Master Thesis Opponent Report

Thesis Title: Ritualism and identity formation in a traditional society: the case of Banyang
tradition in South West Region of Cameroon

Student: Samuel Akem Taku, UCO: 248566

Opponent: Bernadette Nadya Jaworsky

Overview of the project:

This thesis proposes to utilize Randall Collins’ interaction ritual (IR) theory to examine identity
creation. The author also reaches further back, albeit indirectly, to Durkheim, by employing the
concepts of sacred objects and collective effervescence. Calling upon the empirical case of
initiation rites in Ekpe traditional society in Cameroon, the primary conclusion of the thesis is
articulated as “[I]nteraction ritual ingrains individuals with a new identity in society” (page 7).
Further, the author claims that “ritual interactions such as the rite of passage are meant to ingrain
the individual with a new identity” (page 9, emphasis mine). Secondary goals include a
discussion of “[s]ome interpretations regarding the need for ritual” as well as to “identify the role
or functions of ritual in a traditional society” (page 7; see also page 11).

General Comments:
First, the low quality of the English-language usage makes this thesis very difficult to read!
Relying on what I believe the author is trying to convey, I offer the following general comments:

1) The formal organization of the work is good. The author begins with an introduction that
defines the problematic, outlines some of the major analytical concepts, and describes the
significance of the study. A review of some “related literature” follows, after which the
author presents the core of the theoretical framework used for his analysis, namely,
Randall Collins’ IR theory. The third chapter contains the analysis underlying the main
argument of the thesis. A brief conclusion that further discusses the findings follows.
What is missing, however, is any elaboration of method or methodology, or the research
context. We don’t find out anything specific about the object of study until page 45,
about two-thirds of the way through the thesis.

2) The literature review reveals that the author clearly has a nuanced grasp of the different
ways of theorizing ritual. In addition, he demonstrates a deep understanding of Collins’
IR theory. He also points out the interconnections between different types of theory well
(e.g., the relationship of IR theory and the theory on the social construction of reality).
What is missing is an elaboration of the links between the various theories reviewed and
discussed and the justification for the author’s own empirical case. In this type of work, I
see the literature review as a place to make a critical assessment of existing work on a
topic, identify the gaps and explain how the study at hand will contribute to the scholarly
knowledge of the subject. I found only one instance where this occurs, on page 33, in a
discussion concerning the success of rituals: “However, we are not delighted in
situations of failed ritual as the purpose of this thesis is to illustrate how identity is being
created from interaction ritual. What is necessary is the outcome of a successful ritual.”
 3) In the analysis section, there are several glimpses of how theory and empirical material
connect in the ways that that author promises in the introduction. For example, once we
enter the core of the analysis, which in my opinion, begins on page 48 (Section 3.1.1),
there is a coherent narrative of the initiation rite itself, including a lucid discussion of
how language acts as a boundary mechanism for the separation phase of the ritual.
Likewise, the sections on incorporation and the outcome of the rite of initiation clearly
narrate the processes of solidarity formation and symbol creation, which culminate in a
new identity for the neophytes that entered the ritual.

Substantive Problems:

1) Lack of Method/Methodology Section – I was initially confused by the sentence on page

9 that reads, “It is worthwhile to also mention at this point that the analysis of the rite of
initiation into the Ekpe tradition society is based on participant observation as the data for
this ritual has not been scientifically processed.” It becomes clear on page 45 that the
author is referring to the fact that there is little, if any, existing scientific data on the Ekpe
initiation rite, and thus he is relying on his own data collection. Participant observation is
a perfectly valid, “scientific” method for collecting data; however, the researcher must
offer some description of the nature and extent of the observations collected and
analyzed. How much time did you spend in the research context? How many rituals did
you observe? Did you conduct any formal or informal interviewing of the people
involved? How did you record your observations? Further, there needs to be a
methodological justification for the type of data collection and analysis employed. Why
did you choose participant observation? Why is participant observation valuable in this
type of a study? How did you make sense of your observations? What was the basis for
analysis?

