Structural Ritualization Theory & Research

J. David Knottnerus

Professor of Sociology
Oklahoma State University
August 2008

The basic assumption that rituals are crucial to human behavior is consistent with the arguments of certain social scientists that have used this concept to analyze and examine society such as Durkheim, Goffman, Collins, Douglas, Rappaport, Kertzer, Myerhoff, Alexander, Warner, and Bellah. However, despite the work of scholars such as these the concept of ritual has been underutilized, if not often ignored, in sociology.

This is due to the conventional understanding of rituals in sociology. For instance, it is often assumed that: rituals are found only or far more often in premodern societies, not modern societies (which is due in part to implicit or explicit evolutionary assumptions which depict modern societies as increasingly rational); rituals are static, unchanging, and fixed in nature; rituals occur only or mainly in religious or sacred contexts; and rituals are of secondary importance and epiphenomenal in that they are the product of more important social processes which implies they have little effect or significance for people and occurrences in society. Also, there is often a failure to open up to the full complexity of human behavior. And most sociologists, while paying attention to social organization, pay little attention to either culture or personality structure notwithstanding the contributions of those in the sociology of culture, sociology of emotions, and social psychology.

For these reasons rituals are often thought to have limited explanatory value and are often downplayed in social analysis. In other words, they remain in various ways invisible to and “under the radar” of many students of social life and modern society.

Structural ritualization theory (SRT), in contrast, focuses on the role rituals play in society (Knottnerus 1997, 2005, forthcoming b, In Progress). It is grounded in the basic assumption that daily life is normally characterized by an array of social and personal rituals. Such everyday rituals, whether occurring in small groups or organizations can lead to consequences unanticipated by group members while both being fed by and feeding into larger societal levels of interaction. As such, this perspective is directed to rituals which occur in various social settings, e.g., face to face interaction, small groups, organizations, and society as a whole, and globally.

More precisely, structural ritualization theory is based upon a very different set of assumptions. It assumes that:

(a) Rituals are found in both premodern and modern societies.

(b) They are dynamic in nature and subject to change.

(c) They occur in both secular and sacred contexts.

(d) They can be of profound importance in social life.

(e) They have great explanatory value.

In this sense ritual provides a “missing link” in sociological thought.

Moreover, at least six additional meanings of the concept “link” (which are related to points a through e) are of particular relevance:

1. The idea of ritual can provide a common vocabulary and framework to study developments occurring in different groups. In other words it can have great analytical value helping us to explain the workings of society.
2. Rituals occur at and impact different levels of society ranging from face to face interaction and relationships, larger groups and organizations, society as a whole, and the world. Ritual operates at micro and more macro levels.
3. The concept of ritual can be linked to perspectives and traditions of research emphasizing other social dynamics and issues, i.e., approaches focusing on ritual should be capable of forming linkages or conceptual bridges with other perspectives (what is often referred to as theory integration).
4. Ritual is a social phenomenon which can be investigated with very different methods and types of evidence.
5. Rituals can have consequences for social organization, culture, and personality structure.
6. Ritual is a concept that has potential relevance for the multifaceted nature of social life. In other words, ritual can be utilized in a wide range of studies given the complexity of human behavior.

SRT directly addresses these concerns because it uses an analytical framework employing the idea of ritual to explain various social experiences. It provides abstract formulations which address basic social processes involving ritual dynamics in many empirical settings, e.g., schools, corporations, ethnic communities in urban areas or small towns, slave societies, health care facilities, sporting events, youth groups, political or religious groups and movements.

It examines some of the ways social dynamics operating at one level of analysis influence group processes occurring at other levels. This approach assumes ritual dynamics occur at different - micro to macro - levels of analysis and that ritual processes operating in social environments can influence other social units. For instance, face to face interaction in small groups can be influenced by the organization the group is located in, or even the larger community.

SRT creates different kinds of linkages with other perspectives and areas of study focused on various topics. For example, SRT complements and/or has developed links or bridges with the web/part-whole approach (Bernard Phillips; see also Tom Scheff), expectation states theory, macro social change/Dark Age research, in addition to studies of organizational deviance, emotions, ethnic communities and identity, disasters, social power, movements, and social inequality.

