FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2894961930> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2894961930 endingPage "51" @default.
• W2894961930 startingPage "37" @default.
• W2894961930 abstract "IntroductionLiminal spaces are attractive. They are the places we go to in search of a break from the normal. They can be real places, parts of a larger territory, or they can be imagined or dreamed. Liminal landscapes are found at the fringes, at the limits. However, there is more to it than that. Had we just been talking about the peripheral, or the far-away, we would be dealing with marginality: that which is the furthest away from the centre. Liminal landscapes are in-between spaces. Seasides and beaches are archetypical liminal landscapes. The seaside is something more than just the end of dry and inhabited land: it is a coastline with something on the other side of the threshold. Liminality implicates the existence of a boundary, a limes, the Latin word for threshold from which the concept of limitality derives. This limit is not simply there: it is there to be confronted. The ancient Greeks had two words for the sea. Pelagos was the standard word used to refer to the sea as a simple ‘fact’. Pontos indicated something else: it was the sea facing the human being, a trial to overcome, a threshold to pass, an open sea to be crossed, a danger, a challenge. The etymology speaks to this, as pontos belongs to a group of significant words with roots in Proto-Indo-European (*pent) ‘to go, to pass; path, bridge’, also related to pateo ‘I step’. When asked who were the most numerous, the living or the dead, Anacharsis (the sixth century bc Scythian sage) is supposed to have retorted, ‘where do you place those who are sailing the seas?’ (as quoted in Endsjo, 2000: 370). The Greeks knew very well that the middle stage in a ritual passage had its own spatial reality. The Athenian ephebes (neophytes) were sent out to the uncultivated mountainsides to have their civic status altered in a rite of passage. Mythology confirmed geography: the adolescent Odysseus was sent to the mountain slopes of Parnassus to undergo his rite of passage to manhood, with Autolycus, his maternal grandfather, acting as ceremony master (Endsjo2000: 358). The Ndembu that Turner studied for so many years also knew their liminal geography. When the neophytes were thrown into the ritual passage, this happened initially by a spatial separation from their village as the ceremony master took them into the wilderness, and brought them to a sacred site where they were subjected to a series of tests and personality transforming ordeals. For a variety of Stone Age peoples caves almost surely functioned as spaces of liminality (Barnatt and Edmonds 2002). Caves were certainly used for funerary and ritual purposes in the majority of Neolithic cultures. Upper Paleolithic and Neolithic caves typically took the shape of dangerous passage ways, quite literally. It is likely that these passage-type caves represented passages to another world: the world of the gods or/and the world of the dead. Caves have been, in many cultures, crucial liminal spaces where shamanistic ekstases occurred, bringing humans into contact with the spirits or the beyond. For the Maya, caves were the entrances to the underworld, not pyramids. It is now a well-accepted hypothesis that cave paintings, such as the famous ones at Lascaux, must be interpreted as being part of ritual passages and actual liminal experiences. Liminal spaces are evidently part of any culture. The purpose of this chapter is to open up a question: what is happening to liminal spaces in contemporary, ‘Western’ and ‘modern’ societies? Such a question is much too big to be addressed, let alone answered, in a single chapter. Rather than answering the question, the aim will be to search for a meaningful formulation of the problem. My discussion will depart from a short introduction to the concept of liminality via Arnold van Gennep and Victor Turner. A typology of liminal experiences will be presented, followed by a discussion of current applications of the liminality concept which will end on a warning note: that the very dominant tendency in postmodern and poststructuralist literature to take a celebratory stance toward the ‘interstitial’ is a critical development that does not really enable our analysis of liminality and that does not, ultimately, pay respect to the original analysis offered by van Gennep. I argue that Victor Turner’s proposal to see the modern world as ‘liminoid’ is not the best starting point in our attempts to capture the role of liminal space in the world of today. While it is to the merit of Victor Turner that we can think with liminality, in taking up the concept of liminality today we have to step carefully. This is especially the case as the term is increasingly used to talk about almost anything. I will instead argue that Turner’s own observation that liminal states may at times become institutionalized provides a key toward understanding both temporal and spatial liminality in modernity. In this context, the work of the contemporary social theorist, Arpad Szakolczai, will be discussed." @default.
• W2894961930 created "2018-10-12" @default.
• W2894961930 creator A5063211639 @default.
• W2894961930 date "2012-05-04" @default.
• W2894961930 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W2894961930 title "Revisiting liminality: The danger of empty spaces" @default.
• W2894961930 cites W4300947626 @default.
• W2894961930 doi "https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203123164-9" @default.
• W2894961930 hasPublicationYear "2012" @default.
• W2894961930 type Work @default.
• W2894961930 sameAs 2894961930 @default.
• W2894961930 citedByCount "7" @default.
• W2894961930 countsByYear W28949619302012 @default.
• W2894961930 countsByYear W28949619302013 @default.
• W2894961930 countsByYear W28949619302015 @default.
• W2894961930 countsByYear W28949619302017 @default.
• W2894961930 countsByYear W28949619302022 @default.
• W2894961930 crossrefType "book-chapter" @default.
• W2894961930 hasAuthorship W2894961930A5063211639 @default.
• W2894961930 hasConcept C107038049 @default.
• W2894961930 hasConcept C142362112 @default.
• W2894961930 hasConcept C14812997 @default.
• W2894961930 hasConceptScore W2894961930C107038049 @default.
• W2894961930 hasConceptScore W2894961930C142362112 @default.
• W2894961930 hasConceptScore W2894961930C14812997 @default.
• W2894961930 hasLocation W28949619301 @default.
• W2894961930 hasOpenAccess W2894961930 @default.
• W2894961930 hasPrimaryLocation W28949619301 @default.
• W2894961930 hasRelatedWork W1504488920 @default.
• W2894961930 hasRelatedWork W1978880204 @default.
• W2894961930 hasRelatedWork W2531457408 @default.
• W2894961930 hasRelatedWork W2945543972 @default.
• W2894961930 hasRelatedWork W2994512462 @default.
• W2894961930 hasRelatedWork W3148703093 @default.
• W2894961930 hasRelatedWork W3184366884 @default.
• W2894961930 hasRelatedWork W4230555467 @default.
• W2894961930 hasRelatedWork W4283761201 @default.
• W2894961930 hasRelatedWork W4285194678 @default.
• W2894961930 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2894961930 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2894961930 magId "2894961930" @default.
• W2894961930 workType "book-chapter" @default.