This article was downloaded by: [UQ Library]On: 17 November 2014, At: 21:18Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

Religious Education: Theofficial journal of the ReligiousEducation AssociationPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/urea20

Zone of Proximal Development,Liminality, and Communitas:Implications for ReligiousEducationDébora B. Agra Junker aa Christian Theological Seminary , Indianapolis ,Indiana , USAPublished online: 05 Apr 2013.

To cite this article: Débora B. Agra Junker (2013) Zone of Proximal Development,Liminality, and Communitas: Implications for Religious Education, Religious Education:The official journal of the Religious Education Association, 108:2, 164-179, DOI:10.1080/00344087.2013.767677

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00344087.2013.767677

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,

and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

21:

18 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

ZONE OF PROXIMAL DEVELOPMENT, LIMINALITY,AND COMMUNITAS: IMPLICATIONS FOR RELIGIOUS

EDUCATION

Debora B. Agra JunkerChristian Theological Seminary, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA

Abstract

This article seeks to understand religious education as a process ofcommunal endeavor that prioritizes and considers the learning ex-perience intrinsically connected to its social and cultural contexts.Two authors will be of help to develop this pursuit: Lev Vygotsky,whose work emphasizes learning as constructed through interac-tions and in collaboration with members of a community, and VictorTurner who identifies the potential for creativity and transforma-tion within the concepts of liminality and communitas. The articleconcludes by suggesting that when a community acknowledges themultiple zones of proximal development—which creates opportuni-ties of mutual support and democratic participation—communitassurfaces as a sign of liminal vitality, openness, and solidarity.

Contemporary societies have experienced unparalleled advancementsin many areas of human life. Despite all the progress achieved in recentdecades, societies have not equally advanced in developing sustain-able ways of living as members of the human community. Our currentsocial contexts have been marked by increasing patterns of individu-alism and materialism reinforced by a globalized market that empha-sizes the accumulation of material wealth as decisive for happinessand consumerism as a healing mechanism for human dissatisfactionand frustrations. Such circumstances have put at risk human dignityand relationships, producing massive economic inequality, generatingpain and hopelessness. Moreover, these circumstances have left al-most no space for the victims of the economic system and even lessroom for commitment and compassion.

Religious educators should confront such issues through educa-tional approaches that resist the logic of materialism and individual-ism. To challenge this logic, a paradigm shift should emerge in orderto educate believers to engage life more critically, to become moresocially involved, and to practice an “incarnate spiritually”; that is, a

Religious Education Copyright C© The Religious Education AssociationVol. 108 No. 2 March–April ISSN: 0034-4087 print

DOI: 10.1080/00344087.2013.767677

164

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

21:

18 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

DEBORA B. AGRA JUNKER 165

spirituality that does not dissociate itself from the daily human strug-gles but is committed to a broader struggle for agency, justice, peace,and solidarity. Faith communities have great potential to create andpromote this type of education by providing contextual opportunitiesthrough which participants learn from each other, develop a sense ofinter-dependence through collaboration, advance the dialogue by in-teracting with history and culture, and imagine a future with creativityseeking transformation.

In order to achieve such a goal, an effort to eliminate dehumaniz-ing actions should be sought in order to give space to an understandingthat faith community is defined not only by the faith it professes, bythe dogmas it recognizes, and by the rituals it enacts. Rather, the faithcommunity should also be defined by its capacity to live within diver-sity recognizing how we depend on each other. It is in a communitythat we learn how to be open, mindful, and compassionate. It is ina community that we confront what transforms us from rational be-ings into compassionate beings—recognize that our differences arenot meant to divide us but to complement us. It is in community thatwe learn that kindness and sensitivity are not personality flaws butintrinsic attributes of our human-ness.

This article seeks to understand religious education not as an in-dividual enterprise, but as a communal endeavor that prioritizes andconsiders the learning experience intrinsically connected to its socialand cultural contexts. Two authors will be of help to develop this pur-suit: Lev Vygotsky, whose work emphasizes learning as constructedthrough interactions and in collaboration with members of a commu-nity, and Victor Turner who identifies the potential for creativity andtransformation within the concepts of liminality and communitas.

