Process, System, and Symbol: A New Anthropological Synthesis
Author(s): Victor Turner
Source: Daedalus, Vol. 106, No. 3, Discoveries and Interpretations: Studies in Contemporary
Scholarship, Volume I (Summer, 1977), pp. 61-80
Published by: The MIT Press on behalf of American Academy of Arts & Sciences
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20024494
Accessed: 24/08/2010 01:29
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mitpress.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
The MIT Press and American Academy of Arts & Sciences are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve
and extend access to Daedalus.
http://www.jstor.org
VICTOR TURNER
and Symbol: A New Anthropological
Process, System,
Synthesis
Just beyond our present horizon, I like to think, lie the Delectable Islands. But I think
that anthropologists will reach them only if they reverse the process of fission into
awesome
jargon, which has characterized the history of
subdisciplines, each with its
or so, and move toward a renewed
in
the
decade
past
anthropology
fusion which will lead
to discussion
an
sort
animated
the
say,
among,
of
biological, ecological, structural,
semiotic, semiological, "etic," "emic," ethno-this and ethno-that, kinds of anthropologists.
Our expulsion from various colonial research Edens may be an opportunity rather than a
loss. We
other
can
now
entrenched
take
stock?and
sciences
and
also
assess
our
in this
relationship,
breathing
space,
to
humanities.
Anthropology should notflinch from looking at creative art and literature in complex
societies, but always as these reflect upon the "Hidesof history' which form their processual
contexts.
Texts
not
only
animate
and
are
animated
by
contexts
but
are
processually
inseverable from them. The arts are germane to the ebbs andflows of human understand?
as these awaken or
ing
fade at given moments on the scale of global history; the sciences
show anthropology the constraints of the human condition. In terms
approvable by
William Blake, we oscillate between "single" and fourfold"
vision, but neither is
inappropriate
to us,
exhausts
us,
or cannot
be
seriously
studied.
My personal view is that anthropology is shifting from a stress on concepts such as
a
structure, equilibrium, function, system to process, indeterminacy, reflexivity?from
a
to
a
with
tender
the
"being"
"becoming" vocabulary?but
perpetuative regard for
marvellous findings of thosewho, teachers of thepresent generation, committed themselves
"
to the discoveries
of "systems" of social relations and cultural "items" and "complexes. The
validly new never negates the seriously researched immediate past in any science; it
incorporates it in "a wider orbit of recovered law."
As Tom Kuhn and others have shown, the
sociopolitical situation in any disciplined
a
as
or not, exhibits the
whether
science
field of knowledge,
classified
conflicts of
our
Italian
(as
processuality
colleagues, literally translating, put it). Actual persons
represent theoretical stances. Older persons command stronger positions in the micro
comographia acad?mica?persons trained and working valuably in earlier periods than the
present. Younger persons are doing the experiments, thefieldwork. Paradigms supported
by the "good old boys" are challenged by new facts, new hypotheses grounded in them.
Anthropology ispresently experiencing this stress rather sharply.
The discipline of anthropology undoubtedly shares this crisis with other academic
disciplines. To my possibly naive European eye, stress on the individual as the grant
61
VICTOR
62
TURNER
on
"chaps rather than maps," has virtues certainly, but it also makes for
seeking unit,
theoretical fragmentation. And behind it is often a covert, unhealthy collectivism. For
certain of the major departments of anthropology in the United States show a
kinship to
the city states of antiquity. Each department specializes in a certain kind of
anthropology
(ethnoscience, symbolic anthropology, ecological anthropology, applied anthropology,
etc.), and it would be a bold student who successfully obtained supportfor what his tutors
considered an "adversary position" in terms of his grant proposal or thesis research.
This combination of a myth of individualism and a reality of departmental theoretical
orientation often tends to createfor imaginative students the classical Batesonian double
bind situation. Their best thoughts may be tabooed and their
integrity undermined by
to
state"
in
shibboleths
the
and
which
way
of concepts
"city
styles
they must render at least
to
service
obtain
and
supportfrom nationally
lip
locally prestigious departmental faculty.
Students often seem to sufferfrom theguilt of "self betrayal"?which pursues them even
into theirfieldwork infar places. I am sure this is not an optimal condition for fieldwork.
For they have to process their fieldwork
into Ph.D. dissertations acceptable by their
sponsoring departments.
One remedy would be to seekmeans to overcome the overspecialization of departments
and the atomism offunding. My paper indicates that a new breakthrough in anthropology
a serious sustained
effort by the proponents of severely segregated subdisci?
depends upon
on
bestow
their
students
the emblems of this segregation as "professional
plines (who
to
relate
the
best
competence")
findings of their separated years. The major funding
S
the
etc., should be approached to
NSF, NIMH,
SRC, Ford Foundation,
agencies,
a
"summit"
the
series
the
leaders of the various modes
basis
provide
for
of
meetings among
None
the
think-tanks
(Palo Alto, Princeton, etc.) has
of "anthropologizing."
of
major
Not
collective
that conferences alone can do
this
immense
work
of
promoted
refiexivity.
a
are
but
that
the
reconstitution
this,
of anthropology at higher level under the
signals
they
is
under
Otherwise
the
way.
aegis of processualism
centrifugal drift, indeed, the suicidal
sparagmos,
will
go
on and
on.
The device of encouraging representation on thefaculties of certain departments of all
themajor subfields of current anthropology tends to be a palliative rather than a remedy if
it is not cognizantly and authoritatively reinforced by the shared understanding of the
discipline that such specialization must be accompanied by authentic integration under a
major paradigm whose lineaments have been indicated by the acknowledged creative
leaders of the total discipline.
it may not be possible to point to a definitive
exempli?
breakthrough,
fied by a single book or article, in the past decade or so in world anthropology,
one can make a fair case for a
drift toward a theoretical
general disciplinary
to which
studies
have
However,
largely contributed.
processual
synthesis
no
as
in
its
earlier
is
process theory
heyday, with Gumplowicz's
longer linked,
it now
notion that "man's material need is the prime motive of his conduct"1;
of
and
its
meaning
symboling. Furthermore,
recognizes the critical importance
studied in a
theoretical
focus is now "an individual and specific population
a stress on
and with
frame of reference
multidisciplinary
specific human
Although
behavior
rather
than
generalized
norms
or
averages."2
Processes
of
conflict
and
of the social Darwinian
(accommodation,
type, or of cooperation
competition
on
"mutual aid," are no longer
assimilation) modeled
Kropotkin's
zoological
core of social
as
Material
need is
development.
regarded
being at the dynamic
PROCESS,
SYSTEM,
AND
SYMBOL
63
not rejected but is rather viewed as part of "the simultaneous
some anthropologists
and culture" which
ecology,
biology,
interaction among
call biological ecol?
ogy*
In
this
an
rather,
analysis
junctural
of
various
analysis?culture
intersystzmic
systems?not
to be
has
a
seen
but,
systems
analysis
as
because
processual,
on the biotic and ecological
in interaction and imposes meaning
it emerges
it interacts. I should not say "it," for this is
systems (also dynamic) with which
an endless series of negotiations
to reify what is, regarded processually,
among
to the acts in which
of meaning
actors about the assignment
they jointly
is assigned verbally
speech and nonverbally
through
Meaning
participate.
action and is often stored in symbols which
and
ritual
ceremonial
through
situational contexts. But the assign?
indexical counters in subsequent
become
as processes
in the
of meaning must be investigated
ment and reassignment
to be
itself
each
domain of resilience possessed
recognizing
by
population
to
are periodically
human
For
subjected
populations
culturally
perduring.
to
shocks and crises, in addition to the strains and tensions of adjustment
involve
These
from the biotic and social environments.
challenges
quotidian
structures as well as of
institutional
determinate
of
maintenance
of
problems
creative adaptation to sudden or persisting environmental
changes, making for
indeterminacy.
gained from the phenomenological
analysis has undoubtedly
held that
of positivist anthropology. Whereas
anthropology
positivist
Processual
critique
social
phenomena
are
qualitatively
the
same
as
natural
that
phenomena,
the
in the natural sciences are applicable with little
techniques of analysis developed
should
and that anthropology
to anthropological
modification
investigation,
which would
strive to develop empirically based theoretical propositions
sup?
the phenomenologists,
statements
about social phenomena,
port predictive
insisted that the social world is in many important respects a
notably Schutz,
in the form of what Harold
cultural construct, an organized universe of meaning
a
it. Garfinkel
of
the
of
series
calls
Garfinkel
objects within
"typifications"
in their view that "by naming an experienced
follows Schutz and Husserl
to pre-experienced
things of similar
object, they are relating by its typicality
to
we
future experi?
horizon
its
and
open
accept
referring
typical structures,
ences of the same type."4 Garfinkel argues that when a member of a collectivity
accounts for his unique actions he is at the same time typifying them in terms of
all other members.
