In anthropology liminality (from the Latin word līmen, meaning "a threshold") is the quality of ambiguity or disorientation that occurs in the middle stage of a rite of passage, when participants no longer hold their pre-ritual status but have not yet begun the transition to the status they will hold when the rite is complete. During a rite's liminal stage, participants "stand at the threshold" between their previous way of structuring their identity, time, or community, and a new way, which completing the rite establishes.
The concept of liminality was first developed in the early twentieth century by folklorist Arnold van Gennep and later taken up by Victor Turner. More recently, usage of the term has broadened to describe political and cultural change as well as rites
During liminal periods of all kinds, social hierarchies may be reversed or temporarily dissolved, continuity of tradition may become uncertain, and future outcomes once taken for granted may be thrown into doubt. The dissolution of order during liminality creates a fluid, malleable situation that enables new institutions and customs to become established. The term has also passed into popular usage and has been expanded to include liminoid experiences that are more relevant to post-industrial society.
Liminality in large-scale societies differs significantly from liminality found in ritual passages in small-scale societies. One primary characteristic of liminality (as defined van Gennep and Turner) is that there is a way in as well as a way out. In ritual passages, "members of the society are themselves aware of the liminal state: they know that they will leave it sooner or later, and have 'ceremony masters' to guide them through the rituals". However, in those liminal periods that affect society as a whole, the future (what comes after the liminal period) is completely unknown, and there is no "ceremony master" who has gone through the process before and that can lead people out of it. In such cases, liminal situations can become dangerous. They allow for the emergence of "self-proclaimed ceremony masters", that assume leadership positions and attempt to "[perpetuate] liminality and by emptying the liminal moment of real creativity, [turn] it into a scene of mimetic rivalry".
(ח) וַיִּירָ֧א יַעֲקֹ֛ב מְאֹ֖ד וַיֵּ֣צֶר ל֑וֹ וַיַּ֜חַץ אֶת־הָעָ֣ם אֲשֶׁר־אִתּ֗וֹ וְאֶת־הַצֹּ֧אן וְאֶת־הַבָּקָ֛ר וְהַגְּמַלִּ֖ים לִשְׁנֵ֥י מַחֲנֽוֹת׃
(כג) וַיָּ֣קׇם ׀ בַּלַּ֣יְלָה ה֗וּא וַיִּקַּ֞ח אֶת־שְׁתֵּ֤י נָשָׁיו֙ וְאֶת־שְׁתֵּ֣י שִׁפְחֹתָ֔יו וְאֶת־אַחַ֥ד עָשָׂ֖ר יְלָדָ֑יו וַֽיַּעֲבֹ֔ר אֵ֖ת מַעֲבַ֥ר יַבֹּֽק׃ (כד) וַיִּ֨קָּחֵ֔ם וַיַּֽעֲבִרֵ֖ם אֶת־הַנָּ֑חַל וַֽיַּעֲבֵ֖ר אֶת־אֲשֶׁר־לֽוֹ׃ (כה) וַיִּוָּתֵ֥ר יַעֲקֹ֖ב לְבַדּ֑וֹ וַיֵּאָבֵ֥ק אִישׁ֙ עִמּ֔וֹ עַ֖ד עֲל֥וֹת הַשָּֽׁחַר׃ (כו) וַיַּ֗רְא כִּ֣י לֹ֤א יָכֹל֙ ל֔וֹ וַיִּגַּ֖ע בְּכַף־יְרֵכ֑וֹ וַתֵּ֙קַע֙ כַּף־יֶ֣רֶךְ יַעֲקֹ֔ב בְּהֵאָֽבְק֖וֹ עִמּֽוֹ׃ (כז) וַיֹּ֣אמֶר שַׁלְּחֵ֔נִי כִּ֥י עָלָ֖ה הַשָּׁ֑חַר וַיֹּ֙אמֶר֙ לֹ֣א אֲשַֽׁלֵּחֲךָ֔ כִּ֖י אִם־בֵּרַכְתָּֽנִי׃ (כח) וַיֹּ֥אמֶר אֵלָ֖יו מַה־שְּׁמֶ֑ךָ וַיֹּ֖אמֶר יַעֲקֹֽב׃ (כט) וַיֹּ֗אמֶר לֹ֤א יַעֲקֹב֙ יֵאָמֵ֥ר עוֹד֙ שִׁמְךָ֔ כִּ֖י אִם־יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל כִּֽי־שָׂרִ֧יתָ עִם־אֱלֹקִ֛ים וְעִם־אֲנָשִׁ֖ים וַתּוּכָֽל׃ (ל) וַיִּשְׁאַ֣ל יַעֲקֹ֗ב וַיֹּ֙אמֶר֙ הַגִּֽידָה־נָּ֣א שְׁמֶ֔ךָ וַיֹּ֕אמֶר לָ֥מָּה זֶּ֖ה תִּשְׁאַ֣ל לִשְׁמִ֑י וַיְבָ֥רֶךְ אֹת֖וֹ שָֽׁם׃ (לא) וַיִּקְרָ֧א יַעֲקֹ֛ב שֵׁ֥ם הַמָּק֖וֹם פְּנִיאֵ֑ל כִּֽי־רָאִ֤יתִי אֱלֹקִים֙ פָּנִ֣ים אֶל־פָּנִ֔ים וַתִּנָּצֵ֖ל נַפְשִֽׁי׃ (לב) וַיִּֽזְרַֽח־ל֣וֹ הַשֶּׁ֔מֶשׁ כַּאֲשֶׁ֥ר עָבַ֖ר אֶת־פְּנוּאֵ֑ל וְה֥וּא צֹלֵ֖עַ עַל־יְרֵכֽוֹ׃ (לג) עַל־כֵּ֡ן לֹֽא־יֹאכְל֨וּ בְנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֜ל אֶת־גִּ֣יד הַנָּשֶׁ֗ה אֲשֶׁר֙ עַל־כַּ֣ף הַיָּרֵ֔ךְ עַ֖ד הַיּ֣וֹם הַזֶּ֑ה כִּ֤י נָגַע֙ בְּכַף־יֶ֣רֶךְ יַעֲקֹ֔ב בְּגִ֖יד הַנָּשֶֽׁה׃