It uses multimethod research strategies. Research employs multiple methodologies involving both quantitative and qualitative types of evidence, e.g., historical-comparative analyses, experimental research, case studies (contemporary and historical), interviews, field research/ethnographies, content analysis of primary sources, reviews and analyses of secondary sources, surveys, focus groups, and interpretations of literary sources & accounts including novels, autobiographies, biographies, memoirs, travelogues, and diaries. Such an approach implies a respect for the strengths of different methods and recognition of how diverse research strategies can complement each other and enrich our investigations of social reality. In other words, when similar findings are obtained employing dissimilar methods focused on social phenomena occurring in different settings and historical periods we increase our confidence in the value of the explanatory formulations.

SRT emphasizes the relevance of rituals for social organization (or social structure). It stresses how ritualization occurs and leads to the formation, reproduction, and alteration of social structures. At the same time, it is directly relevant for understanding culture due to the central focus on rituals and symbolic meanings expressed through them (concepts traditionally recognized as important by culture scholars) and the role rituals play in giving meaning, direction, and focus to social life and group interaction. Furthermore, this approach has relevance for personality structures because individuals develop rituals (oftentimes derived from or influenced by groups), which have profound consequences for people’s cognitions, feelings, and overall character. While research in this area is in a preliminary stage, evidence from studies of concentration camp internment shows, for instance, how important personal and group rituals can be for enabling people to cope with highly disruptive experiences and maintaining a stable personality structure. Such an issue is largely a void in sociological research.

Finally, SRT provides a missing link in sociology because, given the enormous complexity of human behavior and our failure to address that complexity with our specialized approach to research in sociology and other social/behavioral sciences, it is a concept that can be used to examine many aspects of social reality. As previously noted, SRT provides abstract formulations and an analytical framework that can be applied to many different phenomena in a wide range of studies. Indeed, while a number of topics have already been investigated, the concept of ritual could be used in a much wider range of studies. Furthermore, given the complexity of human behavior and the limitations of specialized research, ritual may be a useful additional component in studies of many other research issues.

The following provides a brief description of the research that has been conducted or is being carried out using the theory.

In the SRT’s original formulation (1997) I emphasized how rituals rest upon cognitive schemas and express symbolic meanings or themes. Rituals are referred to as “ritualized symbolic practices.” I formally defined ritualization and presented a set of factors that influence the importance of rituals in a social setting and which explain how social action and social structure are reproduced and transformed.

The formulation emphasizes the importance of embedded groups or groups that are nested within a more encompassing collectivity, e.g., an informal youth group in a school, a slave society within a plantation, or a problem solving group within a formal organization such as a corporation or government office. The theory focuses on the ritualized actions performed in a wider social environment that acquire significance for actors and then become part of individual’s cognitive scripts for their immediate world. In this way, ritualized practices develop in ways that may confirm the patterns of behavior in the wider social environment, i.e., are reproduced.

Counter to what one might intuitively expect, research findings show that reproduction occurs in embedded groups even when no incentives exist for doing so, actors in such groups are briefly exposed to ritualized actions in the wider environment, only some members of the embedded group are exposed to those ritualized activities, it does not serve the interests of group members, and/or group members verbally express their opposition to the wider social milieu. These findings have been obtained in investigations of a variety of settings and historical periods including youth groups in 19th century French schools, experimental groups, slave societies in plantations, and youth trained in the ancient Spartan social system.

Several lines of theory development are currently under way each of which builds upon and involves an extension of the original formulation dealing with structural reproduction. And a number of studies have been or are currently being carried out providing tests, exemplifications, and applications of the original formulation and these extensions. All of this work is committed to the development of abstract concepts at varying levels of abstraction, grounding these concepts in empirical evidence, theory integration, and using this knowledge to mitigate social problems.

A large amount of this work is also collaborative in nature involving different researchers, i.e., teams of investigators.

As outlined below much of this research presently focuses on 1 – 8. This research involves a number of studies which attempt to examine different aspects of the complex nature of social behavior. Notwithstanding what has been done the potential exists for much more research that would advance these lines of investigation and expand upon the range of topics deserving of study. And the concept of ritual, these investigations, and additional issues under consideration can be fruitful for studies being conducted by others whose primary focus is on different research problems.

