Quick Answer
This is the book that explains why the bond you formed during a crisis could not be kept. Turner took the middle phase of a rite of passage and argued it is a distinct mode of human relation: a levelling condition in which rank dissolves and people meet as equals, which he calls communitas. His central and least comfortable claim is that it cannot be made permanent. Every attempt to institutionalise it converts it back into the structure it briefly suspended.
Key Takeaways
- Communitas is a mode of relation, not merely the absence of hierarchy.
- It cannot be preserved, and the failure to preserve it is structural rather than personal.
- Structural inferiority carries moral authority, which explains the jester, the beggar and the outsider.
- Half the book is dense Ndembu ethnography that most people quoting Turner have not read.
- The romanticism is real, and the coercive side of communitas gets almost no attention.
🕑 14 min read
What This Book Is
The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure was published in 1969, based on lectures given the previous year. It has two halves that read like different books.
The first is close ethnographic analysis of ritual symbolism among the Ndembu people, drawn from Turner's fieldwork in the 1950s. It is detailed, technical, and concerned with what specific objects, colours and acts mean within specific ceremonies.
The second is theoretical, and it is where the concepts that made Turner famous are developed: liminality extended far beyond ritual, communitas, and the argument that societies oscillate between structure and its suspension.
Almost everyone who cites this book is citing the second half. That is worth knowing, because the first half is where the theory came from and where its limits are visible.
The relationship to van Gennep: Turner is explicitly building on the three-phase model of separation, threshold and incorporation. He takes the middle phase, which van Gennep described and moved past, and makes it the centre of a general theory of social life.
Who Victor Turner Was
Born in Glasgow in 1920 to a theatrical family, which shows in everything he wrote about performance, Turner studied anthropology after wartime service and did fieldwork among the Ndembu in what was then Northern Rhodesia in the early 1950s.
He worked initially within the British structural-functionalist tradition, which was interested in how societies hold together, and his early publications on Ndembu social organisation are in that mode.
He moved to the United States in the 1960s, converted to Catholicism, and his later work turned increasingly toward pilgrimage, performance and theatre. He died in 1983.
The theatrical background matters. Turner consistently treats ritual as drama rather than as machinery, attends to its staging and its audience, and later developed a body of work with theatre practitioners on the relationship between ritual and performance.
The Half Nobody Reads
Before the theory, the ethnography, and it deserves attention because it is what the theory is standing on.
Turner analyses Ndembu ritual symbolism in close detail. His central example is the milk tree, which appears in a girls' initiation and which he shows to carry multiple layered meanings simultaneously: breast milk and nurture, matrilineal descent, the tie between mother and daughter, and also the very tension that tie produces when the daughter must be separated from it.
From this he develops his account of how ritual symbols work. A dominant symbol condenses many meanings into one object, holds together meanings that are in tension, and unites a physiological or sensory pole with an ideological one. The milk tree is literally white and sticky and also a statement about kinship, and its power comes from operating at both ends at once.
He is careful about method. He distinguishes what informants say a symbol means, what it means in the ritual's own logic, and what the anthropologist can see it doing that participants do not state.
This material is genuinely good and it is the part that has aged best, because it is grounded rather than generalised.
Taking Over the Threshold
The theoretical move that made his name.
Van Gennep had identified the middle phase of a rite of passage: the period in which a person has left their old status and not yet arrived at the new one. He described it and treated it as one stage among three.
Turner takes that stage and makes it a general condition. Liminality, for him, is not confined to formal ritual. It is any situation in which the ordinary structure of positions, roles and rules is suspended, and he finds it everywhere: in monasticism, in millenarian movements, in pilgrimage, in art, in periods of social upheaval.
His description of the liminal person is the passage most often quoted. They are, in his phrase, betwixt and between: neither one thing nor the other, structurally invisible, in a condition the society's ordinary categories cannot accommodate.
He catalogues the attributes that recur: anonymity, absence of property and rank, nakedness or uniform dress, sexual continence, humility, disregard for personal appearance, silence, acceptance of ordeal, and total obedience to those conducting the process.
Communitas
The concept the book is remembered for, and Turner's genuine contribution beyond van Gennep.
