Victor Turner, social process and performance

This post is a summary of a review of the work of Victor Turner, particularly Victor Turner and Contemporary Cultural Performance, edited by Graham St. John, 2008. Turner focused on the concept of liminality, 'betwixt and between', adapted from the 1908 work of Arnold van Gennep on rites of passage. He applied this first to an African tribal society he had studied, and then to modern Western society. At a time when deep social structure was being emphasised, he rooted for social process. Social performances (such as rituals) cemented the comminity together by reducing tension.

That Turner generalised van Gennep's schema has introduced a range of confusions which this volume in part sorts out and in part magnifies. The concept of liminality (the state of being on a threshold) was applied both to major upheavals and to performances generally, distinguishing only between ‘authentic’ liminality, and playful artifices such as the theatre which are named liminoid, or liminal-like. Liminality is viewed as an in-between state of mind, in between fact and fiction (in Turner’s language indicative and subjunctive), in between statuses. This concept has endured in performance studies and has the potential for wider usage. His arguments for a positive liminal state of mind, which he called communitas, also has potential for inspiring creative ‘beyond the box’ approaches. This is ‘bottom-up’, multi-perspectival, democratic – or in his terminology anti-structural, beyond authority structures. Turner drew all this from the idea that ritual is transformative, even therapeutic, social drama, not only functional but eufunctional­ – viz. working for good. This is an attempt to define the creative process, and is still inspiring research and practice. Creativity as theshold still has potential to be developed. However, Turner’s notion of all ritual being social drama is an overgeneralisation. Some ritual is traditional, nostalgic and as regards new insights, quite dead. Tribal rituals studies in anthropology were capable of more dynamic interpretation, with rituals solving social disputes, but Turner was not justified to interpret all ritual as explained by this model. It is reasonable to use these dynamic rituals as a model for transformational theatre, but not all theatre is life-enhancing. The concept helps us to evaluate ritual, distinguishing between rituals which reconcile disputes, which affirm identity and community, and which are nostalgic and static.

Turner’s schema provides a social revolution through ritual, which draws both from his Marxist past and his Christian present. His communitas is reminiscent of ‘fellowship’. Turner’s central belief was that ritual has still a central part to play in modern western society, with serious purposes (liminal), and entertainment aims (liminoid, liminal-like). Performances can have serious transformative purpose, challenging, changing hearts and minds and being a part of social reconciliation. Much about Victor Turner has been reworked and honed; but there are serious concepts which still need to be further developed in terms of theatre, ritual and religion, and even education where there is meaning in the idea of threshold. New studies might concentrate on “the subjunctive”, the potential, the might become: using quasi-ceremony as exciting threshold activities may well reduce existing stresses and encourage appropriate forward planning.

When published, a link to the review will be provided here