1. Disruptions and deritualization: Breakdowns of social and personal rituals, their consequences, and the ways people may cope with such experiences by reconstituting new or old ritualized practices.

Internment in concentrations camps (Knottnerus 2002; Knottnerus and Van de Poel-Knottnerus In Progress); displacement of youth during China’s Cultural Revolution (Wu and Knottnerus 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, In Progress); disasters (Thornburg, Knottnerus, and Webb 2007, Forthcoming); dark ages/periods of ecological degradation (Sarabia and Knottnerus Under Review); expeditions/exploratory parties (Knottnerus and Mason In Progress).

2. The role of emotions in rituals and collective ritual events.

A theory of emotional intensity, group commitment, and solidarity in collective events (Knottnerus Forthcoming a); large scale virtual game events and commitment to virtual communities (Simpson and Knottnerus In Progress).

3. Identity construction and ritual

Ethnic identity and biritual character among Chinese Americans (Guan and Knottnerus 1999, 2002); the maintenance of traditional female identity in Malawi (Minton and Knottnerus Forthcoming); the transformation of inmate identity (Minton and Knottnerus In Progress).

4. The enactment (i.e., activation and mobilization) of ritualized practices in organizations and communities.

Ritualized maltreatment/neglect in nursing homes (Ulsperger and Knottnerus 2007, 2008, Forthcoming, Under Review, In Progress); ritualized deviance in the Enron corporation (Knottnerus, Ulsperger, Cummins, and Osteen 2006; Ulsperger and Knottnerus 2006, 2008); organizational/group sponsorship of rituals in Asian Indian ethnic communities in the U.S. (Dasari and Knottnerus In Progress).

5. Reproduction of ritualized symbolic practices and social structure among groups.

Male and female youth societies in 19th century French elite educational institutions (Knottnerus and Van de Poel-Knottnerus 1999; Van de Poel-Knottnerus and Knottnerus 2002); experimental task groups (Sell, Knottnerus, Ellison, and Mundt 2000); slave societies in American slave plantations (Knottnerus 1999; Knottnerus, Monk, and Jones 1999); the cultivation of extreme militaristic behaviors and beliefs among youth in ancient Sparta (Knottnerus and Berry 2002); transmission of consumer rituals into religious organizations, i.e., megachurches (Thornburg and Knottnerus In Progress a, b, c).

6. Strategic ritualization (ritual legitimators, sponsors, entrepreneurs, and enforcers) and the role of power.

Strategic uses of ritual by individuals and groups in Italian American ethnic communities (Knottnerus and LoConto 2003); ritual enforcement and power in Nazi Germany, the Orange Order, and Pow Wows (Knottnerus, Van Delinder, and Edwards In Progress); the Orange Order and parading (Edwards and Knottnerus 2007, Under Review); Chinatown/community protest movement (Guan and Knottnerus 2006); Notting Hill, London Carnival (Edwards and Knottnerus In Progress a, b, c); the reconstruction of Papuan society by the Indonesian state (Berry and Knottnerus In Progress).

7. Ritual dynamics involving social inequality, distinction, and exclusion .

Ritualized traditional behaviors of women volunteers in NGOs addressing women’s rights in India (Mitra and Knottnerus Forthcoming); royal women in ancient patriarchal India (Mitra and Knottnerus 2004); golf, civility, class, and exclusion in America (Varner and Knottnerus 2002, Under Review); gender inequality in Malawi (Minton and Knottnerus Forthcoming).

8. Applied research, social policy, and personal/social change.

Alteration of ritualized practices in nursing homes (see Ulsperger and Knottnerus sources); development of rituals countering consumerized practices in religious organizations (Thornburg and Knottnerus In Progress b); facilitating ethnic entrepreneurship among immigrants in Canadian society (Lin, Guan, and Knottnerus In Progress); Inmate change (Minton and Knottnerus In Progress); implications of ritual dynamics for individual and social behavior (Knottnerus In Progress a); ritual dynamics contributing to the development of and changes in “world views.”

Additional issues under consideration include:

* Legitimation of ritual enactments and group conditions.

