Ritual and Social Change Author(s): John Beattie Reviewed work(s): Source: Man, New Series, Vol. 1, No.

1 (Mar., 1966), pp. 60-74 Published by: Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland Stable 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 forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Man.

http://www.jstor.org

RITUAL

AND

SOCIAL

CHANGE*

JOHN BEATTIE

Institute SocialAnthropology, of UniversityOxford of

* The Malinowski Lecture, on Memorial I965. Delivered i6 February, I965, attheLondon Schoolof Economics PoliticalScience. and

Mysense the of honour conferred mebythe upon invitation deliver fifth to this Malinowski Memorial Lecture equalled bymy is only strong ofunworthiness. sense But,worthy unworthy, canbutdo one'sbest, today shall to or one and I try review somerecent trends a field which, a student, in in as I havealways found Malinowski's contribution especially stimulating enlightening. is the and This field ritual of behaviour, broadly, which that, to anthropologists when refer they speak myth, of magic religion. and Research these in topics, based largely the on vastamount excellent of fieldwork carried since out Malinowski published his essay 'Magic, on science religion' I926 (i926a), hasmoved beyond and in far where he left But after it. reviewing recent some work this in field am left I with the suspicion in at leastsomerespects understood that he better thansomeof his critics what modern do ritual really is about. In spite allthat been andwritten of has said about sideofhuman this behaviour (andI amafraid I must that confess only slenderest to the acquaintance this with great corpus writings), of anthropologists seemto find still somedifficulty in formulating a working definition ritual. of Thusit has been,and still the is, subject several of different seemingly and incompatible theoretical approaches. With humility, I setoutinthis due then, to lecture seeifitmay possible state to be with more clarity hassometimes achieved what is that social than been just it we anthropologists arestudying weinvestigate we sometimes magicowhen what call religious institutions. askyoutobear I shall with ifI askonceagain age-old me the question: what, any, theessential if is difference between 'ritual' procedures and so-called or 'practical' 'scientific' And,without ones? claiming I amsaying that anything hasnotbeen that said, said and many I shall times, before, that argue there is a difference, that is a crucial and it one. I shall toconvince first, when speak ritual arespeaking try you, that we of of we something which basically is expressive, dramatic, even whereas when speak of we science scientific or activity such, as however 'primitive', arenot.I shall we argue that isinfact essential ofwhat mean ritual. this an part I we by follow Second, shall a theme Professor of in Raymond Firth's (I964: 238. Cf.i95i, passim) arguing that rites in like magical religious are, consequence, much and more thearts, very likepoetry, as for painting sculpture, example, they likescience we and than are tmderstand this itin century. comprehending is very Thus them much more like understanding a work art, of such a play, as than is likeunderstanding it science. I as Third, shall argue the that instrumental of efficacyritual procedures (where, is the are to is whenand generally case, they thought havesuch efficacy)thought, where isdeeply it in to thought about, lie atbottom justthis very expressiveness. AndI shall, of finally, suggest a fresh atsome therituals social look of that change

RITUAL

AND

SOCIAL

CHANGE

6i

in (andhereI shallrevert briefly myown fieldwork Bunyoro, to western Uganda) I mode of explanalendssupport thisapproach. do notproposeanymonolithic to tionforritual;there manyforms ritual are of and are behaviour, there as many kindsof explanation there questions as are thatcan usefully askedaboutthem. be thesequestions intotwo broad classes, fall thosewhichask what Verygenerally, rites mean,what,if any,is their symbolic and significance, thosewhichenquire both manifest aboutwhat theydo; their socialand psychological and functions, latent. And these two verydifferent 'ofquestions.I are kinds I about functions, with questions Now in thislecture do not concern myself can important thoughtheseare.2As we all know,functional analysis be and has been applied,with greatprofit, all human social and cultural to institutions, of withtheproblem what,if not onlyto ritual ones.I am hererather concerned of and anything, be said to be characteristic distinctive ritualinstitutions. can I And I conclude thatthisis their expressive quality. shallarguethatwhenwe are ritual primary the is with dealing question not'what doesitdo?', or even'whatis it believedto do?' butrather 'what does it say?' For,and thisis my central theme, to whatitisbelieved do canbe fully to understood byreference whatitsays. only To begin with, then,is ritual,as Tylor and Frazerthoughtand as some recent writers have asserted, kindof proto-science something it, or is it a or like is This something quitedifferent? question linked witha moregeneral one: is the first betweenthe sacredand the profane, distinction explicitly propounded by Malinowski's Durkheim, valid and useful? positionon both pointsseemsclear. Adopting Durkheimian the distinction, roundly he asserts 'in every that primitive community, studiedby trustworthy competent and observers, therehave been the in foundtwo clearlydistinguishable domains, sacredand theprofane; other of of and the words, domain magicandreligion that science'(i926a: 2i). As is well from on known, Malinowski distinguishes magic religion theground the that former the of is directed towards specific ends, mainly filling gapsin man'sexperience and in his ability cope withit, whereasin religion to thereis 'no purposedirected a towards subsequent event',theend beingrealised, Nadel putit, 'in thevery as consummation the act' itself of (I957: 200). But, forMalinowski, magicno less than from which 'guidedbyreason corrected is differs and religion radically science, whilemagicinvokes'a mystical by observation', impersonal power' (i926a: 23). Evenif,as Malinowski in whatI can onlytaketo be at least parta gesture in of says we obeisancetowardsthe Master,'with Frazer, can appropriately magic a call pseudoscience', nonethelessdiffers it from in science, Malinowski asserts, setting, in tradition, in thekindsof activity involves. it and Malinowski's ideasin this field havebeensubjected somejust criticism; to thus, forinstance, distinction his between magicandreligion hardly accords withcustomaryusage.But thethesis whichmostmoderncriticism beendirected has against is thatthere 'two clearly are the distinguishable and theprofane'. domains, sacred Let us takeanother look at thisdistinction. Just whatis beingclaimedby thosewho makeit? For Durkheim, religious all a beliefs of 'presuppose classification all the things, and ideal,of whichmen real or into two classes opposedgroups,generally think, designated two distinct by terms are which translated enough thewords well by profane sacred'(i9i5: 37). and Alwaysand everywhere, says, sacred he the and theprofane havebeenconceived

