Rituals and Institutional Maintenance: The Case of the Beating Retreat Ceremony

Abstract

The present study examines ritual-driven institutional maintenance, or the reproduction of social order, in a case where ritual attendance is not mandated, conformity to the recurring ritual enactment is not expected, and where the ritual assumes meaning only as it is performed in perfect coordination with an assumed rival. The study is based on the case of the Beating Retreat ritual conducted daily at the India–Pakistan border. Findings indicate that institutional maintenance rests on (a) distantiation, which serves to create physical and social distance between collectives as ritual participants gain a sense of self and the “other,” and (b) interpellation, which serves to reinforce institutional ideologies as ritual participants internalize and profess what is valued. I extend implications of present findings for social relations within work organizations.

Keywords

institutional theory qualitative research interviews

Introduction

The notion of an institution implies permanence and self-reproduction (Greenwood, Oliver, Sahlin, & Suddaby, 2008), yet active work may be required to ensure institutional maintenance (Lawrence & Suddaby, 2006; Lawrence, Suddaby, & Leca, 2011). Maintenance can be seen as preventive work to block or deal with threatening change (Currie, Lockett, Finn, Martin, & Waring, 2012; Dacin, Munir, & Tracey, 2010; Micelotta & Washington, 2013; Zietsma & Lawrence, 2010), as policing work to align actors by enforcing rule systems that underpin institutions (Slager, Gond, & Moon, 2012; Trank & Washington, 2009), and as articulating and reinforcing cognitive categories or meaning systems in periods of stability (Durkheim, 1965; Lukes, 1975). For example, rituals, the focus of the present study, are said to maintain institutions via expressing and affirming shared values and social structures (Bell, 1997).

Rituals are public, emotionally salient, and formalized behavioral practices that draw together actors and communicate shared meanings (Islam, 2015). The performative dimension or the enactment of highly symbolic actions in public makes ritual akin to theater (Bell, 1997). Defined as “overlapping ceremony and rite” (Di Domenico & Phillips, 2009, p. 327) and as “social dramas” (Rosen, 1985), rituals involve distinctive stylized activities and symbols to influence social organization and cognitive categories that provide people a sense of reality within institutions (Bell, 1997). As symbolic regularities, rituals allow for an understanding of means through which institutional belief systems and associated social order is exemplified and reinforced (Dacin et al., 2010; Di Domenico & Phillips, 2009; Islam, 2015; Smith & Stewart, 2011; Thomson & Hassenkamp, 2008).

Research has examined ritual-driven institutional maintenance where participation was mandated (Rosen, 1985, 1988); participant conformity to the recurring ritual enactment seemed obligatory (Dacin et al., 2010; Di Domenico & Phillips, 2009), especially where active participation in rehearsals in the lead up to the final ritual performance was critical for the ritual to materialize (Kong & Yeoh, 1997). In each case, institutional maintenance rested on the dialectic between social order and disorder within a defined community. In no case did it rest on assumed rival communities simultaneously performing their sameness and difference. The paradox of a common ritual that establishes difference is thus not examined so far. Doing so is important to shed light on ritualized posturing between split or evolved descendants of a common social group. For example, in many situations (e.g., sporting events) commonality is the very foundation on which differences assume meaning. The present study contributes to the existing body of research by examining ritual-driven institutional maintenance when attendance is not mandated, conformity to the recurring ritual enactment is not expected, and where the ritual assumes meaning only as it is performed in perfect coordination with an assumed rival.

The present study is based on the case of the Beating Retreat ritual conducted daily at the India–Pakistan border. I explore the role of this ritual as it aids institutional maintenance, that is, how it helps maintain the cognitive conception of the institution of the Indian nation in the minds of the Indian ritual participants. In the present context, an institution is understood as a cognitive entity (Anand & Watson, 2004), comprising accretions of practices and understandings that define categories of social actors and their relationships (Barley & Tolbert, 1997). The institution of a nation is a subjective and idealistic collective conception, the maintenance of which is contingent on citizens’ shared imaginations of who they are and what they should value (Anderson, 1983; Kong & Yeoh, 1997). Institutional maintenance can thus be understood as the reproduction of extant social order—social categories, relationships (Barley & Tolbert, 1997), what is valued, and how members should act (Angus, 1993; Lawrence & Suddaby, 2006).

Findings, based on interviews with ritual participants, indicate that ritual-driven institutional maintenance rests on distantiation, which serves to create physical and social distance between collectives as ritual participants gain a sense of self and the “other,” and interpellation, which serves to reinforce institutional ideologies as ritual participants internalize and profess what is valued. Findings illustrate that maintenance rests not only on the transformation of identities of a collective and the provision of opportunities to learn institutional values (Dacin et al., 2010; Rosen, 1985) but also on affirming extant identities through the provision of opportunities to indorse values. Furthermore, as a complement to prior research (Micelotta & Washington, 2013), findings indicate that institutional maintenance rests on the advocacy of the nonelite in the absence of imposed disruptions. Relatedly, findings indicated that such advocacy, typically associated with legitimizing of new institutions (Lawrence & Suddaby, 2006) is also applicable to institutional maintenance. Finally, findings point to the importance of mnemonic cues in institutional maintenance as cues help participants grasp their spheres of kinship.

Ritual-Driven Institutional Maintenance

Anand and Watson (2004) have reviewed work on rituals to note that rituals can maintain social structure in multiple ways. Viewed from the solidarity perspective, ritual creates cohesion by affording an opportunity for congregation and serves as a tradition. As such, rituals allow for expressions of shared values, renewal of common faith, and signaling appropriate attitudes and behaviors. Viewed from the agonistic perspective, rituals can justify social stratification and express conflicts inherent within social groups. Finally, the sensemaking perspective focuses on the process of ritualization, that is, the manner in which actors use a ritual to define and make sense of fields (Bell, 1997; Roth, 1995). Aforementioned distinctions are, however, not absolute (Roth, 1995) and the same ritual can be perceived as integrating an institution or as perpetuating differences (Shils & Young, 1953). Taken together, and viewed from a functional orientation, one adopted in the present study, rituals thus “act” on society (i.e., on people’s perceptions and interpretations; Bell, 1997).

Past research, summarized below, has outlined how rituals can maintain institutional order. Specifically, rituals such as a business breakfast meeting (Rosen, 1985), the annual office Christmas party (Rosen, 1988), formal Oxbridge dining (Dacin et al., 2010; Di Domenico & Phillips, 2009), and an annual national day parade (Kong & Yeoh, 1997) have been noted as maintaining institutional order.

In a study of an annual business breakfast ritual at an advertising agency, Rosen (1985) observed that the institution (the bureaucratic form) and its characteristic social structures (relations of domination) were maintained as meanings “encoded in” and “enacted through” the ritual influenced actors’ thoughts and behaviors. For example, commensality signaled a group identity. Those partaking of the fine food in a luxury hotel saw themselves as part of an elite community, one that excluded those outside of the ritual. As ritual participants engaged in aspects of high culture and witnessed recognition of long tenured employees who had internalized organizational values, the material logic and control of bureaucratic relations were reinforced (Rosen, 1985). Such affirmation of the institution of bureaucracy and its relational structures was also noted in another study at an advertising agency wherein the ritual of the annual Christmas party allowed for an understanding of acceptable behaviors (Rosen, 1988).

Other studies have outlined how rituals maintain institutions in the face of expected and met transgressions such as nonconformance to expectations or abstaining from the ritual on occasion. For example, Di Domenico and Phillips (2009) observed the formal hall ritual in Oxbridge Colleges. Their findings indicated that the ritual bolstered the institution of the Oxbridge elite as it reinforced social hierarchy through seating arrangements and afforded participants an institutional identity and membership as newcomers conformed to norms and gained legitimacy and social cohesion. Another study of formal dining at the University of Cambridge indicated how the performance of this ritual contributes to the maintenance of the British class system. In this study, Dacin et al., (2010) noted that the institution of the class system was maintained as the dining ritual afforded opportunities to learn skills and behaviors, allowed for enactment of roles and boundaries, transformed participants’ identities, their perceptions of their images in the eyes of others, and their actual social standing post-Cambridge. Thus, rituals maintain institutions by masking or overcoming resistance.

Finally, research has noted that rituals such as National Day parades can maintain the “imagined community” of a nation (Anderson, 1983). In their study of Singapore National Day parades, Kong and Yeoh (1997) argued that both the idea of a nation and national identity are social constructions created by rituals. As the capabilities and prowess of a nation are displayed during the annual ritual, the idea of a nation is maintained as a sense of community is reinforced, even when involved actors do not know or meet most fellow citizens. This ritual involved active civilian participation starting with involvement in formal rehearsals of ritual proceedings.

