356
/
DOUGLAS L. GRAGG
出处：H. Whitehouse and L.H. Martin (ed.), Theorizing Religions Past: Archaeology, History, and Cognition, Walnut Creek, Calif.: AltaMira Press, 2004.
以下页码为EPUB版的页码，可能跟纸质有误差
Consequently, it is more useful to think and speak here of the relative stability and durability of traditional religious ideas and ritual practices among many Romans and the relative attractiveness (to some of the same Romans) of new religious ideas and ritual practices, than to speak as though Roman religion were conservative and open to innovation. （P82）
Whitehouse on Modes of Religiosity：教义式的信仰和意象式的信仰，区分标准是举行仪式的频率和刺激作用的强度
In Whitehouse’s theory, frequency of performance and level of arousing pageantry are related to the function of memory in the transmission of ritual. Two styles of transmission in particular facilitate memory, though in dif ferent ways. Frequent repetition facilitates the recording of ritual procedures and ritual meanings in what cognitive psychologists call, respectively, “implicit” and “semantic” memory systems. Highly arousing pageantry, by contrast, helps to trigger “episodic” memory. The two styles of transmission are inversely correlated; the arousing effect of high levels of pageantry diminishes with increasing repetition through a process of habituation. （P86）
Ritual frequency and level of arousal are, for Whitehouse, two of the variables in a larger theory of two modes of religiosity. Rituals performed frequently with low levels of arousal are characteristic of the doctrinal mode. In this mode, ritual meanings are supplied on the basis of official ritual exegesis. Dynamic and authoritative leaders impart these meanings and warn against alternative interpretations. Frequent ritual performance, with orthodox interpretation, contributes to accurate recall of doctrinal formulations (semantic memory). Ritual communities operating primarily in this mode tend to be relatively diffuse and inclusive.（P86）
By contrast, rituals performed infrequently with high levels of arousal are characteristic of the imagistic mode. The effect of the high arousal is to burn the experience into the episodic memory of participants, often with life-changing consequences. Such a ritual makes a lasting impression, and （P86）participants recall it as a singular experience (that is, not simply as a type), involving particular persons and particular events in a particular setting. Those who have such a ritual experience in common are likely to form on that basis a strongly cohesive social group, which must inevitably exclude those who have not had the experience. They are also likely, individually, to reflect deeply over time on the ordeal they experienced in order to make sense of it, a process Whitehouse (2002: 305—6) refers to as spontaneous exegetical reflection (SER). The result is a diversity of ritual interpretations rather than an orthodoxy that requires policing by authoritative leaders.（P87）
If traditional Roman religion did not operate in the imagistic mode, can a case be made for doctrinal modality?（P88）
These observations make it impossible to understand traditional Roman religion straightforwardly in terms of doctrinal modality. （P89）
If traditional Roman religion does not fit well into either the imagistic or the doctrinal mode, does this constitute a falsification of Whitehouse’s theory? An implication of the theory made fully explicit only in his most recent formulation of it (2004) suggests that this is not necessarily the case. There (especially in his chapter on the “costliness” of religion), Whitehouse clarifies that his theory is intended to explain concepts that are cognitively unnatural and, therefore, cannot be transmitted successfully without special mnemonic support. The two modes of religiosity are “attractor positions” that account for successful transmission. By contrast, concepts that are cognitively natural do not require the special mnemonic support provided by the modes of religiosity. These concepts cluster instead around what Whitehouse calls a “universal attractor position,” or (following Pascal Boyer) a “cognitive optimum.” In this scenario, traditional Roman religion would fall into the latter category and, therefore, outside the scope of phenomena that Whitehouse’s modes theory seeks to explain. （P90）
两种仪式形式：
“special-agent” rituals 和
“special-patient” rituals ：
McCauley and Lawson recently introduced a ritual form hypothesis (McCauley 2001; McCauley and Lawson 2002) based on their theory of ritual competence (Lawson and McCauley 1990, 2002). It is not necessary to review their hypothesis in detail here. Most useful for our purpose is their distinction between “special-agent” rituals, in which culturally postulated superhuman (CPS) figures are the actors, and “special-patient” rituals, in which such figures are acted upon.28 An example of a special-agent ritual would be an initiation (as in the mystery cults) in which a CPS-agent acts to change the status of a postulant. An example of a special-patient ritual would be a sacrifice (as in traditional Roman religion) in which a worshipper offers a gift to a CPS-figure in a bid for favor or in gratitude for assistance. Special-agent rituals are performed infrequently—generally only once for each individual participant—because their effects are considered permanent. They are also typically characterized by high levels of sensory pageantry because of a sense of their religious importance (McCauley and Lawson 2002: 122—23). Special-patient rituals, by contrast, are generally repeated frequently because their effects are considered temporary. Because of this frequency of performance (and perhaps a sense of lesser importance), levels of sensory pageantry tend to be low. （P96）
McCauley and Lawson argue that the cross-cultural evidence they examined suggests that religions without special-agent rituals are likely at some point to develop them. （P97）
Perhaps something similar was going on in the case of Romans who sought initiation into mystery cults—although along the lines of a different model. In this case, the pattern was not one of some adherents (temporarily) radicalizing their own tradition, but of some supplementing their traditional experience through involvement in the special-agent rituals of another cult. As in the case of the splinter groups from the Pomio Kivung, there is no evidence of disillusionment with the tradition, so this suggestion need not entail the kind of negative judgment regarding the traditional rituals that we noted on the part of some earlier historians of Roman religion. It suggests only that human cognitive architecture is such that attraction to different ritual forms will follow predictable patterns. There is no reason why someone could not have been a devout participant—even a priest—in the traditional religion and also an initiate of one or more mysteries. Our evidence suggests, in fact, that this was not at all uncommon. （P97）
原创文章，转载请先联系作者。
