Ritual Discourse in Role-Playing Games

[John Kim]

The only thing that's "objectionable" (though for me that's way too strong a word) is if you mean to preclude the ability to say "Hey, good point about this ritual stuff - so maybe it'd help improve my gameplay if I borrowed x approach from ritual?"  I mean, it's fine to be cautious about that kind of application, but if it's entirely excluded - why bother?

I don't think Chris is saying that.  In fact, I think that the analysis as ritual could suggest all sorts of techniques and insights for game play -- just as relation to narrative forms has lead to innovations like Egrian moral premise and relationship maps.  Similarly, borrowing from ritual traditions could give us ideas like how to conduct the start and close of game play (parallel to separation and aggregation in rites of passage).  

What the theory won't do is say whether or not any particular technique or category of techniques is good or bad.  Rather, people just have to try it and decide if they like it.

[M. J. Young]

So what I need to know is, does anyone actually want to read this?  I mean, as in "is willing to read, think about, and debate a little bit to be sure they more or less get"?

It would actually be a fantastically useful thing for me to do anyway, given that I have to teach this stuff for the rest of my life, but it's sufficiently an odd thing to do on the Forge that I'd need prior support, if that makes sense.

Well, I don't know how things work in your school, Chris, but wouldn't having such a text be useful in your teaching endeavors? I know that in my Intro to Political Science class the professors had arranged to collect about forty essays from many different sources and had them bound and printed by the college printer and sold to students through the bookstore. If you don't have a text that does this, creating one for use in your classes might be an ideal start--and if you do it well, there are probably other professors in other schools who are similarly wondering why there isn't a short, simple text that provides such an overview on which they can build.

For my part, I am so swamped here that I'm several articles behind on my reading as it is (thinking of printing some out, but I've a stack of things I'm editing right now which make the bulk of my reading efforts outside forums and e-mail), so I can't commit to reading such a series however valuable it would be to me--but if there were a PDF, I would probably download it, print it, and add it to the stack. I can't guess what month it would reach the top, but (unlike you perhaps) I don't believe any theory that is true is impractical. Being so much a generalist, anything I can learn is good.

--M. J. Young

[james_west]

What about the critique of GNS, for example?

I didn't see you say much of anything very controversial about GNS (at least, it wasn't controversial in -my- opinion) aside from the following somewhat sly inclusion at the end:

The natural upshot of such an endeavor is to reify the categories as ontologically legitimate, mystify their constructed character, and thus naturalize the authority-claims latent within such structures. .... Narrativist orientations do not differ from Simulationist or Gamist ones except insofar as we construct them so. Classification is the basis of comparison, not of truth or certainty.

But even that isn't really all that controversial, to me. I agree with you that there is no objective reality to the GNS system, in the sense that there is no objective reality to division of vertebrates into fish, reptiles, amphibians, birds, and mammals. Both of them are useful constructions for a specific set of purposes, and no more except in the sense that people tend to mystify any classification system. This does not mean that there can not be other classification systems more useful for a different set of purposes (or even, theoretically, for the same set of purposes, although you'd have to argue that a little harder ...).

Or the stuff about feminism?

This bit I thought could be generalized a great deal. One of the fellows I used to game with objected strenuously to the presence of -any- spectators at a game. I think people object to the presence of girlfriends on the basis that they suspect that they are stealth spectators, and thus will break 'separation'. They are thus the same as avoidance of any outside influences (thus, similar to objecting to small talk). In any case, I generally see that if/when the girlfriend establishes her bonafides as a role-player, all of this disappears.

My point here is that I think this really has nothing to do with attitudes towards women.

Similarly, I'm not sure I agree with your section in which you claim that the freedom role-players are allowed mostly results in them reconfirming societal norms. This happens sometimes, but I think no more often than it doesn't. To mix my theories, to claim that we inevitably confirm societal norms rather says that narrativism as Edwards supports -never- takes place; the answers to the thematic questions are predetermined.

Or the stuff about ... social contract problems, and the social dynamic of gaming?

This, I thought, had by far the most interesting implications. It had, for me, a bit of the 'recognition of my own experience' feeling that makes me trust an argument.

A few of the things I particularly liked:

Separation as an explicit concept is very useful. I strongly recognize that most games, and my games, are a flop if it isn't accomplished. For just about every type of game, it is necessary to establish an appropriate mood among the players, or the game just doesn't work. Note that this isn't true for every game; it is perfectly possible to go bowling without having a separation phase (the thing with the shoes notwithstanding).

