Always an Argument.

Persuasive Tools in the Death Rituals of the Jnu Kuumba

Author(s): Ulrich Demmer
Source: Anthropos, Bd. 96, H. 2. (2001), pp. 475-490
Published by: Anthropos Institut
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40465552
Accessed: 24-12-2015 04:56 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Anthropos Institut is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Anthropos.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 138.73.1.36 on Thu, 24 Dec 2015 04:56:57 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
H anthropos
tri 475-490
96.2001:

Alwaysan Argument
PersuasiveTools in theDeathRitualsof theJnuKurumba

UlrichDemmer

Abstract- Thisarticleanalysestherhetoric of deathrituals other however,

rituals, languageplaysa significant
amongtheJnuKurumba, in SouthIndia. or evena
a tribalcommunity role.
primary Accordingly, speechacts
organisedas and
It is arguedthatritualsthatare predominantly utterances" (Finnegan1969;
discursive canbe seenas contexts
interaction ofargumentation "performative
andcontroversy. then,is notso muchunderstood
Rhetoric, as Ray 1973)arewellidentified as a cruciallinguistic
monologic manipulationnoras mereadornment of speechor instrument of manya ritual.In addition, we have
a poeticalelaboration process considerable
of a textbutas an alternating knowledge of the poetics ritual
of
of negotiation.Arguingfora Sophisticconceptof rhetoric, speech,in particularof how speakerslinguisti-
someoftheprincipal
thearticleoutlines procedures
persuasive
andemotions. callyconstruct
socialmemories, and renewnormative orientations
employed, namelynarratives,
and cultural"conceptsunexpressed
[South India, Nilgiris,Jnu Kurumba, ritual, rhetoric,lan-
in dailylife"
guage, cultureand performance] (Laderman1996:125).
In contrast, onlyoccasionalattention has been
UlrichDemmer,Dr. phil.(1993),lecturerat theDept.ofAn- of rhetoric so far.
of Munich.Severalyearsof fieldwork paid toprocedures Though many
University
thropology, to the substantial role
inSouthIndia on
(Nilgiris) theJnuKurumba andon religious ethnographic accounts attest
ritualperformance,verbalpersuasionplays in ritual,empiricalre-
in ruralTamilNadu.- Interests:
discourse
discourse
analysisandoraltraditions, language searchis rather
ethnosociology, scarce.Thisis themoresurprising
andculture,existential
anthropology.Regionalspecialisation: as ofall disciplines itis thescienceofrhetoric that
SouthAsia.- Publications on
see Ref.Cit.andseveralarticles
and
andritualperformance. is explicitly dedicated to examine, how words
sociality,
kinship,
speech are used to influence and transform social
relationships as well as theperceptions of audi-
encesor interlocutors. Accordingly is much
there
Introduction unclarity as to how exactlypersuasivediscourse
is employed in theserviceofritualtransformation
The questionhowritualworksis one of thecen- andrenewal.
tral,long-standing, andcontroversial topicsin an- The presentessay exploresthetransformative
thropology. Moreover, recent contributions1 testify functions ofrhetoric in ritual.It suggests to locate
thatthedynamics ofritualis stillofvitalrelevance rhetoricnot so muchin the poeticelaboration
forthediscipline.Despiteseriousdifferences as of monologicspeechbutratherin thecourseof
to whatit is and how it works,it is undisputed communicative interaction. In particular I argue
thatin ritualtwo modes of transformation are
are thatritualswhich primarily based on verbal
employed. Thus,specifically symbolic-interpreta- exchange are best conceived of as contexts of
tive anthropologists have shown in greatdetail,
how participants in the "ritualprocess" (Tur- 1 Humphrey and Laidlaw 1994; Bell 1992; Housemanand
ner 1969) use symbolicmodesof behaviour.In Severi1998.

This content downloaded from 138.73.1.36 on Thu, 24 Dec 2015 04:56:57 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
476 UlrichDemmer

conversational interaction, of debate,and,in fact, monologicnotionof rhetoric.The second ap-

argumentation. Fromthatpointof view,ritualis proach,in contrast, sees rhetoric as beingalways
primarily understood as a discursive arena, where part of and embedded in the pragmatics of verbal
social relationsare transformed through the en- interaction.Moreover, the latter regardstheper-
of
gagedparticipationmultiple speakers. Taking an suasive speech event as dialogic collaborative
and
analysis of the death rituals of the Jnu Kurumba performance; as a context ofaddressandresponse.
in SouthIndia as reference, the paperexplores The "poetic"lineof researchis primarily rep-
some of the discursivestrategies withinritual. resented by studiesindebtedto the"ethnography
In particular I will outlinesocial memoryand of speaking."Scholarsin thistradition, forexam-
forgetting, narratives, and emotions as importantple, Sherzer (1982) and Kuipers (1990), explicitly
rhetorical instruments.2 addressthesignificance of rhetoric in ritualand
considerit so vital a partof performance that
theyplace it side by side withpoetics(Sherzer
Ritualand Rhetoric and Woodbury1987). Fromthatpointof view,
the persuasivefunctionrestswiththe poetical
Even a cursory reviewshowsthatrhetoric plays construction of a speechor a song.Rhetoricis
a crucialrole in the transformative dynamicof basicallyunderstood as an aestheticand poetic
ThusTambiah,
ritual. totakea prominent example, elaboration of a text and itsthusenhanced potential
observesthathealingritualsin Sri Lanka are of so that
representation Sherzer, infact,speaksof
basicallya persuasiveprocedure;theyembody, a "poeticalrhetoric" (1982:319).4
he writes, a "logicofpersuasion" (1979: 148) and The speechgenreikar,forexample,as sung
he consequently calls foran exploration of "how by thehealersin Kunahealingritualsis meantto
ritualattempts to persuadeitsclientele"(142). convincethespiritaddresseesthat"theperform-
LikewiseKapferer (1977) demonstrates the ex- ing specialistis able to controlthem"(Sherzer
tentto whichrhetoricis relevant.As his eth- 1982:3O8).5The healer'saccomplish thatthrough
nographic descriptions of Sinhalese rituals make the use of poetical forms. Parallelism and narra-
clear,it is mainly therhetorical function of verbal tives depictthe healer's power and knowledge but
as well as theatrical interaction, through which also enhance these descriptions through detailed
theparticipants achievethetransformation oftheir verbalelaboration. In addition,a figurative lexi-
social relations as of theirconception of cultural con thatis elaborated in thesesongsfunctions to
reality.In the rituals of theKaluli persuasion plays demonstrate the special knowledge of the healer
a crucialroletoo.As Schieffelin (1985) pointsout, (Sherzer1983). Finally,figuresof speech,e.g.,
the speechof the shamanistic mediain ritualis tropeslikemetaphor or metonymy are employed
meantto evoketheresponsivity of theaudience to represent the healer's power detail."Ide-
in
in the formof memories, feelings,and even of ally," Sherzer writes "the spirits,upon hearing
critiqueandresistance. and understanding the narrative, and becauseof
Corresponding are
descriptions provided forthe and
hearing understanding the narrative, do what
Wana(Atkinson 1989), the Warao (Briggs1996), is described in it" (1982: 308).
and,lastbutnotleast,formanyshamanistic rituals In a similarway Kuipers(1990) locatesthe
in SouthAsia,whichareshapedas colloquialde- persuasivefunctionof speech in the poetical
bateandpersuasive interaction.3 However,despite shapingof texts.He analyseswhatBaumanand
itssignificance, theparticulars and procedures of Briggshave calledthe"pragmatics of textuality"
rhetoric arerarelyexploredin detail.A surveyof (1990:77),i. e.,thewaysspeakers poetically shape
therather scanty literature allows the outlining of the textual structure of their speech. As he points
twoapproaches. out,thespeakersin Weyewaritualhave to con-
The firstone mightbe called the "poetic" vincetheiraudienceoftheauthority oftheirspeech
approachand centreson a basicallytextualand andthattheyspeakin the name of the ancestors.6

2 Primarily due to lackof space,I willnottouchuponthe 4 Csordas(1996) developsa similarviewwithout, however,

betterknownprocedures as figurative
speech(metaphor, thelinguistic,
exploring orpoeticdimensions.
textual,
allegory,etc.) or formalelaboration and
(e.g., repetition 5 The "snakesong"(nakpeikar),forexample,lastseight
focalization). minutesandis sungto drivea spiritsnakeoutofa patient
3 In facttheIndianexamplesare too numerous to outline (cf.Sherzer1982:307).
themin detailhereandworldwide manymorecasescould 6 Kuipers1990:6. He also speaksof"rhetorical strategy"(8)
be listed.Foran overview see Demmer2001. andofthe"rhetoricalpatterning"(4) ofritualspeech.