This
a framework
he shares with
which
of meaning
framework
is what
the
phenomenological
social
scientists
call
common
sense,
of
activities of members
Garfinkel
argues that even the practical, mundane
sense level, because
common
are
at
the
the
"reflexive"
sociocultural
groups
social existence of amember's
experiences can be established only through their
to the world of
effort
of relating their uniqueness
the
through
typification,
For
these
the
transmitted
scholars Durk
and
group.
by
generated
meaning
as
to
treat
social
heim's famous attempt
phenomena
"things" is misdirected.
to
to
the
is
shared
do
fails
What Durkheim
processes,
analyze
involving
an
social interaction generates
and language, by which
gestures,
symbols,
to
that of the individuals who
emergent social reality distinct from and external
produce
collective
like phenomenological
dereifies
anthropology,
analysis,
into
of
the
and
actions
cross-purposive
purposive
representations
it. Processual
64
VICTOR
persons
social
in sequences
of
even,
meanings,
to maintain
negotiations
in some
TURNER
cases,
to
or retain, modify,
the
change
character
and
or subvert
structure
of
common
sense. By focusing attention on processes of
it
assignment
meaning
to
be
the
and
which
locate
what
D.
E.
rules
may
generate
possible
principles
Brown has called "presumptively
perpetual social units."5 Brown refers specifi?
cally to corporations, which he regards as more readily classifiable than many
statuses,
noncorporate
but
like
many
he
structural-functionalists,
regards
as
and other "surface struc?
the processes by which corporations
unproblematical
tures" come into existence, are maintained
and
processes,
against disintegrative
are
cannot be taken for
reevaluated
by actors. Social meanings
constantly
granted. It is not enough to make taxonomies or inventories of jurai norms and
cultural values, based on formal statements by informants. We have to develop
strategies for ascertaining how the actors deal with discrepant norms: what are
their standards of
how they assess the respective weighings
of
appropriateness,
to their transac?
stated and unstated rules, in short, how they assign meaning
tions
and
interactions.
Processual
advanced by Sally Falk
analysis has recently been considerably
to Symbol and Politics in Communal
"Epilogue"
Ideology .6Moore proposes
to be one of
that "the
of
social
life
should
be
considered
quality
underlying
Moore's
is only partially
Such indeterminacy
absolute
indeterminacy."
theoretically
reduced by culture %x\Aorganized social life, "the patterned aspects of which are
of inconsistency,
and contain elements
temporary,
incomplete,
ambiguity,
She goes, in fact, further
conflict."7
and
contradiction,
paradox,
discontinuity,
seem to
than Schutz, Garfinkel,
and other
sociologists, who
phenomenological
sense. Here they share
find some system, vocabulary,
and syntax in common
some notion of the
with the structural-functionalists
priority of determinacy.
Moore,
however,
argues
that
even
where
rules
and
customs
exist,
"in?
of the internal con?
may be produced
by the manipulation
determinacy
the universe of relatively
and ambiguities within
tradictions,
inconsistencies,
not
and fixing are processes,
determinate
elements."8 For Moore,
determining
states.
is
renewed.
This
the
The
permanent
really
continuously
seemingly fixecj
model assumes that social reality is "fluid and indeterminate,"
although regular?
or systematic
forms.
it into organized
transform
izing processes
continually
can
and
their
lose
never
These,
however,
slip back
indeterminacy,
completely
into an ambiguous or dismembered
condition unless vigilantly attended. Moore
calls the processes
in which persons "arrange their immediate situations (and/or
of the
their
the indeterminacies
express
by exploiting
feelings and conceptions)
or by
or redefin?
situations or by generating such indeterminacy
reinterpreting
"9 A
or relationships,
major
'processes of situational adjustment.'
ing the rules
of
advance made by Moore
in process theory is her proposal that processes
of
each
have
the
effect
and
situational adjustment "may
processes
regularization
an existing social situation or order." Both should be
or
of
stabilizing
changing
social life and
the complex relationships
between
taken into account whenever
are
is
which
the continuously
culture
renewed web of meanings
being analyzed.
Both types of process contain within
of becoming
themselves
the possibility
if often
their schematic opposite^,
for strategies used in situational adjustment,
of
of
Per
become
contra, if new
processes
part
repeated, may
regularization.
rules
are made
for
every
situation,
such
rules
cannot
be
said
to
"regularize"
and
PROCESS,
SYSTEM,
AND
SYMBOL
65
The process of creating "legal
of situational
become
elements
adjustment.
between processes of regular?
fictions" miiy perhaps be regarded as mediating
ization and situational adjustment.10
A caveat should be interpolated here. It has sometimes been forgotten by
for processualism
that process
is
those caught up in the first enthusiasm
an
structure
that
with
and
of
social
life
bound
up
adequate analysis
intimately
a rigorous consideration
of the relation between
them. Historical
necessitates
a diachronic profile, a temporal structure in events, but
often
reveals
hindsight
in isolation from the series of synchronie
this structure cannot be understood
a social field at every significant point of
structure
the
which
of
compose
profiles
arrest of the time flow. Processual
has shown us, do not
studies, as Moore
a research
replace
on
focus
and
regularity
consistency.
They
however,
may,
us clues to the nature of forces of systemic maintenance
even as they shed
give
structure
I speak o?
here I am
forces of change. When
light on the countervailing
that it
well aware of the phenomenological
critique of structural-functionalism
I am in agreement with David Walsh's
reifies social order and structure. Thus,
comment
for a sociological
that "the requirement
analysis of the problematic
of social order is a suspension
character
so as
to concentrate
on
the
routine
of the belief
and
practices
in the facticity
procedures
of
of that order
by
interpretation
which members
it in interactional settings."11 But Walsh's view that
accomplish
is important is not formal rules but the procedures
what
by which members
are in accordance with
that activities
demonstrate
the rule and therefore
seems to me to put too much
stress on what Moore would
call
intelligible
not
on
the
of
and
of
situational
processes
processes
enough
regularization
in certain cases may bring about a shift from regularity to
adjustment, which
in the phenomenological
is much merit
There
indeterminacy.
sociologists'
in
for
their
actions
in a rational way, group members
that
argument
accounting
are
social life a coherent and
making those actions rational and thus making
a way that underlines
nature of all
in
the
constructed
comprehensible
reality
in the work of Garfinkel,
view particularly
reality?a
developed
following
But scientists of "Man," anthropolo?
Schutz (with Husserl
both!).
shadowing
not only what Garfinkel
gists in the strict sense, must find "interesting"
terms
events and activities
the
in
ironically
"uninteresting"
"commonplace"
social life, involving constant negotiations
about typifying conduct in endless
constructions
dinary,
of
rare?"spare,
common
sense,
original,
but
also
strange."
what
Perhaps
is
genuinely
anthropologists
interesting,
are
extraor?
in a better
in this respect, for their fieldwork is conducted?or
has
position than sociologists
been until recently?mostly
sometimes
differ?
among populations having
widely
ent cultures from their own. The common sense of those whom
they study from
seems
the outset
to their subjects.
extraordinary
though ordinary
enough
on the other hand,
share
with
their subjects
Sociologists,
understandings
because they share their culture and have to work hard at transforming
the
a
into
of
sensitized
taken-for-granted
fascinating object
study. Anthropologists,
from the outside to the alienness of many of the symbols and
shared
meanings
on
to
those
often
discover
what
is
go
by
they investigate,
extraordinary
by any
has in its archives so many variant
reckoning. The profession of anthropology
of commonplace
organizations
everyday activities, every one of which no doubt
or bizarre as
exotic
from the standpoint of the others,
seemingly
apprehended
66
VICTOR
TURNER
that it is led to probe beneath this surface layer of reflexivity for processes and
of a generally human type. French structuralism, whose
leading
is Claude L?vi-Strauss,
this task. Bob
exponent
anthropological
attempted
mechanisms
Sch?lte
has
and
ical,
summarized
succinctly
are
phenomena
ethnographic
realizations
parable
L?vi-Strauss's
of
unconscious,
are said to be
in turn,
argument:
to be
the
assumed
and
structural,
"conscious,
concrete
and
empir?
com?
systems.
ethnological
of neurological,
and
cybernetic,
as
a
uni
versais.