In summary, the present study complements past research by examining ritual-driven institutional maintenance when attendance and conformity are not mandated, and where the ritual assumes meaning only when performed in perfect coordination with an assumed rival.

Research Context

The Institution of Postindependence India

Nationalism during British rule was driven by the notion that collective cohesion must pervade the institution of India. It was thus based on inclusive principles and identities, which subsumed strong regional identities of being a Maratha or a Bengali. As Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of India, toured preindependence India, he would urge the masses to equate Bharat Mata (i.e., Mother India) with themselves and explain that their cries of Bharat Mata ki Jai (i.e., Victory to Mother India) are a cry about victory of the collective (Nehru, 1989). To unite a diverse population, nationalist leaders utilized religious rituals to consolidate a sense of community and solidarity (Talbot, 2000).

The institution of the Indian nation after attaining freedom on the midnight of August 14, 1947 implied uniting diverse languages, religions, castes, and economic classes under a common umbrella, an arduous task as a common colonial enemy was removed (Talbot, 2000). Pakistan being carved out of India also meant that an institution-building process was needed as partition became a “test” of state sovereignty and ownership of territory (Khilnani, 1999). New notions of kinship were stressed as postindependence institutions meant an ontological status based on state recognition as national subjects, as Indians or Pakistanis (Menon, 2013). Faced with partition and nation-building, Nehru particularly cared to reinforce unity of the “mind and heart” to overcome divisive forces (Nehru, 1989). Such unity was also continually valued as India and Pakistan claimed and clashed over Jammu and Kashmir, warring over it after their emergence as independent nations in 1947 to 1948, and later in 1965, 1971, and 1999 (Ganguly, 2013).

The Beating Retreat Ritual

Institutions are supported by various rituals (Bell, 1997) and the institution of the nation can be an invention that needs to be concretized in the collective cognition through a “daily referendum in the minds of citizens” (Kaviraj, 2010, p. 7). The daily Beating Retreat ritual, which began in 1959, is said to be aimed at maintaining the cognitive conception of India (Menon, 2013). While discontinued in 1965 and 1971, given India–Pakistan hostilities, it has been a popular ritual attracting, on average, 15,000 citizens from various parts of India and non-Indian tourists. This daily ritual at Wagah, on the India–Pakistan border, has been referred to as a demonstration of “carefully choreographed contempt” (Palin, 2004) and as a “spectacular theatre of nationalism,” crucial in sustaining differences and identities of Indian and Pakistani collectives (Menon, 2013, p. 23).

The earsplitting .5 hr mirror-image performance is carefully synchronized by the paramilitary forces of the two nations—the Indian Border Security Force and the Pakistani Rangers. The thousands who attend on each side of the border are seated in viewer galleries that are similar to stadium-like arrangements on either side of the parade street where the jawans perform. Bugles mark the beginning and performing jawans (soldiers) who are dressed in elaborate gear engage in synchronized stomping, glaring, gesturing, and goose-stepping. As both sets of jawans march toward the border, and toward each other, they raise their feet high enough that their knees are by their face. Throughout, loudspeakers blare nationalist slogans on each side of the border. For example, the Indian loudspeaker blared the first half of the slogans, and the Indian crowd completed the other half as loudly as seemed possible. To mark the end of the ceremony, hands are shaken in a fleeting motion and national flags lowered and carried away. People stand as a mark of respect as flags are carried away. Finally, border gates are shut with a crash, concluding the ceremony. Menon (2013) noted that manifesting soldiers as performers, military paraphernalia as stage props, and the curtain closing in the form of flag lowering serve to cast this ritual as nationalist theater.

The theatrical aggression of the ceremony reflects tensions at the Line of Control and the overall relations between the two countries. For example, crowds are said to have cheered louder and engaged in more sloganeering during the 1999 war, in 2008 when Mumbai was attacked, and when tensions are escalated at the Line of Control (Bhardwaj, 2013). The ceremony has attracted the attention of terrorist outfits such as the Lashkar-e-Taiba, a Pakistan-based terrorist organization, which have attempted to target it (Hafeez, 2013). Although the ritual is said to be a “carefully choreographed piece of jingoistic theatre” (Doherty, 2012), a “battle without ammunition” (Bhardwaj, 2013), and remains an assertion of territorial control, the choreographed aggressive gestures have been toned down (Chhachhi, 2010). The Border Security Force has also tried to soften the ceremony though Rangers are said to have not responded to suggested changes (Rataul, 2010). Some have noted how ritual participants seem to be hurling abuses at a “mirror” as the two peoples seem more similar than not (Saeed, 2012).

Referred to as the “Checkpoint Charlie” of the subcontinent (Jaleel, 2013) and as the “Berlin Wall of Asia” (Sreekant & Padmnabhan, 2014), Wagah border is a particularly visible marker of conflicts between India and Pakistan as the “love-hate” border ceremony takes place there every day (Bokhari, 2001). Wagah has also served as a space for signaling peace. For example, the then Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee, created history as he crossed the Wagah border to inaugurate the Delhi to Lahore bus service as a gesture of goodwill (Popham, 1999). Other goodwill gestures have included releasing video material post the ceremony. For example, the movie Kya Dilli Kya Lahore, a lighthearted take on two soldiers who realize their commonalities and question their rivalry, was released at Wagah (Unnikrishnan, 2012).

Method

The example of the Beating Retreat ritual seemed an illustrative one as tourists attend the ceremony of their own volition, alone or with family and friends. Ritual orchestrators, the Border Security Force Officers, do not know how many will attend and participate on a given day. Also, the ritual is an illustrative example of the dialectic of unity and difference, a performance of sameness and difference that the two assumed rival peoples enact in common.

Data Sources

Interviews and observations

Seeking people who have knowledge about the ritual (e.g., Dacin et al., 2010; Rosen, 1988), I interviewed 36 Indian civilian tourists who had participated in the ceremony. Interviewees, sought through informal contacts (e.g., friends, colleagues, students) were diverse—from various states (Karnataka, Kerala, Maharashtra, Nagaland, National Capital Region, Punjab, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal), different age groups (~20 to 75 years old), and who had participated in the ceremony at different points in time (Year 2000 through 2016). Four interviewees noted that they had participated in the ceremony more than once (the range was twice to 25 times). Others had participated once. Interviewee diversity allowed for creating “ecological validity” in the study (Lee, 1999). I asked interviewees about their recall of the ceremony and any feelings and thoughts they may have experienced. Twenty-six interviews were conducted face-to-face while others were telephonic and one via Skype during the period from 2014 to 2016. Since inception, the ceremony has undergone minimal changes as noted earlier (e.g., the aggression has been toned down). The ritual has thus exhibited cross-situational uniformity (Moore & Myerhoff, 1977). Furthermore, what a ritual stands for is more important than the actual contents of the ritual (Cohen, 1980; Rosen, 1985; Smith & Stewart, 2011) as can be said in this case according to aforesaid news items (e.g., a symbolic marker of differences). Interviewees can thus be assumed to have witnessed the same form of the ritual.

To understand the context of the ritual, I also engaged with Border Security Force personnel over a span of 10 days in October of 2014. Specifically, I met with Border Security Force Officers at their headquarters in New Delhi. They gave me access to videos about the Force (some of which feature the ritual), explained the ritual to me, and gave me a handout that briefly outlined the history of the border. Conversations with the Amritsar Border Officers who handle the daily ceremony also helped understand the conduct and context of the ritual. These conversations and below noted observations took place after I had completed nine interviews. Although I had earlier seen footage, photographs, and had read about the ritual, the actual visit allowed me to better appreciate interviewee responses.

Observations allow for detailed insights into rituals (Di Domenico & Phillips, 2009) and I witnessed the ritual and captured it via video and photographs (e.g., Munro & Jordan, 2013). The day I visited, I observed the crowd warm up to the parade. This is when thousands gather and some dance on the parade street and run with the flag to the border gate and back. Crowd reactions to such were noted. With permission from the Border Security Force, I also had a chance to observe their “conference hall,” the jawans’ practice before the parade, and the music room that controls the songs and sloganeering. These are adjacent to the parade street. I was also allowed to see the quarters and makeshift offices where the jawans (involved in the ritual) live and conduct their other duties (e.g., policing the border to avert illegitimate crossing).

