John. Ritual and Social Change.

8/2/2019 John. Ritual and Social Change.

1/16

Ritual and Social Change

Author(s): John BeattieReviewed work(s):Source: Man, New Series, Vol. 1, No. 1 (Mar., 1966), pp. 60-74Published by: Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and IrelandStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2795901 .

Accessed: 11/04/2012 14:52

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].

Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Irelandis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve

and extend access toMan.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=raihttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2795901?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2795901?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=rai


2/16

RITUAL AND SOCIAL CHANGE*JOHN BEATTIEInstitutefSocialAnthropology,niversityfOxford

My ense f he onouronferredponmeby he nvitationo deliverhis ifthMalinowskiemorialectures qualled nly ymy trongense funworthiness.But,worthyrunworthy,ne canbutdo one'sbest, ndtoday shall ry oreview ome ecentrendsn a fieldnwhich, s a student,have lways oundMalinowski'sontributionspeciallytimulatingndenlightening.his s thefieldfritualehaviour,hat, roadly,o whichnthropologistsefer hen heyspeak fmyth, agic ndreligion. esearchnthese opics,ased argelyn thevast mount fexcellentieldworkarried utsinceMalinowskiublishedisessay n Magic, ciencend eligion'n 926 (i926a), hasmoved ar eyond herehe eft t. Butaftereviewingome ecent orkn this ield am eftwith hesuspicionhatn at least omerespectse understoodetterhan omeofhismodernriticso what ituals reallybout.Inspite f llthat asbeen aid ndwrittenbout his ide fhumanehaviour(and am afraidhat mustonfessoonly he lenderestcquaintanceith hisgreat orpus fwritings),nthropologiststill eem o find omedifficultynformulatingworkingefinitionfritual. hus t hasbeen, nd stills, thesubject f several ifferentndseeminglyncompatibleheoreticalpproaches.With uehumility,hen,set ut nthisectureo ee f tmay epossibleo statewithmore larityhan as ometimeseen chievedustwhatt s thatwe socialanthropologistsre tudyinghenwe nvestigatehatwesometimesallmagico-religiousnstitutions.shallskyou obearwithme f ask nce gain he ge-oldquestion: hat,f ny, sthe ssentialifferenceetweenritual' roceduresndso-calledpractical'r scientific'nes?And,withoutlaiminghat amsayinganythinghat asnot een aid, nd aidmany imes,efore,shallrguehathereis a difference,nd hatt s a crucial ne.I shallry oconvinceou, irst,hat henwe speak fritual eare peakingfsomethinghichsbasicallyxpressive,ven ramatic,hereas henwe speakfsciencer cientificctivitys such, oweverprimitive',earenot. shallrguethathiss nfactn ssentialart fwhatwe mean y itual.econd,shall ollowa theme fProfessoraymond irth'sI964: 238.Cf. 95i, passim)narguingthatmagicalnd eligiousitesre,nconsequence,erymuchmoreike he rts,likepoetry,aintingnd culpture,or xample,hanheyre ike cienceswetmderstandt nthis entury.hus omprehendinghemsverymuchmore ikeunderstandingwork f rt,uch s a play, han t s ikeunderstandingcience.Third, shallrgue hat henstrumentalfficacyfritualrocedureswhere,s sgenerallyhe ase, heyre houghtohave uch fficacy)sthought,hen ndwheret sdeeply houghtbout,o ie atbottomnust his ery xpressiveness.And shall,inally,uggesthatfreshook tsome f he itualsf ocial hange* TheMalinowskiMemorial ecture,965. Delivered ni6 February,965, at theLondonSchoolofEconomics nd Political cience.


3/16

RITUAL AND SOCIAL CHANGE 6i(andhere shall evert rieflyo my own fieldworknBunyoro,western ganda)lends upporto this pproach. donotpropose nymonolithic odeofexplana-tionforritual; here remanyforms f ritual ehaviour,ndthere re asmanykinds fexplanations there requestionshat anusefullye asked boutthem.Verygenerally,hese uestions all ntotwo broadclasses,hosewhich skwhatritesmean,what, f any, s their ymbolicignificance,nd thosewhichenquireabout what theydo; their ocial andpsychological unctions,othmanifestndlatent.And these re two verydifferentindsofquestions.INow in this ecture do not concernmyselfwithquestionsboutfunctions,importanthough hese re.2As we allknow,functionalnalysisan be andhasbeen applied,with great profit, o all human social and culturalnstitutions,notonlyto ritual nes. amhereratheroncerned ith heproblem fwhat, fanything,an be said to be characteristicnd distinctivef ritual nstitutions.And conclude hat hisstheir xpressiveuality. shall rgue hatwhenwe aredealingwith itual heprimaryuestions not whatdoes tdo?',or evenwhat s tbelieved o do?' butratherwhatdoes tsay?'For, nd this smycentralheme,what t s believed o docanbefully nderstoodnlybyreferenceo what t ays.To beginwith, then, s ritual, s Tylor and Frazerthought nd as somerecentwriters ave asserted, kind ofproto-sciencer somethingike t, or is itsomethinguitedifferent?hisquestions inkedwith moregeneral ne: isthedistinctionetween he sacred nd theprofane, irst xplicitly ropounded yDurkheim, alidand useful?Malinowski's osition n bothpoints eems lear.Adopting heDurkheimian istinction,eroundly ssertshat in every rimitivecommunity,tudied y trustworthynd competent bservers,herehave beenfound wo clearly istinguishableomains, he sacred ndtheprofane;n otherwords, hedomain fmagic ndreligionndthat fscience' i926a: 2i). Asis wellknown,Malinowski istinguishesagic romeligionnthe round hathe ormeris directedowards pecificnds,mainlyhefillingfgaps nman's xperiencendin hisability o cope with t, whereasn religion heres 'no purposedirectedtowards subsequentvent', heendbeingrealised,s Nadelput t, in theveryconsummationf theact' itselfI957: 200). But,forMalinowski,magicno lessthan eligioniffersadicallyromcience, hich s guidedbyreason ndcorrectedbyobservation', hilemagic nvokesa mysticalmpersonal ower' (i926a: 23).Even f, s Malinowskiaysnwhat canonly ake o be at east npart gesturefobeisance owards heMaster,withFrazer,we can appropriatelyallmagicapseudo cience', t nonethe essdiffersromcience,Malinowski sserts,nsetting,intradition,nd nthekinds factivityt nvolves.Malinowski'sdeas n this ield ave been ubjectedo someust criticism;hus,for nstance, isdistinctionetweenmagic ndreligion ardly ccordswith usto-mary sage.But thethesisgainstwhichmostmodern riticism asbeendirectedisthat here re two clearly istinguishableomains,he acred nd theprofane'.Letus take notherook at thisdistinction.Justwhat sbeingclaimed ythosewho make t? ForDurkheim,llreligiousbeliefspresuppose classificationfall thethings,eal andideal,of whichmenthink,nto two classes r opposed groups, enerally esignated y two distinctterms hich re ranslatedellenough ythewords rofanend acred'i9i5: 37).Always ndeverywhere,e says, he acred nd theprofane ave beenconceived


