1991 No. 1 CONTENTS - Institute of Social and Cultural ...

Dogon Funerals: A Praxiological View 105
the Dogon, a temporal metaphor. So far, I do not claim the list is of more general
relevance; I only claim that it is a useful heuristic device for analysing the ritual
behaviour of the Dogon.
The concrete 'temary logic', which concerns fast of all the points of transition,
the thresholds, or the boundaries, changes with each concrete context. They have
a different reference when we talk of the human body, domestic space, or any
particular spatial arrangement, but they are conceptualized analogously. For
example, when we refer to the body in its physical aspect, we are mainly
concerned with the bodily surface with its orifices, entries and extensions. Some
of these are considered as establishing contact with the outer world (the most
obvious example being speech), while others are in the fast place receptive of
outer stimuli. In other words, we inevitably eriter the world of social bodiliness,
the body in interaction with its surrounding social world. Simultaneously, we enter
the area of symbolizations of (aspects of) the body, which cannot be discussed in
any general way. There exists a huge literature on various aspects of this topic,
but so far as I know it has never been integrated into an encompassing viewpoint
on bodiliness. Common to all these aspects of bodiliness is the concern with areas
of interaction, of boundary·transgression, that are metaphorically transferred to
other cultural domains.
The body is, however, not only a 'closed container' in interaction with the
environment. The individual perfonns actions with his body; he uses the space
surrounding him, he moves around and gesticulates. These actions can be of
various sorts; they include technical actions, social (inter)actions, random actions,
and so on, but also ritual actions. This latter, special class of actions seems to
display one remarkable characteristic: they are to a high degree stereotyped. This
is also true of a lot of purely technical actions: in order to achieve a certain aim,
I have to do this and that. But ritual action is different from technical-scientific
action in that it does not seem to attain goals; it is repetitive action in its purest
fonn, without any direct purpose. Contrary to random action, ritual is not only
repetitive, it is also to a high degree non·random. Almost every action, every
movement, appears preconsidered. For example, the spatial dimensions used in
ritual action often relate to the basic spatial dimensions outlined above. Ritual
action makes use of simple spatial distinctions, and all they can represent
metaphorically, to create meaning.
The danger of projection involved in these viewpoints is not to be neglected.
If ritual action makes use mainly of spatial distinctions, and if the spatial
distinctions I make are really basic, and if these spatial notions really refer to
underlying aspects of time, social structure, and world·view, then-and only
then-will what I say make some sense. All I can say in defence of this proposal
is that it seems at this moment the only model that is able to allow for a fresh
outlook on the disparate data at hand concerning the Dogon. It is a generative
model; it enables the development, on the basis of a limited set of principles, of
an integrated view of the way Dogon conceive of the world and give it meaning.