Secular Symbolism: Studies of Ritual, Ceremony, and the Symbolic Order in Modern Life Author(s): Joseph R.

Gusfield and Jerzy Michalowicz Source: Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 10 (1984), pp. 417-435 Published by: Annual Reviews Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2083183 Accessed: 20/11/2010 09:31
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=annrevs. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Annual Reviews is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Annual Review of Sociology.

http://www.jstor.org

Ann. Rev. Sociol. 1984. 10:417-35 Copyright ? 1984 by Annual Reviews Inc. All rights reserved

SECULAR SYMBOLISM: Studies of Ritual, Ceremony, and the Symbolic Orderin ModernLife
Joseph R. Gusfield and Jerzy Michalowicz
Departmentof Sociology, University of Californiaat San Diego, La Jolla, California92093

Abstract
In recent years, sociologists and anthropologistshave conducted significant studies of modem life using concepts and perspectivesderivedfrom symbolic anthropology. This paper discusses the theoreticaland methodologicalproblems entailed, including the distinction between symbolic and nonsymbolic actions. Researchon three majorareasof behavioris reviewed: (a) studies of institutions, especially politics, law, and social control;(b) studies of ceremonial events, includinglife-cycle rituals, sports, and festivals; and (c) studies of everyday life, including consumergoods and food, and popularculture. We conclude with a discussion of the methodological issues of location and dimensionality and the different forms of symbolic analysis.

INTRODUCTION
wordslike ritual,myth, ceremony, and symbolismare Among anthropologists central to the study of social life in primitive societies. In contemporary sociology they have been, at best, peripheraland exotic terms, and the activities they denotehave not usuallybeen studiedin modem societies. While major anthropologistsfiguredprominentlyin studiesof such phenomenain the past, in recentyears a special field of symbolic anthropology emergedespecially has 417 0360-0572/84/08 15-0417$02.00

418

& GUSFIELD MICHALOWICZ

orientedto the analysis of symbols and meanings in many areas of social life (Firth 1973, Dolgin et al 1977). In the past two decades, and especially in the have begun to examinea last few years, some sociologists and anthropologists number of areas and activities in modem societies using approachesdrawn from analyses of ritual, ceremony, and symbolism. In this paper, we review this kind of sociological studies in the hope of achieving a clearerunderstanding and some sense of directionto the use of symbolic analysisin contemporary sociology.

ANALYZING SYMBOLS Symbolism in Modern Societies

Although a distinction between symbolic and nonsymbolic forms of thought from the and action lies at the center of our discussion, it must be approached perspective of the perceived difference between modern and primitive societies. The absence of a significantplace for ritual,ceremony, and myth in modem sociology and their honored position in anthropologyreflect underlying sociological conceptions. Modem life is viewed as being dominatedby a in secular, matter-of-fact,rationalcultureandsocial organization whichhuman responses are governed by attentionto means and ends. In other words, Max Weber's view of a disenchanted, nonmagical, rationalizedworld has dominated sociologists' conceptions (Weber 1946). For the past 100 years, anthropologists have vigorously debated the issue of the similarities of thought between primitiveandmodem cultures(Malinowski 1954, Levi-Strauss1966, Levy-Bruhl 1966 [1923], Goody 1977). With some notable exceptions, sociologists have acceptedthe significanceof symbolic analysesin the studyof religiousritualandmyth andin art, but they have not recognizedthe validity of methodsof analysisin othercontexts (Nagendra1971;Bocock anthropological 1974:Chap. 1; Duncan 1968, 1969). What is striking and important about the recent sociological interest in secular symbolism is the appearanceof a viewpoint that runs counterto the traditionalemphasis on utilitarianbehavior. The discovery of symbolic levels of meaning in areas where peoples' interestin power, economic values, and organizationalgoals are conventionally at work is a majordevelopment. The anthropologistsJ. L. Dolgin, D. S. Kemnitzer, and D. M. Schneiderhave clearly stated our point of view:
But meaning and symbol are not dependent as things on context; they are relations, not objects. Ignoring this point, seeing meanings and symbols as things, has allowed cultural analysts to erect a distinction between symbolic structuresand concrete structures;to symbolicforms-from economics, differentiatereligion, myth, art-held to be "essentially" politics, kinship, or everyday living. This is a position we reject (Dolgin et al 1977:22).

SECULAR SYMBOLISM 419 The relationship between the symbolic and the nonsymbolic is a, if not the, major sociological problem in this area, and much of what follows will concentrate on that issue.

WhatDoes Symbolic Mean?

Sociological interest in symbolic forms is part of the renewed concern about problems of meaning stimulatedby linguistic, philosophical,andanthropological studies over the past 25 years (Giddens 1976). Prior to any analysis of experience, one must answerthe question:Whatis happeninghere?Recognizing the potentially multiple responses to this question illuminatesthe way in which meaning is mediated by culturalcategories and structuresof thought. This awarenessof the social constructionof reality, which RichardBrowncalls symbolic realism (Brown 1977), implies that any segment of human, social activity can be experienced in differentand in multipleways by diverse actors and observers. In most discussions of symbolic forms, a distinctionis made between kinds of meanings. Such discussions, in keeping with ourtopic, do not use the termto include the general analysis of language. Wordsarenot, of course, the same as theirreferents. The word tree cannotyield shade. The denotationof symbolism is ratherthat in which something standsfor somethingelse (Firth1973:26), as the poet or the Freudiananalystuses symbols-e.g. the sense in which a lion is a symbol of strength or a banana is a phallus. What persists in the many uses of the term symbolism is a distinction between levels or kinds of meanings. Thus, there is "a gap between the overt superficial statement of action and its underlyingmeaning"(Firth 1973:26); and it is "significantnot for its ostensiblemeaningbut [becauseof] that[which] it stands for and has to be interpreted referenceto, a transcendent by principle outside the means-goal relationship"(Lane 1981:11). Otherdistinctionshave been made between the symbolic and the rational, the symbolic and the instrumental,and the symbolic and the utilitarian.All suggest thatto see what is happeningas symbolic is to distinguishthatexperienceas otherthana more common meaning-usually one of means and ends; of reason rather than emotion; of universal terms ratherthan particularimages (Bocock 1974:31). The nub of the distinction then, is, between manifest meanings that are immediately apparent and latent meanings, not immediately apparentbut perceptible. This conception of a hiddenor latentmeaningthatcontradicts differsfrom or the manifest is exemplified in Clifford Geertz's classic analysis of Balinese cockfights entitled "Deep Play" (Geertz 1973:Chap. 15). At one level, cockfighting is a gambling and a sportsevent; what is happeningis a fight between animals. At anotherlevel, Geertz perceives it as an enactment-a presentation

420

GUSFIELD MICHALOWICZ &

in which the cocks are the men who own them, who bet on them, and whose fortunes will be affected by victory or defeat. At still another level, Geertz interpretsthe cockfight as a commentaryon Balinese society, contrastingthe murderousaggression of the fight with the gentle formalism of Balinese behavior. He differentiatesthis mode of understandingfrom the scientific analysis of causes and likens it to the analysis of a literary text:
If one takes the cockfight, or any othercollectively sustainedsymbolic structure, a means as of "saying something of something"(to invoke a famous Aristoteliantag) then one is faced with a problem not in social meanings but in social semantics (Geertz 1973:448).

