,, ' Tlle Liminal Servant and

the Ritual Roots of Critical Pedagogy

Peler L. MeLaren
My work in he anthropology of educaton has, in recen! years, consistcd of lo-
c:tling thcorctical adv;:mccs in ritual iJnd performance st udics and placing Ihem
within Ihe practica li t)' llf lhe pedagogical encounlcr bct wccn tcacheT and stu-
dcnL Bringing cOnl cmporary work in ril ual studics into rapprochement with
ficldwork in urban classrooms is mean! lO providc Ihe retorm-minded educalor
with a hroad const ructi on fOf unr"clling and dccoding obstadcs faced by work
ing-c!ass sludents in acquiring an education.
Thc basis of my work has consisted in dcmonstrating va rious cxamplcs of
school-bscd ritual and cx:unining lhe ir mplici! rclationships within Ihe wider
cultural system. Thc thcoretical bat.: kdrop f rom whit.:h Ihis work has evolved Hes
io the ioesca pable faCI thal the culture of the classroom is fundamcntally
furmed by interrelated rit uals. ritual systems, and ri tual performances. Such a
perspective posits classroom culture as a constructiOJllhal rernains a consistent
anel rn ca ningful reality lhrough Ihe oven!rching organization o f rit ua ls and sym
bol syslems. Symbols may he ve rbal or nonvcrhal and are usuaJly tied to Ihe
philosophieal e thos o f he domin:ml cullure.
Classroom culture does nOI manifesl itself as sorne prisline unily or disem
hodied homogcneous cntit y but is , ralher. diseonlinuous. murky. and provoc-
ativc of compclilion and conflict ; il is a colleclivity whi ch is composed of
competing class, cultural, and symbolic interests, It is furthermorc. a symbo!ic
;Irena where sludcnts and sl ruggle over he interprelations of ri tual
performances and symbo lic meanings, and where symbols have both centripet al
and ccnt rifug' ll puUs.
Drawing upon rc;; nt tlcld work cxpcriences in a CalhoJic junior hi gh school
in 1i:>romo. Canada, I have ana lyzed classroom cullure as a ri tual systcm and
Icac hing :IS a ril uaJ performa nce (MeLarcn 19R6). The sludcnl population of St o
Ry.m (nm the school's real name) consisled pri marily of Port ugucse .lnd halian
working-d<lss sl udent s.
Rituals 01' I\:rfllrmancc
In thi s rwper 1 w( Ju ll l Jike lO diso.: lI Ss leachers .tS three di sti m:llYpcS of ritual per-
formc rs which I rdcr 10 as eacher- asenlerlai ncr;
'1 um lIs' og Itle le, ,,, "hmioal l id .. ", T "IJ\ ",O ul lhe priO: 51. S"" U"
1',,,, T H.,lmcs, Tlr.' 1'"" ." ;" (,,,,m,,,,m .. : 1;'.'1' /"""1: ,Ir" //1.1"'.\ vi Mo,," ..... Nc .... Scahury
,
rile Uminul Serwmt and {he Rimal RoO/s Qf Critkull't'dagogy lbS
anu leacher as hcgelllonic ovcrlord.
2
( 1 would likc lo stress that hcse are ideal
typical roles.)
When students respondcd with a scnse o f immcdi acy or rurpose, cither ve r
baBy or gcsl ura!l y. to the tcacher's performance- when, for instance, Ihey be
camc lhe primry at.:tors withi n the ri tual of instruction-then Ihcy engaged in
an aUlhenti c pcllagogical rit e : the surroundings were sanclifi ed.
1
lnd the stu-
denl s beca me cocclebrants in Ihe earning process which was charaelerized by
illlense in\'ol vemenl and part icipulion. In thi s case, the tcacher achieved the role
of liminal servan\.
When sl udcnls wc re aClivel y engaged by tht: instructor bul, due to various
obslacJes inherenl in lhe ritual strucrure, content o anll performance (such as
poor timing. bad pla nning. lack of communicative competency. or failure to as-
sume a critical perspective wi th regard to !he subject matter), Ihey remained
isolated and unrefl ective viewers of the acrion, Ihen Ihe sludellls werc in !he
proccss of being cnterlained. The classroom was transformed into a theater and
the studems constitul cd an audi ence. In Ihis instance, the tcacher assumed an
entertainmcnt role: as a propagandist--or evcn worse, an evangel ist-for domo
nam cult ural, economi c. o r elhical intereslS.
When , howevcr. Ihe teacher was unable to arousc any studcnt imereSI or 10
pnlVoke any genuine response to Ihe instruetion eilhcr verbally, gesl ural1y, or
in the form of quiet contempJat ion on Ihe part of the students-then the stu
dents no longer fi gurati vely sal in a cathedra l or thealcr of learning but in Max
Webcr' s iro n cage. Thc teacher became rcduccd to a hegemonic ovcrlord and
knowledge was passcd on perfunctori ly-as though jt wcrc a trayoffood pushed
under a ceJl door. In such a siluation-<lne thal is all too common in our class
rooms--Ihe few fccl surrounding Ihe studenl might as well have been a place of
solitary confinc ment : a numbing stalc of spiritual , emotional, and imelleclual
empllncss.
Rappaporl (1976) has made an important distinction betweell ritual and the-
ater. He suggests that :
Ril uals my . . . be dislingui shed from dra ma by Ihe rdat ionship of Ihose presenl
lo whal is bei ng pcrformcd. While an audiencc is in allendance at a drama, a con
Prc:ss, 1978. Li mioal;ty is a h:rm dcvdoped by ArJ">O!<.1 Gennep (1960) ' lIJd :ldopled by Vk:lor
11,rrH; r 11l:1l rdcrs 10 a hotnugcl1C<lUS Si al': in .... hich parlicipanls are stripp.;u nf lheir
usual Malus and aUlhoril y. h is prtlcess uf kno ... m as .. bet .... and be
lw..: cn"- in which parlicipaOIS are remO"cd tcmporarily Irom a soc, al slruclurc ltl al is
ano hy p",,"er furce. all] communion bcl ....eeo is freo
queol ly tibc: ralcd io lhis
:Heg"mooy rcfch 1" 1 tic dom ioant system of " Iived mea ni ngs" wh ich hecolllcs a n irnporw ot fae
Ivr in mobililing spunl,orICOU. glllup wilhi n SOCial lOSI ilul ion5; il is pro,:css ..-hich
an itk:ulogy pcrvasivc "mI poleot cnough 10 pcnclralc Ihe Ic,"<.'1 01 n"mnOtl aod !O<>ClCly
IlIrougtl t al:co lor grmcJ rules 01 J lscuu rso: (d. Aprlc 1'J71/. pp. 1- 2.'i) .
'1 am Itle u:tm "sancti t y" herc aftcr Rappa p()rl .... ho I! " Ihe lIualily ufunqlles
ImpUICO I>y a tu proposi t i"ns io Ihc. r ,cnti .. bk nr
!i ablc " (!WilJ, p. 111';) .
,
I
"
is prCSCnI al a ri tual. An lllJil.'ncc mcrc1y bul 1I tllngregalion
usually in OC!!TC!.: attivcly . . . And whilc those who enac! a
drama are "only aClins" in a play. hose who cclcbril lc rituals are " nol
