It is well known that the contributions Henri Hubert and Marcel Mauss made to the advancement of the study of sacrifice are groundbreaking and foundational. Whether or not later theorists have agreed with the concepts Hubert and Mauss have proposed, they cannot deny the influence that their Sacrifice: Its Nature and Function had. One commendable aspect about Hubert and Mauss is that they were self-reflective in their writing, stating that they “do not think of presenting [their theory] save as a provisional hypothesis: on a subject so vast and complex, new information in the future cannot fail to lead us to modify our present ideas” (1). They are aware that there will be research in the future that will challenge their understanding of sacrifice;
…show more content…
They state that sacrifice is, “a religious act which, through the consecration of a victim, modifies the condition of the moral person who accomplishes it or that of certain objects with which he is concerned” (13). From this statement it is seen that, overall, Hubert and Mauss’ study provides an understanding of the fundamental structure of sacrifice and how it is supposed to function in terms of the “sacrifier,” or “the subject to whom the benefits of sacrifice thus accrue, or who undergoes is effects” (10). The effect of this three-parted ritual is either a process of sacralization or desacralization of the sacrifier (95), and the ultimate goal of any sacrifice is “establishing a means of communication between the sacred and the profane worlds through the mediation of a victim, that is, of a thing that in the course of the ceremony is destroyed” (97). This victim is regularly used as a substitution for the sacrifier, and is what helps create this communication between him and the gods. Essentially, Hubert and Mauss provide a comprehensive understanding of the structure of sacrifice, which is viewed from the viewpoint of the …show more content…
Moreover, their theory is ultimately important because it focuses on the sacrifier and the danger that the ritual places on this individual through the sacralization/desacralization schema they describe. However, it is because of this focus on the sacrifier that Girard’s focus on the victim and the community is needed in order to broaden the scope of their study of sacrifice. It is somewhat unfair to say that their study of sacrifice is narrow, as if that is a thing to be fixed, because even they state that the very focus of their work is “[not] to follow it in its development or all its ramifications. We have given ourselves only the task of attempting to put it in its place” (105). With their clarification of focus in mind, they open up the opportunity for their theory to be incorporated into sociological interpretation at the end, and because of this and their narrow, sacrifier-focused approach, Girard is a necessary addition to strengthen their
They state that sacrifice is, “a religious act which, through the consecration of a victim, modifies the condition of the moral person who accomplishes it or that of certain objects with which he is concerned” (13). From this statement it is seen that, overall, Hubert and Mauss’ study provides an understanding of the fundamental structure of sacrifice and how it is supposed to function in terms of the “sacrifier,” or “the subject to whom the benefits of sacrifice thus accrue, or who undergoes is effects” (10). The effect of this three-parted ritual is either a process of sacralization or desacralization of the sacrifier (95), and the ultimate goal of any sacrifice is “establishing a means of communication between the sacred and the profane worlds through the mediation of a victim, that is, of a thing that in the course of the ceremony is destroyed” (97). This victim is regularly used as a substitution for the sacrifier, and is what helps create this communication between him and the gods. Essentially, Hubert and Mauss provide a comprehensive understanding of the structure of sacrifice, which is viewed from the viewpoint of the …show more content…
Moreover, their theory is ultimately important because it focuses on the sacrifier and the danger that the ritual places on this individual through the sacralization/desacralization schema they describe. However, it is because of this focus on the sacrifier that Girard’s focus on the victim and the community is needed in order to broaden the scope of their study of sacrifice. It is somewhat unfair to say that their study of sacrifice is narrow, as if that is a thing to be fixed, because even they state that the very focus of their work is “[not] to follow it in its development or all its ramifications. We have given ourselves only the task of attempting to put it in its place” (105). With their clarification of focus in mind, they open up the opportunity for their theory to be incorporated into sociological interpretation at the end, and because of this and their narrow, sacrifier-focused approach, Girard is a necessary addition to strengthen their