Bell C., Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice

Oxford University Press

Oxford New York Toronto

Delhi Bombay Calcutta Madras Karachi

Petaling Jaya Singapore Hong Kong Tokyo

Nairobi Dar es Salaam Cape Town

Melbourne Auckland

and associated companies in Berlin ibadan

Copyright @ 1992. by Catherine Belt

Published by Oxford University Press, Inc. 2.00 Madison Avenue, New York, N Y 10016

Oxford is a registered trademark of Oxford University Press

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mcchanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise,

without the prior permission of the publisher.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Bell, Catherine M., 1953—

Ritual theory, ritual practice / Catherine Bell,

p.cm.

Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-19-50692.3-4

ISBN 0-19-507613-3 (pbk.)

!. Ritual. 1. Anthropology— Methodology. 1. Title.

4 6 8 9 7 $

Printed in the United States of America

on acid-free paper

"Ritua) is pure activity, without meaning or goal." F. STAAL*

This [interpretation] has aHowed the scholarly fantasy that ritual is an affair of the rather than a quite ordinary mode of human socia! tabor." J .Z . SMITH'

"Ritua! [is] like a favoured instance of a game__ "

C . L E V I - S T R A U S S *

"!n ritua!, the wor!d as tived and the wor!d as imagined...

turn out to be the same world." C . GEERTZ^

"[There is] the widest possib!e disagreement as to how the word ritua! should be understood." E. LEACH*

"The more intractabte puzz!es in comparative religion arise because human experience has been. .. wrong!y divided."

M . D O U G L A S ?

Prejf%ce

This book is the result of a longstanding curiousity about ritual and our notions of ritual. The problems and issues engaged here were first formulated for a dissertation chapter, but since then they have continued to intrude on several very different projects. I could no longer resist the temptation to follow through on a few key ideas and see what might emerge, although ! knew that as a book on ritual, the project would display one obvious idiosyncrasy: rather than contributing to the conceptual integrity and scope of the notion of ritual, this book is designed to be something of a lightning rod for the dilemmas of theory, analysis, and practice. The concept of ritual is not destroyed in the process, but 1 hope this study succeeds in shaking it up a little.

Several very different scholars of religion and ritual have influ­ enced my particular formulation of the "problem" of ritual. Durkheim was the first such influence since I was exposed to the full sweep of his E/eweMfary FowM o/ Re/;g;oMS very early in my education. In defining religion as a formal object of theoretical and comparative analysis, Durkheim laid out categories that 1could use to locate my own experience of religion in the schools and churches of pre-Vatican I! Catholicism. Nonetheless, these cate­ gories did not always fit, and 1 have argued with Durkheim in my head ever since. In the end, it is with Durkheim's pragmatic for­ mulation of religion as a matter of primary beliefs and secondary rites that the battle is joined and my analysis of ritual begins.! have enjoyed the prospect of a subsequent and complementary study giving full attention to the problem of 'belief.

vm

The pedagogy and essays of Jonathan Z. Smith have been a second influence. Many years ago, his argumentative assertion that "rituat is raised innumerabte questions for me about the construction and use of categories in the study of religion/ The etement of surprise in his statement came, of course, from the em­ phasis on ritua! as !abor in contrast to the tendency to see ritua! in terms of symbotic or ideatized expression. Aside from provocative connections to Marxist theories of tabor, his inversion u!timate!y suggested that the more common perspective was supported by an unexamined togic, which made it seem immediately convincing and right. ! began to trace how the categories and rhetoric mobitized in standard approaches to rituat functioned to substantiate targer entities such as retigion, society, or cutture. Since then the "dismantting" of concepts tike ritua] and other deconstructive imputses has become more fashionabte.

Another set of issues crystattized for me around the recent emer­ gence of rituat studies as an independent and interdisciptinary fietd of study. As both an observer and participant at many conference panets t have been intrigued with the swetting of interest in rituat. The devetopment of rituat studies as a distinct focus is ctearty due in great part to the vision and efforts of a few individual, particutarty Ronatd Grimes. His sense of intettectuat purpose and wideranging inquiry has effectivety encouraged a diatogue among quite different types of schotars. Yet the emergence and appeat of ritua! studies must a!so be rooted in other forces operative within aca­ demic !ife. In the course of various forma! discussions of ritua!, I became curious about the inte!!ectuat and practicat imperatives that woutd foster the construction of a category, such as 'ritua]', in such a way as to organize and )egitimize an independent discourse, ex­ pertise, and schotarty identity, t wondered if rituat studies as such coutd survive a major reorganization of the notion of rituat.

Writing this book has answered some but not a!t of the questions t brought to the project, tn the end t have been content to make two main arguments about rituat activity. First, after tracing some of the connections that can make a discourse on rituat seem so competting and usefut to studies of cutturat activity,! contend that few if any of the current theories of rituat avoid a rather predeter­ mined circu!arity. This circularity functions to constitute rituat as an object of analysis jn such a way as to mandate a particular

tx

method, expertise, and way of knowing. Perhaps a simitar conclu­ sion coutd be reached about many other topics of study, but ritua! is an interesting case study of these practices for several reasons. . Most simply, ritual is so readily cast as action in opposition to " thought and theory that the structuring effect of assumptions about . thought and action can be traced with great clarity. Moreover, ritual ' studies, as a recent mode of discourse, has claimed an odd exemp­ tion from the general critique that scholarship distorts and exploits, tending to see itself, by virtue of its interest in ritual performances per se, as somehow able to transcend the politics of those who study and those who are studied.

My second argument attempts to break free of the circularity that has structured thinking about acting by undermining the very category of ritual itself. 1 abandon the focus on ritual as a set of special practices in favor of a focus on some of the more common strategies of "ritualization," initially defined as a way of acting that differentiates some acts from others. To approach ritual within the framework of practical activity raises, I suggest, potentially more fruitful questions about the origins, purposes, and efficacy of "ri­ tualized actions" than are accessible through current models.

My critical appraisal of the theoretical literature on ritual and the subsequent sketch of an alternative direction of inquiry attempt to address an impasse in ritual theory not unrecognized by others. It is probable that my alternative framework does not fully succeed in breaking free of the structures that have shaped thinking about ritual. Yet 1 suspect that even this failure will illuminate something basic about the constraints that are intrinsic to scholarly discourse on ritual and to the more general strategies by which we define and structure an authoritative interpretation. !n any case, for reasons spelled out in the chapters that follow, ! am not interested in pre­ senting a systematic critique of all work on ritual or a new theory of ritual in general. Neither am 1 concerned to make any pro­ nouncements on the intrinsic value of studying ritual per se. Rather, 1 am launching an analytical exploration of the social existence of the concept of ritual, the values ascribed to it, and the ramifications of these perspectives for scholarship.

Preliminary versions of certain sections of this book appeared elsewhere. Sections of Part I appeared in "Discourse and Dichot­