While some aspects of Geertz's formulation a productof his own specific are viewpoint (and will be discussed below), like all symbolic analysisit identifies differentlevels of meanings, so thatthe activitiesarenot understood only at the ostensible, conventional, and manifest level. Symbolic action is a level of meaning in which the nonsymbolic and manifest stand for something else. Lions standfor strength;flags, for the nation;the wine of the Eucharist,for the blood of Christ.

Where is SymbolismLocated?
For whom does "something stand for somethingelse?" Answers to this question are at the heartof our review, since the conclusionsof symbolic analyses, we assert, depend considerablyon the anticipatedmeaningsof events that are contradictedby symbolic understandings. There are two basic approachesto the symbolismof humanactions. In one, which we label the metaphysicalapproach,there is a great effort to delineate the characterof the object or term used. Symbolism is located in the natureof the languageused and in the objectsor events to which it refers. Such locational concerns lead to a discussion of how symbols differ from nonsymbols (Firth 1973, Leach 1976). The work of the nineteenth-century Americanphilosopher Charles Peirce has been most influential in this area. Peirce considered a symbol one of threekinds of signs (Peirce 1931: Chap. 3): Icons resembletheir referentsas a paintingof a tiger resembles a tiger;an index of a tigerpointsto a tiger as a tiger's tracks do; a symbol of a tiger has no inherentrelationto the tiger but is dependenton convention, as the wordtigeris a symbol of a tigerand the energy of an automobilemay be relatedto the energyof a tiger as a symbolic meaning. A second formulationof symbolism is what we call contextual. Its proponents are less concerned about the relationbetween the subjectand the object than about that between the observerand his audienceof readers.The primary emphasis is on the distinction between symbolic and nonsymbolic meaning.

SECULAR SYMBOLISM 421 Whatis symbolic for some may be nonsymbolicfor others. Sperberdefines the symbolic as follows:
I note then as symbolic all activity where the means put into play seem to me to be clearly disproportionate the explicit or implicit end ... thatis all activitywhose rationaleescapes to me" (Sperber 1974:4; italics added).

As we will show, this manner of defining symbol is much closer to what sociologists, as contrasted with anthropologists, do when they engage in "symbolic analysis." The meaningandimportof describingactivityas symbolic in studies of contemporarysocial life is derivedfrom contrastingit with the nonsymbolic. The symbolism is locatedin the set of contrasting expectanciesin the observer and his audience. It is to be seen less as a linguistic than as a literary or theoretical designation. These formulations are not mutually exclusive, and both are used by sociologists but, we assert, for different kinds of materialsand with distinct consequences. These differences are especially evident when the sociologist studies power, organizations, and social control, where symbolism has traditionally been left out of sociological analyses.

WhenAre Meanings Symbolic? Nonsymbolic?

The preceding section dealt with a "where"question. Much can be gained by turning it into a "when" question. Doing this shifts the focus from the relationship between participants and objects to the historical moment. Both questions will be our concern in this section. Sperber suggests that the symbolic mechanismoperatesby evoking meanings existent in one's memory(Sperber1974:Chap.3). Burkerefersto symbolic action as "the dancing of an attitude"(Burke 1957:9), emphasizing its presentational form. But to whom is the meaning latent or manifest? The American flag symbolizes nationalfeeling or the "presenceof the nation,"but that meaning is quite manifestto socialized membersof Americansociety. It is not interestingor surprisingto describe it as symbolic to Americanaudiences. For an anthropologistfrom the Trobriand Islands, it could be a hiddenmeaning of considerableinterestto the Trobriand Association. Whatis Anthropological symbolic and metaphoricalin one context and for one audiencemay be literal and mundane for anothergroup in a different context. The analyses of symbolism by the anthropologistVictor Turnerand the discussion of metaphorsby the philosopherPaul Ricoeurprovidea way out of these difficulties. For Turner,whose work has been preeminentlyinfluential, the anthropologist is by no means limited to the actor's understandingof meanings. Indeed, the values and norms of ritualactions may be so axiomatic as to preclude the actorfrom seeing it in relationto eitherpartor all of society.

422

GUSFIELD & MICHALOWICZ

In examining the symbolic structureof Ndembu rituals, Turnerdescribes three differentlevels or proceduresfor arrivingat meaningsthatgo beyond the description of activity (Turner 1967): (a) Exegetical, where meaning is obtainedfrom the laymanor from the ritualspecialist. Thus, the meaningof the flag is derived from individuals' accounts. (b) Operational,where meaningis equated with use and inferences are drawn.Thus, where the flag is displayed, by whom, and the times of display would be considered.(c) Positional, where meaning is derived by observing the relation of one symbol to others in a can totality. In relationto the flag, its sacredcharacter be seen in comparisonto other decorative items. An example of Turner's method can be seen in the following discussion of the use of colors in Ndembu rituals:
Whiteness differs from redness in that it stresses harmony,cohesion and continuity, while redness, associated with blood spilling as well as blood kinship, tends to denote discontinuity, strengthacquiredthroughbreach of certainrules, and male aggressiveness (1967:5758).