Model of ritual and legitimation processes (Knottnerus In Progress b).

* Mechanisms of group attachment and commitment (e.g., radical conversion in certain religious or political groups, terrorist/suicide groups, cults, etc.

* Structural transformation – changes in ritual practices and arrangements.

* Consumer rituals in contemporary society – inter-institutional transmission of ritual practices.

These lines of research [both current studies and issues under consideration] are organized in terms of their analytical focus. Disruption/deritualization studies concentrate on the basic assumption that rituals are crucial to social life while emphasizing the symbolic dimension of ritual practices. Work on emotions, identity, and legitimacy direct attention to other key components of rituals in addition to their symbolic content. The analysis of ritual enactments in organizations and communities, group attachment and commitment, structural reproduction, and structural transformation directs attention to the impact of rituals on social arrangements and group dynamics. Research dealing with power and strategic ritualization, social inequality, and the spread of consumer rituals further broadens the analysis of rituals and examines the ways they may be linked to and affect critical social phenomena and conditions within society. The last line of investigation focuses on applications and interventions involving ritual dynamics.

In conclusion this research rests upon the assumption that ritualization is a key dimension of social behavior as are other aspects of social action such as rationality emphasized by social exchange theory and rational choice theory, symbolic interpretation by symbolic interaction, or emotions within the sociology of emotions. Put somewhat differently, ritual is like an engine which drives much social life, sometimes quite intensely.

All of this work centers on three interrelated goals: (a) the development of theoretical ideas explaining ritual dynamics; (b) empirical research which substantiates and illustrates these abstract concepts; and (c) using this knowledge to alleviate social problems, social inequality, and dehumanizing social conditions.

In regard to the latter [which is directly related to number 8, “Applied research”] future theory/research will give greater attention to the ways ritual practices can play a fundamental role in the creation and perpetuation of undesirable behaviors and social arrangements and how an understanding of ritual dynamics can provide the basis for reducing, if not eliminating, these conditions.

For instance, recent research focuses on organizational deviance and how bureaucratic structures facilitate certain kinds of ritualized behaviors in the daily lives of people who work in organizations which provide care for the elderly. We (see Ulsperger and Knottnerus sources) argue that bureaucratic work rituals are an important part of social life for nursing home employees and these behaviors can lead to unanticipated, negative consequences involving neglect. This research indicates that certain ritualized symbolic practices that express bureaucratic themes dealing with staff separation, rules, documentation, and efficiency influence the behavior of employees and contribute to the unintended maltreatment of residents involving, for instance, physical neglect, medical dereliction, personal negligence, and bodily harm in both for-profit and nonprofit nursing homes in the U.S. Various policy recommendations and strategies have been presented which address these conditions and are aimed at cultivating alternative ritualized behaviors in such settings.

At the same time this research reveals the complexity of settings such as nursing homes and the ways bureaucracy, organizational dynamics, and social behavior can intersect resulting in undesirable consequences. Applications require dealing with the complexity of social life, a condition which is not necessarily advanced, if not drastically limited, by sociological specialization. By employing SRT with its focus on ritual in everyday life in social environments such as these we gain a fuller and more accurate understanding of one type of social problem.

Other examples of social problems and conditions which could be examined using the concept of ritual include the spread of consumer rituals through different institutions and organizations such as religious groups and megachurches, the misuse of power and rituals including the manipulation of rituals by totalitarian and other states in the modern world, identity and behavioral changes in prison inmates, and ritual processes contributing to social inequality including gender, racial, or class inequalities. Another concern focuses on how rituals could be facilitated that help people cope with disruptions and deritualization involving, for instance, disasters, severe medical conditions interrupting people’s normal lives, and long term, stressful endeavors characterized by extreme isolation such as expeditions or space missions. A number of these issues are currently being studied.

While theory/research to date is scholarly in nature, and will largely continue to be, some future work will be directed to both scholarly/academic audiences and a more general readership, e.g., forthcoming book on nursing homes, abuse, and bureaucratic rituals.

References to works (and copies of papers) utilizing this approach are available from the author upon request at david.knottnerus@okstate.edu (see also the Sociological Imagination Group website and link to author on the Department of Sociology website, College of A&S, Oklahoma State University).