disagreed about the relationship of anxiety to ritual.<ref>{{cite book\|last=William A. Lessa\|first=Evon Z. Vogt eds\|title=Reader in Comparative Religion: An Anthropological Approach\|year=1979\|publisher=Harper & Row\|location=New York\|pages=36–8}}</ref>

	Malinowski argued that ritual was a non-technical means of addressing anxiety about activities where dangerous elements were beyond technical control: "magic is to be expected and generally to be found whenever man comes to an unbridgeable gap, a hiatus in his knowledge or in his owes of practical control, and yet has to continue in his pursuit.".<ref>{{cite book\|last=William A. Lessa\|first=Evon Z. Vogt eds\|title=Reader in Comparative Religion: An Anthropological Approach\|year=1979\|publisher=Harper & Row\|location=New York\|page=38}}</ref> Radcliffe-Brown in contrast, saw ritual as an expression of common interest symbolically representing a community, and that anxiety was felt only if the ritual was not performed.<ref>{{cite book\|last=William A. Lessa\|first=Evon Z. Vogt eds\|title=Reader in Comparative Religion: An Anthropological Approach\|year=1979\|publisher=Harper & Row\|location=New York\|pages=36–8}}</ref> George C. Homans sought to resolve these opposing theories by differentiating between "primary anxieties" felt by people who lack the techniques to secure results, and "secondary (or displaced) anxiety" felt by those who have not performed the rites meant to allay primary anxiety correctly. Homans argued that purification rituals may then be conducted to dispel secondary anxiety.<ref>{{cite journal\|last=Homans\|first=George C.\|title=Anxiety and Ritual: The Theories of Malinowski and Radcliffe-Brown\|journal=American Anthropologist\|year=1941\|volume=43\|pages=164–72~~\|doi=10.1525/aa.1941.43.2.02a00020~~}}</ref>		Malinowski argued that ritual was a non-technical means of addressing anxiety about activities where dangerous elements were beyond technical control: "magic is to be expected and generally to be found whenever man comes to an unbridgeable gap, a hiatus in his knowledge or in his owes of practical control, and yet has to continue in his pursuit.".<ref>{{cite book\|last=William A. Lessa\|first=Evon Z. Vogt eds\|title=Reader in Comparative Religion: An Anthropological Approach\|year=1979\|publisher=Harper & Row\|location=New York\|page=38}}</ref> Radcliffe-Brown in contrast, saw ritual as an expression of common interest symbolically representing a community, and that anxiety was felt only if the ritual was not performed.<ref>{{cite book\|last=William A. Lessa\|first=Evon Z. Vogt eds\|title=Reader in Comparative Religion: An Anthropological Approach\|year=1979\|publisher=Harper & Row\|location=New York\|pages=36–8}}</ref> George C. Homans sought to resolve these opposing theories by differentiating between "primary anxieties" felt by people who lack the techniques to secure results, and "secondary (or displaced) anxiety" felt by those who have not performed the rites meant to allay primary anxiety correctly. Homans argued that purification rituals may then be conducted to dispel secondary anxiety.<ref>{{cite journal\|last=Homans\|first=George C.\|title=Anxiety and Ritual: The Theories of Malinowski and Radcliffe-Brown\|journal=American Anthropologist\|year=1941\|volume=43\|pages=164–72}}</ref>

	A.R. Radcliffe-Brown argued that ritual should be distinguished from technical action, viewing it as a structured event: "ritual acts differ from technical acts in having in all instances some expressive or symbolic element in them."<ref>{{cite book\|last=Radcliffe-Brown\|first=A.R.\|title=Structure and Function in Primitive Society\|year=1939\|publisher=Cohen and West\|location=London\|page=143}}</ref> Edmund Leach, in contrast, saw ritual and technical action less as separate structural types of activity and more as a spectrum: "Actions fall into place on a continuous scale. At one extreme we have actions which are entirely profane, entirely functional, technique pure and simple; at the other we have actions which are entirely sacred, strictly aesthetic, technically non-functional. Between these two extremes we have the great majority of social actions which partake partly of the one sphere and partly of the other. From this point of view technique and ritual, profane and sacred, do not denote ''types'' of action but ''aspects'' of almost any kind of action."<ref>{{cite book\|last=Leach\|first=Edmund\|title=Political Systems of Highland Burma\|year=1954\|publisher=Bell\|location=London\|pages=12–13}}</ref>		A.R. Radcliffe-Brown argued that ritual should be distinguished from technical action, viewing it as a structured event: "ritual acts differ from technical acts in having in all instances some expressive or symbolic element in them."<ref>{{cite book\|last=Radcliffe-Brown\|first=A.R.\|title=Structure and Function in Primitive Society\|year=1939\|publisher=Cohen and West\|location=London\|page=143}}</ref> Edmund Leach, in contrast, saw ritual and technical action less as separate structural types of activity and more as a spectrum: "Actions fall into place on a continuous scale. At one extreme we have actions which are entirely profane, entirely functional, technique pure and simple; at the other we have actions which are entirely sacred, strictly aesthetic, technically non-functional. Between these two extremes we have the great majority of social actions which partake partly of the one sphere and partly of the other. From this point of view technique and ritual, profane and sacred, do not denote ''types'' of action but ''aspects'' of almost any kind of action."<ref>{{cite book\|last=Leach\|first=Edmund\|title=Political Systems of Highland Burma\|year=1954\|publisher=Bell\|location=London\|pages=12–13}}</ref>
Line 110:		Line 110:
	Whereas Victor Turner saw in ritual the potential to release people from the binding structures of their lives into a liberating anti-structure or communitas, Maurice Bloch argued that ritual produced conformity.<ref>{{cite book\|last=Hughes-Freeland\|first=Felicia (ed.)\|title=Ritual, Performance, Media\|publisher=Routledge\|location=London\|page=2}}</ref>		Whereas Victor Turner saw in ritual the potential to release people from the binding structures of their lives into a liberating anti-structure or communitas, Maurice Bloch argued that ritual produced conformity.<ref>{{cite book\|last=Hughes-Freeland\|first=Felicia (ed.)\|title=Ritual, Performance, Media\|publisher=Routledge\|location=London\|page=2}}</ref>