A further aspect of Turner's method, exemplified in the above quote, is an emphasis on the polysemic and multivocal characterof symbolic structure. That is, there may be more thanone meaningattachedto any activityor object, at the same moment in time and for the same audience. For Paul Ricoeur, the capacity to create metaphorsis a renewing aspect of language (1977, 1978). The difference between the poetic (metaphorical) function of language and the referential(metonymic)is the differencebetween referringto the nonlinguistic context, as metaphorsand symbolismdo, and to the linguistic context by itself, as referentiallanguage does. The metaphor surprises:It redefinesrealityby creatingpointsof resemblancebetweenactions and objects normally understoodas unrelatedor contradictory."A significant traitof living language ... is the power alwaysto pushthe frontierof non-sense furtherback" (Ricoeur 1977:95). Both Turnerand Ricoeur emphasize the integratingcharacterof the act of discovering symbolism and creating metaphoricreality. These insights are helpful clues to unraveling our puzzle. The symbolic process involves the observer as well as the actor and the activity or object. The act of attributing symbolic propertiesto action or speech is firstthatof the observer,but it may in turnbe attributed directly and exegetically to the actor, as in the symbolismof the flag. It may also, however, be the inferenceof the observermaking"sense" to (i.e. reality) out of actions otherwise not understandable him- or herself and/or his or her audience. This emphasis on the observer's role also indicates the importanceof the implied contrast between literal meaning and symbolic meaning. First, it suggests that meaning may be literal to one audiencebut symbolic to another. Much depends on the conventional, "normal,"and"proper" meaningsexistent

SECULAR SYMBOLISM 423 in the cultureof the observeror audience. The thrustof symbolicanalysislies in the distinction between a literal and a symbolic reading.Literalness,however, cannot be defined apart from a norm of conventional expectations for the observer. "Literalness is a quality which some words have achieved in the course of their history; it is not a qualitywith which the first words were born" (Barfield 1960:55). It should be recognized that a concern for symbolic elements does not necessarily diminish conventional referential and functional interests. The same activity may possess a variety of meanings and consequences. Shoes protect the feet, but in American society they also signify taste and income. We have divided our review of contemporary studies into threegroups. The first is comprised of studies in traditional sociological areas where other perspectives have conventionallybeen used. We referto them as studiesof the institutionalorder. They are brokenup furtherinto those thatfocus on politics, political ceremony and ritual, and the law and social control. The second includes analyses of special events-life-cycle ritualsand festivals. The third encompasses studies of everyday life that employ less conventionalperspectives.

STUDIES OF THE INSTITUTIONALORDER

Politics
The authorsof these studies examine political actionsas events whose meaning is unrelatedto the ostensible instrumental behaviorsuggestedby nonsymbolic interpretations.In his studies of symbolic politics and its language, for example, Edelman describes such political programsas labor legislation, poverty programs,andinternational relationsas formsof "symbolicquiescence"(Edelman 1964, 1971, 1977). These acts providethe spectatorwith reassurance that his or her values arerespectedandthathis or her goals arebeing pursued.Such acts have little relationto the "actual" world of politicalevents. Thus, elections may representa political system in which citizen participation powerful, but is its significance is mainly symbolic. Labor relations take the form of conflict between management and labor, but that form belies the reality of limited opportunitiesandexisting constraints.The publicevents symbolize a participatory democracy that instrumentalreality contradicts. In his study of the AmericanTemperancemovement, Gusfield (1963) found that temperanceand prohibitionlegislation served as a means of dramatizing the status gains and losses of conflicting groups in American life. Since drinking occupied a different value in Protestant,"native,"and ruralgroups than in Catholic, immigrant, and urban groups, the alcohol issue formed a public arena in which struggles over relative prestige and power in American

424

GUSFIELD & MICHALOWICZ

society were conducted. The significance of the legislation cannot be understood solely in terms of its instrumentaleffects on drinkingbehavior. Several otherstudies of legislative movementshave used similarconceptions of the symbolic status of legislative acts. Carsonhas studiedthe early factory England,arguingthattheyprovideda mechanismfor acts in nineteenth-century elite to protectits statusagainstcommercialandmanufacan older agricultural turing classes by presenting a symbolic villainy (Carson 1976). Zurcher& with the same Kirkpatrick(1976) have studiedlocal laws againstpornography value. ratherthanon theirinstrumental emphasis on their symbolic importance Chandlerand Rothmanhave each done the same for capital punishmentlaws and First Amendment guarantees(Chandler1976, Rothman 1978).

Political Ceremony and Ritual

theory(DurkMany of the studies of secularsymbolismbuild on Durkheimian heim 1947) and on W. Lloyd Warner's(Warner1959) seminal studies, especially of political ritual. Shils & Young have examinedthe Britishcoronationas a symbol of the moral values that unite the British people and provide a consensus underlying political differences (Shils & Young 1953). This view was first criticizedby Birnbaum(Birnbaum1955), who arguesthatthere is no the evidence thatthe entire public interprets coronationthis way. Furthermore, upper-andmiddle-classvalues Birnbaummaintains, the coronationarticulates In a latercritiqueandanalysisof politicalritual and glosses over class conflicts. studies, Lukes similarly suggests that ritualssuch as the coronationrepresent of official interpretations the society and thus "help to define as authoritative certain ways of seeing society" (Lukes 1975:306). Thus, they may represent one strategy by which groups attemptto gain or maintainpower. Christel Lane's study of political rituals in the Soviet Union is similar to Birnbaum'sand Lukes's in emphasizingthe importanceof ritualsin maintaining allegiance to the elite's authority(Lane 1981). Thus, she finds that a wide spectrumof ritualshave been politicized andgiven symbolic importthatfosters a collective identification. They include life-cycle events, such as births and weddings; institutional events, such as graduations and labor rituals; and political holidays. Old rituals have been given new symbolic meanings, and new ritualshave been added. Lane concludes thatthe existence of a professional corps of ritual specialists and their control by powerful elites show that a ritual system can take hold and grow in modern industrializedsocieties.