(8) Jacob was greatly frightened; in his anxiety, he divided the people with him, and the flocks and herds and camels, into two camps, (23) That same night he arose, and taking his two wives, his two maidservants, and his eleven children, he crossed the ford of the Jabbok. (24) After taking them across the stream, he sent across all his possessions. (25) Jacob was left alone. And a man wrestled with him until the break of dawn. (26) When he saw that he had not prevailed against him, he wrenched Jacob’s hip at its socket, so that the socket of his hip was strained as he wrestled with him. (27) Then he said, “Let me go, for dawn is breaking.” But he answered, “I will not let you go, unless you bless me.” (28) Said the other, “What is your name?” He replied, “Jacob.” (29) Said he, “Your name shall no longer be Jacob, but Israel, for you have striven with beings divine and human,-d and have prevailed.” (30) Jacob asked, “Pray tell me your name.” But he said, “You must not ask my name!” And he took leave of him there. (31) So Jacob named the place Peniel, meaning, “I have seen a divine being face to face, yet my life has been preserved.” (32) The sun rose upon him as he passed Penuel, limping on his hip. (33) That is why the children of Israel to this day do not eat the thigh muscle that is on the socket of the hip, since Jacob’s hip socket was wrenched at the thigh muscle.
When he reached Shechem, (15) a man came upon him wandering in the fields. The man asked him, “What are you looking for?” (16) He answered, “I am looking for my brothers. Could you tell me where they are pasturing?” (17) The man said, “They have gone from here, for I heard them say: Let us go to Dothan.” So Joseph followed his brothers and found them at Dothan. (18) They saw him from afar, and before he came close to them they conspired to kill him.
- Geographic: Yabkuk/Sade
- Individual/Psychological: Yaakov - Yisrael - individual transformation / Yosef: from 'Naar' to 'Ish'
- One 'away' from home/one 'return' to home
- Both Confronting hostile brothers
- Encounter - Confronting a sense of 'loss'(תעה) /'forgetting' (נשני - גיד הנשה)( (geographical/psychological)
- Movement from one sense of 'being' to another (rite of passage)
- One encounter to encourage chaos/one to encourage integration
Jacob and Liminality:
Depth psychology
Jungians have often seen the individuation process of self-realization as taking place within a liminal space. "Individuation begins with a withdrawal from normal modes of socialisation, epitomized by the breakdown of the persona...liminality". Thus "what Turner's concept of social liminality does for status in society, Jung...does for the movement of the person through the life process of individuation".
Individuation can be seen as a "movement through liminal space and time, from disorientation to integration....What takes place in the dark phase of liminality is a process of breaking down...in the interest of "making whole" one's meaning, purpose and sense of relatedness once more" As an archetypal figure, "the trickster is a symbol of the liminal state itself, and of its permanent accessibility as a source of recreative power".