4/16

62 JOHN BEATTIEas twoworlds etweenwhich heres nothingn common', he acred onsistingof thingset part ndforbidden,heprofane fthings otso regardednddealtwith I9I5: 38-9). ForDurkheim acred hingsre n the astresorthosewhichsymbolise an'sdependencenhis ociety,ndheseemsometimesobe excludingmagicfrom hesacreddomain.Malinowski, owever, ecognising oreclearlythatwhat s sauceforthereligious oose is also saucefor the magicalgander,placesmagic squarelyn the realmof the sacred.For, ikereligion,t is non-empirical,nd it implies uitea different ay of thinkingrom he profane,'scientific'pproachwhich s basedon observationndtrial nd error.Now theres here subtle hiftn interpretation,hich s notquiteexplicit.Durkheimaidor mplied hat llpeopleeverywhereo infact istinguishlearlybetweenhe woseparatepheresf acredhingsndnon-sacredrprofanehings.ButMalinowskis notsaying xactly his.He is saying, r at least understandhimto be saying,hat hereretwoseparate omains, hethereoplearecapableof distinguishinghemclearly r not. Thisraises omeimportantroblems,owhich shall eturn.or themoment wishto stressnlythatwhatMalinowskiseems o be sayings that n all societieshe distinctionanbe made,not that talwayssmade. f hepeople hemselveso notmake t, hen he nthropologistan.Ifso,on whatexactlys thedistinctionased?Here Malinowski s sometimesless than xplicit,houghn somepassages e is,we might ay, gettingwarm',especiallyn hisdiscussionfreligion.his, s wenoted, edistinguishedomewhatarbitrarilyrommagic,for t 'expresses eelings'andother hings),nd so faras itdoesthis t snota technique orbringingbout desired esults, ut n endin tselfI926a: 38).Magic,ontheother and,he describesn Magic, sciencendreligion' s a sober, rosaic,ven lumsy rt, nacted or urely ractical easons'(I926a: 65). Butonthe ery extpagewe find o oursurprisehat, ometimestleast,magic s anythingutsober ndprosaic; hepassionateavings fa bone-pointingorcererrevividly escribed. gain,Malinowskionstantlytressedhatthe pell, heverbal xpressionfa desirenformal erms,s theessentiallementin magic, t east nTrobriandmagic.ForMalinowski,hen,whatbothreligionndmagichave n common s thatthey re expressive,venthoughmagic s thought o be instrumentals well.I think hatwe mayconclude hat t is this xpressiveuality hat,nhisview,distinguisheshembothfrompractical',purely nd-orientedctivity,guidedbyreason ndcorrectedyobservation', hich an andvery ften oesget longquitewellwithout eing expressive' t all.But theres a practical ifficultyere. t has often eenpointed ut thatmuch,perhapsmost,humanbehaviours bothexpressivend instrumentalt thesametime.But thisdoesnot nvalidatehedistinction.he fact hatdifferentualitiesare nterfusednrealitys not n itself ground orneglectingodistinguishhemanalytically;urcategoriesredesigned o resolve hese onfusions,otmerelyto reflecthem. n the presentontext, hispointhas been well made- y DrEdmund each. Profanendsacred', e wrote ver enyears go, do notdenotetypes factionbutaspects f almost nykindofaction', ndin theendwhat sdistinctivefrituali.e.ofmyth,magic ndreligion)s thatt s to be understoodasformsf ymbolictatement'I954: I4). Leach oncludeshis ssertionithhewords aboutthe ocialorder',but tseems t leastpossible hat nstitutionalised


5/16

RITUAL AND SOCIAL CHANGE 63ritualmaymake symbolic tatementsbout othermatters f commonconcernbesides he ocialorder.

The first art fmy hesis,hen, s that heDurkheimianistinctionoesmarkvalid andbasic differenceetween wo kinds, r aspects, fhumanbehaviour,even houghhedistinctionoesnot, s Durkheimsserted,ie n thefact hat ne,unlike heother,s heldto be apart nd forbidden-sometimest sandsometimesit is not. It liesrathern the fact hatone hasan essential xpressive,ymbolicquality, hile he ther asnot. f modeof nstitutionalisedehaviourscharacter-istically xpressivend symbolicwe usually all it either itualor art; if it ischaracteristicallyon-symbolic,nd is based on observationnd trial nd error,thenwe commonly all it technology,commonsense', or 'science' (whether'primitive' r not). This differences not invalidatedy the fact hat here reborderlineases. nthe astresort hatwe are distinguishingre states rattitudesofmind,notmodes of physical ehaviour onsideredn themselves,nd bothempiricalndexpressivettitudesfmind reoften ombinednthe amehumansituations,ntheregulationfTrobriand anoe-building,or xample. deal aterwith the difficultuestion ftheexistentialtatus f these ttitudesr states fmind; here merely tress hat hey re different.he man who sticks pin n awax modelofhis distant nemy, tteringpells nd imprecationshe while, sengagingn an enterpriseifferentn kind rom hemanwho, angrywithhisrival,waylaysndmurders im.3 ach maybe equally onvincedhatwhathe sdoing seffective,utthe firstman s performingrite, he second s not.Redfield awthisclearly.n his appealing hrase, he magician s making littlepicture fwhathewantsI962: 436). He is sayingwhathedesires, hile hemurderersnotjustsayingwhathe wants:he snot nterestedn pictures; e s doing hathe wants.Thiscrucial istinctionetween he expressivend the nstrumentalspects fhuman ctionhas been made so clearly nd so often4hat t wouldseemhardlynecessaryo reiteratet,were tnot that t has ately ome under harp ire romsome recent rotagonistsf a sortof back to Frazer' movementn the socialanthropologyf ritual.ThusDr Jack Goody, n the courseof a brilliantndthoroughgoingritique f anthropologicalttemptso define eligionnd ritual,rightlyastigatesurkheim ndhisfollowers ormistakenlyssertinghat very-bodydistinguisheshe acred rom heprofane. uthe then oes onto throw ut,inmyview, hebabywith hebathwatery assertinghat ince theattributionf"symbolic" or "expressive"element o ritualor religious i.e. non-rational)behaviour ften urned ut to be no more than way of announcinghat heobservers unable o make sense f an action nterms f an intrinsic eans-endrelationship'i.e.one based n experience),tfollowshatthecategoryf ymbolicaction oesnot n tselfmark ffn areaor polar ype f ocial ction' I96I: I 56).Whathe seems o besayingsthat nless he ctorshemselvesxplicitlyistinguishbetweenthe symbolic nd thenon-symbolicspectsof theirbehaviour, heanthropologisthould bstain romdoing so. Thusthere s nothing or t but todefine itualnnegative ermss 'a category fstandardisedehaviourcustom)in whichtherelationshipetween he means nd the end is not intrinsic,.e. iseitherrrationalr non-rational'Goody 96I: I59. Cf I962: 36-4I). This seemsineffecto be defining itual ehaviour y itsveryunintelligibility,nd do notthink hat his an be veryhelpfuln advancing ur understandingf it, or in