96.2001
Anthropos

This content downloaded from 138.73.1.36 on Thu, 24 Dec 2015 04:56:57 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Always an Argument 477

According to Kuipers,theyachievethisthrough froma monologicand text-centred to a dialogic

of in
procedures textualization,particular entextu- and discourse-centred rhetoric.
alization,so thattheauthority oftheirritualspeech Withinritualstudiesit is specifically Strecker
derivesfroma textualstructure that"assimilates, (1988) whoarguesfora rhetoric thatconcentrates
encompasses and dominates othervoices,obliter- less on textsalonebuton ritualinteraction anddi-
atingdialogiccontingencies and alternativepoints alogue. On the one hand, his findings add to ritual
of view" (1990:6). A second rhetoricstrategy theory thepragmatic andrhetorical interests ofthe
consistsin theuse of tropes,through whichthe actorswhichsymbolic approaches didnotconsider
speakers elaborate and transmit the power and sufficiently. In particular his claim thatactionin
significance of the verbal tradition itself.Thus, ritualis substantially intentional and addressive,
a rangeof metaphors depict the authority of the ledhim to develop an interactive rhetorical concept
speech of the ancestorsand, moreover, the speak- of ritual (Strecker 1988: 129):
ers arrangethesetropeswithpoeticaltechniques "cultural be seenin terms
this of actualproducts" mayultimately
like parallelismand focusation. Ultimately, dialogues between S andH (collective and
poetic arsenalenables the performer to create individual) whoaremotivated bythewishtopersuade
"theconviction [that]he is not speakingon his eachother ...
own, but on behalfof some distantpersonor
claim on the audience" On the otherhandhe was able, forthe first
spiritwitha legitimate
(1990:6).
time,to groundrhetorical aspectsof ritualin a
theory of social interaction and com-
In sum, then,these approachesdraw on a pragmatic
well-established scientific whererhetoric munication,
tradition, namely politenesstheory.As his
in
concernedwitha analysis of the transition ritualsof the Hamar
is seen as a scienceprimarily
on itsformalorganisation and shows (Strecker 1988), actors intentionally con-
text,concentrating statements so that their
itsaesthetics. As Kennedyhas noted(1998:3-6), structambiguous symbolic
in this
sense concentrates on the messages are communicated indirect or encoded.
rhetorical analysis
ofa singlespeechwhile These implicit meanings or "off-record strategies"
planning andcomposition
withthe enable speakers to exert linguistic power because
aspectslikestyleand verbalelaboration threaten the addressees "face" and
they provoke
help of poeticalformsare consideredto be the an Moreover, in modifying the
reply.8
relevant aspects.Suchan approachis specifically appropriate he was also able to showthat
wherever we areconcerned withwhat politeness theory,
appropriate, or off-record but
classicalGreekrhetoric hasclassified as epideictic notonlyimplicatures strategies
otherstoo, are employed persuasivede-
as
discourses(cf. Kennedy1998:6). These are ba- all
vices.Accordingly his "theory predicts thatwhen
sicallymonologicspeecheventswhere,in terms we findelaborateformsof action there
of participant structure and mutualinteraction, symbolic
will exist some underlying motive of persuasion"
one speakerdominates therhetorical processand
whereresponses oftheaudience are eitherimpos- (1988:208).
sibleor severelyrestricted by theconventions of A second major interactive approachis the
thegenre.Otherexamplesarewelcomespeeches, so-called "new rhetoric." Developedby Perelman
Christianprayers,or some formsof ritual(cf.
and Olbrechts-Tyteca as wellas byToulmin
(1969)
Bloch 1974).7 (1958), the "new rhetoric"seeks to overcome
the widespread reduction of persuasion to mono-
Yet,suchan approachis less applicablewhen- "adornment of or even to "artof
ever we are dealingwiththe manyritualsthat logic speech"
These flattery."9 Instead it explicitly places the interac-
are constituted as discursiveinteraction.
intothe foreground. In fact,
are oftencontextsresembling not epideicticbut tionof participants
Sinceinthose as Van Eemeren et al. point out "Perelman and
ratherjudicialorforensic discourse.
Olbrecht Tyteca's new rhetoric reintroduced the
contexts intenseverbalexchangeand mutualne-
gotiation betweenthe speakersis mostrelevant,
musttreatritualsas implicatures,as 'ways of not
theiranalysisclearlycallsfora shift ofperspective 8 "... wewhat is meant.'More specifically,we can now view
saying
ritualsas realizationsof strategieswhichhave to do withthe
performance of face-threateningacts (FTAs). As strategies
7 Bloch's understanding of rhetoricgoes beyond epideictic, of politeness,ritualsconstitutemeans of maintainingface
since he sees it not only as a formallyarrangedspeech but in situationsof highrisk"(Strecker1988: 204).
also as a meaninglesslinguisticbehaviour.But as Paine 9 For an outlineand critiqueof the long prevailingtendency
(1981) has pointedout, ultimatelythisconceptof rhetoric to reduce rhetoricto aestheticand increasinglyfromthe
reduces it to a kind of "make believe" and, ultimately, 17thcenturyonwardsto "adornmentof speech", see Vick-
makes descriptionand analysissuperfluous. ers (1998) and Billig (1987).

Anthropos96.2001

This content downloaded from 138.73.1.36 on Thu, 24 Dec 2015 04:56:57 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
478 UlrichDemmer

audience"(1997:214) intorhetoric. This"dialogic and emotions.Theirrelevanceforritualstudies

turn,"secondly,allows the conceptualization of remainedalmostunexplored so far.Accordingly,
persuasion as, in thebroadestsense,a procedure toconceptualise these devices we needtodrawon
ofnegotiation anddebate. studiesother than ritualto a largeextent.
To be sure,thisnotionis notcompletely new.
It ratherdrawson a conceptthatwas cultivated in
theverybeginnings of rhetoric by the Sophistsin RhetoricalTools: Social Memory,Narrativity,
anticGreece, where it was developed a formof and Emotions
as
argumentation (cf.Billig 1987 andVickers1998).
Accordingly the "new rhetoric" regards,beyond Narratives and reports, i.e., narrativity, are pow-
all differences, "judicialargument as a model for erfulmeans of rhetoric. Their structure can be
rhetoric generally, focusing attention on the in- impersonal in the sense that the speakers just de-
terchange between opposingarguer roles" (ibid.). scribeevents or facts.Sherzer (1982), for instance,
Meanwhile,thisapproachhas developedintoan arguesforthepersuasivefunction of thistypeof
elaborate theory of argumentation. Represented by in
narrative the healing rituals of the Kuna.Inother
VanEemerenet al. (1997) andBillig(1987),itre- speecheventsnarratives are ratherpersonaland,
gardsrhetorical eventsas contexts ofcontroversy,as Bauman(1986) and Hill (1995) makeclear,
as argumentative processesbutalso as procedures are usedrhetorically too.Thisis in particular the
of collaboration. Accordingly, it focuseson the case when social or moral conflicts areat issue. In
interaction betweenspeaker/audience or between moral discourse, the moral identity of the involved
controversial disputants andnotonthecontext-freeis putin questionandthespeakershaveto defend
textof a speechor a song. and strengthen theirpointsof view effectively,
Moreover, and for our purpose this is of par- representing as reliableand legitimate.
them In
ticularvalue,itputsspecialemphasisnotonlyon thosecontexts they can use the narration of per-
interaction and verbalexchangebut also on the sonalmatters to illustrateandelaboratetheirown
transformative dimension of rhetoric. Indeedone positions.On theotherhand,personalnarratives
of themostpromising elementsin argumentationservetounderline contrasts anddifferentiations so
theory is its concern with processes of social thatone's own points of view are strengthened
transformation. Thusitexploreshowrhetoric con- by thefactthatotherpositionsare describedin
tributes to thereconciliation of conflicting points negativeterms,forexample,as littledesirable,
ofviews,howitis usedto overcomemoralcrisis, bad,orwrong.11 Narrativity, then,is usedtolocate
orhowparticipants achievea mutually recognised and relocatethe personin the moralspace of
consent.As Van Eemerenet al. putit, a central accountability and responsibility and is thusof
questionforrhetoric is "howopposingviewscome particular value in moral discourse. Accordingly
to be reconciledthroughthe use of language" narratives are used as arguments to defendor
(1997:215). reestablishthemoralidentities ofthespeakers. As
Such a conceptof rhetoric, argue,I is also our analysis below makes clear, this is also the
relevantforthestudyof ritual- at leastif it is case in ritualdiscourse. In fact,in thoseprocesses
organised as verbalinteraction. Whatarethever- a lot is at stakeand ritualsprovedramatically
bal meansthatareemployed? Thefewstudiesthat thatalso there"performances ofnarratives provide
we have,all referred to above,identify some of a forumfornegotiating personaland collective
them."Poeticalrhetorists" explored formal devices identity" (Briggs1988:273).12
like parallelism or focalization but also outlined Apartfromnarratives social memory playsan
the workof tropes.Othersexposed,as it were, important role.Theclaim,representation, ornego-
politenessstrategies and, last but not least, sym- tiationofcollective or personal identities often has
bolicactionas powerful persuasive devices.10 All a substantialtemporal dimension ofremembrance.
thesetoolsalsoplayan important roleintherituals Thisis thecase incontexts ofeveryday life(Taylor
of theJnuKurumba;in thefollowing, however, 1989) butalso in ritualperformances (Connerton
I want to work out some of the less known 1989; Csordas1996).Thatis particularly evident
verbalmeans,namely, socialmemory, narrativity,
11 See Bauman1986:33 et passim.
10 Fernandez(1986), Strecker (1988) and Demmer(1999) 12 Bauman(1986:113) also refersto therhetorical function
showthatsymbolic too.In otherwords,
actionis rhetorical, of narratives thatin oralperformance
whenhe mentions,
of ritualconsistsof verbaland nonverbal
the rhetoric peopleoftenare"tellingstoriesto eachother,as a means
procedures. of [. . .] constructing socialidentity."
andnegotiating

