Between Action and Power: A Perspective on Symbolization and Ritual Efficacy
(2015) SANK01 20142Social Anthropology
- Abstract
- The purpose of this paper is to clarify the notion of symbolization and relate it to that of ritual efficacy. It is demonstrated that terms such as “symbolization” and “symbol” are used rather loosely by prominent anthropologists and therefore require closer scrutiny. The first half of the paper explorers the notion of symbolizing in Geertz and Turner’s respective theories toward the end of erecting three criteria for an adequate theory of symbolization. The criteria are, in turn, deduced from Jarvie and Sperber’s respective critique. The second half of the paper regards the relationship between symbolization and power through Tambiah’s account of ritual efficacy, which is articulated and assessed against the background of the three... (More)
- The purpose of this paper is to clarify the notion of symbolization and relate it to that of ritual efficacy. It is demonstrated that terms such as “symbolization” and “symbol” are used rather loosely by prominent anthropologists and therefore require closer scrutiny. The first half of the paper explorers the notion of symbolizing in Geertz and Turner’s respective theories toward the end of erecting three criteria for an adequate theory of symbolization. The criteria are, in turn, deduced from Jarvie and Sperber’s respective critique. The second half of the paper regards the relationship between symbolization and power through Tambiah’s account of ritual efficacy, which is articulated and assessed against the background of the three criteria. Consecutively, Tambiah’s theory is specified by merging it with Searle’s conceptual apparatus, rendering it analytically superior to the predecessor. It is discovered that specificity is an important virtue for a theory of symbolization. Upon conclusion, the applicability of Tambiah’s specified theory is investigated by considering some of Holbraad’s ethnographical material on the ritual invocation of power. (Less)
- Popular Abstract
- The purpose of this paper is to clarify the notion of symbolization and relate it to that of ritual efficacy. It is demonstrated that terms such as “symbolization” and “symbol” are used rather loosely by prominent anthropologists and therefore require closer scrutiny. The first half of the paper explorers the notion of symbolizing in Geertz and Turner’s respective theories toward the end of erecting three criteria for an adequate theory of symbolization. The criteria are, in turn, deduced from Jarvie and Sperber’s respective critique. The second half of the paper regards the relationship between symbolization and power through Tambiah’s account of ritual efficacy, which is articulated and assessed against the background of the three... (More)
- The purpose of this paper is to clarify the notion of symbolization and relate it to that of ritual efficacy. It is demonstrated that terms such as “symbolization” and “symbol” are used rather loosely by prominent anthropologists and therefore require closer scrutiny. The first half of the paper explorers the notion of symbolizing in Geertz and Turner’s respective theories toward the end of erecting three criteria for an adequate theory of symbolization. The criteria are, in turn, deduced from Jarvie and Sperber’s respective critique. The second half of the paper regards the relationship between symbolization and power through Tambiah’s account of ritual efficacy, which is articulated and assessed against the background of the three criteria. Consecutively, Tambiah’s theory is specified by merging it with Searle’s conceptual apparatus, rendering it analytically superior to the predecessor. It is discovered that specificity is an important virtue for a theory of symbolization. Upon conclusion, the applicability of Tambiah’s specified theory is investigated by considering some of Holbraad’s ethnographical material on the ritual invocation of power. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/4940519
- author
- Lund, Viktor LU
- supervisor
- organization
- course
- SANK01 20142
- year
- 2015
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- social anthropology, Geertz, Turner, Tambiah, Searle, symbol, symbolization, interpretation, power, ritual, ritual efficacy, performative, speech act
- language
- English
- id
- 4940519
- date added to LUP
- 2015-02-23 13:30:32
- date last changed
- 2015-02-23 13:30:32
@misc{4940519,
abstract = {{The purpose of this paper is to clarify the notion of symbolization and relate it to that of ritual efficacy. It is demonstrated that terms such as “symbolization” and “symbol” are used rather loosely by prominent anthropologists and therefore require closer scrutiny. The first half of the paper explorers the notion of symbolizing in Geertz and Turner’s respective theories toward the end of erecting three criteria for an adequate theory of symbolization. The criteria are, in turn, deduced from Jarvie and Sperber’s respective critique. The second half of the paper regards the relationship between symbolization and power through Tambiah’s account of ritual efficacy, which is articulated and assessed against the background of the three criteria. Consecutively, Tambiah’s theory is specified by merging it with Searle’s conceptual apparatus, rendering it analytically superior to the predecessor. It is discovered that specificity is an important virtue for a theory of symbolization. Upon conclusion, the applicability of Tambiah’s specified theory is investigated by considering some of Holbraad’s ethnographical material on the ritual invocation of power.}},
author = {{Lund, Viktor}},
language = {{eng}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Between Action and Power: A Perspective on Symbolization and Ritual Efficacy}},
year = {{2015}},
}