{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.016059957173447537, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.993589743589744, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
On the Limits of Symbolic Interpretation in Anthropology [and Comments and Reply]

Symbolic readings of ritual acts rely on a distinction between the symbolic and the instrumental that is hard to sustain. In order that we take public lectures and academic papers-which are certainly ritual acts-intellectually seriously, it is enough that they not be obviously false. A further argument against reading them symbolically is that the symbolic reading involves projection of hidden meanings which have not been intentionally put there. Moreover, even when the intellectual content is false or absurd, it can be meant literally, and perform a social function precisely because of this. To demand that we treat only the true as intellectually serious and only the false as symbolic is too strong a distinction. As a first approximation, we should treat all content seriously and resort to other devices only when that attempt breaks down.