performed in the specific way prescribed. (Even in places where the-
ologians produce such interpretations—Hindu ritual would be a good
example—most people pay very little attention to that exegesis, being
far more interested in exact performance.)
Indeed, we can much more accurately predict what will happen in a
ritual if we consider that the whole enterprise is geared to reducingthe
amount of information transmitted. Anthropologist Maurice Bloch
pointed out that most ritual language is either archaic, so no one has a
clear idea of what it means, or formulaic, so that you are mandated to
repeat the same words as in previous performances. Together with the
rigid prescriptions for action and the lack of a clear connection [233]
between what is done and what should result, this turns rituals into
occasions where there is much less meaning conveyed than in other
situations of social interaction. True, you can certainly associate vari-
ous ideas with what is being done, as you can when faced with more or
less any human action. But this is mostly a matter of free interpreta-
tion, and the associations are certainly not explanations of action. You
can associate a vast number of notions with each ritual action and still
have no clear justification for performing thisaction rather than that.
Which is why people's exegesis of their own rituals is often vague, cir-
cular, question-begging, mystery-ridden and highly idiosyncratic.^6
SALIENT GADGETS
As anthropologist Roy Rappaport pointed out, even if some meaning
was conveyed through rituals, this still would not explain why it has
to be conveyed that way. That is, we would be left with the same
question as before: Why these rigid requirements on place, script,
actors and instruments? Suppose we say that a Christian wedding
means that the father transmits his authority over his daughter to the
groom, with God as a witness. Even if this was a valid interpretation,
it would only tell us what people could have communicated withouta
ritual, which is unfortunate if we want to explain why they felt the
need for a ritual. Since Chandli is presumably fully aware of what is
going on in the village, why not just kill a goat and tell the goddess to
drop in and take her share whenever convenient? If the relics of
Buyut Celi protect people, why not lease them to whoever feels in
need of protection? When a shaman has completed his training, why
not just have the elders test him and proclaim the results, instead of
WHYRITUALS?