THE CONCEPT OF RITUALIZATION

Contents
Introduction
The Concept of Ritual in the Social Sciences
The Concept of Ritual in Studies of Drug Use
References

Introduction

"Ritual events required a period of preparation, lengthy fasting and sexual abstinence, scalding steam baths, and blood penance. Ritual books were consulted, the propitious calendrical co-ordinates plotted, positions of the moon, planets, especially the baleful Venus were noted. Extended chanting, recitations of past experiences by initiates, careful attention to the refinements of dress, adjustments of masks, rehearsing of dance movements and recitations practiced. Finally the numbing rhythms of percussion orchestras, drums rattles, scraped turtle carapaces, pierced by whistles and conch trumpets. Preliminary animal sacrifices and the burning of clouds of copal incense; lengthy preparations needed to condition the shaman and ready his psychological and physical state for the ordeal to come" (1).

This example of an elaborated religious ritual will probably meet with many people's depiction of ritual. It has all the exotic elements of popular representations in magazines, movies and television, of ritual in, so-called, primitive culture. And indeed, it contains some of the key features of ritual. It presents an extraordinary event, that requires thorough preparation, rehearsal, distinctive materials and symbols. It also gives a sense of show or play --Lights, Camera: Action! Theatrical as this event may seem, it is more than just a well directed performance of a group of actors. Rather, the performance has intrinsic value to its players. "Rituals are highly meaningful, rationalized by a system of beliefs" (2). The ritual is meant to bring about a state of consciousness, different from the ordinary, that enables its performers to accomplish a task that is outside the realm of everyday routine, and for that reason requires an altered physical and/or psychological state of being.

However, rituals are not always so elaborated, extravagant or recognizable, so obviously set aside from day-to-day practice. In much simpler forms rituals can be observed in everyday life (3). Lighting a cigarette when entering an unfamiliar social setting or simple greeting behaviors are common forms of ritual. Greeting rituals, for example, can differ significantly between and within cultures. Shaking hands, bending the head, a kiss on the cheek, or kissing the hand can all be appropriate in one culture, but out of touch or even insulting in another. Such differences can be very subtle; just touching cheeks or an actual kiss on the cheeks; one kiss or three. Within the same culture, by the same person some others are greeted by a nod or a hand, some by a superficial kiss and some by an ardent embrace. Given the same individual and the same other the appropriate ritual can even vary according to the situation, mood, or the outcome of a former encounter. Such greeting behaviors seem to have three functions: they facilitate "the opening of a channel for communication and interaction; the[y] defin[e] role and status; and they are acting as a means of manipulating relationships to secure a specific result" (4). The behavioral sequence of smoking the first cigarette after waking up, the first cup of coffee and the subsequent visit to the bath room can be a ritual. A former colleague once explained, that in the morning he needed to drink, at least, four cups of coffee before getting started, otherwise he could not function throughout the day (5). Was this because of a chemical dependency on caffeine or did the process surrounding the actual administration of that drug, e.g. the thoughts anticipating the day to come while sipping the coffee, also play a role? Ritual is a prosaic phenomenon in human life.

Ritual is commonly referred to in social scientific discourse and in lay conversation. What is actually meant by ritual is however often taken for granted; it is not made explicit. In casual chat this can lead to minor confusion. In the realm of science such omission can result in more serious consequences. In many elaborated theories on drug use, terms and concepts often stay ill defined (6). At times resulting in poorly or ungrounded statements about drug abusers, addicts and junkies, their behaviors, and, in the context of the AIDS era, their abilities for behavior change.

This thesis deals with drug taking rituals. Therefore, this chapter explores the concept of ritual --what constitutes a ritual and what are the functions, meanings and values for participants?-- and its application to studies of drug use.

Top

The Concept of Ritual in the Social Sciences

The Behavioral Sequence of Ritual

The term ritual refers to behavior. However, not all behavior --"the total response, motor and glandular, which an organism makes to any situation with which it is faced" (7) -- is ritual behavior. Ritual addresses a unique class of observable behavior. The notion is reserved for a specific behavioral sequence of acts and signals which, "allows no uncertainty, no choice" (2). Consequently, ritual is fixed. Turning to the anthropological and sociological literature for a useful definition of ritual one finds formulations that have certain components in common, and at the same time, diverge significantly. "A definition of ritual such as might be applicable to the term in all its acceptations is difficult, ... not because the term is widely used, but because it is not possible to determine the true nature of what constitutes the irreducible basis of the myriad human practices it represents" (8).

