Ritual: Theoretical Issues in the Study of Religion

Archive for the Psychology of Religion, 1997

Ritual, 1987

This article first appeared in the First Edition (1987) of the Encyclopedia of Religion, ed. Mircea Eliade,, v. 12, pp. 405-422, and is reproduced here as it was reprinted without changes (aside from a bibliographic update) in the Second Edition (2005), ed. Lindsay Jones, v. 11, pp. 7833-7848. It first presents a definition of ritual as it appears in religious contexts, and then surveys the various theoretical approaches that have dominated academic study, developing out of this an analysis that seeks to do justice to the multivalent and multileveled nature of religious ritual itself.

Theorizing Rituals: Vol I: Issues, Topics, Approaches, Concepts, edited by Jens Kreinath, Jan Snoek and Michael Stausberg, xiii–xxv. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2006

It is unclear when rituals first originated. Some assume that ritual, like dance, music, symbolism, and language, arose in the course of the evolution of primates into man, 1 or even prior to it. 2 Thus rituals may also have facilitated, or even stimulated, processes of adaptation. Be that as it may, biologists and behavioral scientists argue that there are rituals among animals, and this has important implications for our understanding of rituals. 3 Unlike animal rituals, however, sometime in the course of the evolution of (human) ritual, and in specific cultural settings, rituals have partly become the business of experts (priests). These ritual specialists, it can safely be assumed, often not only developed a ritual competence in the sense of performative skills but also began to study the rituals of their own tradition. Hence, one may assume that within this process of specialization, social differentiation, and professionalization, 4 indigenous forms of the study of rituals evolved. In contrast to the modern, mainly Western academic study of rituals, these indigenous forms of ritual studies can be referred to as 'ritualistics'. 5 * A first draft of this introduction was written by Michael Stausberg. It was then jointly revised and elaborated upon by the editors of this volume. We wish to thank Ingvild S. Gilhus (Bergen) and Donald Wiebe (Toronto) for helpful comments on a previous draft. 1 See also Bellah 2003. (Here, as throughout the volume, works listed in the annotated bibliography are referred to by author and year only. Those items not listed in the bibliography will be provided with full references in the notes.) 2 Staal 1989, 111 states: "Ritual, after all, is much older than language." See also Burkert 1972. 3 See Baudy in this volume. 4 See Gladigow 2004. 5 See Stausberg 2003. Although a small group of us began using the term at American Academy of Religion meetings, today it has wide currency in a large number of disciplines" (p. 1). See also Grimes 1982 and his bibliography, Research in Ritual Studies (Grimes 1985). In terms of the establishment of a new field of research, see also his article on ritual studies in the Encyclopedia of Religion from 1987. 8 See, e.g., Grimes 1990; Bell 1997. 9 Over the last five years, the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (German Research Council) funded two large-scale research programs on rituals: Kulturen des Performativen (Sonderforschungsbereich 447 [http://www.sfb-performativ.de] since 1999) and Ritualdynamik (Sonderforschungsbereich 619 [http://www.ritualdynamik.uni-hd.de] since 2002). Some contributors to the current volume are members of the former (Christoph Wulf) or the latter (Dietrich Harth, Axel Michaels, William S. Sax, and Jan A.M. Snoek). 10 The editors themselves were members of a junior research group, Ritualistik

Scripta Instituti Donneriani Aboensis, 1993

The history of Religions is in need of subdisciplines. Those that it has are mostly derived from other academic disciplines such as psychology, sociology, or, to mention a more recent invention, aesthetics. Interdisciplinary studies are in many ways a characteristic, inherent feature of the humanities, and certainly not to be resented or mistrusted. It is, however, worth noticing that the History of Religions has only one discipline entirely of its own: a comparative, cross-cultural, religio-specific discipline sometimes called the phenomenology of religion. The study of ritual is more than just the study of a very broad. It is with a view to the further exploration of the way meaning and form are put to work in ritual, and the way ritual determines and conditions the form of representations, that ritualistics can be suggested as a new discipline.

International Journal for The Psychology of Religion, 2012, 22, 89-92

Archive for the Psychology of Religion, 2003

International Journal of Philosophy and Theology, 2018

As a postscript to this special issue, the author reflects on the difference between religion and ritual by drawing a comparison with culture and nature. In the same way that culture and nature are entangled yet distinct, so too religion and ritual are best understood as a paradoxical configuration of spiritual deliberation and unconscious desire. It is argued that religion and ritual exceed and depend on each other in equal measure as the organism explores new modes of living.

The study tries to explain a clear understanding of rituals, religion and secular practices in society. It begins by stating the meaning of Ritual, Religion, and Secular; Ritual Too often, the word "ritual" is abused because a ritual considers that it does not rely on the repetition of action but also needs other factors. The definitions provided by anthropologists of the word "rite" are often very contrasting. The rite has the prerogative of being plastic and adapting to social change, and for this reason, every author has a distinct definition. The concept of ritual, if it was only part of the primitive and exotic societies that are now part of the contemporary world, rites are part of the communities because they need a lot of symbolization.The term "rite" comes from the Latin word ‘ritus’ that mean ritual. It is from this that many anthropologists have developed different definitions.