Downs_On the Analysis of Ritual_SJA 17 (1961).pdf

7/27/2019 Downs_On the Analysis of Ritual_SJA 17 (1961).pdf

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/downson-the-analysis-of-ritualsja-17-1961pdf 1/7

On the Analysis of Ritual

Author(s): R. E. DownsSource: Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, Vol. 17, No. 1 (Spring, 1961), pp. 75-80Published by: University of New Mexico

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3628870 .

Accessed: 20/10/2013 05:51

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

University of New Mexico is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Southwestern

Journal of Anthropology.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=unm

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3628870?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


http://www.jstor.org/stable/3628870?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=unm



ON THE ANALYSIS OF RITUALR.E.DOWNS

TNA RECENT ARTICLE in thisournalMischaTitiev fferedhat e called

"A FreshApproacho theProblem fMagicandReligion."' s the ubject freligionsone thathas beenmuch eglected y anthropologistsnmodem imes,a new pproachhould equitewelcome. do notfeel, owever,hat he rticlefulfillshepromisef tstitle,nd would iketodiscuss riefly y bjectionsoit.2

Titiev roposeso substitutedichotomyetweencalendrical"nd "critical"rites or he raditionalnebetweenreligion"nd"magic"n the tudy f man'srelationothe upernaturalorld. e does o because efeels hat hedichotomybetweenmagic" nd "religion" as proved nsatisfactory,etthat ome uch

distinctionsneeded or hepurpose fclassificationndanalysisunlesswe arepreparedo lump ll supernaturalhenomenanto single ategory."3In allprimitiveocieties ne set of practicesnvolvinghesupernaturallways akesplacerecurrently,"esays, andmay ccordinglye termedalendrical; hile heotheret,which s celebratednly ntermittently,ndthen nlywhen n emer-gencyrcrisiseemsohave isen,may ecalled ritical."4

He furtherindshat ... calendricalbservancesay e saidalways o havea 'church,'nd tocorrespond,n thewhole,more early o establishedonceptsofreligionhan o those fmagic,"whereasfor hemost art riticaleremonies

are staged nlywhen private r personal mergencyas arisen."5 he latter,therefore,o notneed "church,"nd"since,tthe ame ime,hey o notneces-sarily aveto beperformedy ociallyanctionedriests,hey endna numberofways ocorresponduite loselyotraditionalonceptsfmagic."6

Finally, onsideringheuniversalxistencef someform f calendar asic ohisdistinction,eattemptsoshow hat t s a simplematteror even hemost

primitivendnon-literatefpeople" okeep rack f the oursef the easons.7Nowalthoughbjectionsanbemade o the erms sedbyTitiev, nd shall

do sobelow,

he irsthing

hat trikesne bout hedichotomy

eproposes

sthat

1 Titiev,960.2 I am ndebtedoDrR. F. Gray f theUniversityf llinois ormuch elpfuldvicen

the ompositionf his rticle.3 Titiev, 960, .297.4 Idem,p.293.5 Idem, .294.6 Idem,p.295.7 Idem, .295f.

75

VOL. 17, 1961

This content downloaded from 134.58.253.30 on Sun, 20 Oct 2013 05:51:00 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions







76 SOUTHWESTERN JOURNALOF ANTHROPOLOGY

itis bynomeans hefirst ime hat thas been pplied.Junod, or xample,ndescribinghereligionftheThongaofsoutheast frica, istinguishedetweenwhathe called regularfferings"nd"thosemade nspecial ircumstances,"s

oneof a series fdistinctions.8adel also, n hisanalysisfNupe ritual,madethe amebasicdivision,hough sing he ermsfixed"nd"movable": On theonesidewehaverituals ccupying regular,ixed lace nthecalendar f thecountry;ntheother, itualswhich,s theNupe say, havenomonth',hat s,whose erformancescontingentpon hevariable eeds fthemoment."'9orerecentlymadeuse of the amedistinctionyselfna studyf thereligionf anIndonesianeople,where used,however,he ermsregular"nd"contingent."'o

