Recovering Meanings Lost in Interpretations of Les Rites De Passage
2012; Western States Folklore Society; Volume: 71; Issue: 2 Linguagem: Inglês
ISSN
2325-811X
Autores Tópico(s)Philippine History and Culture
ResumoOne century ago, French folklorist Arnold van Gennep (1873-1957) published his book Les Rites de Passage (1909) , which was first translated into English in 1960 and later into more languages.1 The concept of of has become basic to some disciplines and phrase has found its way into everyday speech. As folkloristics enters twentyfirst century, its search for new perspectives ( Western Folklore 1993) or its own grand theory (Dundes 2005) continues. The folklorist Dundes considers model of of to be one of theories fundamental to folkloristics (2005:388). Dundes writes, is probably fair to say that no example of folkloristic has had more impact on scholarly world than this classic (1999:100-101). It is in this spirit that present essay looks at Arnold van Gennep as a folklorist, re-examines original model of rites of passage as well as subsequent redactions, and interprets concepts of marge (margin; marginality) and in their contexts.Folklorists all over world have been looking narrowly at model of rites of passage through anthropologist Victor Turner's development, but not attempting to re-examine model in new social and academic contexts, although (ethnic) identity has become key issue in disciplinary studies and discipline itself is experiencing a margin or liminary period. Those who only focus on Tuner's notions in applying model of of would fail to see meanings in van Gennep's original articulation. For example, in developing model of rites of passage, there have been some misunderstanding of van Gennep's original ideas, which led to attempts to revise model (i.e., from three stages to two stages, separation-incorporation,2 to disregard rites of passage by emphasizing periods of transition in life cycle3) , or to equalize of to life-cycle or lifecrisis rites,4 and limited application in folkloristic studies in comparison to some anthropological studies (e.g. by Douglas 1966; Turner 1969). A key reason could be translation of terms like marge, which was based on theoretical orientation framed by social and academic contexts in 1950s and 1960s; and another could be changing meaning of margin or marginals in past decades in social practices and in folkloristic studies. As reflections, this study tries to retrieve meaning of marge and multiple structural layers of model, and suggests possible applications in broader ritual and social contexts.ARNOLD VAN GENNEP AS A FOLKLORISTArnold van Gennep's personal and scholarly life has been well documented in biographical accounts (K. van Gennep 1964; Needham 1967; Belmont 1979; Zumwalt 1988). Throughout his humble life as a dedicated and prolific folklorist, van Gennep never had a chance to teach or research in an academic institution in France. His separation - willingly or not - from French academy constituted an interesting phenomenon that has been treated in a few discussions elsewhere (Belmont 1979; Zumwalt 1988; Belier 1994).Arnold van Gennep is to be the father of formal processual analysis (Turner 1969:166), pioneer of structuralism (Senn 1974:230; Dundes 1999:101), father/founder of French ethnography (Belmont 1979), and master of French folklore (Zumwalt 1988). His works constituted a bridge between works of late nineteenth-century folklorista and ethnology of day (Belmont 1980) .5 He played a key role in establishment of academic status of folklore studies in France, and he is also considered as one of most representative figures of European folkloristic scholarship (Cocchiara 1981:495).Being an overly ambitious scholar (Dundes 1999), but a folklorist in particular, Arnold van Gennep might be one of few individuals who most conspicuously guarded and nurtured academic discipline of folkloristics in early twentieth century. …
Referência(s)