or "pJay- aclin!(. lh..: )' are taking aCllon, and il is oflen \'cry act ion. (p. 86)
Making a similar p(l illl. YiclllrTurIlcr ( l9o'S2) has wrilten:
Ritual. unlikc Ihealre. does nOl betwecn audiente and pcrforrncrs. In
Sh:uJ, Ihere is a wngrcgalion kad ... may he pricsls. p:Hly ortklals. or
other re ligious or SCClIl<Ir ri tual spcdtisls. hUI al! share fOfll1ally ano substamially
Ihe same se! of hdids and ,lfccpt lhe s<Jmc syslcm uf lriu:ticcs. lhe s<l mc s..: 15 of
r ituals or Iturgi.:a! aCl ions. ( IIJR2, p. (12)
This time drawing on a quote frotll Schcchncr, Turncr articulates Ihe differencc
between ritual and thentce
Thc\ lre comt:S inlo existence when occurs bel ween an Oludicncc and
pcrf'lrmers. The paradigmalic th<!fl trical silutllon is a group of performcrs solic-
ili ng an audicnce who may or may nOI n:spond by ttendng. The audience 15 free
10 slay away-and if t h..:y aWI)' il is Ih..: Ihealrc that suffcrs, no\ ils would-be
audiencc. lo ritual, stay-away mcans rcjecling he congregalion---or being re-
jcclcd by it, as in cxcommunicalion , ostracism, or cxilc. (p. 112)
Aecording 10 Ihe conlext s providcd by Turner and Schechne r. mosl class-
room inst rueli on in Ihe sellooll stutlied look place in instructional thcatcrs or
cages with tcachers unwittingly assuming Ihe tcacher-as-cntertainer or t eacher-
model rather than t ha l of Ihe liminal se rva nt. T hal is,
inslruet ion lacked Ihe parl icipalory elhos and binding solidarity of genuine ril-
u"l that oflen oecurs whcn participanls bclicvc in. aeknowledgc, and "feel" the
sa lutary a nd transformalive dynami cs of Ihe ritual. (This is nOl lo deny thal
there are always rilUal celebrants who si mply &0 "t hro ugh Ihe mOlions.")
The prClensc thal learning is primarily a producl of individual sludent voli -
lion-regMdless of lile eharaeler of Ihe Il:ao.:hcr' s performance and the nalure
of Ihe pedagogical cvcnt-inured sludents 10 Ihe ahsenee of real , acti ve, parl ie-
ipatory experience. Regrctlably, sl udent s were too oftcn reduced lo he roJc of
pure speclalors who assimihllcd knowledgc aborll things rathc r than ofthings
in rdation t other tllings ( knowledge as ived ex pericnec). In c ffeel, leachcrs
lacked a theory uf cx pc rience that woutd allow Ilem to dcvelop a pcdagogy ea-
pable of cl icil ing dynamic forms uf participal iol1 by positively resonating with
the drc ams. t1esires, voiees, lIld lllopian Iongings of Iheir sludcnts.
Unforlunatdy, studcnts will oflen llllcrit ically ao.: ccpl theillrical anties (rom
IcachcrS;:lS 11 surrogatc for (r uc iosl ructionalliminalit y; s\ udents bccornc inured
tothe Icacher as a prison guard oc hegcmunic ove rlurd ralllcr Ihan expcricnce
Ihe Jiminal dil11cnsinrls of Ihe po.:dagngio.:a l erlcountcr. As I wholc , studenls ; P-
pcar 10 be sufficienlly criticallo acccpt , huI nnl lO cri t ic1Lc,l he domin:.uH modcs
of pcdagogica! discotlrse .
,
The Liminar Servafll and rhe Ritual ROOLf of Critical Pedagogy 167
It is unfortunate thal teacheT roles 100 often manifested what Richard Court-
ney ( 1982) calls an "impropcr use of impersonation," Courtney tells us Ihal
undcr cer\;Lin condi ti ons identi fi calion can degeneratc nlO pseudo-roles: Ihe in-
di vi dua! wllo surrenders lO a role acls according 10 Ihe mage he would like 10
nminlain. He i5 guidcu by role ralhcr Ihan Ihe dcmands of Ihe Silu-
alion and his own Being. I-Ie "prelends" to be a Icachet o r a sludenl; he geslures
and poslures. The sl udenl prelends 10 pay a((eoli on. The Icacher pretends lO
Icach. Then sehooling becornes an elaborate game and dramatization has gOl oul
of hmd. Ncithcr musl submi t lo Ihcir roles. Iheir aulhcntic pedagogic relationship
is <ln encouol cr wheTe Ihey acknowlcdge cach olher. Thal is genuine drama. (p.
151 )
Sehool Knowlcdgc
Classroom instruction that primarily consiSled of the rccitation of faets by
tcachers 100 often amountcd to a pseudo-ritual bereft of meaningful symbols
and gestural mct aphors. Over lime, knowledge of Ihis sorl remained unembod-
ied and hence removed from l he SlUdcnts' corpus of feh meanings. That s,
koowlcdgc rema ined dist an! and oulside of the lived experience o Ihe studenls.
During mosl of t he Jcssons 1 obse rved, t cachers di stanccd their performance
lo such an cxtent that what t hey had to say fa iled to make an organic impression
o n sludents. Thcre was IiUle stimulation and lension and thercfore liule ca-
tharsis. In addili o n, no immediate discussion or portrayal of evcnts occurred
which students could recognize as being vitally important. As lived bodies of
authorized precedent, the microrituals sc r.'ed mainly as sacred shi elds behind
which teaehers could hide from the incessant attempts by studcnts to create
their own pcrsonalizcd strecteorner culture inside school walls.
S/udt:nt: Most of the lessons are bori ng. Same old Ihing alllhe time. Why can' t
Icachers make things interesting? They never ask us whal we hink is importan!.
As par! of the instruclional proccss. tcachees consciously--even self-con-
sciously-manipulaled ri lUal symbols and gestures in o rder lo bolh cntertain
(in Ihe scnse of keeping Ihe students intcrested and occupied) and control the
sl ll dents (keeping st udenl hehavior within predictablc limit s). Teachers usua!ly
spent a great Jeal of lime "beiog in onc's hcad" whilc "aeting" Ihe role ol
teacher . Gest urcs were di ssimul at ivc, wcre acled out fo r the sake of Ihe spec-
tator, aod werc often hiddcn bchind the !rappings of vilrious "officjal" facades
and personae .
Ullchl'r: Somclimes I can see myself in difft:renl rol es. Sometimcli I'ln like 11 par-
en\. Othcr times I'm mme like a sergeanl. Bul you can '1 be lOO friendly or Ihe kids
'1 am rcfcrrn!! hcrc lO Ihc lerm us<u by Thom .. s J . Schdf. 'TIle Di,ulOcing.>f
Emolion in Ri lual." Cur,..,,( Itnlhmpo(ogy. ",,1. IX, no. ]. t\.ln, pp. 48J-S()4; and Ca,ha'Jis in Hf!o/
inX. "'/IIil/ unrl /)rrmlll. 1<J'i\l. Los Angelcs . ,,1 California PleSi .
",JI \;.ke ;Lo vantage of yuu ,LriJ yllU' U sume n:spect [lml sufrer he eonsc-