96.2001
Anthropos

This content downloaded from 138.73.1.36 on Thu, 24 Dec 2015 04:56:57 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Alwaysan Argument 479

in cases wherethe discourseis concernedwith This is in particular thecase, wheninterpersonal

personalconflict and thenegotiation of identities and moralissuesare at stake.As an exampleshe
as, forexample,in theso called "Disentangling"mentions theresponse ofa mother whofirst hearsa
meetings in thePacific(WatsonGegeoandWhite childcrybutthenrealisesthatitis herownchild.
1990). In suchcontexts, the social behaviourof Referring to themother'simmediate reactionto
people inthe course of theircommon social history help and rescue thechild,Rosaldopointsto the
is underscrutiny. Whatis atstakehereis thesocial appellativeand rhetorical forceof linguistically
selfoftheparticipants initscontinuity. To preserve expressed feelings that areable to evokeandeven
or reestablishtrustand reliability their"face" to demandmorallyappropriate replies.Moreover,
needsa kindofreconstitution inthedepthoftime. forRosaldoemotionsand feelingsare notonlya
Theperson'sregainofits"good"socialself,then, kindof morallanguage,buttheyare also beyond
is accordingly linkedwiththereconstruction ofits the commonseparationof rationality and feel-
past social relations within the shared life history. ing/nature; emotions are, accordingly, "embodied
It is the narrative "and then"(Taylor1989:47) thoughts" (1984).14
thatpermits thepersonto be placedin a temporal Subsequentresearchhas shownin detailhow
contextand in a storythatfinallyis its social relevantindeedthesefindings are. Thus scholars
history.As we will see below,it is in particular who workedexplicitly on thesocialrelevanceof
in thecontext of dialogueand argumentation that personalexperiences (cf.Kleinman1992;Goodet
narratives and,we can add,socialmemories gain al. 1992) pointout thatexperiences, e. g., social
thatforceas "rhetorical devicesof identification"suffering and pain,have a substantial rolein the
(Bauman1986:28) in a powerful way.13 constitution of moralcommunities, becausethey
Anotherforceful rhetorical instrument is pro- are powerfulpersuasivemeans.Emotions,they
videdby the linguistic articulationof emotions. write,have an "important rhetorical dimension:
Theirrhetorical function in ritualis to a large theyare meantto arouse a responsein audi-
extent unexplored, buttheliterature providessome ences,as well as expressdiscomfort" (Good et
hintsat least. Thus in the healingseances of al. 1992:201). Moreover, ethnopsychologists were
the Kaluli (Schieffelin 1985) verbal expressions able todemonstrate in detailthe persuasive dynam-
of feelingsplay an important role. There,the ics of emotionsin discursiveinteraction. In the
shamans needtopulltheiraudiencesintotheritual alreadymentioned of
meetings "Disentangling,"
performance againandagain,andforthispurpose forexample,emotionsare evaluations and inter-
they often use emotional means. They evoke and pretations of social events, based deeply on the
memorise, forexample,thecommonlifehistory cultural andsocialvaluesandmeanings ofthepeo-
withthedead and thusmaketheiraudiencecry. ple involved.Thusanger,tocitejustone instance,
But thesememoriesand feelingsalso cause the can be a moralevaluationof social behaviour
livingtolongforthedeceasedandtocommunicateand/or a form ofsocialcriticism.15 As thosestudies
and talkwiththem.In othersequencesit is the prove,feelingsand experiences, articulated in so-
intentionof theshamansto maketheiraudiences cialdiscourse, servetodefinepositions ofspeakers
laughand in otherpartstheytryto evoke fear in thesocial or moralspace of theircommunity.
and anxiety, in orderto enhancedramaturgically Thispositioning, inturn, givesrisetotherhetorical
that
thepeculiaratmosphere goes along with the function of emotions; as moral statements theyare
presence of the As
spirits. Schieffelin shows, the as
experienced appeals or as inquiriesdemanding
use andarousalofemotions is a crucialrhetorical an answer.
devicein theritualprocess.Kapferer (1979) too Emotions, then,can be seenas discursive acts
discussesthe role of emotionsin ritual.In the used to articulate, legitimise, defend, or deny
Sinhalesehealingseancestheritualspecialists and sociallyrelevantclaims.In the moralspace of
the comediansseek to evoke the laughterand responsibility and accountability theyhavean ar-
theamusement of thepatients. This evocationof gumentative function to "move"people towards
emotions is an important goal oftheinteraction as a culturallyand socially appropriate response.
wellas oftheritualas a whole.
Otheranthropologists, outsideritualsstudies,
examinewhyfeelings areso important a rhetorical 14 The unityof intellect and feelingis thebasisof morality
device.M. Rosaldo (1980) arguedearlyon that and,as Tyler (1978: 166) writesin hisdefenceofrhetoric,
is manifest in languageitself.The scientific
separationof
feelingsare oftena kindof pragmatic language. reasonand passion,however,"has destroyed theethical
basisofdiscourse"
(167). See also Tyler1987.
13 Cf.Bauman1986:28 et passim. 15 Fora mostlucidcase study,see White1990.

96.2001
Anthropos

This content downloaded from 138.73.1.36 on Thu, 24 Dec 2015 04:56:57 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
480 UlrichDemmer

Feelings,then,playan important persuasiverole, level. R. Hertz(1960:29-54) has observedthat

wherever people are involvedin thenegotiationdeathin manyculturesconstitutes a timeof in-
and discursiveconstitution of social and moral termediacy, characterised byseparation andcrisis.
In thosecontexts,
identities. emotions are,as Lutz In particular the time after the burial of thebody
undWhitesay,an idiomto defineand negotiate is a timeof, to use V. Turner's (1969) expression,
thesocial relationshipof selvesin a moralorder "betwixt andbetween." AmongtheJnuKurumba
(1986:417). thisconcernsthe social relationships amongall,
In thepresent articleI arguethatthissocialdi- theliving,thedead,andtheancestors.
mensionis also ofparamount importance in ritual Thedeceased,forone,feellonelyafter theburi-
discourse.In as muchas ritualsprovidea moral al of thebodyand arein a stateof whattheJnu
and discursivespace wheresocial relations, nor- Kurumba call bjaruthatis confusion, worriment,
mativeaxioms,and worldviews are transformedand beingwithout orientation - in fact,theyare
andreconstructed, emotions, narratives, andsocial separated fromall sociallife.Deprivedofsociality,
memoriesare principalrhetorical means.Before the spiritsof thedead or, as theJnuKurumba
we can turnto the description and analysisof say, the "beingsof wind" (gali) are homeless
the JnuKurumbacase, however,we need to androamaboutinthenearby forests.Accordingly,
knowmoreaboutthemoralconflict andthesocial theylongto reachthecompanyof theancestors
crisisthata deathinitiatesamongthe JnuKu in theunderworld. It is in thecourseof thedeath
rumba. Thiswillprovidethenecessary background ritual, thatthelivingcanhelpthedeadtoovercome
knowledge toevaluatethetransformations thatthe that state andto reachtheancestors.
participantsaccomplish in theritualprocess. Not onlythedead ones,butthelivingtoo are
interested in thatbecausetheytoo are separated
fromthe ancestors.The latterwill, in fact,not
Death and Moral CrisisamongtheJnu communicate withthe relativesof a dead any
Kurumba moreandwillnotevenpermit themto entertheir
shrines,unlessthelivinghelpthedead to reach
The JnuKurumbaare a tribeof gatherer/hunters theunderworld. In thissense,thelivingareunpro-
and foresttradersin SouthIndia. They live in tectedandinrealdanger.Shouldtheynothelpthe
moralcommunities of approximately 300 to 400 gali to reachtheancestors in thedeathritual,the
people, scatteredover a wide area in the northern latterwill be angry and refuse further assistance
Nilgiriregion.Socialitywithinthecommunity is (forinstance, in a pendinghealingritual).18
predominantly basedon kinshiprelations.16 Moreover, thelivinghavea further interestthat
However,theJnuKurumba havean extended the dead reachthe underworld. Once theyhave
conceptofcommunity thatincludesalso thedead reachedthere,the JnuKurumbasay, the dead
andtheancestors thought toliveintheunderworld.are able to help the livingin theiraffairswith
All thesebeingsstandin close social and moral theancestors. Theycan talkto themand act as
relations;they should one
support another, help mediators between the ancestorsand the living.
one anotherin timesof crisis,etc. Moreover, Accordingly, therelativesseek thewell-meaning
all thesebeingscan also communicate witheach ofthedeadso thatthosewilltalkgoodaboutthem
other, because the Jnu Kurumba practice"spirit andpersuadetheancestors tohelpandsupport the
mediumship": embodied in media, the dead and living,as it is the case, for example, in thehealing
the ancestorsare able to talk and interact with rituals.
theirrelatives,thoughthisis strictly confined to Yet,a secondaspectofthecrisisbrought about
ritualcontextsand thusto a controlled formof bydeathstandsagainstthat.Thisaspectconcerns
possession.17 therelations betweenthelivingand thedead and
A deathseriouslythrowsthe social relations has a moraldimension. For the JnuKurumba,
within thatextended community in crisisandcon- everydeathraisesthequestion oftheresponsibility
flictand the deathritualis primarily concerned forthesuffering brought aboutby deathbutalso
withthetransformation of it - on morethanone whator who causedthedeathof theperson.In
fact,thediscourse betweenthelivingandthedead
showsthat the deceased are notonlylonelyand
16 Forthoseaspectsandthegeneralethnography, cf.Demmer
1996and 1997.
17 "Spirit-mediumship"
is a widespreadmodeofcommunica- 18 The communicationbetween theliving,and
theancestors,
deities,or thedeadin India(cf.Claus
tionwithancestors, Cf. Demmer
the dead continuesin the healingrituals.
1979). (forthcoming) andanalysis.
fora description