Durkheim calls ritual "determined modes of action" (9). According to Wallace, "ritual may be defined as stereotyped communication, solitary and interpersonal" (2). To Goody ritual refers to "a category of standardized behavior (custom) in which the relationship between the means and the end is not intrinsic; i.e. is either irrational or non rational" (10). Carter states that a ritual "must involve repetitive action, be kept in limited contexts, reflect basically uncritical acceptance of some value, quality, attitude, or belief, and in some way convey to the individuals hope that he will be helped in coping with his situation and in facing life with renewed vigour and confidence" (11). For Partridge "the defining feature of ritual is that of a repetitive, reassertive form. Ritual as an ordered statement of pattern against randomness, order against idiosyncrasy" (12). Nadel defines rituals as "actions exhibiting striking or incongruous rigidity, that is, some conspicuous regularity not accounted for by the professed aims of actions" (13). Turner specifies the features that are involved in such stereotyped behavior chains: "gestures, words, objects" and limits the place of performance; this should be a special "sequestered" place (14). All these definitions have in common the requirement of a fixed and predictable behavioral sequence distinguished from activities without fixed order and with unsure outcome, such as driving a bicycle or car. Thus, ritual behavior is stereotypical behavior; the course and outcome of the behavioral sequence are rather fixed and predictable.

Special Meaning

The standardized sequence is a necessary but not a sufficient criterium as can be seen in some of the above definitions. If so, actions such as sorting mail in a post office, work on an assembly line and other forms of equally stereotyped technical acts would also qualify. In such acts the meaning is uni-dimensional. In ritual, the act has meaning beyond its performance. Ritual is thus symbolic action, "a representation of reality at a certain level of reference by a corresponding reality at another" (8).

Sacred versus Secular

The concept of ritual has often been examined in the framework of studies of religious behavior. For this reason, the discussion has often centered around the sacred properties of rituals --Ritual as a medium between men and their Supreme Being(s). This orthodox approach reserves the term ritual for magical and religious behavior and stems from Emile Durkheim's distinction between the sacred and the profane. "Religious phenomena are naturally arranged in two fundamental categories: Beliefs and rites. Beliefs are states of opinion and consist in representations. Rites are determined modes of action. Between the two classes of facts there is all the difference which separates thought from action." "The rites can be defined and distinguished from other human practices, moral practices, for example, only by the special nature of their object" (9). Rituals address a different class of objects --the sacred. As Malinowski puts it: "Every culture can be divided into two distinguishable domains: the domain of magic and religion and the domain of science; the sacred and the profane. Ritual belongs to the sacred domain and is ipso facto an action grounded in faith rather that in reason" (15).

However, such rigid opinions have been criticized, because "the values that prompt and sanction the performance of ritual are also, generally speaking, the same values that motivate people in their daily lives" (2). Ritual actions can then be seen as displays of the cultural values, as part of a non-verbal system of communication (16). Moreover, the erosion of the power of traditional religious institutions has (at least in parts of the western world) led to a substantial decrease in importance of the sacred (11). Then "the popular distinction between the sacred and the profane does not seem to be a sound basis for distinguishing rituals from ordinary day-to-day practices. It is in fact the ritual touch which makes certain practices sacred, not that an act becomes ritual because it happens to possess a sacred character" (8). When sacred becomes more-or-less disconnected from its religious context and is merged with a more general notion of special meaning, then "any type of behavior may be said to turn into a ritual when it is stylized or formalized and made repetitive in that form" (13). Many authors who started with the idea that social actions either belong to the sacred or the profane, concluded that this distinction is, in fact, not realistic. In the words of Edmund Leach: "[I]t is a scholastic illusion to suppose that human actions are everywhere ordered to accord with such discriminations" (17). Thus, "ritual refers to all symbolic behavior and is not to be confined to actions associated with religious institutions"(16). As a result, Goody's requirement that "the relationship between means and end is not intrinsic" seems a more modern interpretation which may be derived from this loss of importance of the sacred.