Certainly, the attempt to establish parallels between these con-cepts and their implications for the religious education context is nota simple transferable task. It demands an exercise of openness andimagination in order to envision alternative understandings of howthe process of communal learning can take place in religious com-munities. In the context of this article, I will limit my discussion tospecific constructs of these scholars such as the zone of proximal devel-opment, liminality, and communitas, indicating the creative potentialthat exists in these concepts to help us reflect on the context of faithcommunities.

To accomplish this task, I begin by focusing on Vygotsky’s conceptof the zone of proximal development. Second, I introduce Turner’sideas of liminality and communitas in an effort to indicate how these

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

21:

18 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

166 PROXIMAL DEVELOPMENT, LIMINALITY, AND COMMUNITAS

concepts can illuminate the teaching-learning process in general andmore specifically in faith communities. Then, I explore the possibleconnections and implications of the zone of proximal development andliminality as indispensable components to consider when cultivatingcommunitas, offering a description of the base ecclesial communitiesas an example of communitas. I conclude the article by suggestingthat when a community acknowledges the multiple zones of proximaldevelopment—which creates opportunities of mutual support anddemocratic participation—communitas surfaces as a sign of liminalvitality, openness, and solidarity.

LEV VYGOTSKY

The theory of Lev Seminovich Vygotsky (1896–1934) continuesto influence educators many years after his death. His approach pro-vides a unique perspective on human development showing how thelearning process is complex, socially based, and semiotically mediated.

According to Vygotsky, human nature is social and human beingsdevelop themselves mediated by symbols and in collaboration withothers. He stressed the idea that knowledge is constructed throughactions shared among all the individuals involved in a social learningprocess. Therefore, the cognitive development process involves learn-ing how to use the cultural tools—the inventions of society, such aslanguage—through the assistance and guidance of adults and in col-laboration with peers. In this dialogical process the younger membersof society acquire knowledge and skills to solve problems, to thinkclearly and creatively, first with assistance, and later, independently.Vygotsky emphasizes the capacity to teach and to benefit from instruc-tion as an important characteristic of human beings. One of his mostcentral and widely mentioned construct is the concept of the zone ofproximal development, which provides insights on how to organize thelearning process.

According to Michael Cole (1995, 155), Vygotsky first coined theterm zone of proximal development (hereafter ZPD) in the contextof instruction and in part, as a critique of and an alternative to staticmeasurement (e.g., IQ) and assessment of child performance. ForVygotsky, the ZPD is the organizing source to assess and reveal howthe child is learning, including both the child’s current level of achieve-ment and her potential to reach other levels. In the book Mind andSociety, Vygotsky defines the ZPD as “the distance between the actual

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

21:

18 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

DEBORA B. AGRA JUNKER 167

developmental level as determined by independent problem solvingand the level of potential development as determined through prob-lem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capablepeers” (Vygotsky 1978, 86). Explaining this concept, he defines ZPDas referred to the functions that are not completely mature but havethe potential to mature later. Thus, what a child is able to do with thehelp of an adult today, she will be able to do by herself tomorrow.Further illustrating his point, Vygotsky writes:

The zone of proximal development defines those functions that have notyet matured but are in the process of maturation, functions that will maturetomorrow but are currently in an embryonic state. These functions couldbe termed the buds or flowers of development. The actual developmen-tal level characterizes mental development retrospectively, while the zoneof proximal development characterizes mental development prospectively.(Vygotsky 1978, 86–87)

Considering the above, the ZPD constitutes a psychological area that ispotentially in constant transformation, in which learning and cognitivedevelopment take place. As Seth Chaiklin states, “the zone of proxi-mal development is defined as referring to those intellectual actionsand mental functions that a child is able to use in interaction, whenindependent performance is inadequate” (2003, 52). This affirmationsuggests that through collaboration among peers or with adults, a childcan perform on a higher level than when acting without assistance.

Vygotsky’s concept of the ZPD challenges static patterns of in-struction that favors a linear path in which information is transferredfrom one person (teacher) to another (student). Instead, he sees ZPDas a dynamic and fluid space within which learners and teachers areactive participants. According to Vygotsky, “what children can accom-plish with assistance of others might be in some sense even moreindicative of their mental development than what they can do alone”(Vygotsky 1978, 85). Thus, educators are responsible for creating con-texts and engaging learners in creative and culturally meaningful ex-periences through which children can revisit their own thought andactions and reach new levels of development.