62

JOHN

BEATTIE

consisting in is whichthere nothing common',thesacred between as 'two worlds and not so regarded dealt of the set of things apartand forbidden, profane things thosewhich are sacredthings in thelastresort with(I9I5: 38-9). For Durkheim to sometimes be excluding and on man'sdependence hissociety, he seems symbolise moreclearly recognising however, magicfromthe sacreddomain.Malinowski, goose is also sauce for the magicalgander, thatwhat is sauce forthe religious it in places magic squarely the realmof the sacred.For, like religion, is nonfromthe profane, of thinking way and it impliesquite a different empirical, and whichis basedon observation trialand error. approach 'scientific' in whichis not quite explicit. shift interpretation, is Now there herea subtle clearly do thatall peopleeverywhere in factdistinguish said Durkheim orimplied or things. ofsacred andnon-sacred profane things the spheres between two separate or this.He is saying, at leastI understand is But Malinowski not sayingexactly peopleare capable whether domains, are there two separate that himto be saying, to problems, themclearlyor not. This raisessome important of distinguishing I onlythatwhatMalinowski For I shallreturn. themoment wishto stress which can the is seemsto be saying thatin all societies distinction be made,not thatit the can. do is always made.Ifthepeoplethemselves notmakeit,then anthropologist is based?Here Malinowski sometimes is If so, on what exactly thedistinction he warm', thoughin somepassages is, we mightsay,'getting lessthanexplicit, somewhat he of This,as we noted, distinguished in especially hisdiscussion religion. and so far (and otherthings), feelings' frommagic,forit 'expresses arbitrarily for about desired results, an end but as it does thisit is not a technique bringing in and hand,he describes 'Magic, science in itself (I926a: 38). Magic,on theother for reasons' practical evenclumsy enacted purely art, prosaic, as religion' 'a sober, at sometimes that, nextpage we findto our surprise (I926a: 65). But on thevery of ravings a bonebut least,magicis anything soberand prosaic;thepassionate stressed that described. constantly Again,Malinowski are sorcerer vividly pointing is element in of terms, theessential thespell,theverbalexpression a desire formal magic. in magic,at leastin Trobriand and magichave in commonis that whatboth religion then, For Malinowski, as to even thoughmagic is thought be instrumental well. theyare expressive, in qualitythat, his view, I think thatwe may concludethatit is thisexpressive 'guided activity, themboth from'practical',purelyend-oriented distinguishes doesgetalong whichcan andveryoften and corrected observation', by by reason at being'expressive' all. quitewell without beenpointedout thatmuch, here. difficulty It has often is But there a practical at and is most,humanbehaviour both expressive instrumental thesame perhaps The the qualities time.But thisdoes not invalidate distinction. factthatdifferent them to a for is in areinterfused reality notin itself ground neglecting distinguish not to are our analytically; categories designed resolvetheseconfusions, merely thispointhas been well made- Dr by context, them. In the present to reflect he and ago, 'do notdenote EdmundLeach.'Profane sacred', wroteovertenyears of of types actionbut aspects almostanykindof action',and in theend whatis it is of magicand religion) that is 'to be understood distinctive ritual ofmyth, (i.e.

statement' of (I954: asforms symbolic

thatinstitutionalised words'about thesocialorder',but it seemsat leastpossible

I4).

with this concludes assertion the Leach

RITUAL AND SOCIAL

CHANGE

63

about othermatters commonconcern of statements ritualmay make symbolic besides socialorder. the then, that Durkheimian is the The first ofmythesis, part distinction marka does of two kinds,or aspects, humanbehaviour, basic difference valid and between lie that asserted, in thefact the does eventhough distinction not,as Durkheim one, it unlike other, heldto be apartand forbidden-sometimesis and sometimes the is in expressive, it is not. It lies rather the factthatone has an essential symbolic is behaviour characterhas quality, whiletheother not.Ifa modeofinstitutionalised we and symbolic usuallycall it eitherritualor art; if it is istically expressive and and non-symbolic, is based on observation trialand error, characteristically 'common sense', or 'science' (whether thenwe commonlycall it technology, by is 'primitive'or not). This difference not invalidated the factthatthereare or borderline whatwe are distinguishing states attitudes are cases.In thelastresort and in behaviourconsidered themselves, both of mind,not modes of physical in of combined thesamehuman and attitudes mindare often empirical expressive in for canoe-building, example.I deal later of situations, theregulation Trobriand of or of with the difficult status theseattitudes states questionof the existential a The stress theyare different. man who sticks pin in a that mind;hereI merely the wax model of his distant spellsand imprecations while,is enemy,uttering withhisrival, in the in differentkindfrom manwho,angry engaging an enterprise and that Eachmaybe equallyconvinced whathe is doingis him.3 waylays murders but a man is performing rite,the secondis not. Redfieldsaw effective, thefirst thisclearly. his appealingphrase, the magicianis makinga littlepictureof In is whathe wants(I962: 436). He is saying whilethemurderer not whathe desires, whathe wants. he in justsaying whathewants:he isnotinterested pictures; is doing of aspects and This crucialdistinction betweentheexpressive theinstrumental thatit would seemhardly and so often4 humanactionhas been made so clearly firefrom it, necessary reiterate wereit not thatit has latelycome undersharp to in protagonists a sortof 'back to Frazer'movement the social of some recent and of anthropology ritual.Thus Dr JackGoody, in the courseof a brilliant and ritual, to religion attempts define critique anthropological of thoroughgoing that asserting everyfor Durkheim hisfollowers mistakenly and rightly castigates out, the But the from profane. he thengoes on to throw bodydistinguishes sacred in myview,thebabywiththebathwater asserting since'theattribution a of that by "symbolic" or "expressive"elementto ritualor religious(i.e. non-rational) thatthe behaviouroftenturnedout to be no more thana way of announcing means-end of of an actionin terms an intrinsic observer unableto make sense is of that it relationship' onebasedon experience), follows 'thecategory symbolic (i.e. actiondoesnotin itself an markoff areaor polartypeofsocialaction'(I96I: I 56). Whathe seems be saying that distinguish themselves explicitly to is unless actors the aspectsof theirbehaviour,the betweenthe symbolicand the non-symbolic for is shouldabstain fromdoingso. Thus there nothing it but to anthropologist define in ritual negative (custom) behaviour as of terms 'a category standardised i.e. in whichthe relationship betweenthe meansand the end is not intrinsic, is (Goody I96I: I59. Cf I962: 36-4I). This seems or either irrational non-rational' in effect be defining and by ritual behaviour itsveryunintelligibility, I do not to thinkthatthiscan be veryhelpful advancing of our understanding it, or in in