Instrumental versus Symbolic

According to Radcliffe-Brown, ritual acts stand in direct contrast to technical acts. "In technical activity an adequate statement of the purpose of any particular act or series of acts constitutes by itself a sufficient explanation. But ritual acts differ from technical acts in having in all instances some expressive or symbolic element in them" (18). Consequently, ritual activity is always in pursuit of ritual value with the exclusion of direct purposiveness. In this perspective, ritual action cannot be put in a means-end scheme. It is not a means to an end, but an end in itself (9, 15). But in many ritual practices it is not always easy to distinguish between instrumental and symbolic action (especially in drug use rituals) "There is a continuum of action stretching from the purely technical to the purely symbolic. While the poles are clearly defined there are points between them that are difficult to place in either category" (19). Moreover, "in spite of its essentially non purposive character, [ritual] can always be transformed into purposive action. Use of ritual procedure for the fulfillment of practical needs of life is a common feature of all organized religions" (8). It is thus hard to differentiate between technical purposiveness and ritual symbolism in stereotyped behavior. For La Fontaine it is a question of proportion. "A preponderance of symbolic over technical action (however technical the actors may consider the purpose of the rite) is what marks of ritual from the customary performance of technical acts" (19).

Here one also gets confronted with a possible discrepancy between explanations given by the participants of rituals and those of the observer/analyst. Both Malinowski and Radcliffe- Brown attach little importance to the actors' notions of meaning and functions of the rituals they perform. In their opinion actors (natives) are unable to give correct explanations as they have no comprehension of its real caliber, it is thus the responsibility of the analyst to do so (15, 18). However, in the context of contemporary studies of urban drug use in modern society, such a view point insults the ability of the actors who often have elaborate explanations for their activities (20). Moreover, the distinctions between the already hard to classify phenomena technical and symbolic may even be relative or arbitrary (19).

At this point, it can be asserted that ritual seems to refer to stylized behavioral sequences with fixed pattern and outcome, in which the symbolic meaning (not necessarily religious) has a preponderance over its technical purposiveness.

Formal Rituals versus Natural Rituals

Up to this point the discussion has been mainly concerned with so-called formal rituals. This section will review some different types of formal rituals, and so-called natural rituals and demonstrate that the distinctions between the two are more gradual than absolute.

Formal Rituals

A common distinction of formal rituals is that between calendrical rituals --those that occur on a regular schedule in some natural cycle (seasons, position of moon, planets, and stars, eclipses, etc.)-- and non-calendrical or critical rituals, which do not follow such cycles but are performed on occasions of crisis. Some rituals, such as rites of passage follow a life-cycle (2). Another distinction is based on the intended purpose of the rituals:

Rites of passage, such as initiation rites and ceremonies surrounding marriage, childbirth and death. "Rites de passage are rites which accompany every change of place, state, social position and age" (21). A rite of passage has three stages --separation, transition, and incorporation. In the first stage the individual is taken out of his or her familiar context. In the second, the individual is exposed to ritual actions meant to effect the intended transformation. In this phase the individual is sacred. Finally, the new status is formally established. In marriage, the bachelor party, wedding shower and separate preparations (dressing) on the marriage day are all examples of separation. The actual religious or civil ceremony and the wedding night signify the transition. The reception, party, the consequences of marriage like moving to a new house, the adoption of the man's name and, in some traditional communities, hanging the sheet of the marital night from the window, proving the breaking of the maidenhead, are incorporating activities, naturally following stage two. However, note that the demarcation between stages two and three is somewhat blurry as the reception and party normally precedes the wedding night.

Rites of intensification, including hunting and agricultural rites that aim at intensification of the fertility of crops and availability of game. These are, in contrast with rites of passage, group-centered (22).

However, not all rituals fit this scheme so neatly. Wallace proposes a "less abstract classification of the transformations intended by religious rituals, closer to the consciously stated purposes of the actors". He distinguishes five categories: (2)

Ritual as technology, intended to control various aspects of nature, other than man himself, for the purpose of human exploitation. This category includes divination, aimed at extracting useful information from nature when the actor(s) feel(s) a lack of information to base a decision on, such as dowsing or flipping a coin; The already mentioned hunting and agricultural rites of intensification, aimed at the mobilization, focussing and intensification of natural periodical processes; Protective rituals, that intend to prevent or avoid a diversity of ills and disasters, such as broken tools, fires, floods, plagues, etc., exemplified in blessing a ship or tool. They have in common that they are all pragmatic and are aimed at manipulating the environment into more favorable states.