It is my contention that the concept of the ZPD can be appliednot only to the learning and cognitive development of children, but toadult development as well, taking into account that, as human beings,we engage in a lifelong process of learning and development. Forinstance, when members of a given community interact among them-selves, multiple ZPDs can be stimulated simultaneously as participantsdemonstrate different levels of development and different capacities

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

21:

18 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

168 PROXIMAL DEVELOPMENT, LIMINALITY, AND COMMUNITAS

to exercise specific responsibilities according to their individual com-petence. This phenomenon creates opportunities for individuals toactivate not only their own potential, but also, by collaborating witheach other, to reach other levels of development otherwise impossiblein isolation. In my view, faith communities could explore this experi-ence more seriously by providing contexts for people to work beyondwhat they recognize as their individual ability and by helping themto discover collective gifts and cooperative possibilities. In order toaccomplish that, faith communities could offer tasks and challengesthat could be accomplished only through cooperation and solidaritypositioning itself against a culture of individualism. Two concrete ex-amples how these interactions can be performed are found within theexperience of Las Madres de Plaza de Mayo and the Base EcclesialCommunities, which will be developed later in this text.

VICTOR TURNER

Cultural anthropologist Victor Witter Turner (1920–1983) hasmade a significant impact to the field of anthropology. His innova-tive thinking about rituals grew out of his interest and interactionswith native cultures. Early in his career, Turner conducted a researchon the rituals of the Ndembu tribe in Northwestern Zambia. Draw-ing insights from the results of this fieldwork, he expanded Arnoldvan Gennep’s threefold structure of rites of passage focusing on theconcept of liminality. Exploring the role of ritual symbols and perfor-mance, Turner emphasized the transformational and creative natureof liminal space in which cultural values are incorporated and trans-formative changes can emerge.

According to Turner, in liminality emerges a state he calls “com-munitas,” a key concept he developed in his classic work The Rit-ual Process: Structures and Anti-Structures (1995). In his analysis,communitas—as a relatively structureless society—symbolizes a com-munal experience based on relations of equality, solidarity, and to-getherness that becomes possible when a group experience liminalitytogether. Both concepts—liminality and communitas—will be devel-oped further subsequently.

Liminality

On the subject of liminality, Victor Turner has developed an in-sightful work in which he describes the dynamic relationship between

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

21:

18 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

DEBORA B. AGRA JUNKER 169

the liminal condition of rites of passage and the structure of hu-man life—its social and cultural aspects. Borrowing from Arnold vanGennep’s concept of rites de passage (characterized by three distinctphases: separation, threshold, and aggregation), Turner develops hisconcept of liminality as a period of transition, a “process,” a “be-coming,” even as a “transformation” in which culture, individual, andreality are confronted, examined, and practiced through ritual pro-cess. According to Turner, liminality is the time/space “in-between,”in which cultural values are incorporated and new situations can beexperienced as highly creative yet ambiguous, marginal yet essential,renewed and yet transgressive. In this regard, he writes:

During the intervening “liminal” period, the characteristics of the ritualsubject (the “passenger”) are ambiguous; he passes through a cultural realmthat has few or none of the attributes of the past or coming state. . . .Liminal entities are neither here nor there; they are betwixt and between thepositions assigned and arrayed by law, custom, convention, and ceremonial.(Turner 1995, 94–95)

For Turner, humans possess an inherent need and capacity for variousforms of liminal experience that can be experienced through socialdramas. It is during those critical moments of transition that novelconfigurations of ideas and expressions may arise. For instance, herecognizes events such as birth, initiation, marriage, induction, anddeath among others, as liminal states in human lives that call forritual. According to Turner, rituals are like “storage units” or “multi-faceted mnemonics” each containing large amounts of informationand corresponding to a specific cluster of values, norms, beliefs, andsocial roles present within a given community (Turner 1968, 1). Inaddition, he asserts that ritual is a vital component in human life andneeds to be analyzed in action, noticing not only what happens withinthe social structures, but what happens between and outside of thosestructures.

