Structural Ritualization Theory

Structural Ritualization Theory:

Current Research and Future Developments*

J. David Knottnerus
Department of Sociology
CLB 006
Oklahoma State University
Stillwater, OK 74078-4062
david.knottnerus@okstate.edu

* A version of this paper was presented at the annual meeting of the Sociological Imagination Group, Montreal, August 10, 2006.

In this chapter I discuss some of my work, which has begun to address issues related to social and individual change. To do this I will discuss the theory and research I have been involved in, identify influences by and linkages with the web/part-whole perspective, discuss some of the theory’s arguments and assumptions, and describe several of these research efforts. I will then comment on some of the recent research that addresses the topic of change and applications of the theory.

Daily life is normally characterized by an array of social rituals. Such rituals help create stability to social life while expressing various symbolic meanings that give significance to our actions. Moreover, everyday rituals, whether occurring in small groups or organizations, can lead to consequences unintended by group members while both being fed by and feeding into larger societal levels of interaction. The basic assumption that rituals are crucial to human behavior is influenced by the arguments of various social scientists including Durkheim (1965 [1915]), Goffman (1967), Collins (2004), and Warner (1959, 1962) who have used this concept for analytical purposes (for other useful discussions of ritual see Kertzer 1988; Douglas 1970; Turner 1967; Bell 1992; Lukes 1965).

Building upon the contributions of scholars concerned with ritual, “structural ritualization theory (SRT),” formally defines ritualization and presents a set of factors to explain various dynamics involving social action and social structure (Knottnerus 1997). The theory focuses on the role “ritualized symbolic practices” play in social life and the ways they contribute to the creation, reproduction, and/or transformation of social structure. Being formally stated with precisely developed concepts facilitates use of the framework for investigations of empirical cases and a clearer understanding of the processes occurring in these social settings.

In focusing upon rituals in daily social life SRT differs from many other theories and perspectives. For instance, unlike social exchange theory, game theory, and elementary relations theory, SRT is not driven by rational choice. While sharing some assumptions with symbolic interactionism, expectation states theory, and social cognition approaches, it differs from these traditions due to its explicit focus on ritual enactments, its willingness to employ different methods and types of empirical evidence, and a concern for social dynamics occurring at different levels of the social order. And, while concerned in part with social processes contributing to social inequality and power, it also differs from approaches such as Marxist theory and world-systems/social change perspectives because of its emphasis on the symbolic and meaningful components of social life and culture. In essence, it addresses a different kind of social phenomenon than theories such as these.

To reiterate, SRT focuses on everyday life and the central role rituals play in human behavior. Much of the research employing this perspective places explicit attention on ritual enactments in our daily lives and their importance for understanding social action and social relations. At the same time, I have given increasing attention to how social rituals can operate at different levels of the social order (i.e., micro to increasingly macro levels of analysis) and ritualized behaviors operating in a particular setting can influence the rituals that develop in different contexts (e.g., across different levels of the social order).

SRT parallels in many ways and is informed by and linked to the web/part-whole approach, which calls for a definition of the problem, movement up language’s ladder of abstraction, movement down the ladder of abstraction, integrating knowledge, and reflexive analysis (Phillips 2001; Phillips and Johnston forthcoming; Kincaid 1996; Phillips, Kincaid, and Scheff 2002; Scheff 1997, 2006). Indeed, the web/part-whole approach provides an extremely valuable framework for developing, analyzing, and identifying the key components and assumptions, which shape a program of theory and research such as SRT.

To begin with, the web/part-whole approach emphasizes the importance of the concrete (or particulars) such as the complex nature of human transactions and social bonds. SRT directs our attention to one crucial dimension of relationships: rituals. The ritualized component of social behavior is viewed as central to human experience. So, the role of ritual in social life is the key concept or research problem addressed by this perspective. In focusing on ritual, as will later be discussed, research has been directed toward various social topics.

Furthermore, the web/part-whole’s emphasis on moving up and down the conceptual ladder of abstraction between (a) concrete situations and (b) theory and social process/structure is realized in ritualization theory. The latter seeks to develop theoretical concepts, which explain the processes by which rituals operate and structure social life, from micro to more macro levels of analysis. At the same time these general or abstract concepts are always grounded in particulars or empirical research, whether they involve tests or exemplifications.

Furthermore, both the web/part-whole approach and SRT emphasize the need for theory integration and cooperative efforts aimed at theory development and synthesis. Such an orientation also implies openness to using different methodologies and forms of evidence in our research (Knottnerus 2005). This orientation recognizes and emphasizes the complexity of social behavior. As emphasized by the web/part-whole approach, theoretical and methodological procedures which generate comprehensive explanatory formulations and bodies of evidence are essential for understanding the complex nature of social life.