The idea of aggregation. This is something that's a little tricky, socially, and hasn't -ever- been explicitly dealt with. People deal with how to wrap up -in game- activities succesfully (denouement), but I've seen little explicit discussion of how you end a game -socially- (regardless of the point in plot). I see the possibility for useful ideas here.

The consideration of structures of authority and relationship external to the game intruding to within the game, even into the use of the rules. Not sure where to go with this, but it ought to be very interesting.

- James

[clehrich]

So, to anyone nuts enough still to be following this....

Assuming you all read James's last post, which included a large number of important points, I want to ask a question.  I'll get back to why I'm asking in just a second.

Skipping over the point about GNS, with which my disagreements are very trivial and can happen somewhere else if at all, James made several interesting remarks about the feminism, social contract, and so forth things in the ritual article.  His phrasing was primarily (I think deliberately) oriented toward the constructive, i.e. toward how he would go and think about making use of such notions in game design or play.

So what I want to ask is this: do the ideas, as he put them, actually seem useful to you?  Does that accord at all with what you thought reading those parts of the article (assuming you stayed awake long enough to get there)?

Now, why am I asking?

Well, after all this stuff about me providing a summary of some ritual theory, I notice that -- I think, I have to really process this very very slowly -- the points James picked up are all quite startlingly in accord with a particular approach to ritual theory; furthermore, the bits he doesn't seem to like are also ones those guys don't like either.  This fascinates me, because this approach -- basically Grimes, Schechner, and maybe the very late career of Turner, for those who read this stuff -- is not one I like at all for most ritual work I do.  This suggests to me one of several possibilities:

1. Cynically, I suppose it's possible that James is picking up on what I don't like and throwing it back at me.  I think this is very, very unlikely.  It doesn't seem like James, and I think he'd have to know an awful lot about ritual theory to pick it up with this precision for this purpose.

2. I'm for some reason presenting a theoretical approach I don't like exceedingly sympathetically, probably overcompensating in the interest of balance.  I doubt this, but it is true that some of the way I split up the approach to John's binary model might support this.

3. Most likely, there's something about that theoretical model that fits RPG's rather better than it fits the sort of ritual material I usually work on.

I realize that I can't seriously ask you all to assess that question head-on; I haven't presented the theories clearly or coherently.  (If someone out there has been reading this stuff in depth, I'd love to hear about it, but if not no worries.)  So what I'm asking:

If after reading James's critical and constructive remarks, the ones in the last 2/3 of his last post, you more or less thought, "Yeah -- sounds right, tell me more," I want to know.  Because the fact that I really can't stand Grimes and Schechner actually suggests to me that their theoretical models, while crap as general theories, may be strikingly helpful in a constructive sense to gamers.

...Which I think is something you'd want to know about, if true.

Anyway, that's my question.

Chris Lehrich

[Ron Edwards]

Hiya Chris,

My answer to your questions: I'm with James in all particulars, regarding your article. And it strikes me that he (and I) are simply approaching the concept of "ritual" in a way that leads to his points being very consistent with one another.

If that way is also consistent with a particular body of theory/approach to "ritual," then that's neat. The legitimacy of that body of thought seems, to me, to be relatively unimportant - if there are objections to it out there that really stomp it into the dirt, then maybe they could be laid out and shown to apply (or not) to James' points. But if your objections to that body of theory is ... well, "I hate it," or "It's not consistent with how I want to do it," then you have the usual multiple-subdisciplines issue going on, and we should all just embroider different banners and still be happy.

In other words, I guess I'm coming down in favor of the "consistent with the theory you hate" idea, but leavening it with "And so what, be happy."

Best,
Ron

[clehrich]

Ron,

I think I phrased that last post badly.  I was coming off of all that discussion of analysis and synthesis.  What I'm saying is that if the various responses seem strikingly in accord with a sophisticated body of theory about ritual, albeit one I dislike, but about which most folks here don't particularly know much, then that body of theory might be constructively useful for game design, which seems to be what a lot of folks are sort of hoping for if ritual theory is going to be brought to the Forge table.  

