In common understanding, but also in scholarly discourse, ritual has been long viewed as an undisputed and indisputable part of (especially religious) tradition, performed over and over in the same ways: stable in form, meaningless, preconcieved, and with the aim of creating harmony and enabling a tradition's survival. The authors represented in this collection argue, however, that these assumptions can be seriously challenged.
Not only are rituals frequently disputed, they also constitute a field in which vital and sometimes even violent negotiations take place. Negotiations - here understood as processes of interaction during which differing positions are debated and/or acted out - are ubiquitous in ritual contexts, either in relation to the ritual itself, or in relation to the realm beyond any given ritual performance. The authors contend that a central feature of ritual is its embeddedness in negotiation processes and that life beyond the ritual frame often is negotiated in the field of rituals. This point of view opens up fruitful new perspectives on ritual procedures, on the interactions that constitute these procedures, and on the contexts in which they are embedded. By explicitly addressing and theorizing the relevance of negotiation in the world of ritual, the essays in this volume seek to persuade scholars and students alike to think differently and to find new starting points for more nuanced discussions.

Frank Neubert geht der Frage nach, wie Religion als Kategorie und wie Gegenstande und Akteure der sozialen Umwelt als Religion oder religioes diskursiv konstituiert werden. Im Fokus stehen die dabei aktivierten Differenzen und die Frage nach den Positionen der Akteure in diesen Diskursen. Dabei wird auch das Spektrum unterschiedlicher - teilweise diametral entgegengesetzter - Klassifikationen, der mit ihnen verbundenen Hierarchisierungen und ihrer historischen, sozialen und politischen Auswirkungen in den Blick genommen. Der Autor schlagt einen diskursiven Zugang vor, um mit der Kategorie Religion wissenschaftlich umgehen zu koennen, ohne selbst Religion definieren, Gegenstande klassifizieren und damit eine Position im untersuchten Diskurs einnehmen zu mussen.