Symbolic boundaries
Symbolic boundaries refer to the conceptual distinctions that individuals and groups make to categorize people, practices, and objects, which generate feelings of similarity, group membership, and exclusion. Proposed by cultural sociologists, symbolic boundaries are essential in forming social groups but need to be widely accepted to transform into social boundaries.[1]
Durkheim and Symbolic Boundaries
[change | change source]Émile Durkheim viewed the symbolic boundary between the sacred and profane as a primary social fact, from which other symbolic boundaries derive. For Durkheim, rituals—whether religious or secular—served as the primary means through which groups reinforced their symbolic and moral boundaries.[2]
Durkheim emphasized that crime and deviance play a crucial role in reaffirming these symbolic boundaries by provoking collective responses that reinforce group solidarity.[3]
Neo-Durkheimian Perspectives
[change | change source]Building on Durkheim's theories, sociologist Mary Douglas argued that symbolic boundaries organize experience in both private and public realms, even in secular societies.[4] Neo-Durkheimian theorists also stress the role of deviancy in exposing symbolic boundaries that define moral order.
Transgressing Symbolic Boundaries
[change | change source]Transgression of symbolic boundaries can provoke prejudice, often because these boundaries protect a group's identity. Symbolic boundaries can overlap with physical boundaries, as illustrated by rituals like the ancient ceremony of beating the bounds, which blurred the lines between symbolic and real frontiers.[5]
Migration and Identity
[change | change source]Writer Salman Rushdie has examined the migrant’s role as a postmodern figure that crosses symbolic boundaries, often challenging them and facing demonization from the host nation.[6]
Symbolic vs. Social Boundaries
[change | change source]While symbolic boundaries are conceptual and cultural, social boundaries refer to the tangible and objectified forms of social differences that result in unequal access to resources and opportunities.[7]
Play and Humour
[change | change source]Play and humour serve as mechanisms to test and challenge symbolic boundaries. Playing with social norms allows for experimentation within the unspoken frames of social behavior, while humour can reveal, test, and sometimes shift these boundaries.[8]
References
[change | change source]- ↑ Bourdieu, Pierre (1984). Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste. Harvard University Press.
- ↑ Durkheim, Émile (1912). The Elementary Forms of Religious Life. George Allen & Unwin.
- ↑ Durkheim, Émile (1893). The Division of Labor in Society. Free Press.
- ↑ Douglas, Mary (1966). Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo. Routledge.
- ↑ Turner, Victor (1969). The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure.
- ↑ Rushdie, Salman (1991). Imaginary Homelands. Penguin Books.
- ↑ Lamont, Michèle (1992). "Cultural and Social Boundaries: Their Role in Shaping Inequality". Annual Review of Sociology.
- ↑ Huizinga, Johan (1949). Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play-Element in Culture. Beacon Press.