Not
does
structuralism
stand
physico-chemical
only
discipline
or fall on the basis of this premise, but it also
closure
provides the paradigmatic
These,
for
the
as
enterprise
description
universal
and
comparable,
Two
a whole:
of ethnographic
comments
the results
an
movement
encompassing
from
on to their final reduction
models
the
empirical
to unconscious,
structures."12
be made
here. First, L?vi-Strauss's
date is drawn from
and
the neurological
completed
culinary recipes. Second,
and physicochemical
bases of human behavior are clearly not exhausted
by
but have a high potential
for
fixed enduring neuronal pathways
genetically
innovative behavior. Even if there are inherited genetic structures of cognition,
at least as
categories or engrams, it is not impossible that at levels of mentality
a
for
is
and
in
there
behavior
plastic, adaptive,
deep
capacity
manipulative
to
In
circumstance.
other
be
words, processual potential may
response
changing
In any event both struc?
in the physicochemical
infrastructure.
preconstituted
in biology remain as yet unverified.
I wish
foundations
tural and processual
we are not here
a
to
with
that
behavioral
make
the
surface
only
point
dealing
structures. Indeed, it
crawling with processes contrasted with deep unconscious
to reverse the order of depth and regard the structures
be
possible
might
as convenient means
inferable in collections of myths and kindred phenomena
of
ordering
may
texts such as myths
collective
es of regularization
argue
that
structural
arising
experiences
and situational
arrangements
from
the
adjustment.
(binary
contestation
of
deep
Phenomenologists
logic,
split
process?
might
representation,
even
media?
for framing that which actors
tion, and the rest) provide boundary conditions
that
make
take for granted,
up the actor's stock of
"typified conceptions
common
condi?
knowledge,
linguistic usage, and biophysical
ecological settings,
tions."13
this
From
the
perspective
structural
and
oppositions
transformations
in the "concrete logic" of mythical
narratives may not
detected by L?vi-Strauss
as represent
a
to fundamental
so much
constraints
clues
cognitive
provide
sense knowledge. We
and simplistic coding of items of common
convenient
must
for intimations of human depth. It is here that we must
look elsewhere
turn once more to the investigation of processes, but now to processes heavily
those of ritual, drama, and other
invested with cultural symbols, particularly
genres.
powerful performative
Van Gennep was the first scholar who perceived that the processual form of
in traditional society that social life was
the general experience
ritual epitomized
a
sequence
of
movements
in
space-time,
a succession
involving
a
series
of
changes
of
in state and status for
of transitions
activity and
pragmatic
he was
individuals and culturally recognized groups and categories. Certainly
ahead of his time; other investigative procedures had to be developed before his
of salient hypotheses.
He might be
the foundation
could become
discovery
steam
who
first
known
with
of
described
the
Hero
Alexandria,
compared
SYSTEM,
PROCESS,
AND
SYMBOL
67
b.c. Unlike James Watts's model nineteen hundred years later it
engine in 120
a
no useful work, merely causing a
performed
globe to whirl, but not world of
a folklorist, had what he considered an almost
invention to turn! Van Gennep,
as he
to elicit the processual
structure of two
mystical
attempted
inspiration
rite:
in
of
those
which
mark, and,
types
indigenous thought, bring about the
an
one cultural state or social status
or
of
from
individual
social
category
passage
to another
culturally
summer,
in the course of his, her, or their life cycle; and those which mark
recognized points in the passage of time (first fruits, harvest, mid?
new
year,
new
moon,
or
solstice,
He
equinox).
found
that
rites
de
had three principal stages: rites of separation,
passage, viewed cross-culturally,
=
and
limen
threshold),
margin (or
reaggregation. The duration and complexity
of these stages varied according to type of rite, though initiatory rites tended to
to task
have a protracted
liminal stage. Max Gluckman
has taken Van Gennep
for stressing
of ritual rather than the role which
the mechanisms
"whole
ceremonies
and specific rites play in the ordering
and reordering of social
relations."14 However,
social anthropology
had not in Van Gen
descriptive
time
the
holistic
characterization
of
social
systems which would
provided
nep's
have made this possible, whereas
the coolness displayed by Durkheim
and his
work must have discouraged
school to Van Gennep's
Van Gennep
from
to
to
his
the
relate
processual discovery
attempting
early structural-functionalist
formulations of the Ann?e sociologique group. American
scholars were among the
first to note the theoretical significance of Van Gennep's
discovery. As early as
to
1942 E. D. Chappell
S.
and C.
Coon had attempted
discuss his analysis of
rites of passage in a framework of equilibrium-maintenance
theory, and had
added a fourth category,
"rites of intensification,"
which had as their main
of group unity.15 J. W. Whiting
and I. L. Child,16 Frank
goal the strengthening
are among those scholars who have in
W. Young,17
and Solon T. Kimball18
recent years seen the relevance of Van Gennep's
formulation
for their work in
varied fields. Kimball has noted how Van Gennep went beyond his analysis of
the
triadic
processual
structure
of
rites
of
passage
"to
an
interpretation
of
their
significance for the explanation of the continuing nature of life." Van Gennep,
continues Kimball, believed that rites of passage with their symbolic representa?
tion of death and rebirth illustrate "the principles
of regenerative
renewal
required by any society."19 The present author, stimulated during his fieldwork
by Henry Junod's use of Van Gennep's
interpretative apparatus for understand?
ritual,20 came to see that the liminal stage was of crucial importance
ing Thonga
with
renewal.
Indeed, Van Gennep
regard to this process of regenerative
sometimes
called the three stages "preliminal,
in?
liminal, and postliminal,"
never
that
But
he
the
followed
of
his
importance.
up
dicating
implications
that when individuals or groups are
discovery of the liminal beyond mentioning
in a liminal state of suspension,
separated from their previous condition, and not
new
into
their
one, they present a threat to themselves and to
yet incorporated
the entire group, requiring their segregation
from quotidian
life in a milieu
a visa to live in
around
ritual
In
interdictions.
while
1963,
by
hedged
awaiting
a
wrote
I
between
cultural
later to be
America,
worlds,
suspended
paper,
in
American
the
the
published
Proceedings of
Ethnological Society for 1964, whose
title expresses what for me is the distinctive
feature of liminality: "Betwixt and
Between: The Liminal Period in Rites de Passage."21 "Liminars," who may be
68
VICTOR
or
initiands
or
another,
the
solar
in
novices
even
whole
to
year
another
custom,
transition
the positions
Van
are
to
of
quadrant
here
"neither
nor
and arrayed by law,
assigned
to
pointed
Gennep
status
and
one
from
ceremony,
public
ceremonial.
state
sociocultural
undergoing
great
and between
and
convention,
one
from
passage
populations
in a
there"; they are betwixt
TURNER
the many
sym?
bols of birth, death, and rebirth found in the liminal stage inmany societies and
religions. But for me the essence of liminality is to be found in its release from
normal constraints, making possible the deconstruction
of the "uninteresting"
common
of
constructions
the
sense,
of
"meaningfulness
dis?
life,"
ordinary
cussed by phenomenological
into cultural units which may then be
sociologists,
some of them bizarre to the
in novel ways,
reconstructed
point of monstrosity
own
"emic"
the
actors'
is
the domain of the
(from
perspective).
Liminality
or
"interesting,"
of
"uncommon
sense."
is not
This
for insofar as it represents a definite
unconstrained,
initiand from status A to status B in a ritual belonging
of
sequence
the "manifest"
a woman,
into
To
stages.
subsequent
with
rituals,
liminality
use Robert
purposes
a dead
person
must
bear
some
Merton's
to
into
ancestral
of
some
of the ritual (to transform
an
is
totally
stage in the passage of an
to a traditional system or
traces
terms,
it
that
say
spirit,
its
a
etc.).
boy
But
and
antecedent
must
symbols
accord
into a man,
others
a
girl
have
the
"latent" capacity to elicit creative and innovative responses from the liminars
and costumes
in African
and their instructors. The
and
study of masks
or into secret societies,
of puberty
initiation
Melanesian
rituals, whether
unlocked
for maskers
demonstrates
the imaginative potential
by liminality,
(representing
naturals)
Among
to
be
typically
the Ndembu
ancient
territorial
arch-ancestors,
deities,
in liminal
appear
of Zambia,
ancestors,
of
sites
for example,
awesome
shape
guardian
spirits,
or other
super
from mundane
sequestered
the makishi, masked
and
power,
are
life.
figures,
believed
by
said
boy
secluded in the bush camps during theMukanda rites to spring from the
blood-soaked
site in the deep bush where they had recently been circumcised.
who create the masks, though they portray a limited range of
The woodcarvers
the Crazy One,
the
the Wise Old Chief,
types (the Foolish Young Woman,
a
wide
initiative
in
of
aesthetic
etc.),
Binder,
range
personal
display
Fertility
novices
generating
variant
forms.
