I have for some time contemplated doing a PhD in architectural history with my dissertation to be focused on sacred space. The sacred is something that has long preoccupied me, and in particular sacred space. What makes it sacred? And how might we define sacred space? What are the different manifestations of sacred space? The spatial aspect of the sacred is something particularly unique, and regardless of whether or not I do a PhD, it still remains an item of serious study for me. Recently I was reading Bataille's Eroticism and a different perspective unveiled itself to me. It really is the implementation of taboo that really distinguishes where the sacred and the profane are divided.
Firstly, the usual working definition of the sacred might be what Eliade expresses: the sacred is that which is "set apart" from the profane. This definition usually works in its simplicity for most aspects of the sacred. When Eliade gives examples and discusses the sacred, it seems implied that the sacred is being gathered into one place, partitioned off, set apart from the profane. Thus, we might usually view the sacred as something "within," something that we "go into," with the profane outside and surrounding the sacred.
And this might very well be our usual view of the sacred, particular sacred space. It is enclosed and set apart, keeping the profane without. We may think of this in the example of the church in a city. The profane is the city and all things occurring within the city: business, politics, economics, family life, drinking with friends, sex, defecating, etc. Then we set apart of place in the city and build an enclosure we say is "God's house" and call it sacred. Here the church is an encasement containing the numinous and divine, with the profane outside surrounding it. Usually this perception of sacred space works for us, but its simplicity is deceiving. Is not the city an encasement of the profane? We build walls around the city to contain the profane things we have generated as a society. Outside the city is the wilderness. Would one ever dare to call nature profane? Would one dare to call nature anything other than sacred?
Certainly Georges Bataille saw it this way. The profane is something we as humans developed. We established taboos, social contracts, laws, codes, et al to set apart ourselves from nature. It is when one transgresses society's taboos and laws that one moves out of the profane, and thus moves out into the sacred. The sacred is a transgression.
The myth of Romulus and Remus comes to mind. The myth is usually presented as Remus violated the sacred function (contradiction? does the sacred have a utility?) of the wall and leapt over it, and thus Romulus had to kill his twin. According to Bataille, this would not be a sacrilege but rather a violation of taboo. The wall protects the city (profane), and to cross it outside of the gates is a violent gesture of infiltration, laying siege to the wall that so preciously protects the city. This is a profane taboo, a violence against the city; not a sacrilege. The city in this case, Rome, is enclosed, partitioned off by its taboos, and beyond it lays the sacred wilderness. This is what Remus did: he transgressed into the sacred.
Magic circles also come to mind. Ceremonial magicians tend to the think of the magic circle as a sacred space. But the circle sets the magician apart from the spirits outside the circle, and the magician dares not cross the circle or suffer injury by the spirits the magician has called. For the magician, to cross the magic circle is taboo, and like Remus they forfeit their safety if they do. I am thinking of something like Liber Juratus or the Sworn Book of Honorius. The magician will go into the wilderness and construct the circle. Then venture away from the circle, further into the wilderness and call forth the spirits. As the spirits begin to come forward, the magician will continue to call and pray as they proceed back to the circle, and close the circle behind them. The sacred is without the circle, out in the wilderness where the spirits reside. Who would dare call these spirits anything other than sacred? No matter the spirits, be they angels, demons, sprites, etc. Who, indeed, would dare call them profane?
Indeed, to engage in magic in any manner is usually considered taboo, hence the secrecy of conducting magical rituals. Throughout history magic and various magical practices have been taboo. To engage the spirits is taboo. Thus, to call them is already a transgression, and engagement with the sacred. I will confess my own engagements with spirits has been a means to engage the sacred, to commune with the divine, to touch the ethereal plane. And certainly I get weird looks and dismissive remarks from those I discuss these things with (which is rare), because they view magic as a transgression. And really, it is a transgression.
Even under the conception of the sacred being enclosed and partitioned off from and within the profane, one still transgresses the city when one goes into the church to partake in Mass or whatever. They have crossed the boundary of the city to enter sacred space. However, if we are to accept Bataille's conception spatially, the church is not an enclosure of the sacred, but a portal within the city that transgresses the profane and carries (portare, to carry) beyond the the profane into the sacred. The church is a gate in the same way a city has a gate in its walls.
But is the church within the city really a sacred space? Yes... well, kind of. It might be better to call the church "holy," because the sacredness of a church is still predicated on rules and taboos (profane). One should not be having sex on the altar or smoking pot in the nave/sanctuary/&c. There are codes of what one should do and not do. There are obviously rules, and rules are profane. Furthermore, many churches have civil functions, and some are integral to civil life, such as the Church of England at its founding.
Similarly, the magic circle is sacred, kind of. But again, it might be better to call it "holy" or as is more common in grimoires "exorcised" (sworn). There is a process of separation the magician will partake in, namely things like abstinence from sex and masturbation, abstaining from alcohol, limiting one's diet to vegetables and then fasting, secluding from the world (so far as possible for the magician), &c. The film A Dark Song, for all its inaccuracies of the Abramelin rite, is a good illustration of the isolation the magician may endure. So there is a setting apart for the magician and their rituals, but they nonetheless have rules.
In reality, these may be more thought of as liminally sacred. They are sacred, kind of. They are not raw nature and wilderness. But they are also not profane politics, economics, sexuality, &c. The church, the magician, &c are liminal in their sacredness.
Masonic lodges are an interesting example. The members purge the Lodge of non-members, close the door, do things in secured secrecy, &c. Having opened the Lodge, the members proceed to do degree work and conduct business. I remember once talking to a former Mason who went on to join the OTO and Golden Dawn, and he said of all the ritual openings he has ever seen in these esoteric secret societies, the Masonic opening ritual is the most sacred and powerful, and then it is immediately ruined by conducting business (voting on bills, election of officers, et al). And that is true. Masons go through great ritual lengths to create a sacred space, only to smash it all by conducting profane business. The ritual to set the Lodge apart from the outside profane world is then made profane once more. So, what is this? Is it liminal? Kind of sacred?
Well, there are still rules within the Lodge, taboos that cannot be transgressed. So something in the Lodge is still being set apart, something is still sacred: the Bible upon the altar. In Colorado and other jurisdictions, no one is allowed to cross between the Worshipful Master and the altar when the Bible is opened. No one is allowed to touch or mess with the altar except the Senior Deacon. All the taboos and restrictions in the Lodge concern the Bible — all other "taboos" are just codes of conduct, courtesy, and manners. The true taboos of the Lodge are around the Bible on the altar. The altar is the sacred space set apart from even the Masons in the Lodge. Square and Compasses upon the Bible upon the altar surrounded by the three lesser lights is the fetish object, narrowly around which is the space that is set apart from the profane dealings of the Masons in the room, though the Lodge itself is liminal in its sacrality.
All this is more of a modification, or at least a clarification of my old classifications of sacred space. Previously I had considered things like forest glades, mountains, &c to be "found" or "naturally" sacred spaces. They were already sacred. Things like shrines and churches are "constructed" sacred spaces with some nuances to that overall classification. However, now that I have this perspective from Bataille, I view these as just "sacred" (nature, wilderness), with those sacred spaces we construct as "liminal" sacred spaces. This, at the very least, is a better step forward for me in distinguishing the types and qualities of sacred spaces.
No comments:
Post a Comment