Rites and wrongs
BRYAN WILSON
■ • antral Symbols: Explorations in Cosmology %lary Douglas (Barrie and Rockliff 45s) Comparative anthropology is at once the most exciting and frustrating of exercises, in- evitably awakening expectations which it can barely fulfill. But those who think that, with the decline of tribes as functioning societies, anthropology is dying should be convinced by Mary Douglas's book that important questions in social science may still be posed by anthropologists and that some of the most penetrating intellectual thrusts are likely to be made only by them.
Even though it is in itself neither a scholarly tome nor a monograph. no one other than a serious scholar could have written a book like this. Always accessible to the general reader, its humane concern with the quality of cultural life is in sharp con- trast to the purely technocratic writing of many contemporary social scientists. It results from far-reaching reflection about as yet little understood issues, and if Dr Douglas does not always press through to firm conclusions, that is itself a comment on the pioneering character of her work.
The central concern is the relation of ritual to social structure: its contemporary relevance for Dr Douglas is the decay of Christian ritual—indeed, its wilful demolition by some priests in the Roman church. Dr Douglas pleads for 'the bog Irish' and demonstrates their need, particularly when transplanted to English cities, for the security offered by simple ritual practices— fish on Fridays being a cardinal example. Over-intellectualised priests have lost sight of social realities. Most of her illustrations are drawn from primitive peoples, however, to demonstrate that the less organised the way of life of a people. the less articulated the symbol system tends to be. since sym- bolic boundaries are. Dr Douglas maintains, essential for organising experience.
Rejecting khe dichotomy that associates traditionalism with religion against modern- ity and secularity. she argues that there are secular tribal cultures in which ritual and metaphysical speculation are very weak. She cites the Basseri nomads of Persia and the Pygmies who sit giggling when the neigh- bouring Bantu are solemnly invoking their gods. Superficially at least, Pygmies are like modern Londoners in their indifference to ritual.
The implication of Dr Douglas's argument is that the texture of social life and human relations is further weakened by the lack of symbolic expression. She does not seek to restore tightness to social systems (which is itself heavily dependent on group experi- ences) but she does see such experience as an important corrective to the disruptive character of a society dominated by `grid'— her felicitous term for the infelicitous fact of the society dominated by a complex pattern of roles. Thus part of her plea is that those in charge of ritual should not embrace the machine age, since it will surely destroy them. Although she is a moderate social determinist, she seeks to alert men, and especially churchmen, to resist social de- terminism by conscious dedication to their traditions.
A significant part of Dr Douglas's analysis relies on the application to symbolism of Professor Basil Bernstein's distinction be- tween restricted linguistic codes (in primary groups and in the working class) and elabor- ated codes (among professionals and in the middle class). I cannot say that I feel that this initially attractive analogue always bears the weight that Dr Douglas puts upon it. Complex ritual is usually a feature of func- tional specialisation in conditions where men are affluent enough to maintain a non-pro- ductive class of symbol-manipulators to reassure them about the problems of daily life and death. Traditionally, symbols have encapsulated and neutralised emotional re- sponses to the unknowable, but today ignor- ance is of a different order. The unknowable oppresses us less than the unknown. in a world where so much is known but where knowledge is so differentially disseminated (not primarily between classes --a crude error of contemporary politicians—but between specialisms). The symbol-manipulators may still be the manipulators of men. Modern advertisers and scientists may. no less than ancient priests. be both the creators and assuagers of human uncertainties.
This is only one issue which sociologists may want to pick up from Dr Douglas's work. There are others: the greater concern with social control in less affluent societies (the Dinka contrasted with the Nuer); the association of anti-ritualism with the intensi- fied internalisation of conscience; the extent to which, contrary to her assumptions, her analysis is reconcilable with relative depriva- tion and compensation theories of religion. Undoubtedly Dr Douglas's comparisoni of social systems will be challenged, but for those oppressed by the contemporary social malaise she provides heady moments. Ask- ing, 'How to humanise the machine. .. not how to symbolise its dehumanising effects,' she responds: 'Reject equality and . . cherish the individual case.' And adds: 'Humanising influences depend upon a con- tinuity with the past, benevolent forms of nepotism, irregular charity, extraordinary promotions, freedom to pioneer in the tradi- tions of the founders . . In respect of an- thropology at least, it is that freedom to pioneer in the tradition of the founders that Dr Douglas has so successfully claimed in writing this book,
Previous page
