Communitas as the “essential We”: The Possibility of Dialogical Relationships in a Community
EDN: JLQWFI
Abstract
This article aims to revise a common interpretation of V. Turner’s concept of communitas in the context of the dialogical philosophy of М. Buber, whose influence has been mostly overlooked by researchers. Communitas is usually seen from the Durkheimian perspective and his notions of the sacred, solidarity and especially effervescence; it is conventionally defined as a transgressive collective experience when individual identities are supposed to submerge into a collective whole. Turner himself, however, has repeatedly noted that communitas is based on the ideas of the “I-Thou” relationship and the “essential We” developed by Buber. A reconstruction of the notion in question together with a recap of Buber’s dialogical philosophy allow to clarify the key characteristics of communitas which make it distinct from other similar concepts of community. The main feature of communitas lays in its inherent idea of individualized community where individuals preserve their independence and relate to each other as “totalities”. The notion of “totality” traces back to Buber’s concept of “synthesizing apperception” which means the perception of the Other in full wholeness of his/her irreducible personal uniqueness. The “synthesizing apperception” as well as the “I-Thou” relationship require “the primal setting at a distance” which allows an individual not to lose his/her distinctiveness and personal “self”. Other characteristics of communitas, which are making it similar to the “I-Thou” relationship and the “essential We”, include its transience and instability, the dissolution of all inner and outer group boundaries, and its ethical component, which was found to be ideologically rooted in Judaism. Spontaneous communitas and the “I-Thou” relationship (“essential We”) turn out to be almost identical in Turner’s descriptions, who incorporated the dialogical vision of relationships between “I” and the Other into the anthropological theory of group interactions in a community.
About the Authors
Надежда ВоробьеваRussian Federation
Nadezhda S. Vorobyeva
Russian Federation
MA in Sociology, independent researcher
References
1. Buber М. (1995) Two types of faith, M.: Respublika.—In Russ.
2. Kurakin D. (2011) The elusory sacred: the problem of the ambiguity of the sacred and its meaning for the “strong program” of cultural sociology. Russian Sociological Review, 10 (3): 41-70.—In Russ.
3. Lifintseva T. (1999) The dialogical philosophy of Martin Buber, M.: Institute of philosophy RAS.—In Russ.
4. Turner V. (1983) Symbol and ritual, M.: Nauka.—In Russ.
5. Yudin G. (2013) The collective and the individual in the philosophical anthropology of E. Durkheim. Russian Sociological Review, 12 (2): 122-132.
6. Sokuler Z. (2008) Hermann Cohen and the dialogical philosophy, M.: ProgressTradition. Alexander J.C. (2005) The inner development of Durkheim’s sociological theory: from early writings to maturity. J. C. Alexander, P. Smith (eds) The Cambridge companion to Durkheim, New York: Cambridge University Press: 136-159.
7. Beaumont E., Brown D. (2018) ‘It’s the sea and the beach more than anything for me’: Local surfer’s and the construction of community and communitas in a rural Cornish seaside village. Journal of rural studies, (59): 58-66.
8. Bowring F. (2016) The individual and society in Durkheim: Unpicking the contradictions. European Journal of Social Theory, 19 (1): 21-38.
9. Buber M. (2003) Between man and man, London: Routledge.
10. Buber M. (2002) Distance and Relation. A. Biemann (ed.) The Martin Buber reader: essential writings, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
11. Buber M. (1958) Hasidism and Modern Man, New York: Horizon Press.
12. Durkheim E. (1973) Emile Durkheim on morality and society, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
13. Durkheim E. (1995) The Elementary Forms of Religious Life, New York: The Free Press.
14. Gurvitch G. (1941) Mass, community, communion. The Journal of Philosophy, 38 (18): 485-496
15. Hayton J. (2018) “They do treat us as a bit normal now”: Students’ experiences of liminality and communitas whilst volunteering on a sports-based outreach project. International review for the sociology of sport, 53 (7): 869-889.
16. Jencson L. (2001) Disastrous rites: liminality and communitas in a flood crisis. Anthropology and Humanism, 26 (1): 46-58.
17. LaCarpa D. (1972) Emile Durkheim. Sociologist and Philosopher, New York: Cornell University Press.
18. Letkemann P.G. (2002) The office workplace: Communitas and hierarchical social structures. Anthropologica, 44 (2): 257-269.
19. Milbank J. (2006) Theology and Social Theory: Beyond Secular Reason, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
20. Olaveson T. (2001) Collective effervescence and communitas: Processual models of ritual
21. and society in Emile Durkheim and Victor Turner. Dialectical Anthropology, 26 (2): 89-124.
22. Poma A. (1997) Critical Philosophy of Hermann Cohen, Albany: SUNY Press.
23. Ramp W. (1998) Effervescence, differentiation and representation in The Elementary
24. Forms. N. Allen, W. Pickering, W. Miller (eds) On Durkheim’s Elementary Forms of Religious Life, London: Routledge: 136-148.
25. Turner E. (2012) Communitas: The anthropology of collective joy, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
26. Turner V., Schechner, R. (1988) The anthropology of performance, New York: Performing Arts Journal Publications.
27. Turner V. (1973) The center out there: Pilgrim’s goal. History of religions, 12 (3): 191-230.
28. Turner V. (1975) Dramas, Fields, and Metaphors: Symbolic Action in Human Society, New York: Cornell University Press.
29. Turner V. (1979) Process, performance, and pilgrimage: a study in comparative symbology,
30. New Dehli: Concept publishing company.
31. Turner V. (1980) Encounter with Freud: the making of a comparative symbologist.
32. G. Spindler (ed.) The making of psychological anthropology, Berkeley: University of
33. California Press: 558–583.
34. Turner V. (1982) From ritual to theatre: The human seriousness of play, New York:
35. Performing Arts Journal Publications.
36. Turner V. (1974) Liminal to liminoid, in play, flow, and ritual: an essay in comparative
37. symbology. Rice Institute Pamphlet-Rice University Studies, 60 (3): 53-92.
38. Turner V. (1991) The ritual process: Structure and anti structure, New York: Cornell
39. University Press.
Review
For citations:
, Vorobyeva N.S. Communitas as the “essential We”: The Possibility of Dialogical Relationships in a Community. Sociology of Power. 2019;31(4):155-184. (In Russ.) EDN: JLQWFI
Views:
1
Email this article 