I don't want to prejudice the debate by much explaining the theory, or my objections, at the moment.  I just want to collect data.  If you find James's comments here parallel to your thinking, then that supports my suspicion that this sort of theory may be useful.  The fact that I don't like it as general ritual theory is neither here nor there; this is now a synthetic and not an analytical question.

Of course, for me as analyst, it's quite interesting to see what modes of theory turn out to be of synthetic value, for quite other reasons....

Chris Lehrich

[Walt Freitag]

I know the thread's moved on, but for the sake of fairness I want to acknowledge Chris's response to my skeptical questions.

"I modified X, Y, and Z characteristics typical of ritual to a role playing instance, and it did/didn't improve the experience."

"Means nothing. By introducing changes in your attempt to apply it you've made any conclusions invalid, as the thesis applies only to the pristine unmodified circumstance. And in any case, the thesis isn't intended to be applied that way, so any results of such testing are irrelevant to its validity."

The first half of the hypothetical response I don't understand; can you clarify? As to the second, I'd agree: let's suppose somebody said, "Okay, well, I made my game have a clear premise that we addressed, making it more Narrativist, but my game didn't improve." Okay, so what? Who said that Narrativist is better universally? Similarly, if you make some changes to make your game more like some particular mode of ritual behavior, who's to say that this should make it better?

The first half of the hypothetical response was apparently a misunderstanding of your position. I was reading into it a case of a hypothesis untestable because any attempt to test would necessarily interfere with the identity of the thing being tested. A slight variation of the same idea of the wine that evaporates if you open the bottle; this would be wine that ceases to be wine if you try to taste it.

The idea of testing (as opposed to applying) an idea outside its intended applications being necessarily invalid is problematic if taken too far. Ideas have logical implications that can fall outside the originally intended applications, and predictions based on those implications can indeed be tested, and the results of those tests must be given their due. For instance, the fact that a candle will not burn in vacuum sheds doubt on the hypothesis that candle flames are immaterial spirits, despite any assertion that the test is meaningless because candles were not intended to burn in vacuum.

However, your point is well taken too. Testing in terms of "improving" isn't going to get us anywhere. A slightly (but only slightly) less perilous course for testing the thesis would be to attempt to remove all apparent ritual elements from a role playing activity and see whether or not the participants still recognize the activity as role playing.

The question of testing really arises in a few specific places; here are a couple I'm thinking of off the top of my head:

*   If RPG's are ritual, that explains the following seemingly-odd fact about RPG play, because in ritual that would be expected and normal
*   If RPG's are ritual, that suggests that the following ought to be true about them; let's go look and see
*   If RPG's are ritual, that suggests that the following types of theoretical models ought to apply; let's see what that produces
*   If RPG's are ritual, that explains a certain thing we've been struggling with about such-and-such rituals, because in RPG's that very thing is made quite overt and is actually analyzed by gamers, giving us (ritual theorists) a useful handle for explaining what's going on in these other rituals

Does that help?

Indeed it does. The first and fourth items aren't useful for the skeptic because they can only be confirmatory (but there may be negative variations that would not be). The second and third sound completely reasonable and effective, as long as the results of the examinations are interpreted in an intellectually honest manner. (A lot of psychological research has demonstrated a tendency for people to give weight to confirming evidence and find excuses to discount contrary evidence; we must be careful not to do that.)

Sorry for the digression back to earlier issues. My questions have been answered and my caveats have been aired. Carry on.

- Walt

[contracycle]

I had a though on the reinforcement of social norms issue.

Unsurprisingly, I'm fully in agreement with the diagnosis of ritual as the obfuscation of social athorioty, the mystification of the origin of dictatorial legitimacy.  I therefore I agree with the description of initiation rituals as carrying out this function.  The point I wanted to raise is this: unlike an initiation ritual, RPG is largely conducted by peers, which robs the liminal space of an authority which imposes the local dogma.  In this regard, RPG is like an initation ritual that is NOT lead by an existing adept.

One might think that the GM takes on this role, and they do to a degree, but they too have to fight tooth and nail for their vision of the social order to be accepted if it contradicts the expectations of other participants.  Specifically here I am aiming at RPG as conducted by adolescents, which I feel throws the social norms issue into sharper contrast, because by and large these participants have little to no experience of the realities of adult life.  When I started RPG, issues surrounding the running of a household were not just relatively uninteresting by comparison to smiting orcs, they were actually alien.