6/16

64 JOHN BEATTIEenabling s to pose new problems n this ield. n theend we are back wherewestarted ithFrazer's bastard cience', boutwhich heres not muchto be saidexcept oconjecture hy people houldhave come tohold suchmistakeniews,andwhy they houldbe so slow to relinquish hem, uestionswhich cannot,believe, e answered nless he ymbolic haracterf ritual s taken nto ccount.In two stimulatingnd highly riginal rticles n Africa, r Robin Horton(I962, I964. Cf i960) revertsvenmorewholeheartedlyo Frazer.n thefirstfthese e argues hat hemythical orld of theKalabari f theNiger delta, om-prising arious ategories f spirits,onstitutesn explanatorymodel' which t suseful o comparewith he modelsused by modern cientists,f whom he givesas anexample he ateLord Rutherford.he maindifference,e suggests,etweentheKalabarimodel and Rutherford'ss that heKalabari's s based on an analogywith the human world of people with which they re already amiliar, hileRutherford'ss basedon an analogywith heplanetaryystem, ithwhichhewasalready amiliar. orton uggests hat othKalabari nd Rutherfordreengagedon the same task, hatof explaining he universe.n his secondAfrica rticle etakes his heme venfurther,nd tells s that Ritual Man' is reallya sub-speciesoftheory-buildingan'. African eligious ystems,e writes,can be seen s theoutcome f model-buildingrocesswhich s found like n the hought f cienceand nthat f pre-science.5Hortonoffers is approach s 'impressionisticnd highly entative'; t is alsowellargued nd plausible. ut althoughwe may agreewithhim thatmyth ndmagicmay ndeed ometimesfford kind f explanationf therealitieshey ealwith,we must, believe, oldwithMalinowski hat his s nottheirmainpurpose,6and insist hat n so far s theydo explain, heydo so by procedures hich, arfrom eing like modern cience,' re n fact tsvery ntithesis.Is there ny ense, avethat ery roadest ense n which ll thinkingbout ny-thing hares he ommon uality fbeing hought,n which t can usefullye saidthat he mythologicalhinking f African, r of any other, eoples s like theanalytical hinking f modem scientists? thinknot. Modem science mpliesview oftheworldwholly ifferentrom hat fthemyth-makernd themagician,evenfrom hat f the earlier hilosophersf nature. . Bronowski aswell saidthatscience s we know tis ndeed creationfthe ast 00years'I95I: 97).Andwhat s characteristicf t s that t has wholly, r almostwholly, haken ffthat raditional ay of thinking hich sees the surrounding orldas a 'thou',orrather s a multiplicityf thous',rather han s an it'. AsH. & A. Frankfortput t, primitive houghtooksnotfor he "how" but for he"who" when tlooksfor cause' I949: 24). It projectsntonature,n Bronowski'shrase,'little pringsfaction',driven ya kindofwillwhich sbasically umanwill,wherewe see only he mpersonalurningf a machine'I95I: 23).Eventhoughthismay not seemquite adequate o characterisehe universe resentedo usbymodemphysics,t remains ruethatthe developmentf modemsciencemayfairly e representeds involving he progressive epersonalisationf nature.Although he mythical ods and spirits f the Kalabarimay have somethingncommonwith heelemental owers r entelechies' f theancient nd mediavalphilosophers,think t is plain that heycould scarcely e furtheremovednconceptionromhe bstractnd wholly elational odels fmodern cientists.7


7/16

RITUAL AND SOCIAL CHANGEThis quite fundamentalifferenceetween he pre- or rather on-)scientificattitude nd the scientificne has an importantorollary. his is thatwhile

modern cience eeks o predict,y finding uthow nature, s an on-going ndimpersonalystem,eallyworks, he overtpurpose fthepriest ndthemagicianis to influence,y appeal to powers r spirits hich re ikely o bemoreor lesspersonalised. he scientist ho understandshe workingof nature an makepractical se of thisknowledge, s the modem world all too amplytestifies.But a magicianwhose universes peopledwith quasi-human owers nd spiritscan onlyhope,vainly s most f us would say, o nfluencehese sually apriciouspowers, s he mighthis fellow humans, y imprecation,acrificer prayer.Gods and spirits re not thought o be subject o empirically-groundedenerallaws, based on statisticallyalidated bservations,or, think, s it likely hatRutherfordhe scientist esoughthis alpha and beta raysto do his bidding.Althoughn theundiscoverableeginningsf things cience ndmagicmayhavehad a commonorigin n the desire o control nd to know,as contemporaryphenomena hey epresentuiteoppositewaysof ooking t andcopingwith heworld.8The differenceetween hem s furtherllumined y theconsiderationhat hecharacteristicool of science s Occam's Razor: the simplestxplanationhataccounts orthe facts s always to be preferred.9 ith themagician nd themyth-makerhe ase s exactly hecontrary;lmost lwaysgods, piritsnd othermagical gents end o proliferateather han o diminish. his sexactlywhatweshould xpect f the universe f myth nd magic s a symbolic niverse; or, nWhitehead'smuch-quoted hrase,the symbolic lementsn ifehavea tendencytorunwild, ikethevegetationn a tropical orest'I958: 6i).Mythdramatisesheuniverse,cience nalysest, and eventhoughmensome-times onfuse hese wo procedures,nd even combine hem as in astrologyndalchemy) hey ouldhardly e moredifferent.conclude, hen, hat itual,what-ever ts orm,s not cience nd s nothingike t; t operates otby trial nderror,guidedby observation', ut by symbolismnd drama. t is for his eason hat tsstudy nvolves range of questions bout meaningwhich do not arise when'scientific' ehaviour s being nvestigated; touch on some ofthese uestionslater.I ally myself quarely, hen,with those who assert hatritual s essentiallyexpressivend symbolic,nd that t s this hatdistinguishestfrom ther spectsof humanbehaviour, nd thatgives rise to its characteristicroblems.n thisrespectt s alliedwith rtrather hanwith cience, nd t s susceptiblef similarkinds f understanding.IOhen we contemplate work of artwe do not usuallyaskwhatuse t s although f coursewe maydo so); we askrather hat t means,whatare the deas and valueswhich t s intended o express? ike art,rituals akindof anguage,II way of saying hings. nd for he tudentf ritual ome ofthemost nterestinguestions re what kinds f things?', nd in terms f whatassociativerinciplesre these hings aid?'I do nothere discuss n detailthe questionwhy peopleengage n symbolicbehaviour,rhow exactlywe shoulddefine symbol.Nor, as I said earlier,o Iconsider ere hefunctionalmportancefritual, hich s a major ield f enquiryin itsownright. o thefirst uestion t s enough o saythat eopleevidently o


