I felt like both readings “worked” for me since I understood them easily. However, I would point out something that I didn’t remember in class about Huizinga’s piece. On page 100, he says “Or finally, let us take ritual. Primitive society performs its sacred rites, its sacrifices, consecrations and mysteries, all of which serve to guarantee the well being of the world, in a spirit of pure play truly understood.” Defining ritual as “play” in this way doesn’t work for me. I’m not even a deeply religious person. In fact, I’m not religious whatsoever. Still, even I understand how seriously people take rituals, and many people would probably be deeply offended by the label play. I think ritual is the most interesting concept he raises in the article. On the one hand, there is a kind of magic circle in a lot of rituals. For example, everyone who is a neophyte (whether it be a sorority or admission to adulthood in some cultures) understands that they must act a certain way within the ritual that doesn’t apply in the real world. On the other hand, some people might consider that ritual part of their real life. My point is that it feels infantilizing to write ritual off as play, especially when he mentions “primitive society.” However, the piece is over 100 years old, so that is not surprising rhetoric. I think ritual needs its own special category. Something that allows for seriousness but also the reality of rituals while factoring in the magic circle that I think exists in ritual.

By Julia Siqueira