Ritual as therapy and anti-therapy, aimed at controlling human health, especially in cases where the cause of disease or disorder are difficult to discover, such as infectious diseases, allergies, psychological complaints, etc. In these cases supernatural interference is often suspected. Witchcraft (anti-therapy) may be involved. Therapeutic rituals may be performed by laymen in case of minor problems. In more serious conditions a professional shaman will be necessary.

Ritual as social control or ideological rituals. These are intended to control, in a conservative way, the behavior, the mood, the sentiments and values of groups for the sake of the community as a whole. They intend to instruct, to direct, and to program individuals into accepted statuses, as they enter upon new tasks or situations. Examples are rites of passage, social rites of intensification (the sabbath, the mass, political party meetings) and (religious) taboos (e.g. on sexual intercourse between kinfolk or during menstruation) and courtesies (saluting, men holding the door for women).

Ritual as salvation from a state in which the identity is seriously impaired by social abuse or by an internal disillusionment. In such religious identity renewal the identification is with, or the differentiation is from, a supernatural being. Most cultures recognize at least some such identity problems in individuals, and provide culturally standardized ways for the unfortunate victim of identity conflict to achieve relief by way of possession; becoming a shaman; mystical withdrawal; or good works.

Ritual as revitalization when such identity crisis occur in large parts of, or in an entire, community. Customary individualized procedures for achieving personal salvation then loose their effectivity and a new religious movement is likely to develop, led by a prophet who has undergone an ecstatic revelation, and aimed at the dual goal of providing new and more effective rituals of salvation and of creating a new and more satisfying culture.

Interaction or Natural Rituals

It was Goffman who pointed at the similarities between formal religious rituals and the type of events that occur pervasively in everyday secular life, which he named interaction rituals (23). According to Goffman, "in gatherings or social situations --physical arenas anywhere within which persons present are in perceptual range of one another, subject to mutual monitoring-- the individual is given an opportunity to face directly a representation, a somewhat iconic expression, a mock up of what he is supposed to hold dear, a presentation of the supposed ordering of his existence. [Such] a single, fixed element ... can be called a ritual; the interpersonal kind can be defined as perfunctory, conventionalized acts through which one individual portrays his regard for another to that other" (24). Goffman refers to a wide range of both verbal and non-verbal practices used by communicating individuals, aimed at presenting and maintaining a positive and consistent image of self in a dialogue in which both parties express deference to the other's demeanor. Such face work often becomes habitual and standardized practice, and its goal is the maintenance or re-establishment of the ritual equilibrium, a state in which both interactants satisfactory maintain their face (image of self). When such ritual reciprocity is denied, the disrespected person experiences this as an assault on his identity or, as Goffman calls it, a threat to face, which may lead to extreme dismay. In this perspective interaction is a delicate ritual balance of, on the one hand, claiming a preferable position and, on the other, consideration for the position of the other(s). "Each person, subculture and society seems to have its own characteristic repertoire of face-saving practices" (23). Goffman did not mean that there are no differences between the formal religious rituals and the formalities of the casual rendezvous' of modern actors. His point is that in both phenomena similar general processes are at work. Recently, Collins suggested the term natural rituals "to refer to those kinds of conditions which crop up, typically without anyone's conscious intention, which have the same shape, and similar consequences, as formal rituals" (25). Collins proposes that a ritual, whether natural or formal, requires the following ingredients:

1. a group of at least two people are physically assembled;
2. they focus attention on the same object or action, and are aware that each other is maintaining this focus;
3. they share a common mood or emotion.

This third requirement seems, as Collins himself states, to miss the core of usual definitions of ritual --stereotyped action-- but, he explains, that are only the cosmetic aspects of formal ritual that bring about a state of mutual focus of attention. When these three ingredients are in existence, they affect the situation, "the mutual focus of attention and the common mood become progressively stronger" and the actors are united into "a shared reality" that separates their reality from what is outside, "they feel like members of a little group" (25).

Thus, the difference between formal and natural rituals mainly depends on the meaning that is added to them by its actors. The general mechanism seems to be the same. For example, rites of passage can be witnessed in both formal or religious and in natural or secular contexts. In that respect elaborated puberty rites in tribal societies do not principally differ from the initiation into a new friendship group or school class, or into (illicit) drug use. "Thus, when persons perform standardized acts in first using cannabis, they change from non-drug users to users, from persons who are immune from arrest under the drug law to potential convicts, from observers to participants" (26). From this perspective, formal rituals and natural rituals are merely the extremes of a common continuum.

