Semiotics of Rituals

1
Semiotics of Rituals

• PD Dr. Martin Pöttnerwww.martinpoettner.demartin
  poettner_at_onlinehome.de

2
1. What is Semiotics and why might it be
important for a scientific point of
view? 2. Semiotics of Religious Utterances
Narratives and Rituals in the Light of
Narrative Structures or Patterns
3
What is Semiotics?

• Two Positions
• Semiotics according to Charles Sanders Peirce
• Semiotics in a structuralist view

4
Semiotics according to Charles Sanders Peirce
(1839-1914)
5
The Genuine Triadic Relation of Signifying,
respectively Sign-Process
Interpretant perceptions understanding(i.e.
abductive, deductive, and inductive
reasoning) reactions (i. e. emotions, actions,
and thoughts)

Sign all things or events which can be perceived
Dynamic Object every aspect of reality which
urges to utter
Diagram 1
6
Sign all things or events which can be perceived
In a triadic sign-process every thing or event,
which can be perceived is a sign. It is a sign
because it stands in a triadic relation to a
dynamic object and an interpretant. In this
relation one element must be a perceivable event
or thing, which we call the sign.
7
The Genuine Triadic Relation of Signifying,
respectively Sign-Process
Interpretant perceptions understanding(i.e.
abductive, deductive, and inductive
reasoning) reactions (i. e. emotions, actions,
and thoughts)

Sign all things or events which can be perceived
Dynamic Object every aspect of reality which
urges to utter
Diagram 1
8
The dynamic object is the aspect of reality which
urges to the utterance of a sign in relation to
an interpretant. Some people think dynamic
objects could only be hard facts in reality, like
this table or some historical events. But there
are also life conceptions which urge utterances
of signs in relation to an interpretant. So I
think that the main dynamic objects of the
science of religions are such life concepts, of
course both more individual or more
community-oriented ones.
Dynamic Object every aspect of reality which
urges to utter
9
The Genuine Triadic Relation of Signifying,
respectively Sign-Process
Interpretant perceptions understanding(i.e.
abductive, deductive, and inductive
reasoning) reactions (i. e. emotions, actions,
and thoughts)

Sign all things or events which can be perceived
Dynamic Object every aspect of reality which
urges to utter
Diagram 1
10
interpretanta complex bundle of conceptions,
which expresses the sign-mediated interpretation
of the dynamic object
11
Perceiving
First an aspect of perceiving. You must perceive
the sign, which is perceivable. So we can not
perceive the dynamic object directly, but only
mediated by the perceivable sign. Therefore the
dynamic object is a question of unconscious
reasoning. So we do not have certainty anyhere.
Beyond it in perceiving there are errors We
perceive inexactly and in some cases totally
false. Usually perceiving is a case of
unconscious reasoning.
interpretant
12
Understanding
Second is an aspect of understanding. That's a
mixture of unconscious and conscious reasoning in
three modes abductive, inductive and deductive
reasoning.
interpretant
13
In deductive reasoning we have one or two
premises (ore more) out of which we can get a
conclusio because it is included by the premises.
14
Inductive reasoning is the mode of our
experience. We infer rules and regularities by
observing facts and events, but also by observing
our every day life. If such facts and events
often seem to have a similiar structure, we will
suppose a regularity. But we are not as sure as
in deductive premises that such regularieties are
solid or stable ones. So we have to test these
regularities in new experiences.
15
The lowest degree of certainty is given by
abductive reasoning. We are confronted with a
strange, new phenomenon, we do not know if this
phenomon is a case of a well-known rule etc. So
we have to infer hypothetically which strange
rule that might be and that our strange
phenomenon would be a case of this supposed rule.
Of course, it is a kind of guessing. But despite
of its lower degree of certainty, abductive
reasoning is related to inductive reasoning
because of the continously testing of supposed
rules. So Umberto Eco is right by interpreting
inductive reasoning as a kind of sleeping
abductive reasoning.
16
Reactions
From that uncertain background of perceiving and
understanding emerge three kinds of well-known
reactions emotions, actions and thoughts. These
reactions are the third aspect of every
interpretant.
interpretant
17
What Peirce tried was to understand all conscious
and unconscious experience and acting of human
beings in their world semiotically. He has
provided a systematic overview of semiotic
questions. Clearly he did not succeed in
answering these questions in the span of his
life. But he showed by his analysis of abductive,
deductive and inductive reasoning that there is
no stable and solid certainty in human life. All
reactions like emotions, actions and thoughts as
well as their systemic forms as religions,
sciences, politics, economy in society are based
on a often ignored shaking foundation of
uncertainty and contingency.
18
The Genuine Triadic Relation of Signifying,
respectively Sign-Process
Interpretant perceptions understanding(i.e.
abductive, deductive, and inductive
reasoning) reactions (i. e. emotions, actions,
and thoughts)