64

JOHN

BEATTIE

humanwill, 'littlesprings action',driven a kindof will whichis basically of by where'we see onlytheimpersonal of turning a machine'(I95I: 23). Eventhough to thismaynot seemquiteadequateto characterise universe the presented us by modem physics, remains of it truethatthe development modem sciencemay of fairly represented involvingthe progressive be as depersonalisation nature. in Although mythical the gods and spirits the Kalabarimay have something of commonwiththeelemental powersor 'entelechies' theancient mediaval of and removedin I be philosophers, thinkit is plain thattheycould scarcely further from abstract whollyrelational scientists.7 conception the and modelsofmodern

looksfora cause' (I949:

enabling to pose new problems thisfield. theend we are back wherewe us in In started withFrazer's 'bastardscience',aboutwhichthere not muchto be said is exceptto conjecture why peopleshouldhave come to holdsuchmistaken views, and why theyshouldbe so slow to relinquish them,questions which cannot,I believe, answered be unless symbolic the character ritual taken of is intoaccount. In two stimulating highlyoriginalarticles Africa, Robin Horton and in Dr (I962, I964. Cf i960) reverts evenmorewholeheartedly Frazer. thefirst to In of these arguesthatthemythical he worldof theKalabariof theNiger delta,comprising various categories spirits, of constitutes explanatory an 'model' whichit is useful comparewiththemodelsusedby modernscientists, whom he gives to of as an example lateLordRutherford. maindifference, suggests, the The he between theKalabarimodeland Rutherford's thattheKalabari's basedon an analogy is is with the humanworld of people with which theyare alreadyfamiliar, while Rutherford's basedon an analogy is withtheplanetary system, withwhichhewas already familiar. Hortonsuggests bothKalabariand Rutherford engaged that are on the same task,thatof explaining universe. his secondAfrica the In article he takes theme this evenfurther, tells that'Ritual Man' is really sub-species and us 'a of theory-building man'. African religious systems, writes, he 'can be seenas the outcome a model-building of process which found is alikein thethought science of '.5 and in thatof pre-science Hortonoffers approachas 'impressionistic highly his and tentative'; is also it well arguedand plausible. But although may agreewithhim thatmythand we magicmayindeedsometimes afford kindofexplanation therealities a of they deal with, must, believe, we I holdwithMalinowski this nottheir that is mainpurpose,6 and insist thatin so faras theydo explain, theydo so by procedures which,far from being'like modern science,'arein fact veryantithesis. its Is there sense, any savethat verybroadest sense whichall thinking in aboutanybe thing shares commonquality beingthought, whichit can usefully said the of in thatthe mythological thinking African, of any other, of or peoplesis like the I analytical thinking modem scientists? thinknot. Modem scienceimpliesa of viewoftheworldwhollydifferent that themyth-maker themagician, from of and even fromthatof the earlier philosophers nature. Bronowski well said of J. has that 'science we knowit is indeed creation thelast300 years' as a of (I95I: 97). And whatis characteristic it is thatit has wholly, almost shaken of or wholly, off thattraditional way of thinking whichsees the surrounding world as a 'thou', or rather a multiplicity 'thous',rather as of thanas an 'it'. As H. & A. Frankfort put it, 'primitive thought looks not forthe "how" but forthe "who" whenit
24).

in It projects nature, Bronowski's into phrase,

RITUAL

AND

SOCIAL

CHANGE

This quitefundamental difference betweenthe pre-(or rather non-) scientific attitude and the scientific has an important one corollary. This is thatwhile modernscienceseeksto predict, finding how nature, an on-goingand by out as of impersonal system, really works,theovertpurpose thepriest themagician and is to influence, appeal to powersor spirits by whichare likelyto be moreor less personalised. The scientist who understands workingof naturecan make the practical use of thisknowledge,as the modem world all too amply testifies. But a magician whose universe peopledwithquasi-human is powersand spirits canonlyhope,vainly mostofus would say,to influence as these usually capricious or powers,as he mighthis fellow humans,by imprecation, sacrifice prayer. Gods and spirits not thought be subjectto empirically-grounded are to general laws, based on statistically validatedobservations, I think, it likelythat nor, is Rutherford scientist the besoughthis alpha and beta rays to do his bidding. Although theundiscoverable in beginnings things of science and magicmayhave had a commonoriginin the desireto controland to know, as contemporary phenomena theyrepresent quiteopposite waysof lookingat and copingwiththe world.8 The difference between themis further illumined theconsideration the by that characteristic of scienceis Occam's Razor: the simplest tool that explanation accountsfor the factsis always to be preferred.9 With the magicianand the myth-maker caseis exactly contrary; the the almost alwaysgods,spirits other and magicalagents tendto proliferate rather thanto diminish. Thisis exactly whatwe shouldexpectif the universe mythand magicis a symbolic of for,in universe; Whitehead's much-quoted phrase, 'the symbolic elements lifehave a tendency in to runwild,likethevegetation a tropical in forest' (I958: 6i). Mythdramatises universe, the science analyses and eventhoughmen someit, timesconfuse and thesetwo procedures, even combinethem(as in astrology and whatalchemy) theycouldhardly moredifferent. be I conclude, then, thatritual, everitsform, notscience is nothing it; itoperates by 'trialanderror, is and like not guidedby observation', by symbolism drama.It is forthisreason but and thatits studyinvolvesa range of questions about meaningwhich do not arisewhen 'scientific' behaviour being investigated; touch on some of thesequestions is I later. I ally myself squarely, then,with thosewho assertthatritualis essentially expressive symbolic, thatit is thisthatdistinguishesfromother and and it aspects of humanbehaviour, and thatgives rise to its characteristic In problems. this respect is alliedwithartrather it thanwithscience, it is susceptible similar and of kindsof understanding.IO When we contemplate workof artwe do not usually a askwhatuseit is (although course maydo so); we askrather of we whatitmeans, what are theideas and valueswhichit is intended express? to is Like art,ritual a kindof language,IIa way of saying things. And forthestudent ritual of someof the mostinteresting questions 'what kindsof things?', 'in terms what are and of associative principles these are things said?' I do not here discussin detailthe questionwhy people engagein symbolic or do behaviour, how exactly shoulddefine symbol. we a Nor, as I saidearlier, I consider herethefunctional importance ritual, of whichis a majorfield enquiry of in itsown right. thefirst To question is enoughto saythatpeopleevidently it do

66

JOHN

BEATTIE

propensity do so (as Langer(I942), White(I940) and others to have argued),or because they hope that,like empirically foundedtechniques, will produce it results, frommere forceof tradition or and habit,or-as I believe-from a combination theseand perhapsotherreasons.For my present of purposeit is enough to assert thatpeople do so act, and thattheiractioncalls for its own specific modes of explanation. And to the secondquestion, just what we are to meanby thetermsymbol, would assert I simply have developed (I these points a little elsewhere) a symbol, it actor artifact, that be stands a comprehensible as sign forsomenotion, moreor lessabstract, whichcultural to value,whether positive or I negative, attaches.12am not asserting, to thisknotty and problem shallreturn I shortly, all who participate ritual fully, evenat all, awareof whatis that in are or or beingsymbolised, by whatrationale. they If were,there would be little needof ritual, as Professor for VictorTurnerhas put it, the central problemof ritualis 'thatof expressing whatcannot thought (I962: 87) (though myself be of' I would wish to insert word 'readily' here); and whereall conceivable the valueswere realised there would be little need to assert them. It is of thenature ritual, of then,to be expressive, itis this and thatgivesriseto its characteristic problems, problems which obviously not arisewhen purely do activities being considered. are empirical There is no point in askingwhat is else is is. symbolising something when there no reasonto supposethatanything But in ritual is a central this question, eventhough cannot we alwaysanswer it. But veryoften can, and we have come a long way sinceDurkheimconwe jecturedthatreligious ritual was a symbolic assertion man'sdependence his of on and society, thatthetotemwas theflagof theclan.Amongthevariousqualities in and valueswhichsocialanthropologists shownto be symbolised ritual have are in difference social status which (Leach I954), the need to keep separate things thereis a dangerof confusing, such as different and lineages, generations sexes roles are in (WilsonI957), or different wherethese notclearly distinguished secular terms values(TurnerI964), political (Gluckman I964), lineageand tribal power and authority ritual can (BeattieI959), as well as thesocialorderitself. Evidently of cultural providea meansto theexpression manydifferent values,nor does it to seemthat ofthese all needrelate directly thesocialorder (Frankfort passim). I949, are What is essential thattheyshouldbe things is which,in a givenculture, held to be sufficiently to be worthmaking statements about.Also,as Turner important has in of the especially demonstrated hisanalyses Ndemburitual, samesymbol may so thatthe same ritemay have many different have many different referents, This brings to thecrucial mostrecently us question, posed by Goody(I96I) and if earlier Nadel (I949): in whatsense, any,canwe saythat by people'sinstitutionaldo isedbehaviour symbolic as maywell be thecase,they is themselves notseem if, it to knowthat is?In making suchan assertion we notunwarrantably are imposing and ourown 'folkmodel'on thedata, imputing thepeoplewe arestudying to ways of thought whichthere no evidence all? This is a serious for is at and difficulty, of the becauseof it, as we have seen, Goody rejects symboliccharacter ritual But I think as definition of instead. altogether definitive it, optingfora negative thatthis a counsel despair; is of there I suggest, no the is, really needto flush baby

act symbolically expressively, or whether because they likeor havea natural

of interconnected andlevels meaning kinds though (I96I,

I962, I964).

RITUAL

AND

SOCIAL

CHANGE

67

ofsymbolism downthedrain, longas we handle withcare.I agreewithTurner so it that proponents this of of and view 'go beyondthelimits salutary caution, impose serious, evenarbitrary, limitations themselves' on (I964: 28). I First, think thata tu quoque permissible is here.Is it any morereasonable to suppose, Hortonappears do, that ritual as to a institution as a myth basically such is conceived a scientific as as model,thanto supposethatit is basically conceived a symbolic expression an important or of cultural value?The magician themythmakerwould no doubt be bewilderedif asked which characterisation more if aboutit,he accurately reflected state mind.But I suspect his of that, he thought would see himself beingnearerto 'the musicmakers'and 'the dreamers as of In thatthesocial dreams',thanto themodernscientist. any case,I do not think to for anthropologist depend can entirely hissubjects carry hisanalyses him; on out in the end he mustdecidewhichinterpretation makesthe best senseof all the availableevidence. verbal And in making analysis shouldbearin mindthat his he behaviour not hisonlyguide. is More importantly, must remember we that we are seekingto understand cultural institutions, merely states mindof particular individuals. The not the of factthata first communicant, example(or perhaps for mostcommunicants), may not understand doctrine the Eucharist the of and its full meaningin Christian thought, does not meanthatit does not have sucha meaning, thata compreor hension thismeaning not indispensable itsfullunderstanding. is not a It of to is valid principle socialsciencethatnothing in may be imputed a people being to studiedexceptwhat is consciously present the mind of everyone of them. in It is quitereasonable, instance, describe for to people'sinstitutionalised behaviour in termsof such pattern variablesas specificity-diffuseness, or universalismparticularism, thoughthepeople themselves even have neverheardof Professor Parsons, are quiteunawarethattheir and behaviour be characterised these can in terms. But in fact, although maybe thatsomepeopledo notattribute symbolic it any meaning whatever their to rituals, evidence the would seemto suggest thatmost people do, thoughin very varyingrange and depth,and with very varying of explicitness. Professor MonicaWilson, writing herworkamongtheNyakyusa of East Africa, says'the stress on Nyakyusa is interpretations their of own rituals', and sheamplyvindicates claim(I957: 6). Again,Turner's this workon Ndembu ritual, alreadyreferred showshow faran interpretation ritualpurelyin to, of terms thepeople'sown ideasaboutit can be taken of (passim). Further, there levelsofawareness, without are and totalimmersion Jungian in or other psychology (though relevance thisfortheunderstanding publicas the of of wellas private ritual a topicto whichsocialanthropologists is might wellpaymore attention), is perfectly it possible elicitmeanings whichthesubject not to to of is beginwith explicitly aware. Turner'scareful work on the Ndembu is the best recentexample of this,but thereare instances the work of many modern in anthropologists. Again, as Turnershows,the anthropologist, unlikemost participants, place therites can and symbols observes a totalsocialand cultural he in setting. can thusascertain different He the meanings thesamesymbol of (and the similar meanings different of symbols) the same people in different for contexts and at different (I964: 29 andpassim). times Finally, different categories people of
3*

68

JOHN

BEATTIE

their ritual differently.I may takean example If in thesameculture may regard is frommy own fieldwork Uganda,there no doubtthatsomeNyoro peasants in are so, who appearto be possessed spirits really but by really believethatpersons are well otherNyoro,including, believe,mostmediumsthemselves, perfectly I are on that awarethat they not(Beattie are I957). Theyunderstand they putting an acquiredknowledge, even thoughtheymay not act, not applying scientifically clearly intowords. alwaysbe able to put thisdistinction and but are in of Certainly there gravedifficultiestheanalysis rites symbols, there I evidencethattheyare not insuperable. is ample and growingethnographic by of suggest, therefore, whathas indeedalwaysbeen assumed moststudents the magic or religion, to whether myth, subject, thatit is reasonable regardritual, this and as essentially expressive symbolic, thatit is primarily aspectof it that and we indicate whenwe call it ritual. in of impliedwhenspeaking religion, In so faras it is thisit is, as Malinowski maybe one for acting ofa problem out somemeasure endin itself, thedramatic an is way of resolving Thisview,whichof course as old as or olderthanAristotle it. expression holdsthat so far ritual a dramatic in as is (Dodds 1951: 35-57 andpassim), it is,in somemeasure, own reward. that its Partofthedifficulty we modemshave commitment an to fromour too-exclusive in recognising stems,I think, this it view of theworld.Some of us find difficult instrumentally-oriented, 'scientific' to acceptwholeheartedly thereis a value in sayingthings well, over and that the undone'; hence,perhaps, comparative above the value of 'gettingthings importance the artsto verymanypeople in the modem world. Whitehead of of people from symbolism' a characteristiccivilised is remarked 'the repulsion that in (WhiteheadI958: 60). But it is they,and not the vast mass of humanity all in placesand in all ages,who are exceptional this. that have Most modemanthropologists understood magicis not thematter-oflaws causalconnections, factapplication empirically-grounded aboutobserved of and of this butthat is,or maybe, thedramatic assertion something, that dramatic it But an have they assertion be in somemeasure endin itself. I am notsurethat may of alwaysfully perceived implications this.Thus, forexample,Malinowski the lists (I937: 475-8) no lessthan several reasons (i926a: 76-8),and Evans-Pritchard magicaltechshouldfailto 'see through'their 22, why thepeople theystudied all theylistare inefficacy. Certainly of the reasons niques,and so perceivetheir is refers whatI am suggesting themostimportant to writer important, neither but rites and an as reason all,namely inso far magical religious contain essentially of that in and so far,be satisfying rewarding themselves. expressive element, theymay, his is the For the magician, forthe artist, basicquestionis not whether ritual as with some empirically ascertainable exactly true,in thesenseof corresponding whatitis sought, and it in language, reality, rather but whether says, apt symbolic of all ritual, of all art,is, as Halliday as The raison d'etre held important, say. to mode of expression' of (I9I3: 22). putit, 'the attainment a distinctive indeedgenerally, held by its is not all. For of courseritualis often, But this The intends injure as to his to practitioners be effective well as expressive. sorcerer to the intends make rain; the enemy(notjust to relievehis feelings); rainmaker And eachthinks, maythink, what or wrath. that a sacrificer to intends avert spirit's I the of he does will bringabout his desire. now ask in what,basically, efficacy

RITUAL

AND

SOCIAL

CHANGE

69

suchactionis thought lie. It is now plainenough, think, it is not thought to I that to lie in theexperienced qualities theobjectsused; whatever of magicis, it is not appliedscience (though I have said it may be combined as withappliedscience). As bothMalinowski it (I932) havestressed, is not the (i926a) andEvans-Pritchard substances takenby themselves, the humanacts,the rites, but thatare basically important. I do not think But that is quiteenoughto saywithMalinowski it that 'magic is the one and only specific power,a forceunique of its kind,residing exclusively man,let loose onlyby hismagicalact,gushing withhisvoice, in out conveyed the casting by forth the rite' (i926a: 70-I), expressive of thoughthis statement We still is. wantto knowwhatsortofforce can be conceived be. this to I think cango further, in fact we and Malinowski doesso. In hisarticle 'Culture' on in theEncyclopcedia social ofthe sciences suggests, he though doesnot developthe he theme, thatunderlying magicis 'an almost mystical belief'that'the expression of emotions verbalutterances, gestures', a certain in in has power (I930: 639). In a later workheaccounts this for almost universal attribution potency words(and of to so, by implication, othermodesof expression) reference thepsychology to by to of infant experience. thechild',he writes, 'To 'words are not onlymeansof expression efficient but modesofaction'; they'meanin so faras they and havea act,

in concurrence we generalised insight appliedit to all ritual, so faras itis if this and thought be causally to is effective. What I am asserting, then, thatfundamentally ritual's efficacy thought lie in itsveryexpressiveness. is to in Of coursethisthesis implicit, is thoughnot alwaysexplicit, a good deal of writing aboutritual, by other Thus and scholars besides anthropologists. Halliday, writing Greekdivination, that'magicis essentially emphatic of said the statement of a wish,behindwhichis the power of fulfilment' (I9I3: 34). JaneHarrison stressed Greek that authors 'constantly thevocabulary thestage'indescribing use of whatshecallsthesacred The play,thesymbolic pantomime theEleusinian of rites. statement, thething, it was thought be effective was and to (I903: 569-70). Indeed thevery word'spell',in English in ancient as means said Greek (,E7cb8-q), something or sung;something Dr. In expressed. hisI952 Henry Myers Lecture, EdwinSmith, remarking 'therewould seemto be an innatetendency symbolise that to everythe where',goes on to describe how 'the symbol melts intothetalisman', efficacy of which thus derivesfromits symboliccharacter (I952: 33). Much similar evidencecouldbe quoted. But hereagainwe mustfacethechallenge thethesis that whichI am advancing cannot,or can only rarely, validatedby reference what informants be to say. If a Nyoro tellsme thathis sacrificial ritual effective thathe hopesthatit is (or will be effective) to becauseit is a meansof coercing gods or spirits do whathe wants,or if a Zande tellsEvans-Pritchard there a specialpowerin certain that is are medicines, what conceivablerightdo we assertthat theseinformants by and that mistaken, we know better that thantheydo what they'really' think, in eventhough is they notknowit,whatunderlies do their behaviour a belief the powerof symbolic expression itself? Here I earlier. Some answers thisveryformidable to objection were suggested of would reiterate of coursewe are not disputing existence, facts, the as that the beliefs thatpeople actually trying discover rationale to the hold; we are rather

powerof their own' (I946:

32I-2).

haveMalinowski's I think we might that

70

JOHN

BEATTIE

I in discuss detail suchvarious ritual to Obviously cannot responses socialchange as theGhost Dance in NorthAmerica, in cargocults theSouthSeas,theMau Mau in in revolt Kenya,and prophet movements SouthAfrica and elsewhere, though I shallspeakbriefly about one or two of them.I would suggest thatall of them not of on of exhibit, processes explanatory model-building thelines modern science, but rather conviction, a or (more commonly)implicit, that a ritual, explicit dramatic will end. Cargo cult and performance somehowbringabout a desired GhostDance, especially, for to mightbe thought offer cogentevidenceof this, to do a powerful they notseemconspicuously haveinvolved idea ofinfluencing the or often are god or godsby prayer sacrifice (though gods or ancestors involved): it it danceor other and rather, seems, is theritual performance itself, thesymbolic behaviour associated withit, thatit is believedor hoped will be effective. The of Indiansand Melanesians response North American alike to deprivation and

that underlies Secondly, isbeing them. what advanced isa working here hypothesis, notan empirical generalisation, thehypothesis ritual an essentially and that has expressive quality, that causal and its efficacy is thought (when isdeeply it thought about)to reside this in very fact, notrefuted theobservation it is not is by that is. thought be thus to effective it is notdeeply when thought about, it rarely as A hypothesis be accepted rejected accordance thedegree which is to or in with to itmakes better ofwhat given sense is than alternative any hypothesis, suggests and further problems investigation. I am claiming that for What is anyalternative explanationthe of thought which underlies institutions does make ritual simply not sense people's of behaviour. TheNuerwhosacrifices a cucumber Godinstead an ox (Evans-Pritchard to of I956: I28 and passim) knows,suspect, though may sayso inso many I even he not words, heis acting that symbolically, notengaging an everyday and in economic transaction. evenifhe doesnot,I holdthat is legitimate saythat is But it to he acting symbolically, not in terms practical and of economics. Otherwise his substitution valueless ofa object a valued wouldnotmake for one sense, evento or him,if he thought aboutit deeply. is notthatone act is morenatural, It 'supernatural', the than other; isjustthat aredifferent.revert a point it they To to already made, do nothaveto understand people's we other religious institutions in wholly their ownterms; indeed cannot so. Butofcourse doesnot we do this inthe mean these that other people cannot brought seetheir institutions be to own social anthropologist's ifthey given training theopportunity; terms, are the and ifthey become far) (so social anthropologists themselves.'3 Nyoromediums who had actedout,as professionals, ceremonies spirit of possession not at all were disconcerted I suggested them they when to that werereally 'pretending'. They knew they that were, when knew I and them enough were well they quite willing to swaptheir 'folk model'for mine.I4 You maybe wondering although lecture called why, my is 'Ritualandsocial I it change',have far nothing so said about latter the topic. fact,only In I broughtin because believe itisinthis I that context especially the that twin hypotheses which I havebeen can to advancing be shown havethe greatest explanatory Here, value. I think, ritual appears most clearly as a kind pseudo not of science, rather an but as as alternative science, to indeed an enterprise,Parsons' in 'of words, a different character from altogether' 'pre-scientific erroneous knowledge' (I949: 43 I).

RITUAL

AND

SOCIAL

CHANGE

71

distress a recourse drama,to 'strangeand exotic ritesand ceremonies', was to not to anykindof science technology. or What theydid was to stagea dramatic performance, a seriesof suchperformances, thento wait forwhat they or and wantedto come about. As Dr Lienhardt has recently therewas 'no stressed, control scientific by means'(I964: I63); there was,so faras I know,no attempt to varydifferent elements theritual, order determine trial error in in to by and which might themoreeffective. be Thesemillenarian other and movements provide kindoflaboratory, a wherewe can observe first at handhow a new ritual develops and establishes itselfWe can observewhether does so step by step,as sciencedoes, by formulating it new hypotheses aboutthenature theworldand thentesting of themagainst facts, the orwhether doesso rather a dramatic it by performance, the involving proliferation, often extravagant unrestrained, symbolic and of I think representations. thatthe evidence showsthatwe are concerned withthelatter rather thanwiththeformer kindof activity. shall,I believe, actingmorein accordance We be withcommon sense, we shallprovideourselves and witha moreuseful baseforfurther research, ifwe recognise clearly. this Dr Jarvie, his recent in interesting book (I964), centres criticism modem of his social anthropologists the ways in whichtheyhave triedto understand on the cargo cultsof Melanesia.But it does not seemto me thattheevidence supports Jarvie's view that, basically, these cults attempts solvean intellectual are to puzzle, the result, he put it, of 'a purelyintellectual as craving'(I964: I66). On the contrary, seemsto me thatthey it werebetter understood some olderwriters, by as waysof doing something aboutsituations whichwerefelt be unendurable.15 to And whatis done,in cargocultas in GhostDancesand in other comparable social changerituals, to enact,through variety symbolic is a of a kindof performances, ritual drama.Essentially, cargocults providesomething do, notjust something to to think, although course of they that do too. Theydo notseemto me to be primarily, Jarvie as suggests, types explanatory of theory; rather theyare recourses, in times stress, theconsolations riteand drama;in a veryfundamental of to of sense to theconsolations make-believe. of IfI mayconclude witha final brief reference myown fieldwork,wouldlike to I to say thatthecentrally essentially and expressive qualityof ritual was forcefully broughthome to me for the first a time when I witnessed possession ritein Bunyoro.The mediumship had been rigorously cult proscribed there many for and years, I shouldsaythat performance puton specially thebenefit this was for of myself, assistant, members themedium's my and of family, I might and, add,fora substantial fee. My friendthe medium had a considerable in reputation the district: had already he served prison a for sentence practising proscribed the cult, and he earned lot ofmoneyby seeming inducevarious a to some spirits, including modern oneswhichthemselves expressed disruptive the impact socialchange,i6 of to 'climbintohishead', and whilethere act as oracles hisclients. to for couldhavebeenplainer Nothing thanthat medium the was 'putting an act'. on Attired theappropriate in (and verystriking) apparelof bark-cloth, cult colobus monkey skinheaddress, bead necklaces so on, he assumed voice,gestures and the and manner appropriate thespirit to supposed be possessing to him.But it seemed to me quiteplainthatneither nor (on thisoccasion)anyoneelse present he was