for he of the ycar.
In cont rast. many st udents rcgarded Ih..: h..:teronllmy of imitiLling " the good
swdent" wilh a ccrt<li n amount uf disdan . Some studcnts were ablc lo (.-ollude
in se<l1'\: h uf aprropri'l!c gcslurcs alld th.:corum to nI Ih..: valucs and altitudes
pcreeivcd lo be Ihose !leld he Ihe tC<lrhers. Hem:c , t here were those studcnts
who had mastcTi: d art of "..;ting middlc-cJ<lss" and re<lpcd Ihe rewards of a
good evalua ton and a chanr e \O enla Of remain in un advanced programo
Sl!ulellt: I hute tl'}'in; 1,) :Jct tik'::L br()wncr. BUI you CiLn gel a",ay wil h i l. tr Ihe
h.: achc r thinks yuu' n: Il'ying 10 be a hwwncr bctr,;: Ihen you'lI get bellcr
m[lrks. BUI you mi ghl lose }'Our fr i,;:nds ir you stay a hrowncr tOlJ long.
Ritual Knowledge
A crucial research calegory orten overlookc d by educalional ethnogr phers is
Ihat of the body, huw il js inscribed in Ihe geography of desire, and how OUT
affective ur visceral investmenls in Ihe world providc a sense of unt y and to
tality to our multiple subject posilioning wifhin discuTsi ve formations. Rarcly
considcred in the debates ovcr Icarnng js Ihe \l aton that knowlcdge is also per-
fomwrively consrirured. lt s, in a \Vord. discourse givcn scnticnee. I have uscd
lhe te rm "ritual knowletlgt!" to rcfer to that aspecl uf learning which empha
sizes affeclive investmenl or bodily knowing as distinet fr om ideat ional Of se
Olanlic eompctcncy. Ritual, as I define Ihe term, rcfcrs 10 tlle gestural
ernbodiment of mClaphors m(\ symbols: Ihat s, t hey are symbols Of mewphors
somaticizcd or "bodied forth ." Rilu'll knowkdg,; has a lendeney to beeome
sclf-effaci ng si ncc it olen assurncs Ihe sccono n<lture of habits. TIlal ;S, il com-
pletes its wor k hy disgui sing its ()wn aClivi ly.
Classroum instruction ca n, wilhin thi s fT;ullework, be undcrstood as rilually
coded gcsturc s. Sludenh reacI lo and resist pcdagogical instruction
which is il sclf a forOl of ritual knowledge . Ritua l knowledge posscsses an in
CMnale charaeler; it is acquired inlcllcctuall y md nhcres in Ihe "erolies of
knowing. " (Dixon 11)74) It is hoh reflectivc and pr,;rcfleclive. Sludents acquire
and react to informalion visc..:rally, depending un both Ihe symbols and mel a-
phors available during Ihe pedagogical encounlc:r and th!! morphology of lhe in-
struction ih clf: Ihal b . mllkc affeCli vc invcstll1enls in ce rla in kinds of
know!cdge . In so doing, he di stinct illn hetwecn and thcir act ions
often heeome), nominal : the sludent bec(' !1les hOlh Ihl! Il1cans and the cnd of Ihe
rilllalizing ;le!. Thus, to sp!!a k of Sl uuc nls crcal ing dassrOQIll rit ual s is some-
wh1 misle aoing. R:lIher. il is helll.:r lu Ih;t rituals cre;Jlc heir parlicipanl s
"idcologieall y" by provding and Icgiumat in; the gesl ural melaphors and
rhythms Ihrnugh which they cngagc Ihe world. Ritual knowledge is nOI some-
... ,,,w.u, .)t'I Llum UlIU 1111: tiJWUltW/JIS 01 Lflllcal t'tcJugogy bY
Ihing to be "undcrslood"; il is Iways_ whcthc:r understood or nOl , somcthng
whieh is feh nd responded 10 somatically.
Ritual knowk dge is cpislcmologicall y d isparate from Iraditonal conceplions
of sehaol knowkdge. It is a Iype of mimesis Of viscera l/crntie iuenli!icatlon. My
rcsc;lTch al Se Ryan revealed a di sti nction bel wcen strecl corn.cr and
knowlcdge aC4uircd in c\assroom settings. Knowledgc acqUlrcd 1Il I.he
W<l S "Iived" and mediated through discursive alignments and affeelLve
ments nOI found in the school. It v.-as medialed by a d ifferenl symbol and m ual
sySl cm in which what mattered was alwys "felt," whercas school knowl cdgc
was oftcn sulli ed by an jnftal ed rationalism. In {he st reets, sludenlS made use of
more bodi ly cngagcment 3nd organie symbols. In t he classroom, knuw\cuge
was more symbolically sophislic3ted , but because such knowledge was U1Se r
nate and nOl lived engagement. jt remained dislanl . isol aled, abst rae!. was
a knowledge thal had beeome decultured and deli bidinalized and safely Lnsu
ated from the "tainted" produclion of desire, a knowlcdge Ihal had bcen made
congruent with the di scourse of Ihe olher, one sp.eaks for the students but
ooe to which Ihey havc litt\c acccss withoul relmqUlshmg Ih.!.: codes thal.
their dignity anu strceleorm:r status . Students chose nOI 10 loveSI affecl lve\ y m
this kind of knowtedge.
lnst ructi onal riluals beca me useful adjuncts in the posilioning of students as
subjeets within variaus discursivc alignments. and Ihe ingrai.ning---:-bolh
ily and cognitivelY-<Jf certai n accept able dlSposltlons and dlmenslon.s WhlCh
were linkcd to Ihe cultural capital of the domina nt culture. Sludents re
sisted Ihe eros-denyi ng qualily of school life, in which students were uno
di searnale beings, unfettercd by the desi res thal play on the ne.rve
living ftesh. Aceordingly, Ihcir bodies became sites of slruggle, In resls'
lance bccame a way of ga ining power , celebrating p1casure, and op-
pression in Ihe lived historicilY of the moment and the concrete matenahl Y of
the classroom.
Intellectual I<lbor had titile affeetive curreney beca use it was from
any eelebralion of Ihe body as a loclls of mcaning. This 10 the .id:a thal
ideological hegcmony is not re alized solcly through th..: dlscurslve of
Ihe soeiocultuT<l1 urder but through Ihe cnft eshment of unequal relatiOnshlps of
power. Hegemony is rnanifesl intercorporeall y through Ihe of the
fl csh and cmbcdded in incarnale cxpcricnce. Studcnts whose
" decentered" in sehool could reclaim their sense of subJecllVe conuml1t y
lhrough affcctivc investmenl in slreet life. Students battled daily. 10
Ihe di sjunction hctwecn lhe lived mcani ng of Ihe Sl reel S and Ihe. thmg-o nenled:
digila l approach 10 lea rning in the classroom. Thc structuratlon of
hcgi ns wi th their subordinal ion lo a field of cultural born
of thc symbols il nd narrativcs of the streCI and Ihe classroom and the
organ ization uf lheir bodies. Thal is. subjeclivity is produced bOlh dlscurslvcly
.. -

