Arnold van Gennep
| Arnold van Gennep | |
|---|---|
|
Arnold van Gennep, theorist of rites of passage
| |
| Identity | |
| Lifespan | 1873–1957 |
| Nationality | French |
| Epistemic Position | |
| Tradition | Anthropology, Folklore Studies |
| Methodology | Structuralism, Symbolic Anthropology |
| Fields | Anthropology, Folklore, Sociology, Ritual Studies |
| Conceptual Payload | |
| Core Concepts | Rites of Passage, Liminality, Social Transition, Ritual Structure
|
| Associated Concepts | Symbolic, Law, Initiation, Threshold, Separation, Incorporation |
| Key Works | Les Rites de Passage (1909), Manuel de folklore français contemporain (1937–1958) |
| Theoretical Cluster | Symbolic Order, Subjectivity, Social Structure |
| Psychoanalytic Relation | |
| Van Gennep’s theory of rites of passage provided a structural model for understanding the symbolic mediation of subjectivity, influencing psychoanalytic accounts of transition, identity, and the function of ritual in psychic life. His tripartite schema of separation, liminality, and incorporation became a template for theorizing the passage into the symbolic order, especially in Lacanian psychoanalysis. | |
| To Lacan | Lacan explicitly references van Gennep’s schema in his theorization of the symbolic and the function of ritualized thresholds in subject formation. |
| To Freud | Freud did not directly cite van Gennep, but the latter’s work on ritual and transition offers a structural complement to Freudian theories of psychosexual development and socialization. |
| Referenced By | |
| Lineage | |
| Influences | Émile Durkheim, James Frazer, Wilhelm Wundt
|
| Influenced | Jacques Lacan, Victor Turner, Mary Douglas, Julia Kristeva, Claude Lévi-Strauss
|
Arnold van Gennep (1873–1957) was a French ethnographer, folklorist, and theorist whose pioneering analysis of rites of passage established a structural framework for understanding symbolic transition and social transformation. His tripartite model of ritual—separation, liminality, and incorporation—became foundational for later developments in anthropology, sociology, and psychoanalysis, especially in the work of Jacques Lacan, who drew on van Gennep’s schema to conceptualize the subject’s entry into the symbolic order and the function of ritualized thresholds in psychic life.
Intellectual Context and Biography
Van Gennep’s intellectual trajectory unfolded at the intersection of anthropology, folklore studies, and the nascent social sciences of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. His work synthesized comparative ethnography with a structural attention to ritual, positioning him as a key precursor to later structuralist and psychoanalytic theories of symbolic mediation.
Early Formation
Born in Ludwigsburg, Germany, and raised in France, van Gennep was educated at the Sorbonne, where he studied linguistics, ethnography, and ancient languages. He was influenced by the comparative method of James Frazer and the sociological orientation of Émile Durkheim, but maintained a critical distance from Durkheim’s emphasis on collective representations, instead foregrounding the dynamic, processual aspects of ritual and social life.[1] His early research focused on folklore and the symbolic dimensions of everyday practices, which would culminate in his magnum opus, Les Rites de Passage (1909).
Major Turning Points
Van Gennep’s publication of Les Rites de Passage marked a decisive intervention in the study of ritual, shifting attention from static typologies to the structural logic of transition and transformation. His subsequent work, including the multi-volume Manuel de folklore français contemporain, extended his analysis to French regional traditions, further elaborating the interplay between ritual, myth, and social structure.[2] Despite limited institutional recognition during his lifetime, van Gennep’s influence grew posthumously, especially through the uptake of his concepts by structuralist and psychoanalytic theorists.
Core Concepts
Rites of Passage
Van Gennep’s most influential concept is the rite of passage—a ritualized process marking the transition of an individual or group from one social status to another. He argued that such rites are universal features of human societies, structuring key moments of biological, social, and symbolic change (e.g., birth, puberty, marriage, death).[3] The rite of passage is not a single event but a process, typically unfolding in three phases: separation, liminality, and incorporation.
Liminality
The concept of liminality—from the Latin limen, meaning threshold—refers to the ambiguous, in-between phase of ritual, during which participants are no longer in their previous state but have not yet assumed their new status. Van Gennep identified liminality as a period of symbolic suspension, marked by ambiguity, reversals, and the dissolution of ordinary social distinctions.[4] This notion would become central to later theories of subjectivity and symbolic transformation, especially in psychoanalysis.
Ritual Structure: Separation, Liminality, Incorporation
Van Gennep’s tripartite schema—separation, liminality, incorporation—provides a structural model for analyzing ritual processes. Separation involves the symbolic detachment from a previous state; liminality is the threshold phase of ambiguity and transformation; incorporation marks the re-entry into social life with a new status.[5] This model has been widely adopted in anthropology, sociology, and psychoanalysis as a template for understanding processes of transition and subject formation.
Symbolic Mediation and Social Structure
Van Gennep emphasized the symbolic and mediating function of ritual in organizing social life and subjectivity. He argued that rites of passage are not merely expressions of collective belief but active processes that produce and transform social reality.[6] This focus on symbolic mediation would later resonate with psychoanalytic accounts of the symbolic and the structuring of desire.