8/16

66 JOHN BEATTIEactsymbolicallyr expressively,hether ecause heyike or havea naturalpropensityo do so (as Langer I942), White I940) andothers ave argued), rbecause they hope that, ike empirically ounded echniques,t will produceresults, r frommere force of tradition nd habit,or-as I believe-from acombination f these nd perhaps therreasons. or my present urpose t isenoughto assert hatpeople do so act, and thattheir ction calls for ts ownspecificmodes ofexplanation. nd to the secondquestion,ust what we are tomeanby theterm ymbol, would assert implyI havedeveloped hese ointslittle lsewhere) hat symbol, e it act or artifact,tands sa comprehensibleignfor omenotion,more r ess bstract,o which ulturalalue,whether ositive rnegative,ttaches.12am not asserting,nd to thisknotty roblem shall eturnshortly,hat llwhoparticipaten ritual re fully, r evenat all, awareof what sbeing ymbolised,rbywhatrationale.ftheywere, herewould be little eed ofritual, or s Professor ictorTurnerhas put t, thecentral roblem f ritual s'that fexpressing hat annot e thought f' (I962: 87) (though myself ouldwish to insert heword readily' here);and where ll conceivable alues wererealised herewould be little eed to assert hem.It s of thenature fritual, hen, o be expressive,nd t s this hat ives ise oits characteristicroblems, roblemswhich obviously o not arisewhen purelyempirical ctivities re beingconsidered. hereis no point n askingwhat issymbolisingomethinglsewhen there s no reason o suppose hat nythings.But nritual his s a central uestion, venthoughwe cannot lways nswer t.But veryoftenwe can, and we have come a long way sinceDurkheim on-jectured hat eligious itualwas a symbolic ssertionf man'sdependencen hissociety,ndthat hetotemwas theflag fthe clan.Amongthevarious ualitiesand valueswhich ocial nthropologistsaveshown obe symbolisednritual redifferencen socialstatusLeach I954), theneed to keep separate hingswhichthere s a danger f confusing,uch as differentineages, enerationsnd sexes(Wilson 957), ordifferentoleswhere hese renotclearly istinguishedn seculartermsGluckman964), lineage nd tribal alues Turner964), political owerandauthorityBeattie959), aswellas the ocialorder tself. videntlyitual anprovide means o theexpressionfmanydifferentultural alues,nor does itseem hat llofthese eedrelate irectlyothe ocial rderFrankfort949, passim).What s essentials that hey houldbe thingswhich,n a given ulture,re heldto be sufficientlymportanto be worthmakingtatementsbout.Also, s Turnerespeciallyasdemonstratednhis nalysesfNdemburitual,he ame ymbolmayhave manydifferenteferents,o thatthe sameritemayhave manydifferentthoughnterconnectedinds nd evels fmeaningI96I, I962, I964).Thisbrings sto the rucial uestion,most ecentlyosedby Goody I96I) andearlieryNadel I949): inwhat ense,f ny, anwesay hat eople's nstitutional-isedbehaviourssymbolicf, smaywellbe the ase, hey hemselveso not eemto knowthatt s? nmakinguch nassertionrewe notunwarrantablymposingourown folkmodel' onthedata, nd mputingothe eopleweare tudying aysofthought orwhich heres no evidence t all? This s a serious ifficulty,ndbecauseof it,as we have seen, Goody rejects hesymbolic haracterf ritualaltogethers definitivef t,opting or negative efinitionnstead. ut I thinkthat his s a counsel fdespair; heres, suggest, eally oneedtoflushhebaby


9/16

RITUAL AND SOCIAL CHANGE 67of ymbolismownthedrain, o ong s we handletwith are. agreewithTurnerthat roponentsfthis iew go beyond he imits fsalutaryaution,nd mposeserious, venarbitrary,imitationsn themselves'I964: 28).First, think hat tu quoque s permissible ere. s it any morereasonableosuppose, s Horton ppears o do, that ritualnstitutionuch s a myth s basicallyconceived s a scientific odel, han o suppose hat t is basically onceiveds asymbolic xpressionf an importantultural alue? The magician r themyth-maker would no doubt be bewildered f asked which characterisation oreaccuratelyeflectedis tate f mind.But suspect hat,fhe thoughtbout t,hewould see himself s being nearer o 'the musicmakers' nd 'the dreamersfdreams', han o the modern cientist.n any case, do not think hat he ocialanthropologistandepend ntirelyn his ubjectsocarry uthis nalysesorhim;in the end he mustdecidewhich nterpretationakesthe best senseof all theavailable vidence.And n making isanalysis e should ear nmind hat erbalbehaviours not hisonlyguide.More importantly,e must remember hat we are seeking o understandculturalnstitutions,ot merely he states f mindof particularndividuals. hefact hat firstommunicant,or xample or perhapsmost ommunicants),aynot understandhedoctrine f the Eucharist nd its full meaningn Christianthought, oes notmean that t does not have such meaning, r that compre-hension f thismeaning snot ndispensableo itsfullunderstanding.t is not avalid principlen social science hatnothingmay be imputed o a people beingstudied xceptwhat s consciously resent n the mind of everyone of them.It is quite reasonable,or nstance,o describe eople's nstitutionalisedehaviourin terms of such pattern ariables s specificity-diffuseness,r universalism-particularism,venthough hepeople themselves ave neverheardofProfessorParsons, nd arequite unaware hat heir ehaviour an be characterisedn theseterms.Butin fact, lthought maybe that omepeople do not attributeny ymbolicmeaningwhatever o their ituals, heevidencewould seemto suggest hatmostpeople do, though n very varying ange and depth, nd with very varyingexplicitness.rofessor onicaWilson,writing fherwork mong heNyakyusafEastAfrica, ays the stresss on Nyakyusa nterpretationsf their wn rituals',andsheamplyvindicateshis laim I957: 6). Again,Turner'swork on Ndemburitual, lready eferredo, shows how far an interpretationf ritualpurely nterms f thepeople'sown ideas bout t can be taken passim).Further,here re evels f wareness,nd without otal mmersionnJungian rother sychologythough herelevance f this or heunderstandingf public swellasprivate ituals a topic o which ocial nthropologistsightwellpaymoreattention),t sperfectlyossible o elicitmeanings f which he ubject s not tobegin with explicitlyware. Turner's arefulwork on the Ndembu s the bestrecent xample of this,but there re instancesn the work of many modernanthropologists.gain, as Turner hows,the anthropologist,nlikemost par-ticipants,an placetherites nd symbols e observesn a total ocial nd culturalsetting. e can thus scertainhedifferent eanings f the ame ymbol and thesimilarmeanings fdifferentymbols) orthe same people n differentontextsand at differentimesI964: 29 andpassim). inally, ifferentategoriesf people