96.2001
Anthropos

This content downloaded from 138.73.1.36 on Thu, 24 Dec 2015 04:56:57 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Always an Argument 481

anxious,but thattheyalso feel neglected.They reconciliation and trust- towardsthe "common

aredistrustful,potentiallyangry, andfullofdoubts ground"of a goodcommunity.
aboutthemoralintegrity of theirrelatives.
The deathritualsconsist,apartfromsequences
of symbolicaction,substantially of a seriesof The Performance oftheDeath Ritual
verbaldebates between the dead and the living.
These dialoguesare called the "speech(or: the AfterdeaththeJnuKurumbaperform, separated
words)of good and bad" (olladu kettadumtu), in time,two rituals.The firstone is conducted
andthethemes discussedare,as itwere,the"good as soon as thepersonhas died and is primarily
and bad,"namelythemorality of thepeopleand concerned withtheburialof thedead body,with
the historyof theirmutualsocial relationships.social memoryand publiclaments.The second
In thesedialogues,thedead reproachthe living one, calledpole, is oftenperformed muchlater.
of notbehavinggood towardsthemin thepast, It is performed to helpthedead person(gali) to
thuscallingintoquestionthe socialityof their reachthe underworld and the ancestors.In the
relatives. presentarticleI will focus exclusivelyon this
Thisall themore,as withthedeathofhumans secondritual,thepole. This pole is a complex
thereis alwaysthesuspicionthatclose relatives performance thatconsistsin alternating sequences
could have killedthem,forexample,by means ofsymbolic actionsandverbaldialogues.Usually,
of black magic.19Due to thisdistrust, the dead therewill be threemainsequencesof symbolic
expresstheirdoubtsto thefactthattheirrelatives acts,whereasthedialoguesare embeddedin the
willreallygivetheirbestintheritualandthatthey courseof theseactivities.Once the people are
willreallyhelpthemto reachtheancestors. What assembled,thepole startswiththefirstseriesof
is at stakein ritualdiscourse, then, is the positive acts.
imageor"face"oftheliving, theirtrustworthiness, In thisfirstsequencecalled "thecuttingand
theirreliability,and,finally, in the longruntheir bringingof leaves," the presentmale relatives
verywell-being. of the dead walk in a line to a nearbyriver.
Due to therhetorical and argumentative struc- Therea ritualpriest(yajman)selectsa specialtree,
tureofthedialogues,however, thelivingareable performs an offeringtothedeadandtheancestors,
to replyto thesereproaches. In fact,theyargue and thena shamangetsreadyto be possessedby
againstthe bad imagesthatthe dead are going thedead.The offering is meantto invitethedead
to draw. The livingtoo raise the questionof to come and it initiates theritualas a rhetorical
thepastbehaviour of thedead and in alternatingevent.Due tothisoffering, theJnuKurumba say,
processes of accusation and defence negotiate with the dead feel a desire (se) to come to its people
themhow to evaluatetheircommonhistory. In andembodyitself.20 After that,thedeadis forthe
the rhetorical processtheyseek to defendtheir firsttimepresentamonghis kindred as an active
reputation as goodmembers ofthecommunity and participant in theritual.
persuadethedeadthattheirreproaches andsuspi- In themeantime one of theyounger members
cionsare unfounded. In otherwords,theytryto of the kindred has climbed the tree, has cut a
convincethedead of theirsocial self and good bundle of leafybranches, and has thrown them
relationship. down. They are then taken by the dead (resp.the
Theritualparticipants, then, have to accomplish shaman) and distributed among all males present.
a doubletransformation. On the one hand,they Thereafter, thewholegroup,cheerfully wavingthe
haveto accomplish a transformation in spaceand, branches, walkstowardsa clearingin theforest,
have
literally, tomove thedead to reach the under- where the brancheswillbe used to builda small
worldand theancestors. On theotherhand,they leaf-hut. Thedeadperson, resp.theshaman, comes
also need to transform theirrespective positions along with them and it is usually on this walk that
in themoralspace of thecommunity. Withgood a firstexchangeof arguments betweentheliving
arguments theyhaveto moveone another towards andthedeadtakesplace.

19 In all cases I know,thedeathof a memberofthecommunity 20 He will "climb on someone's back," as the JenuKurumba
was understoodas an intendedresult of other people's say, more thanonce in the course of thisritualand indeed
actions. The Jnu Kurumba assumed that the death was on severalothermedias' back too. Thereare severalelderly
caused by anotherJnu Kurumba who employed black males who become media forthe spiritsof the dead or for
magic. A snake bite, for example, resultingin death was the deities. For themto act thatway is not dependenton
interpreted as theresultof black magic thathad caused the anything buttheirexperienceand theirbeingmales. Women
snake to bite thisveryperson. neverbecome media.

Anthropos96.2001

This content downloaded from 138.73.1.36 on Thu, 24 Dec 2015 04:56:57 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
482 UlrichDemmer

In thecase presentedherethedead (Mare) was half.Andhe theotherhalf.As it is usual.We shared

a young,marriedwoman, who died shortlyafter and wereone. No, themotherbrother is notlisted.But
she gave birthto herthirdchild.Her husbandcould others.Thereweremistakes. In one huttherewas no
water.In one hutno riceforme. But- I do nothave
performa healing ritual,but it had no success. now.
In this firstdialogue she makes her relativesre- memory (neppu).I cannotsayanything
sponsibleforher death. She accuses themof not But themotherbrother requestsherto forgetthe
havinghelped her when she was sick, she argues bad past.
thatnone of her relativesassisted her when she
was going to die and that nobody took care of Motherbrotherr: thebadacts.Webring
Yes,letus forget
leaf-hut.
youto theprotecting
her. Indeed, she talks of a list (kannaku) she has
We do goodto you.
in mind and where the bad deeds of the living
are on record. And, finally,there is always the The dead acceptsthelatterbutshe also reminds
suspicion of black magic present.At firstshe is her audience of the factthatothersof her family
talkingwithher motherbrother, being one of her did bad. Therefore,she argues,she has no reason
mostimportant relatives.21 to thinkwell of thesepeople too,and she expresses
The motherbrother begins the talk and asks herworriesaboutthefutureof herchildren,leftin
her to tell the people present,whom she makes care of such a bad company.
responsibleforherdeath,whatkindof reproaches But here too the motherbrother objects. He
of wrongbehaviourshe makes and whom exactly assures her of the assistanceof her relatives,and
she has in mind. he calls into memory,how manyof her relatives
the presentritualin order to help her to
Motherbrother: Let us hearone word,one word,one joinedthe ancestors.
reach
word,tell!Whoputtheillnessintoyourstomach?
Motherbrother: That is nothing.We will look after
In responsethe lonely and weak dead remem- yourchildren. Don'tbe afraid.Andhowmanyof your
bers onlyvaguelyand refersto a whole listof bad relatives havemethere?
deeds of her relatives.
To that the dead agrees, only, however, to
Mare:Thereis a listofthebad acts.Thebad deedsthat continuewithrenewedreproaches,thussuggesting
weredone,I do notlikeit. thatshe is not reconciledyet.
Against that her motherbrother tries to disperse Mare:Well,butothers. . .
the suspicions. He requests the dead to conceal
- however,he This firstdialogue- withits alternationof good
nothingbut to disclose everything
asks heralso to rememberthegood deeds thathe, and bad stories, of accusations and replies, of
the motherbrother, did in the past. doubt and reproaches of the dead and refutation
of these doubts by the living - creates a field
Motherbrother: Well,speak!Whichdeeds?Say,which of tension,a dramaticframeworkfor the entire
mistakes (tappu)weremade? followingritual.It persists,untilfinallythewhole
Speak! But we both,we werenevertheless always groupreachesthe clearingin the forest.
one.Didn'tI giveto you,whenever youcalledme? Now everybodyputs his leafy branch on a
The dead accepts this memory and she re- small, prepared wooden frame, so that a tiny
members,addressed to all relativespresent,her tentlikehut is constructedand then the whole
good social relationswiththe motherbrother. But group circumambulates(anti-clockwise)this hut
gradually she also reconstructs herlife history with threetimes. Thereafter, the mediumsinks to the
other relatives- and narratesa rathernegative ground.This is thesignthatforthetimebeingthe
social history. dead has leftand returned back to theforest.After
some hoursof rest,thekindredcontinueswiththe
Mare:Yes, motherbrother, foryoueverything is good. ritual's second
I haveno angeron you.Oh, mymotherbrother, sequence, called "the bringingof
didn't waterand the circumambulation of the protecting
he give me ricewater?He gave me ricewater.I got
hut(udi-mane)."
In this part the whole kindredwalks to the
21 The textsthatfollowbeloware by no meansexhaustive. riveragain. The womencarrythreewatervessels,
Theactualdialoguesare,in thiscase andin general,much whereastheritual
priest(yajman)bringstwo small
longerand may last up to one houreach. Withinthe with him. Afterreachingthe riverbank,
framework tocitethemmore clay pots
ofthisarticleitis impossible
Full transcripts
extensively. and translations
are provided he performs offeringaddressedto the ancestor
an
in Demmer2001. of the dead. This is meantto ask the ancestorto

96.2001
Anthropos

This content downloaded from 138.73.1.36 on Thu, 24 Dec 2015 04:56:57 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Alwaysan Argument 483