His observation is that people in the liminal phase together do not merely lack structure. They form a specific kind of bond, and it has a distinct character: intense, immediate, levelling, and unlike anything available in ordinary structured life.
He calls it communitas rather than community, deliberately, because community implies a group with organisation and continuity and this is the opposite of that.
In communitas, rank does not apply. People relate as whole persons rather than as occupants of positions. The relation is direct and often overwhelming, and participants regularly describe it in religious terms even when the setting is entirely secular.
He distinguishes three kinds: the spontaneous, which arrives unbidden and is the real thing; the normative, which is what happens when a group tries to keep it going and starts making rules; and the ideological, which is the utopian description of it offered after the fact.
The direction of travel between those three is the book's most important argument.
Anyone who has been through a disaster, a hospital ward, basic training, a long retreat, a strike or an occupation with other people will recognise this immediately. The strangers become intimates within hours. Rank stops mattering. Something is available in that condition, a directness and an absence of self-presentation, that ordinary life does not permit. And people who have experienced it frequently spend years trying to get back to it, joining things, organising reunions, seeking out the next intensity, and finding that the conditions cannot be reproduced on demand.
Structure and Anti-Structure
The theoretical frame, and it is more interesting than the usual summary suggests.
Turner argues that societies require both modes and that neither can be dispensed with. Structure supplies order, differentiation, the division of labour, and the means by which anything is accomplished over time. Communitas supplies the recognition that the structure is a construction, that the differences it enforces are not the whole truth about people, and a source of renewal.
A society entirely structured becomes rigid and unable to change. A society attempting to live entirely in communitas cannot feed itself and does not last.
So the two alternate, and the ritual calendar is one of the mechanisms by which the alternation is managed. Festivals of reversal, in which the low are elevated and the powerful mocked, are not safety valves in a merely cynical sense; on Turner's account they are the society periodically acknowledging the arbitrariness of its own arrangements and returning to them refreshed.
He is aware this can be read conservatively, as a theory of how rebellion is contained. He resists it, and the resistance is not entirely convincing.
Why It Cannot Be Kept
The claim that gives the book its practical value.
Spontaneous communitas is by nature brief. Turner's argument is that any attempt to make it permanent destroys it, and the mechanism is straightforward.
To persist, a group must organise. It needs decisions about who does what, how resources are handled, who is a member, what happens to those who behave badly. Every one of those is a structure, and each is introduced for good reasons by people trying to protect the very thing the structures destroy.
He traces this in religious orders, which begin in radical poverty and equality and acquire rules, property and hierarchy within a generation. He traces it in the millenarian movements, in the communes of his own period, and in reform movements generally.
The conclusion is not cynical. He is not saying such attempts are foolish or that the participants were deluded. He is saying the transformation is structural, not a failure of commitment, and that expecting otherwise causes needless self-reproach.
The Authority of the Powerless
An underrated section and one of his sharpest observations.
Turner notes that people at the bottom of a hierarchy, and figures entirely outside it, are frequently accorded a particular moral standing. The court jester who may say what no courtier can. The holy beggar. The wandering ascetic. The child who states the obvious. The stranger who speaks plainly. The subjugated group whose culture is romanticised by those who subjugated it.
His explanation is that structural inferiority approximates the liminal condition. A person with no position has nothing to protect, and is therefore taken to represent the human community as a whole rather than any faction within it.
This explains a persistent feature of religious traditions: their founders and reformers are overwhelmingly outsiders, and their imagery consistently elevates the lowest position rather than the highest.
It also explains a less admirable pattern, in which the powerful borrow moral authority by identifying with the powerless without giving anything up, which Turner notices but does not press.
Liminal and Liminoid
A distinction Turner developed later and which is essential for applying any of this to modern life.
Liminal phenomena are obligatory, collective, embedded in a society's cycle, and consequential: you do not opt out of your own initiation, everyone of your age goes through it, and your status genuinely changes.
Liminoid phenomena are optional, individual, located in leisure, and largely without consequence for status: theatre, festivals, sport, travel, art, therapy, retreats.
His argument is that industrial societies have largely replaced the first with the second. The experiences remain available and they have become choices, purchased, in one's own time, with no obligation and no change in standing afterwards.
