Transcript Document

Is Judaism boring?
Tamás Biró
ACLC,
University of Amsterdam
Groningen Centre for
Religion & Cognition
1/31
E. Thomas Lawson & Robert N. McCauley

Lawson & McCauley, 1990.: Rethinking Religion,
Connecting Cognition and Culture
–
–

Foundations of the Cognitive Science of Religion
Model of rituals, based on Chomskyan syntax
McCauley & Lawson, 2002: Bringing Ritual to
Mind, Psychological Foundations of Cultural Forms
–
Which predicts better the arousal connected to
rituals? Ritual form (L&McC, 1990) or frequency
(Whitehouse, 1995)?
Tamás BIRÓ
SBL
Vienna, Austria, July 24, 2007
2/31
The fate of a scientific theory/model
first observations
model
prediction
background
“philosophy”
Details,
concrete
examples
new observations
Tamás BIRÓ
SBL
Vienna, Austria, July 24, 2007
3/31
“A model without an example is like a car without
an engine: it might look great, but it won’t take
you anywhere.”
Tamás BIRÓ
SBL
Vienna, Austria, July 24, 2007
4/31
Overview



Introduction to / own reading of / elaboration on
Lawson&McCauley’s model of ritual form
L&McC: Implementation to religious rituals
Implementation to Judaism
Corroborate or refute the McC&L theory?

NB: This talk aims at contributing to a CSR
theory, and not to the study of Judaism.
Tamás BIRÓ
SBL
Vienna, Austria, July 24, 2007
5/31
Linguistics: syntax–semantics interface
John
broke
the window.
The hammer broke
the window.
The window
was broken
by John.
The window
was broken
by the hammer.
The window
broke.
Tamás BIRÓ
SBL
Vienna, Austria, July 24, 2007
6/31
Linguistics: syntax–semantics interface
subject
John
verb
object
broke
the window.
The hammer broke
the window.
by-phrase
The window
was broken
by John.
The window
was broken
by the hammer.
The window
broke.
Tamás BIRÓ
SBL
Vienna, Austria, July 24, 2007
7/31
Further linguistic observations
John broke the window.
Mary broke the window.
John and Mary broke the window.
* John and the hammer broke the window.
John broke the window using the hammer.
* The hammer broke the window using John.
John = agent
Tamás BIRÓ
↔
hammer = instrument.
SBL
Vienna, Austria, July 24, 2007
8/31
Linguistics: syntax–semantics interface
subject
John
verb
object
broke
the window.
The hammer broke
the window
by-phrase
The window
was broken
by John.
The window
was broken
by the hammer.
The window
broke.
Tamás BIRÓ
SBL
Vienna, Austria, July 24, 2007
9/31
Thematic roles (Theta-roles)

Semantic arguments of the action:
–
–
–

Agent: (“logical subject”)
Patient: (“logical direct object”)
Instrument
Further semantic roles:
–
–
–
–
Recipient: (“logical indirect/dative object”; L&McC p125)
Location, time
Experiencer
Etc.
Tamás BIRÓ
SBL
Vienna, Austria, July 24, 2007
10/31
Frequent confusion:
ontological categories – thematic roles
human
agent
(incl. CIA)
natural force
agentive
categories
agentive roles
natural force
animal
patient
plant
recipient
location
artefact
natural object
Tamás BIRÓ
instrument
SBL
Vienna, Austria, July 24, 2007
11/31
Thematic roles for action representation

So far: linguistic arguments to introduce them
(arguments from specific languages and from
cross-linguistic comparison).

My hypothesis:
Linguistic observations reflect a deeper cognitive
phenomenon: the mental representation of
actions and states-of-affair in the world.

Need to be demonstrated even beyond religion.
Tamás BIRÓ
SBL
Vienna, Austria, July 24, 2007
12/31
Axioms of Human Cognition 1
Axiom AHC 1:
(1a) (Object Agency Filter) Agentive roles can
be filled only by (some!) agentive categories.
(1a’) Only agentive categories can bring about
changes in the world.
(1b) (Agent Overdetection) Agentive roles are
preferably filled by ontological agents (humans
and CIAs, but not by natural forces).
Tamás BIRÓ
SBL
Vienna, Austria, July 24, 2007
13/31
Axioms of Human Cognition 2
The hammer broke the window.
The window was broken by the hammer.
John broke the window using the hammer.
Axiom AHC 2:
(2a) Agentive categories being able to perform action
X can enable other categories to act as instrument, or
as secondary agents in performing action X.
(2b) Otherwise, non-agentive categories cannot act
as instruments.
Tamás BIRÓ
SBL
Vienna, Austria, July 24, 2007
14/31
Halfway summary

Action representation system:
1.
Agent – action (+ patient, instrument, time,
location, recipient…)
John broke the window in the house with a hammer.
The wind broke the window yesterday.
2.
Instrument – action (+ patient, instrument…)
+ prior enabling action
The hammer [moved by John] broke the window.
Tamás BIRÓ
SBL
Vienna, Austria, July 24, 2007
15/31
Lawson & McCauley on religious rituals
–
Religious ritual if and only if at least one slot is
filled by a counterintuitive agent (CIA)…
CIA in agent-role:
The gods declare you a married man.
CIA in recipient-role:
We offer the sacrifice to the gods.
–
…or an agent/instrument enabled by a CIA.
The priest [ordained by gods] declare you a married man..
Tamás BIRÓ
SBL
Vienna, Austria, July 24, 2007
16/31
Lawson & McCauley on religious rituals
–
The shortest chain of enabling counts
(Principle of Superhuman Immediacy).
–
“Special agent rituals” vs. others
(Principle of Superhuman Agency):
CIA connected to agent vs. other thematic roles (via the
shortest chain of enabling rituals)
–
–
Balanced ritual systems need both.
Tedium effect if no special agent rituals.
Tamás BIRÓ
SBL
Vienna, Austria, July 24, 2007
17/31
Application to post-Temple Judaism