In other words,
Homo
there is an aspect of play in liminality. Huizinga's
to
the
in the
element
ludens22 has sensitized
thought
play
anthropological
in culture, by his scrutiny of all kinds
and negotiation of meaning
construction
and the judicial
of playing from children's games to the dialectic of philosophy
a
Not
is
is
all
business!
serious
After
him,
process.
play, of course,
play
sense
reserved, in any society, for liminal occasions in the strict Van Gennepian
of ritual stages. In tribal societies, children and adults play games in nonritual,
leisure contexts.
manufacture
ines,
masks,
symbolic
the play of ideas and the
forms and designs (icons, figur?
in
caves,
But the serious games which
of religiously
sand-paintings,
important
murals
sacred
involve
statues,
effigies,
pottery
emblems, and the like) are often, in traditional societies, reserved for authenti?
I invoked William
cally liminal times and places. In "Betwixt and Between"
to
monsters?so
the
liminal
of
of
dissociation"
"law
clarify
problem
James's
to initiands. James argued that when a
media
different
often presented
through
as parts of the same total object, without
and b occurred
being
together
PROCESS,
occurrence
the
discriminated,
AND
SYSTEM,
one
of
of
SYMBOL
a new
in
a,
these,
69
ax,
combination,
the discrimination
of a, b, and x from one another. As William
James
himself put it in his Principles of Psychology : "What is associated now with one
now with another, tends to become dissociated
from either, and to
thing and
an
the
abstract
mind.
into
One
of
grow
object
contemplation
by
might call this
favors
Liminal monsters
and
by varying concomitants."23
from various discriminata, each of them originally an
law of dissociation
are compounded
dragons
the
sense
common
in the
element
of
construction
social
In a sense,
reality.
have
they
the liminars' powers of analysis and
the pedagogical
function of stimulating
to them the building
from
blocks
which
their hitherto
taken-for
revealing
in
the
But
another
reveal
world
has
been
constructed.
way
they
granted
all
constructed
the
the indeterminacy
freedom,
worlds,
culturally
underlying
as
free play of mankind's
and
well
cognitive
imaginative capacities. Synthesis,
as
In many cultures, liminality
analysis, is encouraged by monster construction!
is often
scene
the
this
bally,
for
action
immolative
innovative
freedom.
which
demonstrates,
structures,
Symbolic
subver
usually
are
contrived,
elaborately
to liminars at most sacred episodes in the marginal rites, and are then,
the
time and labor taken to construct them, destroyed.
despite
Shakespeare's
as his master of
liminality, Prospero, declared, "leave
palaces,"
"cloud-capped
not a rack behind." The fabrications of liminality,
being free from the pragmat?
exhibited
ics
of
the
sense
common
are
world,
"baseless
of
fabrics
this
vision"?like
The
the products of ritual and dramatic ritual are surely not
Tempest
ineffectual?at
least they survive in ways not altogether to be expected. How,
science?
then, should they be assessed in the terms of sociocultural
Let me advert to the ecological anthropological
concept of resilience men?
tioned above.24 This holds that ecological systems (including those ordered by
culture) survive "in so far as they have evolved tactics to keep the domain of
or resilience, broad
of change."
stability,
enough to absorb the consequences
itself. Yet
we
Here
are
we
to
begin
cultural
see
out
carving
ritualized
more
in the
of
presence
the
by
and,
evolutionary,
over
negotiation,
indeed,
the
ages
spaces and times, given over as most
to
moments,
cost
once
only
constant
the
of
negotiation
and the mutually modifying
of the phenomenological
anthropologists,
of regularization
and situational adjustment elicited by Sally Moore,
meanings
processes
but
not
the manufacture
is oftentimes
the
of models
production
of
survival,
sapient
behavior
and
extravagant
and
value
of
conduct,
forms.
the
of
development,
sacred, privileged,
for
of weird
mere
and inviolable
even
if the
Evolutionary
as it
since Darwin,
has always stressed the importance of variability,
a
to
to
and selection, at the
permits
given species
adapt
changing conditions;
rather than for homogeneity,
which
level, is often for variability
zoological
demands a single limited environment. Anthropologists
such asMalinowski
and
L?vi-Strauss
have always found the distinction
between nature and culture a
useful one, and I share their conviction.
I see liminality,
in tribal societies, even
when they have inhabited a single ecological environment
for a long time by any
theory,
measure,
as
the
provision
of
a cultural
means
of
generating
variability,
as well
as
of ensuring the continuity of proved values and norms. This is done sometimes
inversion of mundane
the simple
life, so that liminars become
by mirror
antitheses of their antecedent
secular "selves" (the bundle of roles occupied
in many puberty rites boys are invested
preritually). Thus,
symbolically with
70
VICTOR
TURNER
feminine attributes, and girls with masculine
traits, on the way from juniority
to
or
in
social
classification,
seniority
political
authority.25 With
increasing
inversion
however,
frequency,
as
way,
gives
societies
in
increase
scale
and
to the liminal
complexity,
generation of many alternative models.
It should be mentioned,
however,
that, like everything else in liminality, the
not
of
does
in societies that have been
go uncontested,
primacy
play
especially
one place and have had time to consolidate
sense
in
their common
long
structures
into
it
structures,
a
stage,
above
of
thread
"natural
to all established
is necessary,
strong
of
semblances
plausible
realm of challenge
gerous
to maintain,
all,
"common
even
the
the
through
order.
dan?
and other
kinship,
constructed
sense-ically"
in
Here,
systems."
jural-political,
liminal
This
is often
concealed
and seldom revealed symbols and
by sacra, carefully
are
on rare liminal occasions.
of
which
symbols,
configurations
exposed only
the
one
axiomatic
and
rules
definitions
of
the culture?usually
They represent
a
that has been well consolidated
continuous
of
occupancy
by
single territory
over a
cultural groups
goodly period of time. In such relatively homogeneous
are widely
where understandings
and deeply
shared, the liminal periods of
ritual have episodes in which the axioms and principles which govern mundane
inmyths and symbols which do not contravene
life have solemn representation
or criticize the mundane
order (as ludic construction
often do) but present it as
represented
based in the primordial cosmogonie
process. Here ritual is less play than work,
as well as
and the culture that has such liminality tends to be nonreflexive
are
their
and
rituals
Where
backed
by superior
nonadaptive.
religious systems
and
force and power
they tend to lose their ludic innovativeness
political
success of a
to reduce the need to "carry" a
form
tends
for
the
variability,
single
store of alternative forms. That this may be shortsighted
is seldom recognized,
for
climatic,
or historical
geological,
may
processes
disasters
bring
and
traumas
the single-model
ritual system, represented by a set of paradigmatic
for which
translation
into action, may provide inadequate models
and
their
ritual
myths
for mental and physical response. What, paradoxically,
may be more functional
is a culture
even
which
it over
with
carries
liminal
ridiculous
for
schemata
time
a store
in
behavior,
of
nonfunctional,
seemingly
a
terms,
evolutionary
reper?
one of which may prove to be
toire of variant deep cultural models,
adaptive in
even
It
and
be
said that
biotic
conditions.
may
drastically
changed ecological
the
ludic
in
French
the
when
sense,
structure,
penetrates
partially
cognitive
on it a
and
of
rules
found
of
lexicon"
space-time
"grammar
liminality,
imposing
to be
in mundane,
successful
extraritual
much the less adaptive resilience.
feature of liminality
Another
and
probably
more
than
one,
the
contexts,
is that itmay
"metalanguage."
thus
society
be said to contain
The
term
is
beset
has
so
at least one,
a
Bateson's,
Gregory
for anyone, has given the social sciences a
thinker who,
new way of talking about the phenomena
and processes we study.26 Bateson
in the evaluation of the messages
involved
is
talks about "a play frame which
if it can so be claimed
also
in many
relations
period
forms
He
it contains."27
which
among
of time,
of
argues
nonhuman,
that
zoological
in human
systems,
systems
certain
of
and
communication,
signals
are
emitted
in
for a variable
actors, which frame the subsequent proceedings
not
is
direct but which
is about the
in which communication
communication
used
in the
day-to-day
processes
of
ensuring
survival?