Therefore, I suggest much autonomously conducted RPG resembles the Lord of the Flies, in that the people constructing and enforcing the social norms are doing so from a very limited perspective.  Because nobody is capable of adopting a genuinely authoritative position from which to impose a norm, nor has such as a goal of engaging in the activity, such a position can only be achieved by massive and serial conflict until deference and consensus emerge.

Lastly, a comment on the Marxist analysis of the ritual establishment and obfuscation of social authority.  It is indeed the case that this view as to the nature and purpose of ritual activity is held, but it is not true to say that this view precludes ritual activity being subverted or exploited for revolutionary puporses.  Dialectical Materialsim holds that A is not equal to A, and that the material implementation of a model inevitably and unavoidably introduces deviations from the model in abstract; this easily opens a gap in which a specific subversive activity can seize and exploit an existing hegemonic discourse to present an alternative discourse or an advocacy of a hegemony based on alternate principles.  In addition, I disagree that there be a necessary division between the beneficiaries of such ritual systems and those arguably disadvantaged by them, as the argument rather is that the emotional need to construct such a authoritative structure precedes self-awareness or articulation of this need.  While there IS a functional division, there is no need in this view for such construction to be engaged in deliberately or consciously.

[chadu]

Very interesting article. I support you wholeheartedly in the concept of pure analytical (rather than practical) studies of the anthropology of games. Your idea of RPGs as ritual is intriguing, and worth further work.

Personally, I think the document started to slack off when you started discussing social norms, feminism, degree of absorption into characterization, and suchlike. These thick and meaty subjects -- upon which gallons of ink or virtual-ink gets spilled monthly -- seemed like you walked through them pro-forma. I believe that you have made a nice sketch of the vague areas, but need to do deeper mapping.

Out of curiosity, have you read Gary Fine's Shared fantasy: role-playing games as social worlds?

http://isbndb.com/d/book/shared_fantasy.html

I don't recall seeing it in the sources.

Anyway, good start. Keep it up!

CU

[Librisia]

Greetings and please 'scuse my newbieness.

I would like to ask Mr. Lehrich why he classifies White Wolf's games as Neo Pagan?  I am about to post an article which may clarify why this seemingly tangential point of his article is of particular interest to me.

Thanks again,

Krista

[clehrich]

Krista,

Welcome to the Forge!

And "Chris" will do fine, thanks -- no need for formality.

I would like to ask Mr. Lehrich why he classifies White Wolf's games as Neo Pagan?  I am about to post an article which may clarify why this seemingly tangential point of his article is of particular interest to me.

First of all, I look forward to the article.

I have to go back and look at my exact wording, but I didn't really mean to say that White Wolf games are Neopagan games, as such.  What I had in mind was that I think many of their games more or less consciously draw on themes and rhetoric common to large blocks of the Neopagan community, thereby targeting an audience more or less.  

I don't know whether the authors are Neopagans, or anything like that.  But if you look at the way they moved the background of Ars Magica, for example, you'll notice that over the course of the AM3 supplements-n-stuff runs, they "drifted" the Christianity of the medieval world.  Initially, there was a kind of perpetual tension between Magi and the Church, primarily because of the Dominion effect.  By late in the supplement series, the Church was actually more or less run by demons, and was out to get all women and relatively interesting people; you had shamans running around loose all over the place; the Faeries were pretty clearly the representations of nature; hedge witches were borderline nature-worshipers; and so forth.  In other words, you moved from "This is an historical game set in the Christian middle ages" to (implicitly) "This is a game set in a fantasy version of how many Wiccans in particular talk about the middle ages and the run-up to the Burning Times."

I think you can also see this stuff pretty clearly in Werewolf; the rest of the WOD games fit, I think, but I don't know them so well, and I'm not absolutely sure how VtM fits in (I never liked it, so never read it carefully even once).

Does that answer the question?

Chris Lehrich

[clehrich]

CU [chadu],

I think the document started to slack off when you started discussing social norms, feminism, degree of absorption into characterization, and suchlike. These thick and meaty subjects -- upon which gallons of ink or virtual-ink gets spilled monthly -- seemed like you walked through them pro-forma.

True enough, but I really wasn't trying to solve anything in these areas, if you see what I mean.  That is, I don't see this as a complete model in any sense.  I see it as a prolegomenon to a great deal of interesting work that could and should be done on the anthropology and sociology of RPG's.  Thus in these particular areas my main point is to demonstrate that application of such models raises interesting questions, while at the same time fitting more or less kinda roughly pretty well.

