Rituals Following Victor Turner, Who

Rituals

Following Victor Turner, who frequently invoked of ritual, rites of affliction seek to mitigate the influence of spirits thought to be afflicting human beings with misfortune. Among the Ndembu, he found, if divination reveals that an individual has been "caught" by a spirit of the dead, an elaborate ritual is mounted to appease, and dismiss the troublesome spirit (Ohnuki-Tierney, 2004). For the Ndembu, such spirits are usually identified as those of the dead, who are blamed for problems in hunting, women's reproductive disorders, and various forms of illness. Although rituals of affliction similar to those of the Ndembu are found in many cultures, the category can be broadened to include other understandings of affliction, such as those one brings on oneself, like sin or karma, as well as those recurring afflictions, such as the pollution of menstruation, childbearing, and death, that are morally neutral but still require purification.

In continental archaeological research traditions dealing with "Frankish" graves, 'ritual' more often than not tends to be limited to some passive reflection of contemporary ideal images ('ideology') which function relatively independent of 'reality' (Aghaie, 2007). This view is however one-sided. The domain of rituals is the privileged arena in which the outlines of countless relationships are shaped; these relationships include those with the supernatural ancestors, spirits, gods, demons, saints (Waddy, 1999). Society is thus not to be reduced to the 'real', physical/visible world of the living; it comprises the supernatural as an active, constituent part of human life. These considerations are of importance for the analysis of material culture as presented in the graves of late Roman and early medieval northern Gaul. The sets of objects deposited in these con- texts are first and foremost part of undoubtedly complex funerary rituals of which the actual interment may have been only a small part. In view of the formalized appearance of at least part of the burial, the objects involved, and the long traditions surrounding many important graves or grave-fields, we may characterize the inhumation ritual with Maurice Godelier as one of the acts which (...) (experiment et condensent en eux une multitude d'aspects materiels et ideels des rapports des hommes tant entre eux qu'avec la nature. Ces sont des actes et des moments de la vie sociale charges, voir surcharges, et par la, en rapport (.rym- bolique' avec 1 ensemble de lorganisation sociale' (D'Agostino, 2001). In other words: the totality of the socio-cosmological order is involved. The burial ritual does not exclusively reflects situations of socio-economic practice, it is one of the moments in which man can actively intervene in the totality of social, natural and supernatural relationships. Thus, contrary to what continental archaeological traditions seem to postulate, the burial ritual is not just a passive reflection of social praxis or of a static societal structure or hierarchy, it is simultaneously a statement (an expression of ideas) and an act which affects society itself (D'Agostino, 2001). From this it follows that society is constantly redefined and renewed by the actions and thoughts of people. Instead of regarding a given society as a self-contained, static entity, we should accept it to be a rather multi-dimensional and dynamic network which, instead of a collection of separate groups, can best be described in terms of overlapping relationships. In the case of burial one cannot suppose a priori that all important relationships are touched upon or affected in just one ritual. The relations involved in this ritual might be different from those in others. It can however be accepted that many of these rituals or ritualized social events are related to and even dependent on each other. During each of them, aspects of the socio-cosmological order may be involved. This means that ritual activities are not isolated events, but form part of chains of rituals that in the case of burials are best described as life-cycle- or life-giving rituals (at birth, marriage, maturity, etc.) that are related. Therefore, particular ritual activities cannot be studied in isolation (Aghaie, 2007). This implies that a tournament of value like the burial ritual must be understood in relation to the comparable ritualized events mentioned above; they can even be analyzed in terms of each other. It is with this in mind that our concept of elite lifestyle can acquire deeper significance. Up to now, we have used it only as a descriptive tool in ordering the sheer variety and quantity of data. By doing this we have established a connecting link between phenomena that, due to the perseverance of the traditional division between Roman and medieval archaeology, more often than not are studied as more or less separate collections of data.