Sign all things or events which can be perceived
Dynamic Object every aspect of reality which
urges to utter
Diagram 1
19
Structuralist Semiotics
Umberto Eco
Claude Lévi-Strauss
1857-1913 1908 1896-1982
1932
20
The Difference of Signifier and Signification
Signifier (a perceivable something)
Sign
Signification (sense/meaning of a signifier)
Diagram 2
21
Signifiers and Significations are Elements of
Systems Omnis determinatio est negatio (every
determination is a negation)
Signifiers 1 4
Significations 1 4
Diagram 3
22
Elements in systems are defined by their position
in the system, which is constituted of
differences. Signifier 1 is not Signifier 2, also
Signification 3 is not Signification 4 and so on.
23
Some examples signifier 1 the (written/spoken)
word treeor an icon signification 1 a bigger
plant in a garden, along the road, or wood etc.
Some trees have a blossoming (flowering) time,
they have a wooden trunk ... signifier 2 the
(written/spoken) word flower or an icon
signification 2 usual a smaller plant in a
garden or a park, which is prefered to be in its
flowering time has a stalk...
24
signifier 1 cattlesignification 1 cows and
bulls signifier 2 watersignification 2 rivers,
seas signifier 3 woodsignification 3 a
collection of trees signifier 4
plantssignification 4 vegetables signifier 5
incensesignification 5 something to burn, which
probably smells good
25
Semiotic Systems of Differences
semiotic systems consists in differences differen
ces of signifiers and significations Differences
of signifiers on the one hand and differences of
significations on the other hand
26
Differences of signifiers (e. g. phonetic
analysis)
cattle
battle ford
lord rating
hating host
ghost jive
live Some elements of a phonetic system
stand in strict opposition. By this way
combinations of elements are able to product
different signifiers.
27
Differences of significations contradictory and
contrary
The significations of cattle, water, wood,
plants, incense pertain to a differentiated
system. They provide things to offer. So they
have the same function, but they remain
different. Good Mazdayasni religion/pious and
righteous followers of the Zarathustrian (creed)
rule at will vs. Wicked dragged down to the
purgatory So in signification systems differences
can be contrary like cattle etc. They can also be
contradictory like pious and wicked.
28
Structural research consists in describing
differences in systems. Claude Lévi-Strauss tried
by this way to understand what he called indian
(and greek) myth as well as the structure of
rituals. From a structuralist point of view we
have to mark the main differences of a given
system and to understand the rules by which that
differences are produced.
29
The Genuine Triadic Relation of Signifying,
respectively Sign-Process
Interpretant (Signification-System) perceptions
(Eco) understanding (Eco)(i.e. abductive,
deductive, and inductive reasoning) reactions
(i. e. emotions, actions, and thoughts)

Sign (Signifier-System) all things or events
which can be perceived
Dynamic Object (???) every aspect of reality
which urges to utter
Diagram 4
Structuralist Positions
30
Structural analysis started by analysis of closed
systems like the phonetic system. But Jakobson
discovered transformations of that system in the
Russian language. In time the system was not as
stable as some structuralists had believed. So
structuralist theory had to describe not only
closed and stable systems, but also the
transformation of systems. Structural science
became a more historical design and that
corresponds to Peirce more dynamic theory. Beyond
Jakobsons insights Eco understood that semiotics
like in antique rhetoric, history and medicine,
had to be a theory of inferences or reasoning
and Peirce had completed and improved antique
insights by Aristoteles and the Stoics.
31
As Eco discovered these things, he was the most
creative semiotician of the 20th century. He
accepted as well the Peircean fallibilism
remember the remaining uncertainties and
contingencies in reasoning , and getting older
he accepted also the more pragmatic theory of
Peirces dynamic object. So today the different
positions of Charles Peirce and Structuralists
are reconciled at any rate for thinking people.
32
Why might Semiotics be important to a scientific
point of view?
33