PROCESS,
SYSTEM,
AND
SYMBOL
71
relations and the forms of social control
case, the productive
their orderliness and relative freedom from conflict. Metacommu
guaranteeing
It is the
self-conscious.
but plurally and cumulatively
nication is self-conscious,
or group evaluates its own routine behaviors. Because
it is
way a population
of individual com?
it perhaps lacks the trenchancy
and cumulative
collective
in mankind's
but compensates
by its positing of generic thought against generic
it
the reflexivity of many it has perforce to clothe
Because
represents
experience.
of
itself in multivocal
many meanings")
symbols, and against the
("susceptible
is
univocal signs in which the logical thought of gifted individual philosophers
men
of
and
self-consciousness
have
We
the
experiencing
plural
expressed.
mentary,
thinking
as
together
the
against
a master
of
self-consciousness
singular
crafts?
man
of cognitive reflexivity. Plurality brings feeling and willing
(orexis) into the
act. One might even argue that the founders of major religions (whose adherents
in hundreds
of millions,
"scientif?
still can be counted
"objectively"?hence
a medial
tribal
between
(and
plural) reflex?
position
occupied
ically"?speaking)
(as represented by the Western
(and singular) reflexivity
for
collectivities
and their common sense
in
that
they spoke
European thinkers),
same
at
their
the Western
the
time, provided
values, and,
critique; whereas
of
the
social
much
tradition, losing
component,
plural,
spoke for
philosophical
the individual, cognitively
liberated though orectically alienated, as against the
"damned compact majorities" of Ibsen's Dr. Stockman inAn Enemy of thePeople.
If liminality is tribal, traditional ritual is a mode of plural, reflexive, often
the countervailing
ludic metacommunication
processes and
(though containing
we
to
have
ask
the
it can
of
system maintenance),
question?whether
symbols
answered or not is another set of questions for investigation?
be satisfactorily
what are the functional equivalents of liminality in complex societies, high on
with ever increasing division of labor
the dimensions
of scale and complexity,
and where
and specialization
of crafts and professions,
the concept of the
individual as against the mass is positively
evaluated?
ivity and
we
Before
tween
industrial
can
indicative
expressing
processual
designates
answer
and
this
question
subjunctive
we
moods
action,
existence,
or
aspects
of nature
and culture).
the
expression
of
an
of verbs?those
occurrence
act,
state,
the
consider
might
(for
The
or
we
are
mood
as
be?
of words
with
concerned
indicative
occurrence
distinction
classes
the
commonly
"actual";
it asks
terms of the definitions of tested facts acceptable
in the
questions
common
of a given human population. Where
the subjunctive
mood is found, it tends to express desire, hypothesis,
it
supposition, possibility:
or
so.
In
it
be
its
embraces
both cognitive
may
range
might
expressive
=
ac?
theories or propositions
possibilities
("hypotheses"
unproved
tentatively
or
ones
to
relations) and emotional
cepted
explain certain facts
(though here the
a better
it
mood
because
wish or
be
expresses
optative
might
appellation,
as
ritual and carnival disguises, probably belong
desire). Enacted fantasies, such
here. At any rate one might classify ordinary, quotidian
life as indicative, even
much of ceremonial or ritual. But one would have to reckon liminal processes
subjunctive or optative, for they represent alternatives to the positive systems of
of "fact"?in
sense world
economic,
indicative
dialectic
in everyday
action operating
life. But if the
legal, and political
"does not live by bread alone." It seems that the
is "bread," mankind
between
is and may be, culturally
elaborated
into the distinction
72
TURNER
VICTOR
between
and
pre-
a continuous
cultural
the
one
hand,
and
on
liminal,
the
other,
forms
social process,
and socio?
involving biological,
ecological,
and made reflexive by the search for meaning
raised above
factors,
common
on
post-liminal,
human
sense
a
to
power.
higher
have indicated a drift, trend, or direction
in
or
it may be called progressive
at
cultural history, which, whether
regressive,
a
any rate indicates a series of linear developments.
Henry Maine hypothesized
a move from "mechanical"
to
modal shift "from status to contract," Durkheim
a stage of
"organic" solidarity; Marx and Engels postulated
"primitive commu?
The
social
great
thinkers
nism"
of productive
subverted by the development
forces which generated class
the
of
around
issue
Private
in its turn, gener?
property.
property,
oppositions
ated the notion of individuality
and elevated it to philosophical
respectability,
even as it assured the
and alienation of the masses
of man?
impoverishment
to put to use in
kind?who
had no property other than their "labor-power"
a
in Hegelian
fashion, an abolition of private
earning
living. They predicted,
means
of
the
of
and
class
property
ownership
by a regenerated
production
communism
the
less
dialecti
masses, organized
among
property
ironically?and
means
from
which
the
the
of production
very
cally?by
ruling classes derived
of the laws of historical
their profits, which,
directed by an elite cognizant
that is, the Communist
the instruments
development,
Party, would overthrow
level
of class hegemony,
army and police forces, and restore at a higher material
best preclass state.
the primordial communism which was mankind's
in types of
social thinkers have posited a developmental
sequence
Major
as the
the
in which
shifts
from
sociocultural
systems
collectivity
emphasis
effective moral unit to the individual. This is paralleled by a growing stress on
achieved as against ascriptive status, and by an ever more precise division of
in
labor
way
the
domains
of
economics
in social relationship
ponent
to
contract.
Corporate
and
yields
groups
social
The
control.
constructed
on
the
model
com?
obligatory
or voluntaristic,
to the optional
status gives
of
kin
ties
as effective social centers of action by associations of those
replaced
having
lords it over groups bonded
interests. Rational and bureaucratic organization
Industrialization
ties to locality. The city prevails over the rural hinterland.
decisively
split work from leisure by its "clocking in and out" devices and
or
work
is complemented
reserved play for the leisure sphere wherein
are
like
by
has
has
re?
in its liminal stage, contained both work
warded.28 Ritual which, particularly
and play (many tribal societies speak of ritual activity as work, for ceremonies
a leisure
are part of the ongoing process of the whole group) now becomes
activity.
Moreover,
its
liturgical
structures
accentuate
the
solemn
and
attenuate
internalized
the festal aspects, as codes for moral behavior becomes
increasingly
as "conscience." When
and
it loses its capacity to play with
ideas, symbols,
ceases to be an
it
ritual
cultural
its
when
loses
resilience,
evolutionary
meanings,
or an agency of collective reflexivity.
effective metalanguage
and scholars in adjacent fields, influenced by devel?
Some anthropologists,
are
such as history
and literary criticism,
in
opments
adjacent disciplines,
to turn their attention to both the folk and high culture of complex
beginning
societies
My erhoff,
obligatory
(C. Geertz, M. Douglas,
and R. Grimes
spring readily to mind).
rituals and ritualized bonds characteristic
and civilizations
B.
R. Firth, J. Peacock,
In these they find that the
of complex,
rurally based
PROCESS,
ANO
SYSTEM,
SYMBOL
73
and professional
have been supplanted by city-based associational
civilizations
of
ritual
The
dismemberment
has, however, proved the opportunity
linkages.
of
of theater in the high culture and carnival at the folk level. A multiplicity
have
the
task
of
desacralized performative
assumed,
genres
plural
prismatically,
of major liturgical systems,
reflexivity. The sparagmos (dismemberment)
to
some
in
their
the
cases,
or,
periphery of the social process, has
relegation
resulted in the genesis and elaboration of esthetic media, each of which takes as
a component
the
its point of departure
subgenre of traditional ritual. Thus
cultural
dramatic
scenario?frequently
the
enactment
of
a
sacred
narrative?now
be?
a
of plots most of
multiplicity
performative mode sui generis breeding
which are far from sacred! Song, dance, graphic and pictural representation,
these and more, broken loose from their ritual integument, become the seeds of
concert music, ballet, literature, and painting.