Beverley Raphael's Anatomy of Bereavesnent (1984), also subtitled a 'handbook for the caring professions', takes cultural issues and difference more seriously, but sidesteps the issue of whether these might offer a challenge to conventional wisdom by listing 'transcultural aspects' as the first of six 'explanatory models of bereavement,' thus separating these 'aspects' from psychodynamic aspects, attachment theory and cognitive and stress models, amongst others. After reviewing in this subsection a number of relevant studies, she concludes that 'while the rituals of different cultures and societies do not explain bereavement, they show its universality and also reflect the recognition of some of its basic processes' (Ohnuki-Tierney, 2004). In common with other authors (Waddy, 1999), Raphael also notes that 'many of the ceremonies and rituals of other cultures fit better with the emotional needs of the bereaved than do those of modern Western society'. Psychiatrist Colin Murray Parkes is one of the most influential writers in this field. Parkes' approach derives from that of John Bowlby (1973), owing much to attachment theory. Much of his early research was, how- ever, in partnership with sociologists. His work takes cultural variations seriously. Even in 1974, we find his co-authored study considering the question of cultural relativity, concluding that 'cultural emphases can produce somewhat different expressions of grief, even though the experience of grief is nearly universal' (Ohnuki-Tierney, 2004).

The authors do, how- ever, note a significant difference revealed by research on mourning in Japan: this concerns the 'sense of presence', which bereaved persons experience more frequently in that culture. This observation is a first indication of a more sustained contemporary critique of theoretical understandings (D'Agostino, 2001). More recently, Parkes is one of the co-editors of a volume looking particularly at issues of cultural variation (D'Agostino, 2001). Here we find the co-editors, including Parkes, uncomfortably aware that their exploration of these issues sits awkwardly with the psychological enterprise (1997: 6-7), but committed to opening up these issues in order to facilitate the delivery by practitioners of culturally sensitive responses. Although they argue that the search for meaning takes place within a cultural context that is deeply influential, the authors maintain that 'there may still be fundamental consistencies, themes and truths that appear in one culture after another' (Sanft, 2005). They back off dangerous ground by preferring 'to leave open the underlying nature of these phenomena' (p. 6). As Field, Hockey and Small comment about work in this vein: 'explanations are sought within the experiencing individual rather than in the social contexts and social relationships within which these experiences occur' (1997: 24), although these contexts may be seen to influence greatly the "ways in which experiences are expressed. In summary, then, bereavement has been considered by most leading authors to be 'a universal rather than culturally variable experience" (Sanft, 2005).

Walter has argued that within the recent 'revival' of death, two strands predominate: the late-modern experts who provide ever more refined advice and theories about dying, death and bereavement and a postmodern position that privileges the needs and wishes of the individual, whatever they may be (1994, 1996). In his view, we may now be managing loss outside any collective wisdom or set of practices, yet we remain social beings and, as the chapters to follow demonstrate, contemporary society is characterized by a diversity of shared rituals at the time of death (Sanft, 2005). Current variation in practice can be seen as the outcome of changes in Western death ritual, which have taken place during the twentieth century and a critical, historically located account of this period requires an examination of the social, economic and environmental shifts that have gathered momentum during this period. These include factors such as the secularization and diversification of religious belief and practice; social and geographical mobility; the growth of both consumerism and environment-Walter has argued that within the recent 'revival' of death, two strands predominate: the late-modern experts who provide ever more refined advice and theories about dying, death and bereavement and a postmodern position that privileges the needs and wishes of the individual, whatever they may be (1994, 1996). In his view, we may now be managing loss outside any collective wisdom or set of practices, yet we remain social beings and, as the chapters to follow demonstrate, contemporary society is characterized by a diversity of shared rituals at the time of death (Ohnuki-Tierney, 2004). Current variation in practice can be seen as the outcome of changes in Western death ritual, which have taken place during the twentieth century and a critical, historically located account of this period requires an examination of the social, economic and environmental shifts that have gathered momentum during this period. These include factors such as the secularization and diversification of religious belief and practice; social and geographical mobility; the growth of both consumerism and environment.