Furthermore, Turner argues that liminality can be understoodmost powerfully as the indeterminacy that decenters all stability. Par-ticularly in rituals, liminality has the potential to transform or subvertdominant social structures offering alternative paradigms for how so-ciety could be depicted in social dramas. In this sense, under con-ditions of liminality, anti-structures can emerge as alternative andself-revelatory ground. As Turner states,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

21:

18 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

170 PROXIMAL DEVELOPMENT, LIMINALITY, AND COMMUNITAS

Major liminal situations are occasions on which, so to speak, a society takescognizance of itself, or rather where, in an interval between their incum-bency of specific fixed positions, members of that society may obtain anapproximation, however limited, to a global view of man’s place in the cos-mos and his relations with other classes of visible and invisible entities.(Turner 1974, 239–240)

Therefore, in liminal spaces, a person can situate him- or herself out-side of their normal social roles while assuming other social arrange-ments and values, thus embracing new perspectives about themselvesand their place in society. Against an individualistic view, liminalityemerges as space to affirm solidarity, where utopian ideals and hopescan be articulated, and where alternative human expressions can beborn as it is seen, for instance, in countercultural movements such asthe “hippie” movement of the 1960s (Turner 1995, 113). In this sense,this is precisely where communitas can emerge.

Communitas

In The Ritual Process, Turner offers the theoretical distinc-tion between structure and anti-structure of social organizationsas characterized by two major models of human interrelatedness.The first refers to society as a structured, often hierarchical systemof politico–legal–economic positions, which separates individuals interms of more or less. The second, emerging in liminal periods, refersto a society as unstructured, a social relationship that arises spon-taneously within the groups, a relatively undifferentiated comitatus,a communion of equal individuals. To describe this group, Turnerprefers to use the Latin word communitas to differentiate from com-munity as a geographical or political term. For Turner, structure andcommunitas are not coextensive, but mutually interdependent and in-teractive. They belong to a dialectical process that involves successiveexperiences of communitas and structure, homogeneity and differen-tiation. Each individual’s life experience contains alternating exposureto structure and communitas (Turner 1995, 96–97). Turner believesthat communitas breaks in through the interstices of structure, in limi-nality. Further he asserts: “There is a dialectic here, for the immediacyof communitas gives way to the mediacy of structure, while, in ritesde passage, men are released from structure into communitas onlyto return to structure revitalized by their experience of communitas.What is certain is that no society can function adequately without thisdialectic” (Turner 1995, 129).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

21:

18 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

DEBORA B. AGRA JUNKER 171

Turner also explores in detail three modalities of communitas insociety: existential or spontaneous—which is free and fully sponta-neous from all structural demands and where individuals interrelateregardless of their status, roles, sex, age, or other structural place;normative—which under the influence of time, there is a need toorganize resources among members and mobilize the group towardits goals; and ideological—which refers to utopian models based onexistential communitas (Turner 1995, 132). According to him, thesemodalities seem to build on each other and intersect one anotherleading to a deeper understanding of one’s culture which can result innew paradigms and, consequently, in social changes.

In line with Turner’s description, an example of the juxtapositionof these modalities may be found in the social-–political movementknown as Las Madres de Plaza de Mayo that took place in Argentina.Las Madres, as they are widely recognized, began with a small groupof women, in the late 1970s, as a form of protest against Argentina’sdictatorial military regime during the period of 1976 to 1983 (Ben-nett, Ludlow, and Reed 2011).As a small group of mothers who camefrom diverse religious and political backgrounds, they created a freecommunity to protest the loss of their sons and daughters—a com-munitas where their common experience of pain created a fellowshipof equals while sharing their collective hope (spontaneous). By theirvisual statement and silent protest1 they provoked questions, raisedawareness, spread their message of resistance, and invited people toparticipate with them. As their journey progressed, certain roles be-came necessary in order to accomplish their goals. So, they decidedto meet in other locations such as churches and each other’s houses,to gather information and eventually to strategize (normative) theiractions. Finally, as Las Madres protested, resisted, and fought for theirmissing loved ones, they also fought against the political condition andoppression of Latin American mothers as a whole. Through this com-munitas, they challenged the invisibility of women in public spheresand their own social status claiming their roles in the Argentinean so-ciety, thus leading a process of creativity, novelty and transformationin that context (ideological).

