Abstract
In our article we shall inquire into the special quality which has the ability to transform non-ritual action into ritual action - ritualization. Borrowing concepts and terminology from the complex theory of James Laidlaw and Caroline Humphrey, we are going to demonstrate that non-ritual action - once trans- formed by ritualization - becomes ''deliberately non-intentional''.
At the same time, we are going to show that even though Humphrey and Laidlaw''s theory provides a firm terminological frame, it is mistaken in the conclusion that ritualization is limited solely to the context of established rituals and that rituals themselves are phenomena primarily static, subject to little or no change. In our subsequent argumentation we shall build on the method of Ronald L.
Grimes and within the frame of his discourse we will try to show that ritualization, as the dynamic quality of both emerging and established rituals, is sustained by the ritualists'' corporeality.