Coping with Permanent Liminality: Social Understanding and Action through Theatre in Late Communist Hungary

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is a very stimulating and thought-provoking paper. However, it does not make its case as compellingly as it might do, so that the paper as it stands is more suggestive than convincing.

The central role of liminality (defined in both a capitalist and a state socialist version) is potentially fascinating and illuminating, so it seems strange that a thorough definition comes only at the end of the article. It would have been helpful to begin with a discussion of what was meant by liminality and its applicability to the socialist and post-socialist contexts, so that the empirical case study could be easier to follow.

When describing the performances by the theatre at the centre of the article, it is sometimes quite hard to grasp what their distinctive features were. Certain details are mentioned, but a clearer analysis of how they created new kinds of liminality to counter the liminality imposed by the regime (if that is the argument) would be welcome. The reader is left to piece this together, so clearer signposting might help.

In relation to this point, the synthesis of Gennep, Turner, Weber and Horvath on page 5 seems rushed and lacks clarity. The applicability of this theoretical synthesis to the case study is weakened as a consequence.

This paper has really interesting and important things to say, and I would hope that the clarity of the argument can be refined so that its contribution can become clearer for readers.

Some suggested changes:

'were major factors in forming and transforming social life since many centuries' (p. 1) = 'have been major factors forming and transforming social life for many centuries'

'it also enables to express publicly views about the contemporary state of social and political life that otherwise would be difficult to do, or even prohibited.' (p. 2) = 'it also enables views about the contemporary state of social and political life to be expressed that otherwise would be difficult to speak about, or even censored.'

'with a hindsight' (p. 2) = 'in hindsight'

'though occasionally happened' (p. 2) = 'although they did occasionally happen'

'new and new plays' (p. 4) = 'new play after new play'

'hackneys' (p. 4) - not sure what is meant here.

'Rosalinda' = 'Rosalind'

Madness and Unreason (p. 13) - the usual English title of this work is Madness and Civilization

Author Response

The new version of the MS was uploaded, with changes made in line with the reviewers’ suggestions, when they were relevant. In some cases the points were not acceptable (for e.g., “People’s Democracies” is a standard term see the classic book of Ferenc (François) Fejtő, “A history of the People’s Democracies: Eastern Europe since Stalin”, 1971), so changes were not made.

            In particular, the paper now includes a much more extensive introduction of liminality, with further bibliographical references; it explicitly discussed the relevance of the term for East-Central Europe; it has a more extensive discussion of the link between the ideas of Weber, Mauss, Turner, and Horvath; added further references (Girard, Mauss); and reverted the original French title of Foucault’s 1961 book (was translated into English in the text).

Also, most of the English suggestions were accepted, but some suggested changes would interfere with my particular style, so no change was made. In particular, the subtitle of the first section, ‘From liminal to liminoid and back’ used a literary model, which I only made more evident by adding the word ‘again’. These points were discussed with the Special Issue editor, Ilaria Riccioni, who agreed with my points.

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper presents theater as a liminal genre by drawing on the concept of liminality introduced by Victor Turner. Liminality refers to a state of transition or in-betweenness, where individuals or societies are temporarily removed from their usual social structures and norms. In the context of theater, it is argued that the theatrical experience can create a liminal space for both performers and audience members. Theater allows for the exploration of alternative realities, the suspension of everyday life, and the potential for transformative experiences. It is seen as a modern equivalent of ritual liminality, where individuals can engage with and reflect upon social and political issues in a unique and public way.

Turner argued that theater is the modern equivalent of ritual liminality. The paper explores how theater serves as a liminal space where social and political views can be expressed publicly. It emphasizes that theater allows for the exploration of the contemporary state of social and political life, which may be difficult or prohibited in other contexts. The paper also discusses the transformative impact of theater, similar to the transformative impact of traditional rites of passage.

The paper compares theater with rites of passage in several ways. Firstly, it acknowledges that both theater and rites of passage involve transformative experiences. Rites of passage, as studied by Arnold van Gennep and Victor Turner, have a profound impact on individuals and communities, bringing about emotional and cognitive transformations. Similarly, theater has the power to affect and transform its audience through the portrayal of different narratives and experiences.

Secondly, the paper highlights the concept of liminality, which is central to both theater and rites of passage. In rites of passage, this liminal stage is a crucial part of the transformative process. Similarly, theater creates a liminal space where the audience is temporarily removed from their everyday reality and immersed in the world of the performance.

Furthermore, the paper suggests that theater can generate a sense of communitas, which is a lasting sense of companionship and community. This sense of communitas can also be found in rites of passage, where individuals often form strong bonds and connections with others who are going through similar experiences.

Overall, the paper argues that theater, like rites of passage, has the potential to bring about transformative experiences, create liminal spaces, and foster a sense of community.

The paper is a persuasive essay and does not present any data. As such, one is either persuaded by the argument or not. Generally, arguments that are made by analogy or parallel are weaker (in my mind) than those buttressed with data.

The paper explores the role of theatre in expressing social and political views in late Communist Hungary, with a specific focus on the transformation of the Kaposvár theatre in the 1970s. The author argues that theatre serves as a modern equivalent of ritual liminality and has a dual nature. On one hand, it can perpetuate mimetic desire and rivalry, as emphasized by Plato and René Girard. On the other hand, it provides a platform to publicly express views on the contemporary state of social and political life that may otherwise be difficult or prohibited.

The Kaposvár theatre, initially a small and remote provincial theatre, underwent a remarkable transformation during this period. Through a combination of unique factors, it became the number one theatrical event in the country, attracting students and intellectuals from the capital. The article highlights the significance of this phenomenon, which offered a sense of hope and meaning in an otherwise boring and oppressive social climate.