Another concrete example of communitas is found in the Base Ec-clesial Communities (thereafter BECs) of Central and South America.

1During their peaceful protests, they wear white head scarves with their chil-dren’s names embroidered and carry posters with names and photos of their missingchildren.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

21:

18 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

172 PROXIMAL DEVELOPMENT, LIMINALITY, AND COMMUNITAS

The BECS are small groups of Christians that emerged in a politicaland economic context of many contradictions. These communities,based on an ecclesiology grounded in the needs of the poor, attemptedto articulate a “reading of the word and the reading of the world” aspostulated by Paulo Freire (1997).

From its historical perspective, BECs have played a relevant rolein Latin America and more specifically in Brazil.2 In the late 1950s andearly 1960s, members of Catholic and sectors of Protestant churchessuch as Catholic Action, Church and Society in Latin America (ISAL),and Lutheran Pastoral People (PPL) started to reflect on the so-cial conditions of poverty of many people in Latin America and thereasons behind these circumstances. Inspired by See-Judge-Act,3 socalled Hermeneutical Circle, and impelled by the inhumanity of mil-itary dictatorships, which in some spheres had the veiled support ofthe ecclesiastical authorities, many Christians sought to prevent theWord of God from being manipulated to justify the oppression andexploitation of those marginalized. Through these experiences, smallgroups began to elaborate a new interpretation of the Bible from theperspective of the poor and a new theology that was consolidatedduring the changing times after the Bishop’s Conference in Medellın,1968 (Boff et al. 1996, 17–18).

According to Latin American theologian Leonardo Boff, BECsrepresent the genesis of a church in constant search of transformationfrom within and a popular space of intense participation, witness,and celebrative creativity (Boff 1986). The engaging activity that tookplace within BECs was rooted in the daily life of the people and theircommitment to transformation. It included not only the intellectualcontribution of the priest or theologian, but also the perspective oflay people who began to hear the Good News, interpret the gospelmessage, and to find the liberating presence of God in the midst oftheir struggles. As they started to spread around the country thesegroups of socially and politically active laity challenged the structuresof traditional church, especially the Roman Catholic Church by theirpraxis and leadership style. It was through personal and communalreadings of the Bible; collective prayers, songs and celebrations; andsociopolitical participation that these groups started to discover new

2The comments about Base Ecclesial Communities are based on the Braziliancontext, although I recognize the impact of BECs in Latin America as a whole.

3A method created by a Belgian priest and cardinal Joseph Cardijn, which appearsin Pope John XXIII’s Encyclical Mater et Magistra, 1961.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

21:

18 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

DEBORA B. AGRA JUNKER 173

ways of being together in solidarity with one another as brothers andsisters and to exhibit a non-authoritarian and non-hierarchical way ofbeing community. As Boff states:

Christian life in the basic communities is characterized by the absence ofalienating structures, by direct relationships, by reciprocity, by deep com-munion, by mutual assistance, by community of gospel ideals, by equalityamong members. The specific characteristics of society are absent here: rigidrules; hierarchies; prescribed relationships in a framework of a distinctionof functions, qualities, and titles. (Boff 1986, 4)

The way Boff describes the BECs is confirmed by Daniel Schipaniwhen he considers that “base communities provide the existentialcontext in which the poor actually practice freedom and creativityand organize for further liberation in light of the gospel” (Schipani1988, 214). Furthermore, Schipani suggests that base communitiesare important historically, because they challenge the church’s self-understanding; sociologically, because they are a case of grassrootscreative protest; and ecclesiologically, because they confront tradi-tional church structures (Schipani 1988, 236).

In the context of Brazilian culture, base communities challengeconventional patterns of community life in an attempt of becominga more democratic, participatory, and holistic way of living. Theyare a minority that embraces a popular reading of the Bible,4 whilemost churches maintain a more traditional and fundamentalist way ofreading it. The theological insights born in midst of base communitieshave impacted and empowered their participants to become activecitizens in their communities.

