• Paul Stenner
Part of the Studies in the Psychosocial book series (STIP)


This chapter concludes the book in six main sections. The first section provides a summary of the transdisciplinary approach provided by the book and discusses how it relates to the contemporary situation of knowledge fragmentation, particularly within the ‘anthropological’ domain (understood broadly, in Max Scheler’s sense). The second section articulates how the approach offers a view of human life as liminal in the sense of being constituted by boundaries which are then transcended (this is related to Simmel’s notion of life as transcendence). The third section makes explicit the paradoxical nature of this viewpoint, but summarizes the generative aspects of paradox. The fourth and largest section makes explicit a concept of ontological liminality which has informed the approach and sketches how Whitehead, Mead and Simmel each contribute to this through their rethinking of time. Drawing on the work of William Sewell, the fifth section illustrates how ontological liminality plays out in the anthropological example of the French Revolution. A final section draws together the threads by clarifying the ethos of transdisciplinary theorization informing the book.


  1. Akerstrom Anderson, N., & Pors, J. (2016). Public management in transition: The orchestration of potentiality. Bristol: Policy Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Augustine, S. (1974). The essential Augustine. Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar
  3. Bell, C. (1997). Ritual: Perspectives and dimensions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bergson, H (1932/1986). The two sources of morality and religion. (trans: Ashley Audra, R. & Cloudesley Brereton). Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bohm, D. (1980). Wholeness and the implicate order. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Brown, J. W. (2012). Love and other emotions: On the process of feelings. London: Karnac.Google Scholar
  7. Brown, S., & Stenner, P. (2009). Psychology without foundations: History, philosophy and psychosocial theory. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  8. Deleuze, G., & Parnet, C. (1987/2002). Dialogues. London: Continuum Press.Google Scholar
  9. Durkheim, E. (1912/2001). In M. Cladis (Ed.), The Elementary Forms of Religious Life (C. Cosman, Trans.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Fechner, G. T. (1860/1999). Elemente der psychophysik. Leipzig: Thoemmes Press.Google Scholar
  11. Gödel, C. (1931/1995). In S. Feferman et al. (Eds.), Collected works III. Unpublished essays and lectures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Greco, M. (2008). On the art of life: A vitalist reading of medical humanities. The Sociological Review, 56(2), 23–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Heidegger, M. (1927/1990). Being and time. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  14. Herbart, J. F. (1824–5). Psychologie als wissenschaft, neu gegründet auf erfahrung, metaphysik und mathematik. Königsberg: Unzer.Google Scholar
  15. McGrath, R. G. (2013, June). Transient advantage. Harvard Business Review.
  16. Mead, G. H. (1932/1980). The philosophy of the present. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  17. Morin, E. (2008). Complexity. Cresskill: Hampton Press.Google Scholar
  18. Nicolescu, B. (2002). Manifesto of transdisciplinarity. New York: SUNY.Google Scholar
  19. Nietzsche, F. (1891/1969). Thus spake Zarathustra. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  20. Nissen, M., & Solgaard Sørensen, K. (2017). The emergence of motives in liminal hotspots. Theory and Psychology, 27(2), 249–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pickering, J. (1996). Beyond cognitivism: Mutualism and postmodern psychology. In P. Pylkkanen, P. Pylkko, & K. Hautamaki (Eds.), Brain, mind and physics (pp. 48–63). Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar
  22. Russell, B., & Whitehead, A. N. (1910/1963). Principia mathematica (Vol. 1). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Savransky, M. (2016). The adventure of relevance: An ethics of social inquiry. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Scheler, M. (1928/2009). The human place in the cosmos. Evanson: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Schrödinger, E. (1944/1990). What is life? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Scott Georgson, M., & Thomassen, B. (2017). Affectivity and liminality in ritualized protest: Politics and transformation in the Kiev uprising. Theory and Psychology, 27(2), 198–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Serres, M. (1992). Hermes: Literature, science, philosophy. Baltimore: John Hopkins University.Google Scholar
  28. Sewell, W. (1992). Historical events as transformations of structures: Inventing revolution at the Bastille. Theory and Society, 25(6), 841–881.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Simmel, G. (1918/2015). The view of life: Four metaphysical essays with journal aphorisms. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Spencer Brown, G. (1969). Law of form. London: George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
  31. Stenner, P. (2011). Psychology in the key of life: Deep empiricism and process ontology. In P. Stenner, J. Cromby, J. Motzkau, & J. Yen (Eds.), Theoretical psychology: Global transformations and challenges. Concord: Captus.Google Scholar
  32. Stenner, P. (2015). A transdisciplinary psychosocial approach. In K. Slaney, J. Martin, & J. Sugarman (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of theoretical and philosophical psychology: Methods, approaches and new directions for social science. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  33. Stenner, P. (2017). Being in the zone and vital subjectivity: On the liminal sources of sport and art. In T. Jordan, K. Woodward, & B. McClure (Eds.), Culture, identity and intense performativity: Being in the Zone (Antinomies). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  34. Szakolczai, Á. (2009). Liminality and Experience: Structuring transitory situations and transformative events. International Political Anthropology, 2(1), 141–172.Google Scholar
  35. Szakolczai, Á. (2016). Permanent liminality and modernity. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  36. Thomassen, B. (2009). The uses and meanings of liminality. International Political Anthropology, 2(1), 5–27.Google Scholar
  37. Thomassen, B. (2014). Liminality and the modern. Farnham/Burlington: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  38. Turner, V. (1969/1995). The ritual process: Structure and anti-structure. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  39. Turner, V. (1982). From ritual to theatre: The human seriousness of play. New York: PAJ.Google Scholar
  40. Varela, F. (1991). Organism: A meshwork of selfless selves. In A. Tauber (Ed.), Organism and the origins of self (pp. 79–107). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publisher.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Vygotsky, L. S. (1925/1971). The psychology of art. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  42. Whitehead, A. N. (1922/2007). The principle of relativity with applications to physical science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Whitehead, A. N. (1929/1985). Process and reality. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  44. Whitehead, A. N. (1938/1966). Modes of thought. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  45. Whitehead, A. N. (1939/1958). The function of reason. Boston: The Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  46. Wittgenstein, L. (1921/1965). The blue and brown books. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  47. Zittoun, T. (2013). On the use of a film: Cultural experiences as symbolic resources. In A. Kuhn (Ed.), Little madnesses (pp. 135–147). London: Tauris.Google Scholar
  48. Zittoun, T., & Gillespie, A. (2016). Imagination in human and cultural development. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul Stenner
    • 1
  1. 1.School of PsychologyThe Open UniversityMilton KeynesUK

Personalised recommendations