3*


10/16

68 JOHN BEATTIEin the ame culturemay regard heir itual ifferently.f may take n examplefrommy own fieldworkn Uganda, here s no doubt hat ome Nyoro peasantsreally elieve hat ersonswho appear o be possessed yspiritsre really o, butotherNyoro, ncluding, believe,mostmediums hemselves,re perfectly ellawarethat hey renot Beattie957). Theyunderstandhat hey reputting n anact, not applying cientificallycquiredknowledge, venthough heymaynotalwaysbe able to put thisdistinctionlearly ntowords.Certainlyhereregrave ifficultiesn the nalysis fritesndsymbols,ut hereis ample and growing thnographicvidence hattheyare not insuperable.suggest, herefore,hathas ndeed lwaysbeen assumed y most tudentsf thesubject, hat t is reasonable o regard itual,whethermyth,magic or religion,as essentiallyxpressivendsymbolic,nd that t s primarilyhis spect f t thatwe indicatewhenwe call tritual.In so far s it is this t is,as Malinowski mpliedwhen speaking f religion,nsome measure n end n tself,or hedramaticcting ut ofa problemmaybe oneway of resolvingt. Thisview,which f course sas oldasor older hanAristotle(Dodds 1951: 35-57 andpassim),olds hat n so far s ritualsa dramaticxpressionit s, n somemeasure,tsown reward. artofthedifficultyhatwe modemshavein recognising his stems, think, romour too-exclusiveommitmento aninstrumentally-oriented,scientific'iew of theworld.Someof us find t difficultto acceptwholeheartedlyhatthere s a value in saying hingswell,overandabove the value of getting hings one'; hence,perhaps, he comparative n-importance f the arts o very manypeople n the modemworld. Whiteheadremarkedhat the repulsionrom ymbolism's a characteristicfcivilised eople(Whitehead958: 60). But it is they, ndnot thevastmassofhumanityn allplaces nd nall ages,who areexceptionalnthis.Most modemanthropologistsave understoodhatmagic snot thematter-of-fact pplication f empirically-groundedawsabout observed ausalconnections,but hatt s,ormaybe,thedramaticssertionf omething,nd that his ramaticassertion aybe insomemeasuren end n tself. ut amnot ure hat hey avealwaysfully erceived he mplicationsf this.Thus,forexample,Malinowskilists everal easonsi926a: 76-8),and Evans-PritchardI937: 475-8)no lessthan22, why thepeople they tudiedhouldfailto 'see through' heirmagical ech-niques, nd so perceive heirnefficacy.ertainlyll of the reasons hey ist reimportant,utneither riterefersowhat amsuggestings themostmportantreason f ll,namely hatn sofar s magical ndreligiousites ontainnessentiallyexpressivelement, heymay, o far,be satisfyingndrewardingn themselves.For the magician, s forthe artist,hebasicquestion s not whether is ritual strue, n the senseof correspondingxactlywith someempiricallyscertainablereality, utrather hethert says, n apt symbolicanguage,what t ssought,ndheldimportant,o say.The raison 'etrefallritual,s of all art, s, as Hallidayput t, theattainmentfa distinctive odeofexpression'I9I3: 22).But this s not all. For ofcourseritual s often,ndeedgenerally,eldby itspractitionersobe effectives well as expressive.he sorcererntendsoinjure isenemy not ust to relievehisfeelings); herainmakerntendso makerain;thesacrificerntendso avert spirit's rath.And eachthinks,rmaythink,hatwhathe doeswillbring bout hisdesire. now ask nwhat,basically,heefficacyf


11/16

RITUAL AND SOCIAL CHANGE 69such ction sthought o ie. t is now plain nough, think, hat t s notthoughtto lie in theexperiencedualities f theobjects sed; whatevermagic s, t snotapplied ciencethough s I have said t may be combinedwith pplied cience).As bothMalinowskii926a) andEvans-PritchardI932) have stressed,t s notthesubstancesakenby themselves,ut the human cts, he rites, hat rebasicallyimportant.ut I do not think hat t s quite nough o saywithMalinowskihat'magic is theone and only specific ower, a forceunique of its kind,residingexclusivelynman, et oose onlyby his magical ct,gushing ut withhisvoice,conveyed y thecasting orth f the rite' i926a: 70-I), expressive hough hisstatements. We stillwant o knowwhat ort fforce his an be conceived obe.I think e cangofurther,nd n factMalinowski oes o. n his rticle n Culture'intheEncyclopcediaf he ocial ciencese suggests,hough e doesnot develop hetheme, hat nderlying agic s an almostmystical elief' hat the expressionfemotions nverbalutterances,n gestures', as a certain ower I930: 639). In alaterworkheaccounts or his lmost niversalttributionfpotency o words andso,by mplication,o othermodesof expression)y referenceo thepsychologyof nfantxperience.To thechild',he writes,words are not onlymeans f ex-pression utefficientodes f action'; theymean n so far s they ct, nd have apower f theirwn' I946: 32I-2). I think hatwe might aveMalinowski'sconcurrencefwegeneralisedhis nsightndapplied t to all ritual,nsofar s t sthought o be causally ffective. hat amasserting,hen,s that undamentallyritual's fficacysthought o lie in itsvery xpressiveness.

