Douglas Professor Mary - Naturals symbols: explorations in cosmology

This book is obviously not intended solely for anthropologists. I hope it will be a bridge between anthropology and other disciplines. Yet anthropologists must be its most important critics, for only they can judge the soundness of my interpretations of field reports and bring up material which can either confirm or spoil my hypotheses. I have tried to limit myself to sources which are both accessible and of very high quality, so that if my uses of them seem idiosyncratic, anyone can go back to the original reports and check. But in the long run, as the perspectives I wish to develop have not been in the minds of field researchers, only new research, especially devised, can test these arguments.

It remains for me to thank those who have helped me most directly. First I thank the Dominicans at Blackfriars, Oxford, for inviting me to give the St Thomas Day lecture on 7 March 1968, and for publishing The Contempt of Ritual in New Blackfriars (June, July 1968, 49: 475 82, 52835). Theirs was the initial stimulus for the book. Further I thank Professor Kenneth Little and the Court of Edinburgh University for inviting me to deliver the Munro lectures in May 1968. For earlier work on this subject I am grateful to the Woldingham Association Committee and especially to Reverend Mother Eyre, Mary Don and Mona Macmillan. The research we hoped to promote on religious education has not yet been accomplished. At least this is offered as a sketch of some of the issues we hoped to tackle.

The first formal acknowledgement I must make is to Basil Bernstein. My debt to him is very apparent and I ask his pardon if the use I have made of his ideas is inept. I am grateful to the Reverend Cornelius Ernst, OP, and to Peter Brown for reading the manuscript, and to David Schneider, Victor Turner and Nur Yalman for their discussions of lectures given on its basis in Chicago this year. I am also grateful to Bryan Wilson and Godfrey Lienhardt for kindly reading and commenting on parts of the manuscript, and to James Woodburn and to Daniel de Coppet for permission to quote from studies still awaiting publication, and to Rodney Needham for a seminar paper on natural symbols which helped me to focus my interest. I record gratefully my husband's unflagging attempt to keep the argument on the track and thanks to Janet for helping with the bibliography.

Mary Douglas
July 1969

Many difficulties and sources of confusion still remain in this Pelican edition. To try to unify so many fields of anthropology was a very ambitious task. Clearly another ten years of scholarly research would have made it more presentable. However, events move faster than study can. If this exercise in comparative cosmology has any relevance for the way we justify our own behaviour, it should be set forth with the least delay. Once made public, the weakness of the argument, step by step and example by example, could be criticized. The thesis was too complex to unfold in less space, too difficult to discuss piecemeal without laying down the whole, and too difficult to work out further in private study. Therefore, I published it when I did and wish to acknowledge my gratitude for the painstaking criticisms it has received. Particularly Professor Robin Horton, Professor Philip Gulliver, Dr Deane Neubauer and Mr Michael Thompson have been most constructive. I wish also to thank Professor Thomas Luckmann for encouraging me to make a revised edition at once and for his suggestions about how to set about it. It will be apparent that I have not been able to avail myself of all the helpful criticisms. The main difference between the two editions is the attempt to clarify the central dimensions of grid and group on which the rest hangs. Instead of indicating a separate quadrant for each type of society, I am now thinking of scatter patterns across the diagram to show the group pressures and the coherence of the classificatory scheme which can be assessed from ethnography or historical biography. If the reasoning is sound, we can go a great deal further than the phenomenologists who have been saying for some time that the perceived universe is socially constructed. We should be able to say what kinds of universe are likely to be constructed when social relations take this or that form.

Now that Professor Bernstein's work Class Codes and Control (1971) is published, my book shows up more obviously as the other side of his thesis. This meets a criticism from those who felt I had not fully explained the relevance of his work to my ideas. The revised grid and group is derived from his discussion of the ways the curriculum can be constructed. He has been interested in revealing how speech forms, and now the curriculum, encode the pattern of social relations, mediate and reinforce it. Any given curriculum is justified by a cosmology which states the ultimate principles in the universe, and which derives from these principles the proper way to teach human beings. As he looks beneath the curriculum to the pattern of power which is being hammered out in bargaining over the staff-meeting table, so I try to look beneath the overt cosmology to the pattern of power which it realizes. And one step further, I have tried to identify with the type of cosmology and social pattern a distinctive coding of ritual forms. The coding of ritual forms corresponds to the coding of speech forms in Basil Bernstein's earlier work. The curriculum is seen as a system of boundaries: likewise the tribal culture. His study of the curriculum examines the main varieties which differ in the strength of the boundaries used. The difference between strong boundary maintenance and weak boundary maintenance in education is analogous to the difference between ritual and anti-ritual in types of religion. This theme of the variable strength of the boundaries of cognitive systems I was forced to explore after writing