Finally, an emphasis on reflexive analysis is a crucial component of the web/part-whole approach. A reflexive analysis of SRT, conducted here for the first time, suggests that a number of views in the social sciences and personal circumstances have shaped this approach. Consistent with the arguments of Giddens (1984) I assume that structure and agency are both integral parts of social life with each implicated in the dynamics of the other. Social structure, or the patterned relations between social units, is real and is manifested in a myriad number of ways (for more elaborated discussions and definitions of structure see Knottnerus and Prendergast 1995; Chew and Knottnerus 2002). Yet, agency is also real and must be taken into account. Furthermore, I assume that an important aspect of agency involves the perceptions, meanings, and symbolic constructs of people which guide and are expressed in their behavior and interaction. My appreciation for this last point, along with my first exposure to the writings of the classic theorists in sociology, occurred during my undergraduate studies at Beloit College and was primarily due to the efforts of a truly exceptional teacher, Dr. Donald Summers. He introduced me to the works of many scholars including various phenomenologists (e.g., Merleau-Ponty 1962, Berger and Luckmann1966) and interactionists.

Influenced by my reading of those such as Durkheim, Goffman, and Simmel (1906, 1950), I eventually came to believe that ritual provides a valuable tool for analyzing the dynamics involving human agency and structure. Notwithstanding the seminal contributions of scholars such as these I also recognized that ritual has been under theorized in sociology, especially in ways that would allow for a precise, systematic investigation of social phenomena based on clearly defined theoretical concepts.

Finally, I should mention that other circumstances, including those in my early life, have shaped this approach. My appreciation for the importance of science, which involves both theory development and empirical research, began in my youth partly due to the influence of my parents and my primary and secondary education in a very good public school system. My appreciation for the importance of social inequities and problems in contemporary society was due to a number of factors. Influences in my early life include my family, which provided the means and encouragement to read widely and a protestant upbringing, which, as I understood it, stressed the relevance of our values for real world problems. Lastly, events in American society in the 1960s and early 1970s and my experiences at an undergraduate institution which emphasized critical thought, the importance of knowledge, and the need to apply this knowledge to the world we live in helped shape my desire to change social conditions which inhibit human development

Having identified some of the key ways the web/part-whole approach informs and overlaps with SRT, I will now provide a more detailed description of structural ritualization theory and research and more recent work that has relevance for the topic of social change and applications of its principles.

SRT is grounded in a growing number of empirical studies. Reflecting a commitment to multimethod research strategies, various individuals have carried out or are in the process of conducting a number of investigations of ritual dynamics in different social milieus. Studies focus on ritualization occurring in both contemporary and historical settings and in American and international contexts. Furthermore, some of the research replicates studies and analyses in different social settings. In doing so, the theory attempts to bridge across methods having been applied in the field, in historical research, and in the laboratory. Very different kinds of evidence have been examined involving, for instance, field observations, videotapes of problem solving groups, interviews, archival evidence, literary sources, and secondary data. In other words, the approach is unique in the very broad scope over which it has been applied.

SRT also involves several extensions of the theory, i.e., different lines of theory and research based upon or related to the original formulation. Succinctly stated, current work is proceeding along 6 directions: deritualization (i.e., disruptions to personal and social rituals, their consequences, and the ways people may cope with such experiences); the enactment of ritualized practices in organizations and communities; structural reproduction; strategic ritualization and the role of power; collective ritual events and the role of emotions, and applied research. The latter is a general term, which represents a growing concern for how the theory can be used to better understand and implement change in social and personal arrangements, especially when these conditions lead to problematic and dehumanizing outcomes.

To provide more concrete detail about some of this work I briefly discuss several of these lines of research. The first topic addressed by the perspective might seem far removed from the topic of change, but it is actually quite relevant not only because it examines certain forces that undermine change, but also because it presents some of the key concepts of the theory which deal with ritual processes.

In its original formulation the theory focuses on structural reproduction by emphasizing the importance of embedded groups or groups that are nested within a more encompassing collectivity such as an informal youth group in a school or a problem solving group in a bureaucratic organization. The formulation focuses on the ritualized actions performed in a wider social environment that acquire significance for the actor and then become part of the individual’s script for his or her immediate world. In this way, although practices are not just “copied,” they surface and are expressed in ways that may confirm the pattern of behavior in the wider social environment.

More precisely, a number of concepts allow for an examination of this issue. Briefly stated, ritualized symbolic practices (RSPs) help structure group dynamics. RSPs are standardized, schema-driven actions. Schema refers to a cognitive framework. RSPs, therefore, involve regularly engaged in actions that possess meaning and express symbolic themes. They contribute to the patterning of everyday behavior and interaction in various social milieus. RSPs refer to the widespread form of social behavior in which people engage in regularized activities when interacting with others. Such practices are found throughout social life and can include ritualized forms of interaction within different subcultures, institutions, and groups of varying size (e.g., patterns of behavior and communication in a youth group, religious practices, family gatherings and celebrations, ritualized play and recreational activities). This perspective emphasizes that ritualized practices which comprise much of the taken for granted daily lives of people rest upon cognitive schemas.

The original theory emphasizes the social processes by which RSPs in larger social environments influence embedded groups. Embedded groups are bounded groups located in a wider social environment. The theory suggests that the taken-for-granted ritualized practices of people in such groups are strongly influenced by the regularized patterns of behavior, i.e., RSPs, occurring in the larger social environment, which they are exposed to or engage in. Generally speaking, important or dominant ritualized practices in the larger milieu will, over time, shape the cognitive or symbolic schemas that guide the actions of actors in embedded groups. They become part of the cognitive scripts that dictate their behavior.

