Liminality is a theoretical and methodological concept which originated within anthropology at beginning of the 20th century through the work of Arnold van Gennep and later Victor Turner. This notion emphasizes the need for a transformative space-time in the human experience and for a temporary suspension of the normative borders that orient it. Through ritualized symbolic forms, the individual can experience an “in-between” condition and question one’s own identity and role in the community of belonging, introducing new balances between innovation and preservation. The notion of liminality - from a processual point of view - allows us to explore a twofold paradoxical tension that can never be fully resolved in the human psyche: the relationship between identity and sociality (the paradox of psychic and collective life) and the relationship between stability and change (the paradox of transformation). Through the examination of historical contributions on liminality up to the most recent studies on contemporary psychosocial forms, the value of liminality is explored focusing on some of its central aspects: identity, community, rituality, passages and thresholds, borders and limits, creativity and transformation, uncertainty and affectivity, stability and loss of orientation.
AugéM. (1995). Non-places: An introduction to supermodernity. Verso Books.
2.
BakhtinM. (1984). Rabelais and his world: Indiana University Press.
3.
BaumanZ. (2013). Liquid modernity. John Wiley & Sons.
4.
BaumanZ. (2017). Retrotopia: Polity Press.
5.
BollasC. (2018). Meaning and melancholia: Life in the age of bewilderment. Routledge.
6.
CabraM.ZittounT. (2024). Modes of engagement. In KomatsuJ. (Ed.), The self on the move: Passing through institutional settings (pp. 1–19). IAP.
7.
CarriereK. R. (2024). Politics in movement within and between cultures. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 58(2), 386–393. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-024-09824-0
8.
De FortunaA. M.De Luca PicioneR. (2024a). Searching for meaning through conspiracy theories. Considerations on the state of the art of psychological literature and definition of a research agenda from a semiotic dynamic cultural perspective. Culture & Psychology, Article 41246760. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354067x241246760
9.
De FortunaA. M.De Luca PicioneR. (2024b). Negative capacity. From a psychoanalytic notion to a democratic strategy for dealing with conspiracy theories. Rivista Italiana di Psicologia Clinica.
10.
De Luca PicioneR. (2020). The semiotic paradigm in psychology. A mature weltanschauung for the definition of semiotic mind. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 54(3), 639–650. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-020-09555-y
11.
De Luca PicioneR. (2021a). Metapsychology of borders: Structures, operations and semiotic dynamics. European Journal of Psychotherapy & Counselling, 23(4), 436–467. https://doi.org/10.1080/13642537.2021.2000463
12.
De Luca PicioneR. (2021b). The dynamic nature of the human psyche and its three tenets: Normativity, liminality and resistance. Semiotic advances in direction of modal articulation sensemaking. Human Arenas, 4(2), 279–293. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42087-021-00212-3
13.
De Luca PicioneR. (2023). Viktor von Weizsäcker’s notion of pathic: affective liminality, modalization of experience and illness. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 58(1), 46–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-023-09791-y
14.
De Luca PicioneR. (2024). Jacques lacan’s liminal subject: Semiotic and anti-semiotic thrusts of a psychoanalytic theory of the subjectivity. In French psychoanalysis revisited (pp. 13–31): Springer Nature Switzerland.
15.
De Luca PicioneR.De FortunaA. M.BalzaniE. (2024). Pathologies of liminality: Degradation of rituality and loss of transitionality. In-Between suffering on the borders of obsessive neurosis and borderline disorder. International Journal of Psychoanalysis and Education: Subject, Action & Society, 4(1), 53–75.
16.
De Luca PicioneR.FredaM. F. (2016). Possible use in psychology of threshold concept in order to study sensemaking processes. Culture & Psychology, 22(3), 362–375. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354067x16654858
17.
De Luca PicioneR.FredaM. F. (2022). The otherness in the constitution of the psyche: Arguments from psychoanalysis and cultural psychology. In FossaP. (Ed.), New perspectives on inner speech (pp. 23–40). Springer.
18.
De Luca PicioneR.LozziU. (2021). Uncertainty as a constitutive condition of human experience: Paradoxes and complexity of sensemaking in the face of the crisis and uncertainty. International Journal of Psychoanalysis and Society: Subject, Action, & Society, 1(2), 14–53. https://doi.org/10.32111/SAS.2021.1.2.2
19.
De Luca PicioneR.MarsicoG. (2024). The religious nature of the psyche, semiotic mediation, and the evanescence of identity in liminality. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 58(3), 836–844. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-024-09850-y
20.