What is lost is the seriousness. A liminoid experience can be extremely intense and it does not bind, because you selected it and can leave, and nobody else is required to acknowledge what happened to you.
This is the most useful part of Turner for understanding why modern attempts to manufacture transformative experience frequently produce a strong feeling and no durable change.
The Side He Underplays
The most substantial criticism of the book and it should be stated firmly.
Turner writes about communitas with evident affection. It appears as renewal, as truth, as the recovery of a human directness that structure obscures.
It is also the mechanism by which people are broken down and remade in ways they did not consent to.
The liminal attributes he catalogues include anonymity, the stripping of identity, the suspension of ordinary rights, total obedience to those conducting the process, ordeal, and the absence of any external reference point. That is a description of an initiation, and it is equally a description of a coercive environment. The techniques of a boot camp, an abusive religious group and a torture cell all appear on the same list.
The bond formed under those conditions is real and is not therefore benign. Intense group solidarity produced by shared ordeal is the standard mechanism of every organisation that has ever needed people to do things they would not otherwise do.
Turner has almost nothing to say about who is conducting the process, what they want, and what happens to a person whose liminal phase is imposed rather than entered. Later scholars have made that criticism forcefully and it stands.
A practical caution. Groups that deliberately manufacture these conditions, through intensive residential programmes, sleep deprivation, sustained emotional exposure, isolation from outside contact and total deference to a leader, are producing communitas on purpose and using it. The resulting bond is genuine, which is exactly what makes it effective as a tool. If an experience requires you to cut contact with people outside it, to accept that your ordinary judgement is the obstacle, or to defer completely to whoever is running it, the intensity you feel is evidence about the method rather than about the truth of what you are being told.
Edith Turner
Worth a section because the record has been corrected.
Edith Turner was in the field with him throughout, conducted her own interviews and observations, and was a collaborator rather than an accompanying spouse. Her contribution to the fieldwork underlying this book was substantial and was credited less than it should have been at the time.
After his death she continued to publish, including work on the pilgrimage material they had begun together, and moved in a direction he had not: arguing, from her own experience during Ndembu healing rituals, that anthropologists should take seriously what participants report perceiving rather than translating it immediately into social function.
That is a genuinely different methodological position and it is worth knowing that the Turner literature has two voices in it.
The Criticisms
Three beyond the romanticism already covered.
Generalisation. The theory is built on Ndembu material and extended to human societies in general. Specialists in other regions have frequently found that the model does not fit their material without forcing.
The binary. Structure and anti-structure is a clean opposition, and clean oppositions in social theory usually mean something has been left out. Real situations contain multiple overlapping structures and partial suspensions rather than an alternation between two states.
Power inside the liminal. Turner treats the liminal phase as a levelling, and it plainly has its own hierarchy: someone is running the initiation, someone decides when it ends, and the equality among initiates coexists with total subordination to the people conducting it. He does not analyse this.
Where It Gets Used Now
Turner's vocabulary escaped anthropology entirely and is now used in performance studies, in organisational behaviour, in theology, in disaster research, in tourism studies and in ordinary conversation.
The word liminal in particular has become vague to the point of uselessness in general usage, applied to anything transitional, uncertain or atmospheric. Turner's sense is considerably more specific: a structurally defined condition of being outside the system of positions, with characteristic attributes and a social function.
Where the framework still earns its keep is in explaining the aftermath of intense collective experience: why the people who were with you in the emergency feel closer than people you have known for years, why the reunion is disappointing, why the movement fractured over procedure, and why none of that means anyone did anything wrong.
Who Should Read It
Read it if you are interested in ritual and want the theoretical framework most subsequent discussion assumes.
Read it if you have been through an intense shared experience and want an account of why it did not survive contact with ordinary life.
Read van Gennep first, since Turner is extending him and assumes the three-phase model throughout.
Read the first half as well as the second. The theory is more interesting when you have seen the material it was abstracted from, and the abstraction's limits are visible there.
Do not use liminal as a synonym for uncertain, and do not take the account of communitas without the corrective about what else those conditions produce.
