This paper examines continuity and change in Lakota belief and ritual, focusing on the social organization of contemporary Lakota ceremonial life. For many Lakotas of Pine Ridge Reservation ritual structures life. The contemporary religious landscape consists of a number of ritual groups, which I call ritual thiyóšpayes, after the Lakota word for band or lodge group, the extended family and historical basic unit of kinship. At the center of these groups is a religious practitioner, a symbol of group identity and solidarity. Ritual thiyóšpayes consist of core and sub-core member families that regularly attend rituals and other corporately sponsored social events. The cohesion of a ritual thiyóšpaye is based largely on equality, mutual help, participation, and one-mindedness. The relationship between a practitioner and his ritual thiyóšpaye is dynamic, characterized by reciprocity, mutual influence, and exchange: the practitioner shapes the beliefs, worldview, and identity of his followers, symbolizing the group to both members and nonmembers, while simultaneously being shaped by his followers as a representative of their social, psychological, and religious needs, beliefs, and values. Although patterns of social interaction have changed since the dawn of the reservation period, there remains a distinct and undeniable continuity with past traditions.Ontological approaches in anthropology have been hotly debated in recent years (Posthumus 2017). Some unifying themes in this diverse body of research involve the exploration of the composition and character of alter worlds and the assumption that different peoples inhabit different, oftentimes conflicting realities (see Descola 2013; Henare, Holbraad, and Wastell 2007; Posthumus 2018; Viveiros de Castro 1998). While there are many trends and foci in anthropology's ontological turn, not all suffer from the methodological problems noted in a number of critical assessments. According to Michael L.Cepek, some recent anthropological investigations of ontology "focus on the bare content of abstract propositions while paying little attention to their pragmatic function, epistemological stance, affective tone, and position in a division of linguistic and conceptual labor" (Cepek 2016, 624). While this may be true of some inflections of ontologically minded anthropology, other studies pay careful attention to history and context, producing accurate ethnographies that are also theoretically engaging. For instance, neither Cepek (2016) nor Graeber (2015) mention the work of Philippe Descola (2013) in their critiques of ontological anthropology. I questioned Graeber about this omission via email, and his response was that he does not think Descola is really entirely an ontologically inclined anthropologist, per se, but rather he is a structuralist describing models that are never purely instantiated as such.In this article, I explore the role of ceremony in the social organization of contemporary Lakota (Western [Teton] Sioux) culture. Although I firmly believe in the importance o...