CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE RITUAL a Thesis Submitted in Partial ;:O,Atisfaction of the Requirements Fox· the Degre
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE RITUAL '\ A thesis submitted in partial ;:o,atisfaction of the requirements fox· the degree of Master of Arts in Foundations by Deborah Bricklin Zeff The thesis of Deborah Bricklin Zeff is approved: California State University, Northridge June, 1974 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT. • .. .. • • • • • .. .. • • 6 • • • • • • • • • • • • • iv Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION 1 OBJECTIVE . 2 ORGANIZATION . 2 2. SEARCH OF LITERATURE 4 3. AHCHETYPE 14 MYTH .• 16 THEORY OF' SYMBOLISM. 21 4, MODES OF CONSCIOUSNESS 28 A THEORY OF LANGUAGE . 35 GENERAL SYSTEMS THEORY 43 5. RITUAL IN FAMILY LIFE 49 DANCE AS RITUAL • • 55 6. CONCLUSION: SUMMARY. 62 CONCLUSIONS ••.. 63 NEEDED RESEARCH 63 BIBLIOGRAPHY ....•••.. 64 iii ABSTRACT RITUAL by Deborah Bricklin Zcff Master of Arts in Foundations June, 1974 The objective of this thesis is to analyze the prevailing concepts regarding rihtal, setting forth suggestions which may help form a more adequate understanding of ritual and its underlying symbolism. Under the impetus of Piaget, Bruner, and others, humanistic and developmental psychology have expanded their view of man's nature so that many areas formerly considered in the preserve of other disciplines are now seen as having implications for the psychology of learning and development. Of special concern to this study will be the essential nature of ritual. with reference t() its place in the theory of social systems. This thesis adopts the hypothesis presented by S. P. Nagendra in The_Conccpt of Rit(1_al in Modern Sociolo~ical T~eory, published by the Academic Journals of India in 1970, which defi:les ritual as symbolic action, the enactment of the myth. Three areas of concern arise from il1e adoption o:f this construct and are manifested in the need for a Theory of Symbolism, a Theory of Language, and a Theory of Modes of Consciousness. New vigor is given to Nagendra's belief that ritual's meaning can be understood only dialectically by the inclusion of The iv General Systems Theory and the acceptance of the importance of the ongoing organization of interaction. Ritual as symbolic action is a form of communication, and as a form of communication becomes the revealing picture of my world view and my world-to-view. Thus ritual is the dynamic which infuses that which it comes in contact with, with vitality and meaningfulness, at the same time, being the very vehicle of this revelation. v INTRODUCTION At first blush it may seem incongruous that a thesis on ritual is offered in an area of Educational Psychology, but more study will reveal important connections. Under the impetus of Piaget, Erikson, Maslow, Bruner, and others, humanistic and developmental psychology have expanded their purview of man's estate and talents so that many areas formerly considered in the preserve of other disciplines are now seen as having implications for the psychology of learning, development, and self-actualization. For example, among the most important of these develop ments is the new attention given to "cognitive modes of represen tation. " Bruner (Gowan 197 4 ;30) calls these modes enactive (learning in the muscles), iconi_£ (sign-learning), and symbolic (full cognitive learning). Sullivan (195 3 :xiv) refers to very similar ; material from the affective side as prototaxic (experience before symbols), parataxic (experience validated in terms of private or autistic symbols), and syntaxic (experience validated with full cognitive symbolism). While these theories were formulated to explain develop- . ment and learning, it is now obvious that they also have validity in explaining other aspects of human behavior. In particular, E_i~ual (according to its form <ts presented in this thesis), appears to partake of enactive and i.conic representation in the prototaxic or parataxi.c mode. Since these modes underlie learning and development, an 1 2 examination of ritual may serve to clarify some of their character istics. OBJECTIVE The objective of this thesis is to analyze the prevailing con cepts regarding ritual, setting forth suggestions which may help form a more adequate understanding of ritual and its underlying symbolism. This expanded understanding should help us to clarify our concepts of learning and development of man's talents and capacities. Of special concern to this study will be the essential nature of ritual with reference to its place in the theory of social systems. What is attempted is a rationale of ~"xplanation which brings that which previously seemed implausible or extraneous- -unnecessary or useless--into the domain of scientific psychological hypothesis. ORGANIZATION This thesis is divided into six parts. Part One is the Introduction. It introduces the question "What is the nature and concern of that which is known :1nder