Ritual as a Missing Link

Sociology, Structural Ritualization Theory, and Research

J. David Knottnerus

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2016
• eBook ISBN: 9781317252689
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Sociology
• Index: Social Sciences

Up to now, ritual has been under-utilised for studying human behaviour. This book narrows the gap in our understanding of the social causes and consequences of our actions by focusing on the ritualised behaviours that define much of our daily lives. Knottnerus breaks new ground by comprehensively describing structural ritualistic theory. He shows how structural reproduction has occurred throughout the world, how rituals can be strategically used and how power can influence rituals, and how the disruption and reconstitution of ritual is of crucial importance for human beings. This book shows that ritual provides a missing link in sociology and helps us better explain the extreme complexity of human action and social reality.

Chapter 1 Understanding Rituals in Everyday Life

Sociology and Structural Ritualization Theory

DOI: 10.4324/9781315632322-1

The basic assumption that rituals are crucial to human behavior is consistent with the arguments of different social scientists who have used this concept to analyze and examine society such as Durkheim (1965), Goffman (1967), Collins (1981; 1987; 2004), Shils and Young (1953), Bell (1992), Douglas (1970), Rappaport (1999), Kertzer (1988), Victor W. Turner (1967), Hocart (1968), Cohen (1974), Alexander, Giesen, and Mast (2006), Warner (1959; 1962), and Bellah (2005). However, despite the work of these analysts—especially scholars such as Durkheim in his classic work The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life—the concept of ritual has been underutilized, if not often ignored, in sociology.

This is due to the conventional understanding of rituals in sociology (and in other social sciences and society at large). For instance, it is often assumed that rituals are found only or far more often in premodern societies, not modern societies. This idea is very likely due in part to implicit or explicit evolutionary assumptions that depict modern societies as increasingly rational, more advanced, more civilized, and not influenced by the traditions and customs associated with the premodern world. It is also often assumed that rituals occur only or mainly in religious or sacred contexts. The religious arena is oftentimes seen as a special domain of social life that is dominated by ritual. So too, rituals are commonly depicted as static, unchanging, and fixed in nature. Rituals presumably are actions that occur in a mechanical and fixed manner and, therefore, are not capable of change and modification.

Moreover, rituals are viewed by many as being of secondary importance and epiphenomenal in that they are the product of more important social processes. Other dimensions of society are often presumed to be more “real” and “significant” when it comes to understanding how societies actually work. Finally, all of these assumptions imply that rituals have little effect on or significance for people and developments in society, especially contemporary society. Rituals presumably play a negligible or minor role in human behavior, social interaction, and groups, big or small.

Such a limited approach to ritual usually fails to open up to the full complexity of human behavior. And related to this point many sociologists, while paying attention to social organization, pay little attention to either culture or personality structures (notwithstanding the contributions of those in the sociology of culture, social psychology, and the sociology of emotions) and the ways ritual may be directly related to all three aspects of social behavior.

For these reasons rituals are often thought to have limited explanatory value and are often downplayed in social analysis. In other words, they remain in various ways invisible to and “under the radar” of many students of social life and modern society while other dimensions of social reality, many of which operate at more macro levels, are emphasized in our research and thinking.

Structural ritualization theory (SRT), in contrast, focuses on the role that rituals play in society (Knottnerus 1997; 2005; 2009). It is grounded in the basic assumption that daily life is normally characterized by an array of social and personal rituals. Such rituals help create stability in social life while expressing various symbolic meanings that give significance to our actions. Everyday rituals, whether occurring in small groups or organizations, can lead to consequences unanticipated by group members while both being fed by and feeding into larger societal levels of interaction. As such, this perspective is directed to rituals that occur in various social settings, for example, face-to-face interaction, small groups, organizations, society as a whole, and globally.