De Luca PicioneR.MarsicoG.TateoL.ValsinerJ. (2022). Generalized Semiotic Functions of Borders’ model: Contributions from cultural psychology, semiotics and psychoanalysis to-wards the understanding of borders in human experience. International Journal of Psychoanalysis and Education: Subject, Action & Society, 2(2), 81–111.
21.
De Luca PicioneR.ValsinerJ. (2017). Psychological functions of semiotic borders in sense-making: Liminality of narrative processes. Europe's Journal of Psychology, 13(3), 532–547. https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v13i3.1136
22.
EllerJ. D. (2023). Beyond liminality: Ontologies of abundant betweenness. Routledge.
23.
FechnerG. T. (1860/1999). Elemente der psychophysik: Thoemmes Press.
24.
FoucaultM. (1984). Des espace autres. Architecture, Mouvement, Continuité, 5, 46–49.
GrecoM.StennerP. (2017). From paradox to pattern shift: Conceptualising liminal hotspots and their affective dynamics. Theory & Psychology, 27(2), 147–166. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354317693120
27.
HanB. C. (2020). The disappearance of rituals: A topology of the present. John Wiley & Sons.
28.
HorvathA.ThomassenB.WydraH. (Eds.), (2022). Breaking boundaries: Varieties of liminality. Berghahn Books.
29.
HydeL. (2008). Trickster makes this world: Mischief, myth, and art. Canongate Books.
30.
HynesW. J. (2009). Mapping the characteristics of mythic tricksters: A heuristic guide. In DotyW. G.HynesW. J. (Eds.), Mythical trickster figures: Contours, contexts, and criticisms. The University of Alabama Press.
31.
JungC. G. (1943/1948). The spirit Mercurius. In Alchemical studies. The collected works of C. G. Jung, vol., Part 1. (pp. 191–250). Princeton University Press.
32.
JungC. G. (1954). On the psychology of trickster figure. In Four archetypes. The collected works of C. G. Jung, vol., Part 1 (pp. 133–152). Princeton University Press.
33.
KaësR. (2005). A hypothesis for a third topic regarding intersubjectivity and the subject in a common, shared psychic space. Funzione Gamma (Online journal).
34.
KerenyiK. (1996). Hermes: Guide of souls. Spring.
35.
KomatsuJ. (2024). The self on the move: Passing through institutional settings. IAP.
MartiniE.PergolaF.De Luca PicioneR. (2024). confini, liminalità E Metamorfosi La complessità del confine nell’esperienza dell’umano. Mimesis.
38.
RadinP. (2015). The trickster: A study in American Indian mythology. Pickle Partners Publishing.
39.
RemottiM. L. (2012). Introduzione. In van GennepA. (Ed.), I Riti di Passaggio. Bollati Boringhieri.
40.
SalvatoreS.De Luca PicioneR.BochicchioV.ManninoG.LangherV.PergolaF.VelottiP.VenuleoC. (2021). The affectivization of the public sphere: The contribution of psychoanalysis in understanding and counteracting the current crisis scenarios. International Journal of Psychoanalysis and Education: Subject, Action, & Society, 1(1), 3–30.
41.
SalvatoreS.De Luca PicioneR.CozzolinoM.BochicchioV.PalmieriA. (2022). The role of affective sensemaking in the constitution of experience. The affective pertinentization model (APER). Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 56(1), 114–132. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-020-09590-9
42.
SalvatoreS.MannariniT.GennaroA.CeliaG.De DominicisS.De Luca PicioneR.IusoS.KerušauskaitėS.KleinbubJ. R.PalmieriA.PergolaF.RehoM.RochiraA.RocchiG. (2023). The affective regulation of uncertainty: The semiotic dimensionality model (SDM). Social Sciences, 12(4), 217. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci12040217
43.
SalvatoreS.PalmieriA.De Luca PicioneR.BochicchioV.RehoM.SerioM. R.SalvatoreG. (2024). The affective grounds of the mind. The Affective Pertinentization (APER) Model. Physics of Life Reviews, 50(3), 143–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plrev.2024.07.008
44.
SalvatoreS.VenuleoC. (2017). Liminal transitions in a semiotic key: The mutual in-feeding between present and past. Theory & Psychology, 27(2), 215–230. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354317692889
45.
StennerP. (2013). Affectivity, liminality and psychology without foundations. In Cultural psychology, aesthetics and postmodernity. Psychosozial Verlag.
46.
