ABSTRACT
Reviewing the shift from formal rite to positive approval of trance, I have referred here and there to co-varying ideas about sin. These should now be made more explidt. Along the series from maximum formality and control in symbolic behaviour to maximum informality and uncontrol there is a corresponding series in attitudes to wrong-doing. At the pole of maximum formality, the idea of wrong-doing ta.kes no account of internal motive, or of the state of mind of the actor. Wrong-doing is bad in itself, its dangers are automatieally unleashed, blame falls automatically, and the wrong is known ex opere operato. It exactly paralleis the attitude to ritual in the case of extreme magieality. At the pole of maximum informality the idea of wrong-doing is entirely concerned with internal states of mind. The actual consequences of the act are of less concern than the wishes and intentions of the actor. Responsibility ends with securing right motives. To take homidde as an example, at one end of the range we have automatie pollution of blood, at the other unintended manslaughter distinguished from homidde. I would expect these variations to coin~ide smoothly with variations in formality and informality and both in accordance with the hold of grid and group on individuals in relevant contexts. Thus I would expect to find whole cultures where ideas of sin are more internal, less taboo-ridden than the ideas of their dose neighbours, who experience more effective and all-embracing sodal constraints.