Recapitulating, rituals are stereotypical behavioral sequences with a symbolic meaning, which, nevertheless, is not always expressively or consciously present. Moreover, considerable individual differences may exist between individual actors in validating the symbolic meaning.

Rituals of Animals and Early Man

Animals, too, display certain forms of behavior that can be classified under the heading of ritual. Such behaviors have been exhaustively documented by ethologists. Both birds and mammals behave in ways that are both characterized by stereotyped repetition and a lack of a direct instrumental relation between means and end. The most evident examples of social ritual among animals can be seen in mating, nest building, and conflict or fight over pecking order and territory. Such displays normally occur at the beginning and end of these events and, serving as a kind of primitive communication device. They are meant to create a situation in which the acting animal is incited to perform necessary conduct. In the case of a social situation, it encourages complementary attitudes, directed at the performance of certain deportments (e.g. courting before reproductive acts) or their inhibition (e.g. mock battle instead of actual fighting) (2). Solitary animal rituals can also be observed. These behaviors are often found in response to intense but ambiguous stimulation, which surpasses the animal's information processing capacity, (27) and other stress provoking situations. Examples are rocking or circular pacing of cash-crop animals in bio-industry plants, animals in zoos, or bandogs. "Solitary rituals seem useful principally in reducing anxiety in situations of ambiguity with respect to learning or discrimination" (2). In other words, when they are put under stress, either by unnatural restraints or by an information overflow, animals turn to their automatic pilot in order to channel and ameliorate the experienced stress, and to prevent harmful responses.

The origin of those behaviors may be explained by the "argument that under the pressure of natural selection certain emotionally motivated behaviors become formalized --in the sense of becoming simplified, exaggerated, and stereotyped-- and loosened from any specific context of releasers, and all this so that, in effect, there will be more efficient signalling, both inter- and intra-specifically. Instead of having to play out an act [e.g. a destructive fight], the animal, in effect provides a readily readable expression of his situation, specifically his intent, this taking the form of a ritualization of some portion of the act itself, and this indication (whether promise or threat) presumably allows for the negotiation of an efficient response from, and to, witnesses of the display" (24).

Although there is only very limited information available, it can be assumed that ritual played some role of importance in the experience of modern man's predecessors. Both among Neanderthal and Cro magnon peoples evidence of religious ritual is found. Graves of both peoples have been excavated, containing the carefully arranged remains of humans and, for them significant, animals. More commonly among the Cro Magnons, the corpses were smeared with red paint. Cro Magnons, further buried their deceased with grave goods and personal ornaments and evidence of offerings and funeral feasts have also been found. Moreover, they manufactured objects from parts of the human skeleton, that were probably meant for ceremonial or ritual usage. But, perhaps the most dramatic evidence lies in their artistic performances; their sculpture and painting (2).

It can now be determined that ritual, being a routine form of animal behavior, serving a vital purpose, even in lower animal life, in promoting opportune conduct, has been a continuity throughout history. It served the same functions in early man. Corresponding rituals are familiar to modern man. The distinction seems to lie in the self-consciousness of modern man's ritual action (2). The cultural and cognitive development that enabled humans to think in abstract modes led to rationalizations and explanations in religious terms and concept of historically intrinsic behaviors. The question to be answered now is what purposes serves ritual for modern man --what is its function?

The Function of Ritual

A discussion of function of ritual must start with a discussion of the term function itself. One generally agrees that "the function of a cultural element is the effect of its performance or non-performance in a given cultural setting" (2). Beyond this consensus, interpretation often parts, depending on the (professional) orientation of the analyst. For sociologist and social anthropologists, the function of ritual will incorporate statements on the effect on the group or society. Psychologists and psychiatrists will refer to effects on mood, thought and learning processes. Likewise, biologists or psychopharmacologists will, for example, point at changes in neurotransmitter levels that certain rituals may bring about. Clearly, such interpretations refer to only a part of the picture, they are complementary and not mutually exclusive (2).

The function of ritual not only depends on the type of analyst, but, of course, also on the level of analysis and the specific situation. "Rituals have various functions, depending on the conditions in which they take place" (12). Moreover, the function may differ for different actors in the same ritual. Ritual may have multiple meaning and, even further, these do not necessarily have to be in alignment with the intentions of the actors. Finally it must be clear that function cannot be looked upon in the light of cause. Cause, with its roots in the past, does not have to be meaningful for current intentions and effects. Rituals have thus multiple functions, of which some are more and others less obvious. Even "the most barbarous or bizarre rites and the strangest myths all express some human need, some aspect of life, be it individual or social" (9). As explained above, it is often depending on the analyst and the level of analysis which functions are emphasized.

