The Opening Ceremony: Immaterial Regulation and the Imaginary Architectures of Pleasure

Abstract

This paper will address the relations of production caught up in the architecture and event of the travelling street fair. Making reference to the organizational, material and spatial arrangement of the fair itself, analysis will move between one account of these relations as they are portrayed in the formal public ritual of the Opening Ceremony, to another, obscured account that can be traced in the immaterial and invisible architectures of laws, regulations and mores that underlie and determine this arrangement. It will discuss the locus and extent of ‘imaginary distortions’ (after Althusser) and relationships thus revealed.

IntroductionIn the context of the concerns that run through this issue of Architecture and Culture, this article will consider Louis Althusser’s assertions regarding the tension that he perceived between the real and imagined relations of production, and how this is manifest or masked in the production of the travelling street fair. This consideration leads to another: how the fair is materialised, and how the various immaterial forces of law, regulation and tradition are at play in this process.

In ‘Ideology andIdeological State Apparatuses’ Althusser argues: ‘[A]ll ideology represents in its necessarily imaginary distortion not the existing relations of production (and the other relations that derive from them), but above all the (imaginary) relationship of individuals to the relations of production and the relations that derive from them.’1

This article will begin with a look at the Opening Ceremonies that mark the start of Charter Fairs and Wakes in England. Siding with Althusser, I will argue that these ceremonies epitomize a broader productive misrecognition2 concerning the relations of production pertaining between various interested parties, not all of whom are present at the ceremony. Moreover, although these ceremonies make explicit reference to ancient sources of authority that sanction and underwrite the fair, little if any of this authority remains within the contemporary processes of production of these events.

Accepting the misrecognition played out in the Opening Ceremony, the article will go on to address aspects of the fair’s organization, production and consumption more broadly. As with many other architectures, the relations of production are not directly legible in the product of this industry (the temporary street fair); moreover, they are explicitly covered over during the Opening Ceremony. Where the Opening Ceremony invites us to turn a blind eye, the article will examine the dynamics, processes and interests of production that prevail behind the scenes of the situation presented in this public ritual.

The travelling fair brings together rides, attractions, and food stalls which are set up for a short time—typically two or three days—in towns and villages all over Europe. Many fairs have recorded histories that date back nearly 800 years, although they are almost certainly much older, and they remain hugely popular

forms of entertainment. In the UK in particular, travelling fairs squeeze into impossibly tight urban spaces, while others take up grand boulevards, some fill market places or take over open fields. Whatever its form, the total environment of the fair—its physical extension and its atmosphere—is referred to as the ‘tober’.

The regulatory architecture that governs the tober is every bit as complex as that experienced by more conventional architectural production, and probably more opaque. It involves complex systems of rules and regulations, some of which are legislative, some of which involve more implicit or tacit codes and mores. While the contemporary tober would be recognizable in fairs from 100 years ago, the less visible combination of hard and soft control that continues to prevail emerged 200 years ago. Indeed, legislative attempts to exercise direct or indirect control over the fair date much further back in time, to thirteenth century Charters, or the Acts like the 1370 Statute of Labourers. Although the detail of such legislative changes is beyond the scope of this article, it is worth noting that such changes in hard control were usually associated with what could be termed counterproductive misrecognition that either condemns or celebrates the permissive environment of the fair. Two sides of the same coin, these typically involve either an over-reaction to the moral dangers posed by the fair, or an over-romanticisation of the fair as a situation where the norms of individual and collective behavior can be temporarily suspended. Official responses to this counterproductive misrecognition have usually involved the imposition of restrictive legislation, leading Stallybrass and White to note wryly that the fair’s history ‘becomes one of a transformation from “licence” (i.e. excess) to “licensed” (i.e. authorised), with the concomitant suppression of the “unlicensed” fairs.’3

However, studies that take a broader view of social change have argued that while legislation piled up on the statue book, this actually had less effect on the control of fairs (with notable exceptions) than other, softer forms of social control. As Donajgrodzki has argued with reference to nineteenth century Britain, ‘social order is [established and] maintained not only, or even mainly by legal systems… but is expressed through a wide range of [measures and] social institutions… The social control approach… implies a belief that order is the product of many social processes, relationships and institutions.’4 As Victorian Parliamentarians were passing the 1828 Metropolitan Police Act, or the 1871 Fairs Act, the social standing of showmen was increasing rapidly, and the working relationships between showmen, local authorities and the police were becoming much more cooperative. In addition to this general improvement, which effectively by-passed the need to draw on legislated powers, there were also high-profile examples when public figures such as Sir William Harcourt who as home secretary between 1880–85 actively refused to follow such laws. Cunningham notes his ‘deliberate refusal to use the power of the law against fairs [which] contrasts strongly with official policy in the early part of the [nineteenth] century when respectable minds saw in the metropolitan fairs a nursery of crime and a hotbed of vice.’5

It is this complex and often contradictory mixture of powers involved in the relations of production of the fair that will be explored here. To support this investigation, the article will make reference to several street fairs that form part

of the so-called ‘Back End Run’ of the annual calendar, including Oxford St Giles and Loughborough, but with a particular focus on Ilkeston Fair.

The Opening CeremonyReduce some of this section a bit?Two general views of the Opening Ceremony from Ilkeston Fair are given in figure 1. One was taken in 1969, the other in 2012. There is very little difference perceptible between these two events.<<fig 1 near here>>

Despite the continuity, tradition and solidarity demonstrated so deliberately in these Ceremonies, they bring together a number of different groups with very different interests in the Fair and very different capacities to assert control over the broader fair environment. Nevertheless, everyone there seems to be smiling.

