of rituals

i wish i had more time to elaborate... but this being a topic very close to my heart, i have to at least touch upon it. well, i thought "sod off, god! week continues" at i blame the patriarchy was a pretty powerful and eloquent argument in support of the theory that rituals are, in fact, not a "deep human need" and therefore people can and should do without them ("the insidiosity of religion suddenly appeals to me as almost as intriguing a topic and persistent an instrument of oppression as women’s cosmetics, particularly as the time of glittery polyester holiness approacheth"). as someone who's pretty much allergic to any kind of ritualized behavior, i agree... to a certain extent (anyway, much more than i agree with "eradicating god for the good of all creatures great and small" - and i'll explain that too).

but all in all i have a slightly different take on this than twisty of ibtp. because the way i see it, while ritual absolutely has "that trio of stinky undertones — conformity, obeisance, and orthodoxy" that are often combined with "collateral conditions of exclusivity and tradition" to serve as a perfect instrument of oppression, i don't think this says anything about it being a human need/craving or not. more importantly, i don't think it means that 1. without rituals, we'd necessarily be better off oppression-wise and 2. all rituals, and all motives for them, are the same for all humans (i say we shouldn't throw this "we" around too much). in fact, there's another layer that needs to be peeled off here: rituals (just like religion) can be oppressive or liberating depending on the person who's engaging in them, and the specific circumstances. conversely, resisting ritual can be a revolutionary act sometimes, but so can creating ritual in other cases.

i just believe that though rituals of all kinds are not a deep human need as such, for many people they are quite necessary for survival. this is also what i've come to understand about religion (it was an epiphany of sorts to me): while i personally don't feel a strong need for it in my life - for a multitude of reasons not least of which is that i am a relatively privileged person with relative stability and lots of support that i can rely on from both the people in my life and my own resources - there are many others in this world who can't say the same, and for whom religion is the only thing that comes close to serving that purpose of bringing a sense of safety and quiet and support. basically, i won't make generalizations about what people "need" or not, based on what i feel i need or not... people definitely need a sense of safety, to make order out of disorder, to connect with other people, etc.; religion and ritual come out of all those primary needs - they're not the need itself, but often they're its logical outcome.

and that's the criticism i would bring to this statement of twisty's, which in a more limited sense (from my personal point of view) i find to be pure genius:

Rituals of the godbag variety [aka religious rituals] alluringly promise face-time with the Divine, of course, but even when they are secular in nature (weddings, graduations, male bonding at the strip club) they offer tantalizing rewards: they purport to protect a given parochial community against change. In exchange for promoting a cozy feeling of security in the comforting embrace of venerated dogma or cultural narrative, they demand submission to the group ideology, which submission one must publicly demonstrate by the performance of meaningless practices. The practices supposedly have symbolic value, but critical analysis of the symbol in question is gonna reveal doctrine steeped in ancient patriarchal orthodoxy wrapped in flat-out bullshit, every time.

also,

the performance of rituals seems more consistent with the practices of the hive mind than with those of the enlightened mind, because ritual doesn’t deliver. It doesn’t prevent change [...]

although i love this point, i say it still depends on what that "protection of a community against change" actually describes: if it's a community trying to preserve some kind of privileged status through reactionary means (and opression) then yes, but if it's a non-privileged community trying to survive in the face of adversity or opression then not so much at all...

my larger point is that it doesn't even matter whether something can be called a "deep human need" or not. what matters, actually, is what real purpose it serves, how it's done, and what the consequences are. most of all, it's important whether this ritual is imposed from the top down or it comes out from "below," from a personal place as opposed to anything resembling an institutional or authoritative one. like everything else about groups of people and individuals within them, it's all closely tied in with privilege and power.

maybe a more succinct way of putting it is: does a particular ritual serve as a tool for me as a person to claim control over my own life in some way and for those around me to be able to do the same, or is it a way for some powerful entity (person, group, institution, social system...) to control me and the rest of the community? and i don't think this is a very hard distinction to make. personally, i view through this lens my refusal to engage in some very mundane rituals: i will not smoke, drink alcohol, use animal products, dress according to a certain fashion, be a "scenster," flirt, otherwise follow lots of social and religious rituals (yeah, i'd be quite saintly if only i were more "spiritual" :D ), because i feel no affinity towards these things, i don't see them as having a positive impact on myself or others, and if i were to participate i would feel as if i'm acting a part, letting myself be controlled by someone or something else.

i will continue later, there's lots more to say... i want to also address the question of whether anyone can avoid ritualism entirely (see "is ritual passe?" at punkassblog)... to me the subject is endlessly fascinating, and relevant. for now, i'll just copy here a couple of comments from ibtp that i really liked.

Yes– it is useful to assert deep needs. “Human nature” in the trite, ubiquitous and populist sense is just whatever social default is registered by the least path of resistance. To assert a different “human nature” from the one which is “common sense” is to be contentious, dangerously revolutionary. The opposite position to current sensibilities about human nature is: “NO! NOT YOUR ‘human nature’ — MINE, RATHER!” (scratchy888)

I think creating ceremony is just a type of play, and playing is a Deep Human Need.

I think turning a ceremony into a ritual is something we do because we’re imbedded in a patriarchy, and the only model we have for organizing ourselves involves establishing dominance, control, and hierarchy.

On the other hand, I am persuaded [...] that establishing rituals has something to do with banishing chaos. Nothing is more chaotic than plunging into an altered state of consciousness, and during such times if one casts a panicked gaze around the room everything, including a line of people waiting for the toilet, suddenly looks like a ritual. (vera)

I think Marx pretty much summed it all up. According to Marx, all of history is a struggle between the classes and all societies have been torn by this conflict. Past societies tried to keep the exploited class under control by using elaborate political organizations, laws, customs, traditions, ideologies, religions and rituals. Marx argued that personality, beliefs, and activities are shaped by these institutions. By recognizing these forces, he reasoned, people will be able to overcome them through revolutionary action. Unfair institutions and customs will disappear when the exploited class revolts against the ruling class.

...The 2 classes feminism focuses on are class men and class women. Which seemed to go over the head of even Marx. Marx, like most liberals, avoided talking about the exploitation and oppression of women. Because then he’d have to recognize himself as a member of the ruling class and an exploiter and an oppressor himself. Something liberals try to avoid like the plague. Even in Marxism, it appears that Marxists don’t recognize women as human and just take for granted and as a given that women will remain a slave class to class men. Marx treated his own wife like shit.

So it comes as no surprise that Marx was able to figure out what the patriarchy was up to with their customs, traditions, rituals and religions. It takes one to know one. ... (Luckynkl)

in practice what [ritual] seems to be about [...] is having a way to place yourself one-up on other people, and to pass judgment on whether they did the ritual “right.” Or thoroughly enough. Or sincerely enough. Or with good enough food and decor. (antelope)

... Another interesting way to look at ritual is to look at obsessive-compulsive disorder. With OCD, rituals (often very idiosyncratic) are usually absolutely necessary to assuage anxiety. Something very bad will happen if you don’t perform the right ritual you feel a compulsion to do. The fact that this can be helped with both medication and behavioral therapy was some of the earliest evidence that OCD is biological in origin. I’ve often thought that group taboos must have started with some charismatic leader with OCD. Also, it makes me laugh to think that the origins of religion are tied to mental disorders. (Sandy D.)

[that's pretty extreme, maybe, but actually i will write something about ocd, too, because much as personally i'm against rituals now, as a kid i was all about them and suffered from classical ocd: for quite a while, i had to do everything a number of times that was a multiple of 3, etc.... hm...]