Often rituals are related to the fulfillment of day-to-day activities and needs. "... In spite of its essentially non-purposive character, [ritual] can always be transformed into purposive action. Use of ritual for the fulfillment of the practical needs of life is a common feature ..." (8). The desired results are then achieved through the effect the ritual has on its performer(s), both in solitary and social ritual --focussing the participants on certain practical tasks that have to be performed. Ritual activity quickly prepares an individual or individuals to execute an action with maximum efficiency. In case of one individual, this is accomplished by "resolving motivational conflict, reducing fear and anxiety, increasing confidence, focusing attention at the task at hand, and mobilizing appropriate psychophysiological systems for the execution of the act" (2). In social rituals, in addition, "the participants are brought more rapidly to the state of readiness for the cooperative execution of the act than is likely if mobilization and coordination were to depend upon less stereotyped communication" (2). In social ritual there is little ambiguity about mutual role taking and the participants are almost naturally aware of this (25).

Ritual activity as such can also induce actual pleasure as it gives rise to "what one might call an overproduction of thought, emotion and activity. The elaboration of these processes is accompanied by pleasurable emotion, it becomes an end in itself" (28). Indeed, it is not surprising that this is an important aspect in this study of human drug taking rituals.

Most of ritual's practical utility is, however, often believed to be secondary (8, 9, 28). The main emphasis in the analysis of ritual is on its social function. For example, the rites of passage have an important function in educating the young (8). Such rituals pass on the cultural heritage to novices and siblings and they teach the group rules by formal, and social learning procedures. In formal rites of passage novices are initiated into their newly acquired social status. However, in such ceremonies not only the initiates are touched as the values and beliefs that are at stake are those of the group at a very deep level (29). "The rite thus brings the people together and restores them to the true center of their consciousness" (8). In this sense, a ritual can be considered as a "condensed storehouse of a cultural tradition" (30).

Because most formal rituals were studied in a religious context "the apparent function is to strengthen the bonds attaching the believer to his god. [However,] they at the same time really strengthen the bonds attaching the individual to the society of which he is a member, since the god is only a figurative expression of the society" (9). The actual purpose of ritual is in the ritual itself --in the effect that its performance has on the social consciousness (28). "When the groups periodically assemble to celebrate the rites, interpersonal relations are renewed and a new consciousness is produced among the individuals ... Their common bonds are reaffirmed, their group solidarity is reinforced and society is recreated" (8). Ritual is a symbolic expression of the group's doctrine (31) and helps to preserve its values (8). It controls and regulates social situations, (32) multiplies the relations between individual group members and makes them more intimate with one another (9).

Ritual furthermore displays the group definitions of role and status (4) and reinforces the hierarchical relations between people (17). The performance of ritual also hushes struggles and arguments between group members (8, 33). It counterbalances disturbing actions, conflict, danger, crisis, etc. by carrying the opposite message of unity, harmony and order in form as well as in content (34). In this sense ritual is a sort of corrective mechanism or in cases where some form of change or adaptation is inevitable, a transformative process (12).

The essential function of ritual seems thus its effect on the collective consciousness, the apprehension that perpetuates group norms directed at the survival of the group or tribe. "Man is a tribal animal" (35). Just as many other animals, humans find great pleasure and satisfaction in group membership, in interaction with their congeners, their tribe (25). The tribe is perhaps man's most important source of identification and self-definition. "[One] must fully appreciate this fact [to] understand one of the most important facets of human nature. ... The tribal qualities of the human species colour almost every aspect of our lives" (35). Ritual works as a binding mechanism (31) and engenders social solidarity among its performers -- the members of the tribe (36). Such social solidarity is believed to be a basic and overriding human drive (37).

