Religio and ritus

Excerpts that remind me of him, too related and long to include in my scrapbook.

According to Roman philosopher Cicero, religiō comes from relegere: re (meaning “again”) + lego (meaning “read”), where lego is in the sense of “go over”, “choose”, or “consider carefully”. Contrarily, some modern scholars such as Tom Harpur and Joseph Campbell have argued that religiō is derived from religare: re (meaning “again”) + ligare (“bind” or “connect”)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion

In classic antiquity, it meant conscientiousness, sense of right, moral obligation, or duty towards anything and was used mostly in secular or mundane contexts.

Religio was most often used by the ancient Romans not in the context of a relation towards gods, but as a range of general emotions such as hesitation, caution, anxiety, fear; feelings of being bound, restricted, inhibited; which arose from heightened attention in any mundane context. The term was also closely related to other terms like scrupulus which meant “very precisely” and some Roman authors related the term superstitio, which meant too much fear or anxiety or shame, to religio at times.

Religio among the Romans was not based on “faith”, but on knowledge, including and especially correct practice.

In general, religio referred to broad social obligations towards anything including family, neighbors…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religio

In Roman juridical and religious usage, ritus was the proven way (mos) of doing something, or “correct performance, custom”. The original concept of ritus may be related to the Sanskrit ṛtá (“visible order)” in Vedic religion, “the lawful and regular order of the normal, and therefore proper, natural and true structure of cosmic, worldly, human and ritual events”.

A rite of passage is a ritual event that marks a person’s transition from one status to another, including adoption, baptism, coming of age, graduation, inauguration, engagement, and marriage. Rites of passage may also include initiation into groups not tied to a formal stage of life such as a fraternity. Arnold van Gennep stated that rites of passage are marked by three stages:

1. Separation
Wherein the initiates are separated from their old identities through physical and symbolic means.

2. Transition
Wherein the initiated are “betwixt and between”. Victor Turner argued that this stage is marked by liminality, a condition of ambiguity or disorientation in which initiates have been stripped of their old identities, but have not yet acquired their new one. Turner states that “the attributes of liminality or of liminal personae (“threshold people”) are necessarily ambiguous”. In this stage of liminality or “anti-structure” (see below), the initiates’ role ambiguity creates a sense of communitas or emotional bond of community between them. This stage may be marked by ritual ordeals or ritual training.

3. Incorporation
Wherein the initiates are symbolically confirmed in their new identity and community.

Structure and anti-structure

Victor Turner combined Arnold van Gennep’s model of the structure of initiation rites, and Gluckman’s functionalist emphasis on the ritualization of social conflict to maintain social equilibrium, with a more structural model of symbols in ritual. Running counter to this emphasis on structured symbolic oppositions within a ritual was his exploration of the liminal phase of rites of passage, a phase in which “anti-structure” appears. In this phase, opposed states such as birth and death may be encompassed by a single act, object or phrase. The dynamic nature of symbols experienced in ritual provides a compelling personal experience; ritual is a “mechanism that periodically converts the obligatory into the desirable”.

Anti-structure and communitas

In his analysis of rites of passage, Victor Turner argued that the liminal phase - that period ‘betwixt and between’ - was marked by “two models of human interrelatedness, juxtaposed and alternating”: structure and anti-structure (or communitas). While the ritual clearly articulated the cultural ideals of a society through ritual symbolism, the unrestrained festivities of the liminal period served to break down social barriers and to join the group into an undifferentiated unity with “no status, property, insignia, secular clothing, rank, kinship position, nothing to demarcate themselves from their fellows”.

As a form of communication

Whereas Victor Turner saw in ritual the potential to release people from the binding structures of their lives into a liberating anti-structure or communitas, Maurice Bloch argued that ritual produced conformity.

Maurice Bloch argued that ritual communication is unusual in that it uses a special, restricted vocabulary, a small number of permissible illustrations, and a restrictive grammar. As a result, ritual utterances become very predictable, and the speaker is made anonymous in that they have little choice in what to say. The restrictive syntax reduces the ability of the speaker to make propositional arguments, and they are left, instead, with utterances that cannot be contradicted such as “I do thee wed” in a wedding. These kinds of utterances, known as performatives, prevent speakers from making political arguments through logical argument, and are typical of what Weber called traditional authority instead.

Bloch’s model of ritual language denies the possibility of creativity. Thomas Csordas, in contrast, analyzes how ritual language can be used to innovate. Csordas looks at groups of rituals that share performative elements (“genres” of ritual with a shared “poetics”). These rituals may fall along the spectrum of formality, with some less, others more formal and restrictive. Csordas argues that innovations may be introduced in less formalized rituals. As these innovations become more accepted and standardized, they are slowly adopted in more formal rituals. In this way, even the most formal of rituals are potential avenues for creative expression.

As a disciplinary program

…ritual as “…a type of routine behaviour that symbolizes or expresses something”. As a symbolic activity, it is no longer confined to religion, but is distinguished from technical action. The shift in definitions from script to behavior, which is likened to a text, is matched by a semantic distinction between ritual as an outward sign (i.e., public symbol) and inward meaning.

The emphasis has changed to establishing the meaning of public symbols and abandoning concerns with inner emotional states since, as Evans-Pritchard wrote “such emotional states, if present at all, must vary not only from individual to individual, but also in the same individual on different occasions and even at different points in the same rite.” Asad, in contrast, emphasizes behavior and inner emotional states; rituals are to be performed, and mastering these performances is a skill requiring disciplined action.

“Symbols call for interpretation, and even as interpretive criteria are extended so interpretations can be multiplied. Disciplinary practices, on the other hand, cannot be varied so easily, because learning to develop moral capabilities is not the same thing as learning to invent representations.” — Asad (1993)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ritual