Relation to Psychoanalysis
Van Gennep’s influence on psychoanalysis is primarily structural and mediated, rather than direct. While Sigmund Freud did not explicitly cite van Gennep, the latter’s analysis of ritual and transition offers a structural complement to Freudian theories of psychosexual development, socialization, and the function of taboo.[7] The most significant psychoanalytic engagement with van Gennep occurs in the work of Jacques Lacan, who drew on the schema of rites of passage to theorize the subject’s entry into the symbolic order.
Lacan references van Gennep’s tripartite model in his seminars, particularly in relation to the function of the Name-of-the-Father and the Law as symbolic thresholds that mediate the transition from the imaginary to the symbolic.[8] For Lacan, the passage into the symbolic is not a biological event but a ritualized, symbolic process, structurally homologous to van Gennep’s schema of separation (detachment from the maternal imaginary), liminality (the ambiguous space of symbolic initiation), and incorporation (entry into the social order and assumption of subjectivity).[9]
The influence of van Gennep on Lacan is also mediated through structural anthropology, especially the work of Claude Lévi-Strauss, who adopted van Gennep’s model of symbolic mediation and applied it to kinship, myth, and social structure.[10] Through Lévi-Strauss, van Gennep’s concepts entered the orbit of French psychoanalytic theory, where they were further elaborated by figures such as Julia Kristeva (in her work on abjection and the semiotic) and Victor Turner (in his analysis of liminality and communitas).
Reception in Psychoanalytic Theory
Van Gennep’s structural model of ritual transition has been widely adopted and reinterpreted within psychoanalytic theory. Jacques Lacan’s use of the tripartite schema to conceptualize the subject’s entry into the symbolic order is perhaps the most direct appropriation, but van Gennep’s influence extends to later theorists such as Julia Kristeva, who draws on the notion of liminality to theorize the abject and the boundaries of subjectivity.[11]
Victor Turner’s elaboration of liminality and communitas, though primarily anthropological, has been taken up by psychoanalytic and post-structuralist theorists to analyze processes of psychic and social transformation.[12] Mary Douglas’s work on purity, danger, and symbolic boundaries also draws on van Gennep’s insights, providing a framework for understanding the psychic significance of ritual and taboo.
Debates persist regarding the universality of van Gennep’s schema and its applicability to contemporary forms of subjectivity and sociality. Some psychoanalytic theorists have critiqued the model’s structuralism as overly rigid, while others have emphasized its utility for analyzing processes of transition, loss, and transformation in clinical and cultural contexts.[13]
Key Works
- Les Rites de Passage (1909) – Van Gennep’s foundational work, introducing the tripartite model of separation, liminality, and incorporation; a key text for understanding symbolic transition and its psychoanalytic uptake.
- Manuel de folklore français contemporain (1937–1958) – A multi-volume study of French folklore, rituals, and customs, elaborating the interplay between symbolic forms and social structure.
- Tabou et totémisme à Madagascar (1904) – An early ethnographic study exploring taboo and totemism, thematically resonant with Freudian and psychoanalytic concerns.
- Mythes et légendes d’Australie (1906) – Comparative analysis of myth and ritual, contributing to the structural study of symbolic systems.
Influence and Legacy
Arnold van Gennep’s structural analysis of rites of passage has had a profound and enduring impact on anthropology, sociology, and psychoanalysis. His tripartite schema became a template for theorizing symbolic transition, subject formation, and the mediation of social boundaries. In psychoanalysis, van Gennep’s influence is most visible in Lacanian theory, where the logic of ritualized thresholds informs accounts of the subject’s entry into the symbolic order, the function of the Name-of-the-Father, and the structuring of desire and law.
Beyond psychoanalysis, van Gennep’s concepts have shaped the work of Victor Turner, Mary Douglas, and Claude Lévi-Strauss, as well as contemporary theorists of ritual, identity, and symbolic mediation. His legacy endures in debates over the nature of transition, the function of ritual, and the symbolic constitution of subjectivity.
See also
References
- ↑ Segal, Robert A. The Blackwell Companion to the Study of Religion. Blackwell, 2006.
- ↑ Moore, Sally Falk, and Barbara G. Myerhoff, eds. Secular Ritual. Van Gorcum, 1977.
- ↑ Van Gennep, Arnold. The Rites of Passage. University of Chicago Press, 1960 [1909].
- ↑ Turner, Victor. The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure. Aldine, 1969.
- ↑ Van Gennep, Arnold. The Rites of Passage. University of Chicago Press, 1960 [1909].
- ↑ Douglas, Mary. Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo. Routledge, 1966.
- ↑ Freud, Sigmund. Totem and Taboo. 1913.
- ↑ Seminar XI: The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psychoanalysis (1964)
- ↑ Ragland, Ellie. Lacan and the New Wave in American Psychoanalysis. Routledge, 1995.
- ↑ Lévi-Strauss, Claude. The Elementary Structures of Kinship. Beacon Press, 1969.
- ↑ Kristeva, Julia. Powers of Horror: An Essay on Abjection. Columbia University Press, 1982.
- ↑ Turner, Victor. Dramas, Fields, and Metaphors: Symbolic Action in Human Society. Cornell University Press, 1974.
- ↑ La Fontaine, Jean. "Initiation." In Encyclopedia of Religion, edited by Mircea Eliade. Macmillan, 1987.