The Law and Social Control

appellate In the 1930s, the legal scholars J. Frankand T. Arnold interpreted court decisions less as utilitarian directives describing the consequences reassurderived from established doctrinesthan as expressive, ritual-creating ances about the legal and social order (Frank 1936, Arnold 1935). In an

SECULAR SYMBOLISM

425

influentialpaperin 1956, H. Garfinkelpresenteda view of trials,hearings,and otherevents as degradation ceremonies (Garfinkel1956). In recentyears, there have been several studies of law, legislation, andlaw enforcementthatfocus on the symbolic meanings of acts formerly understoodsolely as utilitarianand instrumental. Manning's field study of British and Americanpolice emphasizesthe public's perception of police as "crime-fighters." found a sharpdiscrepancy He of between policemen's daily activitiesandthe dramatic presentation thatwork to the public. In their daily work, the police serve many functions and have relatively little control over the occurrenceof crimes. In presentingthemselves to the public, however, they dramatizea "police myth"that they possess the power to prevent crime and apprehendmost criminals-a myth that is contraof dicted by the facts. Such strategiesincreaseboth public understanding and support for police practices (Manning 1977). In a study of the drinking-driving problem,Gusfield analyzesthe processby which scientific researchhas createda cognitive orderaboutautoaccidentsand legislation and by which legal decisions have created a moral order about drinkingand driving. Together, they producedthe perceptionof drinkingand driving as a criminal act (Gusfield 1981). Both functionedto symbolize the The developmentof drinkingdriverin the dramaticmodel of the "killerdrunk." this myth aboutdrinkinganddrivinghas produceda belief in an empiricalorder of reality and a legal order of criminal act and punishment.Both are contradicted by the limited characterand selectivity of the scientific data and by the negotiated character of the law enforcement process in practice. What is a criminaloffense based on concretefact at the level of the publicarenais a traffic offense and an ambiguous fact at the more routine and privatelevels. Public of awarenessof the drinking-driving phenomenonrepresents construction a the symbolic world in which factual and moral attributesare orderlyand consistent. Several other noteworthystudies have examinedlaw enforcementfrom the perspective of its symbolic and ceremonialcontent. Skolnickfoundthatpolice respond less to suspects' actual behavior than to their imagined behavior, which is determinedby a model of the "symbolicassailant"to whom they are compared(Skolnick 1966). Foucault's seminalstudyof punishmentcontrasted in the physicalpunishmentmetedout by the Frenchauthorities the past with the controlsof modernsociety (Foucault 1977). In the and bureaucratic discipline earlier period, the physical nature of punishment symbolized the absolute controlof the stateover a subject'sbody. In the modem period, the symbolism is one of control over the mind and the self throughreshapingthose who are of disciplined. In this fashion, the deviantcharacter the criminalis constructed throughthe symbolic meaningof discipline. Lofland'sstudyof stateexecutions is somewhat similar in contrastingthe public characterof executions in eighteenth-century Englandwith their impersonal,bureaucratic,and secretive na-

426

GUSFIELD & MICHALOWICZ

life. He maintains,however, thatwhile executions in the turein contemporary period symbolized the power of the state, today they are more earlier and symbolic (Lofland 1977). bureaucraticand less dramaturgical the These studies of politics and law have reconstructed meaningsof institutional procedures. They reject previous explanations of actions as solely instrumentalor insignificant and underline significant aspects of the actions that are not oriented toward ostensible goals. They point to a presentational element in human behavior in which drama,symbol, andritualare significant factors in the consciousness of social life. The authorsof these studiesstronglyimply thatritualandceremonypromote the authoritative,official, and public images of the society. In Lukes's words, "the symbolism of political ritual represents particularmodels or political
paradigms of society and how it functions.... it helps to define as authoritative

certainways of seeing society" (Lukes 1975:305). Verbamakesthe same point in his study of the Kennedy assasination (Verba 1965). The nonpartisan characterof the reaction to it and the familial, religious, and civic grieving ceremonies point to the role of the presidency in portrayingthe transcendent and natureof the political community. The president'sdualrole-both partisan communal-contrasts with the separationof these roles in the British institutions of prime minister and monarch. In similar fashion, Bellah has seen in these communal-politicalevents the emergence of a secularyet civic religion (Bellah 1980). Bocock has pointed to such events as partof a wide varietyof ritual actions that he finds significant in modem life (Bocock 1974).

Issues in Institutional Studies

Two sets of issues associated with how symbolism and ritualrelate to social structure and instrumental behavior divide many of the studies described above. The first set raises the question of the interestsand goals of rituals, as well as the forms of symbolism; the second, the question of whether social structureis implicated at all in ritual action.
FUNCTIONAL AND MANIPULATIVE THEORIES

The Durkheimian idea that

ritualsand myths are activities thatsolidify anduniteprimitivesocieties has had a significant influence in anthropology.This functionalistpositionhas led to an ritualand emphasis on the consensual basis andunifyingeffects of institutional symbolism. Shils & Young's analysis of the Britishcoronationis exemplaryof this approach,as is Bellah's discussion of civic religion (Shils & Young 1953, Bellah 1980). Symbolic meanings are viewed as producingharmonythrough the resolution of conflicts or the reinforcementof existing sources of consenthe sus. Others, e.g. Gusfield in his earlierwork, have interpreted polysemic characterof political symbols as providingunity for one groupin conflict with

SYMBOLISM 427 SECULAR others, thus creating more general "emblems of identity" [Singer's phrase (1982)] in a diverse society (Gusfield 1963). A frequentcriticism of these approacheshas come from scholarswho stress power and class differences in modem societies and the conflicting interests resulting from them. The symbolized consensus is then viewed either as an of effort to hide and weaken sources of conflict or as a mistakenattribution greater and more widespreadconsensual beliefs than actually exist (Edelman 1964, Lukes 1975). The political symbolism described is thus held to be manipulative,a means by which one groupadvancesor defends its interestsby exaggeratingthe degree of consensus and hiding the realisticinterestsof other groups. Thus, potentialconflicts in the public arenaarehiddenfromconsciousness. From this standpoint,the power differencesin the society mustform part of any analysis of symbolic actions and political or legal rituals.
EXPRESSIVE AND DRAMATURGICAL PERSPECTIVES

Both the functionaland manipulative perspectives are functionalist in that they assess symbols and behavior ritualsfrom the standpointof the interestsand values of instrumental affected by such actions. An emphasis on cultureratherthan social structure leads in another direction. From a cultural standpoint, symbolic activities representperformancesand presentationsexpressingperceptionsof social life but not necessarily affecting behavior. In Geertz's phrasing,they are "models of" ratherthan "models for" (Geertz 1973:89-123). They provide basic catesociety. In gories and concepts for recognizing, expressing, andunderstanding a famous critique of functional theories of totemism, Levi-Strauss has remarked: "naturalspecies are chosen not because they are 'good to eat' but because they are 'good to think' " (Levi-Strauss 1963:89). Both Gusfield (in his later work) and Manningemphasizethe presentational or dramaticnatureof the ritualizationof myth in law enforcement(Gusfield ratherthanas a 1981, Manning 1977). Such acts are viewed as communication means to achieve goals. Theirrelationshipto behavioris problematic,andthey terms. The consensualor conflictcannot be judged in instrumental,utilitarian ing elements representedprovide a public or official set of categories, but they need not be assessed in relation to the social structureor to institutional functioning.

