Tyler linked to this excellent blog post, which summarizes an apparently even more excellent book, Randall Collins’ Interaction Ritual Chains from 2004 (chapter 1 here), which I’ve just ordered and plan to read with relish:
It matches what a lot of practitioners of chaos magick and OTO-style ritual magick tend to discover and talk about in their own circles, so I find that intriguing.
a lot of insight from simple and plausible assumptions
How plausible is the theory that ritual events rather than agents are the basic natural kinds for sociology? Why would humans evolve dependence on ritual for energy and motivation? Is Collins a group selectionist?
I like how Collins writes about the very basic stuff of humanity. As with his other book Violence: A Micro-Sociological Theory, these are interactions we all have but few of us understand. I expect to find perspectives in this book that I'll think about nearly every day.
Thanks Ilya. To expand a bit on my comment, it has been observed (and I think even offered up as a defining property) that introverts are drained by social interaction while extroverts are energized by it (of course intro/extroversion can be situational).
To the apparently considerable extent that Collins's rituals involve social interaction, this suggests that his framework may not be as applicable to introverts as to extroverts.
I realize this is a superficial reaction. Perhaps the full version of Collins's framework even provides some explanation for individual differences along the introversion/extroversion spectrum, rather than just labeling some rituals as unsuccessful and others as successful. That would be very interesting.
At first blush this model seems to slight that significant fraction of the population who are introverted.
Also the estimate of a week for the half life of emotional charge seems implausible to me; it would seem to imply, for example, that churchgoers' adherence to the tenets of their faith would disappear after two months with no rituals.
It matches what a lot of practitioners of chaos magick and OTO-style ritual magick tend to discover and talk about in their own circles, so I find that intriguing.
Agreed with Muga. Is there any basis to this claim other than it sounds like a nice and unusual theory ?
a lot of insight from simple and plausible assumptions
How plausible is the theory that ritual events rather than agents are the basic natural kinds for sociology? Why would humans evolve dependence on ritual for energy and motivation? Is Collins a group selectionist?
I like how Collins writes about the very basic stuff of humanity. As with his other book Violence: A Micro-Sociological Theory, these are interactions we all have but few of us understand. I expect to find perspectives in this book that I'll think about nearly every day.
Gotta say, all my heuristics are screaming "loosely-worded humanities BS theory". This wouldn't look out of place in the Golden Bough, but on OB?
that book looks interesting. you should post an update when you have finished reading it.
Thanks Ilya. To expand a bit on my comment, it has been observed (and I think even offered up as a defining property) that introverts are drained by social interaction while extroverts are energized by it (of course intro/extroversion can be situational).
To the apparently considerable extent that Collins's rituals involve social interaction, this suggests that his framework may not be as applicable to introverts as to extroverts.
I realize this is a superficial reaction. Perhaps the full version of Collins's framework even provides some explanation for individual differences along the introversion/extroversion spectrum, rather than just labeling some rituals as unsuccessful and others as successful. That would be very interesting.
If you assume this model, then introverts would seek "charge/motivation" also, it's just that their rituals would be different.
Thanks this does seem intriguing.
At first blush this model seems to slight that significant fraction of the population who are introverted.
Also the estimate of a week for the half life of emotional charge seems implausible to me; it would seem to imply, for example, that churchgoers' adherence to the tenets of their faith would disappear after two months with no rituals.