The Problem Field of the Anthropology of Sacrifice: A Research Experience

The article formulates the main issues that form the research field of the anthropology of sacrifice. The first group of problems is associated with a description of the fundamental anthropological nature of the phenomenon of sacrifice and answering the question of whether sacrifice is a cultural universal, and if so, what this universality can be based on, what prototypical forms of sacrifice can be identified and how they can be described. The second group of problems is associated with the task of understanding how the phenomenon of sacrifice is changing today and what anthropological meaning these changes have. In a situation where explicit human sacrifice is taboo, one can speak of the emergence of substitute practices and the emergence of analogs in which the structural elements of the classical ritual are distributed in space and time and are presented in a different order. As a result, in modern society, victims-sufferers are analogous to classical sacrificial victims and therefore often go through sacralizing rituals and practices. However, a fundamentally important question is whether a structure change in distributed sacrifice incurs a change in social functions? And if these changes exist, how essential they are, how much they affect the very semantic core of the anthropology of sacrifice. The third group of problems is associated with the sphere of praxis in its classical understanding, i.e., it represents issues related to political, economic, and ethical implications associated with the phenomenon of sacrifice and analogs of the ritual of sacrifice in modern societies. Here it is also impossible to avoid relating modern discourses and practices to archaic prototypes and identifying similarities and differences, and most importantly, describing transformations and problematizing their anthropological meaning. Since modern society is immersed in the media environment, it is extremely important to discuss the influence of the media on these processes. In general, the anthropology of sacrifice as a research project allows us to look at many of the most pressing social issues of our time from a new angle.

1. Agamben G. (2011) Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life. Moscow: The Evropa (Russian translation).

2. Alexander J. (2012) Cultural Trauma and Collective Identity. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya. No. 3, pp. 5–40 (Russian translation).

3. Bataille G. (2006) Damn Part. Sacred Sociology (pp. 313–358). Moscow: Ladomir (Russian translation).

4. Baudrillard G. (2000) Symbolic Exchange and Death. Moscow: Dobrosvet (Russian translation).

5. Butler J. (2004) Precarious Life: The Powers of Mourning and Violence. New York: Verso.

6. Campbell B. & Manning J. (2018) The Rise of Victimhood Culture: Microaggressions, Safe Spaces, and the New Culture Wars. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

7. Koretskaya M.A. (Ed.) (2017) Philosophical Anthropology of the Victim: from Archaic Roots to Modern Contexts. Materials of the Conference with International Participation, Samara, October 12–14, 2017. Samara: Samara Academy of Humanities (in Russian).

8. Finsterbusch K., Lange A., & Diethard Römheld K.F. (Eds.) (2007) Human Sacrifice in Jewish and Christian Tradition. Leiden: Brill.

9. Foucault M. (1996) The Will to Knowledge. Beyond Knowledge, Power, and Sexuality. Works of Different Years. Moscow: Kastal (Russian translation).

10. Ivanenko Е.А., Koretskaya М.А., & Savenkova Е.V. (2012a) Archaic and Modern Body of Sacrifice: the Transformation of Affects. Bulletin of the Samara Academy of Humanities. Series: Philosophy. Philology. No. 2, pp. 17–41 (in Russian).

11. Ivanenko Е.А., Koretskaya М.А., & Savenkova Е.V. (2012b) Gorgon Medusa Constellation: Essays on Media Effects. Saint Petersburg: Aletheia (in Russian).

12. Kaplan H. (2012) Belief in a Just World, Religiosity and Victim Blaming. Archive for the Psychology of Religion. Vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 397–409.

13. Koretskaya M.A. (2019) The Ambivalence of Power: Mythology, Ontology, Praxis. Saint Petersburg: Aletheia (in Russian).

14. Lukianoff G. & Haidt J. (2018) The Coddling of the American Mind. New York: Penguin Press.

15. Mauss M. & Hubert H. (2000) An Essay on the Nature and Function of Sacrifice. In: Mauss M. The Social Function of the Sacred (pp. 9−104). Saint Petersburg: Evraziya (in Russian).

16. Plamper J. (2018) The History of Emotions. Moscow: Novoye literaturnoye obozrenie (Russian translation).

17. Rosch E. (1978) Principles of Categorization. In: Rosch E. & Lloyd B.B. (Eds.) Cognition and Categorization (pp. 27−48). Hillslade: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

18. Savchuk V. (2017) The Victim of the Present Time. International Journal of Cultural Research. No. 4, pp. 6−17 (in Russian).

19. Serikov A.E. (2013) Religious Ritual as Situation and Psychophysiological State. Bulletin of the Samara Academy of Humanities. Series: Philosophy. Philology. No. 1, pp. 85−104 (in Russian).

20. Serikov A.E. (2019) Meanings of “Victim” and “Sacrifice” and Possible Ways to Transform Victim Images into Images of Sacrifices (on the Basis of Parallel English Subcorpus of National Corpus of Russian Language). Bulletin of the Samara Academy of Humanities. Series: Philosophy. Philology. No. 1, pp. 55–72 (in Russian).

21. Shilling C. & Mellor P.A. (2013) “Making Things Sacred”: Re-Theorizing the Nature and Function of Sacrifice in Modernity. Journal of Classical Sociology. Vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 319–337.

22. Wilson E.O. (2019) Genesis. The Deep Origin of Societies. New York: Liveright Publishing.

23. Yurieva T.S. (Ed.) (2016) Terror and Culture: Materials of the International Scientific Conference “Terror and Culture,” October 22–24, 2014. Saint Petersburg: Publishing House of Saint Petersburg State University (in Russian).