Ritual as a Missing Link in Sociological Analysis

More precisely, SRT is based on a very different set of assumptions that enable this approach to provide a missing link in sociological research and analysis. It assumes that:

1. Rituals are found in both premodern and modern societies. While the presence of rituals in societies prior to the modern era and in so-called preliterate or “primitive” societies is often noted by historians, anthropologists, and other social scientists, SRT also stresses that rituals operate in the modern world. Although the form such rituals may take and the role they play in contemporary society may differ from other cultures in the past, I assume that rituals are a fundamental—that is, universal—component of human behavior and are an integral part of societal processes. The origins of rituals in social life very likely extend into the early development of Homo sapiens several hundred thousand years ago (if not earlier than that). They have continued to play a central role throughout history and, I suggest, will continue to do so notwithstanding the profound social changes that have taken place in the world especially in recent centuries.
2. Rituals occur in both secular and sacred contexts. In contrast to the long-standing presumption among various sociologists and other social scientists that rituals primarily or exclusively involve sacred or religious social practices, SRT assumes that rituals occur in a wide array of settings ranging from the secular to the religious. Rituals may involve standardized behaviors that occur in daily social interaction or more dramatic collective events.
   Such behaviors could include, for example, ritualized styles of interaction among people in a school or government office that are, for instance, of an equalitarian or hierarchical nature; religious or civic festivals; dining practices within a subculture; dancing and other stylized physical activities in settings ranging from religious gatherings or political celebrations to concerts or raves; ritualized behaviors expressing status distinctions among slaves, office workers, or youth groups in schools; ritualized deviant behaviors that occur in bureaucratic organizations such as corporations or health care facilities, sporting events, and so on. To restrict rituals to only sacred/religious contexts is to ignore the powerful and vibrant role rituals play in much of our lives and the ways they can meaningfully enrich our behavior, relations with others, and social events.
3. Rituals are dynamic in nature and subject to change. Oftentimes rituals are depicted as behaviors engaged in by people who are fixed and static in nature. The image often conjured up in the minds of sociologists and people in general is that rituals are simply repetitious actions mindlessly engaged in by individuals who possess little or no capacity for modification, large-scale change, and/or deliberate (or unintended) invention. SRT assumes that rituals, while certainly involving standardized behaviors, are not inherently rigid or devoid of meaning. Many factors ranging from situational conditions to personality differences can influence the extent to which ritualized actions may or may not be altered. In other words, rituals are inherently dynamic and possess the potential for change.
   Indeed, I would argue that a careful examination of history or developments in contemporary society quickly reveals how rituals can change and do so for different reasons and to differing degrees. As examples of such changes one could point to transformations over the last century in major sporting events such as the Olympics; the alteration of national holidays, celebrations, and festivities by various authoritarian governments throughout the twentieth century in order to generate support for their political regimes; modifications in the rituals engaged in by staff in a formal organization due to changes in policy; or the invention and alteration of rituals such as special ceremonies and commemorations by crew members during long-term expeditions (several of these will be discussed more fully in subsequent chapters).
4. They can be of profound importance in social life. Rather than assuming that rituals are epiphenomenal and reflect more “substantive” and “important” social forces such as organizational structures involving economic, political, occupational, or demographic factors, SRT emphasizes the critical role rituals play in society and how they are a crucial aspect of people's cultural life, interpersonal relations, and the group dynamics operating in the many social environments most individuals move through in their daily lives. In saying this, SRT in no way denies the validity or significance of other social forces. Quite the contrary—this approach argues that while ritual is an essential dimension of social behavior it may both be influenced by these other dimensions of social reality and also profoundly impact them.
5. Rituals have great explanatory value. This perspective assumes that by attending to the role rituals play in social events we increase our capacity to explain and to better understand human behavior and social dynamics. Indeed, by bringing ritual dynamics “more to the surface” in our observations and analyses of social behavior we are provided with another lens through which to view ourselves. Such a development can significantly contribute to not only the scientific analysis of society but also our ability to better understand our own personal experiences.
   In these different ways ritual provides a missing link in sociological thought. The concept of ritual addresses key issues and arguments such as these, which are often ignored or underemphasized in sociology and other social sciences. What is more, at least six additional meanings or assumptions related to the concept of “missing link” are of particular importance. All of these are relevant to the first five points addressed by SRT while at the same time going beyond them to underscore other fundamental issues. They are as follows:
   Rituals occur at and impact different levels of society ranging from face-to-face interaction and relationships, larger groups and organizations, society as a whole, and the world. Ritual operates at micro and more macro levels.
   The concept of ritual can be linked to perspectives and traditions of research emphasizing other social dynamics and issues; therefore, approaches focusing on ritual should be capable of forming linkages or conceptual bridges with other perspectives (what is often referred to as theory integration).
   Ritual is a social phenomenon that can be investigated with very different methods and types of evidence.
   Rituals can have consequences for social organization, culture, and personality structure.
   The idea of ritual can provide a common vocabulary and framework to study developments occurring in different groups. In other words, it can have great analytical value helping us to explain the workings of society.
   Ritual is a concept that has potential relevance for the multifaceted nature of social life. In other words, ritual can be utilized in a wide range of studies given the complexity of human behavior.
   These six additional points are also germane to SRT and its attempt to make ritual an important link in sociological analysis. How SRT addresses these concerns is highlighted in points 6 through 11.
6. SRT addresses these specific concerns because it examines some of the ways in which social dynamics operating at one level of analysis influence group processes occurring at other levels. This approach assumes that ritual dynamics occur at different—micro to macro—levels of analysis and that ritual processes operating in social environments can influence other social units. For instance, face-to-face interaction in small groups can be influenced by the organization the group is located in or even the larger community. A six-level model of the social order to be outlined in chapter 2 facilitates the study of ritual dynamics at various levels of analysis. The theory argues that ritual dynamics in a group can spread to and influence ritual enactments in other groups and social milieus both across levels and within each level.
7. SRT creates different kinds of linkages with other perspectives and areas of study focused on various topics. For example, SRT complements and/or has developed links or bridges with the web/part-whole approach (developed by Bernard Phillips and Tom Scheff), expectation states theory, macro social change/Dark Age research, in addition to studies of organizational deviance, emotions, ethnic communities and identity, disasters, social power, movements, and social inequality.
8. It uses multimethod research strategies. Research employs multiple methodologies involving both quantitative and qualitative types of evidence, including historical-comparative analyses, experimental research, contemporary and historical case studies, interviews, field research/ethnographies, content analysis of primary sources, reviews and analyses of secondary sources, surveys, focus groups, and interpretations of literary sources and accounts involving novels, autobiographies, biographies, memoirs, travelogues, and diaries. Such an approach implies a respect for the strengths of different methods and recognition of how diverse research strategies can complement one another and enrich our investigations of social reality. In other words, this perspective assumes that when similar findings are obtained employing dissimilar methods focused on social phenomena occurring in different settings and historical periods we increase our confidence in the value of the explanatory formulations.
9. In addition, SRT emphasizes the relevance of rituals for social organization (or social structure). It stresses how ritualization occurs and leads to the patterning of social relationships and, therefore, the formation, reproduction, and sometimes alteration of social structures. At the same time, it is directly relevant for understanding culture due to the central focus on rituals and the symbolic meanings expressed through them and the role rituals play in providing meaning, direction, and focus to social life and group interaction (concepts and points usually recognized as important by sociology of culture researchers and social anthropologists). Furthermore, this approach has relevance for personality structures because it argues that the rituals developed by individuals (oftentimes derived from or influenced by groups) can have profound consequences for people's cognitions, feelings, and overall character. While much remains to be done in this area, evidence from studies of concentration camp internment shows, for instance, how important personal and group rituals can be for enabling people to cope with highly disruptive experiences and maintaining a stable personality structure. Such an issue I would propose is largely a void in sociological research.
10. SRT uses a common analytical framework employing the idea of ritual to explain various social experiences. It provides abstract formulations that address basic social processes involving ritual dynamics in many empirical settings, for example, schools, corporations, ethnic communities in urban areas or small towns, slave societies, health care facilities, sporting events, youth groups, political or religious groups, and social movements.
11. Finally, SRT provides a missing link in sociology because, given the enormous complexity of human behav...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Half Title Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Table of Contents
• Preface
• Chapter 1. Understanding Rituals in Everyday Life: Sociology and Structural Ritualization Theory
• Chapter 2. Analysis of Ritual Dynamics
• Chapter 3. Structural Reproduction in the World and Throughout History
• Chapter 4. Strategic Ritualization and Power: Nazi Germany, the Orange Order, and Native Americans
• Chapter 5. Disruption and Deritualization: Concentration Camp Internment and the Breakdown of Social Order
• Chapter 6. Ritual as a Missing Link Within Sociology: Current and Future Research
• Chapter 7. Social and Personal Life: Applications and Implications
• References
• Index
• About the Author