• Nobody must accept semiotic theory and practise.
  But it should be tested in practise.
• In my opinion there are two good reasons for
  working semiotically in science
• interdisciplinary opportunities e. g.
  psychosomatic medicine, brain research,
  philosophy, genetic questions can be discussed
  semiotically and in some cases are discussed that
  way today
• analysis of traditions can be realized
  carefully and in a way which is sensible of
  differences in and between religions etc.

34
Semiotics of Religious Utterances like Narratives
and Rituals seen in the Light of Narrative
Patterns
35
Historical preliminaries
Semiotics should be observed in practise and it
have to be tested in practise. Therefore we
probably do not have semiotics of continous
anthropological structures, e. g. a semiotics of
religion, but of a single religion and may be
a semiotics of religions. We have to respect
differences of religions and semiotic practise
is able to do that. So let us take a glance at
the emergence of New Testament texts in their
social, communicative world, from which my
semiotically examples are selected.
36
New Testament texts are edited in the second half
of the second century A. D. together with the
Septuagint (a greek translation and partial
enlargement of the Hebrew Bible). This edition
was called canon about 200 years later. So we
have to call this edition in a historically exact
way precanonic edition. This edition is
pluralistic like the Hebrew Bible or the
Septuagint, but also like rabbinic Judaism
religious discourse. In all this historical
developments there is no strong unity. Unity
emerges as discourse about (remaining)
differences.
37
Historically that is no surprise. Early judaism
and early christianity are part of hellenistic
culture. And whatever that may be, at any rate it
is a culture of pluralism. Of course, not
thoroughly, but at least in its rhetorical
practise. According to Aristoteles this practise
must reflect upon the social rule, that all
things or events always can be different there
are seldom stable regularities in society. Its a
culture of contingency. New testament texts are
part of rhetorical culture. The signs,
respectively signifiers of that texts are
rhetorically stylized by figures, which are
perceived in reading and hearing (like
alliteration, polyptoton). They use all common
argumentative patterns of antique rhetoric.
38
Moreover, as the so called synoptic gospels of
Matthew, of Mark and of Luke prove, they are
widely made of four basic genres Gnome that
are maxims, often paradoxically, like let the
dead bury the dead parable that are
examples in inductive argumentations , myth
that are stories like miracle stories chreia
that are stories including aphorisms
39
All these genres are well trained in antique
school-system called progymnasmata. Who was
learning to scribe Greek or Latin, learned these
four genres. And pupils learned also to adapt
them in different situations. You know New
Testament texts are written in Greek. So because
the three synoptic gospels are widely made of
these variable genres, they will not simply
present the same things, but different
interpretants of their dynamic object, which they
perceive sign-mediated. Their rhetorically
stylized signs are a strong hint, that they are
part of a rhetorical culture, a culture of
contingence.
40
So their microstructure is build up of variable
genres. And their macrostructure is shaped by
different narrative patterns. In my opinion these
are three patterns, which shape not only the text
but also the perceiving of the dynamic objects,
their life conceptions. So we have more than one
life conception in the synoptic gospels and as
we will see more than one conception of the same
ritual. Well, lets look at the narrative
patterns, I have worked out in my semiotic
practise.
41
Three Different Narrative Patterns
1. Success-Stories 2. Dualistic
Stories 3. Problem Stories (Stories of an
unsolvable problem)
42
Success-Stories
There are three steps of story-telling 1. Telling
of a negative situation 2. Telling of
overcoming this negative situation 3. Telling of
a happy ending In New Testament texts we will
discover some small genres like miracle-stories
as shaped by such success-stories 1. Illness 2.
Healing of the illness 3. Going back of the
former ill persons to every day life
43
Success-story-pattern in the macrostructure of
the Gospel of Luke/Acts 1. negative situation
There are hopes of Israel, which are represented
in the holy scriptures of the Jews 2. overcoming
of this situation Salvation by the coming of
Jesus of Nazaret. This salvation is slightly
different to that what was expected and is
