What is the difference between ritual (performance) and text? Why is it important or necessary to differentiate them? What are the problems if this isn’t done?
In this context what we are really asking is what the difference is for the outsider, the scholar, the researcher? I think that where the difference lies is in two related areas: the insider/outsider distinction and also the level of participation in which text and ritual can each allow for the outsider.
It goes without saying, but I will anyway, that there is a difference between the insider (and believer) and the person studying a particular religious tradition (the outsider), or what Bell terms the ‘observing scholar’ and ‘performing native’ (219). Even taking into consideration Sharf’s comparison of ritual to music (251) and his conclusion that ritual can be participated in and appreciated by the masses and not just the lettered (267); I don’t think that it would unnecessarily particularize rituals too much to say that the things that make them ritual (for example what Bell calls the ‘internal authority….the communal, performative and symbolic’ aspects (220) or what Sharf claims sets ritual apart from the quotidian, things such as vestments, and purified objects (247)) and are known to and have meaning attached to by the insiders cannot be viewed as ritual even without that basic understanding. That is to say, ritual is different (as Sharf makes clear), although it shouldn’t be assumed that the outsider will always recognize or understand ritual (this Bell addresses when discussing the performative approach, which is as a part of an ‘awareness of the scholar’s own position’ (210)).
Furthermore, ritual cannot be participated in the same way text can. Text is meant to be read. Even as an outsider – you are doing what the form demands. Ritual on the other hand, even if understood by the outsider, can only ever be witnessed or re-enacted (what Bell refers to as putting the theorist into a more ‘active role’ (211)). Any breaking down of a particular ritual will reduce it to words, to text (Sharf’s ‘music to score’ (250)). A done thing once it is written, whereas the point of ritual lies in the doing, that is the continual performing.
Also, I think a key to understanding potential problems with viewing ritual as text lies in contextualizing the known formation of text. While origins of specific rituals are various, text is easier to root out the historical context, redactions, etc. and text is at the end of the day Whereas, with ritual, the nature is different, that is to say, even if ritual involves text, or is prescribed by text or even just inspired by it, it would not be a generalization to state that a participant need know that text to engage in the ritual (just for example, the Eucharist, inspired by a story in the New Testament, but historically not necessary to have read or have specific knowledge of the source text to participate). In other words, text, at the end of the day is formed and read by a certain elite; ritual does not always need to be either (in terms of formation, what Bell refers to as ‘domestic practices and local religion’ (210)). An example of this, easily, can be found in Bell’s discussion of home-based ancestor worship ritual (beginning 213), which is not textually/scripturally based at all.
I think that fundamentally, the important difference for the scholar between ritual and text is that if they are not differentiated, then they both loose context. That is, their differences in comparison will not be appreciated if they are not recognized as different in kind.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Hi Jen,
I agree with you you that text cannot be participated in the same way that ritual can. I am a bit foggy as to whether you are describing the text of ritual, or if you are talking about textualizing ritual.
I agree with your example that the text of a ritual action is in the doing of a ritual rather then in the words. Text doesn't always dictate specifically what is to be performed. I can think of many examples where text is a chant or a series of words that do not describe the appropriate action at all.
I also agree with your argument that text ritual text is a tool for the elite. It is, as you say, better used as a tool to understand the historical context of a ritual, or the people practicing it.
I agree with your main argument that text and ritual cannot be looked at in the same way, due to the fact that they both entail different sensory applications.
How a ritual is performed is not always included in text. This point is important becuase if this is the case can just anyone perform ritual? Wouldn't we need some sort of religious authority to lead the ritual while we chant along with them?
Hi Jen,
I agree with you that it shouldn’t be assumed that the outsider will always recognize or understand ritual.
I thought you made a great point with the example of the Eucharist tradition in that even if ritual involves, or is prescribed by text, the participant of that particular ritual does not necessarily need know that text to engage in the ritual.
In addition to that point, I think sometimes with lay practitioners, they may perform rituals without really knowing the depth or the meaning or explanations behind certain actions either. It's something I've noticed with some of my friends sometimes, when I ask them why they are performing certain rituals in a particular manner or if certain things bear any significance, and the common answer they give me is 'I don't know I've just been told to do this' and they may have some rough idea but they always redirect my questions somehow to their parents (considering they probably have a better idea in regards to why certain rituals are peformed and etc).
Post a Comment