I preferredo speakof "regular" ituals ecause mong hepeoplewhose

religionwas

describing,oneof theritualswhich itted his

ategory,xceptthose oncerned ithgriculture,asperformedtfixed imes f theyear.Head-hunting,nitiations,ndfuneralsor hebones fthedeadwere eldmore r essregularly,ut he xact imes or heir erformanceere eterminedya varietyofcircumstances.he basic deaofthis lassification,tseems ome, s the factthat here rerituals hose epetitiont more r essregularntervalss felt o benecessaryorthemaintenancef thesocietyr which anctify egular ocialactivities.heirregulationya fixedalendar, owever,s onlyncidentalnlesstheyre pecificallyelatedonatural henomena,nd t sthereforeotnecessary

todemonstratehat ll societies ust ave way festablishinguch calendar.I would lsochoose contingent"npreferenceo "critical"n twogrounds.In thefirst lace"calendrical"nd "critical"renot ogicaloppositesn theirordinary eanings.econdlyhe use of "critical"nvitests confusion ith o-called crisis ites," hich itiev nfactplaces nhis"critical"ategory,houghadmittinghat hey re difficultoclassify,1 hereas would onsiderhem obeprimarilyregular."twill lsoberememberedhatVanGennep laced hoserites ccompanyinghechange ftheyear, eason, rmonthmonghisrites fpassage.12

Mysecond eactionoTitiev's roposals that tdoesnotreally onstituten"approacho theproblemfmagic ndreligion"t all. Thisproblempparentlyconsistsor imn thefact hat t sdifficultf not mpossibleodistinguishlearlybetweenhe twotypes fphenomenand that t is thereforempossibleo usethese wocategoriess a basisforclassifyingnd analyzingupernaturalhe-

8 Junod, 913,vol.2,p. 362.9 Nadel, 1954,p. 68.10 Downs,1956,p. 100.11 Titiev, 960,p. 297.12 VanGennep, 960,p. 178.








ANALYSIS OF RITUAL 77

nomena s a whole. y using dichotomyfa differentype, owever,asedontheoccasionsnwhich ituals reperformed,e adds little f anythingo ourunderstandingfthe elationshipetweeneligionndmagicndbynomeans en-

ders heir istinctionseless.n spite f thedifficultynclearlyeparatinghe wocategories ith especto the upernaturalctivitiesf a particularociety,hecontrastetweenttemptsocommunicateithnd controlhe upernaturalither"throughppeals ndprayersosome ranscendentalntelligenceinthemannerofreligion) rquasi-mechanically,ythemanipulationf magic' gencies,"sNadel put t,13 emainsignificant,nd it cannot e fully omprehendedn orexplainedyTitiev's ategoriesf "calendrical"nd "critical" ites.

The point s thatboth religion-magic"nd "regular-contingent"re validdichotomieshich reneitheroterminousormutuallyxclusive. or aretheythe nly nespossible,or t scertainlyottrue hatwe must hoose nyoneasthe nly lternativeoputtingll supernaturalhenomenanto single ategory.Evans-Pritchard,or xample, istinguishesetween collective"nd "personal"sacrificesmong heNuer, ubsumingespectivelyhose acrificeshich ccom-pany ariousocial ctivitiesnvolvingocialgroupsnd thosemadefor personorpersons,'4ndHubert nd Mauss spokeof sacrificesf "sacralisation"nd"dtsacralisation,"nwhichheprimaryim ofthefirsts to obtain hebeneficialeffectsf the acred,whereas hat f the econd s togainrelease romts evileffects.'" ll of these lassifications

ringutdifferent

spectsfritual,

asedondistinctionsespectinghe means mployed,heoccasions nwhich he ritesareperformed,orwhomnd forwhatpurpose.'

None ofthese istinctions,owever,s anymore bsolute han hatbetweenmagic ndreligion,ndconsiderableverlappings to beexpected.ites fpassageobviouslyaveboth ollectivendpersonal spects,ince heynvolve heregula-tion fsocial tatuses ndrelationshipsasicto the ocietys a whole hatprac-tices hem, et heyreperformedor ndividuals. s for hedistinctionadebyHubertndMaussbetweenacrificesf"sacralisation"nd"dtsacralisation,"hey

found hat lthoughll sacrificesnvolve hese woprocesses,heir elativem-portancearies ccordingo the ntent f theparticularacrifice.'7t alsoseems

13Nadel, 954, . 3. Thesame istinctionas lsomade yBenedict1938, . 637). I donot onsiderhe quationfmagic itheligiousechniquess a whole,sproposedyVanGen-nep 1960, . 13) and dopted yChapplendCoon 1942, p.vii, 29) tobeuseful.Why,incidentally,he atterttributehisdiscovery,"stheyall t, o A. M. Tozzer cannot nder-stand.

