The arguments surrounding religion have perplexed scholars, religious officials, philosophers, and the common folk for thousands of years. Those claiming to have the only path to God(s) have refuted each other through time with the creation of different religions, and beliefs. Emile Durkheim defines religion as:
When a certain number of sacred things sustain relation of co-ordination or subordination with each other in such a way as to form a system having a certain unity, but which is not comprised within any other system of the same sort, the totality of these beliefs and their corresponding rites constitutes a religion. (Durkheim 190)
From this we can see where the lines can become blurred. Is it possible for one religion to have the same beliefs as another and still be constituted as a religion? Can they have similar rituals, ways of worship, stories, and so forth?
The answer is yes, and they do. Virtually all religions have the same groundwork. Something is being worshipped as a means to transcend space and time. In most cases the religion has some sort of totem, or something that has sacred attributes, which is some kind of symbol or artifact important to the community within the religion (Ibid). One totem for example is the cross in Christianity. It is a symbol of how Christ the savior died. Religion is a way of persuasion for the community within it, and for those outside of the community. This persuasive expression of faith, in particular ritual, is religious in principle, and serves as an interactivity tool.
Yet, can’t video games do the same thing? Videogames promote interactivity through procedural rhetoric (ritual) and storytelling in the game, as religion does. Procedural rhetoric is the use of persuasive process (Bogost 28). In the example of videogames this relates to the actual act of playing the game; pressing the buttons, to control the character(s) on the screen and acting as if you control them. This is ritualistic in a sense in that you are achieving an out of body experience (which happens with ritual as well), achieving a sense of community with other gamers, and transcending time and space, by playing in a place that has no relation to our actual time or the place you are playing in. Markku Eskelinen describes computer games saying:
….you can operate your character, if there is one in the first place, perhaps also discuss with other characters or voices; and the characters can be dynamic and developing (not only in an interpretative sense), such as by changing themselves with level points and power-ups. (Eskelinen 37)
The changing in a game is the same thing that participants go through within a ritual. These “level points”, and “power-ups” are the spiritual messages that a participant feels throughout their body, mind, and soul during a ritual.
According to Jonathan Z. Smith, “Ritual is a way of performing things as they ought to be, a way of doing in which all things can be controlled” (Smith 473). Ritual in effect is a shaping of the world in which things that are ordinary in the real world, through ritual become sacred, and worshipped. Ian Bogost states that video games are not meant to be replicas of the world, but a world in which certain parts are modeled to serve the game (Bogost 46). They are both modeled to serve the purpose of the message. Robbie E. Davis-Floyd offers characteristics of ritual in order to better understand it. For the purposes of this essay I will only include the most pertinent characteristics.
One of the major characteristics is symbolism. A symbol is an object, or idea, that has sacred value and meaning to a culture (Davis-Floyd 149). Rituals do not just happen. They have a meaning behind them due to these symbols, which facilitate certain beliefs within the group itself. The ritual serves to put these beliefs into the participants (Ibid).
Another characteristic is repetition and redundancy. The ritual will not be as effective if it is not repeated over and over. The ritual serves to provide a message to its participants in various forms (Davis-Floyd 150). Therefore, the repetition of these processes is a form of procedural rhetoric. The ritual is a persuasive process in itself, which is procedural rhetoric. The participants play a part in the process of the ritual, and receive information (rhetoric) about the beliefs, part of the community. This repetition is a key factor in videogames as well. One will become better at the videogame through repetition. There is a need for repetition if one hopes to master all aspects of the videogame.
There is also a simplistic quality that is important to ritual according to Davis-Floyd. Since most people often have different levels of intelligence the ritual must be simplified to, “reduce all participants to the same simpler level of cognitive functioning” (Davis-Floyd 151). Floyd uses the example of the military. Upon arrival to basic training the recruit’s head is shaved making him unrecognizable to even himself, his clothes are taken away, and he’s given a uniform to take away his sense of individuality. The military breaks down his cognitive structure by making him dig countless holes or do push-ups. Finally the recruit is forced to sleep with his rifle so that the military becomes his mind, body and soul. Davis-Floyd coins this process as symbolic inversion, confusing an individual by doing the opposite of the normal (Ibid).
