Living in-between: The Uses of Marginality in Sociological Theory (original) (raw)

Abstract

it may seem that the concept of marginality has already been thoroughly studied and some- times even considered as a useless and obsolete theoretical notion. however, in this article i develop the notion in a novel way with regard to recent theoretical debates on the social im- plications of shifting borderlines in the contemporary world. The notion of “marginal man” introduced by Robert Park is central for my approach since it embodies the “spatial—social” interaction. i construct and use the nexus of space, time and movement to account for the an- alytical capacities of this concept. The article covers mainly the spatial aspects of marginality and its connotations. i outline two main approaches to the ideal type of the “marginal man” in the paper: 1) the spatial-functional approach (traced back to simmel’s notion of stranger), which focuses on the essential functions of stranger for a group border, and 2) “formal”— making approach to multiple borders (and particularly shifting ones) that shape “marginal’s” identification as placed in-between borders and challenge the orderliness of bordered space. The central task of the marginality research is not to classify different “strangers” and “mar- ginals”, or to describe their conditions, self-identities, and psychological controversies, but to depict social processes responsible for “marginalization”, exclusion, and enabling liminal positions. in this article i argue that the analytical vista of the “marginality” concept can be extended beyond the individual/personal framework and include social institutions (in the example of citizenship). Keywords: space, border, frontier, marginality, marginal man, stranger, movement, citizenship

Loading...

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

References (11)

  1. Bankovskaya s. (2006) Migraciya, svoboda i grazhdanstvo: paradoksy marginalizacii [Migration, freedom and citizenship: the paradoxes of marginalization]. Polis, no 4, pp. 120-126.
  2. durkheim e. (1906) la détermination du fait moral. Bulletin de la Sociéte Française de Philosophie, no 6, pp. 113-167.
  3. Foucault M. (1984) Le Souci de soi, Paris: gallimard. germani g. (1980) Marginality, New Brunswick: transaction Books. giddens a. (1991) Modernity and Self-Identity, cambridge: Polity Press.
  4. R. (1977) The paradox of marginality. Our Sociological Eye: Personal Essays on Society and Culture (ed. a. B. shostak), Port Washington: alfred, pp. 67-79.
  5. levine d. N. (1977) simmel at a distance: on the history and systematics of the sociology of the stranger. Sociological Focus, vol. 10, no 1, pp. 15-29.
  6. Mead g. h. (1932) The Philosophy of the Present, chicago: open court Publishing. Mizruchi e. h. (1983) Regulating Society: Marginality and Social Control in Historical Per- spective, chicago: chicago University Press.
  7. Park R. e. (1928) human migration and the marginal man. American Journal of Sociology, vol. 33, no 6, pp. 881-893.
  8. Park R. e. (1961) introduction. stonequist e. v. The Marginal Man: A Study in Personality and Culture Conflict, New york: Russell and Russell, pp. xiii-xviii.
  9. Park R. e. (1967) On Social Control and Collective Behavior, chicago: Phoenix Books.
  10. Rorty R. (1992) cosmopolitanism without emancipation: a response to lyotard. Moder- nity and Identity (eds. s. lash, J. Friedman), oxford: Blackwell, pp. 59-71.
  11. schutz a. (1945) The homecomer. American Journal of Sociology, vol. 50, no 5, pp. 369- 376.