14 Evans-Pritchard,956, .198.15 HubertndMauss, 899, .89ff.16 Evenmore uch ategoriesre, fcourse,ossible.f.,for xample,auss, 947, h. 9.17HubertndMauss, 899, .89ff.









that he fixed"nd"movable"ategoriesfNupe ritual reopentovariation,forwe aretold hat ome ftheformeranbeperformedutof season nd thatsomewhich ere riginallyfixed" avebecomemovable."'8heToradja,more-

over, elt hat heregular aking fheadswas essential o the ifeof thecom-munity,uttherewere lsoparticularccasions or t aswell, nd certainitualsenacted egularlyn connection ith griculturalctivities ere ften erformedinresponseoparticularituations. oandu ala,"to float the) evil way," orexample, as carried utannually efore hepreparationf therice fields ocleanse hevillage f ts ins, ut t was also used s a piacular fferingor ncestincases fnormallyorbiddenarriages.19

It can alsohappen hat wo r more fthese ets fdistinctionsend o coin-cide nparticularnstances,hough eneralizationsoncerninguchcoincidences

would ppear o be of limited alidity.vans-Pritchard,orexample,onsidersthat he"personal"acrificesf theNuerhaveprimarily piacularntention,whereashe collective"acrificesave confirmatoryne, distinctionhich econsidersquivalento that fHubert ndMauss between ites f "disacralisa-tion" nd sacralisation."20imilarlyitiev inds hat is calendrical"nd"criti-cal"riteswhich would all"regular"nd"contingent")end ocorrespondo"communal"nd"private"ites espectively.21nemightetemptedo concludefrom his hat ll theseategorieserenagreementndthat single air ftermscould

omprehendllthe thers.

Unfortunately,owever,vans-Pritchardoesnot nclude he amekinds frituals nder collective"s Titievdoesunder calendrical" ites. The primarypurposefcollectiveacrifices,"esays, and alsotheirmain unction,stocon-firm,o establish r to add strengtho,a changen social tatus-boy oman,maiden owife,ivingman oghost-or newrelationshipetweenocialgroups-the comingntobeing fa newage-set,heunitingf kingroups ytiesofaffinity,heending f a blood-feud-bymakingGod and theghosts,who aredirectlyoncerned ith hechange aking lace,witnessesf t."22

Now it is immediatelypparenthat all of the sacrificeso which vans-Pritchardere efers ould eplacedbyTitievn his"critical"ategory,nspiteof thefact hat t s the calendrical"iteswhich e considersobe communalncharacter. his discrepancyould be partly liminatedy changing itiev's"calendrical"o"regular"ndputtingherites fpassage n this ategory,s I

18 Nadel,1954,p.68.19 Downs,1956,pp.92,100.20 Evans-Pritchard,956,p. 198f.21 Titiev, 960,p. 294.22 Evans-Pritchard,956,p. 199.








ANALYSIS OF RITUAL 79

suggestedbove,23utEvans-Pritchard'sinal xample,he acrificesccompany-ingtheending f a blood-feud,ouldnot be so classified.heyareclearly otperiodicn nature,nd they onstitute,urthermore,nlyone example,which

couldeasily emultiplied,f rituals erformedontingentlyrin times f un-expectedrisiswhich retheconcernrimarilyfthegroup ather han f theindividual.imilarlyhere re rites egularlyr even calendrically"erformedby ndividuals.