Opening Ceremonies foreground what the Annales School refer to as the longue durée, those all-but-permanent or slowly evolving aspects that are deliberately repeated in these rituals. Without exception, they involve the same kinds of characters and the same processes. It is common for a less formal walkabout to follow the more formal presentation, readings and speeches. (Fig 2) In some fairs, the exact location changes, but these changes are prescribed and follow a set pattern. In addition to the unchanging nature of the Ceremonies themselves, the way they are reported is also very formulaic, especially in The World’s Fair, the weekly newspaper for the travelling showmen’s community.6 But the longue durée is fabricated, both by historians and participants. In Eric Hobsbawn’s famous formulation, they are an ‘invented tradition’ (and would fall across two of his ‘types’, symbolizing social cohesion and the membership of groups, real and artificial communities, and legitimizing institutions, status and relations of authority).7 While portraying the deep historical connection, the longue durée, that exists between the town and the fair, the history of the fair in its current form is very recent. The Opening Ceremonies are very young compared to the fairs they open. While there is some truth in the ritualized symbolic connections claimed and represented in the ceremony, those claims overreach the facts, while being caught up in a complex dynamic of continuity and change. Taking a longer view of historical change, Fraser and others have noted the shifts that occur between actions (or performances) and the meanings associated with them: ‘Myth changes while custom remains constant; men continue to do what their fathers did before them, though the reasons on which their fathers acted have long been forgotten.’8 Handleman’s work on public events suggests we sidestep (at least for now) some of the difficulties here: ‘All public events began sometime and somewhere, regardless of whether their existence is attributed to ‘tradition’ or to invention.’9 Like the current fair more broadly, this phenomenon overreaches its history.

At Ilkeston, for example (see Fig.3), the ‘Civic Party’ includes key representatives from the Local Authority (council officials), the Burghers of the town (the Mayor), the Showmen (regional officials from the Showmen’s Guild of Great Britain), dignitaries from the local area/region, plus ceremonial officials (the mace bearer, town crier, the ceremonial bell(s), and so on) as well as an officially invited gaggle of local school children and the watching crowd.10 The

Ceremony takes place on a small stage in front of the Town Hall, in the Market Square, facing the church, and adjacent to the Carnegie Library, Erewash Museum, and Police Headquarters. (Fig. 4)

We can question how closely this ceremony represents the relations of production. As with the rituals associated with most architectural projects, the workers aren’t present, neither are the dissenters: it’s the employers, nobility, and civic figures who take up their place in the ceremony. The carefully staged relationships between these various parties are legible in a different way in the architecture of the fair itself. From the ‘ideology’ symbolized in the Opening Ceremony to the existing relations of production, the productive misrecognition that holds these two in an awkward relationship can be deconstructed to reveal something of the ‘industries’ involved in the invisible architecture of the fair.

So what relations of production are communicated in the Opening Ceremony? The Ilkeston ceremony makes explicit reference to (parts of) the Charter issued by Henry III in 1252. (In cases where a fair doesn’t have a Charter, reference is made to the long tradition of the fair, its ‘Prescriptive’ status,11 or to Religious Festivals: Oxford St.Giles, for example, includes a religious service as part of its opening formalities.)

The Charter is taken to provide the founding authority for the fair, although as Vanessa Toulmin has argued, there is actually some ambiguity around what was actually granted by a Charter: ‘By the twelfth and thirteenth centuries the majority of the English fairs had been granted charters and were reorganized to fall into line with their European counterparts. The granting of charters did not necessarily initiate the right to hold a fair; it was in effect a means of controlling the revenues for the Crown. The control and organization of the fair was then granted to the particular town, abbey or village where it occurred.’12 Nevertheless, this ambiguity is forgotten and the Charter is read out as part of the ceremony. This is interesting, as it only sets out a contract between two parties: the crown and the town or local nobility—here, ‘our beloved and faithful Hugh son of Ralph, … and his heirs for ever’.

This could be stretched to three, if the neighbours are counted— ‘Unless such Market and such Fair be to the Nuisance of the neighbouring Markets and neighbouring Fairs’;13 or even to four, if the Church is included, which it is by implication: at the ‘aforesaid Manor of Elkesdon [Ilkeston] … they shall have there one fair every year to continue on the vigil and on the day of the assumption of the Blessed Mary’.14 Neither the Showmen nor the citizens of the town are involved in this contract.

While the Opening Ceremony makes explicit reference to this Charter document, and to an imaginary (more straightforward) relationship it sets up, the full cast of the Opening Ceremony points to a fuller (but by no means definitive) set of relationships that includes the Showmen SGGB and punters (children, crowd). To supplement the fetish of the Charter, these other relationships are frequently acknowledged and symbolized in the Opening Ceremony with additional fetishes. At Ilkeston, for example, the Ceremony involves the ringing of a pair of silver bells which were presented to the town by the Showmen’s Guild of Great Britain (SGGB) to represent the bond between the SSGB and the people of Ilkeston.

Beginning to acknowledge this greater breadth of actors involved in the ceremony, figure 5 sets out the full list of protagonists and their institutional

affiliation or symbolic role. While this clearly exceeds the contract announced in the Charter, when compared to the fuller account of the various institutions involved in the production of this fair set out in figure 6, and with the more detailed organisational diagram in figure 7, evidence of the lack of fit, or the extent of ‘imaginary distortion’ between the (imaginary) relationships at the Ceremony and the actual relationships operating behind the scenes, starts to become apparent. While many ritual theorists understandably emphasize the need to focus on the specificity and materiality of ritual—whether this be its formal staging (Handleman); its performativity (Schechner), or ‘per-formative’ aspect (R L Grimes); its restricted codes of language and gestures (Bloch, Rappaport); or the conventions of the event, formality or dramatization (Bell)—these diagrams indicate the extensive field that is omitted or obscured from the Opening Ceremony.15 And while Bell summarises a wide range of work that demonstrates such formality to be neither empty nor trivial, arguing that ‘[a]s a restricted code of behavior, formalized activities can be aesthetically as well as politically compelling’,16 this is not the whole story. Indeed to overlook the less visible referents of the opening ceremony is to ignore Althusser’s nuanced understanding of material. ***join these two points together more smoothly***

Althusser elaborates on the complex relationship between immaterial forces of law and regulation, and the material existence of the ideologies written into these forces. In other words, he asserts that all matter has an ideological existence: ‘an ideology always exists in an apparatus, and its practice, or practices. This existence is material.’17 Picking up his sub-title, ‘Notes Towards an Investigation’, he offers a more practical analytical tip regarding such investigations, namely ‘that “matter is discussed in many senses”, or rather that it exists in different modalities, all rooted in the last instance in “physical” matter.’18