ascendfromthe underworld and join theritual. good deeds in the past. In particularhe reminds
Then this small clay pot is filledwith water her thatit was he, the husband,who organiseda
and from now on the ancestor is said to reside healingritualbeforeherdeathin orderto save her.
in the pot. Lateron the ancestorwill be made
to sit next to the dead, in the littleleaf-hut Father:Anddon'tforget. Yourhusbandalso was there
and finallybothof them,thusunified,will be whenyouwereill at thattime,is thatright?
brought intotheunderworld. First,however,the
dead has to rejointhelivingwho are assembled But the deceased has stilldoubts,she distrusts
at the riverbank. Accordingly, the relativesuse the living and articulatesprimarilyher negative
persuasive strategiestoconvincethedeadtocome. though rathervague memories. Above all she
recalls thebad deeds of the father,though
Theyweeploudlyanddisplaytheirgriefin order she mainly remembers also thegood relationswith
to demonstrate (as myinterlocutors explainedto slowly
theirfather.
me) how muchtheymiss the dead, how nice
it was when the dead was among them,and Mare:ButwhereamI here?Whereis thehutoftheelder
howconfused (bjaru)theyfeelwithout thedead. sister?Whereis thehutoftheelderbrother? Thisis not
Once thisis achievedandthedead has embodied mysettlement. Father,youwantedto organisea ritual
itselfin theshaman,a secondseriesof dialogues forme anddo goodforme,no? AndwhenI was still
begins. alive- youalwaysgave me to eat and younourished
Firstly,thedead one tellsherpeoplethatshe me.Thatwasgoodformeandthereis noangerwithme.
stilldoesnottrust them.In thefollowing dialogues But nevertheless. Somehow,fromsomeone,bad came
she talksfurther of herdoubts, of bad memories, on me. And you know, whatthebad was, don'tyou?
andofreproaches, the are
andagain living engaged You know it.
in refuting thedead withgood arguments. They
seekto holdontothegoodmemories thatthey,in But thefather,whose bad behaviourin thepast
to in view of the
turn,bringforthand tryto convincethedead to is suggestedhere, appeals her,
herbad memories, pointing outtheirgood good deeds here in the ritualitself,to forgetthe
forget
deedsin thepresent. bad.
Thistimeit is thefather of thedeceasedwho
thatnow. Leave thatnow. But,okay,
actsas maininterlocutor of thedead.He requests Father:Leave
okay, therewas something bad,butnow?Arewe notall
hisdeceaseddaughter toremember thegoodtimes now?We all metwiththegrandfather
assembled, [the
in theirhistoryand not to be angrywithhim ancestor], withyou,andwe all met;Is thatbad?
because,his argument goes,theyare finally "one
family." And in that family, even though one But thedead continueswithherreproaches.She
naturally also fights,thisis notthemainfactor. remembersmoreof thebad events,specificallyher
Most important are the good relationsthatthey marriage,in whichthe fatherhad hardlyengaged
had and maintained in thepast.Those,thefather himself.
argues,shouldbe remembered and not the bad
timestheyhad. Mare:Andafter dressesandmaterial andtheflowers for
myweddingwerebrought togetherbyyourson-in-law.
Father:Breakitopenandtell!Speakgood!Say "itwas And all looked at us. You were there,butyoudid not
thisand that."You mustsay a word.Why?Because look[atus]. You didnottiethemarriage chainforus.
you are one with fatherand mother. Breakopen what
is lockedinsideof youand say,"Thereis nothing bad To thatthe fathermustagree.
between us." Tellus theway[oflife]youwent.Butdo
notreproach us thatwe [theliving]arguedand fought Father:Yes. You areright. Yourmarriage was notas it
yesterday. Youknowthat.Thathappenseveryday. Ifwe shouldhavebeen.
mutually accuseeach otherand fight amongourselves,
it is notworthtalking aboutitnow.Rathertellus how The dead continues with the descriptionof
youare.Evenifyouareannoyed byus andourfighting,her negative social biography,but then she also
saythatyouarenotreallyangrywithme. Do youstill suggestsher readinessforreconciliation.
know?You calledmeandgaveto me.Whogavewater
to me?Onlyyougaveit to me. Butnow?I wouldnot Mare:You,old woman,mother, andyou,old man.You
liketo arguewithyou.Thatis notgood. saw bothof us, butyoudid notcareforourmarriage.
You fatherthought, oh, it is good or bad anyhow.
Then the fatherrequests his daughternot to Nevertheless, otherwise youalwaysdidgoodto meand
accuse her husband either,but to rememberhis nourished me. I'm not angrywithyou. For you it is

96.2001
Anthropos

This content downloaded from 138.73.1.36 on Thu, 24 Dec 2015 04:56:57 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
484 UlrichDemmer

good.- But,whyis nowan obstacleinthemiddleofthe once she has lefther mediumlateron. Untilthen,
wayto grandmother andto grandfather [theancestors]? however,the dialogues betweenthe dead and her
Whyarepeopleherewhodo bad? people continueall the way.
When the people reach the leaf-hut,theycir-
Now, however,the fatherbecomes impatient. cumambulatethe hut threetimes,screamingloud
He requestshernot to be to "narrow-minded" but and voice: "Hooo, hooo,
joyfullyin one rhythmic
to take intoaccountthe good deeds thattheliving hooo - Hooo, hooo, hooo."
Immediatelyafterthe
did, here in the ritualat least. circumambulation, the small clay pots are put to
rest in the leaf-hutand lastlythe gali leaves her
Father:But you know it nevertheless. People fight
sometimes. And witheach largeenterprise one also medium,this time, however,takingher seat in
makesmistakes. You knowhumansand.theirquarrels the second clay pot. Henceforth,until the next
sinceyourchildhood. You betterlookatthegoodwhich morning,the spiritof the dead and the ancestor
we do hereforyou. are said to remainin theirpots.
Then the ritual priest erects a wooden pole
In this way the dialogue goes on. But finally (ranga kamba, festivalor dancingpole), adorned
the dead accepts the referencesto the good deeds withleaves fromthe small hut,in the vicinityof
of her relativesand gives in. the udi-maneand performsan offeringin frontof
it. Then, gradually,the people startto dance in
Mare:Likethatitis! Werethosewordsgoodwords?Is circles around the ranga kamba and later on in
itgoodforyou,father? Andforyou,mother. Is itgood? the
Is nothing bad betweenus? nighttheywill have a communalmeal. The
ancestorand thegali, of course,also gettheirshare
Father:Yes, forus it is good.Ourdaughter came,that when the ritual
is goodforus. Nobodyof us is angry. priestoffersthema small portion
Mare:Andyou,father, ofme,is that of the cooked food.
todayyouthought
nottrue? The next morningthe final sequence called
Father:Yes "joiningthe ancestors"takesplace. In thatpartof
Mare:Youremembered mineandtookmeas a "beingof the ritualthe dead and the ancestorare ultimately
wind"(gali),andyouwillbringme intotheprotectingbroughtintothe underworld.Both stillremaining
hut,is thatnottrue?You didnotkillme? in theirsmall pots are carriedin a kindof proces-
Father:No. I am notbad. And I will providealso for sion to a nearbytree. At the root of it the ritual
yourman.I givehimclothesand food.I tellyouthis priesterectsa smallstoneand performs an offering
here.I am honest. to all ancestorsin the underworld.Then he pours
the water fromboth small pots onto this stone.
As if to attestto the sincerityof thesewords,a
Through the root both the dead and the ancestor
cup of wateris given to the dead forrefreshment,reach, as the JnuKurumba
who drinksit up withgratefulremarks.Finallyshe say, the underworld.
This finalperformance by the ritualpriestis seen
turnsabruptlyto the fatheragain.
by the people as theirfinalact of helpingthedead
Mare:I am notangry.Andyou?Areyouangry? to reach the underworld. But nevertheless, this is
Father:Whyshouldangerbe withus. Thereis no anger usually not the end of their struggle and debate
withus andnothing at all. withthe dead.
Before the dead finallyleaves her relatives,
In this way the dialogue ends withthe mutual she returnsfromthe underworldand, embodied
agreementbetweenthedeceased daughterand her in a shaman,argues once more with the living.
fatheron his moral integrity, theirgood common Again these dialogues focus on the wrong be-
past,and theirgood relationship. haviour and the bad relationshipsof people in
Afterthis mutualagreementon theirgood so- the past, but also on forgettingthese mistakes
cial history,theirgood feelings,and theirgood and on reconciliation.This time her primeinter-
relationship,the shaman resp. the dead fetches locutoris her husband.More intensethanbefore
water with the big vessels and passes them on she brings up for discussion the suspicion,that
to the fatherof the dead, who distributesthem someone mighthave killed her,perhapseven her
to the women waitingat the riverbank.Then the husband.The husband,however,arguesoftenvery
whole groupreturnsto the clearingin the forest. emotional against those reproachesand requests
Amongstthemthe dead is walkingand also two her to clear this suspicion and relieve him. But
childrenwho carrythetwo small clay pots. In one again this requiresthe rhetoricalconstructionof
of these the ancestorhas takenhis seat, whereas a good, common (hi-)storyand once more the
in theotherthedead (resp.hergali) will be seated speakers are involved in the negotiationof their

96.2001
Anthropos

This content downloaded from 138.73.1.36 on Thu, 24 Dec 2015 04:56:57 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Alwaysan Argument 485

