Charisma, Liminality, and Freedom: Toward a Theory of the Everyday Extraordinary

Abstract

Following the metaphor of “boulders in the stream” of anthropology proposed by Stephan Schwartz (2000) and carried on by subsequent articles in Anthropology of Consciousness, this article proposes an alternate set of “boulders” that may serve the study of consciousness: Weberian charisma (as developed by Charles Lindholm), Turner's liminality, and Johannes Fabian's notion of “moments of freedom.” These constructs highlight how individuals, even entire communities, at times create new institutions, relationships, and identities despite inhibiting constraints of discourse and power. Ethnographic evidence from a Puerto Rican Protestant church‐sponsored school suggests that, though short‐lived, these instances are sufficiently common to merit the term “everyday extraordinary.” The article argues that this framing, like George P. Hansen's “Trickster,” may help anthropologists of consciousness account for phenomena that have hitherto been unexplainable by positivist science; additionally, it may help anthropologists “catch” important aspects of contemporary social and political processes characterized by charisma, liminality, and freedom.

Imagination vs. routines: festive time, weekly time, and the predictive brain

“…In this context, liminal spaces represent locations where social norms can be momentarily suspended or reversed (McKenzie, 2004). This suspension of social norms allows people to experience a sense of liberation and challenge social conventions (Seale-Collazo, 2012). Liminal spaces thus provide opportunities for individuals to expose themselves to unconventional situations, opening the door to new perspectives and knowledge (Pielichaty, 2015).…”

Cough sweets and angels: the ordinary ethics of the extraordinary inSufi practice inLebanon

“…In response, I have taken up these terms, if rather against their grain: my subject here is the ordinary ethics of the extraordinary (cf. Joosse ; Lambek : 20; Rey ; Seale‐Collazo ). That somewhat paradoxical formulation serves, I hope, to point up the interdependence of the ordinary and the extraordinary to which I have already alluded, and thus also some discomfort with the notion that one could frame the anthropological project in terms of one as opposed (by implication) to the other.…”