The functional approach of ritual

Ritual behavior can be explained in a second way by such men as Smith, Freud, and Durkheim. Most contemporary scholars studying religion, ritual, and myth begin with a quest for origins, but few if any do so. The origin-evolutionary hypothesis of ritual behavior was rejected as inadequate for explaining human behavior because no one can verify any of these bold ideas; they remain creative speculations that cannot be verified or disproved.

From origin hypotheses, scholars then turned to empirical data gathered through observation. A wide variety of rituals are described in today's academic literature. Based on the use of the term origin to describe the first approach, the term function can be used to describe the primary focus of the second approach. Ritual, then, is to be defined in terms of its role in society.

Functionalism explains ritual behavior in terms of individual needs and social equilibrium. As a result, ritual is viewed as an adaptive and adaptive response to the physical and social environment. This has been considered the best way to explain rituals by many leading authorities on religion and ritual. Among English and American anthropologists, Bronisaw Malinowski, A.R. Radcliffe-Brown, E.E. Evans-Pritchard, Clyde Kluckhohn, Talcott Parsons, and Edmund Leach adopted a functional approach to explain ritual, religion, and myth.

Rituals are typically regarded as a function of a society's needs and maintenance. The strengths of this approach are dependent upon its claim that it is both logical and empirical. That claim, however, can be seriously disputed. Functionalism aims to explain why rituals exist in a society by clarifying such terms as need, maintenance, and an adequately functioning society, and this becomes critical if they are to be taken as empirical terms. Functionalism acts as an indicator, or heuristic device, to describe the role ritual plays in society from a logical perspective. When it is asserted that a society functions adequately only if necessary needs are met, and if it is further asserted that ritual fulfills those needs, scholars cannot conclude that ritual is present in that society without committing the logical fallacy of affirmation of the consequences. Ritual is present only if the need for ritual is satisfied, which is a tautology reversing the claim to be empirical.

The history of religions approach

There is a third approach to the study of ritual centered on the studies of historians of religion. However, this approach differs from the first two in that it accepts that origin-evolutionary theories are unworkable hypotheses, but also rejects functionalism as an adequate explanation of ritual. Most religion historians, including Gerardus van der Leeuw in the Netherlands, Rudolf Otto in Germany, Joachim Wach and Mircea Eliade in the United States, and E.O. James in England have all held that ritual behavior signifies or expresses the sacred (the realm of transcendent or ultimate reality). Ritual, however, has never been explained in this way. The problem with it remains that it cannot be proved unless scholars agree beforehand that such transcendent realities exist (see also religion, study of: History and phenomenology of religion).

Functions of ritual

It has been observed throughout history that traditional rules have established or fixed ritual behavior. As a way to distinguish ritual behavior from other types of behavior, sacred (the realm of transcendence) and profane (the realm of time, space, and cause and effect) have continued to be useful terms.

Religions, myths, and rituals use the terms sacred and profane to describe what they believe these realms should be like. There is no consensus on a definition of these terms. Ritual, for Durkheim and others who use these terms, is a decided mode of action. In Durkheim's view, ritual is the process of putting everything into two categories, sacred and profane, that constitutes a society's belief system. Religions are all classified in this way. A belief system, or myth, is seen as an expression of the sacred realm, where ritual becomes the way in which individuals behave in a society expressing a relationship to the sacred and the profane. The sacred is that part of a community's beliefs, myths, and sacred objects that is set apart and forbidden. The purpose of ritual in the community is to provide clear guidelines for action in the sacred realm as well as to serve as a bridge into the realm of the profane.

While the distinction between the sacred and profane is believed to be absolute and universal, there are almost infinite variations in how this dichotomy is represented - not only within cultures, but also between them. Sacred to one culture may be profane to another. The same is true within cultures as well. There is a difference in the relative nature of things sacred and the proper ritual conducted in relation to the sacred and the profane depending on who participates. Even though they share the same belief systems, the proper ritual for a sacred king, priest, or shaman (a religious figure who possesses healing and psychic transformation powers), for example, will differ from the ritual for others in the community. Both these relationships and their limits are sustained and set by the ritual of initiation.

Ritual action consists of three additional characteristics beyond the dichotomy of sacred and profane thought and action. In relation to the sacred, the first characteristic is a feeling or emotion of respect, awe, fascination, or dread. Rituals are also characterised by their reliance on a belief system that is usually expressed in mythological terms. A ritual action's third characteristic is that it is symbolic in relation to its reference. Almost all descriptions of ritual functions agree on these characteristics.

Scholarly disagreements have arisen over the exact relationship between ritual and belief or the reference of ritual action. On the priority of ritual or myth, for example, there is little agreement. Often, the distinction between ritual, myth, and belief systems is blurred to the extent that ritual is taken to include myth or belief (see also myth: Myth and religion).

Its purpose depends on the context in which it is used. Again, although there is general agreement about the symbolic nature of ritual, there is less agreement about how ritual is referred to as symbolic. A ritual is often described as a symbolic expression of actual social relations, social status, or a person's place in society. It can also refer to transcendent, numinous (spiritual) realities and to the ultimate values of a community.