Four factors play a part in structural reproduction and ritualization processes more generally. The four factors that influence RSPs are salience, repetitiveness, homologousness, and resources. Salience involves the “degree to which a RSP is perceived to be central to an act, action sequence, or bundle of interrelated acts” (Knottnerus 1997:262). This involves the prominence or conspicuousness of a RSP, which too can vary. Repetitiveness involves the “relative frequency with which a RSP is performed” (Knottnerus 1997:262). The repetition of RSPs can vary. For instance, in a social setting or domain of interaction, the presence of a RSP might be rare. In other domains, actors may engage in the ritualized practice quite often. Homologousness implies a “degree of perceived similarity among different RSPs” (Knottnerus 1997:263). It is possible that different RSPs exist in a social setting and these actions may display a similarity in meaning and form. The greater the correspondence between them, the more likely they reinforce each other. This enhances the impact of RSPs on actors in a domain of interaction. Finally, resources are “materials needed to engage in RSPs which are available to actors” (Knottnerus 1997:264). The greater the availability of resources, the more likely an actor will engage in a RSP. Resources include nonhuman materials such as money and time. They also include human traits like interaction skills, physical strength, and intellectual ability.

Rank is another important concept in the theory. It involves “the relative standing of a RSP in terms of its dominance” or importance (Knottnerus 1997:266). According to the theory, rank is a function of repetitiveness, salience, homologousness, and resources. A RSP ranks high if it is repeated often, is quite visible, is similar to other practices, and actors have resources to take part in it. Overall, the higher the rank of the RSP, the greater its impact on the thoughts and behavior of actors, and the greater the likelihood that similar RSPs and social structures will be reproduced in an embedded group.

While development of this perspective is fairly recent, a growing number of researchers and I have conducted various studies supporting the argument just presented along with other formulations related to the theory. Experimental tests examining the reproduction of hierarchical social structures in task groups have provided support for the theory (Sell, Knottnerus, Ellison, and Mundt 2000). In a very different type of study utilizing diaries, autobiographical materials, and other historical sources, research has examined the transmission of status structures from owners of slave plantations to the slave society itself in the ante-bellum South (Knottnerus 1999; Knottnerus, Monk, and Jones 1999). And, in a study using literary texts such as novels, shorts stories, diaries, memoirs, and fictionalized autobiographies along with archival sources, a further instance of such reproduction is found in a historical-comparative analysis demonstrating how female and male youth societies in 19^th century French elite schools mirrored the respective institutional systems they were embedded in (Knottnerus and Van de Poel Knottnerus 1999; Van de Poel-Knottnerus and Knottnerus 2002). What all this research demonstrates is how under certain conditions actors will reproduce the social behaviors and arrangements they are exposed to, even if they do not generate positive, rewarding outcomes and may actually lead to undesirable consequences.

For instance, in 19^th century French lycees male youth recreated many of the ritualized behaviors and relations they were exposed to in their informal, oftentimes secret embedded world. More precisely, this elite school system was an extreme type of total institution, which, from the perspective of the theory, contained a distinct set of highly ranked ritualized symbolic practices and relational features. These dominant ritualized activities engaged in by staff members such as principals, supervisors, and teachers which male youth were exposed to in this institutional environment included a highly formalized, quite inflexible, and complex hierarchical authority system. Rigid, hierarchical relations characterized the interaction between students and staff.

Staff literally possessed a great deal of authority while students essentially had no authority. So too, punishments and extreme discipline were central to the ritualized behaviors of staff as they sought to control all aspects of these youth’s lives. Relations between students and staff were also marked by high degrees of social distance and formality. Youth were usually dealt with in a demanding if not oppressive manner nearly all of the time. All of these ritualized practices focused on and expressed symbolic themes that emphasized the harsh use of social power, rigid distinctions, the stringent use of punishments and discipline, high degrees of impersonality, and authoritarian modes of behavior.

The personal and social experiences of youth within these educational institutions also exhibited very distinct qualities as revealed by an examination of literary sources. Briefly stated, “entry” into the institutional milieu of the school involved a major change in the lives of youth often involving “abusive rites of passage.” Some boys also experienced “feelings of loneliness.” We find, as might be expected, that a “need for acceptance” existed among some youth. Youth were also regularly subjected to various “punishing or aversive experiences.” Staff, including teachers, exercised extreme control and a watchful eye over students while placing a great stress on schoolwork both in and outside of class. It is revealing that one finds hardly any discussion of rewarding experiences. “Classism” or “elite and non-elite distinctions” were also quite common among students and, for that matter, the entire institutional environment.

Perhaps most importantly, an “enduring” and “pervasive” feature of this youth world dealt with “group formation,” i.e., the creation and perpetuation of informal groups of varying size among students. While different kinds of leaders were present in these groups, “authoritarian leaders” are most often mentioned. Many of these youth groups exhibited “rigid hierarchical social structures” or arrangements (e.g., groups/gangs with very authoritarian leaders sometimes literally referred to as chiefs, boys who were clearly identified as next or second in command, pecking orders among the members, etc.). And, “coercive” and “oppositional orientations” were evident throughout this world of youth and in many of the specific groups that boys created (as seen, for example, in their aggressive treatment of and opposition to other groups from their own or other schools, the ridiculing or mistreatment of certain individuals, bullying, and scapegoating). In sum, the social world of these male youth was characterized by an emphasis on “power in social relations.”

