The ritual process: structure and anti-structure

TUC 1 1 1

P

R I T I IA I 1 1 1 1 %J i \ L »

LB.

i""^

/^®%

H

^^^r

& ^^^^

^^^y

v^—^g

Structure and Anti-Structure VICTOR TURNER

The Lew/s Hen/y Morgan Lectures | 7966 presented at The University of Rochester, Rochester, New York

Cornell Paperbacks Cornell University Press ITHACA, NEW YORK

lite.*..-

SYMBOL, MYTH, AND RITUAL SERIES General Editor: Victor Turner Raymond Firth, Symbols: Public and Private* Eva Hunt, The Transformation of the Hummingbird: Cultural Roots of a Zinacanlecan Mythical Poem Bennetta Jules-Rosette, African Apostles: Ritual and Conversion in the Church ofJohn Maranke* Sally Falk Moore and Barbara G. Myerhoff, eds., Symbol and Politics in Communal Ideology: Cases and Questions^ Barbara G. Myerhoff, Peyote Hunt: The Sacred Journey of the Huicho'l Indiansj Victor Turner, Dramas, Fields, and Metaphors: Symbolic Action in Human Socielyj Victor Turner, Revelation and Divination in Ndembu Ritual^ Victor Turner, The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structurej Roy Wagner, Lethal Speech: Daribi Myth as Symbolic Obviation *Also available in a Cornell Paperbacks edition. tAvailable from Cornell University Press only in a Cornell Paperbacks edition.

To the memory of Allan Holmberg this book is respectfully dedicated.

Copyright © ig6g by Victor W . T u r n e r Foreword to Cornell Paperbacks edition copyright © 1 9 7 7 by Cornell University All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations in a review, this book, or parts thereof, must not be reproduced in any form without permission in writing from the publisher. For information address Cornell University Press, 1 2 4 Roberts Place, Ithaca, New Y o r k 1 4 8 5 0 . First published ig6g by Aldine Publishing Company. First published, Cornell Paperbacks, 1 9 7 7 . Seventh printing 1 9 9 1 .

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data (For library cataloging purposes only) Turner, Victor Witter. T h e ritual process. (Symbol, myth, and ritual series) (Cornell paperbacks ; C P - 1 6 3 ) Reprint of the ed. published by Aldine Pub. Co., Chicago, in series: T h e Lewis Henry Morgan lectures, i g 6 6 . Bibliography: p. Includes index. 1. Rites and ceremonies. I. Tide. I I . Series: T h e Lewis Henry Morgan lectures ; 1 9 6 6 . [GN473.T82 1977] 301.2'1 76-56627 ISBN 0-8014-9163-0

Printed in the United States of America © T h e paper in this book meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Information Sciences— Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, A N S I Z 3 9 . 4 8 - 1 9 8 4 .

Foreword to the Cornell Paperbacks Edition

Recently b o t h the r e s e a r c h a n d theoretical c o n c e r n s of m a n y anthropologists h a v e o n c e again b e e n directed t o w a r d t h e role of symbols—religious, mythic, aesthetic, political, a n d even economic—in social a n d cultural processes. W h e t h e r this r e ­ vival is a belated r e s p o n s e to d e v e l o p m e n t s in o t h e r disciplines (psychology, ethology, philosophy, linguistics, to n a m e only a few), o r w h e t h e r it reflects a r e t u r n to a central c o n c e r n after a period of neglect, is difficult to say. I n r e c e n t field studies, an­ thropologists have b e e n collecting m y t h s a n d rituals in the con­ text of social action, a n d i m p r o v e m e n t s in anthropological field t e c h n i q u e h a v e p r o d u c e d d a t a that a r e richer a n d m o r e refined t h a n h e r e t o f o r e ; these new d a t a have probably challenged theoreticians to p r o v i d e m o r e a d e q u a t e e x p l a n a t o r y frames. W h a t e v e r m a y have b e e n the causes, t h e r e is n o d e n y i n g a r e ­ newed curiosity a b o u t t h e n a t u r e of t h e connections between culture, cognition, a n d p e r c e p t i o n , as these connections a r e revealed in symbolic forms. A l t h o u g h excellent individual m o n o g r a p h s a n d articles in symbolic a n t h r o p o l o g y o r c o m p a r a t i v e symbology have recently a p p e a r e d , a c o m m o n focus o r f o r u m t h a t can be p r o v i d e d by a topically o r g a n i z e d series of books has not b e e n available. T h e v