With this concern for social solidarity a moral solidarity has entered and with it moral pressures or rules of conduct (9). In order to live in a tribe and to act out feelings of solidarity, rules have been formed through rituals that regulate interaction. And here again, this refers to both formal and natural rituals. However, especially in modern society, such feelings of solidarity are not unlimited. In contrast with relatively small and isolated native societies, modern industrialized society is far from unified. Although often referred to in their media campaigns, a lasting global solidarity is a myth, well nurtured by organizations such as Foster Parents Plan. Furthermore, traditional formal tribal structures are subject to serious erosion and have lost much of their attractiveness and power. Secularization is a case in point. However, "In technological cultures such as those of the West, people have responded to the disappearance of formal tribes by consciously or inconsciously creating new ones" (38). As a result, society has become abundantly stratified and many different, and, often conflicting, tribes can make appeals on the individual (25).

Top

The Concept of Ritual in Studies of Drug Use

Introduction

Psychoactive agents are primarily taken to alter the state of consciousness of the user. Altered states of consciousness (ASC) are universal human phenomena (39) and the use of a great variety of substances to achieve them is known throughout history. Indeed, the use of drugs is at least as old as mankind. Drug use "probably began when our ancestors browsed their way through the forests and found that, among the foods they sampled, some produced interesting changes in how they perceived, and how they could accommodate themselves to the world" (40). In his recent book, Intoxication, life in pursuit of artificial paradise. the American psychopharmacologist Siegel argues that the motivation to achieve an altered state of consciousness is a fourth drive; as important and part of the human condition as sex, thirst and hunger. Moreover, this drive to get high is not a monopoly of mankind at all. Siegel documents a large range of examples of drug consuming animals ranging, from insects to water buffalo's (41).

Besides utilizing other, non drug, methods of intoxicating oneself, such as religious ecstasy, ritual dancing, running, etc., psychoactive drugs have thus always played a mayor role in establishing ASC. Although societies may apparently differ in the value they place upon the drug high and the role it plays in the structuring and organization of social life, it seems evident that, in fact, in all historical and contemporary societies drugs do play important roles. ASC, being found in all human cultures, "are subject to a great deal of cultural patterning, stylization, ritualization, and rationalizing mythology" (39). Some notable contemporary examples are the chewing of Qat leaves in Jemen, the chewing of coca leaves in certain Andean cultures, the ingestion of a liquified extract of roasted coffee beans and the smoking of dried leaves of the tobacco plant in many cultures across the globe.

Indeed, all four examples can be interpreted in terms of ritual, though the intensity of stylization and symbolic meaning may differ. Both coffee and Qat are social lubricants of which Qat use seems to be the most ritualized. In Jemen, from two in the afternoon until the evening almost the whole male population is busy with the chewing of Qat, mostly in social settings. The very importance of the Qat ritual can be even more demonstrated by the fact that the Jemenite government takes all important decisions on a consensus basis during Qat sessions. "Qat chewing is serious business in Jemen" (42). In many cultures, it is standard practice to offer coffee or tea to visitors in both formal and informal settings to break the ice, i.e. creating a favorable atmosphere for communication through the mutual participation in the coffee or tea drinking ritual. Among indian cultures in the Andean region the traditional chewing of coca leaf has in addition to relieving fatigue and hunger, also a strong symbolic function, as it signifies their ancient and sophisticated cultural tradition (43). In other indian cultures, e.g. the Aymara in Peru and Bolivia, alcohol, which in western culture has a very profane status, is treated as a highly sacred ritual drug (11).

Drug Use Rituals

It is evident that drugs played an important role in human life throughout history. Often such drug use was integrated in the religious canon of the performers. While many early observers did report the presence of various psycho active substances, they mostly played a secondary role in their analyses of the behaviors of the group, community or society under study. It is relatively recently that social scientists started to focus on drug use as an unique object of study. An important stimulation has been the growing concern about the increase of recreational use of drugs in secular contexts. Studies of drug use in its naturalistic or community settings are still rather sparse, but growing. Early studies dealt mainly with alcohol or opiate use. During the 1970s the use of psychedelics became an object of study. In the last decade, especially under the influence of the HIV epidemic, the behaviors of injecting drug users (IDUs) have gained much attention.

Searching for recent studies that focus on the forms and meaning of drug use, that take the ritual experience as a starting point for analysis is a disappointing venture. Some authors refer to the notion of ritual in discussions on the (im)possibilities of behavioral change of IDUs under the menace of HIV infection. These analyses, however, lack contents and are far from satisfactory. These studies will be examined in chapter seventeen. First, the few studies of ritualistic drug use in a modern, and secular context will be discussed. These studies were mainly conducted before 1980.

