a

: This article analyzes the impact o f political sophistication on citizens’ political preferences. After defining the concept and measurement of political sophistication, panel survey data from Caxias do Sul and Juiz de Fora in 2002 are used to assess its main determinants in the Brazilian context. Next, the article tests four hypotheses derived from existing scholarship about the effects of political sophistication on individual preferences and information processing. The four hypotheses tested are: 1) more politically sophisticated citizens are more ideologically constrained in their political attitudes then less sophisticated individuals; 2) more sophisticated citizens present more stable attitudes over time than less sophisticated individuals; 3) more sophisticated citizens acquire more political information over time than less sophisticated individuals, and; 4) more sophisticated citizens tend to express opinions more frequently than less sophisticated individuals. The analyses in the paper provide strong support for all four hypotheses. Finally, the article discusses some implications of the results for the study of public opinion and elections in Brazil.

Taʿziyih has been performed in Iran for nearly 400 years as a ritualistic theatre form, rooted in the Islamic Shiite religion; however, it has developed to a level where it needs to be considered as more than a mere religious ritual.At first it was performed only in Iran, followed later in almost all Shiite countries such as Iraq, Lebanon and Bahrain; nonetheless, the most developed theatrical form is still performed in central Iran.It is a performance involving dozens of actors and children as well as featuring both manmade and real animals.
With the Shiite Ṣafawīd dynasty (1501-1722), the historical story of Ḥ usayn's oppositional movement and the tragic outcome of his rebellion against the ruling caliph of the time, Yazīd, developed into a self-reflecting, powerful source that connected all oppositional movements in the Shiite community against all kinds of tyranny. 2 The conflict that ends with the massacre of Ḥ usayn, his family and his companions had a tremendous impact.The mourning over their catastrophic demise was readily adopted into older forms of mourning rituals already existent in every region.During the 18 th century these gently gave birth to a form of theatre structured around the polarisations of Ḥ usayn's story and the definitions of mukhālif khawānī (antagonist) and muwāfiq khawānī (protagonist).
It is necessary to differentiate between the taʿziyih or other mourning-sacrificial rituals and the processions during the mourning months of Muḥarram and Ṣafar.This necessity rises from the vague discussion of different phenomena in studies neglecting the characteristics defining each medium.This essay will focus particularly on the ritualised theatrical performance -the taʿziyih -which takes place at particular places at particular times as a happening, in short as an "event that takes place". 3ourning, as it happens in taʿziyih, is the code turning the spectators into interactive players, resulting in a "bodily co-presence of actors and spectators". 4The grief over the murder is not in response to the murder of a single individual; rather, the life line of an entire community is interrupted.It is about a mass murder.
But performing a historical massacre is a challenge when considering everyday life.It is not only a historical narration but a fictive happening lasting hours on end.Free from the unity of place and time, it welcomes the use of modern technology.Microphones have been integrated into the taʿziyih as a means to solve practical problems without any fear of compromising authenticity.5"Man and woman alive" and their "ongoing developing and declining processes of interpersonal and intergroup behaviour in communities and network",6 turn the sacred figures and their death on the stage of the taʿziyih into a theatrical system that adapts itself to fit into the present.
What a taʿziyih narrates is the murder of Ḥ usayn -the grandson of Muḥammad, the Islamic Prophet -with his family and followers at Karbalāʾ at the hands of the army of the Sunnite caliph, a battle lasting just one day that ended up in a massacre of all men, including Ḥ usayn and even children.A taʿziyih concentrates on this paramount moment in Shiite history.It is performed over several days with different storylines, all of which revolve around the Karbalāʾ massacre.Every theatre performance ends with the martyrdom of one of the famous characters 2 For more detail, see Hamid Dabashi, "Taʿziyeh as Theatre of Protest", in The Drama Review, 49 (2005), 91-99.
Similar to the Greek tragedies, the taʿziyih audience is familiar with the stories.The spectators can distinguish the antagonists from the protagonists by the colours of their costumes and the music.The protagonists sing their texts from a small notebook, which they carry in their hand, while the antagonists declaim.The colours of the male protagonists are green, white and orange, while the females wear black and the antagonists are dressed in red, gold, etc.

