宗教仪式作为公民的巫术

IF 0.5 2区 哲学 0 RELIGION Method & Theory in the Study of Religion Pub Date : 2020-05-27 DOI:10.1163/15700682-12341475
Fatima Tofighi
{"title":"宗教仪式作为公民的巫术","authors":"Fatima Tofighi","doi":"10.1163/15700682-12341475","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nIn their attempt to question the assumption that rituals are merely symbolic, Talal Asad and Saba Mahmood tried to show that rituals have functioned as instruments. In Asad’s study of medieval Christianity and Mahmood’s work on mosque women, rituals function to make selves. These instrumentalist readings stand outside the usual modernist representational readings. For these anthropologists, the distinction between representational and instrumental understandings of rituals seems to be very clear. Nationalist modernist readings of Islamic rituals seem to confirm the representational logic, which apparently falls entirely outside the instrumental framework. In this paper, I intend to disturb this clear-cut distinction, and demonstrate that in many occasions the instrumental understanding is preceded by a representational interpretation, while the representational may, in turn, help create a civil subject. My evidences come from the Iranian Islamic literature in 1960s and 70s, viz. Mortaza Motahhari, Ali Shariʾati, Mehdi Barzargan, and the authors of Maktab-e Islam monthly. Although some of these intellectuals emphasized the instrumental nature of rituals in making the pious subject, others proposed different rationalizations—medical benefit, collective solidarity and order, and existential meaning. For these thinkers or their audience, there was no clear distinction between these justifications. It is true that many of them had a representational logic; but they contributed to making a proper civil subject. Hence, the instrumental-representational binary cannot always be maintained. Asad’s and Mahmood’s critiques of anthropological readings of rituals have yet to be qualified to take into account the prior interpretations and theological context of religious rituals, to highlight the conflation of the representational and instrumental frameworks in many modern rituals, and to note that deciding on the instrumentality of a particular ritual is not only significant when it is about constructing the interior of the private self, but may be involved in building larger communities.","PeriodicalId":44982,"journal":{"name":"Method & Theory in the Study of Religion","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2020-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/15700682-12341475","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Religious Rituals as Civil hexis\",\"authors\":\"Fatima Tofighi\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/15700682-12341475\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nIn their attempt to question the assumption that rituals are merely symbolic, Talal Asad and Saba Mahmood tried to show that rituals have functioned as instruments. In Asad’s study of medieval Christianity and Mahmood’s work on mosque women, rituals function to make selves. These instrumentalist readings stand outside the usual modernist representational readings. For these anthropologists, the distinction between representational and instrumental understandings of rituals seems to be very clear. Nationalist modernist readings of Islamic rituals seem to confirm the representational logic, which apparently falls entirely outside the instrumental framework. In this paper, I intend to disturb this clear-cut distinction, and demonstrate that in many occasions the instrumental understanding is preceded by a representational interpretation, while the representational may, in turn, help create a civil subject. My evidences come from the Iranian Islamic literature in 1960s and 70s, viz. Mortaza Motahhari, Ali Shariʾati, Mehdi Barzargan, and the authors of Maktab-e Islam monthly. Although some of these intellectuals emphasized the instrumental nature of rituals in making the pious subject, others proposed different rationalizations—medical benefit, collective solidarity and order, and existential meaning. For these thinkers or their audience, there was no clear distinction between these justifications. It is true that many of them had a representational logic; but they contributed to making a proper civil subject. Hence, the instrumental-representational binary cannot always be maintained. Asad’s and Mahmood’s critiques of anthropological readings of rituals have yet to be qualified to take into account the prior interpretations and theological context of religious rituals, to highlight the conflation of the representational and instrumental frameworks in many modern rituals, and to note that deciding on the instrumentality of a particular ritual is not only significant when it is about constructing the interior of the private self, but may be involved in building larger communities.