Paul Ricoeur’s theory of the narrative constitution of time and Emile Durkheim’s conception of the ritual construction of time seem, at least on first examination, incommensurable. While their important and influential theories of the social constitution of time are not easily harmonised, it is possible to construct several bridges between the two, such that they may, at least, be brought into conversation with one another (a dialogue Ricoeur himself seemed keen to avoid). While the two theories may be mutually exclusive, if we look at the relationship between ritual and narrative, we find unexpected points of possible convergence where bridges may be built. We find that ritual and narrative are themselves not entirely distinct from one another and even sometimes difficult to disentangle. Furthermore, narratives of the past require the calendar (itself owing much to its ritual heritage) to provide a structure for, and a way of marking, the flow of time. Conversely, ritual practices often act as carriers of narrative, assisting the transmission of narratives from generation to generation.

中文翻译：

---

仪式、叙事与时间：涂尔干与利科之间的桥梁

保罗·利科 (Paul Ricoeur) 的时间叙事构成理论和埃米尔·涂尔干 (Emile Durkheim) 的时间仪式建构的概念，至少在第一次审查时似乎是不可比较的。虽然他们关于时间社会构成的重要而有影响力的理论不容易协调，但有可能在两者之间建立几座桥梁，这样它们至少可以相互对话（利科本人似乎热衷于对话）避免）。虽然这两种理论可能是相互排斥的，但如果我们观察仪式和叙事之间的关系，我们会发现意想不到的可能汇合点，在那里可以建立桥梁。我们发现仪式和叙事本身并不完全不同，有时甚至难以解开。此外，过去的叙述需要日历（其本身在很大程度上归功于其仪式遗产）为时间的流动提供结构和标记方式。相反，仪式实践往往充当叙事的载体，帮助叙事代代相传。