As to Gary Fine -- haven't read it, but will soon.  Thanks for the link.

[chadu]

CU [chadu],

I think the document started to slack off when you started discussing social norms, feminism, degree of absorption into characterization, and suchlike. These thick and meaty subjects -- upon which gallons of ink or virtual-ink gets spilled monthly -- seemed like you walked through them pro-forma.

True enough, but I really wasn't trying to solve anything in these areas, if you see what I mean.  That is, I don't see this as a complete model in any sense.  I see it as a prolegomenon to a great deal of interesting work that could and should be done on the anthropology and sociology of RPG's.  Thus in these particular areas my main point is to demonstrate that application of such models raises interesting questions, while at the same time fitting more or less kinda roughly pretty well.

Fair enough; let me just state that I would very much like to read an analytical work -- rather than a practical work -- on women and women's issues (amongst other issues; some others of interest to me would be catharsis issues -- unconscious catharsis vs. conscious/direct catharsis -- and how those relate to game-derailing actions or players) in gaming.

As to Gary Fine -- haven't read it, but will soon.  Thanks for the link.

De nada.

CU

[clehrich]

Contracycle,

I think we're on the same page for a Marxist read of ritual, but I'll make my pitch and you can tell me where I jump the rails:

The point I wanted to raise is this: unlike an initiation ritual, RPG is largely conducted by peers, which robs the liminal space of an authority which imposes the local dogma.  In this regard, RPG is like an initation ritual that is NOT lead by an existing adept.... [cutting discussion of GM as adept]

This is true in a direct sense, but what the "practice" approach to ritual behavior suggests is that in fact authority and power is not nearly so strongly vested in specific and localizable authority figures and institutions as observers or participants would tend to think.  In fact, a great deal of the power of such authorities is constructed, perpetuated, and in fact policeed/effected by those most affected by this authority.  This really picks up from Durkheim's insights 90 years back, runs through a Marxist turn, and comes back around post-Structuralism ("post" in the sense of "after," not "cooler than").

So let me give you an example that has nothing to do (apparently) with ritual or RPG's, but which may be concrete and clear.  Bear with me a sec.

You have, I assume, noticed that lately a lot of young women are running around with low-rider pants and high-rider shirts, exposing their belly buttons and often their butt cracks.  More radically, some such women are also wearing high-riding thong underpants, the waistbands of which rise well above their belt-lines and into the exposed skin space.  I mean, right now it's freezing cold, but you know what I'm talking about, right?

Okay.  So I walked through an interpretation of this with my students last semester, and found that it explains the practice thing pretty well.  Basically, here's the symbol: underpants (by metonymy, anyway -- it's literally a small part of the underpants standing in for the whole thing, but nevermind).

So what does the symbol mean?  Sexuality, simply speaking.
How might it be read in a hypothetical conservative sense?  Sexual availability: women who dress like this must be sluts.
Does it in fact necessarily mean this?  No: no woman is "asking for" rape, for example, simply by wearing high underwear.
Do these women know that the symbol may be read this way?  Yes, of course; they're not stupid.
So what's going on here?

From the women's perspective, consciously or otherwise (stay away from that division -- it goes nowhere good), the deploying of the symbol into the public sphere may express any of a number of related concepts:

I feel sexy, I look great, I am confident about my body, I think you will be shocked and that's tough, I am young (and you are old), I have to be one of the cool kids and this is what they wear, I need love and must offer my sexuality to get some....  (Now you roll your own!)

Okay, so one of the ideas that people get told is that if they do somewhat radical, socially disapproved things -- such as showing their underwear in public -- they will be downtrodden.  Another thing they get told is that exciting, nonconformist people are the ones who take risks by doing just this sort of thing.  Another thing is that the only way to break old-fashioned custom is to break the rules and get away with it.  And so on.