Whatever the referent, ritual as symbolic behaviour presupposes that the action is nonrational. That is to say, the means–end relation of ritual to its referent is not intrinsic or necessary. Rituals are often described as having a nonrational function using terms such as latent, unintended, or symbolic. All of this is flawed because ritual is described from the point of view of an observer. As far as their behavior and belief systems are concerned, ritual participants are either nonrational or rational depending on whether they also understand both their behavior and belief to be symbolic of social, psychological, or numinous realities. It is, however, the notion of the sacred as a transcendent reality that may be closest to participants' experiences. The sacred-profane dichotomy remains a controversial issue, however.

In order to overcome the basic weaknesses of functional descriptions of ritual and belief, we need a new theory. Ritual will remain obscure until such a time. By developing a better understanding of language, we may be able to devise a more adequate explanation for nonverbal behavior in general and ritual in particular.

Types of ritual

Whenever it comes to discussing ritual, it is often helpful to make distinctions by means of typology due to the complexities involved. Even though typologies cannot explain anything, they can help identify rituals that are similar within and across cultures.

Imitative

rituals are based on some belief system. They are often patterned after myths. A ritual that imitates a myth or an aspect of a myth can be classified as an imitation ritual. Among the best examples of this type of ritual are those of the New Year, which very often retell the story of creation. According to a passage from one of the Brahmanas, the answer to the question of why the ritual is conducted is that the gods did it this way "in the beginning." Rituals of this type can be seen as a repetition of the act of creation of the gods.

There has been a theory that all rituals repeat myths or basic motifs in myths due to this type of mythology. There is a version of this line of thought, often called "the myth-ritual" school, which posits that myth is what is told over ritual. To put it another way, myth is the libretto for ritual. Scholars like Jane Harrison and S.H. Hooke have advanced this theory. Several rituals explicitly imitate or repeat myths (for example, a myth of creation), but this cannot be said of all rituals. An ancient Near Eastern ritual pattern Hooke considers basic to the creation festival is itself a typological construction. In any case, although there is a combat and killing described in the festival myth, there is no evidence for ritual killings or king sacrifices in the ancient Near East. While some rituals tell the story of a myth, they represent an important type of ritual behavior, even if it cannot be universalized as a description of all ritual behavior.

Positive and negative

rituals can also be classified as positive or negative. Positive rituals generally involve consecrating or renewing an object or an individual while negative rituals always involve negative ritual behavior. Negative rituals are better described as avoidance; the Polynesian word tabu (English, taboo) has also become popular as a description for this kind of ritual. A taboo is a ritual that involves something to be avoided or forbidden. As a result, negative rituals focus on rules of prohibition, which encompass an almost infinite variety of rites and behaviors. However, there is one thing they all have in common: breaking a ritual rule results in a dramatic change in ritual man, usually bringing him some misfortune.

The variation in rituals of this type can be observed both within and across cultures. King, chief, or shaman may not be prohibited from doing what a subject, for example, is prohibited from doing. Avoidance rituals also depend on the belief system of a community and the individual's status in relation to others. Purification rituals are often performed as a result of contact with the forbidden or transgression of ritual rules.

According to the above description, negative rituals are always in opposition to positive rituals. It is both positive and negative for a child's birth, a king's consecration, a marriage, or a death to be ritualized. The ritual of birth or death involves the child or corpse in a ritual that, in turn, places the child or the corpse in a prohibitive status and thus to be avoided by others. The ritual itself, therefore, determines the positive or negative characteristic of ritual behaviour.

Sacrificial

Another type of ritual is classified as sacrificial. Its importance can be seen in the assessment of sacrificial ritual as the earliest or elementary form of religion. See sacrifice.

The significance of sacrifice in the history of religions is well documented. One of the best descriptions of the nature and structure of sacrifice is to be found in Essai sur la nature et le fonction du sacrifice, by the French sociologists Henri Hubert and Marcel Mauss, who differentiated between sacrifice and rituals of oblation, offering, and consecration. This does not mean that sacrificial rituals do not at times have elements of consecration, offering, or oblation but these are not the distinctive characteristics of sacrificial ritual. Its distinctive feature is to be found in the destruction, either partly or totally, of the victim. The victim need not be human or animal; vegetables, cakes, milk, and the like are also “victims” in this type of ritual. The total or partial destruction of the victim may take place through burning, dismembering or cutting into pieces, eating, or burying.

Hubert and Mauss have provided a very useful structure for dividing this type of ritual into subtypes. Though sacrificial rituals are very complex and diverse throughout the world, nevertheless, they can be divided into two classes: those in which the participant or participants receive the benefit of the sacrificial act and those in which an object is the direct recipient of the action. This division highlights the fact that it is not just individuals who are affected by sacrificial ritual but in many instances objects such as a house, a particular place, a thing, an action (such as a hunt or war), a family or community, or spirits or gods that become the intended recipients of the sacrifice. The variety of such rituals is very extensive, but the unity in this type of ritual is maintained in the “victim” that is sacrificed.

