We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 30 January 2009
There has been a growing interest in recent years in the question of meaning as it relates to liturgical performance. There is a long tradition within liturgical writing of deriving some kind of theological meaning for the liturgy from the content of the text that is used. More recently, however, this understanding of ‘meaning’ has been considered too limiting. It treats the liturgy as a literary/theological text and ignores the fact that the liturgical text is only one small part of a much wider act of worship. Bridget Nichols, for example, in her book Liturgical Hermeneutics: Interpreting Liturgical Rites in Performance suggests that the traditional theological/literary meaning is misleading. The liturgical text is designed to be performed, it comes into existence in performance, and outside of that performance, it is nothing. Kieren Flanagan also claimed to address the question of meaning and performance in his book on Sociology and Liturgy: Re-presentations of the Holy. Nichols rejected this approach, however, because of what she claims is Flanagan's particular misreading of Hans-Georg Gadamer's writing on ‘play’. This led Flanagan to suggest that there is only one single ‘unitary’ meaning in liturgy which is constantly renewed in each and every act of worship. Joyce Ann Zimmerman has written a book entitled Liturgy as Language of Faith: A Liturgical Methodology in the Mode of Paul Ricoeur's Textual Hermeneutics but this also ignores the performative aspect of liturgy and, like Flanagan, asserts a definitive meaning for the text.
1 Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1996.
2 London: Macmillan, 1991.
3 Liturgical Hermeneutics, 34–5.
4 Lanham: University Press of America, 1988.
5 Vol. 73, No. 3, 181–94.
6 Liturgical Hermeneutics, 18–21.
7 Thompson, J. B., ‘Editor's Introduction’ in Thompson, J. B. (ed.), Paul Ricoeur, Hermeneutics and the Human Sciences: Essays on Language, Action and Interpretation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981, 1–26Google Scholar
8 Ricoeur, P., ‘What is a Text? Explanation and Understanding’ in Hermeneulics and the Human Sciences, 145–164Google Scholar.
9 ‘What is a Text’, 161.
10 In Hermeneutics and the Human Sciences, 197–221.
11 Hermeneutics and the Human Sciences, 177.
12 Liturgical Hermeneutics, 40.
13 Ricoeur makes a great deal of the fact that the ‘world’ of the text is projected ‘in front’ of that text and is not discoverable ‘behind’ it as earlier thexories had suggested. However, in either case it is the text that determines the world and not some other, external, feature (Hermeneutics and the Human Sciences, 140–2).
14 Liturgical Hermeneutics, 46.
15 Wagner, R., The Invention of Culture, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981Google Scholar.
16 Gadamer, H-G., Truth and Method, London: Sheed & Ward, 1989, 302–307Google Scholar.
17 ‘The Model of the Text’, 215.
18 ‘The Model of the Text’, 199, referring to Austin, J. L., How To Do Things with Words, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1962Google Scholar.
19 Liturgical Hermeneutics, 146.
20 When Nichols' does refer to perlocutionary aspects of the text she gives a different meaning to the word. She suggests that the ‘illocutionary’ refers to action in the present situation while the perlocutionary refers to action in some future, or otherwise unspecified, moment (Liturgical Hermeneutics, 183).
21 For a more detailed discussion of how this might be done, see Stringer, M. D., On the Perception of Worship, The Ethnography of Worship in Four Christian Congregations in Manchester, Birmingham: Birmingham University Press, 1999Google Scholar.