Davis-Floyd also gives the example of cognitive stabilization. Ritual stabilizes participants who are under stress by giving them something to grasp onto and believe in. Davis-Floyd contends that, “to perform a ritual in the face of chaos is to restore order to the world” (Davis-Floyd 152). It’s understandable that participants would view a ritual as calming and almost therapeutic because the ritual is a persuasive expression of their beliefs, and they can actually participate in it.
In relation to games Eric Zimmerman talks about interactivity with relation to narratives (a big part of ritual), in that ritual usually has some narrative form; sometimes the form is more rigid while other times it’s more of a free form. Zimmerman contends, “…perhaps all narratives can be interactive, but they can be interactive in different ways” (Zimmerman 158).
There is an evident relation here to games as well. While games deal with play and the player’s experience, there is sometimes a straightforward narrative to the game that cannot be changed like Mario Bros. Other times like in the popular game, Mass Effect players can choose their own story, by picking different responses that change the narrative of the game, which gives the game excellent replay value. However, can we really say that we are creating our own narrative in this respect? Ultimately you realize that your response choices are programmed into the game. After playing the game through many times you will have chosen all of the possibilities to change the narrative. Yet, not all games are narratives according to Henry Jenkins:
Not all games tell stories. Games may be an abstract, expressive and experiential form, closer to music or modern dance than to cinema. Some ballets (The Nutcracker for example) tell stories, but storytelling isn’t an intrinsic or defining feature of dance. Similarly, many of my own favorite games – Tetris, Blix, Snood – are simple graphic games that do not lend themselves very well to narrative exposition. (Jenkins 119)
While I agree in a sense with this analysis, I feel that all games have the ability to have a narrative. The narrative may not be programmed into the game itself, yet it is human nature to fill in the blanks and to figure out the whole picture. With the Tetris example one can make up their own narrative to the game. I propose that the player can make up the narrative in that they can rationalize what they are doing by putting it to some type of story. While not intended by the game designers, it gives the player a way to make the game more interesting for them. The player can make up a back-story to the game.
Davis-Floyd’s last pertinent point about ritual is how it effects social change. He states, “…with all of its insistence on continuity and order, can be an important factor not only in individual transformation but also in social change. New belief systems are most effectively spread through new rituals designed to enact and transmit” (Ibid 156). Reinforcing Davis-Floyd’s point, Theodore Jennings contends that while ritual teaches one how to participate in a ritual space, it also teaches you how to behave outside of the ritual space in the real world (Jennings 329). Rituals look to help the participants in a spiritual sense, and spirituality does not just stay within the ritual itself; it’s part of who you are, you take it with you where you go, whether you are spiritual or not. Ritual once again relates to games with this point. Bogost contends that serious games (games that depict reality), “…strive to alter or affect player opinions outside of the game, not merely cause him to continue playing” (Bogost 47).
Another relation between games and stories I’d like to discuss is how they both distance themselves from the world; however they do in some cases deal with the real world. Janet Murray compares the two, “Stories and games are . . . both distanced from the real world, although they often include activities that are done ‘for real’ in other domains” (Murray 3). Yet, as I stated before, stories and games do in some cases deal with the real world. Take the Medal of Honor game series for example. The whole series is based on the historical events in World War II. You play as a soldier for various Allied forces trying to take down the Axis powers.
Communitas proposed by Victor W. Turner relates to the community within ritual; however it can also be related to games as well. Turner defines communitas in two ways. The first deals with the differentiation between people within a hierarchical setting in terms of men being “more” or “less” than each other within a community. The second defines society during the liminal period, which is a time, “between the positions assigned and arrayed by law, custom, convention, and ceremonial” (Turner 512). This is a time when everyone is equal. Turner defines the second part of communitas as, “…is of society as an unstructured or rudimentarily structured and relatively undifferentiated comitatus, community, or even communion of equal individuals who submit together, to the general authority of the ritual elders” (Turner 513).