,.,J .)
:ind, nondiscursively. rcgimcs of trul h governing language,
dl!slrc, itnd movcrncnt. The poSlllonahl1CS of idco!ogy !:leca me he inte rscctinns
al which symbols and ritual mctaphors are inscri pteo in Ihe bady.
It appear theore tica!l y shortsighted to [imil OUT undcrstanding of SIU'
dcnt to Ihe of signs and symbols. Rathcr . we must Py
mOfe attcntlon to Ihe affec tlvc power invCSlcd in Ih..:st! signs and symbol s and
Ihe body's senSUQUS re!alionship lo thc m. Accordingly. Ihe bodics of Ihe stu.
denls, become sites of strugglc in which resislilnce is a way of gaini ng powcr, celo
ebrat lllg p[esure. and tiglll ing oppression in t he livel! hb. toricit y of Ihe momen!
and Ihe concrete materialily of the classroom.
The Liminal Senan!
The sect ion on Ihe liminal servant is a compositc description of what
1 consldc r to be best attri bules of a {caehcr working wilhin a c riti cal ped-
gogy. a Url butes have bec n collectcJ from obsc rving Icache rs both for-
a nd mformlI y for o\'er a dccade. Sorne o f Ihe characlcrislics o f Ihe
hmmal se rvanl werc cvident in Ihe ICilche r performanccs 1 obscrvcd al SI. Ryan,
. 1 want to su?gest l hal Ihe tcadlc r as liminal servanl has a twofold purpose,
of dc\'elopmg as part of the pedagogiclll encount a both a discourse of cri -
and (Aronowi tz and Giroux 19H5) . Teaehing within a mode of
entlquc, the Imun:. 1 servan! sees beyond the fa lse hil rmany thal exiSls belween
Ihe and ,the and rccognizcs Ihal knowlcdgc is always con-
slrUClcd m a, social and h.lsloncal conlext in whi ch {herc is always a struggle avcr
the of mea nmg, a slruggle which reflects a sl ill la rger confl iCI over
o f power., Thal .is, il is undcrSlood Ihat pcdil gogical praclices stand in
relatlon la a dommanl ldcology that defines what is accepted as
knowledgc, conStrUCl s social re!ations around spcci nc interests, and which
,speclnc structures o f incqualily i1nu asymmcl rical relations oC power
and pn vll ege .
Tcaching is as tking place in rel ation to a pa rti cu lar regime
of truth or domlOa tlOg loglc. As such, Ihe mina l 5crvHnt rca lizes thal school
knowledgc does nOI provitk studc nts w(h ;1 rdlccl ion of the world but crea les
a specific rendering of Ihc world which is o nly intc ll igible wilhin part icular ide-
ological configurat ions, social formatiuns. ur syslc ms of mcdiati on,
FO,r the limi nal servant, tctlchi ng itsdf is SOCiil l cOll str uction as wcll a5 a
crea te UT rroducc stude nt s as subjccts. How SWdcnls, as subjecIs,
by va rious pcdagogical discourses a nu r racliccs constilutes an
lue? logleil l proccss Ih"t conSl rUCls an illusion uf a ut on\)my and self-detcrmi-
nallOn md oflen lO misrccognizc Ihcmsdvcs as unproduccd
free iI nd 10 lmsrccogni ze t hcir QWn knmvledgc as I he will -Io-power mas-
queradlng as tnu h, Whi le il may he lrue t hat nonc of li S can ncver escape ide-