Base Ecclesial Communities closely resemble Turner’s under-standing of communitas. BECs, emerging in liminal periods of greatconflicts, of oppressive conditions, and experiences of powerlessness,they arise as spontaneous groups, as a “communion of equals.” Inthis sense, under conditions of liminality, anti-structures can emergeas alternative and self-revelatory ground with potential to transform(subvert) dominant structures. Base ecclesial communities—mostlyled by laity and oriented towards people’s need rather than the church

4An example of an entity that provides support for a popular reading of the Bibleis the Center for Biblical Studie (CEBI). Founded in 1979 as a nonprofit entity, CEBIis an association of Christians, women and men from different denominations, whogather to promote a liberating reading of the Bible. CEBI offers support for differentgroups such as: family groups, small farmers, landless peasants and settlers, ecclesialcommunities, and industrial workers.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

21:

18 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

174 PROXIMAL DEVELOPMENT, LIMINALITY, AND COMMUNITAS

hierarchy—illustrates what Turner describes as “the condition of be-ing set outside the structural arrangements of a given social system”(Turner 1974, 233). They force structures to change “through socialaction and cooperation” liberating them from conformity and func-tioning as an agent of change. In these liminal situations, communitasemerges as space to affirm solidarity, where utopian ideals and hopescan be articulated, and where alternative human expressions can beborn.

Bearing in mind that BECs are not a prescription to be followed,but an experimental paradigm that is rooted in a specific emergentcontext and because of this is open to its diversity and challenges,one is reminded of Turner’s insights that society is a dynamic processconsisting of two mutually interdependent and interactive parts, whichhe calls “structure” and “communitas.” It is precisely in this dynamicthat inhabits its creativity and vigor. However, as it is in the case ofBECs, when efforts are made to confine them into older paradigms,their vitality is lost. The vitality found in communitas refers not only topositive aspects but it exists precisely because there are also tensions,contradictions, and hopelessness. As people work together throughthese complex dynamics, they can find in each other support andstrength to continue the journey in search of transformation.

As shown above, Turner makes important distinctions betweenstructure and communitas. According to his categories, spontaneousevents arise on liminality generating rituals, myths, symbols, philo-sophical systems, and works of art that provide individuals with a setof templates that are periodical reclassifications of their relationshipto society and culture. Exposure or immersion in communitas seemsto be an indispensable human social requirement forcing structures tochange through social action and cooperation. As the opposite pole ofstructure, communitas “tends to ignore, reverse, cut across, or occuroutside of structural relationships.” It creates a relationship that “doesnot merge identities, but liberates them from conformity” (Turner1974, 274). Many of these constructions are opportunities to movepeople to different places challenging structures and promoting trans-formations where participants can become agents of change.

VYGOTSKY AND TURNER: A DIALOGICAL ENCOUNTERAND IMPLICATIONS FOR RELIGIOUS EDUCATION

Considering the ideas above, I argue that an appealing parallelcan be traced between Vygotsky’s concept of the ZPD and Turner’s

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

21:

18 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

DEBORA B. AGRA JUNKER 175

concept of liminality. The creative potential of both concepts cangenerate a fruitful reflection on the implications of these constructsto religious groups as they become embodiment of communitas asenvisioned by Turner, which implies to understand the individual’spotential to learn and to self-develop, but also to recognize the intrinsicvalue of social interactions and collaboration to achieve that goal. Inthis frame of reference, I will posit four central implications for thereligious education.

1. Faith community offers not only a space to develop the individualpotential of its members, but also it constitutes a space of multi-ple ZPDs to interact and influence one another. In this sense, therelevance of noticing the faith community as ZPD may help usunderstand it as a ground of interaction between people of differ-ent ages, postures, and experiences, who bring to the communitytheir individual capabilities that can be enhanced through corpo-rate interactions. These capacities are made available when thereis a dynamic interaction among the members of the group. For in-stance, by engaging in cooperative acts of learning through ritualsof celebration, mourning, and healing participants in faith commu-nities can share different perspectives and experience alternativeways of life together. In such moments where acts of solidarity areaffirmed, differences are embraced and hopes are articulated thereis a great potential for working in the dynamic spaces of the ZPD.In this regard, the gifts of each member are recognized and thecollective potential is celebrated.

