Sociology

Life is made up of rituals, from the celebration of birth, religious and cultural rites of passage, marriage, and death. In between these rituals are day-to-day transitions that make up the routines of life. In Interaction Ritual Chains, Randall Collins called these momentary connections as interaction rituals (IR). Collins contends that the focus of these interactions are the events and not the individuals, thus the interaction ritual (IR) is a theory of situations (p.3). He proposed that an individual is just a product of past events and a part of a new one therefore, studying the situation rather than the individual is more logical for microsociological understanding.

According to Collins (2004), interaction ritual theory refers to the collective action that evokes strong emotional connection among people linked by common belief and aspiration to effect social transformation. Collins book shows how ordinary situations are transformed into rituals through collective, mutual and emotional interactions. This paper provides a recap of an aspect of Collins theory then continues with an interpretation of the concept based on the wider theoretical framework. This is followed by a critical discussion of some ideas presented, and lastly, a conclusion.

A short recapitulation of the core idea
Collins (2004, p.42) contends that interaction rituals consist of situations that stir peoples emotions to unite and perform coordinated action that leads to social transformation. As mentioned above, Collins believes that interaction ritual is about the situation. What separates an ordinary event from a ritual is the emotional and physical involvement of the people, their common goals, aspirations and actions that result to the creation of a new experience.

Interpretation of this core idea grounded in a wider theoretical context
Like Goffman, Collins recognizes significance of events. He believes that the central mechanism of interaction ritual theory is the occasions that transform ordinary situations into remarkable events. Interaction theory is about the moments that shape individuals and the experiences that change them. It is about the game that made an athlete extraordinary, or the event that changed a regular politician to a great leader. Collins argues that individuals are just the summation of different events and not the focus of the microsociological inquiry. He discounts the relevance of the individual in the micro-level and the contribution of solitary action in the interaction ritual chain. By focusing on the situation, Collins encourages an unconventional way of looking at things. He challenges the readers to change their perspectives and see the forest instead of the trees, to shift their focus from Tiger Woods to golf. This stance is interesting because it prompts us to look beyond the actors or participants of the event to what really happened, how it happened and why.

Collins (2004) also stressed the importance of high degree of mutual focus of attention and high degree of emotional entrainment (p.42). He argued that a ritual includes people, but not just any kind of people, they should be physically and emotionally involved. They need to have mutual awareness of their aspirations and must be able to work together to achieve them. Some of the examples mentioned in the book are the French Revolution of 1789, the Civil rights movement in the 1960s and the heroic act of the fire fighters after the 911 bombing. Yet, he also noted that an event does not always have to be historical or heroic, even simple acts like smoking a joint and love making are rituals as they require emotional connection and mutual action from the participants and result to a collective experience.

Collins idea of collective participation and emotional involvement is consistent with Marshalls (2002) concept of ritual interaction. Both authors stressed the importance of the participants and the connection between them. According to Marshall, the gathering of people or what he called co-presence results to deindividuation or the loss of a sense of self and the establishment of a greater, mutual cause. This contributes to the group solidarity, conformity, mutual fondness and openness of the participants which mirrors Collins interaction chain. Deindividuation differentiates anti-Iraq war protests from American Idol auditions. While both events attract crowds of people, the protest inspires people to disregard their personal motives for the common interest. On the other hand, youth lining for the Idol audition may share a common goal, that is to get into the show, but they are not working together as a group, rather they are competing as individuals.

Collins discussion also gave emphasis to the presence of emotional involvement, brought by deep-seated belief on their mutual aspirations. Collins concept is consistent with the theory of symbolic interaction. According to the symbolic interaction theory, peoples actions depend on their beliefs, which are often influenced by interacting with other people (The Society for More Creative Speech, 2001). Belief serves as a bond joining the participants. It draws them together to a common aspiration. As a result, they experience the feeling of belongingness.  According to Marshall (2002), belonging is a step beyond membership (p.360). Belonging creates the bond that differentiates members from outsiders, it links athletes to play as a team or strangers to mobilize for a common cause.

Another aspect of Collins theory is the presence of collective action. With aspiration comes the moral obligation to pursue it for the common good. It is not enough for the participants to get together, have the same beliefs, or be emotionally involved they have to be fired up enough to make a concentrated effort. Like the symbolic interaction theory, Collins interaction ritual recognizes how the actions of other people can affect the way an individual assigns meaning to an event. Attitude can be infectious. According to Marshall (2002), the reassurance and validation provided by the group reinforces their beliefs. People in doubt about their beliefs may feel more confident in the company of people who share them. Even people who are not sure about certain information could be easily swayed or motivated by popular choice. This explains the power of mobilizations. It validates individual opinions and encourages people who are otherwise too indifferent to make a stand.

Like Goffman, Collins also noted the moral significance (Birrell, 1981, p.359) of these interactions. It gives participants confidence, enthusiasm, and desire for action in what they consider a morally proper path (Collins, 2004, p. 42). These social interactions motivate people to be accountable of their roles. As Birrell discussed, these roles represent standards which people must embody. He cited idealized qualities of a loyal friend, the faithful lover, the loving parent, the efficient secretary, the dedicated scholar, the tough athlete (Birrell, 1981, p.360) as examples.