Considering this advice in the context of the Opening Ceremony provides a good, awkward relay between the ‘existing relations of production’ and the ‘imaginary distortion[s]’ thereof, and can set up an interrogation of the various ideological forces that lurk in different modalities behind the material scenes of the fair. For reasons of space, I will restrict the remainder of this article to an examination of three such apparatuses: the site; the layout drawings; and the economies of exchange and pleasure as these relate to the fair. Following Althusser’s formulation, these analyses work at multiple scales and include various modalities of ‘matter’. My particular concern is with less with the architectural, material stuff of the fair as it is physically present on site and which is probably more familiar from our own experience of fairs, ***nod here to Braithwaite*** and more with the (invisible) planning and setting out of each fair; the laws and regulations that govern this material stuff; and the unwritten mores and codes pertaining to the various interested parties that produce and uphold the laws and regulations. According to Althusser, these need to be considered together: they all co-exist in particular ways in each historically specific, materialised example of apparatus.

hard and soft power etc, social control

Apparatus I: The site boundary: or, where is the fair?Although the Opening Ceremony cites the Charter as the sole source of authority on which the fair is based, its key point of reference and legitimacy, in nearly all cases that document is vague about the fair’s location and duration. Rarely do Charters define anything like a ‘site’, they simply name a town or even a local nobleman. As Peter Dowling, Solicitor to the Showmen’s Guild, has explained: ***cut these down, inc following from charter***

The place where a market or fair may lawfully be held is that defined by the grant and it is not necessary for the owner of the market of fair to own the land on which it is held so long as he has the permission of the owner of the land or some right to possession. Where a market or fair is granted to be held in a district such as a borough, township or manor, it may be held throughout the district or in any one or more places within it. 19

For example in the case of Ilkeston:For Hugh Son of Ralph

The King to his Archbiships etc. Greeting. Know ye that we have granted and by this our Charter confirmed to our beloved and faithful Hugh son of Ralph, that he and his heirs for ever shall have free warren in all their demesne lands of Elkesdon in the County of Derby… Also we have granted by this our Charter confirmed to the same Hugh that he and his heirs for ever shall have one Market every week on Thursday at his aforesaid Manor of Elkesdon and that they shall have there one fair every year to continue on the vigil and on the day of the assumption of the Blessed Mary Unless such Market and such Fair be to the Nuisance of the neighbouring Markets and neighbouring Fairs… Dated by our hand at Windsor, the 10th day of April [1252].20

In practice, these instructions have had to be supplemented with more recent legislation ***be noire specific, still actively includes stuff from c.200 years, although there is an acceleration of H&S legislation.*** , but the site boundary of the fair (identified perhaps through its street closures) remains slippery.

These fairs are now commonly organised by the Local Council, often through the Markets and Fairs Superintendent or Fairs Officer, although many other local, regional and national agencies and organisations are involved, each of which is referred to, or refers to, different Statutory Instruments and Acts for guidance, instruction or authority. For example, the Local Council is able to close roads under Section 21 of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847, while the County Council (Highways Agency) is able to close roads under Section 14 & Section 16A, Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. Both of these instruments are brought to bear simultaneously in setting up the (moveable) boundaries and road-closures, two different authorities drawing on powers set out in two different Acts to organize the ‘same’ territory and event. (Fig. 8)

To say the same thing using different terminology, aspects of this apparatus operate at national, regional, and (very) local scales, they have material manifestation (signs, barriers), they have material consequences and an impact on vehicular and pedestrian traffic flow, and they have a prior ‘material’ or mediated presence (announcements in local papers, council websites, laminated notices around the town). They have ambiguous legislative powers behind them (the various Acts just mentioned) enacted by different official bodies more or less simultaneously; and they are unstable (the boundaries move back and forth during the fair, and the full extent of permitted road closures are

not often taken up, but are there to provide the Fair Superintendent with some room for contingencies.)

Against this thoroughgoing ambiguity, the Opening Ceremony reasserts an unchanging aspect of the fair. It offers certainty in front of uncertainty. However, the only institution involved both in setting the site boundary and in the Opening Ceremony is the Local Council. Church, Crown, Regional and National Government are all (usually) absent.

The assertion of stability is also made in the face of clear material evidence that the fair’s site boundary continues to change. At Ilkeston, the market place itself has undergone significant physical change, being relocated and then extended from the North of the Church to the West and then the South. (Fig. 9) Additionally, the fair layout itself has manifestly grown within a generation, and now occupies a substantially larger area of the town center than it did even in 1970. (Fig. 10)

Apparatus II: Layout DrawingsUntil relatively recently in the history of Fairs, there was no planning, just a race to the site that resulted in many crashes en route between fairs, and frequent fights between showmen as they arrived on site. As Vanessa Toulmin has noted, ‘Frontage space was allocated at these fairs on the basis of who arrived first. Fights between the showmen of the day were commonplace.’21 An anonymous article that appeared in The Showman in 1906 noted how, until the middle of the nineteenth century,

the shows were allowed to come into St Giles' Street at midnight [on] Sunday, and as in those days there was no one to allot the ground, there used to be some pretty squabbles and the free fights for the best positions and it was generally daybreak when everyone had got comfortably—or uncomfortably—settled down.22

The physical complexity of rides and townscape that gives each fair its character and identity is now carefully planned. The organization of fairs falls to the Local Authority Fairs Superintendent or Fairs Officer, and draws extensively on national and local government legislation, as well as the Showmen themselves (mainly through the ‘Rules’ of their national body, the Showmen’s Guild of Great Britain), although the respective intra- and inter-organisational relations, contributions and influence of these parties varies significantly.23

Ilkeston fair reveals some interesting blind spots in the various plans that have been produced historically, where one of the main areas of the fair situated on the Market Place has been organised by showman Pat Collins and his family, heirs and successors) for decades, and is shown on the overall layout plan simply as a pink box. (Fig. 11) This approach was later duplicated on Pimlico, a large area run by Mellors of Nottingham from 1975. (Fig. 12) ***not clear***R2

Surprisingly (given today’s tendency for overarching control asserted in every facet of life) this historical characteristic has grown, and there are now nine organizational zones to Ilkeston fair: while six of these are overseen by the Fairs Officer, and one falls under her direct control, the organization of two zones remains with long established Showmen’s families (Pat Collins/Anthony Harris, and Mellors of Nottingham). (Fig. 13) What is experienced as chaos is planned by a multiplicity to be perceived and consumed as a ‘whole’.