,
!
The Lmlinal Str\lUIII ,md he Riwul ROOlJ al Critical Ptdugagy
ology, il is the ncccssary task of Ihe \i minal se rvan! bOlh 10 revea l how
subjecl ivity gels construclcd and legiti maled th rough domi na nI pedagogical
di scOurscs and lo cvcnlually challenge the imaginary rdali ons hal s(udenls li ve
rcl at ive 10 the symbolic a nd ma teri al condi l ions of Ihei r existence. The liminal
servan! undc rslands learning as more Ihan a one way road from ignora nce to
know!cdge. Ignorance is not a lack of knowJedge bul a parl of Ihe very struclure
of knowledge. Furthcrmore, it is not a passi ve SI ate bUI ::1Il active refusal to
know, a will ing exdusion oC knowledge from consciousnesS. As a for m o f pas-
sionale resist nce to knowi ng, ignorancc can be transformed nto libcrating
knowle dge onl y when Ihe cacher becomes a sl uden! of the pupil's nceds and
dcsires, and whcn Ihe teacher is willing to be taught by the pupil's unconsdous
(Penlcy 1986).
T he liminal sc rvant's lask takes lhe fonn o f a crili cal pedagogy. Thal is, lhe
lmina! servm does more Ihan simpl y fUTlller legitimate shared assumpl ions,
agrecd-upon propricties, or establisll ed conventions. He or she musl excavale
the "subjugatcd knowlcdges" of those who have been marginalized, van-
quished. and disaffccled , whosc historiesof sufferi ng and hope have ra rely bcen
made publico Thus, hey frequently point 10 Ihe histories of women , peoplc of
color, working-dass groups, and others whose histories chall enge {he moral le-
giti macy of the Slale. These stories and sl ruggles of the oppressed are often
lodged as "dangcrous memories" in t he stale's re pressed unconscious. As a
tcacher of "d;lOgerous memory" Ihc li minal serva ni releases symbols and nar-
rat ivcs of Ihe "Other" 10 rub against the normative frames of reference whieh
give dominant knowledge its meaning and legit imacy,
The li minal servant pe rforms a sodal funetion Ihat is never innocc: nt . There
is no sphere beyond good and cvi! in which the liminal servant can retreat to
engage a nd produce hi s or hc r eommenlary knowledge and inSlruction , As
one who lakcs scriously what it means to link language, knowledge, a nd
power, t he li minal servant firsl dignifies his or her own pasition by recognizing
thal t he foundaton for 311 huma n agency as well as lcachi ng is sleeped ill a
commitment to c ngage a nd critically reconstruet the possibil ities fOT human
life anu freeJ otn,
The liminal scrva nt [unctio l\ s as more Iha n a n agent of social cril ique by al-
templing 10 fashio n a languagc of possihil il y and hope Ihat poi nts 10 new forms
of social and material relati ons attentive 10 the principies of freedom a nd justi ce
(Aronowit z and Giroux 1985). In this manner, criti cal discourse bccomes more
Ihan a form of cultural dissonance , more than a si phoning away of Ihe potency
of do minant meaning and social relat ions but ral her Ihe ereation of a demo-
cratie publ ic spheTe buill upon a la nguage of public association and a commil-
rnCIll 10 social transformat ion. It bccomcs, furthc rmorc, a c<lll for a new
narrti ve Ihrough which a quali lati\lcly bcller world can bth bi! imagined and
str ugglcd f ..Jr. Within t his perspective. teaching t:lkcs on a n anlicipalury c har-
17 1
_ _ _ -",.. .... . . .0
;Jct!:!r rootcd in a dialccticallogic Ihal mllkes cril que il nd transfOrmlI ion ils ccn.
tral morncnts (eL Giroux jlJIB) .
Whcn a tcacher posscsses Ihe attributes of a Jiminal servan! , ;ln addcd vital-
ily is broughl 10 the ri les of instruclion : fi gurativc significa ncc is given lO Ihe
karnin,: proccss, and Ihe COnlext of thl! is transrormed from Ihe indie-
ativc (<1 stress on mere facI s) lo lhe subjunclivc (a strC!s s on Ihe " as if" qual ity
of learning), fra m resistancc lo human kindness. and (rom
wi thin Ihe confines of social structurcs lO Ihe scedbcds of creati vi ty located
wthin Ihe anti struclure (a n:cc pti vc mode of consciousness in which we exisl in
a stalc of human lotaJi ty) .
The li minul servant is bOlh a convener o f custams and a cultural provoca.
teur-ycI tranScends bot h ra Jes. Thc politi cal righls of sludcnts (lre nevcr sub-
ordinll led 10 thdr utility as ruture mcmbers of Ihe labor force. Thc minal
servan! is as much a social ac[ivis! and spiri tual director as a school pedagoguc.
Successful ministering to studcnts involves personal charisma, powe rs of oDser.
vation and diagnosis, and the abilily 10 provi de st udcnt s with an hislorical and
communal prcsence. limina l scrv,mts view working-c1ass sludents, minority
groups, an! as members .of subordinat e cultures. Not only do they fight
for the cq uahly of Sl udent s outsldc of he classruom, bul Ihey also au empl lo
educalc fell ow Icachers around the ways in which they mlly unwittingl y silence
Sludcnts and disempower thcm on the basis of race, d ass, or gendcr.
Thc I! minal se rvant presenl s an array of symbols which have a high densi ty
of meanl ng for Ihe sludenl ; a " fel I <.: onlext " is esWblished for lhe subjecI matl er
that is 10 be engaged by promoting conditlons which will allow studenl s 10 in-
lemal ize both cxegeti cal (normath'e ) and o reerie ( physical ) meanings. By thus
crcating a pMlicul ar posture lowards symbo!s thal rcsonale with sludellls'
Slrcelcornc r knowlcdge , Ihe Iiminal servanl is abl c lo cnsure that symbals pos.
sess a ealalyti c and Iransformll live power.
The liminal servant Is Ihe bringer o f culture and is ever cognizant o hi s or
her shama ni c r001S. A mystagoguc ralher than ideologue, Ihe lminal servan!
does not eschew Iheory (whil.: h would be a fm m of pcdagogic piclism) , nor is
inl uilion avoidet.! thal comes \\I ilh praclicc (where avoidance woul d amounl lO a
rnori bund intcll cClual ism or ' siege rncnt alit y' ). Thc mti er of lhe liminal serva nI
is Ihe clea ring away of obslacks lo Ihe cmbodimenl of knowledge. Making ex-
cuses fur SluJcnl delicieneics is abjurcd in favor (lf a I.:elcbnttion of thcir aca.
delOie slrenglhs and abilit ies.
Thc liminal scrVillll is wary of IO(l much ra liocina lion allu kans lowa rds di.
vining myl hs, mCI8phors, anu rhYl hrns Ihal wiJlllil \'C mCilll ing and purpose fOT
sludcnls-nm jusI as ahslraClions. bUI as 'l ived forms' u f Cunseiousness . Modes
symbol i.c clion cmpl uycu 111<11 do nOI hctray a dcavlIgc bctwccn concep.
tillO uf an Idea <lnd It s cxccuti nn or hc passive recepl jun o f tacls and Ihe aei ve
pa rlici patory el hos of ' Iearning t'ly doing'. The limill al sc rvant encourages SltI-
The Limillal SuvalZl and he RiUIl I UOulS 01 Critica! Ptdagog:1' 173
dcnls 10 cnact mC1aphors and embody rhythms Ihal bypass the tradilional mind/
body duali sm so prevalent in mainstream educational cpistcmology and prac-
ticc. Thc liminal servanl engages in a form of pedagogi<.:al surrealism as a prime
coun of appeal againsl ralional education pracli ces . In this Wdy, the liminal ser-
van! is abJe to redistribul e, recombinc and juxlapose the art ifici al codes thal
make up class room rcal ily so as lO rc\atvize educali on's " natural" hicrarchies
and rclationships. Unlke Ihe humanist who begins wit h the differenl and ren
ders ir lhe liminal servant as surreali st attacks the familiar,
provoking Ibc irr upti on of o lherness, and perturbing commonpl ace perspcc-
tives (cf. Clifford 19S0).
Thc liminal se rvant does not put a high priority on structure and arder (al-
though cJ asses may be hi ghly struetu red and ordered) , and conditions are "eon-