I. Ḥ usayn and Siyāwush
Taʿziyih as a theatrical form has its roots in ritual. 7Later it was established as a theatre form, similar to its present-day manifestation. 8Linked to the mourning rituals of a God sacrificed in winter and reborn in spring, taʿziyih protagonists are deeply connected to Siyāwush, the Persian prince of the mythical Kiyāniyān dynasty and the mourning rituals associated with his sacrificial death. 9he figure of Siyāwush, in a textual and performative context, has been transformed in many basic elements of a taʿziyih: black functions as the colour of mourning;10 horses, as totemic symbols, are always present beside the protagonists and the antagonists in the vengeful actions consequent to the murders of both Ḥ usayn and Siyāwush;11 and most importantly, the mourning rituals performed for the sacrifice of the holy demigod/God.12Narshākhī in History of Bukhārā states: "There are special songs of the people about the killing of Siyāwush.The musicians called these Kīn-i Siyāwush... from now (332/943) it was three thousand years ago." 13 This is one of the oldest pieces of evidence of Siyāwush-Khawānī, the annual mourning tradition played out to mark Siyāwush's death, as a ritual.The History of Bukhārā, a reliable source on the subject of mourning and elegy recitation rituals, describes in detail all significant issues with regards to the history of this ritual.
But what is the sense of performativity that these protagonists share in ritual to theatre?14 What is the process through which historic-mythic-cultural figures transform into performative characters of a collective memory?

Ḥ usayn
In a taʿziyih interpretation Ḥusayn is mostly a father figure, a man with his children or simply a man with his brother and sisters.Even as a husband, his role is reduced to that of a family head, a shepherd defending his flock.Ḥ usayn is accompanied by a large number of people on the stage.He bears responsibility for all.He is always present, even if he is not the main protagonist or even if his story is absent, as is in fact the case in some important taʿziyihs.He remains the fundamental element of cultural memory in the taʿziyih. 15ike Ḥ usayn, taʿziyih protagonists exist on two different levels: that of the taʿziyih text and the actual performance.The so-called protagonists -the taʿziyih martyrs -are presented in both textual und performative discourses.Here I will focus here on taʿziyih protagonists, specifically Ḥ usayn -also famous as the Lord of Martyrs -, in terms of how they portray the character in their performance, leaving aside the literary representation.In other words here we will discuss the martyrdom in its performative context. 16The mourning rituals revolving around both figures are connected.Siyāwush, as an earlier martyr figure, is still strongly con-nected with nature: it is from his blood, which drops to the earth while he is murdered, that plants grow. 17The mourning ritual devoted to him thus replaces the spring festivities.
This refers in turn to another mythical figure: Tammūz, the Sumerian God of Vegetation.These two early figures -Siyāwush and Tammūz -come from different traditions: the Siyāwush myth is originally from Transoxiana while Tammūz, who also seems to be an older counterpart, is based in Mesopotamian culture.With their central theme of the sacrificed god, the mourning rituals connected to them and last but not least, their strong performative and literary backgrounds, they furnish sufficient evidence that a cultural transmission took place which brings Mesopotamian and Transoxianan traditions together in the taʿziyih.
All three characters are based on the principle of duality. 18As far as the myth of Tammūz is concerned, these two poles are represented in Tammūz and his spouse Inanna.While Inanna kills Tammūz so as to survive, soon after she starts to mourn the loss of Tammūz and this continues until he returns to earth. 19f we follow the thesis of William Robertson Smith, who argued that "the myth was derived from the ritual and not the ritual from the myth", 20 then the basic action can be traced back to the act of sacrifice in all these myths.The main difference between the newer (Ḥ usayn and Siyāwush) and the older version (Tammūz) is how the mourners and murderers are separated into two groups.In the oldest version these two characteristic features belong to the same figure: in the Tammūz-Inanna myth, Inanna is the one who kills Tammūz and is, at the same time, the one who mourns him; in the later versions however, the murders and the mourners are separated from each other.It is out of this very separation into antagonists (as murderers) and spectators (as mourners), witnessing the emergence of a theatre-ritual out of a mourning ritual, that the taʿziyih originates.
The main question that arises here is the identification between the antagonists and the spectators, between the mourners and the murderers.Robertson Smith's thesis shows that the oldest counterpart of our myth, rooted in a ritual, had given its antagonist both mourner and murderer roles.Although in a taʿziyih 17 The plant is called Par-i Siyāwushān. 18Duality here may be defined as moral duality. 19The other important aspect is rebirth.Mehrdād Bahār has written on this: "The presence of Kay-Khusraw as the son of Siyāwush in fact represents the resurrection and rebirth of the martyred god.both roles are specifically separated and clearly contoured, the older counterpart seems to have no problem with an undefined state as to the mourners.At the same time, the spectators see themselves reflected in the protagonists who, having gone through the transformation the holy family into an elementary social icon -the family -, in turn moves the mourners to identify with the protagonists.The whole aforementioned complex creates an enormous sense of ambivalence in the theatre space.We need to explore this issue in more detail.