represented in the scriptures (critical
reinterpretation of jewish scriptures). 3. happy
endingFullfilling and surpassing the hopes of
negative Situation in the textual prognosted
belief of gentiles
44
Success stories communicate a more hopeful life
conception. Participation in christian belief and
community will make things better and in the end
all things may be good.
45
Dualistic story patterns
I think Aristoteles was right, that stories have
three parts beginning, middle and
ending. Dualistic stories therefore begin with a
contradictory difference In their middle there is
also a contradiction. At the end we have a
contradictory difference too.
46
Dualistic story-pattern in the Gospel of
Matthew After creation in the beginning there had
happened an accident, and it emerged the
contradictory difference between god and angels
on the one hand and devil and demons on the other
hand and corresponding two groups among human
beings.In the middle Jesus was appearing, but
the contradictory difference remained There are
rightoeus people vs. evil people but nobody
knows exactly who is righteous or evil (except
god and devil).At the end it will becoming
clear who was evil and who was righteous. The
latter will go into gods realm, the former will
go to hell, where devil is waiting for them.
47
This dualistic pattern is used also (by
variances) in jewish apocalypticism or in most of
the gnostic texts of Nag Hammadi. This type of
dualistic pattern supposes, nobody exactly knows
(except god and devil) what is the case
therefore nobody can do anything. It is a pattern
of a tragic fate.
48
Problem-Story Pattern
At first sight one might believe problem-stories
are a more complex case of success-stories. But
like dualistic stories problem-stories maintain
their narrative difference in supposed time of
experience, but unfold it in a more complex way.
Problem stories tell about problems, which are
unsolvable in time. My suggestion is inspired by
Lévi-Strauss, but I try to make better his
conception. My model is worked out for early
jewish and christian interpretants of life
conceptions.
49
0 Telling about the possibility of a emerging
difference or combination of differences in time
1 negative situation in time
2 positive situation in time
3 overcoming the negative situation in time by a
figure representing both sides of the difference
of 1 and 2
4 renewing of the negative situation in time in
the light of 2
5 There is no more difference beyond time
50
0 The ambivalence of the tora It is not able to
determine sufficiently emotions
Gospel of Mark
2 faith love of men/women by following Jesus
1 fear urge to power
3 Jesus is the one who is faithing and fearing
he is a powerful, divine figur and is put to
death by jewish and roman social authorities
4 There is fear among the followers and urge to
be the first one of them
5 There only is divine light and power beyond
time
51
Problem-Stories are patterns of a more
self-critical life conception of religious
practise in time. Religious and other social
authorities are not be held in great esteem, but
that criticism is applicated to the communitys
own social structure. One has to take into
account the criticized emotion or behavior could
be found at oneself. In time expressed problems
by that pattern can not be solved. They are
solved beyond time.
52
Rituals in the Light of different narrative
patterns lords supper
53
Action-Sequences
Setting A meal at Passover-Night. In that night
Judas tries to hand over Jesus to the jewish
authorities, especially the priests in Jerusalem
to put for death 1. Jesus takes a
bread2. blesses it3. breaks it in
parts4. divides these parts among his
disciples5. they eat6. Jesus interprets his
(and their) actions
54
7. Jesus takes a beaker 8. thanks for
it9. gives this beaker to his disciples
10. they all drink11. Jesus interprets his (and
their) actions12. gives an outlook of last time
55
These are widely common sequences of the
following three synoptic versions. But there are
differences which are shaped by our story
patterns. So I think, that narrative structures
are represented in ritual structures too. We have
seen actions are one part of interpretants among
reactions. Therefore actions (and also rituals
as action-sequences) interprete sign-mediated
life conceptions.
56
In the lords supper there are two (in christian
dogmatics so called) elements bread and wine
(sc. beaker of wine synekdoche ellipsis).
Semiotically it is not a question of material but
of communication Jesus distributes bread and
wine among his disciples and interpretes his
giving as well as their eating bread and drinking
wine This is my body (sc. which you are