Christian Rituals and Evil

Christianity has always had its rituals by which to confront and overcome evil. Its story is the biblical story of the unending struggle of God against chaos and sin, a story whose decisive chapter was the life and death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. It ritualizes that story in the drama of the yearly liturgical cycle that commemorates and makes present the Christ mystery and brings into Christians' lives the Spirit of Christ that is the power of life overcoming sin and death. Sometimes people misunderstand the way in which the power of Christian rituals works; they may even have a semi-magical view of the power of these rituals (Aghaie, 2007). However, at the heart of Christian ritual power over evil is something that Christianity inherited from Judaism-namely, the insight that the ultimate root of evil in human life is human abuse of freedom. This is the message of the biblical story of Adam and Eve: evil entered human history from the very beginning because of humans' choice to reject God's wisdom and follow their own destructive decisions. The two key Christian sacramental rituals, baptism and the Eucharist (or Lord's Supper); counter this false decision to follow the path of evil by committing a person to follow the path of Christ. In baptism, before the person enters the water as a symbol of accepting the implications of Jesus' death and resurrection, he or she makes a formal rejection (through godparents, for infants) of Satan and all Satan's works and ?pomps' (Waddy, 1999).

Clearly, this ritual is not some magic formula but a basic option to avoid sin, which is the most basic form of evil. However, this option must be made again and again as one goes through life, for the temptation to evil remains. Humans can abuse one another, betray one another, be unfaithful and deceitful in dealing with one another. Repeating the ritual of the Eucharist is meant to empower Christians to resist such temptations by strengthening the commitment to good that they made in baptism. In other words, the Christian response to evil lies in freedom. Christian rituals are meant to give persons the opportunity to join together and support one another as they work to bring justice and peace into the world (Waddy, 1999). That there are evils in human life is a fact. That humans can overcome these evils is ultimately a matter of belief: belief in the power of God's Spirit, working in and through humans, to conquer evil. This is what Christians celebrate when they come together as a community of faith to ritualize.

Sacraments and Grace

Christians not only say that Jesus saves us and that Christian rituals celebrate that salvation. Many Christian communities would also say that Christian rituals ?give grace. In fact, part of one traditional definition of a sacrament describes the major purpose of it as ?giving grace. As is often the case with Christian language, Christian themselves do not always know the original meaning of their own language. "Grace" is probably another instance of this. The word, like ?sacrament, is a transliteration of a Latin word, in this case, gratia. The Latin word gratia originally meant either a gift or the thanks given for a gift. The word continues to be used in the latter sense in Spanish, gracias, and Italian, grazie (Aghaie, 2007). So when Christians writing in Latin spoke about the "graces" (gratias) given to Christians by God, they meant anything that God give us for free (gratis). It wasn't any particular thing in itself rather, it was anything that we received from God that we didn't deserve. The big gift of God, or in one form of insider language, ?sanctifying grace, is salvation. Nobody deserves to be saved; God loved us and God saved us, and so we get salvation for free. But we get a lot of other things for free, too: the universe, our own birth, the world we live in. These are all free gifts from God and therefore ?grace. If you really think about it, most of life is ?graced. If you were born into a family that is loving, that was able to send you to a good school or perhaps even to college, it wasn't because you deserve it, it was a free gift of God. If you were born in the United States rather than Haiti or Mali or Iraq, it wasn't because of any great virtue on your part. It was grace. Not everyone is crazy about the idea of grace, of course. Some people don't think that they ever got anything for free (Sanft, 2005). Whatever they got, they earned or deserved. They don't owe anybody anything. They are self-made. Of course this is a lie: at the very least, no one is their own parent; at most, it takes a tremendous amount of hubris to think you deserve sunsets, soft summer nights, and decent health. Still other people feel horribly guilty if they think that they have gotten something for free.