remembrances- in fixing
thegoodandforgettingHusband:Whomadeit,death?Onlythegalididit.Who
thebadmemories withthehelpofgoodarguments.calledtheminthehealingritual?I didit.Anddidn'tthey
thedead is receivedby theliving. promiseto healyou?
Impatiently
requiresherto tell,whokilledher
Firstherfather The dead agrees to this.
andwhodidn't.
Mare:Yes,to talklikethatis correct.
Butyou,youalso
Father:Tell,tellus, by whomyou died.Whether one did notsave ourchildandme.But,I don'thaveanger
ofourtribe'jati],orwhetherothergali,orwhat[killed on you.EvenifI don'tknow,whodidit [themagicand
you]. death].
Others:Yes,shehas to saytheevents.Fromwherethe
bad came.Fromthebackside,fromthefront, fromthe But the husbandis still not satisfiedwiththis
or fromleftside.She shouldtellus thegoodand
right, response.He wantsher to clear him publiclyand
thebad. explicitlyof any suspicion.
In the beginning,the dead answersreconcilia- Husband:Butyoumustsayit.They[otherpeople]say,
I have done it [death].Don't you knowthat?If you
tory,but soon she deploresthe unfairnessof her don'tspeaknow [butonlylater,at another
and thuspersistswithher suspicionthat occasion],
suffering I'm perhapsalreadykilledthen.Speak,or I killmyself
close relatives(perhapsher husband) could have
righthere.
killedher by means of magic.
Finallythedead gives in to thisdramaticappeal
Mare:I'm notangry.I tellyouwhois on thelist.No, - then,however,she quicklyrefersto the respon-
I'm notangry.But,humansdidit,humansdidit.Why? sibilityof his otherclose familymembers.
I did nothing Did I ask forwater
bad. I did notfight.
toooften?Did I ask forricetoooften? Mare: It is betterto forget.You weregood whenwe
werea family.Whenwe caredforourchildren. How
Now her husband, strainedby the switch of can youdo bad to me?Butothers, in yourfamily.
the talk towards renewed reproaches,interferes
But still, for the husband this is not explicit
and requestsher not to speak about her suffering
enough. In dramaticdialogues he recalls his good
and about unfairnessbut to rememberhis good
social deeds in the past.
behaviour,to take positive account of it and to
clear him fromsuspicion. Husband:If notI did it, [then]tellthatthespiritsof
I neverwas angry
thedead(gali) didit.Tellit straight.
Husband:No, youdidnotfight. But,don'ttalkofyou. withyou.Butyoustruck me.I was likea slaveforyou.
[Thenfuriously:]I was thebesthusband.Neverdrunk. You insulted me.ButI, didI eversaidsomething [bad]
Okay,now I am, butbecauseof grief,as you know. to you?Neverdid I struck you.Tell thisnow,herein
Whydon'tyou say thatI was alwaysgood to you?I front of all ourpeople.
wantedto killmyself, afteryoudied.
The dead agrees to that. At the same time,
Whereupon the dead gives a rather negative however,she is pushinghim to his limits.
response. Mare:You shouldnotspeakin sucha wayto me and
Mare:You werelikeone givingonlyinstructions. say big words.But,thatis correct.You did noteven
Husband(screaming): I was good to you. How did I strikeme.
struggle.I havehelpedyou whenyou wereill. Don't In orderto weaken each further objection
yousee that? himself, thehusbandfinallymentions his
Mare: But nobodyreallyhelped me. Also the
neither against
deadnortheancestors good deeds in the present ritualitself.
[helped].
I'm notangry
Nevertheless, withyou.I'm concerned Husband:And now?How did I to bringthe
struggle
aboutyou.Butno anger. peopletogether [for ritual]!Only youdidI strain
the for
myself thatmuch.
But thisremarkleftthequestionof his respon-
sibilityfor her death unansweredand open. The In thisway thedialoguecontinues, butgrad-
husband, therefore,reminds herofhispositiverole uallythedead gives in to the arguments of her
in thehealingritualthathe organisedwhenshe husband.Ultimately she acknowledges thegood
was sick lasttime.In additionhe pointsout the deeds thathe and otherrelativescarriedout for
responsibilityof theancestors and of otherglis, herin thepresentdeathritual.At thesametime
whopromised in thathealingritualto help- but sheapproves ofothergali,which
theresponsibility
failedto do so. obviouslydeceived herin thehealingritualwith

96.2001
Anthropos

This content downloaded from 138.73.1.36 on Thu, 24 Dec 2015 04:56:57 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
486 UlrichDemmer

falsepromisesof help.Finallyboth,thedead and sometimes givesin to thereproaches and admits

herhusband,acknowledge in a
theirreconciliation somemistakes. Butatthetimehe narrates hisown
exchangeof speeches.Withthisrenewed
further for
good behaviour, example, how he cared for
agreementon theirgood socialbiography and on her when she was a child. The same pattern also
thegood deedsherein theritual- on thegood emergesin thedialogueswithherhusband.The
pastandthegoodpresent - thisemotional debate againandagaindefends
latter himself andnarrates
cameto an end.The dead leftherlivingrelatives hisgoodbehaviour inthepast;forexample, thathe
andtheshamansankto theground.The dead,as helped her when she was ill, that he never fought
myinterlocutors
explainedtome,finallyjoinedthe withherandneverstruck her.
andtheotherdeadin theunderworld.
ancestors In addition,not only remembrance but for-
getting also an
plays important role. The living
indeedclaimthattheirpositivememories aremore
PatternsofArgumentation appropriate representations thanthoseofthedead.
Therefore, theyask thedead to accepttheirnar-
As theaboveexcerpts indicate, thedialoguesbe- rativesas legitimate representations of the past.
tweentheshamansandtheJnuKurumbaareor- Based on thesenarrative arguments, theydemand
ganisedas a discourse wherethetransformation of thatthe dead shouldnot take intoaccountbut
socialrelations is achievedthrough argumentation. rather forget thenegativeevents.
In thebeginning, theshamansputthe"face"and As these patterns disclose,theritualis certainly
reliability in
of the livingparticipants question. not a mere arena for representation but rather
They narrate the social relationships of theliving an arena where representations are accounted for
withthedead andrecallthebad memories of the andmutually evaluated, i.e.,rejected, criticised, or
living, thus constructing thesocial history of the justified.Correspondingly the shamans are often
relativesandthedead as a negativestory. not satisfied withthenarrated representations of
In thecase presented here, Mare remembers her the past that the living offer as arguments for
bad relationships in thedialoguewithhermother- theirmoralintegrity and,ultimately, forreconcil-
brother. She acknowledges thegood relationshipsiation.In fact,despiteall arguments theshamans
withthe motherbrother himself,but her central frequently persistin recalling theirbad memories.
argument is thatshe also remembers the bad Veryoftentheyrefuseto acceptthenarratives of
behaviour of otherrelatives. Thoughshedoes not thelivingas legitimate claimsforreconciliation.
mention thembyname,sherecallsthatin one hut Moreovertheyoftenrenewtheirdoubtsreferring
therewas no watergivento heror thatin another totheallegedbad performance ofthelivinginthe
hutshewas offered norice.In theseconddialogue ongoingritualitself.
withherfather she remembers howbadlyhe and Thus Mare arguedagainstthepositivenarra-
hermother behavedwhenshemarried. They didn't tiveswiththeargument thatnopeoplecameforthe
takecare,theydidn'ttie themarriage chain, etc. ritualtoday or thatno one is helpinghernow.The
And in thethirddialoguewithherhusbandshe living,in turn, must, theydo notwanttodisrupt
if
remindshim of his bad behaviour;thathe was theritualprocess, respond tothesedemands forthe
someone"alwaysgivinginstructions" and shere- justification oftheirnarratives andlegitimise their
callsthathe was notreadyto organisethehealing claimsofmoralidentity. Apart from narrating pos-
ritualforherwhenshewas ill andgoingto die. itivememories ofthepast,theyfrequently do this
The living,in turn,likewiseuse narratives to byreferring to theirgooddeedsintheactualritual
the
argueagainst reproaches againstand the bad Mare's
itself. father reminds herofhisstruggle to
memories ofthedead.In ordertoregaina positive organise theritual,themotherbrother askshertolook
moralface,lost confidence, and reliability,they aroundand to recognisethenumberof relatives
articulatetheirown,positivememoriesof their attending theritualandherhusbandtoorecallshis
commonhistory withthedead.The livingremind efforts tomakethepresent performance a success.
thedead of theirgoodbehaviour in thepast,thus The thirdimportant rhetorical toolis theemo-
trying toreconstruct theircommon historywiththe tionsof theinterlocutors. As thedialoguesshow,
dead as a positive"story." expressions feelings oftenused as mor-
of are
ThusMare'smotherbrother from
right the start al arguments witha rhetorical force.The dead
of the dialoguepressesMare to take his good frequently articulate theirsufferings to provoke
behaviour intoaccountthathe was therewhenshe appropriate responses, specifically persuadethe
to
neededsomething andthathe sharedwithherhis livingto help themand to supportthem.They
foodandwater.In theseconddialoguethefather foreground theirloneliness(bjaru),theypoint

96.2001
Anthropos

This content downloaded from 138.73.1.36 on Thu, 24 Dec 2015 04:56:57 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Alwaysan Argument 487

out theirmissingstrength (bala), and theyoften in manyothercultures (cf.Lutzand Abu-Lughod