Another aspect of the fair’s planning that disrupts the picture of its unchanging nature, its link to ‘tradition’ and deep history put about by the Opening Ceremony, can be identified on the plan drawings themselves. The Ilkeston plans show significantly different approaches to organizing and implementing what is claimed to be the same thing. Comparing plans from across the twentieth century, changes in graphic conventions are easy to spot. Some (usually earlier) plans just show frontage lines (sometimes called the ‘fair line’), with no depth drawn in on plan. (Fig. 14) This graphic and organizational technique is quite close to the experience of the fair itself, an interesting way of thinking about the boundaries of experience, all façade no depth. This also raises interesting issue of the relationship between the fair and the town: when it arrives, the fair effectively cuckolds the town, with rides and attractions located directly in front of shopfronts and businesses). Disputes between local businesses and showmen are often resolved (begrudgingly) with reference to a particular fair’s Charter, which showmen use to ‘prove’ they were there first.

In addition to these disputes, those responsible for planning the fair have to arbitrate between different Showmen regarding the positions of particular rides or attractions. Just as it is not quite clear who or what holds the ‘right’ to hold the fair (the Charter gave permission to Hugh, now assumed to have passed in Erewash Borough Council), nor is it clear where it will be beyond ‘Elkesdon’, as discussed earlier, nor is it clear when which Showmen accrued rights to their particular pitch. The SGGB history dates from late nineteenth century, as an organization that emerged from the United Kingdom Showmen and Van Dwellers’ Protection Association (The Showmen’s Guild) (founded 1890), and The British Roundabout Proprietors’ and Showmen’s Union, a related Union active in the early years of the twentieth century. The ‘Rules’ of the SGGB only date from 1902 or thereabouts, but the establishment of rights at Ilkeston did not settle down until much later in the twentieth century, as the Council continued to exercise more power in the planning process than did the Showmen. Clearly for much of the C20th (apart from one year during the 1930s, when Mellor & Hibble outbid Pat Collins for the prime site on Market Place), Collins has not been subject to the more detailed planning process orgnised by the local council. Collins was an extremely powerful man in the national organization of the SSGB (known as the ‘King of Showmen’), and his heir, Anthony Harris, continues to exercise the same respect and influence. It was clearly unthinkable for his claim to the Market Place to be contested. His claim to this area, and on a smaller scale individual showmen’s claims to particular locations, are now enshrined in the SGGB ‘Rules’ concerning ‘Established Rights of Tenure at a Fair’: with 2 years’ occupation of a particular pitch, rights are assured, transferable on death to family or transferred—at a cost—to another showman. *** more here from Dallas etc.@*** so while this cooperation accelerated during C19th, it was retained (against the run of capitalism and so-called market forces) and enshrined in the SGGB rules in ways that both shored up the SGGB hierarchy from around the turn of the century, while also ensuring that showmen with smaller resources were not simply swallowed up by the large.

some good passages of analysis in the first two chapters of Dallas on the emergence of the SGGB from various bodies during the late C19th, and its

petrification around the time of WWI, including the maintenance of the then powerful families within the Showmen’s community, with rights to sites etc. This has had in part a stabilizing effect, guarding the fair against the pressures of capitalism, but also a ‘pathological’ effect (to borrow Rossi), preventing those frozen into the lower parts of the SGGB hierarchy, or frozen out completely, from progressing through this industry.

Also part of this story is the industrialization (and thus the control) of leisure.Could maybe qualify and bound this discussion with a historical limit taken around the turn of the century, for various reasons but with a principal focus on the stabilization of our current understanding of the fairground from this point on.

While these SGGB Rules might grant rights of tenure, they don’t control what happens to the town’s physical infrastructure, and sometimes the material installation or the relationship between rides and their surroundings encounters an obstacle as a result of unexpected changes that are made. There are plenty of amusing anomalies, such as the general conflict between large rides and the prohibition on any cutting of trees at Oxford St. Giles, or examples Loughborough dodgems built around a lamppost in the 1950s, or the removal of a lamppost and signage on Ilkeston East St. Car Park this year to fit larger ride. (Fig.15.)

These ‘Rules’ are set out in the SGGB Yearbook, a confidential document only available to members. While these rules govern the majority of Showmen in the UK, the status of the rules does not equate to any legal authority. If the local council, the owner of the fair according to the charter, were to ignore the Established Rights of Tenure at a fair, what would happen? The local or national chapter of the SGGB could call the fair ‘out of order,’ but this could open the door for independent ride owners. It is uncertain whether a fair the size of Ilkeston could be filled with independent rides. This is an unvoiced power struggle that goes on behind the scenes of the fair’s organization, and is buried behind the smiles of the Opening Ceremony’s Civic Party. ***Should maybe rephrase this less agrgresively: power sharing agreement, cooperation between showmen and the local authorities, etc. recall Donajgrodzki on social control, p.9. i.e. beyond simple legal frameworks and police systems.

At Ilkeston, this situation has recently been taken up as a positive delegation of organization by the Fairs Officer. Although the Local Authority now ‘own’ the fair, having assumed the powers set out in the Charter, the reality is that the fair only happens with the extensive cooperation of the Showmen’s Guild, an exercise of what Julia Black has referred to as ‘decentered regulation’, and which Imrie & Street have discussed as being ‘characterised as dispersed across social, institutional, and political contexts, and not confined to any specific organizational form or process.’24 (Examples where the SGGB have been excluded from such organization include the Newcastle Hoppings, where a consortium called the ‘Northern Syndicate’ take on this task, exercising an awkward ‘dual control’ arrangement between the Freemen of the city of Newcastle and the City Corporation that is set out in various Town Moor Acts (Town Moor Act, 1774, and the most recent Town Moor Act of 1988). Kept at arm’s length by the Northern Syndicate, the SSGB have agitated effectively against the Fair, which has enjoyed a troubled recent history as a result.25)

But paradoxically, at the very same time that they are delegating zones of the fair to Showmen, changing the relationship between town and SGGB, the layout plan drawings are showing the fullest possible control over the fairground environment. While there has been a tendency for plans in the last 20 years to start drawing rides more fully in plan, and to add other supporting equipment including generators, living vans and so on, the most recent also have police, ambulance, St John’s Ambulance and so on, setting out the fair in a way that intends to be ‘fully’ controlled. This progressive tendency to control everything correlates closely to the increasing reach of the Health and Safety Executive and other legislation, which exerts another, changing layer of control at both the overall scale of the fair, and the scale of the individual rides’ positions, illustrated in Figure 16.26