The one extensive description of the intravenous drug administration ritual of urban American heroin addicts in the 1960s comes from Agar (44). He gives a detailed description of the objects (works), the ritual sequence and the resulting altered states of consciousness (rush, high, nod, and straight), and the significance for the performer. As a result from his inductive analytic approach Agar arrives at the following definition of ritual:

For an event to be a ritual event it must prescribe a sequence of psychomotor acts and this prescribed psychomotor sequence must be invested with a special meaning for the person performing that sequence.

Mainly because of its rigidly prescribed behavioral sequence, Agar interprets getting off (the intravenous self administration of e.g. heroin) as a ritual. And indeed, the drug administration sequence is a crucial point in this discussion. Its meanings and functions may vary for individuals.

Another work of great importance, is that of the recently deceased Zinberg and his colleagues. In their detailed study of, what they called, controlled and compulsive drug use they found that all drug users, to a certain extent, ritualize their intake of drugs, and that "controlled use is chiefly supported by emerging subcultural drug using rituals and social sanctions" (45). Although both rituals and social sanctions (rules) seem to be directed at controlling the process of drug use, they claim that, in effect, the rituals of controlled and compulsive drug users are very similar, but that particularly the different social sanctions that are adhered to, distinguish both user groups. It is thus important to differentiate the two terms clearly as "the distinction between drug-using rituals and social sanctions is one of behavior versus beliefs, or practice versus dogma" (46). Zinberg proposes the following definition of a drug ritual:

Ritual refers to the stylized, prescribed behavior surrounding the use of a drug. This behavior may include methods of procuring, and administrating the drug, selection of physical and social settings for use, activities after the drug has been administered, and methods of preventing untoward drug effects.

And social sanctions are defined as:

The norms regarding how or whether a particular drug should be used. Social sanction include both the informal and often unspoken values or rules of conduct shared by a group and the formal laws and policies regulating drug use.

Zinberg et al. favor the term social sanctions instead of rituals beliefs for two reasons. "First, the term emphasizes that beliefs are socially derived and reinforced. Second, social sanctions conveys more clearly than ritual beliefs the sense that behavior and belief are separable concepts" (46). They use both concepts in a very secular sense, stripped from every religious or sacred connotation. As discussed before, the distinction between sacred and secular and that between instrumental and symbolic have been important discussion points among students of ritual. Although its existence is often hard to ascertain, a preponderance of symbolic over technical action is required by most writers. Behavior that is solely technical or recreational is often not considered ritual (47). Zinberg and his associates take a much more liberal stand and, as they themselves explain, violate this tradition in two distinct ways. They apply these terms to drug use whether the goal of the user is recreation, improved mental or physical performance or religious experience. And, in their opinion, drug using rituals and social sanctions include both rational and non rational elements (46).

Agar contends that the distinction between sacred and secular is, in fact, a concept constructed by social scientists. He proposes "that whatever has special meaning for a group member counts as an instance of sacred ritual" (44). That way he seems to take an intermediate stand. His notion of special meaning leaves room for an in or out group perspective and intragroup variation regarding the perception of the ritual. For the one (an insider IDU) the ritual of getting off can be a sacred event and at the same time for an other IDU or an outsider a secular event. Cleckner regards repetitious behavior surrounding drug use only as ritual in a very general and secular sense (20). She seeks support by Burroughs, the ultimate romanticizer of addiction and drugs, who wrote that "there is nothing sacred about heroin or indeed about street use of drugs in general" (48).

However, the matter is not that simple. Burroughs himself is rather ambivalent regarding the subject. In Naked Lunch he first writes "Junk is profane and quantitative like money" and denies the existence of opium cults, which is an inaccuracy. But a few pages later he writes "Junk is surrounded by magic and taboos, curses and amulets" (49). Cleckner sees thus little room for symbolic elaboration in shared street customs. In her view, these are predominantly pragmatic and rational. "Significant are the concrete results or effects of any action, not their reality status" (20). It may well be true that "A dope fiend can almost always give a practical explanation for anything he does" (20). But this does, of course, not exclude symbolic meanings. It merely means that, as Du Toit writes in his discussion on cannabis rituals in South Africa, "the ritual ... is not aimed at any agent, entity, or force. The satisfaction of the act is in its completion; it is an act which serves to give unity, identity, and transition to the participants, its value is in its performance" (26). Thus, drug use rituals are not focussed at sacred goals but at social goals and in that way they are not different from both the formal and natural rituals discussed before.