This article works with theory of ritual in order to begin addressing a series of questions raised by Brazilian spirit possession rituals (in Kardecism and Umbanda). Four contributions to theory of ritual highlight relevant conceptual issues: Humphrey and Laidlaw on non-intentionality; Bloch on deference; Houseman and Severi on social relations; and Kapferer on virtuality. Strawson's philosophical distinction between objective and reactive attitudes toward intentionality is used to make a case (i) that certain formal aspects of ritual (indexicals) serve to (ii) mark culturally-variable attitudes to agency within rituals, which are related to, but fundamentally distinct from, non-ritual attitudes to agency.
KeywordsRitual, theory of ritual, agency, indexicality, Umbanda, Kardecism, social relations, Brazil Recent theory of ritual has been moving past linguistic communication models that emphasize the symbolism of rituals and that attempt to read their syntax and semantics. This article makes a specific theoretical contribution that draws together themes from recent work on theorizing rituals. The first section of the article offers a brief overview of two Brazilian religions, Umbanda and Kardecism. Highlighting the interrelations between spirit possession and social relations raises a series of questions. The theoretical perspective set out in the following sections suggests a means of answering these questions. The second section sketches four contributions to theory of ritual: Humphrey and Laidlaw on non-intentionality; Bloch on deference; Houseman and Severi on social relations; and Kapferer on virtuality. The third section draws on the work of philosopher Peter Strawson to distinguish two distinct attitudes toward agency, reactive and objective. This article's most significant contribution is to argue that rituals help to reframe the relation between these attitudes in a manner distinct from their relation in non-ritual contexts. By focusing on this relational tension we turn our attention from reading the meaning of ritual to the structure and dynamics of ritual practice and how these reframe agency. I illustrate the ramifications of this distinct by examining its relations with the four contributions to theory of ritual discussed in the previous section. The fourth section draws critically on the work of Alfred Gell to argue that the Peircean concept of indexicality is invaluable in analyzing which elements and aspects of ritualized action achieve these attitudinal effects. The resulting theoretical frame emphasizes agency, virtuality and indexicality in ritual within specific social contexts. This will be illustrated, in the fifth and final section, by an analysis of spirit possession in Kardecism and Umbanda.