Saturday, January 11, 2025

On Ritual Authenticity

The third and next to last instalment in a manifesto. My posts to Anchorhold have always had a utopian slant. I've always shared thoughts here about a longed-for social formation: one where our queer spiritual lives can find expression and supprot in conditions of full visibility and community.

Content warning: abstract, theoretical language and some long sentences.  


3. "Emerging Ritual"


I have more this time to say about the idea of "emerging ritual," a phrase coined by the Canadian scholar/practitioner Ronald Grimes. Grimes ran a "Ritual Laboratory" at the University of Waterloo in Ontario starting in the 1980s, where students made up group rituals from scratch, and analyzed why and how what the results worked. Grimes says a lot that speaks to our search for rituals that support our lives as gay/bi/+ men in community with each other,


First: ritual traditons are always in flux. They're always adapting to new historical and cultural circumstances. There's no hard distanction between the forms that we create experimentally and more established traditions. The rituals of heteronormative culture are no more "real," no more "authentic," than what we create out of our own shared queer experience.


Second: good ritual doesn't just express abstract ideas. It's a  practice that embodies and generates its own kind of knowledge. When we're engaged in ritual, we simultaneously know what we're doing and have have no idea what we're doing. We're immersed in it, and at the same time able to reflect on it, learn from it, and shape it in response to what we've learned. Ritual action isn't secondary to understanding and knowledge, or to the experience of community. Good ritual creates understanding and knowledge. Good ritual creates experiences of community.






Third: in response to Grimes's criticisms of New Age workshop culture, which I talked about last week. The temporary community of workshop culture presupposes that we're all free agents and will go back to a private life that doesn't have much to do with the private lives of other participants. In contrast, intermittent community among queer men draws on the depth and continuity of the bonds that bring us together. We live continuously across the threshold between a queer world and a wider heteronormative culture. Our gatherings may be temporary, but the underlying gravitations that draw us together are enduring.


We need to pay attention to this as we build a queer ritual life for ourselves and each other. The energies that repeatedly draw us together need to be directly expressed in queer men’s ritual community. Mutual erotic desire, and the shared experience of oppression, or at least the experience of living on the margins, aren't just underlying conditions of queer ritual community. We need to use them as focal points for celebration, reflection, transformation--and sometimes for critical reflection. 




At the same time, for ritual to work, it has to be attuned to a wider cultural world to which we can relate our own lives. Like all humans, everywhere and forever, we're always borrowing. The elements of authentic quuer ritual can be ridiculously ordinary. When we cobble powerful rituals together out of found fragments of daily life, we reflect the provisional, intermittent experience of queer connection.


At other times we draw from established spiritual traditions, selecting what's useful and rejecting what's proven toxic.  It's our radical drag of the soul. No matter what the source, the trickster genius of queer life lets us see both the profundity and absurdity of a ritual form. Good queer ritual always contains a healthy dose of implicit self-criticism. Our rituals at their best are informed by the radical skepticism of authority that permeates much of gay life. We have a great gift for both immersing ourselves in a profound experience and demystifying it. 


Anyone who's wept over a drag queen lipsyncing "Like a Prayer" knows what I'm talking about.



Or take two scenes from Tony Kushner’s Angels in America. At the end of Part One, Prior, the protagonist, has been increasingly troubled by the visitation of angelic messengers announcing his election as a prophet--or are the visions a symptom of advancing dementia? He lies alone and desperately ill in his bedroom. The room quakes, the ceiling collapses above him, and a blinding white light from above bathes the bed and the stage around it in impossible incandescence. Gazing up into the light in terror, he exclaims, “God almighty... Very Steven Spielberg.” Then an angel descends to declare, “Greetings, Prophet. The Great Work begins: The Messenger has arrived.”


Near the end of Part Two, the ghost of Ethel Rosenberg has been keeping vigil by Roy Cohn’s hospital bed during the last hours of his life: she is haunting him in revenge for his role in her execution during the McCarthy witch hunt. Immediately after Cohn’s death, the drag queen/nurse Belize charged with his care at the hospital summons Louis, a disaffected gay Jewish leftist, to say Kaddish over the body--ostensibly to give Belize an opportunity to smuggle Cohn’s private stash of experimental AZT (the time is February 1986) out of the room for distribution to PWA’s with no access to treatment. 