Life crisis

A typology of rituals would not be complete without mentioning a handful of very important rites that appear in practically all religious traditions and mark the passage from one realm, stage, or vocation to another. A life-crisis ritual is characterized by the transition from one mode of life to another, which has been classified as rites of passage by anthropologist Arnold van Gennep. A rite of passage is a ritual that marks a crisis in an individual's or a community's life. Rituals like these shape a person's life. They include rituals of birth, puberty (entry into the full social life of a community), marriage, conception, and death. Many of these rituals indicate the end of an old situation or mode of life, a transition rite celebrating the new situation, and a ritual of enfoldment. Most rites of passage do not entail all three divisions; they often emphasize only one or two of them.

As characteristic rituals of transition, initiation rituals for a secret society or religious vocation (e.g., priesthood, monasticism, traditional or spiritual healing) are often included among rites of passage. Throughout the world, New Year's ceremonies also symbolize the transition from old to new on a larger scale for the entire community or society.

Life-crisis rituals usually emphasize separation, whether as a death or as a return to childhood or womb. One striking example is the Hindu rite of being "twice born." The young boy who receives the sacred thread in the upanayana ritual, an initiation ceremony, makes his way through an elaborate ceremony seen as a second birth. Baptism in early Christianity, Yoga in India, and puberty rituals among North American Indian cultures illustrate this death and rebirth motif in rites of passage.

Many types of initiation can be classified as crisis rituals or passage rituals. Birth and Rebirth by Mircea Eliade provides an excellent description of such rites. In Eliade's view, rituals, especially initiation rituals, should be interpreted both historically and existentially. It is an encounter with the sacred that is both transhistorical and transcendent of a particular social or cultural context, and is related to the history and structure of a particular society. Taking this perspective, culture can be seen as a series of cults or rituals that transform natural experiences into cultural modes of life. As part of this transformation, social structures are transmitted as well as the sacred and spiritual dimensions of human existence are revealed.

Rituals of initiation can be classified in many ways. All of Eliade's patterns feature a separation or symbolic death followed by a rebirth. The rites range from separation from the mother to circumcision, ordeals of suffering, or descent into hell, all of which symbolize death and rebirth. The theme and structure of rituals of withdrawal and quest, as well as those associated with shamans and religious specialists, are typically initiatory. Most dramatic rituals of this kind express a death and return to a new period of gestation and birth, and often in terms specific to embryology or gynecology. And lastly, there is the ritual of physical death itself, a rite of passage and transition into an immortal or spiritual existence.

Many typologies of ritual that can be found in texts on religion and culture overlap or demonstrate some common agreement about how ritual behaviour can be classified. In interpreting the meaning of ritual, these typologies provide a striking contrast. Generally speaking, this contrast can be described by two positions: the first emphasizes the sociopsychological function of ritual, and the second asserts the religious value of ritual as a specific expression of transcendental reality.

Conclusion

It is obvious that ritual behavior provides meaning and communication nonverbally. In the emphasis on ritual in relation to myth, this aspect of ritual is often overlooked. The meaning of ritual is often derived from its semantic correlate, such as a verbal, spoken, or belief system. Rituals often reveal their meaning by reference to a belief system or mythology, but not always. The emphasis on belief systems and myths over rituals has resulted from this connection. The claim that myths reveal more than rituals is an oversimplification of the complex relationship between these two aspects of religion. In part, this can be explained by the fact that a great deal of primary and secondary data is literary in nature. Ritual theories are either derived from primary literature of a particular religious tradition or are derived from observations.

The study of ritual can be seen as the study of nonverbal communication that reveals its own structure and meaning. Scholars have only recently turned to systematic analysis of this aspect of human behavior; and progress in kinesics, the study of nonverbal communication, may offer new insights into ritual. It is quite possible that this development parallels the advances in linguistics and the analysis of myth as an aspect of language.

It would also be necessary to examine the relationship between ritual and art, architecture, and the specific objects used in ritual such as specific forms of ritual dress. All of these components are part of rituals, and all of them have a nonverbal structure and meaning.

A ritual marks the beginning of a particular time period, such as the beginning of the day, the month, the year, or the beginning of a new event or vocation. Sacred time is a temporal characteristic of ritual. However, sacred space is an important dimension of ritual. Both time and place are essential aspects of ritual action and both mark a specific orientation or setting for ritual action. It is ritually created time and space, whether it is a plot of ground or a magnificent temple, which serve as contexts for other rituals. Ritual time and ritual space orientation can be seen in the rituals for constructing sacrifices in Brahmanic texts, for the construction of a church, and for consecrating these structures that symbolize a clear space–time orientation within which rituals are enacted. Ritual action is fundamentally defined by the shape, spatial orientation, and location of the ritual setting.

Scholars have struggled to develop an adequate theory, or framework, of ritual in recent years. While ritual is often used to describe the determined, or fixed, behaviour of both animals and humans, future research on ritual may reveal that this behavior, seen throughout the course of history and cultures, is as specific to humans as is their capacity to speak a language, and that change in ritual behaviour is associated with changes in language. Despite great progress in the analysis of humanity as a species that speaks, there is still much to learn about the syntax and semantics of ritual.