II. Antagonists in the taʿziyih: Evil on the Stage
In the taʿziyih we are dealing with evilness on two levels: firstly, there is evil as an act of malice, or in the words of Paul Ricoeur: "when one experiences himself as a victim of the evilness of others";21 secondly, we are faced with discovering evil in one's own self (as a spectator).These two aspects of experiencing the phenomenon of the evil are circularly connected with each other in the taʿziyih.Hence, the first interaction is not the empathic dialogue with the good -the protagonists -but with the evil, the antagonists.
It is the discovery of passiveness in the spectator as an experience of one's own fate when facing injustice: the experience of watching on -and only being able to watch -while others are murdering someone fully incapable of defending themselves and engaging in a fair fight (much like a child), of being condemned to the position of a mere spectator when the situation actually demands intervention.This is the result of the limits imposed by the stage, what we may term 'the theatrical dictatorship'.Moreover, witnessing murder more or less implicates the viewer in the deed committed, turning them into an accomplice, if not indeed making them (partly) guilty.The situation causes a perception of suffering when the others are suffering,22 und the most extreme examples of this experience are scenes of child murder in some of the important taʿziyihs.
The key to discovering this evil dimension are the antagonists.They are alone, unaccompanied by women, children and families.The antagonists are also unmusical, i.e. they are not given a musical theme.While the protagonists sing and proudly show off their highly-qualified voices, the antagonists shout and unleash their voices as loud as they can, for antagonists are rulers and represent authority.They are the manifestation of sovereignty on the takyih, the taʿziyih space.Here, under this aspect, mourners and murderers become masses and sovereigns, respectively.
Takyih as the taʿziyih space consists of three concentric circles (see the figure below).The central circular space belongs to the protagonists.Most of the action takes place in this space, the space afforded Ḥ usayn and his family.All this centres around a family (masses), the holy family of Ḥ usayn, which represents the The second or middle circle belongs to the antagonists.The antagonists never leave this space, except for the murder scenes.Finally, the largest space is afforded to the spectators.This system enables the masses to observe their sovereigns, a situation impossible outside this theatrical space.If we leave the takyih we are entering the territorial domain of the sovereign or the authorities.

III. A Collective and Its Shadows
These circles are the key to understanding this unique system.How every internal circle reflects on the outer circle, the relationship between the different circles and, more importantly, the dominant circle, which belongs to the spectators and holds both circles within itself -these elements together construct what we may call a performative system.We are dealing with a society that is facing its protagonists on stage.The most significant protagonists are undergoing the process of becoming a martyr.The antagonists are those who enable this process of metamorphoses from mere protagonist to martyr.
Majlis is a title indicating a specific performance of the taʿziyih: majlis-i shahādat-i imām ḥusayn is one of the thousands of performances and it can be translated as The Performance of the Martyrdom of Imam Ḥ usayn.While literature is confined to seeing martyrdom as a predefined phenomenon, the figuration of martyrdom in a taʿziyih creates a completely different case.In literature the process of becoming a martyr is already completed when it reaches and is received by the reader, whereas in a taʿziyih performance, presenting the process of becoming a martyr, it is the spectators who define and declare the moment and the figure of martyrdom. 23pectators are the rulers over the rhythm of the whole taʿziyih.Their interest and attention decides, indirectly, the best time for arranging the climaxes and how much effort needs to be put into it.
Martyr figures, as a part of cultural memory, transcend all expected norms in the act of becoming a martyr.In the taʿziyih we cannot ignore the dominant interactive presence of the spectators.They are free to stay or leave anytime they want, the auditorium is never darkened but always remains light, and they are allowed to drink and eat as they wish.The spectators' reactions are essential to first establishing and then changing the rhythm of the taʿziyih.Almost every sceneexpositions, rising actions, climax, falling actions and dénouements -depend on the spectators' reactions, for instance their crying or expression of appreciation.
Here the spectators rule and by exercising this rule they reclaim the cultural memory in the name of an interactive cultural memory.
On the performative level the martyr is tied up in "the materiality of theatre, that is, from the semiotics of movement, tones, silences, costumes, and spatial arrangements onstage, as well as from the reactions of spectators in the auditorium." 24In this case, the martyr and his sovereign act, facing the limitations and dictatorship of the theatrical space, turns into the sacrificial death of the innocent, becoming the victim of a collective murder which in the case of a taʿziyih renders them as the victim of both spectators and antagonists.
Ḥ usayn and the other protagonists straddle two different layers; naturally enough they are manifestly present as protagonists in a taʿziyih; but they are also represent, on the other side as it were, the collective memory of the spectators.