What we find then is that while verbally opposed to the strict regime male youth were exposed to in 19^th century French lycees, boys ultimately reproduced these authoritarian, hierarchical arrangements within their own social world. What resulted in their informal, hidden social world was an even more exaggerated version of the social environment they were embedded in.

A different line of research focuses more directly on issues related to change, i.e., “disruption and deritualization.” This work examines the basic assumption underlying this theory that rituals are a crucial and necessary dimension of social behavior. It does this by examining critical situations in which the ritualized practices people normally engage in are severely disrupted. It is argued that those who are able to create new or reconstitute old ritualized practices subsequent to such disruptions are best able to cope with and adapt to their immediate situation. In other words, collective and more “individualized” rituals (which are still social in nature) serve as a buffer to disruptive events. Much of this research has examined the accounts of persons interned in concentration camps during the twentieth century directing attention to the importance of rituals in these survivors’ lives while imprisoned. Such research, which examines the daily lives - “particulars” of people’s experiences – clearly reveals the significance of rituals (even seemingly small, trivial rituals) for enabling people to cope with disruptive situations.

The first comparative case study (Knottnerus 2002; see Knottnerus 2005) of this issue focused on persons placed in concentration camps in the middle of the twentieth century in four different cultures, i.e., Germany, Japan, the Soviet Union, and the United States. While we are currently expanding upon this first study by examining the experiences of more persons interned in Nazi concentration camps (Van de Poel-Knottnerus and Knottnerus 2006), some of the findings from the first study can be discussed here.

Evidence concerning actor’s experiences in these different cases has been obtained from published accounts in the form of diaries, memoirs, autobiographies, and biographies. By reading these accounts – 26 in all - and employing certain rules and a coding scheme, I identified different ritualized behaviors that were responses to severe disruptions of prisoners’ lives. And, other forms of information were collected including reflective statements by actors about these practices. Various findings have emerged from this research and more recent investigations of Nazi camps. To begin with we find that all of the accounts, which were authored by survivors of these camps, contain unambiguous references to ritualized practices. While a wide variation exists in the number of references to such practices the average number of references is large. Moreover, comments refer to a wide variety of ritual types. In looking at all the accounts at least twenty-seven different types of ritual practices are mentioned by internees including, for example, religious practices; holding of classes; talking, story telling, and discussion groups; sports; holiday celebrations; music; and what are referred to as idiosyncratic activities (unique practices peculiar to an individual or group). Looked at from a different angle one also finds that these activities take one of three forms: personal/private, informal social, and quasi-formal organizational rituals.

In the aggregate certain ritual types or contents appear to be more common such as references to religious or musical activities. A closer examination of separate accounts quickly reveals, however, great differences. Examining the actual comments of just a few of the internees confirms these observations. For instance, while Kitagawa (1967) describes how Japanese Americans engaged in Christian or Buddhist religious services in American camps, Beattie (1946), a war correspondent imprisoned in Nazi camps, repeatedly describes prisoners as taking part in cooking “bashes” and engaging in artistic activities. In contrast, Stajner’s (1988) account of life in Siberian labor camps describes instances of ritualized informal interaction involving periodic storytelling, joke telling, and the exchange of memories.

Furthermore, wide variations in accounts are found not only between cultural groups but also among prisoners within each of the four groups. And, large differences exist within the different types of ritualized practices, e.g., individuals describing how they engaged in very different kinds of ritualized sporting activities ranging from sumo wrestling or softball to soccer. Certain individuals also discuss idiosyncratic ritualized activities. For instance, Gill (1988:360), who survived internment in Auschwitz, states: “I kept to a ritual of washing –although they made water available in the Block washroom only at midnight. All through the summer of 1943 I remember getting up at midnight, which was an effort, and going to wash myself. I know that having a self-imposed routine was a tremendous help.” This particular account illustrates a basic point worth emphasizing: unique, small, and what might appear to be trivial rituals can, under extreme conditions, assume great significance for people providing meaning and stability in their lives.

Lastly, we find that a number of narratives contain quite revealing reflective statements about internees’ behavior in these camps. For instance, Herling (1951:143-44), who was interned in Soviet concentration camps, offers the following observation about those who engaged in various ritualized behaviors such as mending clothes, writing letters, or visiting friends in the barracks in the evening: “All these activities had one quality in common - they imitated the normal occupations of a free life. Our behavior observ[ed] the symbolic ritual of a dimly remembered routine . . . The foregoing description, however, applies only to those few prisoners who made some effort to save themselves from complete demoralization. But the majority . . . left their bunks during the evening only to fill up the hollowness of their stomachs with a pint or two of the inevitable hot water . . . The majority of prisoners . . . deluded themselves that this suicidal form of relaxation strengthened the organism of their bodies.”