the name of ritual?" A rationale for the posing of this question is presented. Part Two concerned with a general search of the literature for what is subsumed under tbe title "Hitual." The views of the leading thinkers in sociology, ethnography, anthropology, psychology, and religion are put forth and discussed. Part Three an analysis of the problems met in the usage of the definiti.on ritcml- -as symbolic action- -the enactment of the myth. 3 Part Four attempts a definition of Modes of Consciousness and delves into the construct of communication with a brief look at the General Systems Theory. P<~rt Five presents some examples of ritual viewed within the framework of ritual as symbolic action: Ritual in Family Living and Ritual in Dance. Part Six is the conclusions drawn from the theories presented utilizing a general semantic framework and the General Systems Theory. Chapter 2 SEARCH OF LITERATURE A careful analysis of definitions of the term "ritual" by well- known sociologists and cultural anthropologists resulted in three different insights into the meaning of the term. Some see ritual as a '"rightness of routine," "a perfect form of drill;" others see it as "a prescribed series of manipulations, " "a sort of proper combination to ·achieve some purpose, " for example, the content of ritual; the third deals with its basic objective such as warding off evil, bringing good luck, or the propitiation of supernatural forces. The etymological ·source is taken from the Latin "ritus" meaning custom. This has led sociologists to believe that ritual is the routine of an organized ·religion. (1969;1121) is in agreement with the sociologists, for the definitions listed are offshoots of the three propounded insights referred to above. 1. The prescribed form or order of condLlcting a religious or solemn ceremony. 2. The body of ceremonies or rites used in a church, fraternal organization, or the like: a system of rites. 3. A book of rites or ceremonial forms. 4. Often plurrrl, (a) a ceremonial act or a series of such acts, and (b) the performance of sach acts. 5. Any detailed method of procedure faithfully or regularly followed, (a) of or characterized by a dte or rites, and (b) prac~ ticed as a rite such as a ritual fire dance. Bossard and Boll (1956;14) in their second edition of H~,!n<tl in Family Living develop an interesting view of ritual. 5 Words tend to be known by the company they keep; some times that company becomes a jealous mistress, taking a word and keeping it for its own particular use and purpose . · . The word "ritual" is a case in point. Ritual is just such a word. The students of religion have made use of it in three different manners: as the origin of religion, as a technique of magic and worship, and as a part of the ethical and control system of religion. Anthropologists are the~ other group who have featured the term, ritual, prominently. Their emphasis is mainly in the role of ritual in the development of religion; this results in ritual being everywhere interwoven with the discussions of totemism, magic, taboo, and myth. This development has resulted with ritual being identified in terms of ceremonial and worship. Ritual is seen as a system of procedure by Bossard and Boll. This conclusion is the most popular one found in literature and common usage. Three characteristics are unvarying in their presence ·in a system of procedure as defined by ritual. According to Bossard and Boll these characteristics are (1956: 15): First ... ritual means exactness and preClslOn. Second, there is the element of rigidity ... and finally, there a sense of rightness which emerges from the past history of the process. Bronislaw Malinowski, the social anthropologist responsible for taking anthropology from a discipline concerned with mere "origin hunting" to the status of an individual "science of culture" does not see ritual arising from social sources. S. P. Nagendra in his book The Con_c:_<pt of_!_'lj!_ual:Jn Mgdern S.O._ciological Theory (1971:73) quotes Malinowski as saying of ritual: It arises from purely individual sources although it is always social by nature ... the principle of the ritual bio-psychic. 6 Radcliff-Brown, an anthropologist of the same school as Malinowski, sees the problem of ritual as being essentially a semantic one. He does not feel it necessary to look at ritual in the light of either its purpose or reason. He believes that "whatever has meaning is a symbol and the meaning is expressed by that symbol. " The problem of ritual, according to Radcliffe-Brown (Nagendra 197:74) .•. lies in the interpretation and understanding of the meaning of symbolic action as a component of social structure (for example, an ordered series of social relationships). There is evident a gradual drawing away from categorizing ritual as a mere system of procedure. Nagendra (1971 :81) goes so far as to declare that ritual acts ..• stand in direct contrast to technical acts insofar as the former are purely symbolic while the latter are purposive.