expressthattheydon'thaveproper orientation and 1990)angeris a dangerous emotion. Itposesa kind
bemoantheirlostmemories (neppukne)as well ofthreat togoodsocialrelations as wellas toone's
as theirhavingno recognition ofwhatis goingon ownwell-being. Thisobservation is also oftenex-
in thepresent situation
(liga kne). plicitlystated in the ritual dialoguesoftheJnuKu
Butthedeadarenotonlyconcerned abouttheir rumba.Angerthatis openlyarticulated, speakers
ownfuture. Apartfrom articulationsofsubjectivitysay, actuallyrepresents a threatthatcan easily
thatreferto theirown personalfeelingsthey damagesocialrelations. Correspondingly speakers
expressalso a deep concernaboutthe well-be- use itto evokefearof itsconsequences andmove
ing of others.Above all the dead are anxious therecipient towardsa positivereply.The mes-
aboutthefutureof theirclose familymembers. sage hereis thatto avoiddanger,replicates better
In our presentexampleMare's worriment about conform to therequestsofthespeakers.
thefuture ofherfather andherhusbandarequite However,it is typicalof egalitarian societies
typical in this respect. Moreover, the Jnu Ku- that in conflict discourse bad emotions are neither
rumbause explicitly inthosecontexts thetermfor willingly expressed noradmitted toexist(Brenneis
concern"arkul." andMyers1984).Openlyneither sidewantsthose
The livingreplyto theseappeals.Theyarticu- emotionsand nobodyadmitshavingsuch bad
latetheirconcernwiththedead andtheypromise emotions.Instead,everybody is ratherconcerned
or insurethemtheirassistance. Theyalso support withdenying thosefeelings. Threeprincipal modes
the dead withtheirdeeds. Thus theypointout of "usinganger"rhetorically can be identified in
to thedead theway to the"protecting hut" and the ritual dialogues.
oftentheysupport themphysically, e.g.,whenthey In one modethespeakersdenytheirangerbut
upholdthedead on thewalk.At othertimesthey suggestits hiddenpresencewitha relativizing
eventakethedeadintotheirarmsandoccasionally clausethatfollowsthestatement, forexample"I'm
also
they weep and crywith them. In addition, the not angry, but ... who did itto me?" Withthislast
living answer to the dead's worries about others utterance the speakersays that she is not angry,but
too. Theypromisethattheywill help theliving shealso suggests thatshemight be a littlebitangry
relativesof thedead,thattheywill takecare of because someonedid black magic to her,hurt
children whoareleft,etc. her,or evenkilledher.This kindof formulation
Moreovertheemotional rhetoric is nota one- evokesfearof theconsequences if (!) thespeaker
sided affaireither.As much as the dead, the is getting angry.Theyevokea positivereplycon-
livinguse theirfeelings to movethedeadtowards forming to theexpectations of thespeakers.
support, cooperation,and ultimately reconciliation. A second procedure is that theinterlocutors re-
Theyfrequently expresstheirownsuffering. They questone another notto becomeangry.The state-
oftenpointout theirdistressand bemoantheir ment"Don'tgetangry," forexample,suggests that
moralweaknessas well as theirignorance of the thespeaker,in case of a negativeresponse,will
"rightpath"the "correctway of behaving."In getangry.It is an appealto replypositively and
thisrespecttheytalkof theirphysicalsuffering behave in accordance with the speaker'srequest.
(e.g.,suri,sdu,"burning," "heat"thatgoesalong In thethirdmode speakersmutually ensureone
with the use of blackmagic and with social mis- another that there is "no anger in our stomach."
behaviour (tappu,"mistakes"). At other moments The phrase "I'm not angry, but are you angry?"
in discoursethe livingstressthatnot only the and thereply"No, I'm notangry"is an example
deadbuttheytooarethreatened byloneliness and ofthismode.Thefirst statement plusquestionalso
helplessness. This,theyargue, would be the case, has the persuasive effect of almost compelling a
ifthedeadwouldnotjoin themattheriver, ifthey positivereply,namelytheagreement to thegood
wouldn'twalkwiththemtowardstheleaf-hut or relations thatwereachievedin ritual.
finally,ifthe dead wouldn't reach the underworld. These incidents showthattherhetorical effect
The ritualperformances makeclear thatusually of "moving"theheareris achievedin eitherway,
thedead can'tresistgivingappropriate repliesto namelythrough thedenialortheabsenceofangry
the feelingsof theirhumanrelatives.Theyjoin feelings.In the firstcase the veryinsistence on
themat theriver,theywalkto theleaf-hut, and itsabsencepointsto itsstillpossibleexistencein
theytalkgood withthem,givingthempromises thebackground. Itthusunderlines thepowerofthe
of future helpandcare. speakeras wellas thesocialdangeranddisruption
Apartfromweaknessand suffering, socially thatgoes withit. Withits denial the speaker
disruptive feelingslike anger are also used. As suggests, in fact,itspossiblepresenceand,in fear

96.2001
Anthropos

This content downloaded from 138.73.1.36 on Thu, 24 Dec 2015 04:56:57 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
488 UlrichDemmer

ofthis,better toreplyinthepositive.In thesecond one anothertowardsreconciliation and trust.In

mode,on the otherhand,thisnegativerequest short, transformation is accomplished rhetorically.
suggestsitseasyemergence in case of a negative Whilesomestudiesmight tendtolookatrheto-
responseand it also affordsa positivereply.In ricin ritualas a formofmonologic andepideictic
thethirdmode speakersoftenuse thedenialof discourse,the analysisshows thatin the case
angerto confirm thegoodrelations thattheyhave presented herea dialogicnotionof persuasion is
established.Attheendofmostdialogues,speakers appropriate. Whereasin themonologicepideictic
persuade oneanother thattheyreallyhavenoanger genretheaudienceis regardedprimarily as pas-
and thattheritualhas achieveditsprincipal aim, sive,mute,andunresponsive, intheJnuKurumba
the resurrection, as it were,of social harmony,deathritualsit is explicitly responsive and an ac-
trust,and happiness;people did achieve"unity" tivepartner inthediscourse. Moreover, itsrhetoric
(ondume),as the JnuKurumbasay. In those is notbased on therecitation or correctperfor-
sequencesof theritualtheovercoming of anger mance of relativestrictly formalised and fixed
is a frequent focaltopic.Moreover, interlocutorsutterances, but draws,like forensicand judicial
mutually confirm theirgood socialrelations, their rhetoric, on formulaic speech,whichis less for-
happinessand the welfarethatgoes along with malisedandallowsforwiderindividual variations
that.In thisrespecttheytalkofthe"firm ground" and person-as well as context-bound utterances.
(nele) thattheyachievedin the courseof the Finally,in theverbalinteraction of ritual,persua-
ritualdiscourse.In sum,all emotions mentioned sive effects are not merely achieved in thesense
above have rhetorical functions as moralargu- thata passiveaudienceis rather impressed oreven
ments. They areused to defend or to moral
criticise coerced into the
accepting message then convinced
positions.They are addressedas appealsto the byit.In contrast, it is a rather Sophisticnotionof
moralresponsibility of theinvolvedand are thus rhetorical discoursethatis mostsignificant here.
able to evokeappropriate responses. As Vickers has noted to "the Sophists' rhetoric
waslessan arsenalofverbaldevicesthana process
of interaction in whichthenormsof justiceand
Conclusion socialorderwereworkedoutbythosetaking part"
(1998: 123). Its aim need notbe identified then,
What does the above analysismean for the as forexamplea Platonicrhetoric does, "with
dynamicsof ritual?A numberof recentritual thedesireto gain powerand benefit theselfby
studiespointout that,contrary to a widelyheld theunrestrained indulgence ofdesire"(1998: 120).
notion,ritualsnotonlyconsistin theenactmentThis conceptratherregardspeople's "directin-
of repetitive, fixed,and stereotyped patterns of volvement withcommunity decisions"(1998:6) as
symbolicand/orlinguisticacts. Instead,many vital, so that Cicero, example,couldholdthat
for
are ratherlooselypatterned and oftenconstituterhetoric is designedto makepeopleaware"'that
arenaswheremoralnorms,social relations,or theymustworkforthecommongood'" (Vickers
coreculturalvaluesare notso muchrepresented1998:8). To sum up, for the Sophistsrhetoric
but activelynegotiatedand workedout.22That meantindeedan "improvement ofsocietythrough
language and rhetoricplays a crucial role hereis 'expression of conflict and yetcontainit by an
also widelyrecognised. Yet,Baumanand Briggs' agreedpoliticalprocedure'" (1998: 124).Itseffec-
call toexaminemorecloselythewaysthat"enable tivenessderivesfroma two-sidedprocess,with
verbalartto transform, notsimplyreflect, social the development of pro- and contra-statements,
life"(1990:69) didnotresultinmuchclarity about withnegotiation and thechangeof perspectives
linguistic processesof ritualtransformation. The achieved(or not achieved).Rhetoricrelies on
case of theJnuKurumbadeathritualsuggests mutualargumentation, on debate,and ultimately
someof thewaysrhetoric is employed therein. on theabilityof theparticipants to reachjointly
As we have seen, the participants have to approveddecisionsandconsent.
achievea complextransformation. Mostimportant, In JnuKurumba deathrituals, rhetorical trans-
deathputsthemorality and relatedness of people formation is brought aboutonthisdialogiclevelof
intoquestion,it leads to mistrust and a crisisof performance. In thebeginning, themorality ofthe
socialrelations. In ritual,in turn,theactorshave speakersand theirgood social relationship is put
totransform theirbadrelations, they have to move into question. But in the ritualprocess theactors
seek to defendtheirreputation as good members
22 Cf. Baumanand Briggs1990; Claus 1997; Howe 2000; of the community try persuadeone another
and to
Schieffelin
1996. thatthereproaches and suspicions areunfounded.

96.2001
Anthropos

This content downloaded from 138.73.1.36 on Thu, 24 Dec 2015 04:56:57 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Alwaysan Argument 489