Archives, nonfiction books, and documentaries

Although these materials helped contextualize the ritual and helped with the interpretation of findings (e.g., the importance of ritual location as mentioned in the research context as well as in the findings), they did not form the basis of findings (e.g., Anand & Watson, 2004). Archival materials included Border Security Force records of the ritual (e.g., history of the joint border check post, which briefly outlines the ceremony) and other secondary data (e.g., newspaper coverage of the ritual obtained through LexisNexis and ProQuest Historical Newspapers which, for example, noted the actual ritual conduct and importance of location). Nonfiction history books helped outline the aforesaid institution of postindependence India. Finally, I saw Supriyo Sen’s documentary Wagah and Pakistan Inter-Services Public Relation’s Wagah Border. Wagah views the ritual through the eyes of a young school-going boy who sells DVDs for a living, and notes the coexistence of the nationalistic spirit alongside a longing for peace. Wagah Border outlines the nationalistic spirit and features Pakistani Armed Forces Officers. This documentary outlines the partition, trade through Wagah, and that the ritual arouses the “national sprit and motivation among the public.”

Data Analysis

Analysis consisted of a series of steps. First, interview transcripts were analyzed to note interviewees’ descriptions of the ritual. Such descriptions included, for example, comments about the presence of soldiers, the aggressive high kicks and gestures, the flag, and sentiments aroused by the ritual. These formed the first-order codes. In the second step, I noted if codes across interviews could be combined into higher level or more abstract categories (e.g., Dacin et al., 2010). For example, comments about patriotism, pride, or a one nation feeling, could be grouped into affective responses. These higher level groupings led to first-order categories. First-order categories included perceiving oneself, noticing differences between self and the other, ritual as analogous to a competition, shaping advantage in the competition, references to postindependence events, importance of ritual location, affective responses, and behavioral propensities.

Next, I looked for links among first-order categories to merge these into theoretically distinct clusters. These were the second-order themes. For example, categories comprising interviewee recall of postindependence events and of the importance of ritual location were combined into a theme labeled “reinforcing collective memories.” Second-order themes included “sensing self and the other,” “competing with the other,” “reinforcing collective memories,” and “endorsing normativity.” Subsequently, I organized second-order themes into overarching and interlinked dimensions, described below, which lay the foundation for theorizing. The first concerned sensing and emphasizing differences between self and the other. The second concerned collective memories and embracing normativity. To ensure credibility of the coding and overall interpretive scheme, I looked for both confirming and disconfirming evidence in the data and relied on “member checks” with five interviewees (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Reliance on multiple data sources (e.g., observations, newspaper archival data) helped corroborate interview-based interpretations. Finally, I discussed emerging theory with two colleagues not involved in the study (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). The data structure is summarized in Figure 1 and representative illustrations are noted in Table 1.

Figure 1.

Data structure.

Table 1.

Categories, Themes, and Data.

Second-order themes and first-order categories	Representative data
Sensing self and the other A. Perceiving oneself	I am going to join the defense . . . The jawans and the parade mean something to me. This feeling that I am an Indian and this parade or ceremony is about us. (Male, participated in the ritual in 2014) I had two thoughts. On one hand, this is like a masala Bollywood production staged in perfect coordination between the two countries. It’s enjoyable and the atmosphere is charged and very festive with all that cheering and sloganeering. On the other hand, as I thought about the spectacle over time, it is probably more than just a show, though it may be intended just as a show, I don’t know. It’s a way of showing we are one country and they are a separate country and we have our differences. (Female, participated in the ritual in 2013)
B. Noting differences between self and the other	Then the flag is brought down on both the sides . . . you are standing just near the border . . . and you know this is our land and this is their land . . . The feeling to see that this is ours and this is theirs . . . There is a board there which says “India: Welcome to the world’s biggest democracy.” . . . For them, it was like a dictatorship and ours is a democracy. (Female, participated in the ritual in 2006) For most people, feelings get hyped, about now how we are different. In a way, I was quite scared of the atmosphere there. One small spark is enough to create problems. (Male, participated in the ritual in 2007)
Competing with the other C. Ritual as analogous to a competition	I visited Wagah around 10 years back in 2004. If I were to describe it in one or two words, it resembled a cricket match between India and Pakistan. There were two types of bands and two types of followers and a lot of energy was there . . . It’s all very energetic. (Male, participated in the ritual in 2004) There is a sense of incredible competition between Indian BSF and Pakistani Rangers. That was how I perceived it . . . There was visible one-upmanship. I don’t think it was a show of amazing friendship . . . I think the crowd sentiment was “we are Indians and they are Pakistanis.” There was a sense of intense rivalry. (Male, participated in the ritual in 2012)
D. Shaping advantage in the competition	The jawans were doing whatever they had to do. But I am talking about the crowd, the emotions, and energy of the people there. It’s like you shout and I shout louder. Hindustan Zindabad. (Female, participated in the ritual in 2009) It’s a popular spectacle. The cheerleader and the crowd there, I think they are into it. All riled up. Shouting. Dancing. Competing and winning through cheering and shouting. It was fun. (Male, participated in the ritual in 2014)
Reinforcing collective memories E. References to postindependence events	It’s like a colorful festival. But it is also about some history. Our past or the recent Line of Control issues. These people face it. The border people face it. Maybe when we are cheering we don’t think but somewhere we know that these jawans aren’t just marching for a living. They are protecting us. We haven’t forgotten the many border skirmishes and wars. There is a border marker there. Right between the parade road. Also, the first flagstaff. That’s our history. (Male, participated in the ritual in 2014) It’s about remembering what challenges are there. We sit in our homes, unaware of the conditions at the borders. So what things can be there, such thoughts come in mind. (Male, participated in the ritual in 2011)
F. Importance of ritual location	I think the location makes a difference. We see the border. We remember history. You know I am much older and closer to partition than you are. So, this is not just about a history book chapter for me. It is real . . . I was at the time in Trivandrum. So, I went across the length of our country with my wife to see the border in the north. (Male, participated in the ritual in 2002) It’s also about Wagah location and also nearby Amritsar. So rich in our history . . . You visit the Jallianwala Bagh. Wagah itself represents so many emotions. You know about the communal riots and all postpartition. (Female, more than 6 visits over years)
Endorsing normativity G. Affective responses	There are many patriotic songs. I remember desh hai veer jawanon ka . . . You feel those songs. I cannot explain that feeling. As the jawans strike what I see as a victory pose, with their puffed chests and biceps flexed, and the crowd cheers Vande Mataram, you feel good. This thing of I am an Indian. (Male, participated in the ritual in 2014) I was so excited over there . . . the feeling of patriotism is also because we shout and hear our people say Vande Mataram. No difference in who we are and all that. We are all shouting for our country, you see. (Female, participated in the ritual in 2002)
H. Behavioral propensities	There is a feeling that if anything comes up again I am ready. I am there. You can see mothers running with children. You can see old people running the distance with the flag . . . The feeling of I am an Indian comes up. And if anything happens I am ready. You cannot disown your soil. It simply touches you very strongly. (Female, participated in the ritual in 2012) I am from Tamil Nadu and I am coming here for the first time. Seeing the border. Seeing the tanker standing out there. Seeing our paramilitary and military establishments all along the big road to the ceremony. Have you seen so many of them on the way to the ceremony? Makes you feel about the country, that you should do something for the country along with these jawans and all. Support the country in some manner. (Male, participated in the ritual in 2014)

Findings

As noted earlier, the postindependence institution of India was one in which concertizing and bolstering a collective national identity that subsumed regional, linguistic, and other identities was valued. As described below, the ritual seemed to help maintain citizens’ shared imaginations of who they are, what they should value, and how they should act, thereby reproducing social order, that is, envisaged social categories and kinship spheres.

Institutional maintenance rests on the following processes. One, institutional maintenance is contingent on distantiation, that is, the creation of physical and social distance between collectives. Such distantiation creates a sense of self and the other and indicates to ritual participants how they are different from participants across the border, and that they are in seeming competition with the other. Two, maintenance rests on the rituals’ ability to hail or interpellate individuals in social interactions such as rituals. Interpellation is a process by which institutional ideologies form subjects and their identities as individuals internalize and profess institutional values and beliefs as their own. Such ideologies seem obvious and logical as they are encountered through possibly invisible or consensual processes (Althusser, 1994). Here, the ritual hailed participants through reinforcing collective memories of a traumatic past and endorsing normativity, that is, affective and behavioral proclivities that support the institution.

Distantiation

Retreat ceremonies are usually conducted to signal end of official duty and serve as a space for paying respect to the flag. However, as the ceremony involves thousands of cheering participants from two nations, it serves as a marker of self–other differences wherein participants engage in one-upmanship.

Sensing Self and the Other

The Indian parade road begins with a large archway that has the photograph of Mahatma Gandhi, the preeminent leader of the Indian independence movement. The road ends with an approximately 9-ft gap between the Indian and Pakistani border gates. In between gates is a white line that demarcates territories. I was warned by security personnel not to step on it or beyond it. In that space, in the few feet on the Indian side, is the first postpartition border flagstaff with the inscription “Foundation of this flagstaff was laid by Brig. Mohinder Singh Chopra on 11^th Oct. 1947.” Past this, the Pakistani parade road begins, houses stadium-like seating arrangements, and ends with a large archway that has the photograph of Muhammad Ali Jinnah, Pakistan’s founder. Gates themselves are markers of nations, painted with colors of the respective national flags and adorned with national emblems.

The ritual seemed to help in perceiving oneself, sensing that one is part of a defined collective, bound by a common territory and nationality. For example, during interviews, individuals described aforesaid markers and described the ritual as being “fun,” a “festival,” a “carnival,” and a “spectator sport” that lead them to think of themselves “like an Indian,” as a “citizen” of India, a “common people.” It was good, an interviewee noted, to be part of colorful thousands who belonged to a territory. Another explained how the ritual helps form two collectives as people “acknowledge our differences and preferences symbolically” across the border.

The point about feeling like a “common people” with a “common territory” and nationality was noted by an interviewee from Nagaland, a region known for insurgency and secessionist violence. She explained how the Indian army had raped Naga women and the hate for the armed forces had trickled across extended families of victims and across generations who entertained the idea of an independent Nagaland. However, she saw herself not only as a “Naga, but also an Indian” and that she and her Naga friends who were on a border holiday in 2006 felt they were more like the Indian paramilitary than the Pakistanis.

Interviewees’ sense of belonging to a nation was also based on noticing differences between self and the other. Interviewees described difference between types of uniforms of jawans on either side of the border, crowd sizes and composition (e.g., comparing numbers of “foreign tourists” on either side), seating arrangements, and so forth. Comparisons invariably painted one’s lot as being “better.” For instance, associating uniform colors with cultural assumptions, a female interviewee who had participated in the ceremony two times in 2011 and 2012 noted how the black Pakistani uniform did not evoke “positive feelings” as “we associate black with something bad” and how the Indian jawans “looked better.”

Comparisons sometimes alluded to underlying similarities (e.g., farming practices, food habits, transportation management, border soldiers engaging in the same patrolling tactics) yet concluded with one’s lot as being superior. For example, simultaneously illustrating similarities and differences, a female interviewee who participated in the ceremony in 2014 explained,

We used to be one. Now we are different countries. It’s not like we are terribly dissimilar. I mean, look at our appearance. What we eat in Punjab or Lahore. What such a spectacle I guess does is it tells us, “Now look here. These are our jawans. This is our security system. Our national tiranga [tricolor Indian flag]. This is our country. We are different.” It’s not about being enemies, it’s just that we have different national identities postpartition. This is ours. That is theirs. We are India and we are a big democracy.

Interviewees described how comparisons were “inevitable” post the partition as institutional markers had to be upheld. As a male interviewee who had visited the ceremony in 2011 explained, “This is now our land and our people have to take care of this land.” Interviewees realized that while they felt different from those sitting across the border and although the ceremony seemed aggressive, it was only symbolic. Two male interviewees specifically narrated stories of their being with Pakistani friends during work-trips or holidays in Europe and Canada, and speculated that soldiers across the border congregate and share an after-hours smoke. Another male interviewee who had participated in the ceremony in 2002 explained that while he felt “proud of being an Indian,” he also sensed that some may want to obliterate differences between nations. To him, a “poignant moment” was after the ritual when a few people extended their arms across border gates as if wanting to touch each other.

As I walked on a road that is parallel to the one which hosts the parade, I noted seemingly unpartitioned rolling fields and a 3-ft triangular boundary stone which read “BSF Mera Bharat Mahan” [My India is great] on two faces and “Pakistan Rangers” on the others. There were chains on either side of the stone, demarcating national territories. The Indian side of the chain was guarded by armed Border Security Personnel and their detection dogs. As I was escorted to within a few inches from the border line, I came face-to-face with a Pakistani couple and after an awkward pause we broke into smiles.

Competing With the Other

The ritual was noted as being analogous to a competition. Interviewees compared the ritual with India–Pakistan cricket matches wherein cheering for the other side is considered seditious, and defeat unimaginable. Competition included amount and volume of slogan-raising by civilians. Interviewees referred to it as an “energetic” cricket match and a ceremony comprising “incredible competition between Indian BSF and Pakistani Rangers” where one could see “one-upmanship.” The interviewee who had participated in the ceremony over 25 times explained, “It’s like our older cricket matches. They shout, we shout. Try to shout louder. There are slogans of Hindustan Zindabad and Pakistan Jiye.”

The competitive sloganeering was coordinated between the Border Security Force and the Rangers. Three slogans were allowed on the Indian side, Vande Mataram, Hindustan Zindabad, and Bharat Mata ki Jai. The Indian loudspeaker blared the first half of the slogans, and the Indian crowd completed the other half as loudly as their vocal cords would allow. This was followed by cries from the Rangers and the Pakistani civilians (e.g., Allah hu Akbar). The day I visited, there was one Border Security person whose job seemed to be walking across the parade road waving his hands and encouraging participation in sloganeering. Between the loudspeaker and the thousands cheering deafeningly, it was difficult to escape the sense of competition and I found myself responding uncharacteristically loudly in response to slogans. A male interviewee who visited the ceremony in 2016 explained that the “ferocity in the voices of the jawans was mimicked by the crowd.” This pervasive sense of competition and a desire to win was outlined by a female interviewee who had participated in the ceremony in 2006,

So, we went there and then at one point there was this huge whistle that blows and everybody knows that it’s going to start. The jawans, they start their routine of marching and it’s almost like a competition between the Indian and the Pakistani sides. They look at each other and their body language is quite loud. It’s almost like a tussle but without touching each other . . . The crowd is cheering all the time. There is a competition between the two sides of the crowd as well, the Indian and the Pakistani sides, as to who screams louder and who cheers louder.

Border personnel control timing and number of slogans and monitor the crowds for any inflammatory slogans or conversations. Plainclothesmen ensure that no one disrupts what they refer to as “good soldiering,” that is, wherein jawans from both sides of the border engage in being good soldiers for their countries and pay respect to their flags. While no one broke rules, and stuck to approved slogans, I noted that few people in the crowd acted as self-appointed cheerleaders, shaping advantage in the competition. When the loudspeakers fell silent, self-appointed cheerleaders raised slogans and the crowd followed them, to the extent the slogan was heard. It seemed like they wanted to shout down slogans being raised from the other side, an observation that interviewees also noted. Interviewees further described what they saw as competition between the two paramilitary forces—the height of kicks and aggressive facial expressions. As the Indian jawans strode purposefully and seemed to kick higher in the air or gestured, the crowd became vociferous.

Interpellation

Here I describe the process of interpellation, that is, how the ritual transformed individual participants into institutional subjects, as participants internalized or professed institutional value systems and beliefs as their own. As interviewees voiced belief systems as their own, the cognitive conception of the institution was maintained. Institutional maintenance thus rested on the rituals’ ability to hail or interpellate individuals. The ritual hailed participants by reinforcing collective memories of a traumatic past and endorsing affective and behavioral proclivities.

Reinforcing Collective Memories

Interviewees made references to postindependence events of significance. For example, being at the border and seeing soldiers who form the first line of defense for the Indian territory made them think about border skirmishes as well as sacrifices of soldiers. A female interviewee who has participated in the ceremony twice noted, “The first thing we think of when we attend such ceremonies is history. We think of the kind of sacrifices these people [jawans] have done.”

It was common for interviewees to note ceasefire violations along the Line of Control. An interviewee who had participated in the ceremony in 2002 explained how she thought about the “brave soldiers” who face seemingly omnipresent border skirmishes and who make sacrifices for the country. As her husband had been a member of a postindependence nationalist nongovernmental organization, border skirmishes took on a personal meaning for her and she spoke of having tears in her eyes during the ceremony. A male interviewee who had participated in the ceremony in 2011, noted that although he was not affected by “border issues,” being by the border made him think about such issues,

To me, when I visited the ceremony, it was not so much personal but about Indian history. The challenges India faced, what the soldiers may have had to face. I mean postpartition and all. Even now, you know of the ceasefire violations along the Line of Control. This is difficult for our jawans, our BSF jawans, and for the Indians who have to face it. Such parades help build . . . you know, one country feeling.

I had an unexpected chance to see a different variety of what may be seen as a “border issue.” Before the ceremony, border personnel had caught an alleged smuggler who had crossed over into Indian territory. They were in the process of filing a “First Information Report,” a report that notes a cognizable offense and sets in motion the justice process. While border personnel conducted paperwork unobtrusively and no civilian seemed to gather what exactly the person was smuggling, the event seemed salient. After the ceremony, as a local taxi driver drove me back to my hotel, he excitedly narrated how he had seen the smuggler and how “bordermen have to be ever vigilant.”

Interviewees brought up the importance of the ritual location and how that also prompted them to think about the partition and of adjacent locations that commemorate the Indian freedom movement. Many shared their pictures of the ritual, and especially pointed out ones with the jawans and Gandhiji’s photograph. As she showed me pictures, an interviewee who had participated in the ceremony in 2013 explained the importance of the ritual location:

So many people try to wait back and click pictures with the jawans. They do that also before the ceremony. They click pictures of the border and the Indian border gate. You can see Pakistan and Jinnah’s photo. You see across the border. So, this is tourism but with a sense of history of the partition, a history of the country. It’s amazing to see the parade at the border. The location makes all the difference I think. I don’t know if the parade will be so popular in some other location. In fact, it’d be meaningless.

The notion of “tourism but with a sense of history” was echoed by others. It was common for interviewees to visit the Jallianwala Bagh memorial in the morning and proceed to the Beating Retreat ritual in the afternoon, an itinerary I also followed. This memorial of historical importance commemorates the 1919 massacre by British forces of nonviolent protesters and pilgrims who were voicing disapproval against the arrest of two leaders. The memorial includes a wall which has markings of bullet holes and a well into which people jumped to escape bullets but died. Explaining the importance of the border and the ceremony being at Amritsar, a male respondent who had participated in the ceremony in the summer of 2014 explained how the place was “totally about the history of our country” as all schools teach children about the Jallianwala Bagh and because of such schooling, “just being by the border, just that inspires patriotism.”

The ritual not only elicited memories of the Indian freedom movement but also of more recent India–Pakistan wars. One interviewee recalled how his mother once ran with the Indian flag toward the border gate, and when asked why she did so, she replied in one word, “freedom.” A few explicitly associated the ritual with what they saw as allied rituals—Independence Day and Republic Day—and one referred to “upbringing” through school, movies, and news about the Kargil war, which fused the ritual with nationalistic memories. Explaining his feelings about this association, an interviewee who had visited the ceremony in 2014 explained that we “must remember” and “salute” freedom fighters even when we have not seen them in action.

Endorsing Normativity

Data suggest that the ritual helps uphold institutional belief systems as it elicits affective responses (e.g., pride, patriotism) and behavioral propensities (e.g., willingness to serve the nation in some manner). Interviewees noted their affective responses, that is, how they felt proud of their national identity as they saw the jawans, as they raised slogans, carried flags, or saw others carrying flags, and observed how all Indians regardless of caste, religion, or class congregated for the ceremony. A female interviewee referred to the congregation as a “mini India.” Another interviewee who had participated in the ceremony in 2002 explained his feelings:

When the ceremony starts, and they are stamping their feet down, that’s when you hear [the crowd] clapping and going Bharat Mata Ki Jai and Vande Mataram . . . For that moment there is a massive rush of pride and national identity that you feel . . . Another interesting thing is you notice people from all classes and age groups, men, women and children.

Interviewees also explained how famous songs depicting love for the motherland elicited feelings of being an Indian. In addition, interviewees noted that even if someone had not come because of feelings of patriotism, such feelings would be aroused during the ceremony. A female interviewee who had participated in the ceremony in 2013 explained that even if not all of the thousands feel patriotic ahead of the ceremony, the feeling of “Mera Bharat Mahan” creeps in during the ritual,

As the BSF cheerleader . . . encourages the patriotic cries, it’s got to enter your heads and minds that I am shouting nationalistic things and I am shouting for my nation. I can’t imagine escaping that. We may come from very different backgrounds and places across India, but we are engaged in the Vandana in one voice as we say Vande to our country.

Patriotic feelings arose despite physical discomforts experienced in the lead up to or during the ritual. Several complained about the heat, dust, and the chaotic rush across barricades put in place to enter the stadium and yet felt good about the ceremony. An interviewee who participated in the ceremony in 2012 explained that his “enormous sense of patriotism” came about as he became emotional during the ceremony. He explained that he disliked several things about India but he would stand up for the country if someone raised a voice against it. Such feelings, some explained, were important as they served to unite the country. Another interviewee explained how she had taken her two young sons to participate in the ceremony during a summer holiday in 2013 to “show them India.” To her, the national anthem produces “shivers” and she explained that at such times, she does not think about the pervasive “poverty or corruption” or other “ills.” She insisted that “the nationalism feeling has to be ingrained at the grassroots level. Be it through songs or drama or rituals [to] put the country in one thread.”

To one interviewee, the ritual was a “lesson in the power of unity.” He explained that when a few people said Vande Mataram, the effect may not be as much, but when “all of us thousands shout, we are heard.” To him, the flag also symbolized unity. As I witnessed the ceremony, I recalled this comment. I was overwhelmed seeing thousands who raised slogans as one, proudly holding flags. For some, the sentiment of unity seemed to persist over time. A female interviewee explained that the ceremony had made a deep impression on her because she had indulged in something uncharacteristic. She had painted the flag on her cheeks, had stood in queue to carry the flag to the border, and had danced on the parade road. She noted that such happenings were uncommon for a 45-year-old traditional Indian woman.

Furthermore, interviewees stated their behavioral propensities, that is, how they were inspired to support the nation in some way. A common response was to support the nation by supporting the jawans who protected the nation. Interviewees encouraged people they knew to visit the ceremony and cheer for and alongside border personnel. They also played the role of advocates as they uploaded their videos of the ritual onto YouTube, blogged about it, or spoke about it with their friends and family. Several asked me if I had participated in the ritual and urged me to do so. One even offered help with logistics associated with my travel to the border.

Five interviewees proactively got in touch with me in November of 2014. On November 3, 2014, a suicide blast on the Pakistani side killed 61 people and injured about 200, minutes after the ceremony. Coverage of this blast and the ritual remained front page news in Indian newspapers for a few days. The initial agreement, based on the Rangers’ request, was to suspend the ceremony for 3 days. However, later in the same day, the Rangers requested that the ceremony proceed. By this time, the Border Security Force had turned away Indians, and the ceremony proceeded on 1 day with no crowds on the Indian side and about 3,000 on the Pakistani side. Media reports during this time indicated how some Indian tourists who were stopped from attending the ceremony expressed disappointment and were seen leaving the border chanting Hindustan Zindabad. One interviewee noted, only partly in jest, how “this is an act of treachery” that the Rangers had changed their mind and the Indian stadium was reported to be empty. Solidarity with the jawans was again noted.

Supporting the nation also meant supporting the border economy by purchasing clothes and memorabilia. I recalled the aforementioned documentary by Sen, which features young children selling DVDs and wondered how many interviewees had purchased such and other trinkets after the ritual. Yet others explained how they paid local photographers to click pictures of their participation in the ceremony and how hard copies were mailed to them within a week. Such prints were not needed as people carried their own recording devices, but it seemed a good way to support locals.

Notably, whether interviewees spoke of pride or discomfort associated with “jingoism,” fidelity to one’s lot was maintained by means of the ritual. Four interviewees specifically noted their discomfort with the symbolic sense of rivalry created by the ritual. As one female interviewee explained, people across the border “are one of us . . . and we have created boundaries we cannot cross.” These interviewees noted ambivalence as a sense of feeling one with fellow citizens and competition with a supposed rival coexisted with the hope that peace and brotherhood can also be celebrated through exchange of fruits and sweets during the ritual. The very collaboration that signaled rifts could be used to signal brotherhood.

Discussion

My objective in the present study was to outline the role of noncompelled and two-sided rituals in institutional maintenance. In this section, I underscore three findings particular to the present example, which allow for extensions to the literatures on institutional maintenance as well as rituals. For each finding, I also outline implications for organizations as rituals are a key form of symbolic expression that help reproduce organizational social order (Islam & Zyphur, 2009; Trice & Beyer, 1984), because administrative systems are often based on ceremonial foundations (Islam, 2015; Johnson, Prashantham, Floyd, & Bourque, 2010), and because “non-groupy” or nontraditional contexts of organizing can well illustrate organizational social dynamics (Boons, Stam, & Barkema, 2015; Munro & Jordan, 2013; Wilhoit & Kisselburgh, 2015). Present social phenomena have equivalents. A field analog can be ritualized events such as sports and festivals that embody dialectical unity, that is, the simultaneous existence of opposites or the sense of distinction and commonality with ritual participants (Gusfield & Michalowicz, 1984). In such tournaments of value (Appadurai, 1986) social status, legitimacy, and other gains carry meaning only in relation to a similar or comparable other who can be seen as a competitor (Anand & Watson, 2004). Another organizational equivalent can be a situation wherein discordant organizational schism (e.g., a demerger or split) has birthed moderately comparable organizations that engage, in unison, in ritualized competitive posturing during industry meets as members elide their common past to reinforce their newly acquired ontological status through reproductions of manifestations of otherness.

Maintenance Through the Processes of Distantiation and Interpellation

First, the ritual aided institutional maintenance by endorsing cognitive understandings and normative systems that guide institutional social order. Specifically, the ritual afforded participants an understanding of who they are and that they are different from and engaged in competition with the other. Maintenance was thus contingent on distantiation or the creation of physical and social distance between the collective to which one belonged and the other. The ritual also aided maintenance through the process of interpellation, that is, through a process by which individual participants internalized and professed institutional values and belief systems as their own (Althusser, 1971/2014). Specifically, as the ritual reinforced collective memories of a traumatic past and elicited affective and behavioral proclivities, participants may have claimed beliefs as their own, and upheld normative underpinnings of the institution. It is likely that distantiation and interpellation interacted to accentuate the effect of the ritual as one’s sense of self and spheres of kinship were defined in relation to the other and simultaneously reinforced as an institutional inhabitant independent of the other. Distantiation and interpellation thus together may have helped fashion, announce, and uphold the grammar of selves and kinship to maintain institutional order.

Present findings support a key principle of institutional maintenance, that is, maintenance rests on reinforcing prevalent norms and belief systems, which indicate to institutional inhabitants what is valued and how they should act (Angus, 1993; Lawrence & Suddaby, 2006). As the ritual helped participants “mythologize” the past (Lawrence & Suddaby, 2006; for example, by evoking memories of partition or sacrifices of soldiers), it also provided a normative understanding of the importance of the institution. It is crucial to note here that ritual participants’ “world outlook” may not be independent of institutional apparatus (e.g., schooling). Indeed, actors may merely mimic institutional ideologies as they “freely” participate in institutional practices and, to that extent, individuals are “already always” subjects who consciously or otherwise internalize and reinforce ideologies (Althusser, 1971/2014). Present findings thus extend past research by noting that maintenance rests not only on the transformation of identities of a collective and the provision of opportunities to learn institutional values (Dacin et al., 2010; Rosen, 1985) but also on affirming extant identities through the provision of opportunities to endorse values.

Findings also present extensions to ritual theory. Ritologists have focused on defined communities (e.g., tensions between groups within a community, Bell, 1997), with an emphasis on the temporal structure of social processes wherein the dialectic between social order (structure) and disorder (antistructure) is regulated (Turner, 1967). Present findings indicate that fidelity to one’s lot is also contingent on the spirited participation of an “other” who helps dissuade certain ways of experiencing the past and reinforces certain ways of comprehending one’s lot. Thus, findings imply that rituals do not just concern repeated remembrance and resolution of social contradictions (Bell, 1997) but also repeated forgetting of who one was, and the selective exclusion of certain once-shared memories. Indeed, when people remember as members of a collective, they also “re-member” the very group, that is, constitute the group and its membership (Olick, 1999).

Institutional maintenance, as contingent on distantiation, presents straightforward applications within work organizations as leaders maintain status quo or enable change through rituals, signaling who is included and not (Rosen, 1985; Smith & Stewart, 2011). What is critical within organizations is the possibility of members mimicking extant ideologies as they “freely” participate in certain rituals. Individual minds are predisposed to host certain ideas and we are more receptive to certain kinds of cultural material as communicated through rituals (Smith & Stewart, 2011). It is likely that the “already always” voluntarily attend and reinforce values embodied in organizational rituals. To the extent that be the case, who the ritual targets are, and who may not benefit from a ritual is as important for social consequences as who does benefit from it (Trice & Beyer, 1984).

Maintenance Through Advocacy of the Nonelite

Second, the ritual aided maintenance through advocacy efforts of the nonelites. Specifically, civilian participants voluntarily participated in the ritual and donned the role of advocates, mobilizing future participation by posting ritual-specific materials on social media. While the process of interpellation is said to incorporate individuals into a hegemonic structure through state apparatuses (Althusser, 1971/2014), elites representative of the state in the present example seemed unaware they were exerting any influence on participants. Border personnel saw the ritual as “good soldiering” and as a mere show, a “song and dance.” Conduct of the ritual, they painstakingly explained, was one of their myriad activities, and one they did not care to publicize.

Research on ritual-driven institutional maintenance has focused on explicit intent (Kong & Yeoh, 1997; Rosen, 1988), an intent unclaimed in the present case. Relatedly, maintenance is said to occur in the face of imposed disruptions (e.g., imposed reforms) as institutional elites (e.g., professional associations) work toward reestablishing status quo (Micelotta & Washington, 2013). The present case offers a different way of understanding maintenance in a context where nonelites voluntarily preserve institutions in the absence of perceived disruption or threat to extant institutional arrangements. Findings thereby indicate that dynamics traditionally associated with institutional creation are also applicable to institutional maintenance (Currie et al., 2012). For example, advocacy, typically associated with reinforcement of norms to build cognitive legitimacy of new institutions (Lawrence & Suddaby, 2006), is also applicable to reproduction of social order.

It is likely that actors question arrangements more so when faced with contextual changes (Barley & Tolbert, 1997). “Settled” cultural periods, alternatively, constrain actors through the provision of ritual traditions that define common sense in a manner wherein alternate patterns seem implausible. People may acknowledge ideals they do not follow and utter platitudes they may not believe in (Swidler, 1986). Social structures can thus become self-replicating and continue beyond the lifetime of their creators as actors engage in rituals, largely unaware of their purpose (Lawrence & Suddaby, 2006). It is likely that in “settled” periods (Swidler, 1986), institutional “rules of remembrance” influence what to recall and what to forget, and reinforce the sociotemporal beginning of community history, all of which help internalize and uphold collective memories even when there is no logic to or personal tie with such (Zerubavel, 1999).

Applied to ritual theory, who breathes life into a ritual and propels its continuity through which forms becomes thought provoking. Orchestrators or architects of rituals, seen as repositories of power who can shape institutions (Bell, 1997) may serve as “hosts” as the ritual assumes a life of its own and “acts” on society in ways unforeseen. Indeed, repetition of a ritual for the architects can attenuate their emotional arousal, allow them to interrogate what is being asserted by the ritual, and spotlight their participation for practical reasons such as doing one’s job (cf. Kertzer, 1988). In such cases, where actors seem unaware of motives behind self-action, how others interpret one’s action, and the possible consequences of one’s actions, locating agency, and who exercises power on whom may prove a difficult or futile exercise, and the very the locution “exercise of power” can be construed as problematic. What may matter more in such cases is the meaning of acquiescence to a ritual and what it embodies than conversations about subjection to power or who the powerful are (Lukes, 1974).

The implications of such issues for organizational control are nontrivial. Ritual orchestrators may not know of relationships being negotiated in the ritual, why members acquiesce to a ritual, and need to contemplate such issues. Even carefully scripted award ceremonies or dramatic ritualized communication may elicit unforeseen or undesirable individual–organizational relationship negotiations. Leaders may also benefit from engaging with the possibility of inertial compliance to values embodied in long running or established rituals—ones that may have served organizational interests in the past but whose future efficacy is uncertain.

Maintenance Boosted by Mnemonic Cues in Rituals

Third, findings point to the importance of mnemonic cues in institutional maintenance. Respondents spoke about their sense of pride as they referred to symbols, slogans, location, and music. Symbols such as the flag can serve as a cue to the idea of a nation, its history, and the value system, and assert a collective identity (Bell, 1997; Kong & Yeoh, 1997). Locations can also denote an identity, meanings, and emotions assigned and accepted by communities (Courpasson, Dany, & Delbridge, 2016; Lawrence & Dover, 2015). Music can further engineer collective identification and sentiments as particular songs attain the status of sacred hymns inscribed onto collective memory. As sentiments are evoked through such broadcasting, what is being broadcasted can serve as “mnemonic devices” to recall institutional pasts (Kaplan, 2009). Perhaps an important mnemonic here was the “other,” whose very presence served to segregate “mnemonic communities” as the “mnemonic other” helped impose a frame onto social reality (Zerubavel, 1996b). Contrapuntal tensions can indeed be implicit in collective identities as awareness of one’s history and identity assume meaning against and together with another’s history and identity (Said, 1993). Institutional maintenance, whether undergird by distantiation or interpellation, thus rests on cues in rituals, which help participants grasp their sense of belonging and spheres of kinship.

Continuity of ascriptive communities particularly rests on boundary maintenance that can dichotomize insiders and outsiders and elicit allegiance to ascribed insiders. Distinctions may not be reflective of any “objective” differences as much as those that actors deem significant, and group boundaries assume more significance than cultural matter within the boundary (Barth, 1998). Put differently, construction of social difference and similarity of ascriptive communities entails overlooking differences within one’s social cluster while amplifying perceived differences between clusters (Zerubavel, 1996a). In the present example, as one’s lot was mentally concretized, similarities across nations were explained away or unencoded by interviewees as they adhered to mnemonic motifs integral to the ritual. As symbols help forge an image of a united collective, channel conflict, or focus grievances, they can help point a collective toward an institutional ideal, the mere enunciation of which can be a step in its realization (Bell, 1997).

The paradox of a common ritual enactment wherein sameness and difference are simultaneously and collaboratively performed using the same cues (the flag, the other) allows for extensions to ritual theory. Specifically, the present example suggests that if one were to look past the level of opposition and at a higher level of abstraction, seemingly antithetical experiences and beliefs can be complementary, even compatible (Graham, 2011) and compresence of seeming opposites with attendant cues may allow for cosubstantiation and manifestation of one another. Thus, viewed from different levels of analysis or abstractions that comprise differing aggregations of collectives, the same ritual may simultaneously justify social stratification and create social cohesion.

Applied to workplaces, members may not be able to rationalize ritual symbology. However, overt and embedded symbols can stimulate memory and elicit emotional experiences to affirm shared identity and beliefs (Smith & Stewart, 2011) and help constituents recognize their mutual dependence (Kraatz & Block, 2008). As diverse constituents see the organization as “theirs,” they begin to appreciate the organization as an end in itself (Kraatz & Block, 2008). This is especially crucial as organizations contain social contradictions; hierarchy coexists with equality, competition with collaboration (Smith & Stewart, 2011). Because the same institution can seem fragmented or otherwise, ritual custodians may do well by utilizing clear mnemonic devices, possibly a “mnemonic other” (Zerubavel, 1996b) to signal boundaries within which different roles and statuses of various members assume meaning. Rituals that serve as levelers can thus steer the process of social alchemy and convert an unfamiliar congregation into a seemingly homogeneous one; brief or beguiling that sense of commonality may be. Overall, rituals are thus one of the levers of institutional stability alongside the enforcement of rules and regulations (Slager et al., 2012; Trank & Washington, 2009) and the articulation and reinforcing of cognitive categories (Dacin et al., 2010).

Conclusion

Although the seemingly partial data have a certain authenticity as individuals are limited to engaging in only one part of a two-sided ritual, the current emphasis on one side of the border meant foregoing deeper theorizing of the paradox of a common ritual enactment. Voices from both sides of the border may have helped paint a more nuanced view of institutional maintenance. Furthermore, actors from diverse organizations may work in concert to hold allied rituals in place toward values being upheld (Stinchcombe, 1997) and institutional work is enmeshed in varied processes of maintenance (Norbäck, 2019). Thus, to borrow from Stinchcombe’s work, to “mathematize” institutional outcomes based on one dramatic ritual is problematic, and future research can examine how allied rituals or rituals as one of various ideological apparatuses are fused with regard to maintenance of social order.

Regarding effect of ritual, unbelief and criticism are as important as beliefs and acceptance (Alexander, 2004). Only believers may have participated in the ritual and a select few may have spoken with me, making the present narrative a lopsided one of unity that does not characterize the institution. Sources need not be authorities whose material we trust uncritically (Schaefer & Alvesson, 2020). Relatedly, it is important to acknowledge author subjectivity in imposing a structure on what was cognized (Gusfield & Michalowicz, 1984). As a fellow citizen, I am likely similarly colored by institutional legacies, and what I observed, elicited, and narrated may not be what will be captured by a researcher who is not from the present institutional context. Indeed, findings may not be replicable as researchers interact with interviewees in different ways (Gehman et al., 2018) and interpret ritual meanings differently (Cohen, 1980). However, it is not about accepting or discounting said observations; instead, the very structure imposed by the collective, which includes the author, can be seen as a valuable cultural artifact in itself. Finally, social frescos will filter perceptions of the past and the ritual. Currentness does not mean correctness and current views may make way for new ones (Zerubavel, 1999). Thus, the present case serves only as an illustrative example, and not as a comprehensive formulation, to render visible processes via which rituals act on collectives. Nonetheless, such “non-groupy” contexts of organizing (Boons et al., 2015) can offer a way of understanding social processes that underpin institutional functioning (Lawrence, 2004; Trice & Beyer, 1984).

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to Professor Karen Patterson and the reviewers for their suggestions. I acknowledge support from the Indian Institute of Management Bangalore and the Border Security Force.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Alexander

J. C.

(2004). Cultural pragmatics: Social performance between ritual and strategy. Sociological Theory, 22, 527-573.

Althusser

(1994). Ideology and ideological state apparatuses (notes towards an investigation). In Zizek

(Ed.), Mapping ideology (pp. 100-140). New York, NY: Verso Books.

Althusser

(2014). On the reproduction of capitalism: Ideology and ideological state apparatuses. London, England: Verso Books. (Original work published 1971)

Anand

Watson

M. R.

(2004). Tournament rituals in the evolution of fields: The case of the Grammy Awards. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 59-80.

Anderson

(1983). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism. London, England: Verso.

Angus

L. B.

(1993). Masculinity and women teachers at Christian Brothers College. Organization Studies, 14, 235-260.

Appadurai

(1986). Introduction: Commodities and the politics of value. In Appadurai

(Ed.), The social life of things (pp. 3-63). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Barley

S. R.

Tolbert

P. S.

(1997). Institutionalization and structuration: Studying the links between action and institution. Organization Studies, 18, 93-117.

Barth

(1998). Ethnic groups and boundaries: The social organization of culture difference. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.

10.

Bell

C. M.

(1997). Ritual: Perspectives and dimensions. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

11.

Bhardwaj

(2013, January). LoC tension travels to quiet Attari: Retreat ceremony at Pak border gets aggressive with jawans from both sides trying to outdo one another. DNA. Retrieved from http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-loc-tension-travels-to-quiet-attari-1789673

12.

Bokhari

(2001, July). Summit to test Indo-Pakistani love-hate relations: Analysts say a breakthrough is unlikely at the Musharraf-Vajpayee meeting. Financial Times, London, England.

13.

Boons

Stam

Barkema

H. G.

(2015). Feelings of pride and respect as drivers of ongoing member activity on crowdsourcing platforms. Journal of Management Studies, 52, 717-741.

14.

Chhachhi

(2010, December). War and peace at Wagah border. Daily Times (PK). Retrieved from http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-14-18109-War-and-Peace-at-Wagah-border

15.

Cohen

(1980). Drama and politics in the development of a London carnival. Man, 15, 65-87.

16.

Courpasson

Dany

Delbridge

(2016). Politics of place: The meaningfulness of resisting places. Human Relations, 70, 237-259.

17.

Currie

Lockett

Finn

Martin

Waring

(2012). Institutional work to maintain professional power: Recreating the model of medical professionalism. Organization Studies, 33, 937-962.

18.

Dacin

M. T.

Munir

Tracey

(2010). Formal dining at Cambridge colleges: Linking ritual performance and institutional maintenance. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 1393-1418.

19.

Di Domenico

Phillips

(2009). Sustaining the ivory tower: Oxbridge formal dining as organizational ritual. Journal of Management Inquiry, 18, 326-343.

20.

Doherty

(2012). Ritual dance between bitter brothers. Retrieved from http://www.smh.com.au/world/ritual-dance-between-bitter-brothers-20120128-1qn0e.html

21.

Durkheim

(1965). The elementary forms of the religious life. New York, NY: Free Press.

22.

Ganguly

(2013). Conflict unending: India-Pakistan tensions since 1947. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

23.

Gehman

Glaser

V. L.

Eisenhardt

K. M.

Gioia

Langley

Corley

K. G.

(2018). Finding theory–method fit: A comparison of three qualitative approaches to theory building. Journal of Management Inquiry, 27, 284–300.

24.

Graham

B. R.

(2011). The necessary unity of opposites: The dialectical thinking of Northrop Frye. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.

25.

Greenwood

Oliver

Sahlin

Suddaby

(2008). Introduction. In Greenwood

Oliver

Sahlin

Suddaby

(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 1-46). London, England: Sage.

26.

Gusfield

J. R.

Michalowicz

(1984). Secular symbolism: Studies of ritual, ceremony, and the symbolic order in modern life. Annual Review of Sociology, 417-435.

27.

Hafeez

(2013, August 21). Pakistan-trained terrorists planning to attack South India. The Times of India. Retrieved from http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Pakistan-trained-terrorists-planning-to-attack-south-India/articleshow/21947970.cms

28.

Islam

(2015). Rituals in organizations: Rupture, repetition and the institutional event. In Mir

Willmott

Greenwood

(Eds.), The Routledge companion to philosophy in organization studies (pp. 542-549). London, England: Routledge.

29.

Islam

Zyphur

M. J.

(2009). Rituals in organizations: A review and expansion of current theory. Group & Organization Management, 34, 114-139.

30.

Jaleel

(2013, June). Crossing over. Indian Express. Retrieved from http://indianexpress.com/article/news-archive/web/crossing-over-3/

31.

Johnson

Prashantham

Floyd

S. W.

Bourque

(2010). The ritualization of strategy workshops. Organization Studies, 31, 1589-1618.

32.

Kaplan

(2009). The songs of the siren: Engineering national time on Israeli radio. Cultural Anthropology, 24, 313-345.

33.

Kaviraj

(2010). The imaginary institution of India: Politics and ideas. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

34.

Kertzer

D. I.

(1988). Rituals, politics, and power. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

35.

Khilnani

(1999). The idea of India. New Delhi, India: Penguin Books India.

36.

Kong

Yeoh

B. S.

(1997). The construction of national identity through the production of ritual and spectacle: An analysis of National Day parades in Singapore. Political Geography, 16, 213-239.

37.

Kraatz

M. S.

Block

E. S.

(2008). Organizational implications of institutional pluralism. In Greenwood

Oliver

Sahlin

Suddaby

(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 243-275). London, England: Sage.

38.

Lawrence

T. B.

(2004). Rituals and resistance: Membership dynamics in professional fields. Human Relations, 57, 115-143.

39.

Lawrence

T. B.

Dover

(2015). Place and institutional work: Creating housing for the hard-to-house. Administrative Science Quarterly, 60, 371-410.

40.

Lawrence

T. B.

Suddaby

(2006). Institutions and institutional work. In Clegg

S. R.

Hardy

Lawrence

T. B.

Nord

W. R.

(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organization studies (2nd ed., pp. 215-254). London, England: Sage.

41.

Lawrence

T. B.

Suddaby

Leca

(2011). Institutional work: Refocusing institutional studies of organization. Journal of Management Inquiry, 20, 52-58.

42.

Lee

T. W.

(1999). Using qualitative methods in organizational research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

43.

Lincoln

Y. S.

Guba

E. G.

(1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

44.

Lukes

(1974). Power: A radical view. London, England: Macmillan.

45.

Lukes

(1975). Political ritual and social integration. Sociology, 9, 289-308.

46.

Menon

(2013). The performance of nationalism: India, Pakistan, and the memory of partition. New Delhi, India: Cambridge University Press.

47.

Micelotta

E. R.

Washington

(2013). Institutions and maintenance: The repair work of Italian professions. Organization Studies, 34, 1137-1170.

48.

Moore

S. F.

Myerhoff

B. G.

(1977). Secular ritual: Forms and meaning. In Moore

S. F.

Myerhoff

B. G.

(Eds.), Symbols and politics in communal ideology (pp. 3-25). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

49.

Munro

Jordan

(2013). “Living space” at the Edinburgh festival fringe: Spatial tactics and the politics of smooth space. Human Relations, 66, 1497-1525.

50.

Nehru

(1989). The discovery of India. New Delhi, India: Oxford University Press.

51.

Norbäck

(2019). Recycling problems and modernizing the solution: Doing institutional maintenance work on Swedish public service television. Journal of Management Inquiry, 28, 94-112. doi:10.1177/1056492617712893

52.

Olick

J. K.

(1999). Collective memory: The two cultures. Sociological Theory, 17, 333-348.

53.

Palin

(2004, October). Himalaya [BBC Worldwide documentary]. Retrieved from http://archivepk.blogspot.com/2016/12/himalaya-with-michael-palin-2004.html

54.

Popham

(1999, February). Wagah—Soldiers fly their kites of hope at cruel border. The Independent. Retrieved from https://www.independent.co.uk/news/frontline-wagah-soldiers-fly-their-kites-of-hope-at-cruel-border-1073276.html

55.

Rataul

(2010, December 9). BSF tones down drill at Wagah; Rangers yet to respond. Indian Express. Retrieved from http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/bsf-tones-down-drill-at-wagah–rangers-yet-to-respond/722151/

56.

Rosen

(1985). Breakfast at Spiro’s: Dramaturgy and dominance. Journal of Management, 11, 31-48.

57.

Rosen

(1988). You asked for it: Christmas at the bosses’ expense. Journal of Management Studies, 25, 463-480.

58.

Roth

(1995). Men wearing masks: Issues of the description in analysis of ritual. Sociological Theory, 13, 301-327.

59.

Saeed

(2012, May 28). Shouting in the mirror. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/opinion/shouting-in-the-mirror.html?_r=0

60.

Said

E. W.

(1993). Culture and imperialism. New York, NY: Vintage Books.

61.

Schaefer

S. M.

Alvesson

(2020). Epistemic attitudes and source critique in qualitative research. Journal of Management Inquiry, 29, 33-45. doi:10.1177/1056492617739155

62.

Shils

Young

(1953). The meaning of the coronation. Sociological Review, 1, 63-81.

63.

Slager

Gond

J. P.

Moon

(2012). Standardization as institutional work: The regulatory power of a responsible investment standard. Organization Studies, 33, 763-790.

64.

Smith

A. C. T.

Stewart

(2011). Organizational rituals: Features, functions and mechanisms. International Journal of Management Reviews, 13, 113-133.

65.

Sreekant

Padmnabhan

(2014, January 30). Marching down the martyrs’ trail. DNA. Retrieved from http://www.dnaindia.com/marching-down-the-martyrs-trail-1958298

66.

Stinchcombe

A. L.

(1997). On the virtues of the old institutionalism. Annual review of sociology, 23, 1-18.

67.

Swidler

(1986). Culture in action: Symbols and strategies. American Sociological Review, 51, 273-286.

68.

Talbot

(2000). Inventing the nation: India and Pakistan. London, England: Arnold.

69.

Thomson

Hassenkamp

A. M.

(2008). The social meaning and function of food rituals in healthcare practice: An ethnography. Human Relations, 61, 1775-1802.

70.

Trank

C. Q.

Washington

(2009). Maintaining an institution in a contested organizational field: The work of AACSB and its constituents. In Lawrence

T. B.

Suddaby

Leca

(Eds.), Institutional work: Actors and agency in institutional studies of organizations (pp. 236-261). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

71.

Trice

H. M.

Beyer

(1984). Studying organizational cultures through rites and ceremonials. Academy of Management Review, 9, 653-669.

72.

Turner

V. W.

(1967). The forest of symbols: Aspects of Ndembu ritual. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

73.

Unnikrishnan

(2012, August 6). Film to be unveiled at Wagah border. DNA. Retrieved from http://www.dnaindia.com/entertainment/report-film-kya-dilli-kya-lahore-to-be-unveiled-at-wagah-border-1724526

74.

Wilhoit

E. D.

Kisselburgh

L. G.

(2015). Collective action without organization: The material constitution of bike commuters as collective. Organization Studies, 36, 573-592.

75.

Zerubavel

(1996a). Lumping and splitting: Notes on social classification. Sociological Forum, 11, 421-433.

76.

Zerubavel

(1996b). Social memories: Steps to a sociology of the past. Qualitative Sociology, 19, 283-299.

77.

Zerubavel

(1999). Social mindscapes: An invitation to cognitive sociology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

78.

Zietsma

Lawrence

T. B.

(2010). Institutional work in the transformation of an organizational field: The interplay of boundary work and practice work. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55, 189-221.