Priesthood Blessings = Diagetic Communication?
Jun 10th, 2007 by Glenn
When I was studying folklore, I took a few courses from the Communication and Culture department at IU. It was interesting to compare the traditions in folklore to contemporary media conventions. Two of those conventions really stuck with me – they had to do with the way that information is presented: exegisis and diagesis.
Exegesis refers to a fairly straightforward way of presenting information. The best examples are newscasts and documentaries. These are definitely productions, and while they might appear to be straightforward, there is a lot of behind-the-scenes manipulation of details (eg. make-up, lighting, scripting, sound, video editing, etc).
Diagesis refers to a more round-about way of presenting information – a more “dramatic” way. The best examples of these are infomercials and dramas. These, too, are highly produced (conventional relationship to space, traditional gestures, scripted dialogue, dramatic vocal inflection, etc), which makes the information being presented come across in a more subtle way. I often think of diagesis during local elections when I hear commercials on the radio that are a supposed “discussion” between two people, “I am going to vote for Mr. Smith because he… yada yada” Most of the dramatized church-sponsored commercials fit into this category as well.
I should note that I have seen these terms used differently in different academic contexts, but these were the definitions I first encountered in the Communication and Culture class.
The reason I am thinking about exegesis and diagesis today is because my dad has been visiting for the past few days. One of the reasons he came out was because I am moving my family to Tokyo for three-years at the end of the summer, and he wanted to give us all a priesthood blessing. As he was giving the blessings this afternoon, I was very aware of the dramatic elements involved – the closing of the eyes, the laying on of hands, the formulaic opening declaration of authority, the tone of sincerity and respect in his voice, etc etc. It made me think that the blessing is an example of diagesis – it is a dramatic performance through which my father is conveying information to myself and my children.
That, of course, led me to other questions about the nature of priesthood and blessings that I don’t really need to get into right now (although if any of you want to bring it up, I am more than willing to discuss it), but I am wondering if any of you agree with my assessment here. Is a blessing like this a way of communicating through a dramatic performance? If not, what is it? If so, what are the traditional conventions required for the performance to be valid? What other diagetic (I think I just made that word up) communication do we have in our church? (and why does it really matter?)
Hi Glenn,
I think that there is that performance element you mention, at least as a way of conveying the appropriate aura of solemnity. I remember hearing a (first-person) story as a child about someone getting a blessing from a prominent televangelist who held a sandwich in one hand (he was interrupted while eating lunch to give this blessing) and put the other hand on the head of the person he was blessing. (I think, but am not certain, that part of the story was that the fellow gave the blessing with his mouth full as well.) This individual telling this story, who later joined the Church, offered the difference in style as a proof of the truthfulness of the Church: we do things the right way (in contrast to this goofy televangelist). If I accept the exegesis/diagesis distinction (I think I may have some problems with it if is is a binary distinction rather than a continuum), and if blessings were simply exegesis, then the whole sandwich thing wouldn’t matter in determining the authenticity of the blessing. But it clearly does matter to us. We not only need the authority as an abstract concept and the words, but we need the proper framing and performance or we suspect the entire thing as some sort of fraud or as somehow defective (because of lack of serious intent or attitude).
Well, if I understand your definition, then of course the temple presentation would seem to be an obvious example of diagesis.
As for priesthood blessings, I don’t know. I don’t know the anthropology of this, but it seems to me that the “ritual” aspects serve to focus attention, to set the experience apart from the mundane, in a sense to create a sacred space and time where special things can happen. But the actual information conveyed, it seems to me, is usually quite straightforward. I suppose the wording can be a bit vague at times, but IME it doesn’t usually seem very coded or dramatized.
In fact, a blessing seems rather more like a “newscast” than a play. A newscast also begins with what we could probably call some “ritual” aspects — first a preview of what’s coming, then perhaps an announcement of the show’s name, then a greeting by the anchor, and so on. And there are dramatic conventions, tone of voice and so on, ritual banter among the newscasters, a typical order (hard news -> features -> weather -> sports), and so on. So given the either/or and examples in your post, I’d probably call a priesthood blessing exegesis.
Fenevad,
I don’t remember enough about the exegesis/diagesis distinction to know if it was presented as a binary distinction or a continuum, but I certainly don’t see it as a binary distinction — probably not really as a continuum either, for that matter. I think it was directed specifically at media, and these were two possible ways of looking at it — they are the ones that I most remember from that class. So in what you say about fraud, is it possible for a lackluster performance with a real divine connection to be rejected because the conventions were not right? Alternatively, could a brilliant performance with no real divine connection be accepted simply because of the brilliance of the performance?
Kuri,
I agree with the temple as diagesis.
The ritual aspects you mention with the blessings — setting it apart from the mundane, creating sacred space — are right on. I suppose you could be on to something with the exegesis of a blessing. But I think there is coding — at least in some blesings — and I wonder what role the idea of “divine mouthpiece” plays in distinguishing between “straightforward information” and “dramatic portrayal.” Interesting thoughts.
Given the New Testament’s frequent references to deception and the possibility of even the elect being deceived, I would argue that, yes, both of these are possibilities. In LDS circles, we would argue that you need the spirit to distinguish between a good show and something that’s legitimate, but lacks the proper “real” elements.
Interesting question, but I think that by being aware of these elements, we can be aware of (a) manipulations and (b) failure to communicate a legitimate message through expected means.
Careful guys . . . you might stir up Knudsen or Goode with these posts!
Besides ordinances, a Diagesis approach to church history can be reflected in the annual church pageants like at the Manti Temple or Hill Cumorah. In some ways, those seem to be a modern equivalent to the oral retelling of important stories from generation to generation.
The pageants are great examples of diagesis.
It has been a while since I have been to either Kirtland or Nauvoo. What are the missionaries doing there these days? I seem to remember a rather scripted feel the last times I went.
And one thing I want to say about this whole post — and most of the things I post here: I am a big believer that God communicates to people in the language of man (and, perhaps occasionally women) — and that language includes symbology and ritual and culture. So by applying a diagetic or exegetic model to Priesthood Blessings, I am not trying to suggest that God is not communicating to us through them, or that these are only the products of human creation. I hope that is clear. So, to add to Fen’s list, I would say that by being aware of these elements, we can also be aware of c)the diverse means by which God communicates with us through ritualistic performances. (so back off Stephen and Peter — you have no power here)