Apparatus III: Economies of exchange and pleasure

***introduce something in this section on paradox of industrialised leisure.***Another aspect of the plans that is worth considering here as a third Apparatus concerns their role in calculating the rent (per linear foot of frontage) to be paid by the Showmen to the Local Authority. (Figure 17) While considering the Opening Ceremony as a public invitation to consume all the fun of the fair, this aspect reminds us that many other economies are at play, not simply an architecture of pleasure.Indeed, this rental is the most straightforward of all the economic exchanges that accompany the fair, and the local authorities do not make any significant money from it, running simply to cover costs. (Although the fair clearly brings attention and footfall to the town.) As Peter Dowling has written regarding the legal justification for the ‘monopoly’ granted by the Charter:

The Monarch has always had the power to grant to a subject the right to hold a market of fair. Such right is in the nature of a franchise, the essence of which is that the holder has a monopoly. The justification for such a monopoly is that the existence of the market is for the benefit of the public. A grant of a new market usually contains a clause to the effect that the market must not damage any neighbouring market. If such a clause is not expressed in the grant it is implied by law.27

Other exchanges are more difficult to quantify, prone as they are to the double imaginary distortion that Althusser observes. But while Althusser’s thinking on ideology and production remains informed by his close reading of Marx, the industry of the fair confounds conventional Marxist wisdom in certain regards. There are without doubt aspects of the fair that deploy the very latest forces of material production (technologies for transporting larger rides, for erecting rides very quickly—with their attendant impact on financial and labour costs— and for providing ever greater levels of experiential thrill for punters), although other rides and attractions play to the crowd’s nostalgia: historical rides, beautifully preserved, grace most fairs—the carousel, the slip or helter-skelter, antique big-wheels, cake-walks and so on. There is even a niche for ‘vintage’ modern rides such as old dodgems and waltzers. This offer of new and old, novelty and tradition, supplemented by familiar smells and surroundings, operates to repress perceptions that the system of social relations caught up in the production (and consumption) of the fair has changed at all. This

contradiction is repressed all through the fair, and most explicitly in the symbolic form of the Opening Ceremony.

Exceeding the more accepted notions of commodity fetishism, the fair plays with the notions and dynamics of value that Marx described. The Opening Ceremony’s double distortion represses the contradictions of the fair’s industries and industrial relations; it attempts to smooth over the exchanges that take place in this market. This is interesting and awkward, as the fair operates simultaneously with economies of pleasure and commerce. Regarding the latter, the town (who hold the charter) facilitates a market relationship where the Showmen can make money from the citizens of the town. In direct contradiction of this fact, at the opening ceremonies the Showmen frequently present money to the town from a collection amongst their members, to be donated to a good cause or, at Oxford St. Giles for example, to the Mayor’s chosen charity.

For the Showmen, they are at the fair to make money, and behind the generous donation they make in public, their coffers are filled up by the crowds enjoying the event. In addition to this commercial transaction though, they are also in it for tradition, and with a strong sense of obligation and loyalty to the events they have attended and presented rides and attractions for generations.

Within the community of Showmen, there’s a recognized hierarchy that influences who gets the best (and in this context the most lucrative) sites. While fairs such as the Newcastle Hoppings mentioned earlier operate a different system for allocating positions within the fair, which is advertised as following an open ballot or lottery rather than precedent (even if this if not always as democratic as is claimed) these are the exceptions rather than the rule. It is more usual for the most powerful families to retain the best sites. As discussed in the context of earlier Apparatus, at Ilkeston Pat Collins/Anthony Harris have remained on what is arguably the best site at that fair, located at its physical center and enjoying the most visible location. More recently, the Nottingham-based Mellors family operates in a similar way on Pimlico, a large site physically close to the Market Place, but that is more of an enclosed bottleneck that can draw and keep a crowd. Not only do these families have ‘Established Tenure’ on these sites, but they also exercise independent control over the layout in the Market Place and Pimlico as a whole, each effectively a fair within a fair. Within the Showmen’s organization, the SGGB, there is a rigid, hierarchical structure from established patriarchs down to gaff-lads. It’s the top of this hierarchy who parade in the Civic Party, complete with their chains of office, and the ceremonial rides taken by the Mayor take place on their attractions.

Present too at the Opening Ceremony is an invited group of school children, which serves as a proxy for the punters in general. While these lucky kids at the ceremony are given tokens for free rides, the broader relationship between Showmen and punters must not be lumped together and distorted—infantilized—in this way. The fair provides for many kinds of transaction between the crowds and the attractions, offering pleasures without price: many of those in the crowd go simply because of the event as a whole, while others go just to loiter at the side of a specific ride, and hours can be spent simply consuming the spectacle and sharing collective excitement. Within this economy of pleasure, the Town burghers arguably gain kudos for their generosity of spirit. Although they only set out to break even, a more expansive model of accounting would record them making a steady gain.

***spell out connection between two aspects of the argument in this final apparatus and in the conclusion***

conclusionFinally, to pull back from these particular examples or apparatus of industrial relations and regulations, the ‘misrecognition’ that Althusser observes can be mapped back on to the ritual process of the Opening Ceremony. However, while such a return might be easy to make, it is not so easy to make it stick. As several critical anthropologists and ethnographers have observed, those participating in public rituals do so knowingly: they are not duped into attending, nor does everyone swallow the symbolic misrepresentation set out at the Opening Ceremony. Public events such as the Opening Ceremony are effectively staged by and for the various parties involved: where the story it tells comes from is far less important than the how the ceremony gives a certain form to the dominant values holding the various parties (including the audience) together. Over and above the difficulties of producing knowing readings from afar, as an outside observer at these events, there are related, but more complex, difficulties associated with understanding how such events produce ‘knowledge’ for the participants themselves. ***add in something on fieldwork>>> ‘Public events… Their mandate is to engage in the ordering of ideas, people and things. As phenomena, they not only are cognitively graspable, but also emotionally livable.’28 Anthropologist and Ritual Theorist Catherine Bell asserts the specific and contingent importance of such public rituals for the various constituencies concerned. She argues that ritual systems are not concerned with ‘social integration’, but ‘insofar as they establish hierarchical social relations, they are also concerned with distinguishing local identities, ordering social differences, and controlling the contention and negotiation involved in the appropriation of symbols.’29 soft power and social control etc

Indeed, at the fair, the ‘necessarily imaginary distortion [of] all the (imaginary) relationship of individuals to the relations of production’ soothes the conflict between many differing forms of regulation and control, from mediaeval Royal Charters, to Victorian Public Order & Local Policing Acts, modern Highway Legislation and HSE prescriptions, as well as the (Secret) Rules of the Showmen’s Guild of Great Britain, and so on and so forth. While all of these are forgotten —or more actively displaced—behind the smiles of the Opening Ceremony, their impact is writ large into the architectural environment of the fairground. In common with more conventional ‘industries’ and sites of architectural production, the displacement of the powers that control relations of production remains largely unacknowledged or unspoken. However, at the fair, while the dynamics of exchange—involving complex economies of commerce and pleasure just noted—exceed the restricted economies symbolized at the Opening Ceremony, the same audience is effectively in attendance at both moments.