If ritual might be compared to a
arts
into a multiplicity
of performative
mirror for mankind,
its conversion
gives
us a hall of
each
the
others, and each
magic mirrors,
reflecting the reflections of
not a simple inversion of mundane
reality, but its systematic
representing
and distortion,
the ensemble composing a reflexive metacommen
magnification
as
on
tary
society and history
they concern the natural and constructed needs of
humankind
under given conditions of time and place.
of a collective
The fragmentation
liturgical work, such as ritual, paves the
way for the labeling of specific esthetic works as the production of individuals.
But, in fact, all performative genres demand an audience even as they abandon a
congregation. Most of them, too, incarnate their plots or scores in the synchro?
nized actions of players. It is only formally that these esthetic progeny of ritual
may be described as individual creations. Even such forms as the novel involve a
and
process and a reading process, both of which have collective
publishing
A
features.
is
in
for
both
scholars
social
up
great opportunity
opening
initiatory
are interested
who
in the reflexive or dialectical
sciences
and humanities
common
sense processes
between
in the "getting and spending"
relationship
of
dimensions
sociocultural
life and the popular and high
(biocultural-ecological)
comes
a
performative
and attempt
genres
which
continually
scrutinize,
criticize,
subvert,
uphold,
to modify
the behavior ?f the personnel,
their values, activities and
with
concerned
the
of
maintenance
and management
relationships,
centrally
those processes; or which make statements,
in forms at least as bizarre as those
of tribal liminality, about the quality of life in the societies they monitor under
term which literally means
the guise of "entertainment"?a
"holding between,"
that is, "liminalizing."
in isolation
Instead of studying socioeconomic
processes
from these "magic mirrors," or dramatic types as texts in vacuo, it is possible to
envision a creative collaboration
sociolo?
among literary critics, anthropologists,
art
historians
of
and
other
historians,
historians,
gists,
philosophers,
religion,
kinds of scholars, on the shared field of the relationship,
between
Noh,
say,
Kowaka, Kabuki, Kyogen, Bunraku, and other Japanese theatrical genres, and
the social and cultural history of Japan at the time of genesis and in the
successive periods of development
and decline of these genres?always
with the
stress on the
between
and
social
dramatic
process
reciprocal
relationship
medium under varying conditions of time and place. A formidable undertaking?
But a great one. The same might be said of dynamic studies of Elizabethan
and
Stewart drama, Greek high and low comedy,
the commedia
dell' arte, the
VICTOR
74
TURNER
theater of the absurd, and the theater of cruelty, not merely
in sociocultural
to the fluctuant
context but in live reflexive relationship
of their
problems
terms of competent,
and
times?in
dynamic sociological
anthropological
analy?
sis, both synchronie and diachronic.
In a recent appraisal of modern
social anthropology
Sir Raymond
Firth has
sense
on its inward-turning
in
the
that
commented
modern
anthro?
disposition
not
with
the
the
is
behavior
of
concerned
pology
solely
populations
investigated
their models for perceiving and interpreting their materials and
their
behavior, with their modes of thought, not modes of action.29
generating
on the contrary,
stresses attention to the
that I am presenting,
The position
of
modes
of
and
action.
if models
Furthermore,
thought
relationship between
on
on
recent
are to be considered,
I would draw
work
the role of metaphor
in
but mainly
assigning
with
to
meaning
social
behavior,
conduct,
and
action,
and
at
that,
argue
least implicitly, many sociocultural
systems, insofar as they may be considered
to be systems, are oriented, through the cumulative effect of their performative
are not
genres, to what I have called root paradigms. These
merely
cognitive
clusters of rules from which many kinds of social actions can be generated, but
on occasions
of raised con?
represent
consciously
recognized
(though only
an
allusive, metaphorical
sciousness) cultural models of
kind, cognitively delim?
loaded, and ethically impelled, so as to give form to action in
ited, emotionally
Such root paradigms are often based on gener?
publicly critical circumstances.
in the careers of religious or political
of
narratives
climaxes
ally accepted
leaders, having thus an existential rather than merely morally edifying charac?
the primacy of social over individual goals when
ter, and often emphasize
to the point of
these in extreme situations,
choices appear between
endorsing
in
the
lives
of religious founders,
decisions
for
others.
sacrifice
Key
personal
such
as Gautama,
Lenin
Moses,
performative
society
our
shift
as
paradigmatic
and
genres,
zation. Biocultural
and Mahomet,
Jesus,
an
form
anthropologists
survival
possessing
to
perspective
acts
in terms
of
almost
of
at
such
through
such
as
range
of
leaders
political
a wide
of
component
engrammatic
sociali?
on sacrifice of self for
regard this stress
might
value
that
of
and
as exemplary
are portrayed
and Gandhi,
the
transcultural
the
performative
values
"loaded"
species
we
genres,
as
supreme
level.
may
love,
When
we
see
these
compassion,
It may be that our future task as scientists of the human condition
and heroism.
a liminal
is to establish a set of concepts occupying
ground between objective
to
survival
and
estimation
of values promoting
response
subjective
species
for
survival.
of
self-sacrifice
group
stirring exemplifications
If one is to be as bold as the editor of Daedalus would have us in assessing
one would have
in anthropology,
have happened
whether or not breakthroughs
to record that the potentiality
exists today. It may be
for a major breakthrough
is possible only in the United
that such a breakthrough
States, for British,
and
third
world
other
and
French,
partly through the
anthropology,
European
and
tend to be more homogeneous
of their practitioners,
limited number
committed
to the
pursuit
of
agreed-upon
goals?structuralism
and
neo-Marxism
and conflict theory in Britain,
structural-functionalism
sophisticated
theories in the Third
all
established
of
evaluation
and the political
metropolitan
a
States that
"thousand flowers" have truly
It is only in the United
World.
in a rigorous theoretical way, because of the huge size and cognitive
blossomed
in France,
PROCESS,
SYSTEM,
AND
SYMBOL
75
where
each major department
of the subcontinent,
individualism
may be
the
state?where
likened to an autonomous Hellenic
each,
diaspora
city
through
of its graduates, has a nimbus of satellites, both individuals and groups. The
outcome
has
a number
that
been
of
perspectives
on
the
human
each
condition,
of excellent quality, have sprung up in virtual
and theoretically
technically
one another. One thinks at once of cultural
of
anthropology,
independence
biocul?
social anthropology,
ecological anthropology,
symbolic anthropology,
structuralist
tural anthropology,
anthropology,
anthropolo?
phenomenological
gy, biocultural
plus the many
legal and political
anthropologies,
ecology,
and other scholarly approaches: anthropo?
anthropology
and
of
speaking; the uses of systems theory in
logical linguistics
ethnography
in anthropology;
Marxist
research;
approaches
applications of the
archeological
to
of
and
others.
data;
knowledge
anthropological
sociology
in blinkers, anthropologists
is that, instead of working
and
My suggestion
in cross-cultural
interested
scholars in adjacent disciplines
should
problems,
between
hybridizations
an
make
earnest
(and
"ludic")
at mutual
attempt
in the
empathy?earnest
sense
that the disciplines mentioned
above, and significant others, might be treated at
least as a unified field whose unity might have something to do with the systems
that
theory view that there are systems and systemic relations so fundamental
even
occur
in
and
different
This
would
many
they
living
inorganic phenomena.
not be to reduce the distinctive
features of the disciplines
entering into the field
some
to
dence
bland
interactional
but
average,
would
the
respect
natural
indepen?
It would also represent a
their dynamic
interdependence.
chauvinism.
For
and
disciplinary
example,
vulgar Marxists
of each within
struggle against
others who have
forces and
placed their faith in the primacy of economic
could not imperialistically
claim that ways of thinking about and
to the cosmos and his fellows were,
appreciating man's relationship
by defini?
a
at least until the defeat of
transmitted
load of "false consciousness"?false
tion,
all adversaries of the proletariat. Rather, they should hold the evaluation of the
nature and
of productive
forces and the conflicting classes resulting
magnitude
relations,
from
them
wastefully
least
as
as at
least
as
false
as
problematic
The
employed?
any
as
perspectival
superstructural
"ideology."
so much,
Why
so fast,
view from the infrastructure
cosmology.
is
What
and
may
so
be at
is a firm,
required
scholarly, yet imaginative grasp of the total phenomena produced by Man alive
and Woman
alive. It is strange that both the Hegelian
and Marxist
logics should
from the positive and structuralist
dialectic so uncompromisingly
conceptualize
position of thesis. It is not so much a question of the content of a process of self
transformation
or
jurally
being made
normative
up of opposing
structuration
as the indicative
of human
factors or forces as of any cognitive
processes
and
encoun?
relationships
the subjunctive mood
in verbs, a virtually
tering,
unlimited
range of alternative ways of doing things or relating people. Limits
may be set, of course, by biotic or ecological and often by historical conditions.