Louis protests, in keeping with his leftist principles, that he will not recite the commemoration of the dead for Cohn; he then adds that in any case he can’t remember the prayer. Giving in, he stumbles through the first phrases, halts, then begins limping through half-remembered tags of Hebrew blessings. Ethel’s ghost rises from her chair in the corner of the room to coach Louis phrase by phrase through the long text. At the last "Amen," Ethel adds, and Louis repeats, "You sonofabitch." Loading the stolen drugs into Louis's backpack, Belize responds, “Thank you Louis, you did fine.” Louis responds, “Fine? What are you talking about, fine? That was fucking miraculous."


Madonna, Angels in America: they share in a rich tradition of queer popular culture that sets reverence for the Sacred side by side with iconoclasm. Louis asks with astonishment, “What are you talking about, fine? That was fucking miraculous.” The miracle is revealed as unmiraculous to the audience because we see Ethel’s ghost coaching Louis through a prayer as neither of the characters onstage sees her.


Yet on another level, it remains a marvel, if not a miracle, by the sheer fact of Ethel’s paranormal presence. Most importantly, it's miraculous in a more proper sense because of Ethel's deeply forgiving recognition of common humanity with the man responsible for her execution decades before. 


Here,  the transgressive edge of queer experience is aggressively foregrounded. Louis's prayer, and Ethel's forgiveness, aren't just miraculous. They're fucking miraculous, at the deathbed of a demonically powerful, hypocritically closeted bully fallen victim to a disease transmitted by fucking and getting fucked. The queer interpenetration of reverence and parody anchors the transcendent to the ordinary, literal level of reality and to the life of the body.



"The Offering"--photo by Andrew Graham

Friday, January 10, 2025

Unexpected

 Whatever will Anita Bryant make of meeting Jesus with his arm around John the Divine's waist?

Saturday, January 4, 2025

On Ritual Authenticity

The second instalment in a manifesto. My posts to Anchorhold have always had a utopian slant. I've always shared thoughts here about a longed-for social formation: one where our queer spiritual lives can find expression and support in conditions of full visibility and community. 

Content warning: abstract, theoretical language and some long sentences. 


2. The Perils of "Parashamanism"



Photo by Andrew Graham

As gay/bi/+ men, we have to figure out how to adopt best ritual practices that truly support us. We need to take seriously our liminal ("not in and not out") experience of the world as a touchstone for what we create. 

There's a sort of “classic consensus,” about ritual authenticity. Formulated by scholars like Nathan Mitchell and Mary Douglas, it presupposes that you need strong social consensus and unified group identity for ritual to work well. But maybe models like that come already  wired into heterosexist assumptions that won't serve us well. 

Consider a few examples of powerful, effective gay ritual that came out of the ghetto culture of the 1970s and 1980s: the processions following the assassination of Harvey Milk in 1978; the creation and repeated display of the NAMES Project memorial quilt beginning in the late 1980's; practices included in many AIDS funerals, in the devastating period of the disease’s impact on the gay community prior to the development of “cocktail” treatments and the transformation of HIV into a more manageable medical condition. 



The AIDS Memorial Quilt displayed on the White House ellipse, 1989, by Jeff Tinsley. Smithsonian Institution Archives, Acc. 11-009, Image No. 89-20259.

I'm not trying to romanticize these examples. Doing so could suggest that medical apocalypse and social stigmatization of the dying were ideal conditions for queer ritual authenticity. But paradoxcially, we come up with our strongest ritual practices when we're in touch with our marginal "not like everybody else" position in the world. 

As gay/bi/+ men, we move constantly in and out of that marginal space. It's something we celebrate as an aspect of our ordinary experience--and yet at times something we try to elude. We come together provisionally and temporarily because of our shared marginalization as men who love men. One of the wondrous things about queer men's community is its the potential to bring us together across lines of class, ethnicity, and gender expression. (Walt Whitman knew this over 150 years ago; Edward Carpenter knew this. E.M. Forster knew this.)  But then most of us move partially and intermittently out of queer community, in order to conform to the requirements of a larger society where we often need (or choose) to make our way, as best we can.