jurcd" which are ame nable to the eventuat ion of communitas
S
and 60w." The
li minal servant knows Ihal he or she must not merely hand over reccived wi s-
dom fr om the warchouse of cultural knowl edge and Ihe great tradit ions bul
mus! all ow studenl s to "embody" or inca mate knowledge through an ael ive in-
tcrrogat ion of ils ideologieal preeepts and assumptions.
A s in Ihe case of the teacheras-cnt ertainer, Ihe onlological status and per-
sonal characteri stics of Ihe Jiminal servant are intrinsically ambiguous. How-
ever , thcre are essential di fferenees between these two pedagogieal types.
Whereas the Icaehcr-as-enterlainer tries lo suppress individuality, the liminal
servanl tTics 10 fosler individual endowment. The teacher-as-e ntertainer is n-
Icnt upon eo ndi lioning for sameness; Ihe liminal servant nurtures counterhe-
gemonic forces through the cul tivation among the st udents of an alter-ideology.
It is through Ihi s aher-ideology Ihal the liminal se rva nt is able to educalC for
individul il Y, di stinction , and singul ar purpose . But sueh a pcdagogical pracl ice
is nol meanl to foster social fragmemalon, privati zati on, and alomization. bUI
ral her 10 empowcr the oppresscd , the discnfranchiscd , and Ihe di si nherit ed to
devclop a collective understanding and struggle lo change Ihcir own oppressive
rcalities. In Ihe fi nal ana lysi s, tbe liminal servant is claser 10 his students than
to the leaching profcssio n ilsclf.
"' Commllnilas" 10 lhe lempofary camnraderic .... hich OCCUI""$ .... hcn ro1c:s or a.re
suspended bC lween fcllow ti min3ls. A llcep fOl,l nllatnal anll fundamental bond is V,c
tor l u rllcr has i hree iypcs uf communi t as: ( I ) SPOnt \lr co.mmunillu, (.2)
normativo: o:ommunilas. aml (3) idcological commllnil<l s. Sponlancous Ihe oppoSllC
uf social il dd les Ihe cognitive and voliional conslruclion. Normallve Ct>fn
munilas tu capl ure nd preserve spont ancous communilas in a S)'SI"11I of clhlcaJ and
legal rules. rcfers 10 Ihe formulation of ot Ihe como
munilas cXIX ricnce ' n t he foom of ulopi a n bluc priol for I he refurm "f 10""":1 y. . . .
' Fl o .... is a lerm <Jc\"clopcd by ( 1975) which rdt: r, 1" lh.: scnsilt.,on
pres.: nl .... hen inJ" ' IJ ua ae, .... ilh 101:1I invol>"t:ment. Tu rncr has Imkcd lhe 1 nn"r 10,1t of lIow IU 10m
in:ll il y ( 191(2).
,
,
.. "
,' rhe Icachcr-as-entcrlainer ofl en fjils 10 See the val uc.- of uniquc human ex-
pcrknce whercas Ihe liminal se rvant is neve r blind 10 Ihe significancc of bot h
individual and collecti ve str uggl c lO mmlC and construcl mca ni ng. The tcacher-
a:,- hcgemoni c ovc rlord is nOI concl!rncd ei lher wit h the quesl ion of student ex-
pcri cnce, empowcrmcnI. or Ihe COIlSruclioll and transformation of cxpericncc;
Ic:-,solls are followed strictly and mordantly by he book. On a mure abstract
leve!. Ihis tcacher-type rcprescnts a conditio ne-d rdlcx of Ihe cul ture's eonsen-
sus ideology.
AlI tcachcrs rcpresellted by this typulogy are '\:ultural practit ioncrs" who
prod ucc, orchestrl!e . integra le. anu distribulC cultural mcanings, offer Iher in-
I!antations of various cducal iunul mythologies, and IIdp 10 suffuse thc c1ass-
room wilh particular orders of experience. To a far greatcr extent than the other
pe.ll.agogical types . Ihe liminal s\!rvant is able 10 hclp Sl udenl s crack Ihe prc-
valllng cultural crust and discover all ernati vc meanings. In this manner , Ihe lim-
inal servan! is a vagra nt . a t ra mp of the obvious" wllo bceomes Ihe " tramp of
dcmystifyi ng conscienl ization" (Freire 19X4, p. 171). The ordinary thus be-
comes the object of crit ical cxaminalion and refl eclion.
The Jiminal servanl underslands tcaching tO be essentially an improvi sed
drama that lakes place wit hin <".1 curricul ar narralive . To fulJy underst and Ihe
sublext of Ihe student, the li minal servant must "becomc" the sludent as par!
of the dramalic encounl cr. While in the thrall of such a drama. Ihe iminal ser-
van! knows tha t Ihe resu! ts will often be unpredictablc; thal understanding. li kc
play, has a spi rit of its own (cL Cour!ney Fcclings and alti tudes become
the matri x of lea rning for Ihe Jiminal serva nI; thus, Ihe ral ional proccsses of his
studenls must be placed in an cmotive context.
The liminal servant often challcnges Ihe presupposil ions embeddcd in de-
duetive logic. Moreover, the dist inction belween abstraet and objective trulh is
rccognized , Acsthetic t rulh is prh:cd as much as objective Iruth. for trulh can
only become "real" when a acts wilh il (eL Counney 11J1:!2) .
Thc limina! se rV<l nt s a parashaman (cf. Grime:-. 1(82); he or shc is perform-
ance oric nlCd ,md enjoys wurking in smalJ groups as disl inct from an entire
class. The li mi nal servant teaches in orde r to disCQ\'e r hi s llT her own meanings
nnt m:rely lo sharc avai l;tblc Tcachi ng is a (onn of "holy play" thal
IS a kln lO he d rama uf hunl ing socieies Ihan 10 the Iheatcr of agricull ural
SOCICII CS (d. Grimes 1982) .
The li minal servan! is a Iransformlt ivc intdlect ual (eL Aronowilz and Gi-
roux who u.nderst ands Ihe- critical role Ihat cUUl:al ors play al alllevels of
schoohng m producing <tnd lcgilimating cxisling soci 1 relatio ns and practices.
:"S transf? rmalive intcl lcclual, Ihe limi nal servanl cri li..:tlly engagcs Ihe dom-
mal lOg Ingle of sc hool lik through lit aeli\'..: invlvclllcnl in orros it ional dis-
COurses in whic h the prima..:y uf th..: poltical is cunti nua ll y ,t ssc rt ed unew.
The Iypc of pedagogy undcrlakcn by Ihc Imillal s<:rva nl is une- in which stu-
de nlS aTe cunt nually '.skcd lo examine Ihe vtriuus coueS- lhat is. Ihe bcl icfs ,
,
",,' ' .' ''''''''' .JC ' ,'"m Uf"" ,,," """11" UJ ..... 'UKUI reuugogy 1 /:>
the val ues. and the assumptions-that they ut ilize in ordcr to makc se nse of
hdr worlu. They are abo encouragcd 10 examine how Ihey "codify" even!s in
the classroolll in addilio n 10 life ou(sidc Ihe schoo\. One concrete- example of
this would be 10 ask sludcnls to write a numbcr of short pa pcrs in whieh hey
are asked to co nsider not only various ways of making sensc of an issue o r evenl,
bUI to reneel upon lheir uwn previous writings in order tO rethink past pe r-
spectives and to modify or rcshape posi ti ons lhat they prcs .... ntly assume. The
, guiding imperalivc for Ihis kind of acti vi ty is to encomage studenlS 10 sort
through the eontradict ions of their own experiences while raising the q ueslion
put forward by Hcnry Giroux: " What is it this society has made of me Ihal 1 no
onger want lo be?" (Gi roux 1986). In short , students are asked to look al !heir
lakcn-for-grantcd experic nces (the ideologies of evcryday li fe). incl uding the
aels of writ ng and dialogue lhemsclves, as possible sources of lea rning.
In his masterful work, The Grain 01 he Voice, Roland Barthcs ( 1985) warns
against teachers assuming the voice o power which can potcnti al! y smo thcr Slu-
denl tal k by the assignmenl of the leacher' s meanings-the " authoritative
tcxt "-to the texts they have rcad or Ihe ideas in which lhey are presentl y en-
gaging. Banhes extends Ihe functi on of thc Iminal servant by suggesting that
tcachcrs should employ the strategy of disappropriation, tha! is , the task of dc-
li beratel y easting off aUlhority as speaker so tha! studen!s can claim sorne au-
thorit y of Iheir own (Harris 1987). In this way, Ihe role of the teaeher becomes
delachcd from that of reprcse ntativc of the dominant culture who functions 10