vi

FOREWORD

p r e s e n t series is i n t e n d e d to fill this lacuna. It is d e s i g n e d to i n c l u d e n o t only field m o n o g r a p h s a n d theoretical a n d c o m p a r ­ ative studies by a n t h r o p o l o g i s t s , but also work by scholars in o t h e r disciplines, b o t h scientific a n d humanistic. T h e a p p e a r ­ a n c e of studies in such a f o r u m e n c o u r a g e s e m u l a t i o n , a n d e m ­ ulation can p r o d u c e fruitful new theories. It is t h e r e f o r e o u r h o p e t h a t t h e series will serve as a h o u s e of m a n y mansions, p r o v i d i n g hospitality for t h e practitioners of any discipline that has a serious a n d creative c o n c e r n with c o m p a r a t i v e symbology. T o o often, disciplines a r e sealed off, in sterile p e d a n t r y , from significant intellectual influences. Nevertheless, o u r p r i m a r y aim is to b r i n g to public attention works on ritual a n d m y t h written by a n t h r o p o l o g i s t s , a n d o u r r e a d e r s will find a variety of strictly a n t h r o p o l o g i c a l a p p r o a c h e s r a n g i n g from formal analyses of systems of symbols to e m p a t h e t i c accounts of divinatory a n d initiatory rituals. T h i s book is based o n t h e Lewis H e n r y M o r g a n Lectures at t h e University of R o c h e s t e r which I d e l i v e r e d in 1966. It was in t h e c o u r s e of t h e s e l e c t u r e s t h a t I crossed t h e t h r e s h o l d be­ tween t h e study of ritual in an African tribal context a n d the analysis of processual symbols in cross-cultural a n d t r a n s t e m p o r a l t e r m s . The Ritual Process a n d s u b s e q u e n t books of m i n e h a v e p r o d u c e d t h e i r s h a r e of c o n t r o v e r s y over t h e years. M o r e t h a n o n c e I h a v e b e e n accused of o v e r g e n e r a l i z i n g a n d of mis­ a p p l y i n g concepts like "liminality" a n d " c o m m u n i t a s . " T h e s e t e r m s , it is a r g u e d , m a y a d e q u a t e l y describe o r account for social a n d cultural processes a n d p h e n o m e n a f o u n d in prelite r a t e societies, b u t h a v e limited use in e x p l a i n i n g sociocultural systems of m u c h g r e a t e r scale a n d complexity. T o a t t e m p t to a n s w e r such criticisms is probably a futile e x e r ­ cise. I a m u n a b l e , however, to resist q u o t i n g t h e a d a g e " T h e p r o o f of t h e p u d d i n g is in t h e e a t i n g . " T h i s book has b e e n cited r e p e a t e d l y by scholars in such d i v e r s e fields as history, t h e his­ tory of religions, English l i t e r a t u r e , political science, theology, a n d d r a m a , as well as in a n t h r o p o l o g i c a l a n d sociological books a n d articles c o n c e r n e d with ritual a n d semiotics, particularly in African contexts; its r e c e p t i o n e n c o u r a g e d m e to e x t e n d t h e

FOREWORD

Vll

c o m p a r a t i v e e n t e r p r i s e . In Dramas, Fields, and Metaphors, an­ o t h e r work in the Symbol, Myth, a n d Ritual series, several case studies a r e based o n the a s s u m p t i o n , first d e v e l o p e d h e r e , that society is a process r a t h e r t h a n an abstract system, w h e t h e r of social structural relations o r of symbols a n d m e a n i n g s . Society, m o r e o v e r , is a process in which any living, relatively well-bonded h u m a n g r o u p alternates between fixed a n d — t o b o r r o w a t e r m from o u r J a p a n e s e friends—"floating worlds." JBy^erbaL„and_jip„nv£r^al_means of d a s s m ^ c a d o n ^ ^ e ^ i m p o s e xupjpn.purselyes i n n u m e r a b l e constraints a n d b o u n d a r i e s to k e e p chaos at bay, but often at t h e cost of failing to m a k e j i i s ,_cpveries a n d i n v e n t i o n s : t h a t is -to say ..noLall instances. of s u b - , version of t h e n o r m a t i v e a r e deviant or criminous. Yet-in-order jto live, to b r e a t h e , a n d j p . g e n e r a t e . n o v e l t y , h u m a n beings h a v e h a d to create—by structural means—spaces a n d times in t h e c a l e n d a r or, in t h e cultural cycles of their m o s t c h e r i s h e d g r o u p s which cannot b e c a p t u r e d in t h e classificatory nets of .their q u o t i d i a n , routinized s p h e r e s . o L a c t i o n . . These_Jmiinal areas.pf time a n d space—rituals, carnivals, d r a m a s , a n d latterly films—are o p e n to t h e play of t h o u g h t , feelings a n d _ w j l l ; J n t h e m a r e g e n e r a t e d new models, often fantastic, s o m e of which may h a v e sufficient p o w e r a n d plausibility to replace eventually the force-backed political a n d j u r a l m o d e l s that control the cen­ ters of a society's o n g o i n g life. T h e antistructural liminality p r o v i d e d in the cores of ritual a n d a e s t h e d c forms r e p r e s e n t s t h e reflexivity of t h e social p r o ­ cess, w h e r e i n society becomes at o n c e subject a n d direct object; it r e p r e s e n t s also its subjunctive m o o d , w h e r e suppositions, de­ sires, h y p o t h e s e s , possibilities, a n d so forth, all b e c o m e legiti­ m a t e . W e h a v e b e e n too p r o n e to think, in static t e r m s , that cul­ tural s u p e r s t r u c t u r e s a r e passive m i r r o r s , m e r e reflections of s u b s t r u c t u r a l p r o d u c t i v e m o d e s a n d relations o r of the political processes t h a t enforce t h e d o m i n a n c e of the productively privi­ leged. If we w e r e as dialectical as we claim to b e , we would see that it is m o r e a m a t t e r of a n existential b e n d i n g back u p o n ourselves: t h e s a m e plural subject is t h e active s u p e r s t r u c t u r e that assesses the s u b s t r u c t u r a l a n d structural modalities t h a t we also are. O u r concreteness, o u r substantiality is with u s in o u r