The taʿziyih's manifestation of the protagonists
In a taʿziyih the manifestation of the protagonists is based on a paradox: the character structure of each figure is established independently of the historical holy figures.The figuration of the protagonists, especially Ḥ usayn, takes place without any specification of age and bodily appearance; while it is a norm to cover the faces of holy figures in all other art mediums, here no veils are employed to cover faces.
Furthermore, everything on the stage defines itself autonomously in the process of the unfolding events.charming face is the key to success of the whole taʿziyih troop.The ambivalence of performing a holy figure with a face which could belong to anyone is an important characteristic of the taʿziyih, and it has always raised a number of challenges.The paradox comes into existence the very moment when the holiness vanishes behind the ordinary face of an actor, who shifts between being and not being the protagonist, a feature that also applies to the antagonists.

The cultural memory of the spectator
To understand the cultural memory affiliated to the taʿziyih protagonists, we need to keep in mind that the taʿziyih originated in a culture where the performative and textual maintained a close and strong connection with each other.In this cultural background the most intricate subjects of the humanities und philosophy were (and still are) part of the everyday lives of ordinary people. 25Among these are the mystic interpretations of the religious concept of shahīd (martyr) and the mystic concept of ʿishq (love), which taken together create the concept of the martyr of love, shahīd-i ʿishq, a key concept among the mystics.The two following poems by two famous mystic poets encapsulate the problem of war, love and martyrdom: The warrior strives in the way of becoming a martyr, Ignorant that the martyr of love stands higher than him On judgment day, how can one compare the two One is killed by the enemy and the other by his (her) lover. 26e butterfly said to the candle: Your festivity is joyful.Sacrifice me, while dissolving in you is my pleasure All your promises and rewards are dear to me You are my witness and I am your martyr. 27ahīd-i ʿishq is a model for a clear and deliberate decision for death; however, it is not to be compared with a decision for suicide.On the eve of the murder of his family and friends Ḥ usayn says that everybody should leave him, for it is not a battle that awaits them but a brutal and cruel death.
On the performative level however, the question arises whether somebody would come to help him.At the same time though, in the Performance of Ḥ usayn's Martyrdom (majlis) he refuses -so as to avoid any interference -to accept the help of the armies of ghosts, angels, animals, prophets and demons.He refuses any help for he fears being charged with creating an unjust war.He thus saves innocence, but this innocence itself will be destroyed along with him.Ḥ usayn redefines himself as being a winner and not a loser of war when, after hours of the supernatural army's march, he then refuses their help.Through this position ("He could win if he wanted but he doesn't") his character gravitates even closer to the definition of a martyr of love.He has not been killed by his enemy but he has decided to die.As a result, Ḥ usayn's actions and his death in a taʿziyih challenge the spectator even more.
The spectator looks at the evilness in two main ways.Every event on the stage is already known to him.In other words, there is no surprise on the levels of text and cultural memory, but the excess of the performative act is for him -the spectator -an immensely shocking fright, a vital shudder.
The performative murder, the massacre, draws the border between spectators and actors (antagonists and protagonists).Up to this time they play together the role of the spectator.Up to the point of the murder, the taʿziyih actors (antagonists and protagonists) dissociate themselves from their roles in different ways: openly holding the text, they act freely and impromptu, suddenly engaging in private conversations with spectators and other actors, drinking tea or delivering direct comments such as: "I am myself one of you!Only a humble follower of Ḥ usayn!"And then the constructive act of violence by the evil person in a taʿziyih: the act of murder which leads to martyrdom on the performative level.The act of murdering separates the actors (antagonists and protagonists) from the spectators.
Murder and martyrdom -the order seems to set up quite literally the construction.Is in a taʿziyih murder the ritual and, at the same time, martyrdom the theatre?Is in a taʿziyih the act of murder definable as the ritualistic part, and at the same time its result, the declaration of martyrdom on stage, the theatrical dimension?Does it make sense at all to try to analyse rituality and theatricality as two distinct spheres in the taʿziyih?Erika Fischer-Lichte has discussed the same question regarding spiritual plays of the Middle Ages: "A systematic distinction between theatre and ritual, which can be applied to ritual and theatre of all cultures and times, seems […] to be neither possible nor meaningful.If a distinction is to be made, then it should be drawn on the basis of the historical background, whereby the question is: what specific functions has a particular culture assigned to theatre and ritual at a particular time, and what differences has it identified between them." 28n the taʿziyih the shift from the sacrifice-ritual to a theatre of martyrdom should be considered an essential function.It is not the difference between theatre and ritual that is important, but how they co-exist and how they restructure and intervene in each other.The martyrdom, as it is identified in the Shiite context, supports the separation of theatre from ritual as a theatrical necessity.
Furthermore, the double role of the spectators as participants in a sacrificial ritual and as passive killers supports the same detachment.The spectators, confirming the role of the antagonists -as figures of the tyrant on the stage, maintain their function when their role as a ritual participant is transferred into a coexisting presence with the actors in a theatrical space.
If the discussion is limited to sacrificial ritual, the roles would be reduced to victims and murderers.But here we are also concerned with a mourning-sacrificial ritual.The grief, the act of weeping, is stressed by the religious participants as thawāb: who cries for the martyrs is recompensed by his God.This statement however is a dissimulation of what the origin of the grief was.
How can it come about that we have mourning as an act, integrated in a theatrical space and not just as a sympathetic reaction, or a sort of reaction which would stay only in the individual spaces?If there were no guilt feelings, why is there such a strong collective process of regret and remorse?Our key to understanding the concepts of innocence, evil, martyrdom and murdering has always revolved around the constant presence of a feeling of guilt, or the constant absence of a concept (guilt) which has been present already while we have argued its counterpart (innocence).
The murder/sacrifice scene still remains, as a part of the ritual, forceful and shuddering.The participants experience an extreme case of cruelty, a fundamental crime, in the infanticide scenes that a child, almost like a sacrificial animal, is to be decapitated with a knife by an antagonist.Apart from any connection to Ḥ usayn's history or religious references, child murder fundamentally shakes society.Interestingly, in the performance of the martyrdom of Imam Ḥ usayn the murder of his nephew ʿAbdullāh -the climax which induces the participants to cry -is shown earlier than the murder of Ḥ usayn.Therefore, the martyrdom of Ḥ usayn loses its performative significance and necessity, and his martyrdom is disguised and symbolised by releasing pigeons.
The innocence of Ḥ usayn and his family, as well as of all the other martyr figures in a taʿziyih, lies at the heart of the feelings of guilt, the feelings of mass guilt in the participants of this sacrificial ritual.Theatricality generates a martyr from the body of the ritualised victim.The result of this consideration of the taʿziyih as a theatrical ritual is a recognition that the taʿziyih is a projection screen for the collective guilt associated with the martyr.