The practically useful thing here is permission to stop mourning. Almost everyone has had a period of unusual closeness with a group of people, formed under pressure, that could not be carried forward, and almost everyone treats the fading as something they failed to prevent. Turner's argument is that the fading is built into the conditions: the bond existed because ordinary structure was suspended, and structure returns because life requires it. What you had was real and it was not portable. That is a different and much less painful account than the one most people give themselves, and it leaves you free to value what happened without treating its end as a loss you caused.
Why the bond formed in a crisis cannot be kept.
Affiliate disclosure: Thalira earns a small commission on purchases made through the link above, at no additional cost to you. Our account of what the book romanticises is set out above and is independent of the link.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is The Ritual Process about?
Victor Turner's 1969 book developing van Gennep's middle phase of ritual into a general theory. It argues that societies alternate between ordered structure and an unstructured levelling condition he calls communitas, and that both are necessary.
Who was Victor Turner?
A Scottish-born anthropologist, 1920 to 1983, who did fieldwork among the Ndembu of what is now Zambia in the 1950s and later taught in the United States. His wife Edith Turner was his collaborator throughout and continued the work after his death.
What is communitas?
Turner's term for the intense, levelling bond that forms between people passing through a threshold together, in which ordinary rank and role are suspended and people relate as undifferentiated equals. It is a distinct mode of social relation rather than merely the absence of structure.
How does it differ from ordinary community?
Community is a group with structure, roles and continuity. Communitas is the temporary condition in which those distinctions dissolve. Turner's central claim is that it cannot be made permanent, and that attempts to institutionalise it convert it back into structure.
What is the liminal phase?
The middle stage of a rite of passage, borrowed from van Gennep, in which a person is between categories: no longer their old status and not yet their new one. Turner made this phase the centre of his analysis rather than a transition between the important parts.
What is the difference between liminal and liminoid?
Liminal experiences are obligatory, collective and embedded in a society's ritual cycle. Liminoid ones are optional, individual and located in leisure: art, theatre, festivals, travel. Turner argued modern societies have largely replaced the first with the second.
Who were the Ndembu?
A people of what is now northwestern Zambia among whom Turner conducted extended fieldwork. Much of the book's first half is close analysis of their ritual symbolism, particularly a girls' initiation and the healing rites he observed in detail.
What is structural inferiority?
Turner's observation that people at the bottom of a hierarchy, and figures outside it entirely, are frequently treated as carrying moral authority precisely because they hold no position. Court jesters, holy beggars and outsiders speak truths the powerful cannot.
What are the main criticisms?
That communitas is romanticised and its coerciveness ignored, that the structure and anti-structure opposition is too neat, that the model generalises from one African society to all human experience, and that it says little about power within the liminal phase itself.
Is it readable?
The theoretical chapters are lively and quotable. The Ndembu ethnography in the first half is dense and technical, and many readers who quote Turner have read only the second half, which is worth knowing when you encounter his ideas secondhand.
Does the theory apply to modern life?
It has been applied to almost everything: festivals, protest movements, disasters, pilgrimage, military training, theatre and online communities. Its usefulness lies in describing why such intensity fades, which people usually experience as a personal failure.
Who should read it?
Anyone interested in ritual, in why intense group experiences do not last, or in the vocabulary of liminality that has spread far beyond anthropology. Read van Gennep first for the framework Turner is extending.
It was real and it was not supposed to last
Turner's best gift to a reader is an accurate account of something almost everyone has felt and misfiled. The closeness that arrives when the ordinary rules are suspended is not an illusion, and it is not a preview of how life could be if only people tried harder. It is what happens in a specific condition, and the condition ends because life requires the structures it suspended. Knowing that does not make the ending painless. It does stop you from concluding that you lost something through carelessness, or that everyone involved turned out to be less than they seemed. They were exactly what they seemed, in a place that could not be stayed in.
Sources & References
- Turner, Victor (1969). The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure.
- van Gennep, Arnold (1909). Les rites de passage, the framework being extended.
- Turner, V. Later writings on the liminal and the liminoid.
- Turner, Edith. Fieldwork accounts and later publications on ritual experience.
- Turner, V. and Turner, E. Work on Christian pilgrimage.
- Critical literature on the coercive dimension of induced communitas.