STUDIES OF SECULAR RITUAL

The studies reviewed above describe and analyze areasthat sociologists have behavior-where power and by generally treatedas characterized instrumental utilitarianinterests allegedly provide one-dimensionalmeanings. In this section, we analyze two forms of ritual and symbolic action. In one, life-cycle

428

GUSFIELD MICHALOWICZ &

behavior.The ritual,the events areperceivedas ritualistic,not as instrumental, second, sportsfestivals, representsotheractivities where symbolism has been an object of analysis in the context of large, crowd-like interaction.

Life-Cycle Rituals
Van Gennep's early work on rites of passage in primitivesocieties has been the major influence on studies of the ritualsand symbolism attendingevents such as weddings, graduations, and even funerals (Gennep 1960 [1909]). V. Turner's work has also been importantwith its new orientationtowardthe ritual pointsas situationswhere process (Turner1969, 1974). Turnerviews transition statuses. Such liminal the person is in limbo-with ambiguous, unstructured states are threatening both to the self and to the social groupat points at which the social structureis less compelling. In these situations, the antistructural
elements of common human ties, which Turner labels communitas, gain

importance. fromone place in the social structure The role of ritualin easing the transition to another occupies a central position in analyses of those transitionpoints connected to biological processes-i.e. birth,puberty,procreation,aging, and death. In his study of rites of passage in primitiveandmodernsocieties, Young asserts that the dramatizingand symbolizing aspects of such rituals produce more intense emotions. This intensification,in turn,helps alleviatetension and incorporatethe person into a new role. The ritualboth symbolizes the anomalies of the liminal state and resolves them in new roles (Young 1965). In his general analysis of ritual in industrial societies, Bocock analyzes baptisms, weddings, andfunerals(Bocock 1974). He concludesthatsuchcrisis points lead to ritualization, often throughreligion. There is a general trend away from religious ritual and toward secular forms, however, especially in weddings and funerals. however, to otherpartsof The conception of rites of passage is transferable, ceremonyat a social existence. BarbaraMeyerhoff has analyzed a graduation Jewish Senior Citizen's Center in Los Angeles (Meyerhoff 1977). These ceremonies, which follow a course of study, unite aspects of the sense of individualityand of collective membership.Throughthe sequencingof diverse symbols, a unity of secular and religious, of individual and of group membership is achieved. Zerubavel's study of time rhythmsin modernlife emphasizes the segregation and segmentation of areas of life by time (Zerubavel 1981). In his analysis of sacred and profane time, he suggests that rituals emerge to express and symbolize the liminal states at the marginsof time, such as twilight in the passage from profane time to sacred time in the Jewish Sabbath. Gusfield has applied a similar idea in his analysis of how drinking alcohol is a symbol of the passage from day to night and from daily roundsto the weekend, i.e. from serious work attitudesto a period of play and leisure

SECULAR SYMBOLISM 429 (Gusfield 1984). McAndrews & Edgerton (1969) and Cavan (1966) have analyzedtime andspace in drinkingbehavioranduse a complementary concept of "time out." They explain drunkennessand drinkingless as responsesto the chemical attributesof alcohol than as a productof the meaningsymbolized by the use of alcohol and the space or time of its consumption.

Sports and Festivals

Sports and festivals both involve the gatheringof largecrowds aroundrelatively fixed and recurrentevents. It is crowd behavior that differentiatesthese events from life-cycle rituals. MacAloon's uniqueanalysis of the elements of spectacle, game, ritual, andfestivity presentat the modem Olympicgames can be applied to other sports events as well (MacAloon 1981, Gluckman & Gluckman, 1977). Sportsand festivals are also alike in being framedevents of limited time and space. Within the frame, they can assume propertiesladen with polysemic meanings. In his study of the Olympic games, for example, MacAloon analyzes the symbols of both nation and individual,of separatenessandcommonality-themes symbolizedbothby the sportsevents as a whole andin the specific rites and spectacles of the Olympics (MacAloon 1981, 1982). coexistence of opposites This theme of the dialecticalunityandsimultaneous is salient in the studies of festivals. Turner'sconcept of communitasas antiis structure found in severalof the articlesin the recentvolume on celebrations, especially those by Grimes and Wiggins (Wiggins 1982; Grimes 1982). The Saturnaliaelement is an enactmentof the unity thatcuts across the hierarchies of structure,reversingsocial structure erasingstatusdifferencesby building or a common mood, a common experience. As MacAloon maintains-both for the Olympics and for festivities in general-"international sport is politics conductedas sociability"(MacAloon 1982:269). In these analyses, solidarityis of fosteredboth by the character the symbols carriedby objects, performances, and costumes and also by the commonexperiencesof communality.As Turner says, "muchthathas been boundis liberated,notablythe sense of comradeship and communion"(Turner1982:29). Another theme discussed in this literatureis the unique way in which the framed event can take ordinaryactions from diverse settings and put them together to heighten and transfigurethe festive experience (DaMatta 1977). Grimes analyzed the Fiesta of Santa Fe, New Mexico, and a dramagroup's Public ExplorationProjects in Toronto(Grimes 1976, 1982). In the Santa Fe study, he found a "super-structuring" theme, rituallysymbolizingthe benefits of authorityand solemnly accountingfor the resultantfestive atmosphere.In The goal there Toronto, in contrast, he discovered a ritual "deconstruction." was not a solemn supportof social structurebut rathera taking apartof that

430

GUSFIELD MICHALOWICZ &

structure, i.e. of provoking new and outrageousactions. Both events had a festive atmosphere, however.

SYMBOLISM AND EVERYDAY LIFE

There is anothergroup of studies that exemplify the importanceof symbolic meanings in sociological analysis but neither are related to the institutional order nor examine highly public events. They include studies of consumer goods, especially food. The theoreticalsignificance of several of these studies lies in the cognitive approachused. In additionto the functionalistand dramaturgical theories already discussed, we thus add the category of structuralist perspectives, exemplified especially by the work of Mary Douglas.