Yetit is crucialto see, thatthisis nota matterof Language and Social Life.AnnualReviewofAnthropol-
mererepresentation and "make-believe." Instead ogy 19: 59-88.
narratives and memoriesare always subjectto Bell, Catherine
evaluationand criticism. 1992 RitualTheory, RitualPractice. NewYork:OxfordUni-
Speakersuse thesede- versity Press.
vicesas arguments to positthemselves andothers
M.
inthemoralspaceofthecommunity. Yet,indoing Billig,
1987 Arguing andThinking. A Rhetorical toSocial
Approach
so theyare also provoking responseand debate, Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
so thatall speakersareengagedin theevaluation, Maurice
rejection,approval, oreveninforgetting - andthus Bloch,
1974 Symbols,Song,Dance, and Featuresof Articulation.
in thereworking ofrepresentations. Is Religionan Extreme FormofTraditional Authority?
Indeed, the transformativeprocess of ritual
is Archives europennes de sociologie15: 55-81.
basedonthisselective process.Positivememories, Brenneis,Donald Lawrence,andFred R. Myers(eds.)
narratives,andemotions ofthepersonareaccepted 1984 DangerousWords.LanguageandPoliticsinthePacific.
New York:New YorkUniversity Press.
as justified. Once approvedtheyare countedas
andas appropriate Briggs,Charles L.
goodarguments representations1988 Introduction. In: C. Briggs(ed.), Narrative Resources
of the personin question.In addition,reports fortheCreationand Mediation of Conflict.Anthropo-
of the good deeds in the ritualitselflegitimate logicalLinguistics 30/3-4:271-277.
the forgetting of the bad memories.It is only 1996 TheMeaningofNonsense,thePoeticsofEmbodiment,
in thatprocessof rejectingand approvingthe and the Production of Powerin WaraoHealing.In:
C. Laderman andM. Roseman(eds.);pp.185-232.
reminded and emotionalepisodesof theirsocial
historythattheparticipants gradually succeededto Claus,PeterJ.
1979 SpiritPossessionandSpiritMediumship fromthePer-
createa larger, morepositiveandconvincing story, ofTuluOralTraditions. Culture,Medicineand
spective
a social biography of theirgood social relation. Psychiatry 3: 29-52.
Participants movedone another towardsa consent 1997 RitualPerformances in India.In: S.D. Glazier(ed.),
on theircommongoodhistory andon theirproper Anthropology of Religion; pp.191-209. Westport:
Greenwood Press.
relationships inthepresent too,thusreestablishing
reconciliation andtrust. Connerton, Paul
The ritualas a wholecan be understood as a 1989 HowSocieties
Press.
Remember. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity
contextof argumentation, wherethe alternating
ThomasJ.
articulation of memories, narratives,and feelings Csordas,
1996 ImaginaiPerformance and Memoryin RitualHealing.
enabledthespeakers totransform theirsocialrela- In: C. Laderman andM. Roseman(eds.);pp.91-113.
tionsandthusto regainthe"commonground"of Demmer,Ulrich
a goodcommunity. 1996 Verwandtschaft undSozialittbei denJnuKurumba.
Vom Arbeiten, vom Teilenund von (Un)Gleichheit
This articleis based on fiveyearsof fieldworkconducted in einersdindischen Sammler- undJgergesellschaft.
among the Jnu Kurumba between 1987 and 1998. Stuttgart:FranzSteiner Verlag.
(Beitrge zurSdasien-
I am gratefulto the Indian Government,the German forschung, 173)
Academic Exchange Service (DAAD), the Friedrich 1997 VoicesintheForest.TheFieldofGathering amongthe
JnuKurumba. In: P. Hockings(ed.), Blue Mountains
NaumannFoundation,and the GermanResearchFoun- Revisited.CulturalStudiesontheNilgiriHills;pp. 164-
dation(DFG) fortheirgeneroussupport.The argument 191.New Delhi:OxfordUniversity Press.
and the ethnography of this articlewas presentedas a 1999 How to Make the Spiritof the Dead Happy.The
paper in various contexts.I wish to thankspecifically Rhetoric ofWordsandDeedsina JnuKurumba Death
S. Tyler,I. Strecker,and P. Claus fortheirconstructive Ritual.In:E. Schmbucher andC. P. Zoller(eds.),Ways
criticismand suggestions. ofDying.DeathandItsMeaninginSouthAsia;pp.68-
87. New Delhi:ManoharPublishers.
2001 Niyyamtu.Ritual,Rhetorikund Poetikbei den
JnuKurumba(Sdindien).[Unverffentl. Habilita-
References Cited tionsschrift,
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universit Mnchen]
forthcomingDialogueswiththe Ancestors. The Powerof
Atkinson, JaneMonnig Rhetoric inJnuKurumba HealingRituals.In: U. Dem-
1989 The Artand Politicsof WanaShamanship. Berkeley: merand M. Gaenzle(eds.), Languageand Powerin
University ofCaliforniaPress. RitualPerformance.
Bauman,Richard Fernandez,JamesW.
1986 Story,Performance, and Event.ContextualStudies 1986 Persuasions and Performances. The Playof Tropesin
of Oral Narrative. Cambridge: Cambridge University Culture.Bloomington: IndianaUniversity Press.
Press.
Finnegan,Ruth
Bauman,Richard,andCharlesL. Briggs 1969 HowtoDo ThingswithWords.Performative Utterances
1990 Poeticsand Performance on
as CriticalPerspectives amongtheLimbaofSierraLeone.Man4: 537-552.

96.2001
Anthropos

This content downloaded from 138.73.1.36 on Thu, 24 Dec 2015 04:56:57 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
490 UlrichDemmer

Good,Mary-Jo DelVecchioet al. Dame: University of NotreDamePress.[Firstpubi,in

1992 Epilogue.In: M.-J.DelVecchioGoodet al. (eds.),Pain French1958]
as HumanExperience. AnAnthropological Perspective; Ray,Benjamin
pp.199-207.Berkley: University ofCalifornia Press. 1973 "Performative Utterances" in AfricanRituals.History
Hertz,Robert ofReligion13: 16-35.
1960 DeathandtheRightHand.(Translated byRodneyand Rosaldo,MichelleZ.
ClaudiaNeedham). London:Cohen& West.[Firstpubi, 1980 Knowledgeand Passion.IlongotNotionsof Self and
in Frenchin L'AnneSociologique1907,and Revue Social Life.Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.
Philosophique 1909] [Cambridge Studiesin Cultural Systems, 4]
1984 Towardan Anthropology ofSelfandFeeling.In: R. A.
Hill,J.
1995 The VoicesofDon Gabriel.Responsibility andSelfin Shweder and R. A. LeVine (eds.),CultureTheory.Es-
a ModernMexicanoNarrative. In: B.Mannheimand sayson Mind,Self,and Emotion;pp.137-157.Cam-
D. Tedlock(eds.),The DialogicEmergence ofCulture; bridge:Cambridge University Press.
pp. 97-148. Urbana: University of Illinois
Press. Edward
Schieffelin, L.
1985 Performance andtheCultural Construction of Reality.
Houseman,Michael,andCarlo Severi American Ethnologist 12: 707-724.
1998 NavenortheOtherSelf.A Relational Approach toRitu- 1996 OnFailureandPerformance. theMediumOut
al Action.(Translated theFrench Throwing
from byM. Fineberg). oftheSeance.In: C. Laderman andM. Roseman(eds.);
Leiden:Brill.[1994]
pp.59-89.
Howe,Leo Sherzer,Joel
2000 Risk,Ritual,andPerformance. TheJournal oftheRoyal 1982 TheInterplay ofStructure andFunction inKunaNarra-
Anthropological Institute6: 63-79. tive,or:HowtoGraba SnakeintheDarien.In: D. Tan-
Humphrey, Caroline,andJamesLaidlaw nen(ed.),Analyzing Discourse.(TextandTalk,George-
1994 The Archetypal Actionsof Ritual.A Theoryof Ritual townUniversity Roundtable TalkonLanguageandLin-
IllustratedbytheJainRiteofWorship. Oxford: Claren- guistics1981);pp.306-322.Washington: Georgetown
donPress. University Press.
1983 KunaWaysofSpeaking. An Ethnographic Perspective.
Kapferer,Bruce Austin: of Texas Press.
1977 FirstClass to Maradana.SecularDramain Sinhalese University
C.
HealingRites.In: S.F. Moore and B. G. Myerhoff Sherzer,Joel,andAnthony Woodbury(eds.)
(eds.), Secular Ritual;pp. 91-123. Amsterdam: Van 1987 Native American Discourse. PoeticsandRhetoric. Cam-
Gorcum. bridge:Cambridge University Press.
1979 Emotion andFeelingin SinhaleseHealingRites.Social Strecker, Ivo
Analysis1: 153-176. 1988 The Social Practiceof Symbolization. An Anthropo-
logicalAnalysis. London:TheAthlone Press.(London
Kennedy,G. A. Schoolof EconomicsMonographs on Social Anthro-
1998 Comparative Rhetoric.AnHistorical andCross-Cultural
Introduction. Oxford:OxfordUniversity Press. pology, 60)
Tambiah,StanleyJ.
Kleinman,Arthur 1979 A Performative Approach to Ritual.Proceedings ofthe
1992 Pain and Resistance. The Delegitimation and Relegit- BritishAcademy65: 113-166.
imationof Local Worlds.In: M.-J.DelVecchioGood
Ch.
etal. (eds.),Painas HumanExperience. An Anthropo- Taylor,
1989 SourcesoftheSelf.TheMakingoftheModern Identity.
logicalPerspective; pp. 169-197. Berkeley: University
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
ofCalifornia Press.
Toulmin,S. E.
Kuipers,JoelC. 1958 The Uses ofArgument. Cambridge: University Press.
1990 PowerinPerformance. TheCreation ofTextualAuthor-
Turner, VictorW.
ityin WeyewaRitualSpeech.Philadelphia: University 1969 The RitualProcess.Structure andAnti-Structure. Chi-
ofPennsylvania Press.
cago: AldinePublishing Company.
Laderman,Carol Tyler,StephenA.
1996 The Poeticsof Healingin Malay Shamanistic Per- 1978 TheSaid andtheUnsaid.Mind,Meaning, andCulture.
formances. In: C. Ladermanand M. Roseman(eds.); New York:AcademicPress.
pp. 115-141. 1987 TheUnspeakable. Discourse, Dialogue,andRhetoric in
Laderman,Carol,andMarina Roseman(eds.) thePostmodern World.Madison:University ofWiscon-
1996 ThePerformance of Healing.New York:Routledge. sinPress.
Van Eemeren, F. H., et al.
Lutz,CatherineA., andLila Abu-Lughod(eds.) In: T. van Dijk (ed.), Discourseas
1990 Languageand the Politicsof Emotion.Cambridge: 1997 Argumentation.
Press. Structureand Process; pp.208-229.London:Sage Pub-
Cambridge University lications.
Lutz,Catherine,andGeoffrey M. White
Vickers,B.
1986 The Anthropology of Emotions. AnnualReviewofAn- 1998 In DefenceofRhetoric. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
thropology 15: 405-436.
WatsonGegeo,K. A., andGeoffrey M. White
Paine,R. 1990 Disentangling. Conflict Discoursein PacificSocieties.
1981 Introduction. In: R. Paine (ed.), PoliticallySpeaking. Stanford:Stanford University Press.
Cross-Cultural StudiesofRhetoric. Philadelphia:ISHI. M.
White,Geoffrey
Perelman,ChaimandLucie Olbrechts-Tyteca 1990 MoralDiscourse andtheRhetoric ofEmotions. In:C. A.
1969 TheNewRhetoric. A Treatise inArgumentation. Notre LutzandL. Abu-Lughod (eds.);pp.46-68.

96.2001
Anthropos

This content downloaded from 138.73.1.36 on Thu, 24 Dec 2015 04:56:57 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions