It is. in fact, not that simple, and one would have to introduce a distinction: in one of his works Schopenhauer spoke of the ’pedantically comical', that is. of the laughter provoked by a character when he produces an action that is not inscribed within the limits of the concept which defines him - in the manner, remarked Schopenhauer, of a stage horse which begins to leave droppings on the stage. And he referred to professors, particularly German professors, like Unrat in
bourgeois and especially the intellectual can permit themselves forms of hypo-correction, and of the relaxation of tension, that are forbidden to petits-bourgeois individuals, who are condemned to hyper-correction. In short, one of the privileges of consecration consists in the fact that, by conferring an undeniable and indelible essence on the individuals consecrated, it authorizes transgressions that would otherwise be forbidden. The person who is sure of his cultural identity can play with the rules of the cultural game; he can confess that he likes Tchaikovsky or Gershwin, and even have the ‘nerve’ to say that he likes Charles Aznavour or ‘B’ movies.
Acts of social magic as diverse as marriage or circumcision, the attribution of rilles or degrees, the conferring of knighthoods, the appointment to offices, posts or honours, the attribution of a quality label, or the corroboration by a signature or initials, are all acts which can only succeed if the institution - meaning to institute in an active way someone or something endowed with this or that status or property - is guaranteed by the whole group or by a recognized institution. Even when the act is accomplished by a sole agent duly empowered to accomplish it and to do so within the recognized forms (that is, according to the conventions regarded as appropriate concerning time, place, means, etc., the whole set of which constitutes correct, i.e. socially valid and therefore efficient ritual), it rests fundamentally on the belief of an entire group (which may be physically present), that is, on the socially fashioned dispositions to know and recognize the institutional conditions of a valid ritual. (And this implies that the symbolic efficacy of the ritual will vary -simultaneously or successively - according to the degree to which the people for whom the ritual is performed are more or less prepared, or more or less disposed, to receive it.)
This is what is forgotten by linguists who. following Austin, look in words themselves for the 'illocutionary force" which they sometimes possess as performative utterances. In contrast to the impostor who is not what he appears to be. who. in other words, usurps the name, title, rights and honours of another person, in contrast also to the mere ‘stand-in’, the trainee or substitute who plays the part of the teacher or headmaster without having the qualifications, the legitimate representative (c.g. the authorized spokesperson) is an object of guaranteed belief, certified as correct. He lives up in reality to his appearance, he really is what everyone believes him to be because his reality - whether priest, teacher or minister - is based not on his personal conviction or pretension (always liable to be rebuffed and snubbed: What’s his game? Who does he think he is? etc.) but rather
on the collective belief, guaranteed by the institution and made concrete through qualifications and symbols like stripes, uniforms and other attributes. The marks of respect, such as those which consist in addressing people by their titles (Mr President, Your Excellency, etc.), are so many repetitions of the inaugural act of institution carried out by a universally recognized authority and therefore based on the