Marx set out the notion of Charaktermaske to describe the general role-playing of ‘buyer’ and ‘seller’ in the market, and the dynamics of an agreed misrecognition that this involved.

With the Charaktermaske things and relations appear not as they are. Architecture can be considered to offer a Charaktermaske in many ways—I won’t start rehearsing those here—but what is unusual about the architecture of the

street fair is that the dynamics of masking or misrecognition are fairly clear for all involved, even if the detailed play of power relations remains obscure. The Opening Ceremony knowingly distorts these while providing prima facie evidence that the Charaktermaske remains intact, an agreed conceit that fronts the ambiguous, real relations of production of the fair. Bell picks up a feature ‘intrinsic to practice [which] is a fundamental “misrecognition” of what it is doing, a misrecognition of its limits and constraints, and of the relationship between its ends and its means. An appreciation of the dynamics of misrecognition as such goes back to the Marxist argument that a society could not exist “unless it disguised to itself the real basis of that existence.”’30

Although Althusser does not explicitly take up Marx’s Charaktermaske, the necessarily imaginary distortions of imagined relations that are presented in the ideology of the Opening Ceremony can be taken as a practice that operates with a similar, knowing self-deception or strategic blindness.31 Without disguising to itself the real basis of its existence, the event of the Opening Ceremony would falter. An appreciation of the niceties and motivations of its imaginary distortions has to exceed the juridico-legislative, state-centered relations enshrined in the Charter, and involve more complex and more obscure modes of social relationships pertaining between the communities of Showmen and the citizens and burghers of the host town, some of which were sketched out here through three apparatuses.

Notes:

Illustration CaptionsAll drawings, diagrams and photographs by the author unless otherwise noted.

Figure 1. General views of the Opening Ceremony from Ilkeston, 1969 & 2012. 1969 photo is taken from the collection of the National Fairground Archive, and reproduced with the permission of the University of Sheffield ©Ron Kinder Collection, NFA/University of Sheffield.

Figure 2. Older photographs of Opening Ceremonies (and some of the less formal moments after the ceremony): Top row from left: Kings’ Lynn Mart, 1908 & 1920 (William Keating Collection, NFA), Hereford Fair 1981 (Paul Angel Collection, NFA), Top row from left: Kings’ Lynn Mart, 1970; Hereford Fair 1981 (Paul Angel Collection, NFA). All from the named collections of the National Fairground Archive, and reproduced with the permission of the University of Sheffield.

Figure 3. At Ilkeston, for example the ‘Civic Party’ includes key representatives from the Local Authority, the Burghers of the town, the Showmen, dignitaries from the local area/region, plus ceremonial officials, and invited local school children.

Figure 4. Plan of Ilkeston town centre, showing the locations of institutions arranged around the Market Square: Town Hall, the church, the Carnegie Library, Erewash Museum, and Police Headquarters, and so on. The ceremony itself takes place on a small stage in front of the Town Hall.

Figure 5. The charter extracts, and institutions directly and indirectly referenced in this document, compared to the fuller list of protagonists at the Opening Ceremony.

Figure 6. A fuller account of the various institutions involved in the production of this fair is set out in. Between national, regional and local scales, legislative, administrative, organizational bodies (co)operate with various legislative and quasi-legislative powers.

Figure 7. Organisational Diagram showing all involved in the organization and consumption of Ilkeston fair. This complex network revolves around the figure of the Fair’s Officer (see detail, 7a).

Figure 8. Examples from Loughborough Fair, showing Local Council road closures under Section 21 of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847, and the County Council (Highways Agency) road closures under Section 14 & Section 16A, Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. Both Acts are used simultaneous, with laminated notices from each agency even being put up next to each other on the same lamppost.

Figure 9. At Ilkeston, the market place has undergone significant physical change, being relocated and then extended from the North of the Church to the West and

then the South. This figure overlays (in pink) significant building and road changes and moves between 1881 and 2014.

Figure 10. Ilkeston fair layout has grown significantly over the course of the twentieth century, as these diagrams show.

Figure 11. Ilkeston fair layout plan, 1960, showing one of the main areas of the fair situated on the Market Place, organised by showman Pat Collins, simply as a pink box. From the collection of the National Fairground Archive, and reproduced with the permission of the University of Sheffield.

Figure 12. Ilkeston fair layout plan, 1975. The ‘delegation’ of significant sites of Ilkeston has extended to include Pimlico, a large area run by Mellors of Nottingham, and East Street Car Park. From the collection of the National Fairground Archive, and reproduced with the permission of the University of Sheffield.

Figure 13. Ilkeston fair, now organized according to a system of 9 zones, 2013.

Figure 14. Detail of Ilkeston fair plan (1971) showing rides and stalls being laid out only as frontage, or ‘fair line.’ From the collection of the National Fairground Archive, and reproduced with the permission of the University of Sheffield.

Figure 15. Photographs of rides being assembled around street furniture (Left, top and bottom, a Pat Collins Dodgems assembled, and run, round a lamppost at Loughborough Fair c.1955, and (top right) a Rotor ride being erected round a lamppost at Oxford St. Giles around the same time). Bottom left, evidence of damage caused to a tree on Oxford St. Giles, hidden under a ride despite the presence of the Oxford City Council Tree Surgeons during the pull-on and build-up of the fair, 2012. From the collection of the National Fairground Archive, and reproduced with the permission of the University of Sheffield.

Figure 16. Diagram indicating several different sources of authority and control that bear on the overall layout and ride-specific positions of Ilkeston Fair.