Finally,lthoughites fpassage anbeclassifiedn relationo"regular"nd"contingent"r collective"nd"personal"ategories,adel,basing is lassifica-tion fNuperitual n the ttitudeftheNupethemselves,laced heir eremoniesattendantnbirth, arriage,nddeath n nentirelyifferentategory.t appearsthat heyre notregarded ytheNupe as kuti, rrituals roper,utmerelys

"ways f doing hings." ecausethey re connected ith he whole ystemfreligiousdeasand involveppeals oGod, however, adel referredo them s"solemnizationsfmundanects"as opposed o rituals roper,oth fixed"nd"movable",whichwield upernaturalower orparticularnds."24 f coursethese solemnizations"re rituals rom heanthropologist'sointof view ndcouldbeputquite onvenientlynder collective,"regular,"r "confirmatory"headings,utsuch classificationsouldfail to bring ut a basicdistinctionnNupe religiousttitudes.

In conclusion would ummarizehepoints

havebeenrying

o make n thecourse fthese rief ommentss follows:

1. A dichotomyf thetypeTitievproposes, hough singdifferenterms,issignificantnduseful.

2. It cannot,owever,erve s a substituteor nebetweeneligionndmagic.3. These reonlywo fmany ossible ichotomieshichan beused, nd no

oneofthemsadequaten tself oa completenalysisf ritual.4. Since suchcategoriesre notwatertightompartments,s it were, nto

23 It seems o bethat itiev's lassificationfthese itesswrongor varietyf reasons

(cf.Titiev, 960, . 297).He considershoseonnectedith irth, arriage,nd death obe"critical"irst ecauseheyreconcernedrimarilyithndividuals,etwe have een hat hecommunalspectsf at least he atter wo reequallyf notmoremportanthan heprivateones.Moreover,is individual"riteriumelongso anotherichotomyhich eednot lwayscoincide ith heone he is applying.e alsoconsidershese hree roupsf rites critical"becauseheyannotepreciselyeterminednadvance, hereasubertyitesmay e celebrated"calendrically,"ut havendicatedbovewhy donot elievereciseatingobeessential.efinallyonsidersll rites fpassageo be "critical"ecausethey rasticallyhange person'ssocialrelationships,"hichs thevery eason vans-Pritchardivesforconsideringhem"collective."he crisesnvolvedere,moreover,re oneswhichrepart f a seriesfregular,normalventsn the ife fa societynd ts ndividualembers.

24 Nadel, 954, .115.









whichll religious racticesan be fitted,ut areonly onceptual olesbetweenwhich ll degreesf variationrepossible,heyhould otberigidlypplied.

It follows rom he bove hat he pplicationf several uchdichotomiesothe nalysisf theritual f a particularociety,howinghedistributionfthepracticesnquestionmonghevariousategoriesnd therelationf the atter oeachother,ould erve oreveal nd evaluate herelativemportancefvariousaspectsf he eligionfthatociety.

It should erhaps eemphasized,owever,hat his aperhasonly een on-cernedwith he nalysis f ritual nd that hevarious erms iscussedreonlyintended or pplicationo t.They rebyno means obeseen s a key, oweverimperfect,o theanalysis f all religious henomena,s Titiev eems o imply

inthe aseofhis wn lassification.bviouslyhe eligiousracticesfany ocietymust e seennrelationo tsbeliefsftheyre to befully nderstood.he latter,however,ust eanalyzedndifferenterms.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BENEDICT, RUTH

1938 "Religion" in GeneralAnthropology,ranzBoas, ed., ch. 14,Boston).CHAPPLE, E. D., AND C.S.COON

1942 PrinciplesfAnthropologyNewYork).DowNs,R.E.

1956 TheReligionf

heare'e-speakingoradja TheHague).EVANS-PRITCHARD, E.E.

1956 NuerReligionOxford).HUBERT, H. AND M. MAUSS

1899 Essai ur anaturet afonctionusacrificeL'Ann6eociologique,ol.2,pp.89-138).

JUNOD,H. A.1913 TheLife f South fricanribe2vols., euchatel).

MAUSS,MARCEL1947 Manueld'EthnographieParis).

NADEL, S. F.

1954 Nupe ReligionLondon).TITIEV, MISCHA

1960 A FreshApproach o theProblem fMagic andReligion SouthwesternJournalfAnthropology,ol. 6, p.292-298).

VAN GENNEP, ARNOLD

1960 TheRites fPassage (London.French dition aris, 909).

UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS

URBANA, ILLINOIS






Downs_On the Analysis of Ritual_SJA 17 (1961).pdf

Documents

Transcript of Downs_On the Analysis of Ritual_SJA 17 (1961).pdf