This article provides an anthropologically inspired analysis of the Maidan protest movement in Ukraine. We argue that the uprisings involved all essential features of liminality: a dramatic situation marked by volatility, ambivalence, and potentiality that led to the embryonic formation of a communitas. The article describes how protesters met and mobilized on Independence Square in ritualized action, and how these forms of action served to frame the meaningfulness of the events. Engaging this social drama as a “liminal hotspot,” we discuss how subjectivity and affectivity must be analysed jointly as part of the same political-ritual process.
BornemanJ. (2014, December). Maternal and paternal functions in masses and crowds. Paper presented at “The anthropology of the crowd: The I, the WE, the US”, Society for Humanistic Anthropology and Society for Psychological Anthropology, American Anthropological Association Meetings, Washington, DC.
4.
CanettiE. (1984). Crowds and power. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
5.
DzenovskaD.ArenasI. (2012). Don’t fence me in: Barricade sociality and political struggles in Mexico and Latvia. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 54(3), 644–678.
6.
EhrenreichB. (2007). Dancing in the streets: A history of collective joy. New York, NY: Metropolitan Books.
7.
FoucaultM. (2001). Fearless speech. Los Angeles, CA: Semiotext(e).
8.
GeorgsenM. S. (2014). Appendikshæfte: Revolutionære åndedrag – Protesterne i Kyiv 2013/2014 [Appendix: Revolutionary breaths – The protests in Kiev 2013/2014] (Appendix to unpublished master’s project). Roskilde University, Denmark. Retrieved from http://rudar.ruc.dk/handle/1800/15562
9.
GirardR. (1979). Violence and the sacred. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
10.
GrecoM.StennerP. (2017). From paradox to pattern shift: Conceptualising liminal hotspots and their affective dynamics. Theory & Psychology, 27, 147–166.
11.
HorvathA. (1998). Tricking into the position of the outcast: A case study in the emergence and effects of communist power. Political Psychology, 19(2), 331–347.
12.
PetersonM. (2015). In search of antistructure: The meaning of Tahrir Square in Egypt’s ongoing social drama. In HorvathA.ThomassenB.WydraH. (Eds.), Breaking boundaries: Varieties of liminality (pp. 164–182). New York, NY: Berghahn.
13.
SewellW. (1992). A theory of structure: Duality, agency, and transformation. American Journal of Sociology, 98(1), 1–29.
14.
SkocpolT. (1979). States and social revolution. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
15.
StennerP. (2011, October). Reflections on the so-called “affective turn”. Keynote address for the V Congreso Internacional de Psicologia Social, Benemérita Universidad Autónoma de Puebla, Mexico.
16.
StennerP. (in press). Affectivität, Liminalität and Psychologie ohne Basis [Affectivity, liminality and psychology without foundations]. In StraubJ.SørensenE.ChakkarathP.RebaneG. (Eds.), Kulturpsychologie, Ästhetik und Postmoderne [Cultural psychology, aesthetics and postmodernity]. Giessen, Germany: Psychosozial Verlag.
ThomassenB. (2014). Liminality and the modern: Living through the in-between. Farnham, UK: Ashgate.
24.
TurnerV. (1964). Betwixt and between: The liminal period in rites de passage. In HelmJ. (Ed.), Symposium on new approaches to the study of religion: Proceedings of the 1964 Annual Spring Meeting of the American Ethnological Society (pp. 4–20). Seattle: University of Washington Press.
25.
TurnerV. (1967). Betwixt and between: The liminal period in rites de passage. In Forest of symbols: Aspects of Ndembu ritual (pp. 93–111). New York, NY: Cornell University Press.
26.
TurnerV. W. (1988). The anthropology of performance. New York, NY: PAJ Publications.
27.
WydraH. (2009). The liminal origins of democracy. International Political Anthropology, 2(1), 91–109.