Figure 17. Ilkeston fair layout plan (1965) showing measurements of linear frontage with rental calculations. (Notice again the blind spot occupying the main market place area, where Pat Collins would fall under a separate economy.) From the collection of the National Fairground Archive, and reproduced with the permission of the University of Sheffield.

1 Louis Althusser, ‘Ideology andIdeological State Apparatuses (Notes towards an Investigation)’, [1970] in Lenin & Philosophy, tr. Ben Brewster, Monthly Review Press, 1971, pp.164–5.

2 I am borrowing this term most directly from Victor Buchli (who in turn borrows the notion from William Pietz, The Problem of the Fetish, I’ Res 9 (1985): 5–17) although several other anthropologists and thinkers have investigated the role of misrecognition. For a good overview, see Catherine Bell, Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009, esp. Ch 4 ‘Action and Practice’. With specific reference to Bourdieu’s work on misrecognition and ideology, Bell emphasises: ‘Misrecognition is […] not a matter of being duped, but a strategy for appropriating symbols, despite how structured and structuring the symbols may prove to be in practice.’ pp.190–1.

3 Peter Stallybrass and Allon White, The Politics and Poetics of Transgression, Methuen, London, 1986, p.34.

4 A. P. Donajgrodzki (ed.), Social control in nineteenth century Britain, London: Croom Helm, 1977, p.9.

5 Hugh Cunningham, ‘The Metropolitan Fairs: a Case-Study in the Social Control of Leisure,’ in A. P. Donajgrodzki (ed.), Social control in nineteenth century Britain, London: Croom Helm, 1977, p.163. Cunningham goes on to describe the surreptitious routes that many local do-gooders took, usually in conjunction with local magistrates, to ban or at least obstruct fairs from happening. Rather than resorting to law (and thus declaring a fair illegal or abolished), measures were used to prevent fairs taking place by ‘prevent[ing] booths or stalls being erected in roads, streets or highways’. p.166.

6 When a change takes place, it makes headlines: consider the sensational ‘Break With Tradition at Hull Opening’ by Malcolm Farrelly, in The World’s Fair, no.5636, 12-18 October 2012, p.1, p.3, which reveals how the Opening Ceremony at Hull Fair took place ‘on one of the largest games units, that of Richard Storey’ in contrast to the usual openings that take place on rides. Everything else proceeded as normal, though, as Farrelly reassured his readers: ‘As is the custom, The Lord Mayor of Kingston upon Hull proceeded down Walton Street in a horse drawn carriage with the civic party walking behind… The opening proceedings commenced in the traditional manner with the Chaplain to the Yorkshire Section, the Reverend Allen Bagshawe, offering a few words and leading the congregation in the Hull Fair and Lord’s Prayers. Called upon next in what was another break with tradition was Cllr Matthew Morley, JP, Chairman of the Yorkshire Section to say a few words, rather then either the President or Senior Vice President of the Showmen’s Guild.’ Then officially opened by Rt. Worshipful the Lord Mayor of Kingston upon Hull and Admiral of the Humber, Cllr Daniel Brown.’

For related articles concerning the Opening Ceremonies at the other fairs discussed here, see also Paul Tandy ‘Something for Everyone at Oxford St Giles’ The World’s Fair, no.5631, September 7–13, 2012, pp.1–2; Andrew McKinley, ‘Large Crowds for Opening of Ilkeston Charter Fair,’ in The World’s Fair, no.5645, December 14–20, 2012, p.4; and David Springthorpe, ‘Partnership Works at Loughborough,’ The World’s Fair, no.5597, January 13–19 2012, p.5.

7 Eric Hobsbawm and Terrence Ranger, eds. The Invention of Tradition. 1992 ed. Cambridge: Canto, Cambridge University Press, 1983. For a fuller explanation of all three overlapping ‘types’, see Eric Hobsbawm, ‘Introduction: Inventing Traditions,’ p.9.

8 James George Fraser, The Golden Bough, 1890, ii, p.62, cited in G. W. Speth, Builders' Rites and Ceremonies: The Folk Lore of Freemasonry (1893), Printed at Keble’s Gazette Office, Margate, 1894, p.11. Related to this, Hobsbawm and Ranger’s The Invention of Tradition marks a distinction between tradition and custom (fixed v flexible) and examines how ritual ‘invents’ tradition in order to establish or legitimize current practice by making out that it has continuity with the past. ‘Hobsbawn concludes that

traditions are most effectively invented by appropriating elements that are already closely associated with collective images of the past and the values at stake.’ Catherine Bell. Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009, p.122.

9 Don Handelman. Models and Mirrors: Towards an Anthropology of Public Events. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990, p.17. Handleman is, of course, referring to the essays in Hobsbawm and Ranger, op.cit.

10 ‘In the Marxist discussion, reification implies that rationalization is accompanied by a process in which the relationships among human beings becomes objectified as relations among things, most readily seen in the generation of official titles, institutions, personnel, and even official language.’ p.131. This is accompanied by a growing body of ‘experts’, while the process itself becomes increasingly depersonalised, and ensures that those experts ‘do not need constant popular support in order to survive… Ultimately, when the strategies of ritualization are dominated by a special group, recognized as official experts, the definition of reality that they objectify works primarily to retain the status and authority of the experts themselves.’ Bell Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice, op.cit., p. 131.

11 ‘Where a grant from the Crown is not in evidence the right of holding a market or fair may be established by prescription i.e. by showing it has been held from time immemorial in which case a lost grant may be presumed.’ Peter G. Dowling, ‘Charter Fairs and Markets: An Analysis of the Law Undertaken on Behalf of the Showmen’s Guild of Great Britain’, (Boyes, Turner & Burrows, Reading), Solicitor to the Guild, 24th February 1994. The paper is based on Halsbury’s Laws of England, Fourth Edition (Markets & Fairs, contributed by James W Wellwood esq MA of Grey’s Inn, Barrister). see section 5.2.

12 Vanessa Toulmin, Pleasurelands, Sheffield, 2003, p.5.13 Ilkeston Charter Roll, 1252. Henry III14 The Feast of the Assumption of St Mary the Virgin is generally taken to fall on August

15th, although this date is disputed, and the feast celebrated on different dates by different branches of Christianity (and by other religions): see Mary Clayton, The Cult of the Virgin Mary in Anglo-Saxon England, Cambridge University Press, 2003, pp.26–37.