Overall, the paper explores the power of theatre as a liminal genre and its ability to challenge the status quo and provoke social understanding and action. The case of the Kaposvár theatre exemplifies how theatre can become a catalyst for change and a platform for expressing suppressed views in a repressive regime.

Overall, the Kaposvár theatre served as a powerful tool for challenging the repressive regime, giving voice to suppressed views, and mobilizing individuals towards change. It demonstrated the transformative power of theatre in creating social and political awareness, fostering unity, and inspiring action.

It will be left to another reviewer to assess the accuracy of the history, because this is not my area of expertise. But it the history is accurate, this article makes an interesting contribution by showing the subversive nature of theater in difficult political situations.

English is fine, although some editing for clarity would be helpful.

Author Response

The new version of the MS was uploaded, with changes made in line with the reviewers’ suggestions, when they were relevant. In some cases the points were not acceptable (for e.g., “People’s Democracies” is a standard term see the classic book of Ferenc (François) Fejtő, “A history of the People’s Democracies: Eastern Europe since Stalin”, 1971), so changes were not made.

            In particular, the paper now includes a much more extensive introduction of liminality, with further bibliographical references; it explicitly discussed the relevance of the term for East-Central Europe; it has a more extensive discussion of the link between the ideas of Weber, Mauss, Turner, and Horvath; added further references (Girard, Mauss); and reverted the original French title of Foucault’s 1961 book (was translated into English in the text).

Also, most of the English suggestions were accepted, but some suggested changes would interfere with my particular style, so no change was made. In particular, the subtitle of the first section, ‘From liminal to liminoid and back’ used a literary model, which I only made more evident by adding the word ‘again’. These points were discussed with the Special Issue editor, Ilaria Riccioni, who agreed with my points.

Reviewer 3 Report

Liminal Theatre (was: Coping with Permanent Liminality): Social understanding and action through theatre in late Communist Hungary

(Peer Review)

First, let me say upfront that this was a compelling, well-structured article on liminal theatre and a captivating journey into the fascinating and, to date, little studied realm of theatrical performance during the later Cold War era. Not only does it showcase the unique and thought-provoking nature of liminal theatre, but it also effectively conveys the impact it had on the audiences of its time, how it related to the totalitarian regime of its time, as well as how it fits in its historical context. The author has a solid grasp of the theory and methodology. I would therefore advise publication.

Nevertheless, I have some important suggestions to make for improvement before publication:

1) It is imperative that the journal find an English native-speaker editor to edit the text. There are too many grammatical errors, as well as errors in the usage of English that a skillful editor has to tackle. Examples:

a) On page 1 change: “on the other, it also enables to express publicly views about the contemporary state of social and political life that otherwise would be difficult to do, or even prohibited” to “on the other, it also enables to express publicly views about the contemporary state of social and political life that otherwise would be difficult, or even prohibited to do.”

b) Another example involves the following subheading: The theatre: From liminal to liminoid and back 

It would be better to write: “Theatre: From Liminal to Liminoid to Liminal.”

c) I am also unclear about the meaning of the subheading “Some Background: The Relevance of Ex-Communism.” There is no such thing as “ex communism.” There is either communism somewhere or there isn’t. The author probably wishes to discuss here how the post-communist era impacted Hungary and other countries, formerly behind the Iron Curtain, but the text must be rephrased.

d) None of the formerly Communist countries of Eastern Europe were called “People’s Democracies.” The author means “People’s Republics,” which is how they are usually referred to in English, and which obviously refer to their presumed political system.

There are many issues with the author’s English throughout the article, including the use of expressions that clearly come from a foreign language and don’t work in English.

Again, without serious editing, it will be impossible for the article to be published. I would also suggest to the author they get hold of Bruce Ross-Larsson’s book Edit Yourself which is an eye-opener and will be very helpful in the future.

2) There are some typos, like for example:

Abstract, page 1, line 2: remove “is” from “is a Janus-faced phenomenon. “Is” is already in the beginning of the sentence.

3) Some of the authors used are not properly cited. For example, the author of this paper mentions Plato a couple of times. Which Platonic work have they used?

4) More to the point, the author clearly knows and uses the existing bibliography. However, it would be tremendously useful to readers to add information on the state of research of the topic, including the availability to scholars of Hungarian archives from the Communist era. Also: has the author done any archival work?

5) The “Further background: Kaposvár theatre, before becoming a ‘phenomenon’” heading should better be “Kaposvár theatre, before becoming a ‘phenomenon’.” There is no reason to explain again that it provides the reader with background.

In conclusion, this is a fascinating study on an intriguing topic, which will profit from some editing that can definitely be easily done by an English native-speaker editor.

I have made extensive comments above on how the paper's English should be improved, something that can be easily done by an editor.

Author Response

The new version of the MS was uploaded, with changes made in line with the reviewers’ suggestions, when they were relevant. In some cases the points were not acceptable (for e.g., “People’s Democracies” is a standard term see the classic book of Ferenc (François) Fejtő, “A history of the People’s Democracies: Eastern Europe since Stalin”, 1971), so changes were not made.

            In particular, the paper now includes a much more extensive introduction of liminality, with further bibliographical references; it explicitly discussed the relevance of the term for East-Central Europe; it has a more extensive discussion of the link between the ideas of Weber, Mauss, Turner, and Horvath; added further references (Girard, Mauss); and reverted the original French title of Foucault’s 1961 book (was translated into English in the text).

Also, most of the English suggestions were accepted, but some suggested changes would interfere with my particular style, so no change was made. In particular, the subtitle of the first section, ‘From liminal to liminoid and back’ used a literary model, which I only made more evident by adding the word ‘again’. These points were discussed with the Special Issue editor, Ilaria Riccioni, who agreed with my points.