In essence this research suggests that disruptions can differ, some being extremely severe and of a coercive nature, and they can negatively impact individuals and groups in various ways. When people experience disruptions, the reconstruction of old or new ritualized practices enables people to cope with or adjust to this situation. Moreover, these ritual processes appear to be a fundamental part of human life occurring in very different cultures. Although, as previously emphasized, the form such rituals take are exceedingly varied.

This research has also led to subsequent studies (some of which are in progress) examining other kinds of situations that fall under the abstract categories of disruption and deritualization. These include disasters (Thornburg, Knottnerus, and Webb forthcoming, Unpublished Manuscript), displaced youth during the culture revolution in China (Wu and Knottnerus, 2005, 2007), a laboratory experiment studying disruptions in group interaction (Sell, Knottnerus, and Adcock Unpublished Manuscript), and high stress, extreme isolation environments such as long-term expeditions and arctic research stations. A growing body of findings suggests, again, the importance of ritualized practices in facilitating people’s ability to cope with adverse conditions.¹

Interpreted in a slightly different way, what this research suggests is that ritualized behaviors can be interrupted, breakdown, be reconstituted, and sometimes change. And, when this occurs these changes can involve the reenactment of ritual practices which may greatly differ in both their nature and their consequences. In other words these newly created practices can range from having deleterious personal or social effects to their facilitating human survival and personal and social development. In regard to the latter possibility, reconstituted rituals may have beneficial or restorative consequences. This observation leads to the following proposal that once principles are well established, investigated, and tested, the next step would be to use this knowledge to alleviate undesirable social conditions and problems. Such applied or change oriented efforts, grounded in a theoretical understanding of social life, could involve the development of interventionist techniques or policy recommendations.

While my efforts in this regard are quite recent and in need of further development I would like to briefly describe one study which has just been completed and highlight several other projects that have potential relevance for the issue of change. The first investigation, conducted by Jason Ulsperger and I (Ulsperger and Knottnerus forthcoming; see also the chapter in this volume by the same authors), examines nursing homes in the U.S. In this investigation we employ SRT to analyze the occupational rituals shaping the daily lives of staff in nursing homes. Particular attention is given to the symbolic themes articulated through these ritualized activities and their rank, i.e., importance. More specifically we focus on the bureaucratic nature of these ritualized behaviors and the outcomes that may derive from actors engaging in such practices.

To study the occupational rituals of workers in long-term care organizations we analyzed the content of documents to better understand this social setting. These materials include the majority of literary sources focusing on everyday life in nursing homes during the period when the federal government first established nursing home regulations up to the modern era of nursing home care.

The analysis unearthed various textual or symbolic themes expressed through the ritualized behaviors engaged in by workers. We grouped the themes according to their similarity and interpreted them using the analytic constructs of bureaucracy as defined by Weber (1946). We determined the rank of these RSPs using the factors of repetitiveness and salience, and gave particular attention to the salience of various workers’ practices that involved the maltreatment, neglect, and abuse of residents. The findings clearly show that features of bureaucracy dominate staff’s occupational rituals. We found that the bureaucratic nature of nursing homes influences and is expressed in workers’ cognitions and patterns of behaviors. Most importantly, evidence clearly shows that bureaucratic ritualized symbolic practices unintentionally result in abuse and neglect of residents.

For example, the greatest number of references was to staff separation and hierarchy, which concerns dividing lines between levels of staff. Repeated references were made to distinctions between staff involving, for instance, different ranks of nurses, training certifications, and medical, administrative, and nonprofessional personnel. Most salient were discussions of work duties as they relate to the employment hierarchy. Staff members are to focus on specific work duties, and not others. What this results in, however, is that if a worker does not complete the task, it may well never be carried out. For instance, in one facility it was the activity director’s responsibility to serve coffee to residents in the cafeteria. Residents confined to their rooms were denied this small treat because aides would not respond to their requests to bring them coffee since it was not their duty. And, the same pattern was evident in other cases whether it involved workers not helping a resident with hygiene issues since it wasn’t their duty or high-level staff ignoring abuse of residents because it was not technically their duty to deal with direct care.

Many references are also made to rules or official, bureaucratic regulations concerning the ways people carry out job related activities. Indeed, some suggest that workers are overwhelmed by regulations and that rules override compassion as formal rules shape routine and oftentimes quite personal behavior whether that involve feeding or residents not being allowed to bathe by themselves (even if they are capable of doing so). In other words, with this emphasis on rules, workers tend to lose sight of the original goal of the long-term care facility. The focus drifts away from providing care to ensuring staff do not deviate from official guidelines. Furthermore, this emphasis on rules sometimes leads to an informal mindset among some employees such as aides which places greatest value on carrying out one’s duties in a quick and efficient manner even if this involves illegal or abusive techniques, e.g., overmedicating residents (for a more extensive discussion of the bureaucratic features of this formal organization see the chapter on nursing homes and physical abuse).

The upshot is that in various ways bureaucratic demands and logic facilitate ritualized practices and cognitions, which place bureaucratic goals over resident requirements oftentimes leading to their maltreatment. Such ritualized behaviors become part of the daily social fabric of the organization.