vm

FOREWORD

reflexivity, e v e n in t h e ludic play d o m a i n of certain of o u r liminal m o m e n t s : play is m o r e serious t h a n we, the i n h e r i t o r s of W e s t e r n P u r i t a n i s m , have t h o u g h t . The Ritual Process r e p r e s e n t s an a t t e m p t to free my o w n t h o u g h t , a n d I h o p e t h a t of o t h e r s in my field as well, from g r o o v e d d e p e n d e n c e o n " s t r u c t u r e " as the sole sociological di­ m e n s i o n . A g o o d d e a l of the philistinism p e r h a p s rightly ascribed to o u r discipline has b e e n d u e to this "single vision," as William Blake w o u l d h a v e called it—this o b d u r a t e evasion of t h e rich complexities of cultural creation. O u r goal s h o u l d be to s t u d y m a n alive a n d w o m a n alive, in t h e m a n y levels of t h e i r m u t u a l dealings. T h i s book is, if n o t h i n g m o r e , a m o d e s t step t o w a r d realizing t h a t goal. VICTOR TURNER

University of Chicago

Contents

Planes of Classification in a Ritual of Life and Death Paradoxes of Twinship in Ndembu Ritual 44 Liminality and Communitas 94 Communitas: Model and Process 1 3 1 Humility and Hierarchy: The Liminality of Status Elevation and Reversal 166 Bibliography 204 Index 209

1 Planes of Classification in a Ritual of Life and Death

MORGAN AND RELIGION

It must first be said that for me, as for many others, Lewis Henry Morgan was one of the lodestars of my student days. Everything he wrote bore the stamp of a fervent yet pellucid spirit. But, in under­ taking to deliver the Morgan Lectures for 1966, I was immediately conscious of one profound, and it might seem crippling, disadvan­ tage. Morgan, though he faithfully recorded many religious cere­ monies, had a marked^ disinclination to give the study of religion, the same piercing attention he devoted to kinship and politics. Yet religious beliefs~and pracfices~weie t h e m a i n subject matter of my talks. T w o quotations especially emphasize Morgan's attitude. T h e first is taken from his seminal classic Ancient Society (1877): " T h e growth of religious ideas is environed with such intrinsic difficulties that it may never receive a perfectly satisfactory exposition. Religion deals so largely with the imaginative and emotional nature, and consequently with such uncertain elements of knowledge, that all primitive religions are grotesque and to some extent unintelligible" (p. 5). T h e second consists of a passage from Merle H . Deardorff's (1951) scholarly study of the religion of Handsome Lake. Morgan's account of Handsome Lake's syncretic gospel in his book League of the I

2

The Ritual Process

Ho-de-no-sau-nee or Iroquois was based on a set of notes made by young Ely S. Parker (a Seneca Indian, who was later to become General Ulysses S. Grant's military secretary), consisting of the texts and translations of Handsome Lake's grandson's Good Message recitals at Tonawanda. According to Deardorff, " M o r g a n followed Ely's notes faithfully in reporting what J i m m y Johnson, the prophet's grandson, said, but he departed widely from Ely's glosses on it and itsceremonialaccompaniment" (p. 98; see also WilliamFenton, 1941, PP- I 5 I - I 5 7 ) -