lell students whether thcir interpreations of evenls are val id- in short , lo tel!
!hcm who /q are. I nstead . the teaeher as i minal servanl serves a counter-heg-
cmonie role , actively contesti ng cxisli ng relations of power and pri vilege. The
purpose of lhis aetivity is lo show studcnts the forces behind their own inter-
prclutions. to cal! into question Ihe idcological nalure of expcrience, and 10 re
veal the interconnections betwcen Ihe communit y. culture, and the larger social
contexl : in short. lo explore Ihe dialectic of self and sociely.
The liminal servant possesses an intuitive index by whi ch 10 adj udi cate Ihe
symboli e and performativc charaeteristics of instruction- apart, that is. fram
thei r efticacy and aesthetics. Whal is important for the- liminul serva ni is to be
able to eval uate whelher o r not the rilualized exigeneies of instruction mcdia te
in favor of or agai nst the academic prospcrity o sludcnts and whcther Of not
thei r Jcssons cnllancc student sclfempov-:crmenl Ihrough the developmenl of a
critical class consciousness.
Sincc . properly speaking, inSlruelona l T tuals can only be evuluated rcla-
tionally, that is. in Ihe conlexl of performance, the iminal Servant eschews a
ri gi d o r hidcbound sel of pri ncipIes in assessing whal char::. ctcri sties a good rit -
ual l)f nstruelion mus! posscss. The evaJualive eritera by which a given ritual
pcrfrm<lnce may be faull ed or aecredit ed consis!s of ti number of general ques-
lions which rdkct the ex!cnt to whi eh Ihcse pcrforma nc:cs beeolll c ..:ullurall y
hegl:/Ilonic .
... ....
The"hcgcmony of instrucli Oll<J1 rites rders n01 unly lO haw thcy rcinforcc or
, reproduce Ihe political tnd cconOlll ir.: tluminance uf olle social c1<.1ss over ano
Olhcr, bUI also he success with which he domini1nt dass i5 ahlc 10 projcct-
through symbolic meanings and pr<lclicc-'\ thal struct urc dai1y expericncc-ilS
own way uf intcrprcting Ihe warl d 10 lhe extent lhal it is considcrcd natural . uni
versal. ami all incJusive.
Tllus. riluals are considcrcd " uncrit ical " by lhe iminal servant ir lhcy con
slrain Ihe subjectivitics of SlUdcnts by placing unuue limiWtions on oppositional
diseoursc . retlective dialogue , and cril ique. And rit uals may be considercd "re
ncctivc" ir lhey create all alternative 10 hcgcmony (countcrhegcmony) which
wi ll cnable parlicipa nts 10 critically rcHect upon Ihe way realil y is perccived and
understood. Consideralions such as these cnfr!f1 chise an array of qucslions
which may be asked of Ihe inslrucli onal riles of c1assrooms in general: Whosc
inlcrcslS (from Ihe pcrspectivcs of sodal c!ass , culture, gender, and power) do
Ihe ril uals ultimalely serve? Are they kecping ccrlain groups of sludents in basic
level courscs or are Ihe)' providing for Ihe cqualization of life dUlnces'! Who
bcnefi ts most from the rit ual st ructures rcmaining as lhey are? \Vho is margino
alized as a rcsull? What virtucs or vices are cmbedded in Ihe media and mor-
phology of the riles thcmsel ves'! How are power .md control invested in and
medialcd through Ihe ritual symbols, ritual pardigms , and ri t ual codes? How
is consciousness " Iocked" into Ihe messagcs of the c1assroom riles? How do Ihe
instructional rites inform the values and hehavior of the st udents'! In whal ways
do school rituals uncritically \ransmit Ihe dominant ideology? The key word
here is "uncritically." Instructional rites are gcnerall y criticizcd by Ihe Ii minal
st.: rva nt when Ihey providc al lhe level of common sens!; litlle room for ideology-
critique, or some form of couutcrhegcmonic and critical dialogue. Likewise,
hey are cri licized ir they fui l lo permit Ihe sluJenl s lo affirm Iheir own cxperi-
ences, ilnd 10 cvaluale Ihcm on a scale of mcril which has emerged out of col-
!eclive reflcelion and info rmed self-scrutiny.
Concl usions
C1carJy, an important direction in which edllClionaJ ri tuals should procced is
in Ihe crealion of classroom conJi tions destincd 10 spawn liminal di mensions of
learning in the form of cithcr spO/ltaneous or instituliona lizcd communilas.
Myerhoff and Metzger (1980) announee thal si nee liminality is nol ollly " rcflex-
ive" but " refl ect ivcness," il is rundamenwl to Ihe leachingacl . In fact, lhey de-
scribe il as the great momen! of leacha bililY .. . " (p. lO) .
What is important is Ihe creation uf <I n " int uitivc engagemcnt" betwcen
teaching anJ the emoo;limcnl of whal is I<lught. wc must avuid hceoming !ike
Plotinus and fecJing ashamcd of heing in tho.: bmly. Thcrl.' musl not be such a
wide di sjunclion bct wcen tlu: ge nc r<ltiw f110de 01' ritual k nowl eJgo.: which cntails
eXplOr<llion and discovery amlt hc pedag\lglC mode uf rilual know1cdgc (cf. Jen-
nings ]lJH2).
LI/ninal Sa valll and lht Ritual Rool$ 01 Critical
Urnan T. Holmes (1978),10 whOln 1 owc Ihe term sc rvant :"
us Ilml liminalit y and communitas describe an exislence oulslde
constraints of sociel y. For Ihis rcason, liminars are open
control1cd by socielal conslrainls. As Holmes (1977) pUIS 11:
. f 'd'" ( 95) Furthcrmore Holmes writes Ihal commumtas IS a gcnera-
IS rce. p. . ' .. . ' . l ' h' h e
live centrc" which i5 Ihe goal of pilgnmagc; 1I 15 the In w IC w
can discovcr our humanilY (p. 83) . Needed then, is an insl rucllonal.
thal is able to tind the correct balance 'betwccn communit.as , the .InP,tnto Ihe
\\'orld of symbls, and the social life amid the unwocal (p.
The individ ual who can best determine and orchest ratc the correel
tween commmunitas and structure is lhe leacheT actng in the role of hmmal ser-
van\. Knowledgc gained in cl ass through a minal engagement. co.uld
Ihe self-enclosed, uncri lical, linear, positivistic, and palhogenlc hlerahsm of
mainstream schooli ng wit h tra nsformative knowlerlge: . '
Riluals, as Turner has shown, operate as a dialeCtlca.1 relau.o.nshlp
flow and renexivity. Too much flow can lead 10 a
whereas 100 much rcftcxivity ca n lcad to the o fol-
lowed by an inlelleclual aloofness. 00 Ihc of ref1exlvlt.
y
, the POtnt
be m::lde lhat it is not ref1exivilY ilself Ihal contams seeds of a
gemonic discourse , bul Ihe elhical imperatives thal gUlde such refl cxlVlly.
flexivity can do ils "work" 10 create a liberatory pedagogy when we
10 "unthink" the past (Heidegger 1972) and when we to grasp a rec
procity of perspeclives" (Merleau-Ponty p. 31.4). Thls a!so means
tough questions musl be ?y the ntu.al s uch as those de
ing wilh relations of power and pnvllege and socIal class . .
Compassion and commitment 10 teaeh as a social and moral agent 10
vice of self and social transformati on is what guides Ihe of Ihe
servant In loday's era o conservative restoration and n ght-wmg
it is no mattcr 10 encourage Icachers 10 embady Ihe pedagogy of hm-
inal servan!. The anger and sullen outrage that fills the gap between
fu;fillment for many working-class and minonty must now be mel m e
classroom wilh a redemptive dialectics of hopeo lt IS m an engagementfl al
we , as li mi nal se rvants, can be uni led with our-and Ihelr-:-estrangement rom
Ihe world and wilh Ihe will and the purpose to overcome It.
Rcrerences
171
Apple, Michacl. Ideology ond Cu.rr;eulum. LonrJon: Roulicdg.c and Kcgan Paul, 1979 ..
Aronowz, Stanlcy. and Giroux, Hcnry. Educalion Under Sltge. South Hadky, MA.
Bcrgin and Ga r"cy, o.ns5.
. her ' 1 1"
is :mol ber lel m 10 l . .mma .,s " c. lbe individuftls wuhm be
lhe _lfUe!!lr.: uf SlatuSes . wll tuo Ihe s".;II!IY Rather. '.
. . . . . , ." " .. , and
:mhstruClurl! '" ,1 sl.Ote o unth crcnlla e ...
\