Consumer Goods
ThorsteinVeblen's early studyof statussymbolshas had a profoundimpacton much of the contemporaryanalysis of symbolism as well as of consumership (Veblen 1931 [1899]). Despite his influence, however, there have been few direct studies of the symbolic process in the developmentor use of goods as status symbols. have begun to look at Recently, however, sociologists and anthropologists economic behavior from a more cultural standpoint.In a major theoretical statement,Sahlins maintainsthatmaterialobjectscannotbe understood,either in modem or in primitivesocieties, solely by referenceto instrumental utilities (Sahlines 1976). His analysisof food andclothingin Americastressesthe latent meanings of goods. For example, the exclusion of dogs and horses from categories of edibles in Americanculturecannotbe understood apartfromtheir meanings as "humanobjects" (Sahlins 1976:Chap.4). as Consumption,a basic economic category,is thusreconstituted a system of information and as a relationshipbetween consumer and object. An understanding of the latent meanings of each good is needed in orderto make the economist's consumption function a usable concept. In their study of that function, Douglas & Isherwood (1979) stress the primacy of such cultural codes for the study of economic behavior.Goods stabilizeand dramatizebasic culturalcategories. In theirdiscussion of differentmodes of grindingcoffeeby machine or by mortarand pestle-they point out (relying on Barthes's treatment) that one stems from an impersonal world in which metal and machine produce an impersonal dust, while the other is a human process producinga grittypowder and seeming analogousto ancientalchemy. Choosing one over the other is not a utilitarianmatter, as Barthesalso pointed out (1979). The choice is "betweentwo differentviews of the humanconditionand between metaphysicaljudgmentslying just below the surfaceof the question"

SECULAR SYMBOLISM

431

(Douglas & Isherwood 1979:74). Goods should thus be seen as marking devices, i.e. as modes of classifying persons and events. A less structuralist accountthatis more similarto Veblen's work is found in Csikszentmihalyi& Rochberg-Halton'sanalysis of the survey they conducted in 1974 (Csikszentmihalyi& Rochberg-Halton 1981). They asked a sample of families about the meanings of various objects in the home and of the home itself. They discovered the importanceof the latent ratherthan the manifest of characteristics objects. They foundthatthereis a close relationshipbetween objects, the home, and the developmentof self. There were sharpdifferences between age and sex groups, for example. Objectswere much more repositories of memories for older than for younger family members.

Food
The symbolic study of food has been the central concern of several major analyses. We have described Sahlins's discussion of the status of dogs and horses in American life as reflective of the culturaldefinition of their quasihumancharacter.Levi-Strausshas built an elaboratemodel of culturalunderstanding based on the linguistic structuresdistinguishing the raw and the cooked (Levi-Strauss1969). He uses these distinctionsin cooking as examples of general elements discoverablein other aspects of culturesthat illustratethe contrast and conflict between natureand culture. This same search for homologous elements is also found in the now classic paper by M. Douglas, "Decipheringa Meal," as well as in her analysis of British meals. Unlike Levi-Strauss, Douglas uses cultural categories rather than linguistic structures(Douglas 1975, Douglas & Nicod 1974). In her analysis of Hebraic dietarylaws, she finds a similaritybetween the bounded and characterof foods (clean/unclean;clear/ambiguous) the ancientHebrews' betweenthemselvesandothers. In social concernwith retainingthe boundaries both, there is an interdictionof ambiguousstates;animalsnot easily classified are tabooed, for example (Douglas 1966). In this fashion, the meal, in contemporary as well as other societies, both reflects and reinforces fundamental cultural categories. Thus food, as a matter of cognition, symbolizes social relationshipsandinstitutions.R. Bartheshas analyzedmodernfood habitsfrom the perspectiveof semiology, treatingfoods as systems of signs. For example, sugar can be seen as a productof indulgence, of sweetness, as exemplified in the American popularsong, "SugarTime" (Barthes 1979). These studies of consumershipand food are indicativeof the importancederivedfrom symbolic andstructuralist anthropology-of a cognitive approach to symbolism. Unlike the functionalor dramaturgical orientations,the cognitive approachemphasizesthe culturalcategoriesthatgive meaningsto objects ones. These meaningsemerge andevents beyondtheirmanifestor instrumental

432

GUSFIELD MICHALOWICZ &

throughthe natureof the culturalor linguisticcategoriesby which membersof a society perceive and think about their experiences. In a study of social stratification, B. Schwartzhas examined the categoriesof up and down, high and low, as terms for describingand experiencingclass and statushierarchies.He believes that they originatein the biological relationshipbetween a dependent infant and an overpoweringparent(Schwartz 1981).

Interaction
Despite the seminal importance and great influence of Erving Goffman's dramaturgicalstudies of face-to-face interaction,we have not discussed his work in-depth. It has been reviewed extensively elsewhere, and his concerns with symbolism have been peripheral.Although deeply concernedwith how meanings are created and managed, Goffman deals largely with manifest, literalmeaningsthatareoften instrumentally patterned.In the famous essay on role-distance, for example, the posture and visage of the adults riding the carousel are calculatedto presentthemselves as people not "seriously" riding a merry-go-round,not "really"childish (Goffman 1961:97-99). Such analyses, like M. Davis's (M. Davis 1983) phenomenologicalstudy of sexuality, are marginalto the symbolic studies reviewed here.

Mass Communicationsand Popular Culture

We have not included this areain our review because scholarsin this field, as well as in the sociologies of religion and art, have long acceptedsymbolic and ritualanalyses. The work of OrrinKlapp, however, is both difficult to classify and important.In an early work, Klapp studied celebrities, including movie stars, sportsfigures, andpoliticians, as well as TV personalities.He found that the emergence of such "symbolicleaders"is one aspect of the public dramasa mass society observes, in contrastto the conventional,communalinteractions of earlier societies. These leaders become symbols of abstract roles and orientationsand serve as points of identity in modernlife (Klapp 1964). In a later work, he assesses a range of social movements and collective behavior, includingfads, fashions, andcults (Klapp1969). He interprets many aspectsof these behaviors as resulting from the disappearanceof ritual and symbolic elements in modernlife. Thus, he argues,the mobility of personsand physical environmentsdestroys the symbolic significance of a space that was suffused with memories. The standardizationof goods weakens the ritualistic and symbolic attributesof class, age, etc. In this situation,people resortto highly individualisticmodes of gaining and presentingidentities, including forms of "ego screaming"and "style rebellion,"by which they symbolize and ritualize themselves and their position in the social structure.

