ritual discourses

BPenuel who-is-at aol.com
Mon, 18 Dec 1995 17:24:11 -0500

I'm fascinated by Jay's comments on the non-
communicative functions of discourses, since
I participate regularly in what I would consider
such ritualistic forms of discourse and find
them deeply important in my own personal life.
At the same time, I haven't ventured to theorize
the links to academic, or, perhaps the more
appropriate contrast "authentic- spontaneous"
discourse.

The word I often use to describe what I do in
the course of the practices of my own local
spiritual community is that of "toning."
Toning is different from speaking and captures
more the _sound_ quality of the human voice,
what Jay talked about this fall as the bio-physical
aspects of language. I use it and am reminded
of Latour's call to view the social-natural split
with suspicion: social language and the human
larynx are not easily separable. But toning doesn't
really have much of a communicative as much
as a phatic function.

But I think dominant Western culture views
"toning" or more generally ritualistic uses of
language with suspicion. The word that usually
comes before ritual is "hollow," and we have a
difficult time imagining _wanting_ to use the
human voice for anything other than authentic
communication. But I think our understanding
of communication is enriched as well by
considering that it's just one function of the
human voice.

Bill Penuel
________________________
PreventionInventions
PO Box 40692
Nashville TN 37204-0692
(615) 297-5923