72

JOHN

BEATTIE

reallydeceived.I have spokenearlier othermediuminformants told me of who quite frankly when theyappearedto be possessed that theywere not reallyso. No doubtstates genuinedissociation sometimes of are achieved, Bunyoroas in elsewhere, no doubtmany, and perhaps most, peoplebelieve that spirit the worldis 'really'there. notall religious needto be understood But rites literally, bythe even faithful. Thusit becameincreasingly to me thatthemediumistic clear ritual the of Nyoro,which their is characteristic religious institution, an exercise applied isnot in science, a dramatic but performance, so faras it is thisit is in some degreeat and leastsatisfying itsown right.'7 wouldhaveseemed ludicrous Nyoro as it in It as to wouldtometohavechecked efficacy their byempirical the of rites tests, comparable to those they often makein their non-ritual activities. Whatthespirit medium and his clients performing a drama,and through are is this,in default adequate of scientific techniques, can cope notonlywiththetraditional they hazards Nyoro of rural butalsowithnew andintrusive life, factors associated withwestern influence. And theydo thisnot by practical experiment, by philosophical nor theorising or model-building, by incorporating but thesepotentially inimicalforces into the dramatis personce what mightalmostbe called Bunyoro'straditional national of theatre. In thislecture have triedto developthe theme, I whichobviousthoughit is, I believe sometimes is nowadays neglected, although all ofwhatwe usedto that not call 'primitive' thought mystical symbolic, is and some is,just as some-though less-of 'western'thought If it is 'explanatory', is so in a verydifferent is. it way from science. Thusit requires own distinct its kindof analysis. sensible No person subjects sonnet a sonata thesamekindofexamination testing he does a or to and as a scientific hypothesis, though even eachcontains ownkindof'truth'. its Likewise, thesensible student myth, of magicand religion be will,I think, well advisedto recognise their that tenets notscientific are and propositions, basedon experience on a belief theuniformity nature, that in of and they cannot adequately be understood as if theywere. Rather,as symbolic statements, are to be understood a they by delicate investigation thelevelsand varieties meaning of of whichtheyhave for theirpractitioners, the byeliciting, through comparative contextual and study, principlesof association terms whichtheyare articulated, by investigating in of and thekindsof symbolic classifications whichtheyimply.(I am not hereconcerned, as I said at the beginning my lecture, of withthe functional of analysis ritual.) Thereis no needto reject approach am advocating all matters the I because ofthese arenot consciously is present themindof every in performer. causalefficacy That of often attributed ritual to (and I have saidwhereI believethatthegrounds this imputed efficacy serves distinguish magico-religious fromthatof lie) to the field art,but it doesnot,I hold,in anyway invalidate approach. this Lord Snow's Two Cultures implicit small-scale they in larger-scale are are in as societies. fact in The that theformer in are intertwined men's they still inextricably behaviour nota ground confusing is themin analysis. 'Science' and everyday for 'Art', however definedand distinguished, however confounded real and in life,implyvery different attitudes experience, give riseto verydifferent to and kindsof problems those for who wouldmeditate upon them.I do not think that Malinowski, werehewithus today, would find verymuchto disagree within this conclusion.

RITUAL

AND

SOCIAL
NOTES

CHANGE

73

but basedon pre-scientific erroneous character rational, knowledge, areofa different altogether and as suchnotto be measured thestandards intrinsic of at by rationality all.' a maximto whichscience multiplicanda necessitatem-is praeter constantly appeals.'
IO

theserelationsto each other' (I952: 23). 8 Cf. Parsons are or (I949: 43I). 'Ritual actions not... either simply irrational, pseudo9 William of Occam (I270-I349). Cf.Joseph(I9I6: 5o6). "' Occam's Razor"-entia nonsunt As Firthin particular has stressed (i964: 238). Cf. also Turner (i962: 87).

or to thatmagichas anything do withspeculation to abouttheuniverse thedesire understand it'. 7 Cf.Hayek of of a models. Procedure the in for goodaccount therelational quality scientific sensedata and ... substituting a natural sciences involves'breaking our immediate up for of which no description terms sense in of qualities in terms elements one possess attributes but

an explanation, sortofprimitive a science'(I20). Cf. also Nadel (I957: i98): Malinowski 'denied

of rites valuesthat I Cf.Radcliffe-Brown (1952: I45). 'The method investigating andritual overmorethan30 years to study is havefound workextending mostprofitable during rites as symbolic their socialfunctions.' expressions to seekto discover and 2 Theyare ofcourse mainpreoccupationinDurkheim andinRadcliffe-Brown a (I9I5) (i922), andin muchlater writing. 3 Thoughof course act murder maybe a ritual as well. 4 Forexample Cassirer and by andLanger among non-anthropologists,byRadcliffe-Brown, White others and Evans-Pritchard, Redfield, Firth, Levi-Strauss, Leach, among anthropologists. 5 Horton out I be to (i964: 96,99). It should, think, pointed (I owe thisobservation Mr. B. is that ofthe Cutter) in so faras Horton suggesting mythical that representations universe are withthoseof modem scientists, whathe is arrived by intellectual at processes comparable is of and for proposing a theory theorigin myth, nota prescription itspresent-day of analysis. has Forhe is presumably suggesting likeRutherford, not that, every Kalabari to buildup his is exampleof thisapproach Jarvie 'model' forhimself. further A (i964: 186), who states that science. roundly in at leastsomerespects magicis primitive 6 Malinowski to the peoplesof 'a non-existent (i926b: 44) criticises attribution simpler that is desire explain'. also sharply to He criticises 'AndrewLang'sdoctrine myth essentially

"In a sense:I wouldprefer regard as of I to language a system signs rather thanofsymbols, though course of wordscan and do becomesymbols too.
I2 13

'4

'5 Cf.,for Williams the example, peopleofNew Guinea Taro (i928: 83). FortheOrokaiva cult was 'primarilyceremonial a faith (it)gives a not them and moreto do than think to about'. 16 For someaccount these, Beattie of cf. (i96i). '7 Beattie of of (i96i). Fora graphic account dramatic aspects a mediumistic cf.Leiris cult,

I37-8).