7
For further studies about the origin of theatre: Jane Ellen Harrison, A Study of the Social Origin of Greek Religion, Cambridge 1912.8 Cf.ʿAlī Ḥuṣūrī, Siyāwushān, Tehran 2000, and Ehsan Yarshater, "Development of Persian Drama in the Context of Cultural Confrontation in Iran", in: Iran: Continuity and Variety, ed. by Peter Chelkowski, New York 1971.
If we accept that Siyāwush is the Iranian example of Dumūzī (Tammūz) of Mesopotamia, in that case the death of Siyāwush equals the descendent of Dumūzī or Tammūz to the netherworld.But Dumūzī/Tammūz returns to life whereas this part is missing in the story of Siyāwush.The escape of Kay-Khusraw from Tūrān to Iran in fact is the return of Dumūzī to the world and his kingdom represents the renewed godliness of this vegetation deity and fertilization."Sukhanī čand dar bārih-yi shāhnāmih, ed. by Katāyūn Mazdāpūr, Tehran 1979, 226. 20William Robertson Smith, Lectures on the Religion of the Semites, ed. by Adam and Charles Black, London Elibron [1894] 2005, 18.

Fig. 2 :
Fig. 2: The territories of the takyih stage society.The masses in the outer space are thus watching a mirroring of their own fate in the inner space of the stage (protagonists' space).The second or middle circle belongs to the antagonists.The antagonists never leave this space, except for the murder scenes.Finally, the largest space is afforded to the spectators.This system enables the masses to observe their sovereigns, a situation impossible outside this theatrical space.If we leave the takyih we are entering the territorial domain of the sovereign or the authorities.
Faces and voices are what glimpsed first and these fascinate the spectators.A protagonist with a perfect singing voice and a young, 23 Max Hermann, "Das theatralische Raumerlebnis", 502. 24Sandra L. Richards, "Writing the Absent Potential: Drama, Performance, and the Canon of African-American Literature", in: Performativity and Performance, ed. by Andres Parker et al., New York et al. 1995, 72.