But for the dialectical
a
substitute
negation we should perhaps
liminality,
or
of
alternatives
rather
than
the
reversal
inversion
of
the
antecedent
plurality
condition. Moreover,
the motor of historical dialectic is not so much a matter of
to a qualitative
as deliberate formula?
increments
quantitive
cumulating
change
tions of human thought and imagination?often
made in liminal situations, such
as exile,
prison,
or
even
confronts
in an
"ivory
tower"?first
presenting,
and
then
perhaps
VICTOR
76
TURNER
is a major source of
up by organized action, a new vision. Liminality
a
than
rather
the
of
embodiment
antithesis.
Science
is not
change
logical
mocked?but
then neither is art. If what has been durably regarded as the
"interesting" by the informed opinion of thousands of years of human attention
cannot be incorporated
into the serious study of mankind,
then that study is
in
the
hands
of
the
and
the bolshevik" of
surely
"philistines"?the
"bourgeois
backed
D.
H.
were
Lawrence?who
so
on
intent
securing
by
force
assent
general
to
their opposed
views on the nature of material
(one said "private"
property
should be the basic label, the other "public") that the richness and subtlety of
one
human "immaterial" culture (especially,
add, its liminal construc?
might
tions) escaped this Tweedledum-and-Tweedledee
pair of dedicated materialists.
is work under the aegis of a wider orbit of
What
is needed in anthropology
in its hitherto
recovered law in which
separate
specialists
subdisciplines,
utilize systems theory
social, and cultural anthropology,
biological,
ecological,
to
in a single field, stress the
integrate their finds and research procedures
have to
primacy of processual approaches,
incorporate what phenomenologists
and remain aware of the powerful role of
say about the negotiation of meaning,
sociocultural
conditions
for reflection, criticism,
liminality in providing
rapid
the
socialization,
variant
of
postulation
of
models
and
for
and
conduct
social
and the reformulation
of cosmologies
religious and scientific.
organization,
and
in
interest
of
renewed
systems
theory abound in the
processual
Signs
recent literature. If one glances through the articles inAnnual Review ofAnthropol?
ogy for 1975 one finds Jane F. Collier writing: "Legal processes are social process?
es.
...
Law
is an
of
aspect
social
ongoing
etc.,
life,"
and
her
article
is
peppered
items of "process" vocabulary and with references to the legal handling of
in the United
conflict as framed by extended-case
analysis.30 E. A. Hoebel
in Britain32 may be said to have been among the
States31 and Max Gluckman
with
of
pioneers
processual
analysis
through
their
studies
of
law
as
social
as
process,
inArcheological
Research"
Collier recognizes. Fred T. Plog in "Systems Theory
new
the
it is
is
where
shows how processual
archeology
thought
influencing
to
in
"The
interest
linked
general systems
intrinsically
general systems theory:
theory in archeology has been expressed primarily by 'processual archeologists'
and
has
been
a
of
component
the
'systemic
that
approach'
these
have
archeologists
advocated."33
in their essay "New Directions
in Ecology
A. P. Vayda and B. J. McCay,
in effect support Sally Moore's view that processes
and Ecological Anthropology"
and the factor of indeterminacy must
of regularization,
processes of adjustment,
be taken into account in studying sociocultural populations, when they attempt
to rescue the notion of homeostasis from its previous association with concepts of
as
static equilibria and unchanging
emphasizing
systems.34 They cite Slobodkin
that
"some
maintain
. .
.e.g.
response
properties
of
homeostatic
systems
must
at
times
change
so
as
to
other properties that are important for staying in the existential game?
resilience and what might be described as flexible enough to change in
to whatever
in fact, can be modified
hazards
and
to handle
perturbations
come
along."35
Systems
theory,
the irruption of sudden unprecedented
changes,
it from those structural-func?
and
viable
it
disencumbering
processually
making
sociocultural
which metaphorized
tional assumptions
systems either as orga?
nisms
or machines.
PROCESS,
AND
SYSTEM,
SYMBOL
77
in a
The present author has for some time tried to analyze ritual processually
traditional societies to medieval
number of settings, ranging from African
and
in several universalistic
modern pilgrimages
religions. Ritual studies led him into
the analysis of ritual symbols and, later, of social symbols in general. This type of
investigation, which is sometimes called processual symbolic analysis, is concerned
with the interpretation of the meaning of symbols considered as dynamic systems
of signifiers, signifieds,
tural processes.36 Here
tions,
is
is a transformative
Ritual
competence.
and
categories,
commonly
and changing modes of signification
the focus ismeaningful
performance
contradictions
supposed
in Western
in temporal sociocul?
as well as
underlying
classifica?
major
performance
revealing
as
It
is
in
of cultural
not,
essence,
processes.
a
for
social
conservatism
whose
culture,
prop
symbols merely condense cherished cultural values, though itmay, under certain
take on this role. Rather does it hold the generative source of culture
conditions,
in its liminal stage. Hence,
and structure, particularly
ritual is by definition
is linked with social states
associated with social transitions, whereas ceremony
and statuses. Ritual symbols, in processual analysis, are regarded as the smallest
units of ritual behavior, whether object, activity, relationship, word, gesture, or
are factors in social action,
in a ritual situation.37 They
spatial arrangement
or
ends and means, whether
associated with collective
formulated
explicitly
not.38
in contexts of
the analytical frame is processual and embeds meaning
definitions assigned to terms do not always coincide with those made
from sign
by linguists and cognitive structuralists. Thus symbol is distinguished
of its signifieds, and by the
both by the multiplicity
polysemy)
(multivocality,
nature of its signification.
In symbols there is always some kind of likeness
Because
situation,
(metaphoric/metonymic)
posited by the framing culture between signifier (sym?
and signified(s); in signs there need be no likeness. Signs are almost
bol-vehicle)
in "closed" systems, whereas
symbols, particularly dominant
always organized
over or anchor entire ritual
are
(which
symbols
preside
processes),
semantically
The
"open."
meaning
is not
nor
fixed,
absolutely
is it
necessarily
the
same
for
that a particular signifier ("outward form") has symbolic
can be added by collective fiat to old
meaning.
signifieds
signifiers. More?
either
over, individuals may add personal meaning to a symbol's public meaning,
by utilizing one of its standardized modes of association to bring new concepts
or by
a
within its semantic orbit (metaphorical reconstruction)
including itwithin
complex of initially private fantasies. Such private constructions may become
or standardized
that the
part of public hermeneutics
interpretations
provided
or
semantic manipulator
has sufficient power, authority,
prestige,
legitimacy
a shaman,
(e.g., he may be
prophet, chief, or priest) to make his interpretation
stick. Political symbols have been analyzed in similar terms by A. Cohen,39 R.
who
New
everyone
A.
Firth,40
agrees
Legesse,41
and
V.
Turner,42
among
others.
study of symbolic forms and processes and the functions
anthropological
of symbolism has generally thrived in the past decade. Where
it has been influ?
enced by linguistics or structuralism the stress has been on the eliciting of abstract
from cultural "products" (myths, kinship no?
systems of symbols and meanings
The
menclatures,
from
hand,
native
iconographie
informants
demands
forms,
by
ethnotaxonomies,
questionnaires,
a kind of fieldwork
in which
texts
on
customs
Processualism,
on
the investigator
becomes
etc.).
drawn
the
other
involved
VICTOR
78
TURNER
processes. He recognizes his own role in social inter?
action with his informants and tries to account for the biases this may impart to
in the
his subsequent
analyses. Symbolic
analysis here rests on data generated
heat of action in ritual, legal, formal, informal, interpersonal,
domestic,
ludic,
has become party and privy.
solemn, etc., processes to which the anthropologist
Such data are quite different from those obtained by a stance of detachment. This
or the
stance is best for the taking of measurements
(gardens, hut sizes)
counting
of heads (village census-taking),
but worst for coming to an understanding
(itself a
with
sociocultural
central
of
process)
actors
how
and symbols.
sociocultural
negotiate
meaning,
words
using
present author has suggested that there are natural units of
tend to have, like raw rites de passage, a temporal
process, which
successive
with
structure,
and
generate,
perceive,
The
phases
cumulating
to at
least
a
resolution.
temporary
internal structuring, and style of processual units are influenced by
The duration,
and cultural variables which must be empirically
biotic, ecological,
investigated
in each population under survey. Extended case histories may contain a sequence
of several processual units of different types, ranging from those which maximize
to those which maximize
kinds and intensities of
conflict. Different
cooperation
is required is a workable
into play. What
social control functions are brought
cross-cultural
typology of processual units. For it is in the analysis of the "social
that we recognize
the merit of Sally
drama"43 and the "social enterprise"44
on clear
comment: "An anthropology
focused
Moore's
exclusively
regularities of
form,
al,'
symbol,
'cultural,'
and
or
and
content,
'processual'
their
congruence
presumed
out
in orientation)
is
leaving
'structur?