2. If we understand faith community as a favorable space for edu-cating in faith, we need to recognize that every participant hassomething to contribute to the active life of the group and eachpersonal characteristics and gifts are important to the makeup ofthe whole community. In this framework, the role of pastors andeducators is more fluid, and more in light of Vygotsky’s thinking, asprovocative partners, co-constructors of knowledge who have theresponsibility to create opportunities for learning to take place ac-cording to the emerging needs of a given context. Therefore, ratherthan transmitting a ready-made knowledge, participants (spiritualleaders, educators, and learners) are invited to engage in dialogue,theological conversations, and cooperative experiences that pro-mote justice and solidarity among people. Instead of individualisticbehavior patterns that ostracize and diminish human dignity, par-ticipants are invited to engage in a joint effort so that a more just

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

21:

18 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

176 PROXIMAL DEVELOPMENT, LIMINALITY, AND COMMUNITAS

relationship can be built among all. In this liminal space, partici-pants become teachers and learners who are responsible for leadingthe faith community through a teaching and learning process thatencourages dialogue and embraces different perspectives, at thesame time allowing space for people to share, to question, to assist,and to take risks in favor of a more equal world. In light of Vygot-sky’s approach we come to understand that learning is not simply acognitive process; rather it needs to be understood in the broadersociocultural context in which the relationship among learners, ed-ucators and environment (schools, family, and community) plays acrucial role in facilitating or constraining a person to achieve heror his potential.

3. The concept of the ZPD can shed light on the spirituality necessaryto sustain a faith community. Thus, instead of emphasizing a self-centered spirituality, it promotes a communal spirituality in whichthe personal and corporate spirituality interacts and challengeseach other fostering growth. It can be inferred that it is within com-munitas that each person lives the fullness of his or her spirituality.In isolation, spirituality is inadequate. The community—which isnot a geographical space, but is a space of dialogic relationships,which constitutes the Zone of Proximal Development—is a spacefor sharing experiences, a space for communion, for dialogue, forcooperative work, a space for inclusion, for learning as a process ofchange. It is, therefore, a social space for accomplishment of tasksand solutions together. Understanding the community of faith as aground in which people interact and develop themselves throughcommunication with each other, accentuates the important rolethat social and cultural contexts play in the life of community. Inthat sense, all the different aspects of life—economic, political, andsocial—influence the inner dynamics experienced by communitymembers.

4. Within the space of the ZPD, faith community can reveal its capac-ity to self-critique. As indicated before, in liminal spaces, the com-munity “takes cognizance of itself.” So, through this self-perception,the community can become aware of its limitations as well as itspotentials. In liminality, the community is invited to contextual-ize and contribute with visions, insights, and perspectives that candisestablish hegemonic assumptions that were originally based onindividualistic views and discriminatory actions. In these evocativespaces, participants are free to give and receive insights regardlessof who they are. In a Turnerian perspective, the participants within

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

21:

18 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

DEBORA B. AGRA JUNKER 177

this environment can exercise their potential, voice themselves andbe involved in communal experiences of creativity that can generateliberation, thus becoming the embodiment of communitas.

CLOSING CONSIDERATIONS

Social and cultural contexts are important factors to consider foreducating in faith. These different aspects of life influence the internaldynamics of the community of faith that, most of the time, incorpo-rate those elements in its practice without conscious awareness ofthem. Bringing Vygotsky’s thoughts to religious education contributesto understanding the community of faith as rich, dynamic, and cre-ative ground where teaching and learning takes place. In this sense,the ZPD becomes an important concept to understand religious ed-ucation as a collaborative effort in which the active participation andexchanges among participants play a fundamental role in the construc-tion of knowledge through social relationships. For Vygotsky, individ-ual growth is not complete without the social interactions throughwhich individuals appropriate their cultural legacy. According to him,social interactions between student and teacher, and among peers,are necessary conditions to construct knowledge based on dialogue,cooperation, and divergent perspectives that promote and advancenew levels of understandings. Different perceptions, rhythms, behav-iors, personal trajectories, values and different levels of knowledgecontribute to expand each individual to achieve his or her potentiality.

