On 2005-01-04 08:41, JR wrote:
Not that this response is worth much academically, but in thinking about such rites and rituals as the pollen path or sand painting, it's hard to immagine that these would arrise of their own accord and for a myth to explain them later.
Good point, J.R.
Frankly, this area will remain controversial for some time to come - it's a hotly debated topic within the field of mythological studies. An excellent anthology on the subject,
The Myth and Ritual Theory, edited by Robert Segal (who authored the first book-length critique of Campbell's work), includes contributions from James Frazier, Jane Harrison, Lord Raglan, Bronislaw Malinowski, Mircea Eliade, Northrop Frye, Walter Burkert, Claude Levi-Strauss, and some twenty other anthropologists and mythologists over the last century and a half (none, though, by Campbell).
Some, such as William Robertson Smith, aver "in almost every case the myth was derived from the ritual, and not the ritual from the myth" - in other words, ritual is primary, and myth is simply a later religious explanation. Others, like Edward Tylor, claim that "myth is more important than ritual, which is the
application, not the
subject of myth."
Mircea Eliade points to rituals in Mesopotamian culture performed before beginning construction, whether of a peasant's hut, king's palace, or a god's temple, which are reenactments of the Creation myth
... makes sense - erecting a house is an act of creation that mirrors the creation of the cosmos. The Creation myth clearly antedates the construction rituals
... but where do the cosmogonic creation myths come from? Do they arise out of an earlier ritual?
Campbell believes myth (and ritual) arise out of the visionary experience: first comes the vision. He offers the example of Black Elk, who in adolescence experienced a powerful vision arising out of the shamanic crisis. This vision pointed to changes in Sioux culture with the predominance of the white man, and signaled changes in the mythic imagination. Eventually, Black Elk constructed rituals based on his visions that his fellow Sioux could follow to realize and assimilate the mythic imagery. Here at least is one instance of rituals developed after a mythic vision - and there are others.
Did the rituals of the early Church come first, and then were followed by the detailed Christian mythology we find in the New Testament and later traditions - or did the visionary experience of Jesus and his disciples give birth to the rituals that reenact the Christian myth?
We might say the myth - the story of Christ - came first, and the rituals developed later, which would be accurate ... but then, several of these rituals - Christmas, Easter, eating and drinking the body and blood of the God - were practiced long before Jesus was born - which is also accurate.
Myth first, or ritual? Chicken, or egg? I'm drawn to both positions at once - myth and ritual are so closely intertwined, and there are strong examples on both sides of the divide - so part of me wonders if maybe it depends on circumstance?
Nevertheless, when Campbell claims ritual is a reenactment of myth, this too makes sense to me (and doesn't necessarily mean that myths are always the cause of ritual and never the other way around).
As J.R. points out, the elaborate sand painting of the Dine (or Navajo) is an enactment of myth - an individual who needs healing is placed in the center of a sand painting depicting a scene from a healing story, and then becomes the hero of the story the ritual depicts.
Which came first? Probably doesn't matter to the person who is healed through the collaboration of ritual and myth
... but it is fun to speculate.
blessed be
bodhibliss