An excerpt
From Susanne Langer, Philosophy in a New Key, Chap. 6, 'Life-symbols: the roots of sacrament':[A]s soon as an expressive act is performed without inner momentary compulsion it is no longer self-expressive; it is expressive in the logical sense. It is not a sign of the emotion it conveys, but a symbol of it; instead of completing the natural history of a feeling, it denotes the feeling, and may merely bring it to mind, even for the actor. When an action acquires such a meaning it becomes a gesture.(Ahmm ... In which it should be evident that Langer's uses of terms that have ancient & continuing theological import in addition to varieties of modern anthropological import aren't necessarily to be confused with my own ordinary usages.)
Genuine acts are completed in every detail unless they are forcibly interrupted, but gestures may be quite abortive imitations of acts, showing only their significant features. They are expressive forms, true symbols. Their aspect becomes fixed, they can be deliberately used to communicate an idea of the feelings that begot their prototypes. Because they are deliberate gestures, not emotional acts, they are no longer subject to spontaneous variation, but bound to an often meticulously exact repetition, which gradually makes their forms as familiar as words or tunes.
With the formalization of overt behavior in the presence of the sacred objects, we come into the field of ritual. This is, so to speak, a complement to the life-symbols; for as the latter present the basic facts of human existence, the forces of generation and achievement and death, so the rites enacted at their contemplation formulate and record man's response to the supreme realities. Ritual 'exposes feelings' in the logical rather than the physiological sense. It may have what Aristotle called 'cathartic' value, but that is not its characteristic; it is primarily an articulation of feelings. The ultimate product of such articulation is not a simple emotion, but a complex, permanent attitude. This attitude, which is the worshipers' response to the insight given by the sacred symbols, is an emotional pattern, which governs all individual lives. It cannot be recognized through any clearer medium than that of formalized gesture; yet in this cryptic form it is recognized, and yields a strong sense of tribal or congregational unity, of rightness and security. A rite regularly performed is the constant reiteration of sentiments toward 'first and last things'; it is not a free expression of emotions, but a disciplined rehearsal of 'right attitudes'.
posted by paul bowman @ 9:22 PM
4 Comments:
Thank you for posting this. I should comment at length, but for now all I can say is, I like the cut of its jib.
I'd be interested to see, at length, any lengthy comment from you.
Probably ought to be said that I should comment at some length myself, when posting something like this, interesting & provocative as it is on so many levels. But suffice it to say that the excerpt illustrates well Langer's big idea in New Key, which is that what she calls 'symbolic transformation' is the basis of distinctly human intellectual function/capacity.
'The power of understanding symbols, i.e. of regarding everything about a sense-datum as irrelevant except a certain form that it embodies, is the most characteristic mental trait of mankind. It issues in an unconscious, spontaneous process of abstraction, which goes on all the time in the human mind: a process of recognizing the concept in any configuration given to experience, and forming a conception accordingly. That is the real sense of Aristotle's definition of man as "the rational animal". Abstractive seeing is the foundation of our rationality, and is its definite guarantee long before the dawn of any conscious generalization or syllogism.' — chap. 3 (emph. author's)
It's a great little book, by the way — exceptionally well put-together as argument & exposition, adapted to popular readership but not at all simplistic (to my thinking), by turns witty or bold but never apparently self-consciously 'entertaining'. One or two notes about it that I've seen online say it was a best-seller mid-century, and it's easy to understand why.
I am mulling it over, Paul, and will get back to you on it. Just be forwarned that my mulling can be a long process!
Well — so can mine. Which comparison doesn't mean necessarily that you're in 'good company', of course.
Post a Comment
<< Home