The nature and function of ritual forms: A sociological discussion Frederick Bird Frederick Bird is Associate Professor of Religion at Concordia University, Montreal. This article sets forth a general sociological theory about the nature and- &dquo; function of ritual forms, differentiates among various kinds of rituals in relation to their manifest ritual objectives and latent social functions, and analyzes the contemporary shifts in ritual practices from the perspective of these conceptual assumptions.’ 1 1 Phenomenological and functional characteristics of ritual forms Sociologists have often commented disparagingly on ritual activities. Like Merton they have tended to view rituals as meaningless routines, as un- thinking habituated activities, or as the overly elaborated ceremonies accompanying certain kinds of political or religious practices. Protestant religious thinkers too have often viewed rituals critically because they sensed that a preoccupation with rites and liturgies detracted attention away either from real, inner religious experiences or from responsible moral action.2 These criticisms arise in part because of a failure to dis- tinguish between rituals as cultural codes and certain stylized and habitu- ated forms of behaviour, which may be acted out in keeping with these codes, and, in part, because of religious and moral critiques of particular rituals or ritualisms rather than ritual action as such. Rituals are cultural phenomena. As symbolic codes, they regulate human interactions in a wide variety of contexts from religion and etiquette to types of therapies, cere- monies, and intimate exchanges. Without an understanding of the particu- lar nature of ritual actions, we are liable to arrive at quite distorted views of the many activities in which ritual action plays a central part. In the paragraphs below I present a phenomenological and functional analysis of ritual forms, distinguishing in the process religious rituals from other kinds. In setting forth these theoretical arguments, I have attempted to develop generalizations which are valid for primitive, historic, and contemporary religions and which are fitting as well for activities associ- 1 This paper is based in part upon a research project, made possible by a grant from the Quebec Government’s Ministry of Education, to study New Religious and Para- Religious Movements in the Montreal area. An earlier version of this paper was delivered as part of the Maurice Manel lectures in Symbolic Interaction at York University under the title: ’Symbolic Action in Contemporary Cults.’ In its present form the paper was presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Sociology of Religion, August 1979. I am indebted to other members of this research project, including Judith Castle, Susan Palmer, and Frances Westley. 2 See Robert Merton, Social Theory and Social Structure (New York: Free Press, 1968), chs. 6 and 7; Mary Douglas, Natural Symbols (Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin Books, 1973), ch. 1.