Social liminality and constructed ethnoarchaics: difference of meanings

In modern societies, the process of modernization often faces ethnoarchaics as a resistance factor of reforming social structures. In this connection the problem of ethnoarchaics legitimation became a basis for the consideration of cultural, socio-political and economic discourse. These interpretations include the natural character of ethnoarchaics and often understand it as a technology of eth-nocratic character. Such an approach is justified, but not complete, because it does not reflect the fact that ethnoarchaics can be a constructed phenomenon of artificial nature with an aim of preventing the alternative ways of social solidarity emergence. In this connection, liminality is an alternative project of social consolidation which shows, on the one hand, the destructive nature of the artificial ethnoarchaics and, on the other, denotes a specific subject initiating this process in order to prevent the alternative models and modernization of contemporary Russian society. Therefore, it is necessary to offer a comparison of social liminality and constructed ethnoarchaics as a methodological move leading to the discovery of the xenocratic element as an objective phenomenon of social reality construction. This phenomenon needs simulation of the nation's spiritual revival and bringing it into the "harmless" exotics state. In this regard, the analysis of ethnoarchaic practices should emphasize that the representation of the exotic nature of ethnoarchaics completely lacks liminality as a funding beginning of society creation. Given the need for a certain return to the past, the structure offers a simulacrum of a liminal action, which is ethnoarchaics. The subjects' attention is drawn to the fact that immersing into senseless liminality is the satisfaction of the need to differ, but differ harmlessly. Ethnoarchaics allows the masses to convince themselves that no society creating practices have been stolen. An easy return under the power of a structure convinces the masses that liminal acts presented in the ethnoarchaic ritual bear only idle measure of brotherhood. It should be noted that such an understanding of liminality is, most probably, a result of liminal ritual censorship by a social entity that saw liminal practices as a clear obstacle to power. This entity had to prove the impossibility of thinking within the liminal space. Therefore, Catholics were first to destroy liminality in Europe, later the bourgeois destroyed it. The entity needed integration on the basis of the rational, while limi-nality is irrational, and the entity insists on its uncertainty.

Keywords

Authors

References