Thispointis well discussed Pocock(i96i). Cf.alsoLevi-Strauss in (i963; xv). the There ofcourse, borderline are, cases.Cf.,forexample, casequotedin Beattie (I964b:

Cf. Beattie (I964a: 69-72). Cf. also Radcliffe-Brown(i952) and Whitehead (i958).

(i958).
REFERENCES

Beattie, JohnI957. Initiation theCwezi spirit into cult possession in Bunyoro. Afr. Stud.I6:
i 5o-6i.
I959. I96I.

Bronowski, i95i. Thecommon ofscience. J. sense London:Heinemann. E. Cassirer, I944. An essay man. on Newhaven: Yale U.P. Dodds,E. R. i95i. TheGreeks the and irrational. California Berkeley: U.P. Durkheim, I9I 5. Theelementary ofthe t. forms religious Trans. W. Swain.London:Allen life. J. and Unwin. Evans-Pritchard, I932. The intellectualist E. E. (English) interpretation ofmagic. Bull.Fac.Arts CairoUniv.i: 2. [mimeographed] I937 Witchcraft, and oracles magic among Azande. the Oxford: Clarendon Press. I956 Nuer religion. Oxford:Clarendon Press.

-i964a. Other cultures. London:CohenandWest. i964b. The ghost cultin Bunyoro. Ethnology I27-5I. 3:

II-38.

RitualsofNyorokingship. Africa I34-45. 29: of Groupaspects theNyoro spirit cult. mediumship Rhodes-Livingstone J. 30:

74

JOHN

BEATTIE

of organization. London:Watts. Firth, RaymondI951. Elements social Press. and London:Athlone I964. Essays social on organization values. Harmondsworth: Pelican In philosophy. Frankfort, & H. A. I949. Mythandreality. Before H. Books. OliverandBoyd. systems open and minds. Edinburgh: Gluckman, Max (ed.) I964. Closed Brit. the problem. J. Sociol. I42-64. Goody, Jack. I2: I96I. Religionandritual, definitional Publications. London:Tavistock I962. Death property the and ancestors. divination. London:Macmillan. Halliday, R. I9I3. Greek W. Cambridge U.P. tothe of religion. Cambridge: Harrison,Jane. Prolegomena study Greek I903. ofscience. Ill.: Hayek,F. A. I952. Thecounter-revolution Glencoe, The FreePress. Inst. of and J. Horton, Robin I960. A definition religion, itsuses. R. anthrop. 90: 20I-26. Africa an and I962. The Kalabari world-view: outline interpretation. 32: I97-220. Africa 85-I04. 34: I964. Ritualmanin Africa. and I. in London:Routledge KeganPaul. Jarvie, C. I964. Therevolutionanthropology. Press. tologic ed.). Oxford:Clarendon Joseph, W. B. I9I6. An introduction (second H. U.P. Suzanne in key. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Langer, I942. Philosophy a new systems highland of Burma. London:Bell and Sons. Leach,Edmund I954. Political deGondar. Paris:Plon. MichelI958. La possessionsesaspects et the'dtreaux lesEthiopiens chez Leiris, anthropology. York: BasicBooks. New Levi-Strauss, I963. Structural C. U.P. anthropology. Oxford:Oxford Lienhardt, Godfrey I964. Social InScience, and (ed.) scienceandreligion. religion reality J.Needham. Malinowski,B. i926a. Magic, London:Sheldon Press. London:KeganPaul,Trench, Trubner. psychology. in i926b. Myth primitive In ofthe sciences. York: Macmillan. New I930. Culture. Encyclopaedia social In in languages. C. K. Ogden & I. A. I946. The problem meaning primitive of London:KeganPaul. of Richards, The meaning meaning. of of (unpublished). Nadel,S. F. I949. Recordofmeeting theAssociation SocialAnthropologists Oxford. In on (ed.) R. Firth. London: andreligion. Man andculture I957. Malinowski magic Routledge KeganPaul. and TalcottI949. Thestructure action. Ill.: ofsocial Glencoe, The FreePress. Parsons, London:SheedandWard. Pocock,D. F. I96I. Socialanthropology. U.P. Andaman islanders. A. Cambridge Cambridge: Radcliffe-Brown,R. I922. The inprimitive London:CohenandWest. society. I952. Structure andfunction the RobertI962. Human nature the and study society: papers Robert I. of Redfield. of Redfield, Chicago:ChicagoU.P. Edwin I952. African Inst. Lecture.) R. anthrop. 82: J. symbolism. Henry (The Myers Smith, and VictorI96I. Ritualsymbolism, amongtheNdembu. morality socialstructure Turner, Rhodes-LivingstoneJ. 30: I-I0. the spirit. Rhodes-Livingstone33. Pap. I962. Chihamba white minds In and in ritual. Closed (ed.) M. Gluckman. systems open I964. Symbols Ndembu Edinburgh: OliverandBoyd. and behaviour. Sci. the LeslieA. I940. The symbol: origin basisofhuman Philosophy White, a J. 53: I962. Symboling: kindofbehaviour. Psychol. 3I I-7. U.P. and its A. Cambridge: Cambridge Whitehead, N. I958. Symbolism,meaning effect. U.P. F. Oxford:Oxford magic. Williams, E. I928. Orokaiva London:Oxford U.P. MonicaI957. Rituals ofkingship the among Nyakyusa. Wilson,
7: 455-6I. I3-37