Turner's Theory Of Liminality

Roy Rappaport (1999) showcases the idea that ritual is a fundamental aspect of human society. A community requires trust, and rituals are a necessary function of society, which creates that trust. For example willingly enduring a painful initiation as part of a ritual creates a sense of trust. In this essay I will discuss the theoretical works of Durkheim, Rossano and Douglas to attest to rituals preserving social order. While the works of Gluckman and Turner provide an interesting insight into reintegration through ritual, and Geertz provides an alternative view to the idea that rituals preserve and reiterate social order.

For functionalists such as Durkheim (1965) societies survive and prosper over time due to shared values. In other words,

social order is achieved through a community’s shared social norms and beliefs. Ritual achieves this societal unity by confirming an individuals’ loyalty and emotionally bonding a community together. Therefore preserving and reiterating the social order. Rossano (2012) commented on this idea by introducing the process of “group mimesis”. “Group mimesis” is when the ritualistic participants synchronize their actions together, either through group dancing, chanting or marching. These shared movements create a sense of equality for the individual, which then allows a greater emotional connection. Thus increasing group empathy, cohesiveness and most importantly cooperation. This is taken further by the idea that a stressful experience, such an initiation, will produce stronger bonds and commitments between the groups’ individuals. This enhanced emotional link and strong sense of group identity leads to a lack of tension, and therefore the preservation of social order. While this concept of “group mimesis” and emotional connection can be argued to be only theoretical, Douglas’ “group-grid” research provides an insight (Douglas, 1970). Douglas’ ‘dimension’ is based on the theory that ritual is a form of communication between all members of a society (Bell, 2009). The group/grid dimension concluded that societies with strong grid or group dimensions are “marked by more ritual activity”. Bell (2009) explains that a society with strong grid/group dimensions is one where social order is preserved predominantly through control. This is a linked with the fact that these societies have more ritual activity than others. Therefore concluding, that social order can be preserved through rituals. Of course it is difficult to define social order and therefore even more so to measure it, so this theory cannot be taken as hard evidence. However it does provide an insight into one view of the role of rituals in a community.

To fully understand the role of ritual we must first understand the process of the ritual itself.

Turner (1969) provides his own explanation of ritual and introduces the theory of ‘liminality’ and ‘communitas’. Turner explains how an individual must first be separated from society, and from the social order and structure, to fully accept the ritual and allow for deeper bonding between the participants. Next is the stage of ‘liminality’. This is the transitional period during any ritual, for example a rite of passage, in which the individual lacks any social ranking or status and remains completely unidentifiable from the group. The participants are often referred to as the “threshold people” in this stage as the experience is likened to death or being in the womb. This stage is often described as breaking an individual down to their base uniformity in order to remake them in the next stage. It is due to this that ‘communitas’ among the group is expected. ‘Communitas’ refers to the intense lifelong comradeship among the participants that remains due to this stressful experience, as referred to by Rossano (2012). At this point in the ritual, it is not actually preserving or reiterating social order. If the ritual were to end here it would actually be taking the participants from the structure of society and releasing them into “anti-structure”. However, the final stage of ritual is their reaggregation into society and therefore into social order. Once a ritual is done the participants come away with a strong bond together, which has already been described as a preservation of social order. Moreover the participants keep their sense of uniformity experienced during ‘liminality’, which reiterates social order as it means the members of the society have shared beliefs. This idea of inverting society in order to reiterate it is also touched upon by Gluckman (1952). His theory, however, is based on the idea of “rituals of rebellion”, in which social order is flipped. In

this case, ritual is seen as an expression of underlying societal tensions. The role of ritual, therefore, is to act as an ‘institutional pressure valve’ to release these tensions through group participation and performance. Evidence of this is the Swazi incwala or first-fruits ceremony performed at the time of harvest. During this time songs of hatred and rejection of the king are sung, women dress as men and dominate the opposing sex, and the young no longer have to abide by the authority of the elders. Individuals of the community openly express their problems that would otherwise be left unsaid to grow and later result in social disorder. Gluckman argues that this ritual brings about a sense of renewal and, once the natural social order is restored, unity. For example, having publicly stated their opposition to the Swazi king, his rivals will nevertheless reiterate their support to him. In this particular society, the timing of this ritual is key. If there is a drought, or low crop yields during the harvest, a period of social disorder and dissatisfaction will likely occur. This ritual is needed to renew community loyalty and emotional bonds. This, therefore, provides direct evidence of rituals reiterating social order.

Contrasting to the approach of Functionalists and Turner is the work of Geertz (1977). In the view of Geertz the aforementioned theories provide an ‘over-conservative view of the role of ritual and belief in the social life’. This, in particular, is due to the fact that theorists such as Rossano and Durkheim base their research on “well-structured societies”, which have a high level of social order. And, therefore, their discoveries of social unity and group identity could be explained by a bias of stability. Geertz, therefore, argues that ritual reflects social order. For ethnographic evidence, he provides the example of a funeral of a young boy in Modjokuto in Central Java. At this time it is important to note the socio-political disharmony in the country. The social tensions were due to a combination of factors such as the increasing growth in population and not resources, modernization, and urbanization which all contributed to weaken the traditional social structure. The religious differences, which had a huge impact on small villages and towns, were largely due to a split created by those who focused on the Islamic elements of the complex Javanese religious system, and those that focused on the Animist and Hindu elements. Moreover, a loss in community uniformity and dependency due the development of new rice growing techniques meant that underlying tensions were high, and group cohesiveness between family and neighbors were no longer needed in order to grow resources and survive. The funeral is a central ritual for the Javanese people, not only to allow the dead to pass over to the afterlife, but also due to the fear of possession and bad omens should the ritual be left too long or not completed in the appropriate way. Therefore the fact the tensions of the town disrupted this ritual to the extent of not performing the rites correctly or the religious ‘intellectuals’ refusing to partake, shows the extent to which the social order was not preserved or reiterated by this ritual, despite how important it was. Although this is one example, it does showcase the fact that social order cannot always be preserved by ritual. And the examples of Douglas, Durkheim and even Turner are based on stable societies that do not represent those with social, political and religious disputes. Following this view, one cannot ascribe the role of ritual in society, and trying to leads to its’ simplification to such an extent that it is no longer representational.

In conclusion, one can argue that ritual creates group harmony within a community and emotionally bonds members of society together, whether by synchronized movements or stressful initiations. This ‘communitas’ can largely explain why a society with high levels of ritual activity also has social order. Thereby suggesting that, simply put, rituals do preserve social order. Moreover specific rituals can also directly dispel tensions within a community in order to reiterate social order. However, this simplifies the role of rituals and does present a bias to ‘well-structured’ societies. In some cases rituals simply reflect the social order, and take a back seat to disorder. Overall, ritual will always have a deeper meaning that cannot be expressed simply in words, but it can be argued that ritual is fluid and changing, and therefore different for each community depending on the culture and society.