| |
|
Hey peeps!
I just saw a poster announcing this conference, which looks pretty damn interesting. I doubt I'll be going myself, since it's not really my field anymore, but some of you might find it worthwhile. Oh, and it's free for students (80 Euro for non-students).
"Ritual Dynamics and the Science of Ritual".
One thing in particular has me wanting some input from y'all. I quote from the web-page:
Although rituals often use languages, they are not a language in any strict sense. Seen in this way, it is meaningless or only a metaphorical possibility to speak of a grammar of rituals. There are, however, two reasons why it might make sense to continue using the term “grammar” with regard to rituals: a) Non-verbal elements of communication have become a well established part of linguistic studies on grammar; b) repeated attempts have been made to define the rules of rituals according to grammatical and linguistic models. The aim of the Panel is to discuss these concepts and to develop basic categories for a “grammar of rituals”. If it makes sense to create a science of rituals or ritology that depends not merely on more or less arbitrary phenomenological observations and comparisons, it is time to determine the formal and functional rules of rituals in such a way that they could be regarded as a kind of universal grammar of rituals. Why universal? Because all cultures and religions have rituals – even if some members of these societies may not practice rituals or are not aware that they are doing so. (From Panels - Grammar and Morphology of Ritual).
Any thoughts on this topic, or any threads I should be looking at? My personal/professional interest lies in the ubiquity of rituals as "brokers" of sociocultural moreso than spiritual identity, which isn't to say that the latter isn't as important, maybe more so than the former, only that that's where my interests point towards. Am I perhaps sundering what shouldn't be sundered by making this distinction prior to empirical investigation? |
|
|
