The Ambivalence of Denial: Danger and Appeal of Rituals eds. by Ute Hüsken and Udo Simon

Abstract

Reviewed by: The Ambivalence of Denial: Danger and Appeal of Rituals eds. by Ute Hüsken and Udo Simon Michael D. K. Ing (bio) Ute Hüsken and Udo Simon, editors. The Ambivalence of Denial: Danger and Appeal of Rituals. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2016. 315 pp. Hardcover $52.00, isbn 978-3-447-10570-5. Ute Hüsken and Udo Simon are two of the most innovative thinkers in the field of ritual studies. This volume builds on a 2013 special issue of the Journal of Ritual Studies on the topic of "denial" (itself the result of a 2009 panel at the American Academy of Religion's annual conference). It includes 10 chapters, each written by a different contributor, an introduction by Hüsken and Simon, and an afterword by Ian Reader (a scholar of Japanese religion). Just over half the essays are about Hinduism (broadly construed), two essays are on Islam, one essay is on Zen Buddhism, and one essay is on Chinese burial customs in the Eastern Han. Despite only one article about China, readers of China Review International, particularly those with an interest in ritual, will find this volume worthwhile. Ritual in a Chinese context is a growing interest among scholars of China, and the health of the sub-field in part depends on engagement beyond a single cultural context. In this light, The Ambivalence of Denial is fruitful in several ways. The volume is essentially structured around the question of how analyzing "denials" in ritual performance adds to our understanding of ritual as a cross-cultural field of study. While each contributor views denial differently, they all build their cases on the assumption that a general category of ritual can be constructed, with specific cultural particularities. In this sense, ritual is a "universal mode of human action" (p. 7) and is subject to common human tendencies of evaluation and criticism. Hüsken and Simon explain, "Humans always seem to need ritual, but they also always seem to reject ritual" (p. 7). [End Page 264] The contributors set out to explore these competing impulses. The notion of ambivalence also plays an important role, as the contributors seek to unpack the ways in which denial is at the same time permissive and impermissive—serving to endorse certain practices while disqualifying others. Denial, in short, is multi-dimensional, it can exclude particular people or practices, reaffirm the validity of certain actions or actors, and also invent new modes of action to replace those being denied (p. 307). The Ambivalence of Denial works in tandem with other scholarship in the field of ritual studies such as Ronald Grimes' work on "criticism" and ritual.1 Hüsken, in particular, has been influential in examining what might be called the negative aspects of ritual—editing a volume on ritual and "failure" and more recently co-editing a volume on ritual and "negotiation."2 Readers interested in The Ambivalence of Denial will also want to consult these other volumes. Rather than providing summaries of each article in The Ambivalence of Denial, which can be found in the introduction to the volume, I will instead show how the authors' framing of ritual and denial might be fruitful in thinking about ritual in a Chinese context. My hope is that this will encourage more engagement with this kind of scholarship, which will in turn attract the attention of those not studying China to our scholarship about China. Kongzi (Confucius) is a prominent figure in many early Chinese texts. He is often depicted interacting with his disciples. In texts concerned with ritual, Kongzi's interactions are occasionally correctives to his disciples' flawed performance of ritual. A major theme in these vignettes is the ways in which ritual practices serve to "order sentiment" 治情 in contrast to the ways in which Kongzi's disciples tend to allow their sentiments to be excessive.3 For instance, the "Tangong Shang" 〈檀弓上i chapter in the Liji 《禮記》 relates the following interaction: Zilu wore the mourning clothing worn for mourning one's sister. He could have removed it [because the requisite time had passed], but did not remove it. Kongzi asked, "Why don't you remove [the mourning clothing]?" 子路有姊之喪' 可以除之矣' 而弗除也' 孔子曰:「何弗除也?」 Zilu replied, "I have...