T h e correspondence between Morgan and Parker shows that if Morgan had listened more carefully to Ely, he might have avoided the general criticism of his " L e a g u e " made by Seneca who read it: " T h e r e ' s nothing actually wrong in what he says, but it isn't right either. H e doesn't really understand what he is talking about." Now, what did these Seneca " r e a l l y " mean by these extraordinary re­ marks, which seem to be addressed to Morgan's work on the religious, rather than the political, aspects of Iroquois culture. T o my mind, the Seneca comments are related to Morgan^s_djsiciisLoLthe_llimag--. inative and.emotional." his reluctance to concede that religion has an important rational aspect, and his belief that what appears " g r o t e s q u e " to the highly "evolved" consciousness of a nineteenthcentury savant must be, ipso facto, largely "unintelligible." They also betray in him a related unwillingness, if not incapacity, to make that empathetic exploration of Iroquois religious life, that attempt to grasp and exhibit what Charles Hockett has called " t h e inside v i e w " of an alien culture, which might well have m a d e compre­ hensible many of its seemingly bizarre components a n d interrela­ tions. Indeed, Morgan might have pondered with salutary effect Bachofen's (1960) words to him in a letter: " G e r m a n scholars pro­ pose to make antiquity intelligible by measuring it according to popular ideas of the present day. They only see themselves in the creation of the past. T o penetrate to the structure of a mind different from our own, is hardy w o r k " (p. 136). Upon this remark, Professor Evans-Pritchard (1965b) has recently commented t h a t " i t is indeed hardy work, especially when we are dealing with such difficult

Planes of Classification

3

subjects as primitive magic and religion, in which it is all too easy, when translating the conceptions of the simpler peoples into our own, to transplant our thought into t h e i r s " (p. 109). I would like to add as a proviso here that in matters of religion, as of art, there are no " s i m p l e r " peoples, only some peoples with simpler tech­ nologies than our own. M a n ' s " i m a g i n a t i v e " and " e m o t i o n a l " life is always and everywhere rich and complex. Just how rich and com­ plex the symbolism of tribal ritual can be, it will be part of my task to show. Nor is it entirely accurate to speak of the " structure of a mind different from our own." It is not a matter of different cognitive structures, but of an identical cognitive structure articulating wide diversities of cultural experience. With the development of clinical depth-psychology, on the one hand, and of professional anthropological field work, on the other, many products of what Morgan called " t h e imaginative and emo­ tional n a t u r e " have come to be regarded with respect and attention and investigated with scientific rigor. Freud has found in the fanta­ sies of neurotics, in the ambiguities of dream imagery, in wit a n d punning, and in the enigmatic utterances of psychotics clues to the structure of the normal psyche. Levi-Strauss, in his studies of the myths and rituals of preliterate societies, has detected, so he assever­ ates, in their underlying intellectual structure similar properties to those found in the systems of certain modern philosophers. M a n y other scholars and scientists of the most impeccable rationalist pedigree have thought it well worth their while, since Morgan's day, to devote whole decades of their professional lives to the study of religion. I need only instance Tylor, Robertson-Smith, Frazer, and Herbert Spencer; Durkheim, Mauss, Levy-Bruhl, Hubert, and Herz; van Gennep, W u n d t , and M a x Weber to make this point. Anthropological field workers, including Boas and Lowie, Malinowski and Radcliffe-Brown, Griaule and Dieterlen, and a host of their coevals and successors, have labored mightily in the vineyard of preliterate ritual, making meticulous and exacting observations of hundreds of performances and recording vernacular texts of myths and prayers from religious specialists with loving care.

Silken- Univer Library

4

The Ritual Process

Most of these thinkers have taken up the implicitly theological position of trying to explain, or_explain away, religious phenomena as the product ofjr^sycho]ogical or sociological causes of the most diverse and even_com^icjMg^tyjp^ *h£ Y preterhuman SQgilLL but none of them has_denied the extreme importance of religious beliefs and practices, for both the maintenance and radi­ cal t r a n s f o r m a t i o n ^ human social and psychical structures. T h e reader will perhaps be relieved to hear that I have no intention of entering the theological lists but will endeavor, as far as possible, to confine myself to an empirical investigation of aspects of religion and, in particular, to elicit some of the properties oi^Jncan~rituaI7~ R a t h e r will I try, in fear and trembling, owing to my high regard . /'for his great scholarship and standing in our discipline, to witlv" stand M o r g a n ^ casual challenge to posterity, and demonstrate that modern anthropologists, working with _the best of the conceptual tools bequeathed to them, can...now make intelligible many of the |^ cryptic phenomena of religion in preliterate societies.