As Vanessa Toulmin has described, the dates set out in Charter documents don’t always hold true: many fairs have juggled with their Charters to change the date or duration of a fair, or Charters may have been sought and given, but the rights they bestowed were never, or only temporarily, taken up. see Toulmin, Pleasurelands, op.cit., p.5.

The dates of some fairs have also been altered by changes to the calendar: ‘The effect of the Calendar (New Style) Act 1750 was to shift to 11 days later in the new calendar the dates for the holding of all markets and fairs which were fixed to certain nominated days of the month or were dependent upon the beginning or any certain day of the month. However where the days for markets and fairs depended upon the date of a moveable feast, they continued to depend on it but in accordance with the new calendar.’ Peter G. Dowling, “Charter Fairs and Markets: An Analysis of the Law Undertaken on Behalf of the Showmen’s Guild of Great Britain’, (Boyes, Turner & Burrows, Reading), Solicitor to the Guild, 24th February 1994, 19.1.3:

Samantha Letters (Centre for Metropolitan History, Institute of Historical Research) has compiled a comprehensive national survey of the dates and feast days of markets and fairs in medieval England and Wales. This takes the form of a catalogue, the Online Gazetteer of Markets and Fairs in England Wales to 1516 (http://www.history.ac.uk/cmh/gaz/ gazweb2.html); there is a handy data visualization available at http://fairground-visualisation.group.shef.ac.uk/

15 see Don Hanbdelman, Models and Mirrors, op.cit.; Richard Schechner. Performance Studies: An Introduction. London: Routledge, 2002; R L Grimes, Beginnings in Ritual Studies, University of America Press, Washington, 1982; Maurice Bloch (1974). ‘Symbols, Song, Dance and Features of Articulation: Is Religion an Extreme Form of Traditional Authority?’ in European Journal of Sociology, 15, pp 54-81; Roy Rappaport ‘The Obvious Aspect of Ritual’ [1974] in Ecology, Meaning and Religion, North Atlantic Books, Berkeley, California, 1979, pp.173–222; and Catherine Bell, Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice, op.cit..

16 Catherine Bell, Ritual: Perspectives and Dimensions. New York ; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997, p.141.

17 Althusser, ‘Ideology andIdeological State Apparatuses’, op.cit., p.166.18 ibid, p.166. (see also Althusser, For Marx, 1977, p.67 n.30 & p. 80 n.45, and Reading

Capital, Vol.1, pp.25.ff. Giorgio Agamben’s work What is an Apparatus? [2006] does not address Althusser, focusing instead on the thinking of Michel Foucault and Jean Hyppolite, although all these formulations are mutually supporting. As Agamben stresses: ‘The apparatus always has a concrete strategic function and is always located in a power relation […] As such, it appears at the intersection of power relations and relations of knowledge.’ Giorgio Agamben, What is an Apparatus? [2006] tr. David Kishik & Stafan Pedatella, Stanford University Press, California, 2009, p.3.

19 Peter G. Dowling, ‘Charter Fairs and Markets: An Analysis of the Law…’ Op.cit., section 19.2.1.

20 Ilkeston Charter Roll, 1252. Henry III. Translated from Latin, translator unknown.21 Vanessa Toulmin, Pleasurelands, Sheffield, 2003, p.7.22 Anon, The Showman, 31 August 1906. 23 In addition to fair-specific Acts, significant Parliamentary legislation that bears on the

organization of fairs includes the historic Charters and prescriptions (dating back to the C13th); various Acts of Parliament, from the Statute of Labourers (introduced in 1351) through to Victorian examples (Museums Act 1845, Fairs Acts of 1822, and 1871, 1873; Metropolitan Fairs Act 1868, Markets and Fairs Clauses Act 1847) and twentieth century legislation such as the Fairground Act 1907, the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984: Section 16A, plus various other Parliamentary reports with ambiguous legal status, including the Joint Circular from the Department of the Environment and the Welsh Office, Travelling Showpeople, 1991; and Travelling Fairs, by the Environmental, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee, Report and Proceedings of the Committee, Ninth Report, Session 1999–2000, and many more.

24 Robert Imrie and Emma Street. Architectural Design and Regulation. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011, p.18, on Julia Black, ‘Critical Reflections on Regulation’, Centre for Analysis of Risk and Regulation, LSE, London, 2002, p.4.

25 For an examination of the consequences of the complex ownership and stewardship situation of Newcastle Town Moor on the Hoppings Fair, see Ella Bridgland and Stephen Walker, ‘Transgression or Temperance? The Newcastle Hoppings,’ in Louis Rice and David Littlefield (Eds), Transgression (Routledge, London, 2014), pp.113–128.

26 In the UK, Health and Safety Codes pertaining to the travelling fair emerged officially in 1976, when the Home Office Guide to Safety at Fairs was published. This followed the transfer of responsibility for safety matters to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) established under the 1974 Health and Safety at Work Act. This subsequently developed into the Code of Safe Practice at Fairs (Health & Safety Executive, 1984), then the Fairgrounds and Amusement Parks: A Code of Safe Practice (HS(G)81 HSE Books 1992), and then the Fairgrounds and Amusement Parks: Guidance on Safe Practice (HS(G)175 HSE Books 1997). These have been further developed following the Roberts Review Of Fairground Safety, 2011 (see ‘Review Of Fairground Safety: Report to the Health and

Safety Commission,’ Prepared by: Paul Roberts (HM Principal Inspector of Health and Safety) Safety Policy Division, 02 August 2011.

27 Peter G. Dowling, ‘Charter Fairs and Markets: An Analysis of the Law’ op.cit.,: see section 5.1.

28 Don Handelman. Models and Mirrors.. op.cit. p.16. Therefore, he argues, they are devices of praxis that merge the horizons of the ideal and the real, to bring into closer conjunction ideology and practice, attitude and action.

29 Bell, Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice, op.cit., p.130. ‘It is important to emphasize a conclusion implicit in the many examples cited so far: ritual systems do not function to regulate or control the systems of social relations, they are the system, and an expedient rather than perfectly ordered one at that.’ p.130.

30 Bell, Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice, op.cit., p.82. 31 ‘For Althusser [his notion of the intrinsic “blindness” of practice] is a strategic

“misrecognition” of the relationship of one’s ends and means.’ Bell Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice, op.cit., p.108.