Collins (2004) noted the enhancement of emotional energy (p.42) brought by the collective effort. The concept of emotional energy refers to the intensity of the emotional involvement of the participants. It dictates the depth of their commitment and to a certain extent, the impact of the ritual. This is consistent with Durkheims interaction ritual concept. Hermanowicz and Morgan (1999) noted Durkheims emphasis on the emotional aspect of ritual. In his study of sports as ritual, Birrell (1981) explianed Durkheims framework through the personal gratification an individual gets by participating in sports (p.355).

Collins also discussed how rituals result to collective actions that tear up old social structures or leave them behind, and shape new social structures (p.42). People mobilize to transform society, athletes work together to win championships. In the same way, experiences enhance ordinary events to form interaction ritual chains.

To sum up this part of the discussion, Collins interaction ritual chain is coherent with symbolic interaction theory in its emphasis with the connection between the events and their meanings. The connections between interaction ritual and the frameworks proposed by Durkheim and Goffman as well as the ideas discussed by other studies were also noted. What follows is a critical discussion of some of the points raised in Collins in his book.

A critical commentary based on a secondary literature
Collins interaction ritual chain is centred on the situation rather than individual. People are just participants, parts of the chain. While Collins attempted to draw the spotlight to the events, his discussion of rituals clearly emphasized the role of the participants emotion and action. He seems to distance the heart of the discussion from people to the event only to focus on the significance of their role in it. It is the situation that matters but to transform an event into a ritual, participants need to be emotionally involved and able to act on it. This aspect of Collins theory is confusing if not self defeating.

Collins emphasis on the significance of shared mood and collective action in the IR chain is also problematic (Baehr, 2005). He noted the coordination shared by football players in the field, fans cheering for the team, lovers in intercourse and others. However, these elements are subjective as people have different degrees of intensity about a given situation. In his pragmatist maxim, James expressed that the meaning a person attaches to a thing is influenced by his or her experience. Thus meaning is subjective. Just because a person is involved in a certain ritual does not mean that he or she shares the feeling of the others. One example is a person watching a football game but not be a fan of the sport or the teams playing, thus that person may not share the collective emotional energy experienced by the others.

Collins concept stressed the importance of emotional energy, the emotional connection that binds the people to perform coordinated action and work for a common goal regardless of their personal interests. Collins himself recognized that emotional energy, decreases and changes with time. Thus there is a need to fuel the energy in order to keep it going. A decline in emotional energy could result to the reduction of the impact and intensity of the situation.  In his criticism of pragmatism, Hilary Putnam doubted that pragmatist account of truth can be sustained (Hookway, 2010). In the same way, emotional energy can dwindle, meanings could change with time, emotion could influence a situation and in effect, interaction rituals may also change. What seems like a ritual today may not have the same value tomorrow or the next year.

One of the contributions of Collins theory though is his emphasis on the elements that differentiates a ritual from the ordinary events. Like Goffman, Collins IR chain recognizes the ritual in the ordinary, day to day interactions. As  Baehr (2005) pointed out in his interview, if ordinary events are rituals, which events are not According to Collins, there are four ingredients needed for a ritual to occur namely co-presence of individuals, inclusiveness or the presence of barriers separating the participants from outsiders, common focus of action, and common mood (cited in Baehr, 2005). In the same way, an IR produces four outcomes belongingness and solidarity, emotional energy, symbolism and feeling of rightness. By including these elements, Collins succeeded in separating rituals from the ordinary routines. He solved the dilemma of what makes a specific situation a ritual but not the others.  However, his delineation provided constraints that isolate concepts about conventional rituals. It stripped the naturalness of the event. His incorporation of the different ingredients made ritual identification a more complicated business. Baehr observed that a situation may satisfy most of the elements but not the others, making categorization of such events challenging.

Like symbolic interactionism, IR recognizes the meaning behind the interaction of people. This meaning is determined and validated by the attitude of the participants. Participants in Collins IR chain are emotionally invested to the process. They are not just acting out a role they are involved with their own character. However, based on the pragmatist view, interpretation depends on the persons experiences (Hookway, 2010).  Thus, the concept of collective experience may be overrated.

Conclusion
Collins interaction ritual theory shows how ordinary situations are transformed into rituals through collective, mutual and emotional interactions.  He prompts readers to look at the moments instead of the people, to see the passion not the person. Like the symbolic interaction theory, Collins IR chain recognizes the connection between events and their meaning.

The study also provided a midpoint between Durkheims perception of rituals as extraordinary momentous events and Goffmans theory that everyday life is a series of rituals. Collins corrected the misconception that only big events can be considered ritual by giving emphasis to the ordinary events of daily life like smoking, watching sports matches or making love with your partner. However, by adding specific ingredients and outcomes   needed for an interaction ritual to occur, Collins succeeded in delineating the ordinary and mundane from the ritual. Rituals can be ordinary things but not all that is ordinary can be considered a ritual. This midpoint makes Collins theory distinct and practical. It helps individuals see the rituals that shape individuals in their journey around the interconnected chain of life.