In the context of faith community, all dimensions of life can beworked and involved through rich experiences that move in differ-ent zones of proximal development. As a result, the community willbe composed of multiple zones of development that operate simulta-neously, thereby creating opportunities of mutual support and demo-cratic participation. When a community is living in this way, communi-tas flourishes not only within its capacity to self-critique, but by usingits capacity to critique the wider society. By denouncing the injus-tices, prejudices, and by challenging materialism and individualism,its prophetic dimension is accomplished through a life committed andcompassionated with the suffering of the world. As a result, an innerdynamic is provided by the movement and interaction of differentzones of proximal development. Accordingly, the community inter-acts with society from its full potentialities announcing compassionateways of living life together. These new created opportunities, throughthe effective participation of all members, can alter and transform

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

21:

18 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

178 PROXIMAL DEVELOPMENT, LIMINALITY, AND COMMUNITAS

not only the community itself, but also influence society as a wholethrough the relationships created by the fusion of different zones thatmove freely and equally among children, youth, women, and men. Inthis framework, the creative tension that is generated is a meaningfulexpression of what educational process should accomplish. The com-munity, through the gifts of each member, becomes a creative placeto nourish educational potentials and inspire changes. As people worktogether through these dynamics, they can find in each other supportand strength to hold fast to the journey. In this sense, and withoutlosing one’s identity, a collective mindset is created and a genuinesense of koinonia becomes visible.

The juxtaposition and parallels presented among the concepts ofthe ZPD, liminality and communitas are my initial steps to compre-hend their implications for education in the context of faith com-munities. My attempt to find the commonalities and to embrace thechallenges these concepts pose do not constitute a conclusive path,but an exploration to find out how experiences of mutual dependence,solidarity, vulnerability, and disagreements, offer multiple possibilitiesto make community life stir and stretch. When participants positionthemselves against a culture of individualism and alienation, they em-brace the true concept of community, so communitas emerges as avisible anticipation of God’s peaceable realm.

In such an endeavor, the educational process becomes the locus ofdemocratic participation that does not restrict learners to the domainsof the church walls, but opens spaces for creative partnership andalliances in the public sphere. When a faith community positions itselfin the liminal space between the private and public, the local andglobal, the immanent and transcendent, there is fertile ground fornew beginnings. Better yet, in this borderless space, unimaginablelearning experiences can arise and flourish. Religious education needsthese concepts in order to accomplish, at full stretch, its mission—toeducate toward a dialogical understanding of what it means to be apeople of faith in a world marked by unfairness. This is the kind ofeducation that awakes in us the capacity to hope and by hoping tochange the structures that incarcerate our bodies and locks up ourfeelings of compassion. Ultimately, it is an education for liberation.

Debora B. Agra Junker is Assistant Professor of Christian Educa-tion at Christian Theological Seminary in Indianapolis, Indiana. E-mail:djunker@cts.edu

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

21:

18 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

DEBORA B. AGRA JUNKER 179

REFERENCES

Bennett, A., M. Ludlow, and C. Reed. 2011. Madres de la Plaza de Mayo. http://webspace.utexas.edu/cmr485/www/mothers/history.html (accessed July 19, 2011).

Boff, L. 1986. Ecclesiogenesis: The base communities reinvent the Church. Maryknoll, NY: OrbisBooks.

Boff, L., Ramos-Regidor, J., & Boff, C. 1996. A Teologia da Libertacao:Balanco e Perspectivas.Serie Religiao e Cidadania. Sao Paulo: Editora Atica. [In Portuguese]

Chaiklin, S. 2003. Zone of proximal development. In Vygotsky’s Educational Theory in CulturalContext, 52, eds. Alex Kozulin, B. Gindis, V. S. Ageyev, & S. M. Miller, 39–64. New York:Cambridge University Press.

Cole, M. 1995. The zone of proximal development. In Culture communication and cognition:Vygotskian perspective, ed. James Wertsch, 146–161. New York: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Freire, P. 1997. Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.Joblin, J. M., & Pope, J. 1961. The papal encyclical “Mater et magistra.” Geneva: International

Labour Office.Schipani, D. 1988. Religious education encounters liberation theology. Birmingham, AL: Reli-

gious Education Press.Turner, V. 1968. The drums of affliction: A study of religious processes among the Ndembu of

Zambia. Oxford: Clarendon Press.. 1974. Dramas, fields, and metaphors—Symbolic action in human society. New York:Cornell University Press.

. 1995. The ritual process: Structure and anti-structure. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.Vygotsky, L. S. 1978. Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

21:

18 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014