(א) ויותר יעקב. שָׁכַח פַּכִּים קְטַנִּים וְחָזַר עֲלֵיהֶם (חולין צ"א): (ב) ויאבק איש. מְנַחֵם פֵּי' וַיִּתְעַפֵּר אִישׁ, לְשׁוֹן אָבָק, שֶׁהָיוּ מַעֲלִים עָפָר בְּרַגְלֵיהֶם עַ"י נִעְנוּעָם. וְלִי נִרְאֶה שֶׁהוּא לְשׁוֹן וַיִּתְקַשֵּׁר, וְלָשׁוֹן אֲרַמִּי הוּא, בָּתַר דַּאֲבִיקוּ בֵיהּ, וַאֲבֵיק לֵיהּ מֵיבַק – לְשׁוֹן עֲנִיבָה, שֶׁכֵּן דֶּרֶךְ שְׁנַיִם שֶׁמִּתְעַצְּמִים לְהַפִּיל אִישׁ אֶת רֵעֵהוּ, שֶׁחוֹבְקוֹ וְאוֹבְקוֹ בִּזְרוֹעוֹתָיו. וּפֵרְשׁוּ רַזִ"לִ שֶׁהוּא שָׂרוֹ שֶׁל עֵשָׂו (בראשית רבה):
(1) ויותר יעקב AND JACOB WAS LEFT ALONE — He had forgotten some small jars and he returned for them (Chullin 91a). (2) ויאבק איש AND A MAN WRESTLED — Menachem (ben Seruk) explains: “a man covered himself with dust”, taking the verb as connected in sense with אבק “dust”. It would mean that they were raising the dust with their feet through their movements. I, however, am of opinion that is means “he fastened himself on”, and that it is an Aramaic word, as (Sanhedrin 63b) “after they have joined (אביקו) it", and (Menachot 42a) “and he twined (the “Fringes”) with loops”. It denotes “intertwining”, for such is the manner of two people who make strong efforts to throw each other — one clasps the other and twines himself round him with his arms. Our Rabbis of blessed memory explained that he was Esau’s guardian angel (Genesis Rabbah 77:3).
(א) גיד הנשה. לָמָּה נִקְרָא שְׁמוֹ גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה? לְפִי שֶׁנָּשָׁה מִמְּקוֹמוֹ וְעָלָה, וְהוּא לְשׁוֹן קְפִיצָה, וְכֵן נָשְׁתָה גְבוּרָתָם (ירמיהו נ"א), וְכֵן כִּי נַשַּׁנִי אֱלֹקִים אֶת כָּל עֲמָלִי (בראשית מ"א):
(1) גיד הנשה THE SINEW OF THE THIGH-VEIN — Why is its name called גיד הנשה? Because it sprang נשה) and rose from its proper position. The word has the meaning of “springing”. Other examples are: (Jeremiah 51:30) “Their strength sprang away (נשתה)” and (41:51) “for God hath made all my trouble spring away from me נַשַּׁנִי)".
It is equally clear what was happening in the wrestling match the night before. It was Jacob's battle with existential truth. Who was he? the man who longed to be Esau? Or the man called to a different destiny, the road less travelled? 'I will not let you go until you bless me', he says to his adversary. The unnamed stranger responds in a way that defies expectation. He does not give Jacob a conventional blessing....In effect the stranger said to him, 'In the past you struggled to be Esau. In the future you will struggle not be Esau but to be yourself. In the past you held on to Esau's heel. In the future you will hold on to God. You will not let go of him; he will not let go of you. Now let go of Esau so that you can be free to hold on to God.' The next day Jacob did so. He let go of Esau but giving him back his blessing. And though Jacob had now renounced wealth and power, and though he still limped from the encounter the previous night, the passage ends with the words, 'And Jacob emerged complete'. (Gen.33:18) ...
The counter-narrative suddenly revealed at the end is a totally unexpected subversion and rejection of myth. Mimesis, rivalry, displacement, anger, violence, revenge - these are what the Bible challenges at their very roots. Jacob was wrong to seek Esau blessing. In the wrestling match at night, Jacob fights, not Esau, but himself-in-the-presence-of-God. That is what he means when he has said he has seen God face to face. He now knows who he is, not the man holding on to his brother's heel, but the man unafraid to wrestle with God and with man because he has successfully wrestled with himself. He now knows that his true blessing was quite different and that to obtain it he had no need of disguise.
A close reading of various biblical text, however, may reveal that the more dominant theme in the Hebrew Bible is that of a divinely inspired human autonomy and an uncompromising demand from on high for human accountability. Ultimately, it is an invitation to “mere” mortals to transcend their self-imposed limits, to develop their innate divine image, to struggle with themselves, and even to “struggle with God…..and prevail”.
If a similarity between the psychoanalysis enterprise and the biblical narratives emerges from the texts themselves, it would seem to be found in the biblical hero’s struggle to achieve identity and autonomy, this seems to occur, much as in the therapeutic model, by courageously confronting our own masquerades and evasions.