SECULAR SYMBOLISM

433

METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES Issues of Location

Manning's study, Police Work (1977), illustrates the general problem of determiningthe people for whom the meanings are symbolic. Manningconcludes thatthe presentation police workas a "copsandrobbersstory,"which of is buttressedby an emphasison crimestatistics,conveys an image of police that symbolizes their activities and capacities in ways that are not accurate. The public is led to believe that police have greatercontrol over crime than they actually do. But who believes the "policemyth?"The police, the police management,or only the general public? Is Manning, as the scientific observer, occupying a privilegedposition as the "true" observerof the symbolicandritualcharacter of the myth?Does the police myth lie on a spectrumwith cynical manipulationat one end and naive belief at the other?The observer'srole in locatingthe source of symbolic meanings is, as Spiro has pointed out (Spiro 1969), a central problem and one seldom addressedin symbolic analysis.

Dimensionality
In several of the studiesreviewed here, it is uncertain whatthe discoveryof just symbolic meanings is meant to explain. The relationshipsamong other eleor ments, such as social structure biological factors,areoften vague. Especially in studies emphasizing the cognitive role of culture, there seems to be an either/or implication: culture or social structure, symbolic or instrumental meaning. This ambiguityis a majorpartof J. Goody's criticismof the studiesof food by Levi-Strauss, Sahlins, and Douglas:
there is little evidence, except of a purelypost hoc kind, on which to base the claim thatthe decisive element in the selection of alternative possibilities . .. is solely, or even mainly, the voice of this abstractstructure" (Goody 1982:35).

CONCLUSION
The studies reviewed here representthe early stages of a maturingarea of sociological inquiry. F. Davis, in a recentpaperpointingto a similardeveloptheoristshad paid scant ment, complainedthatin the past symbolic interaction attentionto the symbolic (F. Davis 1982). Thoughpresagedby earlierworks, it is only with the emergence of recent anthropological,linguistic, and sociolinguistic studiesthatthis areais becomingmorethana diffuse strainof sociology.

434

GUSFIELD & MICHALOWICZ

Literature Cited
Arnold, T. 1935. The Symbolsof Government. New Haven, Conn: Yale Univ. Press. 278 PP. Barfield, 0. 1960. The Meaning of the Word "Literal."In Metaphor & Symbolby Colton ResearchSociety, ed. L. C. Knights,B. Cottle, pp. 124-41. London: Butterworth Barthes, R. 1979. Towardsa psychosociology of food andconsumption.InFood andDrink in History, ed. R. Forster, 0. Rawum, pp. 166-73. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press Bellah, R. N. 1980. Civil religion in America. In Beyond Belief: Essays on Religion in a Post-TraditionalWorldby R. N. Bellah, pp. 168-92. New York: Harper& Row Birnbaum, N. 1955. Monarchs and sociologists: A reply to Professor Shils and Mr. Young. Sociol. Rev. (NS) 3:5-23 Bocock, R. 1974. Ritual in IndustrialSociety. London: Allen & Unwin. 184 pp. Brown, R. H. 1977. A Poetic for Sociology. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. 302 PP. Burke, K. 1957. The Philosophy of Literary Form. New York: Vintage. 330 pp. Carson, W. G. 1976. Symbolic and instrumentaldimensions of early factory legislation. In Crime, Criminologyand Public Policy: Essays in Honor ofSirLeon Radzinowicz, ed. R. Hood, pp. 107-38. New York: Free Cavan, S. 1966. LiquorLicense:An Ethnography of Bar Behavior. Chicago: Aldine. 246 PP. Chandler,D. B. 1976. Capital Punishment:A Social Study of Repressive Law. Toronto: McClelland & Steward. 183 pp. Csikszentmihalyi, M., Rochberg-Halton, E. 1981. The Meaning of Things: Domestic Symbols and the Self. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. 304 pp. DaMatta, R. 1977. Constraintand license: A preliminarystudy of two Brazilianrituals.In Secular Ritual, ed. S. Moore, B. Meyerhoff, pp. 244-64. Amsterdam:Van Gorcum Davis, F. 1982. On the "symbolic"in symbolic interaction. Symb. Interact. 5:111-26 Davis, M. 1983. Smut:Erotic RealitylObscene Ideology. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press. 323 pp. Dolgin, J. L., Kemnitzer,D. S., Schneider,D. M. 1977. Symbolic Anthropology. New York: Columbia Univ. Press. 523 pp. Douglas, M. 1966. Purity and Danger: An Analysis of the Concepts of Pollution and Taboo. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. 188 pp. Douglas, M. 1975. Decipheringa meal. In Implicit Meanings: Essays in Anthropology,by M. Douglas, pp. 249-75. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Douglas, M., Isherwood, B. 1979. The World of Goods. New York: Basic. 228 pp. Douglas, M., Nicod, M. 1974. Takingthe biscuit: The structureof British meals. New Soc., Dec. 19, pp. 744-47 Duncan, H. D. 1968. Symbolsin Society. New York: Oxford Univ. Press. 262 pp. Duncan, H. D. 1969. Symbols and Social Theory.New York:OxfordUniv. Press. 314 PP. Durkheim,E. 1947. TheElementaryForms of the Religious Life. Glencoe, Ill: Free. 456 PP. Edelman,M. 1964. TheSymbolicUses of Politics. Urbana:Univ. Ill. Press. 201 pp. Edelman, M. 1971. Politics As Symbolic Action. New York: Academic. 188 pp. Edelman, M. 1977. Political Language. New York: Academic. 164 pp. Firth, R. 1973. Symbols: Public and Private. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press. 469 pp. Foucault,M. 1977. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Pantheon. 333 pp. Frank, J. 1936. Law and the Modern Mind. New York: Tudor. 368 pp. Garfinkel, H. 1956. Conditions of successful degradation ceremonies. Am. J. Sociol. 61:420-24 Geertz, C. 1973. The Interpretationof Cultures. New York: Basic. 470 pp. Gennep, Van A. 1960 [1909]. The Rites of Passage. Chicago:Univ. ChicagoPress. 198 PP. Giddens, A. 1976. New Rules of Sociological Method. New York: Basic. 192 pp. Gluckman,M., Gluckman, M. 1977. On drama and games and athletic contests. See DaMatta 1977 pp. 227-43 Goffman,E. 1961. Encounters:TwoStudies in the Sociology of Interaction. Indianapolis, Ind: Bobbs-Merrill. 152 pp. Goody, J. 1977. TheDomesticationof the Savage Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. 179 pp. Goody, J. 1982. Cooking, Cuisine and Class. Univ. Press. 254 pp. Cambridge: Cambridge Grimes, R. L. 1976. Symbol and Conquest. Public Ritual and Drama in Santa Fe. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press. 281 pp. Grimes, R. L. 1982. The lifeblood of public ritual: Fiestas and public exploration projects. See Turner 1982, pp. 272-83 Gusfield, J. 1963. Symbolic Crusade: Status Politics and the American Temperance Movement.Urbana: Univ. Ill. Press. 198 pp. Gusfield, J. 1981. The Cultureof Public Problems: Drinking-Driving and the Symbolic