eating) This is my blood (sc. which you are
drinking) Remember, that is the night of his
handing over to death.
57
In this night Jesus eats and drinks with his
disciples (including Judas, who will him hand
over). Why do they eat bread and drink wine? That
was usual in meals of that time. Moreover there
is a symbolic meaning bread and wine are
cultural products by agriculture, baking and wine
growing. In that cultural process bunches of
grapes have to be pressed, cereals have to be
milled, i. e. both have to be destroyed. These
cultural practises are symbolically included in
lords supper. They are symbolic signs of Jesus
death his body is destroyed and his blood is
shed.
58
Because Jesus interprets his actions as well as
the actions of his disciples these interpretants
in the sequences of actions gives the death of
Jesus a communicative meaning. Jesus dies for a
new community. It will emerge out of his death.
59
The Lords Supper in the Light of a problem-story
pattern (The Gospel according to Mark)
60
0 The ambivalence of the tora It is not able to
determine sufficiently emotions
2 possible emergence of a new religious community
1 fear/urge to power Jesus is put to death
3 Jesus body and blood symbolically represented
by bread and wine (eaten and drunken by the
disciples)
4 There remains fear among the followers. So
they run away after the meal. Judas had handed
over Jesus to power.
5 I will never drink that wine until the realm
of god is completed.
61
I want you to notice the second element of
structure It is the possible emergence of a
community. Therefore in that ritual we see a
selfcritical life conception which is so to
speak narratively put on stage. In difference
to Pauls as well as Lukes version of the ritual
in Mark we do not have an instruction to repeat
that situation in Passover-Night. This is in my
opinion a narrative hint of the weak conception
of community. Because the meal had not a happy
ending in time such an instruction would be a
narrative mistake. But, of course, there should
be any doubt, that it is a text of a central
christian ritual.
62
In a very careful and more reserved use of terms
of ritual theory I will suggest the markan
conception of lords supper is a transition
ritual, but a ritual of permanent transition.
The disciples are seperated from the other jews
in a meaningful situation with Jesus, who gives
them both his body and his blood by drinking
wine and eating bread but the transition does
not work. Narratively it is allused, it could
work, but the performative power of the ritual is
not represented in our text.
63
The Lords Supper in the Light of a Dualistic
Narrative Pattern The Gospel according to Matthew
64
The critical/selfcritical position of the markan
story is held by Matthew. In difference Jesus
interprets his death as happening to forgive
sins. It is the only point in New Testament texts
lords supper is probably connected with the idea
of offering. The more it is surprising that this
offering does not work too like in Mark. The
reason differs with Mark, because the story is
dualistic shaped. The disciples are not religious
heroes, since never knows of which side of the
contradictory difference they are.
65
So we have a kind of absurdity in Matthew The
blood of Jesus is given for the disciples sins
and that is put on stage in the ritual, but never
knows if it works.
66
The Lords Supper in the Light of a
Success-Story-Pattern The Gospel according to
Luke
67
The gospel of Luke in the present form is
probably written at the time when the precanonic
edition was in sight. So we have an attempt to
reconcile different positions. More critical
positions are combined with more churchly
suggestions. The disciples are instructed to put
on stage that meal by repeating it. There is also
a hint, that in the Passover-Night the ritual did
not work. But there is strong hope of working of
the ritual in future in the history of church.
68
In all three versions is the performative power
of the ritual not represented directly. It will
work in the future of church (Luke). The
performative power of the ritual can not be
observed, because it is not observable before the
end of time (Matthew). The performative power of
the ritual may work, but its not a power of a
stable community (Mark).
69
Conclusion I have tried to show you semiotical
practise is able to grasp differentiated
traditions. Semiotical theory emerges out of
semiotical practise. So every practise will
probably change semiotic theory at least a little
bit. Therefore I clearly could not provide you a
theory of all rituals but of three types of one
ritual in the cultural context, which is familiar
to me.