Of course, while rituals can have negative consequences, they can also lead to lead to positive outcomes enhancing personal and social development and well being. In that regard, SRT discusses not just structural reproduction but also ritual change or what is referred to as “transformative structural ritualization” (Knottnerus 1997). It is argued that ritual dynamics can also create new behaviors and social structures. And, one way this can occur is through the premeditated support for and establishment of new ritualized symbolic practices in formal organizations. In regard to nursing homes various possibilities exist for countering the negative impact of bureaucratic rituals through the promotion of alternative rituals. While this issue is discussed in greater depth in the chapter on physical abuse in nursing homes I can mention a few of these recommendations.

Administrators and other concerned professionals could become more formally aware of and de-emphasize bureaucracy. Supervisors could push for an open dialogue about bureaucratic procedure and consequences. By facilitating awareness among staff in nursing homes about how such conditions exist, the first step would be taken toward reducing some of the unfavorable features of bureaucracy and creating an atmosphere conducive to other work rituals. Another step could involve efforts to counter focusing on specific job activities due to staff separation by educating and training all employees to assist residents with at least small problems, irregardless of their job title and formal duties. Other changes in procedures could require upper-level staff to interact on a daily basis with residents, thereby, enhancing communication, closeness, and care. While these and other recommendations may seem limited in nature their cumulative effect, if implemented, would facilitate new occupational rituals that would personalize residents and workers’ relations with them.

As previously noted, several other projects are also of potential relevance for the issue of change. Since most of these projects are in progress I will only highlight these studies. In one line of research Monica Varner and I are examining risky behaviors in youth. We have developed and implemented a “program” of alternative ritualized practices that high-risk high school students engaged in. This work should lead to more extensive research which seeks to reduce certain kinds of behaviors among youth and young adults such as drug and alcohol use while enhancing study habits, group inclusiveness, and cooperation with others.

Alex Thornburg, Gary Webb, and I (Thornburg, Knottnerus, and Webb forthcoming, Unpublished Manuscript) are also investigating the possibility that disasters such as earthquakes, floods, or terrorist attacks can severely disrupt the ritualized activities engaged in by people in their daily lives. Such disruptions often affect entire communities and societies as a whole. Here too, many questions are raised concerning the ways people’s daily practices are interrupted, if and to what extent they are able to cope with such events, and whether people can adapt to the situation by constructing new or old personal and social rituals. Our research so far suggests the reconstitution of ritualized activities is crucial to reestablishing social stability after a disaster. Such issues warrant far more research and attention by disaster responders, government agencies, and relief organizations.

Lastly, Alex Thornburg and I are investigating how ritualized ways of thinking and acting associated with the marketplace may shape the way we behave in different social arenas. To study this issue, we are examining how consumer rituals may spread from the economic sector to religious institutions, influencing the development of mega-churches. We are focusing on how certain aspects of consumer (or commodification) rituals including spectacle and economic and psychological well being may influence the way modern religion is practiced and organized. This research should provide a basis for better understanding how certain undesirable consequences associated with this development (an interpretation which is partially based on our own particular values) can be altered or resisted. For instance, it is possible that within some religious organizations smaller groups possessing strong interpersonal relations and certain themes emphasized in the organization’s religious heritage (i.e., Christian tradition) could provide the basis for cultivating alternative ritualized symbolic practices that are not consumer based.²

In sum, completed and ongoing research suggests that changes in ritual practices can occur in different contexts and at different levels of the social order. Studies of internees in concentration camps demonstrate the possibility of change in people’s personal lives and relations. Research examining nursing homes, youth in schools and mega-churches suggest that change in ritual behaviors may occur within different kinds of formal organizations. And, disaster research points to the importance of disruptions and the renewal of ritual not only at the individual and interpersonal level but also for entire communities and even societies. Looked at a little differently ritual change can arise from different sources ranging from more personalized, informal efforts initiated by individuals to formal, programmatic attempts to restructure group relations.

Finally, I would offer a few thoughts dealing with SRT, implications for change, and the need for further work. In addressing the topic of change and the development of new rituals, the theory argues that the higher the rank of ritualized symbolic practices (as determined by their salience, repetitiveness, homologousness, and resources) the greater their impact on actors’ cognitions, social behavior, and relations with others. In other words, the greater the rank or importance of new rituals, the greater the likelihood that the change will be successful and the new practices will endure.

Moreover, the theory suggests that mechanisms should be in place that support the new ritualized symbolic practices. Findings from research on structural reproduction indicate that groups embedded in larger social environments can be strongly influenced by them leading to the recreation of ritualized behaviors and structures in those embedded groups. When change occurs and new rituals are created in embedded groups, which are nested in larger social environments with different ritualized practices, one might expect the larger milieu will over time impact the embedded groups resulting in a deterioration of the new rituals. One of the implications of this research is that once new ritualized behaviors develop in groups embedded in wider social environments containing different practices, it cannot be assumed that those new behaviors will continue indefinitely on their own. Mechanisms of some sort should also be present that will at least periodically facilitate and reinforce the new practices.