Of course his hesiss implicit, houghnotalways xplicit,n a good deal ofwriting boutritual, nd by other cholars esides nthropologists.husHalliday,writing f Greek ivination,aid that magic sessentiallyhe mphatictatementof a wish,behindwhich s the power offulfilment'I9I3: 34). JaneHarrisonstressedhatGreek uthorsconstantlyse he ocabularyf he tage' ndescribingwhat hecalls he acred antomime f theEleusinian ites. heplay, he ymbolicstatement, asthe hing, nd t was thoughto beeffectiveI903: 569-70). Indeedtheveryword spell', n English s n ancient reek(,E7cb8-q),eans omethingaidorsung; omethingxpressed.nhis 952 HenryMyers ecture, r. EdwinSmith,remarkinghattherewould seemto be an innate endency o symbolise very-where',goes onto describe ow the symbolmeltsntothe alisman',he fficacyof which thusderivesfrom ts symbolic haracterI952: 33). Much similarevidence ould be quoted.Buthere gainwe must ace hechallenge hat he hesiswhich amadvancingcannot, r can only rarely, e validatedby referenceo what nformantsay.If a Nyoro tellsme thathis sacrificialitual s effectiveor thathe hopesthat twillbe effective)ecause t is a means fcoercing ods or spiritso do whathewants, r if a Zande tellsEvans-Pritchardhat here s a special ower n certainmedicines, y what conceivable ightdo we assert hat these nformantsremistaken,hatwe know better han heydo what they really' think,nd thateventhough hey o not know t,whatunderliesheir ehaviours a beliefn thepower ofsymbolic xpressiontself?Someanswerso this eryformidablebjectionwere suggestedarlier. erewouldreiteratehat f coursewe are notdisputing he existence,s facts, f thebeliefs hatpeople actually old; we are rather rying o discover herationale


12/16

70 JOHN BEATTIEthat nderlieshem. econdly,hatsbeing dvancederes workingypothesis,not anempiricaleneralisation,nd thehypothesishat itual asanessentiallyexpressiveuality,nd hatts ausal fficacys thoughtwhent sdeeplyhoughtabout) o residen this ery act,s notrefutedy the bservationhat t snotthoughto be thus ffectivehen t s notdeeply houghtbout, s it rarelys.Ahypothesiss tobe acceptedrrejectedn accordanceith he egreeo whichitmakes etterense fwhat s given han ny lternativeypothesis,nd uggestsfurtherroblemsor nvestigation.hat amclaimings that ny lternativeexplanationf he hought hich nderliesitualnstitutionsimplyoes otmakesense fpeople's ehaviour.The Nuerwho acrificescucumbero God nsteadf n ox Evans-PritchardI956: I28 and assim)nows, suspect,ven hough emay ot ay o n o manywords, hat e s actingymbolically,ndnot ngagingn an everydayconomictransaction.ut even fhe doesnot, hold hat t s egitimateo say hat e sacting ymbolically,nd not in terms f practicalconomics. therwise issubstitutionf valuelessbject or valued newouldnotmake ense,ven ohim, f he thoughtbout t deeply.t is not that ne act s morenatural,r'supernatural',han he ther;t s ust hat hey redifferent.o revertoa pointalready ade,we do nothave o understandther eople's eligiousnstitutionswhollyntheir wnterms;ndeedwe cannot o so. But ofcourse his oesnotmean hat hese ther eople annot e broughto ee heirwn nstitutionsnthesocial nthropologist'serms,fthey regiven he rainingndthe pportunity;if hey ecomeso far) ocial nthropologistshemselves.'3yoromediums hohadacted ut, s professionals,eremoniesf spirit ossession erenot at alldisconcertedhen suggestedo them hat heywere eallypretending'.heyknew hathey ere, ndwhen knew hem ell nough hey ere uitewillingtoswap heirfolkmodel' ormine.I4Youmay e wondering hy, lthough y ectures calledRitual nd ocialchange',have ofar aid othingbout he atteropic.nfact,only roughtt nbecausebelieve hatt s nthisontextspeciallyhat he win ypotheseshichI have een dvancinganbe shown ohave he reatestxplanatoryalue.Here,I think,itualppears ost learlyot s a kind fpseudo cience,ut athers analternativeoscience,ndeeds anenterprise,nParsons' ords,of a differentcharacterltogether'rompre-scientificrroneousnowledge'I949: 43 ).Obviously cannot iscussndetail uchvarious itual esponseso social hangeastheGhost ance inNorthAmerica, argo ults n theSouthSeas, heMau MaurevoltnKenya, nd prophetmovementsn SouthAfrica nd elsewhere,houghI shall peakbrieflyboutone or twoofthem. wouldsuggesthat ll ofthemexhibit,otprocessesf xplanatory odel-buildingn the ines fmoderncience,but rather conviction, xplicitor (more commonly) mplicit, hata ritual,dramatic erformanceillsomehowbring bouta desired nd.Cargocult and

GhostDance, especially,might e thoughto offerogent vidence fthis, orthey onot eem onspicuouslyohave nvolved he dea of nfluencingpowerfulgod orgods by prayer rsacrificethough ften odsorancestorsre nvolved):rather,tseems,t stheritual anceorother erformancetself,nd the ymbolicbehaviour ssociatedwith t,that t is believedor hopedwill be effective.heresponse f NorthAmericanndians nd Melanesians liketo deprivationnd


13/16

RITUAL AND SOCIAL CHANGE 71distress as a recourse o drama, o 'strange nd exotic rites nd ceremonies',not to anykindofscience rtechnology.Whatthey idwas tostage dramaticperformance,r a series f suchperformances,nd then o wait forwhattheywantedto come about. As Dr Lienhardt as recentlytressed,herewas 'nocontrol yscientificeans' I964: I63); therewas, ofar s I know,noattemptovary ifferentlementsn theritual,norder odeterminey trial nd errorwhichmight e themore ffective.Thesemillenariannd othermovementsrovide kind f aboratory,herewecanobserve tfirst andhow a newritual evelops ndestablishestselfWe canobservewhether t does so step by step, s sciencedoes, by formulatingewhypothesesbout thenature ftheworld nd then estinghem gainsthefacts,orwhethertdoes orather y a dramaticerformance,nvolvinghe roliferation,often xtravagantndunrestrained,fsymbolic epresentations.think hat heevidence hows hatwe areconcerned ith he atter atherhanwith heformerkindofactivity.We shall, believe, e actingmore naccordancewith ommonsense, nd we shallprovide urselves ith moreuseful ase for urtheresearch,ifwe recognisehis learly.DrJarvie, nhisrecentnterestingook (I964), centres is criticismf modemsocialanthropologistsn theways in whichtheyhave tried o understandhecargocults fMelanesia.But it does notseem to me that heevidence upportsJarvie's iewthat, asically, hese ults reattemptso solve nintellectualuzzle,theresult, s he put it, of 'a purely ntellectualraving' I964: I66). On thecontrary,tseems o methat heywerebetter nderstoody someolderwriters,asways ofdoingomethingbout ituations hichwerefelt o be unendurable.15Andwhat sdone, ncargo ult s inGhostDancesand nother omparableocialchange ituals,s to enact, hrough variety fsymbolic erformances,kindofritual rama. ssentially,argo ults rovide omethingodo, not ustsomethingtothink,lthough fcourse hey o that oo. Theydo notseem ometo beprim-arily, s Jarvieuggests,ypes fexplanatoryheory; atherhey rerecourses,ntimes f stress,o theconsolationsf rite nddrama; n a very undamentalenseto theconsolationsfmake-believe.If may oncludewith final rief eferenceomyownfieldwork,would iketo saythat hecentrallyndessentiallyxpressiveuality f ritualwasforcefullybroughthome to me for thefirst imewhenI witnessed possession ite nBunyoro.The mediumshipulthadbeenrigorouslyroscribedhere ormanyyears,nd should ay hat his erformanceasputonspecially or hebenefitfmyself, y ssistant,ndmembers f themedium's amily,nd, might dd,forsubstantialee. My friend he mediumhad a considerable eputationn thedistrict:ehadalready erved prison entenceorpractisingheproscribedult,andheearned lot ofmoney yseeming o nduce arious pirits,ncludingomemodern neswhich hemselvesxpressedhedisruptivempact f ocial hange,i6to climb ntohishead',andwhile here o act as oracles orhisclients.Nothing ouldhavebeenplainer han hat hemediumwas puttingn an act'.Attiredn the ppropriateandvery triking)ult pparel fbark-cloth,olobusmonkey kinheaddress,eadnecklacesnd so on,he assumed hevoice,gesturesandmannerppropriateo the piritupposed o be possessing im.But tseemedto me quite plainthatneither e nor on this ccasion) nyone lsepresent as