	Maurice Bloch argued that ritual communication is unusual in that it uses a special, restricted vocabulary, a small number of permissible illustrations, and a restrictive grammar. As a result, ritual utterances become very predictable, and the speaker is made anonymous in that they have little choice in what to say. The restrictive syntax reduces the ability of the speaker to make propositional arguments, and they are left, instead, with utterances that cannot be contradicted such as "I do thee wed" in a wedding. These kinds of utterances, known as performatives, prevent speakers from making political arguments through logical argument, and are typical of what Weber called traditional authority instead.<ref>{{cite journal\|last=Bloch\|first=Maurice\|title=Symbols, Song, Dance and Features of Articulation: Is Religion an Extreme Form of Traditional Authority?\|journal=Archives European de Sociologie\|year=1974\|volume=15\|issue=1\|pages=55–84~~\|doi=10.1017/s0003975600002824~~}}</ref>		Maurice Bloch argued that ritual communication is unusual in that it uses a special, restricted vocabulary, a small number of permissible illustrations, and a restrictive grammar. As a result, ritual utterances become very predictable, and the speaker is made anonymous in that they have little choice in what to say. The restrictive syntax reduces the ability of the speaker to make propositional arguments, and they are left, instead, with utterances that cannot be contradicted such as "I do thee wed" in a wedding. These kinds of utterances, known as performatives, prevent speakers from making political arguments through logical argument, and are typical of what Weber called traditional authority instead.<ref>{{cite journal\|last=Bloch\|first=Maurice\|title=Symbols, Song, Dance and Features of Articulation: Is Religion an Extreme Form of Traditional Authority?\|journal=Archives European de Sociologie\|year=1974\|volume=15\|issue=1\|pages=55–84}}</ref>

	Bloch's model of ritual language denies the possibility of creativity. Thomas Csordas, in contrast, analyzes how ritual language can be used to innovate. Csordas looks at groups of rituals that share performative elements ("genres" of ritual with a shared "poetics"). These rituals may fall along the spectrum of formality, with some less, others more formal and restrictive. Csordas argues that innovations may be introduced in less formalized rituals. As these innovations become more accepted and standardized, they are slowly adopted in more formal rituals. In this way, even the most formal of rituals are potential avenues for creative expression.<ref>{{cite book\|last=Csordas\|first=Thomas J.\|title=Language, Charisma, & Creativity: Ritual Life in the Catholic Charismatic Renewal\|year=2001(1997)\|publisher=Palgrave\|location=Basingstoke\|pages=255–65}}</ref>		Bloch's model of ritual language denies the possibility of creativity. Thomas Csordas, in contrast, analyzes how ritual language can be used to innovate. Csordas looks at groups of rituals that share performative elements ("genres" of ritual with a shared "poetics"). These rituals may fall along the spectrum of formality, with some less, others more formal and restrictive. Csordas argues that innovations may be introduced in less formalized rituals. As these innovations become more accepted and standardized, they are slowly adopted in more formal rituals. In this way, even the most formal of rituals are potential avenues for creative expression.<ref>{{cite book\|last=Csordas\|first=Thomas J.\|title=Language, Charisma, & Creativity: Ritual Life in the Catholic Charismatic Renewal\|year=2001(1997)\|publisher=Palgrave\|location=Basingstoke\|pages=255–65}}</ref>