Mainstream academic theories of ritual practice, in short, don't fit very well with aspects of authentic queer ritual life.






Shiva at Summer Camp: A Fire Altar at Easton Mountain

For decades we've accessed alternative structures to explore, celebrate, and cultivate our spiritual lives. They include the Radical Faerie movement, gay and gay-friendly retreat facilities, and regional organizations like Gay Spirit Visions, centered in the American Southeast, or the Billies in northern California. Those structures nurture individual growth and afford precious nodes of community. 



The birth of the Radical Faeries, 1979

At the same time, they provide mostly intermittent, and often tenuous, support. Despite them, we still need deeper soil for a more richly layered experience of ritual. Ritual practice in such contexts risks the limitations of what scholar Ronald Grimes dubbed “parashamanism.” He delivers a pretty brutal critque that often comes too close for comfort to the circumstances of our efforts as queer men to remake ritual. Grimes sketches a typical profile of the parashaman: a highly educated, leftist, post-Christian or post-Jewish product of the middle class, often economically marginalized, suspicious of the labels of traditional religion, and preoccupied in  midlife with the existential “themes of death, birth, violence, and sexuality.” 

Parashamanism appropriates multiple traditions without much regard for specifics of history. It focuses on ritual and myth over conceptual content, which it often just ignores. It romanticizes the appeal of "primitive" societies, but glosses over the specfiics of such cultures, including the violence and physical risk often associated with those societies’ rites of passage, healing, and insight. The parashaman is “intellectually anti-intellectual.” His eclectic appropriation of multiple traditions can show colonizing disregard for the integrity and cohesion of the cultures his practices draw from.

More than a little of what Grimes describes recalls memories of queer men's spiritual gatherings--for instance, when indigenous ritual styles and practices are appropriated in almost entirely non-Native contexts, sometimes without even an acknowledgement of the borrowing. I remember vividly being at a large gay men's gathering where the main assembly hall was adorned with symbols of multiple spiritual traditions--without real evidence of deeper engagement. The one notable absence being Christianity, though it informed the backgrounds of most men present. The devanagiri monogram of Hinduism's sacred syllable Aum was inadvertently mounted upside-down. That stuck with me as a telling index of what can go wrong with cafeteria-style spirituality.

New Age workshop culture is an easy target for Grimes's critique. Such gatherings tend to promise peak experiences for the sake of the "high" itself. Workshops aren't set up to integrate an individual’s life into a community. Instead, they're designed to enhance a participant's individual identity, side by side with others' individual identities. Workshop experiences emphasize the individual’s unique characteristics or destiny, and his right to personal fulfilment. Some gatherings are highly structured throughout, and flooded with intense experiences. Others offer a cafeteria of optional, modular experiences. All this fits easily into a  capitalist model that commodifies experience and spiritual value.

The high of finding community in workshop culture is real. It can be positive and life-changing. But it's invariably temporary, and the return to ordinary life easily leaches away the experience's ongoing resonance. Without continued supports for integration, the memory of a moment of peak intensity isn't easily integrated into the individual's return to ordinary. The phenomenon of the "workshop junkie" is real: the repetition-compulsion of "chasing the dragon," absent communal supports for a lasting, heightened integration of the spiritual self.

And yet, at the same time, despite all these pitfalls of parashamanism, Grimes also argues for the cultural authenticity of grass-roots experiments and improvisation in contexts of cultural and social flux--what he calls “emerging ritual.” Which begs the question: what distinction is he making? And what distinction can we make? That seems to me worth asking, because Grimes's positive idea of emerging ritual aligns with important aspects of queer men's culture: our love of parody; our ability both to take our lives seriously and at the same time to see the irony in them; our necessary talent for making things up as we go along. These are skills our tribe has long cultivated in order to sustain our emotional and spiritual lives. 





In other words, as we go on thinking about "emerging ritual," we'll see that it has a lot in common with the creativity and resilience of gay camp--with the skills we've developed to survive, and thrive, in our liminal, "not inside and not outside" space on the margins.






Devotional banners by Barrie Petterson

Saturday, December 28, 2024

On Ritual Authenticity

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.