14/16

72 JOHN BEATTIEreally eceived. have spoken arlier f othermedium nformants ho toldmequite franklyhatwhen they ppeared o be possessed heywere not really o.No doubt states f genuine issociationresometimes chieved, n Bunyoro selsewhere,ndnodoubtmany, erhapsmost, eoplebelieve hat he pirit orld s'really' here. utnot ll religious ites eedto beunderstooditerally,venby thefaithful.hus tbecame ncreasinglylear o me that hemediumisticitual ftheNyoro,which stheir haracteristiceligiousnstitution,snot n exercisen appliedscience, ut a dramatic erformance,nd so far s it s this t s in some degree tleast atisfyingn tsown right.'7t would haveseemed s udicrous o Nyoroasitwouldtometohave hecked he fficacyf heir itesyempiricalests,omparabletothose hey ftenmake n their on-ritualctivities. hat the piritmedium ndhisclients reperformings a drama, nd through his, n default f adequatescientificechniques,hey an cope not onlywith he raditionalazards f Nyororural ife, ut lsowithnew and ntrusiveactorsssociated ithwesternnfluence.And theydo thisnot by practical xperiment,orby philosophicalheorisingrmodel-building,ut by incorporatinghesepotentiallynimical orces nto thedramatisersoncef what might lmostbe calledBunyoro's raditionalationaltheatre.In this ecture have tried o develop he theme,whichobviousthought is,I believe ssometimes owadays eglected,hat lthough ot ll ofwhatwe used ocall primitive' houghts mysticalnd symbolic,ome s, ust as some-thoughless-of 'western' houghts. f t s explanatory',t s so ina verydifferentayfrom cience. hus t requirestsown distinct indof analysis. o sensible ersonsubjects sonnet ra sonata o the amekind fexaminationnd testings he doesa scientificypothesis,ven hough achcontainsts wn kind f truth'. ikewise,the ensible tudentf myth,magic nd religionwill, think, e well advised orecognisehat heirenetsrenot cientificropositions,ased n experiencendona beliefn theuniformityfnature, nd that hey annot e adequately nderstoodas iftheywere.Rather, s symbolic tatements,hey re to be understood y adelicatenvestigationf the evels nd varieties fmeaningwhich heyhavefortheirpractitioners,y eliciting,hroughomparativend ontextualtudy,he rin-ciplesofassociationn terms f whichthey rearticulated,nd by investigatingthekinds fsymbolic lassificationshich heymply. I am not here oncerned,as I said at thebeginning f my lecture,with thefunctionalnalysis f ritual.)There s no needtoreject he pproach amadvocating ecause ll of hesemattersarenot consciouslyresentn themindof every erformer.hatcausal fficacysoften ttributedoritual and have said where believe hat hegrounds fthisimputed fficacyie) serves o distinguishhemagico-religiousield rom hatofart,but t does not, hold, nanyway nvalidatehis pproach.LordSnow's Two Culturesre mplicitn small-scalesthey re n arger-scalesocieties. he fact hat ntheformerhey re tillnextricablyntertwinednmen'severydayehaviours not a ground or onfusinghem n analysis.Science' and'Art', howeverdefined nd distinguished,nd however confounded n reallife, mplyverydifferentttitudes o experience,ndgiverise o verydifferentkinds fproblemsor hosewho would meditate pon them. do not think hatMalinowski, erehe with s today,would find erymuch o disagree ith nthisconclusion.


15/16

RITUAL AND SOCIAL CHANGE 73NOTESCf.Radcliffe-Brown1952: I45). 'Themethod f nvestigatingitesndritual alues hat

havefoundmost rofitableuringwork xtendingvermore han 0 yearss tostudy itesassymbolicxpressionsndto seek o discover heir ocial unctions.'2 TheyarefcoursemainpreoccupationinDurkheimI9I5) andinRadcliffe-Browni922),and n much aterwriting.3 Though fcoursemurdermaybe a ritualct aswell.4 For xample y CassirerndLanger mong on-anthropologists,ndbyRadcliffe-Brown,Evans-Pritchard,edfield, irth,evi-Strauss,each,White ndothersmong nthropologists.5Hortoni964: 96,99). Itshould, think,epointed ut I owe this bservationoMr. B.Cutter) hat nsofar sHortonssuggestinghatmythicalepresentationsf theuniverserearrivedt by intellectualrocesses omparable ith thoseof modemscientists,hathe isproposingsa theory ftheoriginfmyth,ndnota prescriptionor tspresent-daynalysis.Forhe is presumablyot uggestinghat,ikeRutherford,very alabari as tobuildup his'model' forhimself. furtherxample f this pproachsJarviei964: 186), who statesroundlyhat n at east ome espects agic sprimitivecience.6 Malinowskii926b: 44) criticisesheattributiono simpler eoplesof a non-existentdesire o explain'.He also sharplyriticisesAndrew ang'sdoctrinehatmythsessentiallyanexplanation, sort fprimitive cience' I20). Cf.also Nadel (I957: i98): Malinowski deniedthatmagichas anythingo do with peculationbouttheuniverser thedesire o under-stand t'.7 Cf.Hayek or goodaccountf he elationalualityf cientificodels. roceduren thenatural ciencesnvolves breaking p our immediateensedataand .. substitutingoradescriptionn terms f ense ualities ne ntermsfelements hich ossess o attributesuttheserelations o each other' I952: 23).8 Cf. ParsonsI949: 43I). 'Ritualactions re not .. eitherimply rrational,r pseudo-rational,ased npre-scientificrroneousnowledge,ut reof differentharacterltogetherand assuchnotto be measured y the tandardsf ntrinsicationalityt all.'

9William of Occam (I270-I349). Cf.Joseph I9I6: 5o6). "' Occam's Razor"-entia non untmultiplicandaraeterecessitatem-ismaxim o which cience onstantlyppeals.'IO As Firth nparticular as stressed i964: 238). Cf. also Turner i962: 87).I In a sense: wouldprefero regardanguage sa systemf igns atherhan f symbols,though f coursewords an and do become ymbols oo.I2 Cf.Beattie (I964a: 69-72). Cf. also Radcliffe-Browni952) and Whitehead (i958).13 Thispoint swell discussednPocock i96i). Cf.also Levi-Straussi963; xv).'4 There re, f ourse,orderlineases.Cf., or xample,he asequoted nBeattieI964b:I37-8).'5 Cf., or xample,Williamsi928: 83).FortheOrokaiva eopleofNew Guinea heTarocultwas primarilyceremonialot faithnd it)gives hemmore o do than o think bout'.16 For some ccount fthese, f. eattiei96i).'7 Beattiei96i). For graphic ccount f dramaticspects f a mediumisticult, f. eiris

(i958).REFERENCESBeattie, ohn957. Initiationnto heCwezi spirit ossessionult nBunyoro. fr. tud.6:i 5o-6i.I959. Rituals fNyorokingship. frica9: I34-45.I96I. Group spects ftheNyorospiritmediumshipult.Rhodes-Livingstone. 30:II-38.-i964a. Other ultures.ondon:Cohen ndWest.i964b. The ghost ult nBunyoro. thnology: I27-5I.Bronowski, . 95i. The ommonensef cience.ondon:Heinemann.Cassirer,. I944. Anessay nman.Newhaven: aleU.P.

Dodds, E. R. i95i. TheGreeksnd he rrational.erkeley: alifornia .P.Durkheim,. I9I 5. The lementaryormsf he eligiousife. rans. .W. Swain.London:AllenandUnwin.Evans-Pritchard,. E. I932. The ntellectualistEnglish)nterpretationfmagic. ull.Fac.ArtsCairoUniv. : 2. [mimeographed]I937 Witchcraft,raclesndmagicmonghe zande. xford: larendonress.I956 Nuer eligion.xford:Clarendonress.


16/16

74 JOHN BEATTIEFirth, aymond951. Elementsf ocial rganization.ondon:Watts.I964. Essays n ocial rganizationndvalues. ondon:Athlone ress.Frankfort,. & H. A. I949. Myth nd reality.n Beforehilosophy.armondsworth:elican

Books.Gluckman, ax (ed.) I964. Closed ystemsnd penminds.dinburgh: liver ndBoyd.Goody, ack.96I. Religion nd ritual, hedefinitionalroblem. rit. .Sociol.2: I42-64.I962. Death ropertynd he ncestors.ondon:Tavistockublications.Halliday,W. R. I9I3. Greek ivination.ondon:Macmillan.Harrison,Jane.903. Prolegomenao he tudyfGreekeligion.ambridge: ambridge .P.Hayek, . A. I952. The ounter-revolutionf cience. lencoe,ll.: The FreePress.Horton, obin 960. A definitionfreligion,nd tsuses. . R. anthrop.nst. 0: 20I-26.I962. The Kalabariworld-view:n outline nd nterpretation.frica2: I97-220.I964. Ritualman nAfrica. frica4: 85-I04.Jarvie,. C. I964. Therevolutionnanthropology.ondon:Routledge nd KeganPaul.Joseph, . W. B. I9I6. An ntroductiono ogicsecond d.). Oxford:Clarendon ress.Langer, uzanne942. Philosophyna newkey. ambridge, ass.:HarvardU.P.Leach, dmund954. Politicalystemsfhighlandurma. ondon:Bell and Sons.Leiris,Michel958. La possessiont es spectshe'dtreauxhez esEthiopienseGondar.aris: lon.Levi-Strauss,. I963. Structuralnthropology.ew York: BasicBooks.Lienhardt, odfrey964. Social nthropology.xford:OxfordU.P.Malinowski,B.926a. Magic, cienceandreligion.nScience,eligionnd ealityed.)J.Needham.London: Sheldon ress.i926b. Myth nprimitivesychology.ondon:KeganPaul,Trench, rubner.I930. Culture.nEncyclopaediaf he ocial ciences.ew York:Macmillan.I946. The problem f meaningn primitiveanguages.n C. K. Ogden & I. A.Richards, he meaningf meaning.ondon:KeganPaul.Nadel, . F. 949. Record fmeetingf heAssociationf ocialAnthropologistsunpublished).Oxford.- I957. Malinowskinmagic ndreligion.n Manand ultureed.) R. Firth. ondon:

Routledge ndKeganPaul.Parsons, alcott949. The tructuref ocial ction. lencoe,ll.: The FreePress.Pocock,D. F. I96I. Social nthropology.ondon:Sheed ndWard.Radcliffe-Brown,. R. I922. TheAndamanslanders.ambridge: ambridge .P.I952. Structurendfunctionnprimitiveociety.ondon:Cohen ndWest.Redfield, obert 962. Human aturend he tudy f ociety:he apers fRobert edfield..Chicago:ChicagoU.P.Smith, dwin 952. Africanymbolism.TheHenryMyers ecture.) .R. anthrop.nst. 2:I3-37Turner,Victor 96I. Ritualsymbolism, oralitynd social tructuremong heNdembu.Rhodes-LivingstoneJ.0: I-I0.I962. Chihambahewhite pirit. hodes-Livingstoneap.33.I964. Symbolsn Ndembu itual.n Closedystemsnd penmindsed.) M. Gluckman.Edinburgh: liver nd Boyd.White, eslieA. I940. Thesymbol: heoriginnd basis f human ehaviour.hilosophyci.7: 455-6I.I962. Symboling: kind fbehaviour. .Psychol.3: 3 -7.Whitehead, . N. I958. Symbolism,tsmeaningnd ffect.ambridge: ambridge .P.Williams, . E. I928. Orokaivamagic. xford:OxfordU.P.Wilson,Monica 957. Ritualsfkingshipmonghe yakyusa.ondon:Oxford .P.

John. Ritual and Social Change.

Documents