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.
Monday, October 1, 2007
Sunday, September 23, 2007
World Religions and RLG 100
Because I switched into a Religion major subject POSt late in my undergrad career*, at the moment I am taking both the Method & Theory and World Religions courses; which I think is proving to be instructive for this course, and hopefully for World Religions as well.
The syllabus for the latter course begins with the expected preamble as a course description: it states that the course will be a survey of the “major religious traditions of the world”, and will be divided into two sections “Western” (Judaism, Christianity and Islam; which was amended in lecture to Mediterranean) and South East Asia (Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism and Chinese religions). The core text for the course A Concise Introduction to World Religions begins with what it terms ‘Indigenous’ traditions, followed by the three Abrahamic religions, then Hindu, Sikh, Jain and so forth. And although the syllabus states that the course aims to “situate traditions within their larger cultural worldviews” and will also include a lecture on new religious movements; it does follow what Masuzawa terms the “uniformly adopted convention” (256) of world religions discourse.**
I think that the interesting question or angle here is NOT why is this course being taught? Or even why is this course structured in this manner? BUT what are the presuppositions that therse (for the most part) 17 and 18 year-old students bringing to the world religions survey course. Why are they taking it? What has made them think it is important? Is it just for a well-rounded liberal arts education? For an introduction for latter more specific/in-depth study?
I think, actually, that a large part of the reason a student would take RLG 100 is informed by the 19th Century Europeans, that is to say their influence on popular culture. And also, more importantly that what Masuzawa calls the “flatly monotonous pluralism” (256) that became the norm for the 20th century discourse as a product of the ‘scientific’ study of religion (the need to categorize and define, the ‘family resemblances’ and such; essentially a need to impose a European directed order on the people of the world) is key to understanding something held dear in Canadian culture: multiculturalism. That is not to say that the present understanding of multiculturalism and related social justice goals are the direct descendents of this earlier thought; BUT that the underlying concept, the flattening of differences, so necessary to this ‘value’ would lead students to want to have an understanding of world religions. Even if the taxonomy is dubious. In other words, this course would not be taken to understand far off nations, but close neighbours.
* I took Psychology and Religion to begin with, and then followed that with Phenomenon of Religion, Early Christian Writings, and Roots of Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity. Needless to say all of these courses were indeed Eurocentric in material covered and bias. Arguably with cause in terms of the subject matter i.e. psychology and Christianity; two fields of study developed in Europe, for Europeans.
** It would also appear that the standard characterizations that Masuzawa mentions are also present. For example, the Buddhism that Masuzawa comments as generally appearing “benignly compassionate…metaphysical at the core” (256) is presented in the introduction to its chapter in A Concise Introduction to World Religions as having followers that “seek to become more compassionate…more pure of mind, and more spiritually wise.”
The syllabus for the latter course begins with the expected preamble as a course description: it states that the course will be a survey of the “major religious traditions of the world”, and will be divided into two sections “Western” (Judaism, Christianity and Islam; which was amended in lecture to Mediterranean) and South East Asia (Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism and Chinese religions). The core text for the course A Concise Introduction to World Religions begins with what it terms ‘Indigenous’ traditions, followed by the three Abrahamic religions, then Hindu, Sikh, Jain and so forth. And although the syllabus states that the course aims to “situate traditions within their larger cultural worldviews” and will also include a lecture on new religious movements; it does follow what Masuzawa terms the “uniformly adopted convention” (256) of world religions discourse.**
I think that the interesting question or angle here is NOT why is this course being taught? Or even why is this course structured in this manner? BUT what are the presuppositions that therse (for the most part) 17 and 18 year-old students bringing to the world religions survey course. Why are they taking it? What has made them think it is important? Is it just for a well-rounded liberal arts education? For an introduction for latter more specific/in-depth study?
I think, actually, that a large part of the reason a student would take RLG 100 is informed by the 19th Century Europeans, that is to say their influence on popular culture. And also, more importantly that what Masuzawa calls the “flatly monotonous pluralism” (256) that became the norm for the 20th century discourse as a product of the ‘scientific’ study of religion (the need to categorize and define, the ‘family resemblances’ and such; essentially a need to impose a European directed order on the people of the world) is key to understanding something held dear in Canadian culture: multiculturalism. That is not to say that the present understanding of multiculturalism and related social justice goals are the direct descendents of this earlier thought; BUT that the underlying concept, the flattening of differences, so necessary to this ‘value’ would lead students to want to have an understanding of world religions. Even if the taxonomy is dubious. In other words, this course would not be taken to understand far off nations, but close neighbours.
* I took Psychology and Religion to begin with, and then followed that with Phenomenon of Religion, Early Christian Writings, and Roots of Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity. Needless to say all of these courses were indeed Eurocentric in material covered and bias. Arguably with cause in terms of the subject matter i.e. psychology and Christianity; two fields of study developed in Europe, for Europeans.
** It would also appear that the standard characterizations that Masuzawa mentions are also present. For example, the Buddhism that Masuzawa comments as generally appearing “benignly compassionate…metaphysical at the core” (256) is presented in the introduction to its chapter in A Concise Introduction to World Religions as having followers that “seek to become more compassionate…more pure of mind, and more spiritually wise.”
Sunday, September 16, 2007
September 19, 2007
What does the privileging of the ‘scripture in context’ approach say about Van Voorst’s viewpoint?
Robert Van Voorst defines the approach he uses and advocates (Asian scripture in the context of its use, ‘how it comes alive in the total life of the religion’) against the two earlier approaches in the study of religion: the initiation of creating and studying reliable translations in mid-19th century, and the later ‘History of Religions’ school (focusing on ritual, myth, symbol, and other non-textual elements). His view of this method, then, is articulated as one that came about due to a natural or historical progression. That is to say, it was the logical step in method in the study of religion.
Or more precisely comparative religions.
The comparative aspect is key to understanding what underlies his view: that a certain categorization of traditions and their aspects is, if not the end goal, an important facet in the differentiation.
While defining elements or natures of religions is necessary to explain them in an academic setting, any taxonomy will inevitably reveal a bias, which Van Voorst admittedly cautions against and addresses -- especially in terms of the existence of the study of religion itself as an endeavour made possible and informed by the Enlightenment and Protestantism. In other words, he reaffirms the very idea that there can be a social scientific approach to culture or any part of it, and also the primacy of the written word. As well, the use of the written word assumes literacy on the part of the audience. This historically and even currently is not the case for the majority of the population, even without language barriers (this Van Voorst does acknowledge in terms of scripture itself).
BUT this leaves in question what or whom academic work is for: that it is created by and for a group with a certain level of literacy and knowledge and opportunity, not accessible to everyone (in other words, is, for instance, Asian scripture, being studied and explained by a group for that group?).
Working within that academic setting, Van Voorst gives several examples of the categorization of religions and concepts used in the study: insider/outsider, different kinds of scripture (narrative, law, poetry, philosophy, etc.), cognitive/non-cognitive and informative/performative uses of scripture and ‘religions of the book’ (for example Judaism and Islam), therefore using language to designate both concrete and abstract aspects of religions. And however much an academic bias is acknowledged, the act of applying language to anything boxes it in. That is to say that in defining a use of scripture, for example in meditation, contains it. And by repeating the terms and labels for the uses or behaviours, etc., they become more enshrined.
Also within Van Voorst’s view is the frequent use of binaries, such as cognitive/non-cognitive and more importantly in his discussion of the ‘especially sacred’ nature of scripture for the religious community. It could be said that by making that particular distinction (sacred/profane, even if it is a definition of convenience for the intended audience) imposes a worldview that makes a specific distinction about objects and space. Even though Van Voorst likely intends to impart the specialness of the texts, the word "sacred" has another dimension to it (known to its intended audience) This, of course, would not hold necessarily true for the religions discussed within Van Voorst’s text.
Robert Van Voorst defines the approach he uses and advocates (Asian scripture in the context of its use, ‘how it comes alive in the total life of the religion’) against the two earlier approaches in the study of religion: the initiation of creating and studying reliable translations in mid-19th century, and the later ‘History of Religions’ school (focusing on ritual, myth, symbol, and other non-textual elements). His view of this method, then, is articulated as one that came about due to a natural or historical progression. That is to say, it was the logical step in method in the study of religion.
Or more precisely comparative religions.
The comparative aspect is key to understanding what underlies his view: that a certain categorization of traditions and their aspects is, if not the end goal, an important facet in the differentiation.
While defining elements or natures of religions is necessary to explain them in an academic setting, any taxonomy will inevitably reveal a bias, which Van Voorst admittedly cautions against and addresses -- especially in terms of the existence of the study of religion itself as an endeavour made possible and informed by the Enlightenment and Protestantism. In other words, he reaffirms the very idea that there can be a social scientific approach to culture or any part of it, and also the primacy of the written word. As well, the use of the written word assumes literacy on the part of the audience. This historically and even currently is not the case for the majority of the population, even without language barriers (this Van Voorst does acknowledge in terms of scripture itself).
BUT this leaves in question what or whom academic work is for: that it is created by and for a group with a certain level of literacy and knowledge and opportunity, not accessible to everyone (in other words, is, for instance, Asian scripture, being studied and explained by a group for that group?).
Working within that academic setting, Van Voorst gives several examples of the categorization of religions and concepts used in the study: insider/outsider, different kinds of scripture (narrative, law, poetry, philosophy, etc.), cognitive/non-cognitive and informative/performative uses of scripture and ‘religions of the book’ (for example Judaism and Islam), therefore using language to designate both concrete and abstract aspects of religions. And however much an academic bias is acknowledged, the act of applying language to anything boxes it in. That is to say that in defining a use of scripture, for example in meditation, contains it. And by repeating the terms and labels for the uses or behaviours, etc., they become more enshrined.
Also within Van Voorst’s view is the frequent use of binaries, such as cognitive/non-cognitive and more importantly in his discussion of the ‘especially sacred’ nature of scripture for the religious community. It could be said that by making that particular distinction (sacred/profane, even if it is a definition of convenience for the intended audience) imposes a worldview that makes a specific distinction about objects and space. Even though Van Voorst likely intends to impart the specialness of the texts, the word "sacred" has another dimension to it (known to its intended audience) This, of course, would not hold necessarily true for the religions discussed within Van Voorst’s text.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