In relation to games the communitas emerges at two points if we take Turner’s definition literally. The first one emerges after players have played the game already and some are better than the others. The ones who are better have an advantage over the players who aren’t as good as the other players. This can lead to a sort of mutiny within the group of players, for the players who aren’t as good, to overthrow the more skilled players in some way and take their role.
The second definition emerges when players play the game for the first time and are learning it. The player has seemingly no idea what they are supposed to do within the game, and therefore must be taught somehow. In a lot games there are tutorials that you must go through before you can begin the actual game, so that you know how to play. In this sense, all players are equal parts of the community, no one is better than any other player. They must learn from some sort of “ritual master”. In cases like the popular game Assassin’s Creed, you go through a tutorial where another computer teaches you how to control the character within the game. The other computer teaching you how to play is your ritual master. This ritual of learning the game is something that each player must go through which binds them as a community, just like rituals in life bind together the participants in the ritual. The members of the ritual learn the ritual from some sort of master where they are all in liminal space in that they are all equals within the ritual. It doesn’t matter if you are the President of the United States while participating in the ritual, you have the same status as a street sweeper.
With technology developing as rapidly as it has been, it will be interesting to see the new types of games that we will be studying 50 years from now. I believe the similarities between religion ritual and virtual reality, will be self evident for all time. It’s not possible to take the procedurality and community out of games and ritual, nor is it possible to take ritual out of religion. There will always be a type of ritual within our daily lives as well. People become drawn to games and religion because I believe that people like ritual. They like to be part of a community, and like ascending to something beyond themselves through ritual and games whether it’s connection with a higher power or just plain old stress relief. Ritual has its roots in religion, and games have its roots within ritual. Religion is a game in itself. Religious institutions are no less a game than Tetris. They are all trying to give people ways to put the blocks of life together to reach something beyond themselves.
Works Cited
Bogost, Ian. Persuasive Games. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2007. Print
Davis-Floyd, Robbie E. 1994. “The Rituals of Hospital Birth in America.” Conformity and Conflict: Readings in Cultural Anthropology, 8th ed., 323-40. Edited by James P. Spradle and David W. McCurdy. New York: HarperCollins.
Durkheim, Emile. 1915. “Definition of Religious Phenomena and of Religion.” The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life: A Study in Religious Sociology, 36-45, 47. Translated by Joseph Ward Swain. London: Allen & Unwin.
Eskelinen, Markku Eskelinen. “Towards Computer Game Studies.” First Person New Media as Story, Performance, and Game. Ed. Noah Wardrip-Fruin and Pat Harrigan. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2004. 36-42. Print
Jenkins, Henry. “Game Design as Narrative Architecture.” First Person New Media as Story, Performance, and Game. Ed. Noah Wardrip-Fruin and Pat Harrigan. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2004. 118-20. Print
Jennings, Theodore W., Jr. 1982. “On Ritual Knowledge.” Journal of Religion 62(2):111- 27.
Murray, Janet. “From Game-Story to Cyberdrama.” First Person New Media as Story, Performance, and Game. Ed. Noah Wardrip-Fruin and Pat Harrigan. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2004. 2-4. Print
Smith, Jonathan Z. 1982. “The Bare Facts of Ritual.” Imagining Religion: From Babylon to Jonestown, 53-65, 143-45. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Turner, Victor W. 1969. “Liminality and Communitas.” The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure, 94-97, 106-13, 125-29. Chicago: Aldine.
Zimmeran, Eric. “Narrative Interactivity, Play and Games.” First Person New Media as Story, Performance, and Game. Ed. Noah Wardrip-Fruin and Pat Harrigan. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2004. 156-59. Print