Special agent rituals in Judaism?
–
–
–

Circumcision?
Bar mitzvah?
Wedding?
Special patient rituals?
–
Ritual bath? Torah scroll, mezuzah?
(burning chametz, lighting Shabbat candles, havdalah…)

What about most commandments?
–
Positive vs. negative commandments
Tamás BIRÓ
SBL
Vienna, Austria, July 24, 2007
18/31
Circumcision

Widespread belief:
Agent makes Patient a Jew by circumcision.
BUT:
 J. women, not circumcised Jews: also Jews
 Gen. 17: who circumcised Abraham?
 Patient is minor: obligation on father or on beit din
 Patient is major: obligation on himself
 A Jewish man not circumcised may circumcise.
Tamás BIRÓ
SBL
Vienna, Austria, July 24, 2007
19/31
Circumcision

Gen. 17,13:

…  

Targum Johanan ben Uziel ad Gen. 17,13:
The one who is circumcised should circumcise…


Bab. Talmud, Avoda Zara 27a
Maimonides, Hilchot Milla 2,1:
Everybody is allowed to circumcise. Even the uncircumcised,
the slave, the woman and the minor may circumcise, if there is
no man present. But the gentile may not circumcise; yet, if he
did so, one does not need to circumcise again.
Tamás BIRÓ
SBL
Vienna, Austria, July 24, 2007
20/31
Circumcision

Not a special agent ritual
The person performing the ritual neither is a CIA
nor does he need to have undergone any enabling
ritual connecting him to a CIA.

Nor a special patient ritual
The person undergoing the ritual …

Nor a special instrument ritual
The instrument used during the ritual …
Tamás BIRÓ
SBL
Vienna, Austria, July 24, 2007
21/31
Wedding


Contract, not sanctity
No need for a rabbi

Has the rabbi undergone any enabling ritual
(“ordination”)?

Action of the groom
Witnesses

Tamás BIRÓ
SBL
Vienna, Austria, July 24, 2007
22/31
Burial

No need for rabbi, any Jew can (must) perform
it, supposing he knows how to do it.
Tamás BIRÓ
SBL
Vienna, Austria, July 24, 2007
23/31
Pidyon ha-ben

The redeeming of the first born

Need for a cohen:
–
–
Is the cohen a CIA?
Certainly not.
Has the cohen undergone any enabling ritual?
Certainly not.
Tamás BIRÓ
SBL
Vienna, Austria, July 24, 2007
24/31
Conversion

The beit din (rabbinic court) as special agent?

What enabling ritual has the court undergone?
Court of ignorant Jews?

Tamás BIRÓ
SBL
Vienna, Austria, July 24, 2007
25/31
Conversion

“Immersion is not a cleansing process, but one
whereby states are changed through a Divine
purification process. Therefore, once a convert
emerges from the waters of the mikvah, he ‘is …
a Jew in every way’ (Yevamot 47b).”
(Rabbi Yoel Schwartz: Jewish Conversion, 1994, p. 55)
Tamás BIRÓ
SBL
Vienna, Austria, July 24, 2007
26/31
Mikvah – ritual bath

No enabling ritual for the mikvah

Must meet certain criteria:
quantity, source of water, etc.
Tamás BIRÓ
SBL
Vienna, Austria, July 24, 2007
27/31
Mezuzah, Torah scrolls


Are these “special agents”?
In folk religiosity, handled as if they were:
–
–

Dancing with / clothing the Torah scrolls
The mezuzah “protecting” the place
But, are there enabling rituals?
The way of writing them
– Fixing the mezuzah on the doorpost
Who would be the special agent in these rituals?
–
Tamás BIRÓ
SBL
Vienna, Austria, July 24, 2007
28/31
Conclusion: is Judaism boring?


Jewish ritual actions do not involve
a CIA in any of their thematic roles. McC&L: No rituals
at all in Judaism?
Missing the target!
What they involve is
–
A person who is
halakhically Jewish
–
Meeting conditions that have
been specified by CIA
Improve the L&McC model!
Tamás BIRÓ
A too simple, trivial model:
Initial enabling ritual is
conversion or being born Jewish
SBL
Vienna, Austria, July 24, 2007
29/31
Summary

An overview of Lawson & McCauley 1990 from a
different perspective:
–
–
Thematic roles as elements of action
representation system.
Axioms of cognition

Implementing L & McC 1990 to Judaism:
serious need to improve the model!

What about other religions?
Tamás BIRÓ
SBL
Vienna, Austria, July 24, 2007
30/31
Thank you
for your attention!
Tamás Biró
http://www.birot.hu
Download this presentation from the
Archive for Religion & Cognition:
http://www.csr-arc.com
31/31