The idea of fulfilment of divine promise through human struggle, indeed, the very biblical idea of transcendence through actualization of the divine image within us, is a very tricky business. Can a human being transcend or even aspire to the divine without first being a fully autonomous person?...the internal struggle for autonomous choice-informed by nature, nurture, and divine providence (but not determined by them) is a subtle and ongoing affair. No dividing line such as eating from the tree, or exile from Eden, nor release from threatening angles or Egyptian bondage, can demarcate a permanent zone of autonomy, autonomous identity is the object of an exquisite and challenging dialectic, not that of total or permanent victory, and the biblical record of this struggle is faithful to the tentative and incremental nature of the struggle.
Joseph and Liminality:
The main way in which these concepts become of interest to psycho-analysts derives from a study of the way a False Self develops at the beginning, in the infant-mother relationship, and (more important) the way in which a False Self does not become a significant feature in normal development….
Where the mother cannot adapt well enough, the infant gets seduced into a compliance, and a compliant False Self reacts to environmental demands and the infant seems to accept them…
In the extreme examples of False Self development, the True Self is so well hidden that spontaneity is not a feature in the infant's living experiences. Compliance is then the main feature, with imitation as a speciality. When the degree of the split in the infant's person is not too great there may be some almost personal living through imitation, and it may even be possible for the child to act a special role, that of the True Self as it would be if it had had existence. In this way it is possible to trace the point of origin of the False Self, which can now be seen to be a defence, a defence against that which is unthinkable, the exploitation of the True Self, which would result in its annihilation….
In the healthy individual who has a compliant aspect of the self but who exists and who is a creative and spontaneous being, there is at the same time a capacity for the use of symbols. In other words health here is closely bound up with the capacity of the individual to live in an area that is intermediate between the dream and the reality, that which is called the cultural life.
'ויהי כאשר התעו אותי וגו AND IT CAME TO PASS WHEN GOD CAUSED ME TO WANDER etc. — Onkelos translates it in his own way, but it can be explained in another manner that is also appropriate: When the Holy One, blessed be He, brought me forth from my father’s house to be a nomad, wandering from place to place, I knew that I would traverse places where there are wicked people ואמר לה זה חסדך AND so I SAID UNTO HER THIS IS THY LOVINGKINDNESS [WHICH THOU SHALT SHOW UNTO ME]. כאשר התעו WHEN GOD (CAUSED ME TO WANDER — The verb is in the plural. Do not be surprised at this for in many passages words denoting Godship or denoting Authority are grammatically treated as plural, e. g., (2 Samuel 7:23) “Whom God went (הלכו plural) to redeem”; (Deuteronomy 5:23) “the living (חיים adjective, plural) God”; (Joshua 24:19) “a Holy (קדושים adjective, plural) God”. So, too, the idea of Authority is expressed by the plural form, as (39:20) “And the master of (אדני construct plural) Joseph took him” and as (Deuteronomy 10:17) “Lord of (אדני) lords (האדנים)”, and (42:30) “the lord of (אדני) the land”; as well as (Exodus 22:14) “if its owner (בעליו) be with it”, and (Exodus 21:19) “and warning has been given to its master (בעליו)”. If you ask why does it here use the term התעו, I reply, anyone who is exiled from his home and has no settled abode may be styled תועה a wanderer (or “one moving about aimlessly”), as (21:14) “And she, Hagar, went and strayed about (ותתע) in the wilderness”; (Psalms 119:176) “I have gone astray (תעיתי) like a lost sheep”, and (Job 38:41) “they wander (יתעו) through lack of food”, i.e. they go out and wander about to seek their food. אמרי לי means say regarding me (the ל of לי signifies על); similar are: (26:7) “And the men of the place asked לאשתו” where לאשתו is the same as על אשתו regarding his wife; (Exodus 14:3) “And Pharaoh will say לבני ישראל” where לבני is the same as על בני ישראל; (Judges 9:54) “That men say not (לי) regarding me, a woman slew him”.
The angel taught Joseph--that always when one is wandering along the paths of life, in the moment when the soul is most perplexed, say to oneself that one will clarify that which the soul needs and its ambition, that one may return and explain these needs first of all, to the self.
This dialogue is inserted between two worlds, between the quiet and tranquil world of Joseph at home, shielded and spoilt by his father and the stormy, troubled run of a world that was his, after he met his brothers.
And there are many other liminal states that we exist in, right now. In the US, we are between Presidents who will govern in wildly different ways. We're in the midst of two reckonings with #BlackLivesMatter and #MeToo. We exist in a wildly disorienting state, the end of which seems at hand and yet too far away, and these liminal states are the distillation of that discomfort." Liminal Spaces may be the most 2020 of all trends (earnestpettie.com)