What the practice folks would tend to emphasize is that absolutely all of this is true, simultaneously.  The point is that "the system," i.e the cultural system which says that visible underwear = sexuality, is required in any case.  If you're going to wear this kind of style, it is (and you are) empowered only if you and everyone else agrees that visible underwear = sexuality.  Therefore, the only thing that really isn't true in a direct sense is that there's any hope of revolution here: in order for the style to have any effect, it must recapitulate and perpetuate the system against which it nominally acts.  Let me put that directly: in order to challenge the system through symbol, i.e. through behavior or language or really pretty much anything, you have to perpetuate the system.  If you try to challenge the system without perpetuating the system, you have to disempower yourself in the process; unless you intend to do this through violence alone, you can certainly alter the particulars of the system, but you can't alter it's fundamental structures: they are essentially invariant.

Consequently, the fact that any RPG game exists within a culture, with a history and a structure, both of the mainstream and most particularly of the subculture (the hobby), with its traditions (D&D, for example), means that everyone happily constructs their own "adept," their own "system" into which they insert themselves and to which they subordinate themselves.  The authority against which they must struggle is precisely that which they project and set up simply by setting aside perfect liberty and independence -- in other words, the authority and the "system" here, against which all struggle and conflict occurs, is the basis of what 'round these parts is called Social Contract.  Yes, we're fighting ourselves.  And that's the way it always is; that's the human condition.

Does that help in any way?  I kind of got rolling there.

Because nobody is capable of adopting a genuinely authoritative position from which to impose a norm, nor has such as a goal of engaging in the activity, such a position can only be achieved by massive and serial conflict until deference and consensus emerge.

Yes, but I'd argue that this massive and serial conflict, as well as this deference and consensus, is totally necessary and will happen very rapidly; in fact, it will happen more smoothly the more socially mutually comfortable and compatible the players are.  In other words, in a game with a perfect absence of dysfunction, total authority is constructed so seamlessly that it is naturalized and obscured, invisible to those who have displaced their own power into it in the name of cooperation.

Lastly, a comment on the Marxist analysis of the ritual establishment and obfuscation of social authority.  It is indeed the case that this view as to the nature and purpose of ritual activity is held, but it is not true to say that this view precludes ritual activity being subverted or exploited for revolutionary puporses.

Yes, that was simplistic.  Sorry.  As I think you can see from the above, however, the point is that such subversion and exploitation occurs nevertheless within a sphere of deeper submission to authority; it changes the names and the faces of the authoritative structure, but ultimately it leaves their picture-frames in the same halls, and then tries to find new names and faces to hang there just the same.  Of course change happens, even radical change, but ultimately an awful lot of the change ends up producing excitingly new forms of the same old misery.

Incidentally, I'm not entirely convinced by the practice approach which I've been trying to explain and defend here.  But I haven't really fully formulated what I think about ritual in terms that I understand, so please don't ask me to explain it in terms that anyone else can understand.

Chris Lehrich

Note
If you want to get the "practice" thing, the best place to start is Sherry Ortner's article "Theory in Anthropology Since the Sixties," anthologized and reprinted about eight hundred billion times.  Next, I like Catherine Bell's Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice, but I happen to like ritual theory as a particular issue.  Some people love Pierre Bourdieu, Outline of a Theory of Practice, but I find it dense almost beyond belief; brilliant, but dense.  I dislike Michel de Certeau's The Practice of Everyday Life, but some people find it a lucid introduction to the subject.  If'n you ask me, I think you'd better also read Claude Levi-Strauss's The Savage Mind and be damn sure you understand the first 2/3 anyway, or you'll end up like some of these idiot grad-students one sees at conferences grabbing the wrong end of the stick and beating around the bush with it, to quote "Yes, Minister."

[clehrich]

Fair enough; let me just state that I would very much like to read an analytical work -- rather than a practical work -- on women and women's issues (amongst other issues; some others of interest to me would be catharsis issues -- unconscious catharsis vs. conscious/direct catharsis -- and how those relate to game-derailing actions or players) in gaming.

AMEN Brother Or Sister!

Sorry.  Er, so would I.

I should note that I'm not particularly knowledgeable about these sorts of things, but boy howdy would I like to see someone who is take this stuff on!

Chris Lehrich

Note
Incidentally, for the catharsis thing, the best place I can think of to start in a specifically ritual direction would be to read Malinowski's Magic, Science, and Religion, then read some of the big guns in Anthro from, say, the 1970's and 80's discussing Malinowski (in retrospectives and such).  Malinowski had a catharsis theory of magic and ritual, you see, but it was kind of unsophisticated by modern standards; I suspect you'd find Sherry Ortner, for example, would have a really sophisticated re-thinking of it for her own purposes.