vienna

actions. Catherine Bell pointed out that these are not universal
features, but rather help in differentiating and privileging
particular activities. 58 Firstly, there are codes of communication
which can be summarised as the formalities of movement and
speech. The second feature is the involvement of distinct and
specialised personnel. The third one is the periodical occurrence of
ritualisation. The orchestration of activities is the fourth feature,
which deals with the interaction of individuals. Some features,
however, require materialisation in the form of space and objects.
Ritualisation takes place in structured space, which usually
entails restricted access. This necessitates preparations in both
the physical and mental states. Ultimately, objects, texts or
dresses used only in the ritualised context are brought into play.
Axel Michaels has contributed a set of five categories to the
contest between ritual theories. Only when all of them become
certifiable does he speak of a ritual. 59 The first category is
a causal transition. The second is the need for a formally articulated
intention followed by the need for formal criteria of enactment,
such as formality, publicity and finality. Fourthly, rituals
are constituted through the subjective impression, transcendent
(or what he calls “religio” here) experience and the creation
of ritual fellowship. The last criterion is the change of identity,
status, competence and role within society. 60 There are some
correspondences in the argumentations, formal practice being
among those shared by many others. The formality of movement
and speech is a widely shared indicator for the classification of
rituals. It results from the consensual interplay between two or
more persons that is repeated in recurrent contexts, creating
adaptive value for those who are involved. 61 Ritual practice is
a kind of behaviour that is clearly separable from that of the
everyday. Human beings have the ability to distinguish between
and act of movement and action when the person adds intention
to the movement. 62 Ritual is recognisable as well, but there is no
personal intention in its enactment:
“Action is ritualized if the acts of which it is composed are
58 Bell (1992:204-5).
59 Michaels (2001) is convinced about the existence of the autonomous ritual action, while Bell (1992) only acknowledges
ritualised actions. Such divergent viewpoints lead to a different use of terms (ritual/ritualisation) and, in the case of
Michaels, an emphasis on a “transcendental” purpose of the ritual, which can be either religious or sacral. We do not favour
either of the two, but agree with Michaels that it does not make sense to call every routine action a ritual (like brushing
teeth). See Michaels (2001:29).
60 Michaels (2001:29).
61 See Bell (1997:32) on this neo-functional approach, which is related to ritualisation also found in the social lives of animals.
62 Weber (1978:4). “Actions” are personally motivated, “social action” is motivated by the social relevance of the action.
The
Death
of
Fashion 27