(whether
fundamental
dimen?
not only in the imperfect fit
negotiable part of many real situations lies
the symbolic or formal level and the level of content, but also in the
between
a
of alternatives and meaning within each, which may accommodate
multiplicity
sions. The
range
of
interpretation,
manipulation,
and
choice.
Individuals
or
groups
may
in their situations
exaggerate the degree of order or the quality of indeterminacy
for myriad reasons."45 How they do this, and why, can be ascertained only if the
an actor in the field of living relationships. There
investigator has also become
are risks in not staying aloof, of course, but the acquisition of knowledge has al?
ways been beset by dangers, here physical as well as intellectual!
to indulge in a few personal opinions and
itmay be permissible
In conclusion,
or
not yet oc?
the
great breakthrough
paradigm shift has
speculations. Clearly,
we
"an
with
if
mean,
Kuhn,
curred,
accepted example of actual
by paradigm
includes
scientific practice?which
law, theory, application and instrumentation
from which
the
models
spring coherent traditions of
together which provides
are
scientific research."46 But there
among hitherto isolated
signs of convergence
can
as mentioned
in a single work, either
If
be
united
these
above.
subdisciples,
a
or
team of interdependent
a
specialists, then the reflexivity
by
by
single mind,
and
cultural
social,
among biological,
anthropologists,
systemically
ecological,
in
them
the
their
(and
concepts
mutually
process) in relation
modifying
relating
and empirically generated data, may pro?
to a body of both phenomenologically
in its own way to those from which have sprung
duce a paradigm comparable
coherent
traditions
of
natural
science
research.
But
to achieve
this
goal
anthro?
to sink certain unimportant
structural differences,
and pro?
pologists
a relationship
of communitas with one another, a relational
achieve
cessually
even communion,
between definite
communication,
quality of full unmediated
identities. Such communitas would essentially be a liminal phe
and determinate
will
have
SYSTEM,
PROCESS,
nomenon,
among
of
consisting
a blend
of
liminars in the ritual process
References
*L. Gumplowicz,
1963), p. 203.
2K. A. Bennett,
The Outlines
humility
AND
SYMBOL
and
as one
comradeship)?such
in simple societies
I. L. Horowitz
of Sociology,
79
sees
"on the edge of the world."
(ed.)
(American
edition
New
York,
R. H. Osborne,
and R. J. Miller,
"Biocultural
in Annual Review of
Ecology,"
(Palo Alto,
1975), p. 176.
Anthropology
3Ibid., p. 164.
4A. Schutz, Collected Papers (The Hague,
1962), vol. I, p. 285.
5D. E. Brown,
15:1 (1974):40.
Current Anthropology,
"Corporations,"
6S. F. Moore,
in Symbol and Politics in Communal Ideology (Ithaca, N.Y.,
1976), pp.
"Epilogue,"
230-238.
7Ibid., p. 232.
8Ibid., p. 233.
9Ibid., pp. 234-235.
10See Owen Barfield's
of Essoins
discussion
in "Poetic Diction
and Legal Fiction"
in The Importance
1962), pp. 60-64.
Cliffs, N.J.,
of Language
(Englewood
nP. Filmer, M. Phillipson,
D. Silverman,
and D. Walsh,
and the Social World,"
in
"Sociology
in Sociological Theory (London,
New Directions
1972), p. 21.
12B. Sch?lte,
"The Structural Anthropology
of Claude L?vi-Strauss,"
in J. J. Honigmann
(ed.),
Handbook of Social and Cultural Anthropology
1973), p. 680.
(Chicago,
13
A. Cicourel,
of Status and Role,"
inH. P. Dreitsel
"The Negotiation
{ta.), Recent Sociology, No. 2
in "Sociology
and the Social World,"
(New York,
1970), cited by D. Walsh
p. 21.
on the Ritual
14M. Gluckman,
1962), p. 4.
of Social Relations (Manchester,
Essays
15E. D. Chappell
and C. S. Coon, Principles of Anthropology
(New York,
1942), passim.
and I. L. Child, Child Training and Personality: A Cross-Cultural
16J.W. Whiting
Study (New
1953).
Haven,
17F. W. Young,
Initiation Ceremonies: A Cross-Cultural Study of Status Dramatization
(Indianapolis,
1965).
18S. T.
Kimball,
1960).
London,
19S. T. Kimball,
"Introduction"
to A.
Van
"Arnold Van Gennep,"
York,
1968), vol. 13, p. 113.
20H. Junod, The Life of a South African Tribe
1913.
Gennep,
Les Rites de Passage
in International
(New Hyde
translation,
of the Social Sciences
Encyclopedia
Park, N.Y.,
(English
1962). First published
(New
1912
21V. Turner,
"Betwixt
and Between:
in Rites de Passage"
The Liminal Period
in J. Helm
(ed.),
1964), pp. 4-20.
Proceedings of theAmerican Ethnological Society for 1964 (Seattle,
Homo Ludens (English translation, London,
1949). First published
1938; paperback,
22J. Huizinga,
1955.
Boston,
23W'. James, Principles ofPsychology (New York,
1890 in 2 volumes.
1918), p. 506. First published
24Discussed
and B. J. McCay,
"New Directions
in Ecology
and Ecological
by A. P. Vayda
Annual Review of Anthropology,
p. 4.
Anthropology,"
25See V. Turner,
The Ritual Process (Chicago,
1969) for examples.
to an Ecology ofMind
26G. Bateson,
(New York,
1972), passim.
Steps
27Ibid., p. 188.
Le Loisir et la Ville (Paris, 1962).
28J. Dumazedier,
29R. Firth,
of Modem
Social Anthropology,"
Annual Review of
"Appraisal
p. 8.
Anthropology,
Annual Review of
30J. F. Collier,
"Legal Processes,"
p. 121.
Anthropology,
31E. A. Hoebel,
The Law of Primitive Man: A Study in Comparative
Legal Dynamics
(Cambridge,
his classical use of the case method
in collaboration
with K. N.
1954), following
Mass.,
Llewellyn,
The Cheyenne Way
(Norman, Oklahoma,
1941).
32M. Gluckman,
The Judicial Process Among the Barotse of Northern Rhodesia (Manchester,
1955).
33F. T. Plog, "Systems
inArcheological
Research," Annual Review ofAnthropology,
Theory
p. 207.
34A. P. Vayda
and B. J. McCay,
"New Directions
in
and Ecological
pp.
Ecology
Anthropology,"
298-299.
35Ibid., p. 299.
36V. Turner,
Studies, "A nnu al Review ofAnthropology,
pp.
"Symbolic
37V. Turner,
The Forest of Symbols (Ithaca, N.Y.,
1967), p. 19.
38V. Turner,
The Drums of Affliction
(Oxford,
1968), p. 269.
39A. Cohen, Two-Dimensional Man: An
on the
Essay
of Power
Anthropology
1974).
Society (London,
40R. Firth, Symbols: Public and Private
1973).
(Ithaca, N.Y.,
145-161.
and Symbolism
in Complex
gO
VICTOR
TURNER
41A.
Gada: Three Approaches to the Study of African Society (London,
1973).
Legesse,
42V.
Turner, Dramas, Fields, andMetaphors: Symbolic Action inHuman Society (Ithaca, N. Y., 1974).
43V.
Schism and Continuity
in an African Society: A Study ofNdembu
Turner,
Village Life (Manchester,
1957), pp. 91-93.
44R. Firth, Essays on Social Organization
and Values (London,
1964), passim.
45S. F. Moore,
p. 233.
"Epilogue,"
46T. Kuhn,
The Structure
of Scientific Revolutions
(Chicago,
1962), pp.
10, 41.