Abstract

With both the terms “rite of passage” and “ritual” facing difficulties as analytic concepts, we have no way to differentiate between common behavior, rite of passage, and ritual in a strict sense until today. Through careful reading, we find that van Gennep’s original expressions of nearly all the basic features of the rite of passage are vague. The only thing we can ensure is that ritual object will change through the rite of passage. Gluckman tried to explain the rite of passage with social relations, but his effort failed because common behavior also changes social relations. By examining three cases—an airplane journey, Ilongot headhunting, and Yiche ancestor worship—we find that formalization, standardization, or routinization is not the essential element of ritual. The core of the problem is what people want to change through ritual. Applying belief theory as a way forward, we use the change of relations between two categories of mental existence but social relations for the definition of ritual. We then equate rite of passage with ritual and restrict ritual to religious behavior. Furthermore, according to the kinds of mental existence that we want to change in ritual, we classify two kinds of ritual.

Highlights

  • With both the terms “rite of passage” and “ritual” facing difficulties as analytic concepts, we have no way to differentiate between common behavior, rite of passage, and ritual in a strict sense until today

  • Gluckman believed that the change in social relations brought by ritual is the core of the rite of passage, but he did not realize that these changes originate in the identity change of members of society, which is clearly pointed out by van Gennep

  • With so much effort, we are fortunate to continue to use ritual as an analytical tool

Read more

Summary

Introduction

With both the terms “rite of passage” and “ritual” facing difficulties as analytic concepts, we have no way to differentiate between common behavior, rite of passage, and ritual in a strict sense until today. Following the research path of Durkheim and Radcliffe-Brown, Gluckman et al placed investigating the change of social relations at the core position of studies of rites of passage, unequivocally maintaining the sociological explanation of ritual. Victor Turner, the most important developer of van Gennep's transition model and Gluckman’s student, continues to investigate the change in social relations as a vital approach in the analysis of ritual. Can we say that every ritual that changes people's social relations is a rite of passage?

Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.