2) Making theoretical connections that are really more like leaps – For example, on pages
10-11, the author wants to use Stuart Hall’s work to justify the use of ritual as a
theoretical lens through which to examine identity, but he doesn’t make the connection
explicit. The following passage doesn’t make any sense to me:

If we conceptualize identity as the way in which we more or less self consciously locates
ourselves in the social world as observes Hall (1996), then we can consider the formation
of identity from a ritualistic point of view. Whether identity is acquired from a social ties
or biologically determined, its assuming in this contemporary society that many theorists
are affording new possibilities for people who want to be certain about how and why
there are related to each other (Hall 1996). The theory of Interaction ritual provides us
with an explanation to this inquiry (pages 10-11).

Another example comes from page 27. The author asserts: “Collins considered emotion
as a microsociological concept of study that can be translated to macro-analytical
functions, which in turn, can help us understand the differences in individual
personalities and identity formation.” However, what follows this sentence does not
explain how the translated concept of emotion at the level of macro-analytical functions
can help us understand the individual level of personalities and identity formation.
 Actually, the substantive theoretical connections between ritual and identity don’t come
out until pp. 41-42, where the author discusses Van Gennep’s work on the transformation
of individuals from one stage of social life to another. Before this, we hear mostly about
the results of ritual activity as group formation, group solidarity, group morality, and
collective effervescence, as well as the emergence of new symbols, emotional energy and
status effects. These are not the same things as identity formation, and even if they are
involved/related, there has to an explicit connection.

3) Analysis is fragmented – As noted above, there are places where the analysis is clear,
but mostly, the reader is left to put the theoretical pieces together on his or her own.
Moreover, there is an entire section (3.3), which begins on page 56 and introduces a new
theory (Grimes). Its sub-sections on ritual space, time, objects, sound and language, and
(finally!) identity seem relevant, but they are disconnected from Collins or any of the
other theorists mentioned in the literature review. The last section of the analysis chapter
(section 3.4) discusses mechanical solidarity, rather than providing a summary or
analytical statement about identity formation.

4) Where is “the big picture”? – The conclusion of a work like this should point to the
broader implications of the findings. Why does it matter that we know how IR theory
plays a role in identity formation among the Ekpe? What does this study tell us that is
new? How does it fit into the existing body of knowledge on the topic? There is no
sociological “take-away” message.

Minor problems:

-pp. 9-10 – The first two sentences of the bottom paragraph do not represent a sociological
definition of a “traditional society.” Phrases like the term “backward,” for example, should be set
off in quotes.

-pp. 12-13 Gendered pronoun use (“he”)

-p. 13 The first time a sociological concept like mechanical solidarity is used, it should be at
least briefly defined.

-References – typographical errors, for example, lack of capitalization where necessary

-References – improper formatting, for example, lack of punctuation at the end of entries

-English language usage – there are numerous typographical and grammatical errors throughout
the manuscript.

Overall Assessment:

The topic of this thesis is important and I agree with the author that “the role of ritual in the
world is truly immense and cannot be underestimated” (page 44). I also see that the author has a
firm sociological grasp of the theoretical concepts he employs in his analysis. To a large degree,
the secondary goals of the thesis (a discussion of the generalized social need for ritual and the
identification of the role or functions of ritual in a traditional society) have been satisfied.
However, the main goal of the thesis, which is to elaborate the process of identity formation
through successful interaction ritual chains, remains elusive. The reader must work hard to see
how it all comes together in the Ekpe initiation rite. The analysis tells us a great deal about the
group processes that emerge from their ritual activity, especially the formation of solidarity, but
the connections to identity formation are not always explicit. A Master’s thesis should present an
argument, provide evidence and reasons to support its claims and offer a broader sociological
contribution. This thesis makes it very difficult to recognize all of these aspects. Therefore, I
recommend that it pass, but only suggest a grade of “E,” pending the results of a strong and
successful oral defense.

Bernadette Nadya Jaworsky, PhD. Brno, 2/6/2011