!

,
\
,

i

, 1
' ,
I
( !
1
I
,

I
I

,
I

,

I

I

,

I
,
i.
,
,

I
I


!
,
,
,

[3anhcs, Roland . rJ" , (; /"(/ill of I/W Hlift': l /!/al'it'WS Trans. Linda Clovl!r-
dal<! . Ncw York : Hill nd W<.Jng. 1\11\5.
Clirr\lrd. James. "011 Elhnograph lc Sum.:alism." Compara/h'/' Sludies in Sodely ,md
I/iS/(lfy. 13 5)1)-56-1.
Cnurtn..-y. RidmnL Rr_ 'JI/I.\': Sft4 dies in IIwl/(lI! {)rWI/(lII//(! EdumliOIl. Torcnto, OISE
/'n.:s.'.: O ntllrio Inslit UII: fr in Educllion, 11)82.
Csikszcmmi ha lyi. Mihaly. IJ" yum! Horl!t/o/1l ami Alu"i et)'. San Francisco: Jossey. l3ass.
1
1
)75.
DixIln. John W . . Jr. " T he Erot le nf Knowi ng. An:linlll TJe%gical Review, 48 ( 1974):
.
Frcre. Pauto. Tlu' Polilics uf J:;tlll ,fllioll : Cllll ttfe. l'() wcr lUId Liberaron. South Hadley,
MA: Hergin and Gar"ey. I',lS5.
Gimux, !-Ie nry. 'I1//:or)' uml Ut'siJtanu ill Educa/jon. Soulh Hadley. MA: Sergin and
Ga rvcy. 19X3.
Giroux. 1 krl ry. Spcech givcn ;lIthe conkrcncc "American Drearns" in Indiana, Penn-
sylvni,r, O,;toocr 23-25. IY';.
GirollX, Hcnry. ami Me La ren. 1'<:ler, "'Ieachcr EUllcation and lhe Polili cs of Engase-
mcnl: Thc CaSe for Dc nmcrati c Sehooling." Harvard EdUcational Review, 56
( J()Iil1) : 213-2JH,
G ri Rona Id L. Uf!;i mr i ll;s i ll R i trlal Studies. Wash i ng! 011, D, c.: Un i versi Iy Press e f
Ame rica, 19H2,
H,mis, Joscph. "1'he Plu ral Texlrrhe Plural Sc1f: Rol;HJU Barthes a nu Wi l1iam Coles."
Colll'Jie En;1 lr, .J r; ( 1'11::7): 15';- 17U,
Heidegger. M, Wlwl is Cullt,/ Hlinking"! (J. Glcnn Gray, Trans. ). New York: Harpcr
11)72.
Holmes, Uroan T. " RcvivOlb are un-American: A Rceall ing of Ameriea 10 lIS Pilgri.
mate ." An;/ican TlreoIQxicull<el': w, su pplementary series. no, I (1978): 58-75,
1 [olmes. Urllan T. Mi /lis/r)' (IIul!m(lxillu/iO/r. New York: Seabury Press, 1976.
111I1mcs. Urllan T. " Wha t has MOlnchcste r lo do with Jerusalem?" Anglican TlreQlugical
Rf' l'il.'w, 51) (1977) : 71J-97.
Hol mes. Urllan T. Th(' Prit>,U;1I CrJ/1II/1Wrl}': Explaril/g fhe Roots of Minislry. New York:
Scabury Press. 11J7t
Me Laren, 1'cIl!r . Cres Irom f/I.' Lorriclor: Tile New Sllbllrban Glrelfo. Toronlo: Mcthuen,
1979.
Me Laren. 'cte r , " Ritu,rJs uf Resistance in the Culture of Working-class SchooJgirls ."
c.:WllIIliun \\i mw/Z S/lIllil.'s, 4 ( 19X2).
Me La ren, Pc to,;r , "Victor Turner : In Mo,; morlm." IlI f<'f"/!lIfional Semiofi c Speefrum, 1
( IIJX4a) ,
Mel.;ITc n. l'c ter . " Re t hinkirtg Ritual." Ere: A Rel'el>' of C('nf!r(ll SemulZtics, 4/ ( 19K4b):
267-277.
Me Llr ro,; n. 1'..: t o,; r .. 'Thc i t Uit! Di rnensions uf Resisl a nee: Clowning a nu Sym bol ic I nver-
si \l!1 ," JUII/'I/tll 01 E/jmllirlll, 167 ( JYHS); X4-Y7.
M..:L" l"..: n, 1'..:l e r, " Pl)slllIodcrnity ami Ihe ])ealh of Pol itics; A Brzi lian Rcpri evc," Ed-
unlli,mol Thr'ory, J(J ( J I)X ): JX')-ll J 1.
Me Lt ren. r: r, SdlUOlin; 11.\' /1 Ritual }'crlorlllllfrce.' "/''''urJs u !'v li/kal Economy 01 Ed.
11 /'/lIioll<ll (,'sll / n.\' , Lununn: Kout lcJgr: anu Kcgan Paul. 19H6,
,\1..:L<l rc rr . I'etcr. "The Ma ni pulation uf Ihe Syrnblll ," Alllhropolvgic<l. in press.
,"1cr lettr l'lJIrly. M. In TI!!' l'ril/lil c.\" o[ Pl'rl"t'/,liml , editcd by J . M. Edic . Ev .. JI.:
Nllrthwestern Univcrsity 1975.
,
Tlle Limim! Sen'al1/ ami/he Riuml RoulS o[ Critical ? .. dagogy 179
Mycrhoff, Barbl ra. nd Metzger. Ocena, J?urnal. as AClv.it y :l,nd Genre: On Lis
tcning to the SI1cnt Laughlcr of Mozar!, jellllOll ca, JO ( 1 97- 114.
Pen1ey. Constance. ""Te<lching in Your Slccp: anu Cary
Ncl son ( Ed.). Theury in /he Clussroom. Chrcago: Umvcrsrty uf II hnOts Press.
19R6.
Ra ppaport. Ro)'. " Liturgie s and Lies." I lIternariQtl u/ Year!look. lor /he Soci% gy 01
K/rowledge U/rd Religioll, /O (1976): 75-104.
Rappaport. Roy. "Concluding Rcmarks on Ri tual a nd Renexivity." Semio/ka. 30
( 1980) : 181-193.
Schechnc r. Ri chard, The Elld o[ IIwl/anism: Wri/inglon Pl'rlormunCl'. Ncw York: Per-
forming Arts Journal Publieat ions, 1982.
ScheH, T homas J. "The Dista ncing of Emoti on in Ritual." Currenf Anthropology, 18
( 1977): 484-504. . .
Schcff, Thomas J. Callrursis ill Heafing. Rilual and Drama, Los Angeles: Unrvcrs1ty of
California Press, 1979.
Turne r , Victar. Tire Ritual Process: Sfructure and Anti-5Iructurr. Chieago: Aldine , 1969.
Turner. Viclor, From Ritual ro Tlrt>alre: TIr e Human 5eriousneSl o[ Play. 1982.
Van Gennep. Arnold. Tlle Ritesol Passag!.'(M. B, Vizedom <lnd G. L. Ca ffce, Trans.) .
Chieago: UnivcrsilY of Chieago Prcss , 1960.
Wall ace, Anlhony. Religioll: Al! An/hropologicul Virw. New York: Random House,
1966,
Peter L. Me Laren teaches in the Educatiolla} Leadership departmellf, Miami
Unir;ersilY, 040rd, Ohi o.
,
PhnIQ by M. Oungey