What these mechanisms might be has not been addressed in previous work but it is quite likely that different factors could contribute to the maintenance of ritual practices. For instance, at the personal level periodic self-reflection and appraisal could provide a technique for individuals to monitor ritualized practices and sustain the motivation to engage in them. Possible social factors would include the use of sanctions by organizations that reward or punish actors for engaging in ritual practices. Another technique would involve training and reeducation of group members to reinforce new rules and ritual activities. Other social dynamics could also be involved. One such factor would involve special collective events that generate emotional intensity, commitment to new group rituals, and group solidarity (Knottnerus forthcoming). Other social dynamics might involve legitimation processes, which validate newly developed ritual enactments. It is issues such as these that will be addressed in future work as I focus more on applications of SRT and ritual change.

In conclusion, the goal of SRT is to contribute to the explanation of ritual in everyday life. The theory and research discussed here, which is influenced by and shares a number of important assumptions and goals with the web/part-whole approach, seeks to expand our understanding of the universal occurrence of rituals among humans and the social dynamics surrounding them. At the same time, this body of work has a number, hopefully a growing number, of implications for people’s social and personal lives and how changes in them may be brought about. The present paper represents a first effort aimed at framing this discussion and developing a more focused and comprehensive examination of this topic.

Endnotes

1. For additional research utilizing the theory see Knottnerus, Ulsperger, Cummins, and Osteen 2006; Guan and Knottnerus 1999, 2002, 2006; Knottnerus and Berry 2002; Varner and Knottnerus 2002; Knottnerus and LoConto 2003; Mitra and Knottnerus 2004; Ulsperger and Knottnerus 2006; Edwards and Knottnerus forthcoming).

2. It is possible that findings from research on religious organizations could have implications for change in other kinds of formal organizations.

References

Beattie, Jr., Edward W. 1946. Diary of a Kriege. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell.

Bell, Catherine. 1992. Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Berger, Peter and Thomas Luckmann. 1966. The Social Construction of Reality. Garden

City, NY: Doubleday.

Chew, Sing C. and J. David Knottnerus, eds. 2002. Structure, Culture and History:

Recent Issues in Social Theory. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Collins, Randall. 2004. Interaction Ritual Chains. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University

Press.

Douglas, Mary. 1970. Natural Symbols. New York: Vintage.

Durkheim, Emile. [1915] 1965. The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life. New York:

Free Press.

Edwards, Jennifer and J. David Knottnerus. Forthcoming. “The Orange Order: Strategic

Ritualization and Its Organizational Antecedents.” International Journal of Contemporary Sociology.

Giddens, Anthony. 1984. The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of

Structuration. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Gill, Anton. 1988. The Journey Back From Hell: An Oral History. Conversations with

Concentration Camp Survivors. New York: William Morrow and Company.

Goffman, Erving. 1967. Interaction Rituals: Essays on Face-To-Face Behavior. Garden

City, NY: Anchor Books.

Guan, Jian and J. David Knottnerus. 1999. “A Structural Ritualization Analysis of the

Process of Acculturation and Marginalization of Chinese Americans.” Humboldt

Journal of Social Relations 25:43-95.

_____. 2002. “A Structural Ritualization Analysis of the Process of Acculturation and

Marginalization of Chinese Americans” World Ethno-National Studies 1:68-81

(Chinese academic journal. Translation of 1999 article).

_____. 2006. “Chinatown Under Siege: Community Protest and Structural

Ritualization Theory.” Humboldt Journal of Social Relations 30:5-52.

Herling, Gustav. 1951. A World Apart (translated by Joseph Marek). New York: Roy

Publishers.

Kertzer, David I. 1988. Ritual, Politics, and Power. New Haven, CT: Yale University

Press.

Kincaid, Harold. 1996. Philosophical Foundations of the Social Sciences: Analyzing

Controversies in Social Research. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University

Press.

Kitagawa, Daisuke. 1967. Issei and Nisei: The Internment Years. New York: The

Seabury Press.

Knottnerus, J. David. 1997. "The Theory of Structural Ritualization." Pp. 257-279 in

Advances in Group Processes, Volume 14, edited by Barry Markovsky, Michael J. Lovaglia and Lisa Troyer. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

_____. 1999. "Status Structures and Ritualized Relations in the Slave Plantation System.

Pp. 137-147 in Plantation Society and Race Relations: The Origins of Inequality,

edited by Thomas J. Durant, Jr. and J. David Knottnerus. Westport, CT: Praeger.

_____. 2002. “Agency, Structure and Deritualization: A Comparative Investigation of

Extreme Disruptions of Social Order.” Pp. 85-106 in Structure, Culture and

History: Recent Issues in Social Theory, edited by Sing C. Chew and J. David

Knottnerus. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

_____. 2005. “The Need for Theory and the Value of Cooperation: Disruption and

Deritualization.” (Presidential Address, Mid-South Sociological Association,

Baton Rouge, 2003). Sociological Spectrum 25:5-19.

_____. Forthcoming. “Collective Events, Rituals and Emotions.” Sociological Inquiry

(Special Issue on Contemporary Sociological Theory edited by Ken Allan).

Knottnerus, J. David and Phyllis E. Berry. 2002. “Spartan Society: Structural

Ritualization in an Ancient Social System.” Humboldt Journal of Social Relations

27:1-42.

Knottnerus, J. David and David G. LoConto. 2003. “Strategic Ritualization and

Ethnicity: A Typology and Analysis of Ritual Enactments in an Italian American Community.” Sociological Spectrum 23:425-461.