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44982,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Method & Theory in the Study of Religion\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-05-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/15700682-12341475\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Method & Theory in the Study of Religion\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/15700682-12341475\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"RELIGION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Method & Theory in the Study of Religion","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15700682-12341475","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"RELIGION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

Talal Asad和Saba Mahmood试图质疑仪式只是象征性的假设,他们试图证明仪式是作为工具发挥作用的。在阿萨德对中世纪基督教的研究和马哈茂德对清真寺女性的研究中,仪式的作用是塑造自我。这些乐器演奏家的读物与通常的现代主义具象读物不同。对于这些人类学家来说,对仪式的具象理解和工具理解之间的区别似乎非常明显。民族主义现代主义对伊斯兰仪式的解读似乎证实了具象逻辑,这显然完全超出了工具框架。在本文中,我打算打破这种明确的区别,并证明在许多情况下,工具性理解之前是具象解释,而具象可能反过来有助于创造一个民事主体。我的证据来自20世纪60年代和70年代的伊朗伊斯兰文学,即Mortaza Motahhari、Ali Shariʾati、Mehdi Barzargan和Maktab-e Islam月刊的作者。尽管这些知识分子中的一些人强调仪式在塑造虔诚主题方面的工具性,但其他人提出了不同的合理化——医疗利益、集体团结和秩序以及存在意义。对于这些思想家或他们的听众来说,这些理由之间没有明确的区别。的确,他们中的许多人都有代表性的逻辑;但它们有助于形成一个恰当的民事主体。因此,工具表征二进制不可能总是保持不变。阿萨德和马哈茂德对仪式人类学解读的批评还没有资格考虑到宗教仪式的先前解释和神学背景,以强调许多现代仪式中的表征和工具框架的融合,并注意到,决定特定仪式的工具不仅在构建私人自我的内部时意义重大,而且可能涉及构建更大的社区。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Religious Rituals as Civil hexis
In their attempt to question the assumption that rituals are merely symbolic, Talal Asad and Saba Mahmood tried to show that rituals have functioned as instruments. In Asad’s study of medieval Christianity and Mahmood’s work on mosque women, rituals function to make selves. These instrumentalist readings stand outside the usual modernist representational readings. For these anthropologists, the distinction between representational and instrumental understandings of rituals seems to be very clear. Nationalist modernist readings of Islamic rituals seem to confirm the representational logic, which apparently falls entirely outside the instrumental framework. In this paper, I intend to disturb this clear-cut distinction, and demonstrate that in many occasions the instrumental understanding is preceded by a representational interpretation, while the representational may, in turn, help create a civil subject. My evidences come from the Iranian Islamic literature in 1960s and 70s, viz. Mortaza Motahhari, Ali Shariʾati, Mehdi Barzargan, and the authors of Maktab-e Islam monthly. Although some of these intellectuals emphasized the instrumental nature of rituals in making the pious subject, others proposed different rationalizations—medical benefit, collective solidarity and order, and existential meaning. For these thinkers or their audience, there was no clear distinction between these justifications. It is true that many of them had a representational logic; but they contributed to making a proper civil subject. Hence, the instrumental-representational binary cannot always be maintained. Asad’s and Mahmood’s critiques of anthropological readings of rituals have yet to be qualified to take into account the prior interpretations and theological context of religious rituals, to highlight the conflation of the representational and instrumental frameworks in many modern rituals, and to note that deciding on the instrumentality of a particular ritual is not only significant when it is about constructing the interior of the private self, but may be involved in building larger communities.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
17
期刊介绍: Method & Theory in the Study of Religion publishes articles, notes, book reviews and letters which explicitly address the problems of methodology and theory in the academic study of religion. This includes such traditional points of departure as history, philosophy, anthropology and sociology, but also the natural sciences, and such newer disciplinary approaches as feminist theory and studies. Method & Theory in the Study of Religion also concentrates on the critical analysis of theoretical problems prominent in the study of religion.
期刊最新文献
Awkward History, Awkward Theory Front matter The Discursive Side of Sociological Institutionalism in the Study of Religion ‘Religious Literacy’: Some Considerations and Reservations Scholarly Values, Methods, and Evidence in the Academic Study of Religion
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1