A. Van Gennep 生命儀禮理論的重新評價

A RE-EVALUATION OF VAN GENNEF'S THEORY OF PASSAGE

本文的主要目的在重估Van Gennep有關生命儀禮的理論之有效性。作者建議Van Gennep的理論可做如下的修訂：（1）Van Gennep忽略了每個分割儀式之前都有一個結合儀式；且把儀式持續時間（period）和儀式行為（rite）混為一談，實際上我們很難找到稱得上是‘過渡儀式’（transition rites）的儀式行為；一個生命儀禮從開始至結束的整段時間對儀式中的新員（novice）來說，都是過渡時期（transitional period）。因此生命儀禮的模式似應重寫為：結合儀式→分割儀式→結合儀式，其中結合儀式與分割儀式可能交替重複出現數次，但開頭及結尾的儀式都是結合儀式。（2）每一生命儀禮中，例如成年禮，新員不只是唯一的邊際人物（Liminal persona），他們的父母、母舅或其他的儀式贊助者在儀式後都各有其地位的轉變，他們也都是儀式中的邊際人物，因此生命儀禮中邊際人物是多範疇的。（3）Van Gennep強調的轉變是從一個界定清楚的地位，到另一同樣界定清楚的地位，但事實上還有兩種可能，就是從未界定（或未確定）到已界定，以及從已界定到未界定（或未確定），後二者的儀禮模式各有其特色。

The aim of this article is to re-evaluate the validity of theory put forth by A. van Gennep. The author suggests that van Gennep's theory can be reformulated as follows：(1) It appears that Van Gennep's structure of rites of passage has two things mixed up, i.e. ritual periods and ritual behaviors. The transitional period begins when the transitional beings become, or are going to be, transitional. A rite of separation is not necessary to start a transitional period. Furthermore, it seems there may be no ritual act that can be classified as rites of transition, and before a rite of separation there is always a rite of incorporation. Therefore, the pattern of the rites of passage is not what Van Gennep has suggested: rites of separation, rites of transition, and rites of incorporation, rather, it is: rites of incorporation, rites of separation, (rites of incorporation, rites of separation,) rites of incorporation. The part in the parentheses is optional, they might be omitted or repeated many times (2) In a trasitional ceremony, only one category of transitional being, e. g. bride and groom, the initiates, the dead, etc., is noticed. As a matter of fact, other persons close to them, say a chief mourner, are no less a protagonist than the dead. The transitional being focussed upon in rites of passage is by no means the only liminal persona in this phase.(3) It seems that Van Gennep neglects two possible transitions which are not included in the 'from one defined position to another which is equally well defined,' namely that from an ill defined or undefined position to a defined one and vice versa. The patterns of rites of passage of the latter two are different from the former.