I am reading a very good book by philosopher Byung-Chul Han entitled The Disappearance of Rituals: A Topology of the Present. Originally written in German in 2019, it came to my attention only last week. I am glad that a philosopher dedicates attention to what, for me, has become a major interest, even though I am the kind of person who gathers people for ritual action, while he is interested mostly in a description/diagnosis.
The first chapter of the book, “The Compulsion of Production,” opens with a marvelous statement: Rites create a community without communication, while today communication without community dominates. I agree wholeheartedly that ritual action does the magic, i.e. community building, in and of itself. True rituals don’t need many words, and surely don’t need to bother with what today is called “content.” In our society, however, we have plenty of communication and not a lot of community.
The genius of Byung-Chul Han’s analysis rests in identifying ritual as the missing piece, the absence of which both signifies and produces a society without community, an atomized society. The compulsion to produce and consume has deleterious effects on humanity at this time in its history. It willingly destroys the lastedness of things, thus creating instability.
I think of objects in the home which might have taken time and effort to acquire, and are cherished for their beauty, or for the the memories attached to them. Hanna Arendt, as quoted in this chapter, said that people, despite their always mutable nature, can find again their self by referring back to the same chair, the same table. All of this, and the notion of home itself, are in great danger at this time.
However, today not only objects are consumed and destroyed, but emotions as well, and even values. When we expose our lives on social media, they become emotional content for consumption. Even choosing to buy the products of an ethical company is tricky — in Han’s view —because then moral values get registered as part of one’s worth and
narcissistic self-respect, that is, they are not anymore building a community, as they have done throughout human history.
The neoliberal regime produces a “de-homing” (Enthasung) through its forcing serial perception: the constant update, which has come to interest all the areas of life, does not allow for any lastedness or any closing. On the contrary, rituals make life stable; they make of the world a trustworthy place; they are in time what the home is in space. They make time
habitable like a home.
Rituals produce not objects to be consumed, but “in-homing” (Einhausung). How can they do that? How can they have so much power?
in Wikipedia.
The demise of symbols and the disapperance of rituals are, therefore, one and the same thing. But ritual has also always a form, an objective and traditional one. Byung-Chul Han makes reference to anthropologist Mary Douglas who, several years ago, was negatively surprised by the refusal of rituals she was observing in her own culture. It was to her something “mysterious” with ominous consequences. No doubt she was in a privileged position to notice that no humans except the modern Western have ever done something of this kind.
The revolt against formalism — which started decades ago and many of us perceived as a positive and progressive event — hid instead within itself a very bad seed. When the critique of formalism becomes the critique of form altogether, ritual is dismissed. Everything becomes subjective, and nothing keeps different people together — except perhaps bare needs or sheer force.
The first chapter of this book is much richer than I can summarize here—even though it is quite short — but let me at least close with a passage, which I consider a pure gem:
The process of narcissistic interiorization develops an hostility against form: objective forms are tossed away in favor of subjective circumstances. Rites elude narcissistic interiority; the ego libido cannot get attached to them because if it gives in to the rites, it must then leave itself aside. Rites produce a distance from self, a transcendence of self. They de-psychologize, they de-interiorize those who participate in them.
Byung-Chul Han talks about the disappearance of rites in society, not about their reappearance, being faithful to his role of attentive and deep observer. I must thank him, however, because he connects the dots for me and gives me clearer language to describe what I have been trying to do in life for almost as long as I can remember. The reappearance of rites is a very worthy cause to me, especially in these chaotic times.
Byung-Chul Han, The Disappearance of Ritual: A Topology of the Present. (Quotations are from the first chapter. GG says that his translation my differ from the published one.)
Banner image: “This photo was taken during the Mayan ceremony of Balche in Punta Laguna, Tulum, México.” Photo by Jimmy Salazar on Unsplash
Queries for Contemplation
Do you experience ritual as a source of stability and meaning? If not, what do you think is missing in the rituals you participate it, or what is it that you are missing?
Related Readings by Matthew Fox
Original Blessing: A Primer in Creation Spirituality
One River, Many Wells: Wisdom Springing from Global Faiths
Creativity: Where the Divine and Human Meet
Charles Burack, ed. Matthew Fox: Essential Writings on Creation Spirituality
Christian Mystics: 365 Readings & Meditations
Naming the Unnameable: 89 Wonderful and Useful Names for God…Including the Unnameable God
.jpg){kind=link}