Re: Rites of Passage
Len Piotrowski (lpiotrow@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu)
Thu, 22 Aug 1996 18:35:57 GMT
In article <4vfq9q$34f@news.sdd.hp.com> geroldf@sdd.hp.com (Gerold Firl) writes:
>[snip]
>|> > social role." No. They got circumcised. Why?
>I don't know much about the psychological aspects; can you provide any
>insight into how the participants view the process?
I would suggest that the social context defines this meaning. Nothing short of
understanding this interactive situation will answer the question.
>It may be that being a man is viewed as a somewhat challanging role,
>and having the courage and will to undergo a painful process in the
>company of your peers and elders provides a better foundation for
>manhood than a lively round of bingo.
This, of course, is pure speculation, and defies the appeal to " the
participants view" sought earlier.
>|> > >Since a major part of the adult role consists of bringing the next
>|> > >generation into existance, the rite should be expected to include overt
>|> > >sexual components.
>|> > The "adult role" consists in a million different activities, including
>|> > of course ones related to sex, of which their are an infinite number
>|> > of symbols. Circumcision? Why on earth that?
>Seems pretty weird to me; I'd like to hear your views.
If "adult role" is hypothesized as a significant transition stage in a
culture, and one of the "roles" associated with this "adult role" is
parenting, why the surprise that meaningful ritual is associated with
genitalia?
>|> I think it was van Gennep (not sure about this) that made reference to teeth
>|> filing (canines specifically) as a rite of passage in SE Asia (?)(maybe
>|> India, oh well, I can't remember). Who ever it was said that this rite was a
>|> symbol for controlling the "animal" and emphasing the human. Could
>|> circumcision be something akin to this? Redefining sexual behavior/maturity
>|> as wholely human by separating a human penis from an animal one? (That's
>|> probably way out there but oh well.)
>Interesting possibility. All forms of body modification would seem to
>satisfy this criterion.
I would dispute that. Aboriginal subincision seems intent on making the
symbolic link with animal nature.
> In addition to separating human from animal,
>they also serve to separate man from man: each culture has their own
>distinctive badges of belonging.
>
Wouldn't expect the aborigines to be invited to any local circumcisions in the
near future, and vice versa. <g> If the ritual is so secret, closed, and
proscribed, how can it meaningfully act as a public, open, and generally
accessible symbol of differentiation?
>|> > >[snip]
>Perhaps we could compare the all-male rites of the masons with the
>all-female rites of the dionysian orders in greece. I believe that
>hamilton commented on the meanings of those curious goings-on; I've
>always wondered.
Except for the obvious, in what way are they comparable?
>I'm not sure if they can legitimately be considered rites of passage,
>but how do they fit within the circumcision/castration hypothesis?
I believe the emphasis was on sexual attributes of the ritual. It would be my
recollection that the Dionysian rituals were emphatically characterized by
orgiastic activity. I would also note that any male unluckily caught on those
nights witnessing the activities, the least of his troubles would be
castration (female warrior instincts, Firl?).
Cheers,
--Lenny__
"If you can't remember what mnemonic means, you've got a problem."
- perlstyle
|