论文部分内容阅读
本文开宗明义地宣称:仪式和象征并非纯粹由情绪构成,它们具有相应的意识形态,如果说前两者是不可证伪的,难以推论的,则后者是可以争议、批评和证伪的。格尔兹、特纳、布洛克与拉帕波特等人分析仪式时所犯的严重错误就在于忽视了这一点,从而他们过分强调人类经验中的情绪部分和通过仪式操纵人们情绪的随意程度,低估了人类的智力。因此,在方法论上应该把宗教象征作为一个二维运动来讨论,注意意识形态与现实的距离,以及情绪和理性互为表里的关系和互相影响。带着这个理论框架,作者以1978年伊朗人民推翻国王的运动为背景。但她不是分析这场革命,而是分析运动过程中的宗教象征和意识形态的关系。作者还原了宗教象征的二元结构。认为宗教象征不是浑然一体的,而是叠加的两部分,逻辑上可以剥离。据此观察经济政治的变化对意识形态的影响,并推动意识形态影响去仪式符号,以及仪式对意识形态的维护,最终说明仪式能够对社会变迁和政治变迁起到极其重要的作用。
This article explicitly states that rituals and symbols are not purely emotional and that they have corresponding ideologies. The latter can be controversial, criticized and falsified if the first two are not falsifiable and can not be inferred. The serious mistake made by Gerdz, Turner, Bullock, and Rapaport in their analysis of the ritual was to ignore this, so that they overemphasize the emotional part of human experience and the randomness of ritualistic manipulation of emotions , Underestimated the human intelligence. Therefore, in methodology, religious symbols should be discussed as a two-dimensional movement, attention should be paid to the distance between ideology and reality, and emotional and rational interdependence and mutual influence. With this theoretical framework, the author is set against the movement of the Iranian people in 1978 to overthrow the king. But instead of analyzing the revolution, she analyzed the relationship between religious symbols and ideology in the movement. The author restores the dual structure of religious symbols. Think that the religious symbols are not one, but the two parts of the superposition, logically can be stripped. Based on this, it is observed that the impact of economic and political changes on ideology and the influence of ideology on ritual symbols and the ritual maintenance of ideology ultimately show that rituals can play an extremely important role in social changes and political changes.