Knottnerus, J. David, David L. Monk, and Edward Jones. 1999. "The Slave

Plantation System from a Total Institution Perspective." Pp. 17-27 In Plantation Society and Race Relations: The Origins of Inequality, edited by Thomas J. Durant, Jr. and J. David Knottnerus. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Knottnerus, J. David and Christopher Prendergast, eds. 1994. Recent Developments in the

Theory of Social Structure. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Knottnerus, J. David, Jason S. Ulsperger, Summer Cummins, and Elaina Osteen.

2006. “Exposing Enron: Media Representations of Ritualized Deviance in

Corporate Culture.” Crime, Media, Culture 2:177-195.

Knottnerus, J. David and Frederique Van de Poel-Knottnerus. 1999. The Social Worlds of

Male and Female Children in the Nineteenth Century French Educational System Youth, Rituals and Elites. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press.

Lukes, Steven. 1975. “Political Ritual and Social Integration.” Sociology 9:289-308.

Merleau-Ponty, Maurice. 1962. Phenomenology of Perception. New York: Routledge &

Kegan Paul.

Mitra, Aditi and J. David Knottnerus. 2004. “Royal Women in Ancient India: The

Ritualization of Inequality in a Patriarchal Social Order.” International Journal of

Contemporary Sociology 41:215-231.

Phillips, Bernard. 2001. Beyond Sociology’s Tower of Babel: Reconstructing the

Scientific Method. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine De Gruyter.

Phillips, Bernard and Louis Johnston. Forthcoming. The Invisible Crisis of Modern

Society: Reconstructing the Shattered Social Sciences. Boulder, CO: Paradigm

Publishers.

Phillips, Bernard, Harold Kincaid, and Thomas J. Scheff. Toward a Sociological

Imagination: Bridging Specialized Fields. Lanham, MD: University Press of

America.

Scheff, Thomas J. 1997. Emotions, the Social Bond, and Human Reality: Part/Whole

Analysis. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

_____. 2006. Goffman Unbound! A New Paradigm for Social Science. Boulder, CO:

Paradigm Publishers.

Sell, Jane, J. David Knottnerus, Christopher Ellison, and Heather Mundt. 2000.

“Reproducing Social Structure in Task Groups: The Role of Structural Ritualization.” Social Forces 79:453-475.

Sell, Jane, J. David Knottnerus, and Christina Adcock. Unpublished Manuscript.

“Disruptions in Task Groups: When Does Disruption Lead to Disorder?”

Simmel, Georg. 1906. “The Sociology of Secrecy and of Secret Societies.” American

Journal of Sociology 11:441-498.

_____. 1950. The Sociology of Georg Simmel, edited by K. H. Wolff. Glencoe, IL: Free

Press.

Stajner, Karlo. 1988. Seven Thousand Days in Siberia (translated by Joel Agee). New Y

York: Farrar Straus Giroux.

Thornburg, P. Alex, J. David Knottnerus, and Gary R. Webb. Forthcoming. “Disaster and Deritualization: A Re-interpretation of Findings from Early Disaster Research.”

Social Science Journal.

_____. Unpublished Manuscript. “Ritual and Disruption: Insights from Early Disaster

Research.”

Turner, Victor. 1967. The Forest of Symbols: Aspects of Ndembu Ritual. Ithaca, NY:

Cornell University Press.

Ulsperger, Jason S. and J. David Knottnerus. 2006. “Enron: Organizational Rituals as

Deviance.” Pp. 279-282 in Readings in Deviant Behavior, 4^th ed., edited by Alex

Thio and Thomas C. Calhoun. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

_____. Forthcoming. “Long-term Care Workers and Bureaucracy: The Occupational

Ritualization of Maltreatment in Nursing Homes and Recommended Policies.”

Journal of Applied Social Science.

Van de Poel-Knottnerus, Frederique and J. David Knottnerus. 2002. Literary Narratives

on the Nineteenth and Early Twentieth-Century French Elite Educational System:

Rituals and Total Institutions. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press.

_____. 2006. “Ritual and Adjustment in Concentration Camps.” Presented at the annual

meeting of the American Association of Behavioral and Social Sciences, Las Vegas, 2006.

Varner, Monica K. and J. David Knottnerus. 2002. “Civility, Rituals and Exclusion: The

Emergence of American Golf During the Late Nineteenth and Early Twentieth

Centuries.” Sociological Inquiry 72:426-441.

Warner, W. Lloyd. 1959. The Living and the Dead: A Study of the Symbolic Life of

Americans (Yankee City Series). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

_____. 1962. American Life: Dream and Reality (revised edition). Chicago, IL:

University of Chicago Press.

Weber, Max. 1946. From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. Hans Gerth and C. Wright

Mills (translators). New York: Oxford University Press.

Wu, Yanhong and J. David Knottnerus. 2005. “Ritualized Daily Practices: A Study of

Chinese ‘Educated Youth.’” Society (6):167-185 (Chinese academic journal. English translation available upon request).

_____. 2007. “The Origins of Ritualized Daily Practices: From Lei Feng’s Diary to

Educated Youth’s Diaries.” Society (1):98-119 (Chinese academic journal.

English translation available upon request).