SECULAR SYMBOLISM

435

pp. 134-48 Boston: Beacon Order. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press. 263 Rothman, R. 1978. The First Amendment: PP. Symbolic import-Ambiguous prescription. Gusfield, J. 1984. Passage to play:The ritualof Res. Law Sociol. 1:26-40 drinkin industrialsociety. In TheAnthropoland Competition, Sahlins, M. 1976. Culture and Practical ogy of Drink, Hospitality Reason. Chicago:Univ. Chicago Press. 252 ed. M. Douglas. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. In press PP. Klapp, 0. E. 1964. SymbolicLeaders: Public Schwartz, B. 1981. Vertical Classification:A and the Sociology of Study in Structuralism Dramas and Public Men. Chicago: Aldine. 272 pp. Knowledge. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press. 243 pp. Klapp, 0. E. 1969. Collective Search For Identity. New York: Holt, Rinehart& Win- Shils, E., Young, M. 1953. The meaningof the coronation.Sociol. Rev. (NS) 1:63-81 ston. 383 pp. Lane, C. 1981. TheRites of Rulers. New York: Singer, M. 1982. Emblemsof identity:A semiotic exploration. In On Symbols in AnthroColumbia Univ. Press. 308 pp. pology: Essays in Honor ofHarry Hojer, ed. Leach, E. 1976. Cultureand Communication. J. Maquest, pp. 73-132 Malibu, Calif: UnCambridgeUniv. Press. 105 pp. Cambridge: dena Levi-Strauss, C. 1963. Totemism. Boston: Skolnick, J. 1966. Justice WithoutTrial. New Beacon. 116 pp. York: Wiley. 309 pp. Levi-Strauss, C. 1966. TheSavage Mind. ChiSperber, D. 1974. Rethinking Symbolism. cago: Univ. Chicago Press. 290 pp. Univ. Press. 153 pp. Cambridge: Cambridge Levi-Strauss, C. 1969. The Raw and the Cooked:Introductionto a Science of Mythol- Spiro, M. E. 1969. Discussion. In Forms of Symbolic Action, ed. R. F. Spencer, pp. ogy. New York: HarperTorch. 387 pp. 208-14. Seattle: Univ. Wash. Press Levy-Bruhl, L. 1966 [1923]. How Natives Think. New York: WashingtonSquare. 355 Turner, V. W. 1967. The Forest of Symbols: Aspects of NdembuRitual. Ithaca, NY: CorPP. nell Univ. Press. 405 pp. of Lofland, J. 1977. The dramaturgy state executions. In State ExecutionsViewedHistor- Turner,V. W. 1969. TheRitual Process. Chicago: Aldine. 204 pp. ically and Sociologically, ed. H. Bleackley, J. Lofland, pp. 275-325. Montclair,NJ:Pat- Turner, V. W. 1974. Dramas, Fields and Metaphors:SymbolicAction in HumanSociterson Smith ety. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press. 309 Lukes, S. 1975. Political ritual and social integration. Sociology 9:289-308 PP. MacAloon, J. J. 1981. This Great Symbol: Turner,V. W., ed. 1982. Celebration:Studies in Festivity and Ritual. Washington DC: Pierre Coubertinand the Originsof theModSmithsonianInst. 320 pp. ern OlympicGames. Chicago: Univ. ChicaVeblen, T. 1931 [1899]. The Theory of the go Press. 359 pp. Leisure Class. New York:Modern. 404 pp. MacAloon, J. J. 1982. Sociation and sociability in political celebrations. See Turner Verba, S. 1965. The Kennedy assassination and the natureof political commitment. In 1982, pp. 255-71 The KennedyAssassination and the AmerMalinowski, B. 1954. Magic, Science and Reican Public, ed. B. S. Greenberg, E. B. ligion. Garden City, NY: Doubleday Anchor. 274 pp. Parker, pp. 348-60. Stanford, Calif: Stanford Univ. Press Manning, P. 1977. Police Work: The Social OrganizationofPolicing. Cambridge,Mass: Warner,L. 1959. TheLiving and the Dead: A MIT Press. 418 pp. Study of the Symbolic Life of Americans. New Haven, Conn: Yale Univ. Press. 528 McAndrews, C., Edgerton, R. B. 1969. A Drunken Comportment: Social ExplanaPP. Weber, M. 1946. From Max Weber:Essays in tion. Chicago: Aldine. 197 pp. Sociology. New York: Oxford Univ. Press. Meyerhoff, B. 1977. We don't wrapherringin 490 pp. a printedpaper. See DaMatta1977, pp. 199Wiggins, W. H. 1982. They closed the town 26 up, man! Reflections on the civic and politiNagendra,S. P. 1971. The Conceptof Ritual in cal dimensions of Juneteenth. See Turner Modern Sociological Theory. New Delhi: 1982, pp. 284-96 Acad. J. India. 199 pp. Young, F. 1965. Initiation Ceremonies. IndiPeirce, C. S. 1931. Collected Papers, Vol. 2. anapolis, Ind: Bobbs-Merrill. 199 pp. Cambridge, Mass: HarvardUniv. Press Ricoeur, P. 1977. The Rule of Metaphor. Zerubavel, E. 1981. Hidden Rhythms. ChicaToronto: Univ. Toronto Press. 384 pp. go: Univ. Chicago Press. 201 pp. G. Ricoeur, P. 1978. Metaphorandthe mainprob- Zurcher,L., Kirkpatrick, R. 1976. Citizens lem of hermeneutics. In The Philosophy of for Decency. Austin: Univ. Tex. Press. 412 Paul Ricoeur, ed. C. S. Reagan, D. Stewart, PP.