Permanent Liminality
When I first read Szakolczai’s (2017) discussion of permanent liminality, I experienced a sense of friction with it. My first step was to explore whether this discomfort stemmed from disagreement with the basic premise itself – does permanent liminality even exist, or does it simply become “the new normal”? Eventually, I arrived at the conclusion that if permanent liminality is defined in the way I understand Szakolczai to define it – as being trapped in a transitional state where structures do emerge but never have time to stabilize – then I do agree that permanent liminality exists.
What I began to question, however, was whether this condition necessarily means that the world itself has become more complex or unstable. One possible interpretation is instead that the world has always been complex and constantly changing, but that the structures and ways of thinking which previously functioned to simplify reality and create stability no longer fulfill the same role. In that case, permanent liminality is not solely about a transformed condition of the world, but also about a changed capacity to manage and interpret that complexity.
Ultimately, I arrived at the position that I can agree with Szakolczai’s thesis that the world in many respects exists in a state of permanent liminality. Structures and the potential for stability certainly exist, but they do not have time to stabilize within the pace of rapid change. However, I do not agree with Szakolczai that permanent liminality is necessarily fundamentally negative. Rather, I see it as a condition without any inherent value judgment, one that can produce both positive and negative consequences depending on the context.
My example of contemporary processes in which permanent liminality becomes especially visible is today’s information landscape – where parallel realities coexist and uncertainty prevails regarding what is true, because there is no longer a universally recognized framework of reference for truth. The positive aspect of this is that the existence of multiple perspectives can be liberating and can open up new ways of understanding the world, while also reducing dependence on a single authority defining what counts as truth. This is why I criticize Szakolczai’s argument that permanent liminality should by definition be understood as negative.
At the same time, the permanently liminal character of the information society perhaps becomes clearest when one considers its consequences. The dissolution of a shared framework of reference can create confusion, uncertainty, and fragmentation. When there is no clear common point of departure, people are forced to orient themselves within a complex reality. Some then seek forms of knowledge that acknowledge uncertainty and complexity, such as scientific research, while others are drawn toward simple and absolute narratives, such as conspiracy theories, which provide a sense of order and control.
Given our globally interconnected world, in which information spreads rapidly across national boundaries and influences how people throughout the world interpret reality, I would argue that this is not merely an isolated phenomenon but a condition that significantly characterizes contemporary society. Combined with technological developments such as Artificial Intelligence and increasingly complex social systems, this dynamic becomes even further intensified, suggesting that it is not simply a temporary phase but a more enduring condition. This means that the information landscape is not only complex but exists in a state where new interpretations and “truths” constantly emerge without any stable framework of reference having time to establish itself, making it a clear example of permanent liminality. This example demonstrates that permanent liminality does not merely exist as a theoretical concept but shapes central aspects of contemporary life.
I arrived at these conclusions through reasoning and by testing my initial thoughts against what Szakolczai writes, as well as by reflecting on how broader social processes function in practice. When it comes to integrating this understanding into everyday life, I experience a certain resistance, because it can feel discouraging and risks leading to cynicism. At the same time, these reflections raise questions about how I might relate to this condition in a more constructive way. For me, radical acceptance becomes one possible approach. The point of departure then becomes living in the world as it is, rather than according to an idealized image of how I believe the world ought to be. This does not make the situation itself any less complex or challenging, but it may make it more manageable by reducing the frustration that arises when reality fails to correspond to expectations of stability.
Additional reflection: After writing this, I read Salinas’s (2013) text, discussing how tricksters require categories in order to transgress them. This led me to wonder whether categories can truly exist within permanent liminality, and if they do not, whether the trickster would genuinely thrive in such a condition when there are no categories left to transgress. I have not arrived at any definitive conclusion regarding this question, and permanent liminality is likely something I will continue reflecting upon beyond the scope of these reflection assignments.
Sources
Salinas, C. (2013) ‘Ambiguous Trickster Liminality: Two Anti-Mythological Ideas’, Review of Communication, 13(2), pp. 143–159. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/15358593.2013.791716.
Szakolczai, Á. (2017) ‘Permanent (trickster) liminality: The reasons of the heart and of the mind’, Theory & Psychology, 27(2), pp. 231–248. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354317694095.