StennerP. (2017). Being in the zone and vital subjectivity: On the liminal sources of sport and art. In JordanT.WoodwardK.McClureB. (Eds.), Culture, identity and intense performativity: Being in the zone (antinomies).
47.
StennerP. (2018). Liminality and experience: A transdisciplinary approach to the psychosocial. Springer.
48.
StennerP. (2021). Theorising liminality between art and life: The liminal sources of cultural experience. Experience on the edge: Theorizing liminality, 3–42.
49.
StennerP. (2024). Liminality. In DarbellayF. (Ed.), Elgar encyclopedia of interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity. Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.
50.
StennerP.De Luca PicioneR. (2023). A theoretically informed critical review of research applying the concept of liminality to understand experiences with cancer: Implications for a new oncological agenda in health psychology. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(11), 5982. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20115982
51.
StennerP.ZittounT. (2020). On taking a leap of faith: Art, imagination, and liminal experiences. Journal of Theoretical & Philosophical Psychology, 40(4), 240–263. https://doi.org/10.1037/teo0000148
52.
SzakolczaiA. (2009). Liminality and experience: Structuring transitory situations and transformative events. International political anthropology, 2(1), 141–172.
53.
SzakolczaiÁ. (2009). Liminality and experience: Structuring transitory situations and transformative events. International Political Anthropology, 2(1), 141–172.
54.
SzakolczaiA. (2016). Permanent liminality and modernity: Analysing the sacrificial carnival through novels. Routledge.
55.
SzakolczaiA. (2017). Permanent (trickster) liminality: The reasons of the heart and of the mind. Theory & Psychology, 27(2), 231–248. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354317694095
56.
SzakolczaiA. (2023). Coping with permanent liminality: Social understanding and action through theatre in late communist Hungary. Social Sciences, 12(12), 652. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci12120652
57.
TagliaventiM. R. (2019). Liminality in organization studies: Theory and method. Routledge.
58.
ThomassenB. (2009). The uses and meaning of liminality. International political anthropology, 2(1), 5–28.
59.
ThomassenB. (2016). Liminality and the modern: Living through the in-between. Routledge.
60.
TurnerV (1964). Betwixt and between: The liminal period in rites of passage. In the Proceedings of the American Ethnological Society, Symposium on New Approaches to-the Study of Religion. (pp. 4–20). University of Washington Press.
61.
TurnerV. W. (1967a). Betwixt and Between: The Liminal Period in Rites de Passage. In The forest of symbols. Cornell University Press.
62.
TurnerV. W. (1967b). The forest of symbols: Aspects of Ndembu ritual. Cornell University Press.
63.
TurnerV. W. (1969a). The ritual process: Structure and anti-structure. Aldine Publishing.
64.
TurnerV. W. (1969b). Communitas: Model and process. In The ritual process: Structure and anti-structure (pp. 131–165): Cornell University Press.
65.
TurnerV. W. (1974a). Dramas, fields and metaphors. Cornell University Press.
66.
TurnerV. W. (1974b). Liminal to liminoid, in play, flow, and ritual: An essay in comparative symbology. Rice Institute Pamphlet-Rice University Studies, 60(3), 53–92.
67.
TurnerV. W. (1977). Process, system, and symbol: A new anthropological synthesis. Dædalus, 106(3), 61–80.
68.
TurnerV. W. (1982). From ritual to theatre: The human seriousness of play. Performing Arts Journal Publications.
69.
TurnerV. W. (1988). The anthropology of performance New York. PAJ Publications.
70.
TurnerV. W.BrunerE. M. (Eds.), (1986). The anthropology of experience. University of Illinois Press.
71.
ValsinerJ. (2020). Cultural psychologies and new general psychology. In WagonerB.CarriereK. (Eds.), Where culture and mind meet. Principle for a dynamic cultural psychology (pp. 3–36). IAP.
72.
van GennepA. (2010). The rites of passage (1909). Routledge.
73.
VernantJ. P. (1969). Hestia-Hermes: The religious expression of space and movement among the Greeks. Social Science Information, 8(4), 131–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/053901846900800407
74.
WagonerB.ZittounT. (Eds.), (2021). Experience on the edge: Theorizing liminality. Springer Nature.
75.
ZittounT. (2021). From liminalities to limbo: Thinking through semiotic elaboration. Experience on the Edge: Theorizing Liminality, 45–58.
76.
ZittounT.StennerP. (2023). The possible and donald winnicott. In The palgrave encyclopedia of the possible (pp. 1081–1090). Springer International Publishing.
