The role of liminality in residential activity camps

Abstract

Residential activity camps have been widely studied for their positive outcomes providing a broad multi-disciplinary analysis of the effects of camps in a range of contexts. However, there has been limited exploration of these camp experiences from the perspective of tourism studies. This article addresses this omission by exploring the potential offered by the concept of ‘liminality’ to explain the ways in which camps produce positive experiences for participants. This article discusses the idea of the camp environment as a liminal zone relating touristic aspects of the experience (such as being away from the familiar and placed into contact situations with a new social group) to the achievement of successful outcomes. The context for the investigation was residential camps organised by the Youth Hostel Association (England and Wales) and funded by a UK government pilot programme, which aimed to overcome issues of community cohesion within urban neighbourhoods in England, thus a form of ‘social tourism’. This article contributes to the understanding of the role played by novel environments in creating a context for liminal tourist experiences and outcomes for positive social interventions.

Keywords

community cohesion liminality residential activity camps tourism experience transition

Introduction

Residential camps are designed to offer a programme of structured sport, leisure and recreation activities for young people in secure environments away from their parents/guardians for specific periods of time. They are largely based in outdoor activity centres and run by commercial organisations to meet market demand for children’s activities in the summer holidays. Residential activity camps provide a socio-spatial setting that is clearly distinct from the everyday life places and social contexts of young people. They are often in rural areas, even wilderness settings, and the activities themselves are suited for those contexts and offer unique experiences. These camps are common in North America (Hunter et al., 2006), but less so in Europe and other areas of the world, despite a long history of youth camp movements in the European context (Baumgartner, 2012). However, while young people have participated in organised camp programmes for at least 150 years (Henderson et al., 2007), this particular type of tourism experience has been neglected by tourism researchers.

Residential activity camps are sometimes used as an intervention in a range of health, social and psychological programmes (Henderson et al., 2007; Mahoney and Stattin, 2000). As such, they could be considered a form of social tourism, defined as the inclusion in tourism of disadvantaged or economically weak members of society through the provision opportunities of a well-defined social nature (McCabe, Minnaert and Diekmann, 2012). The positive outcomes of residential camps have been widely studied from a broad multi-disciplinary perspective. Yet, despite the fact that the temporal and spatial separations from home environment/community have been highlighted as a factor in achieving successful outcomes of camps (Hanna, 1998) and in social tourism research the significance of ‘place’ experiences and new environments has been noted (McCabe, 2009), these settings and experiences have attracted little attention from tourism researchers.

The beneficial outcomes of leisure travel in general are well documented (see, for example, Hunter-Jones, 2003; Lehto et al., 2009). McCabe (2009) suggests that tourism can provide rest and recuperation from work, broaden horizons, enhance interpersonal and intercultural communications and facilitate personal/social development. Travel can have an influence on life satisfaction (Sirgy et al., 2011), and Lehto et al. (2009) note the therapeutic effects of leisure travel on mentally stressed individuals. Experiences of tourism have also been linked to personal transformations (Lean, 2012) and transformations in social identity (Desforges, 2000), and the role of place interactions has been noted in performative tourist identity (Tucker, 2007). Harrison (2003) has explored how ‘being away’ from home leads to transformations in the self, and the notion of tourism space as a liminal zone has been useful to understand the character and qualities of tourist experience (Currie, 1997; Light, 2009; Pritchard and Morgan, 2006; Selanniemi, 2003). Tourism can facilitate a transition between old and new ways of living, such as in the context of long-term travellers (White and White, 2004). Thus, physical settings, spatial characteristics and geographical features of place are essential elements in understanding the important links between tourist experience, sense of place and identity. As Lew (2003) argues, ‘we shape places to reflect our identities, just as much as places influence our opportunities and well-being’ (p. 121). However, the literature on the beneficial outcomes of tourism tends to focus on the individual and has yet to explore the role of the tourist environment in the experience. Additionally, the links between the role of new environments in bringing about transformation and identity change, positive effects of tourism experiences and social outcomes have yet to be explored. The aim of this article is to explore these issues together for the first time in the context of a study of disadvantaged young people from urban communities which had suffered from breakdown in community relations.

This study draws on findings from an evaluation of a programme of ‘community cohesion’ camps in the United Kingdom. The goals of these short breaks were to facilitate cohesion between communities of young people from different neighbourhoods, ethnic and faith groups, which were specifically targeted because of intra-community tensions. We explore how the liminal qualities of the camp experience contributed towards successfully bringing groups together to improve cohesion between them, rather than the outcomes or factors of success in themselves. The outcomes of the camps were very positive, successfully breaking down barriers between different community groups, creating opportunities to develop the individual and to encourage social interactions and building social capital. But it was the appreciation of space and the important opportunities the camp environment presented that seemed to be a central thread around which successful outcomes were identified. Therefore, the focus is on the social and spatial aspects of camp experiences, the factors that made them meaningful and how they created a transitional space for participants to reflect on themselves and their communities. Furthermore, this article shows how the spatio-temporal qualities of the camps contributed towards their success. Thus, an experience of the liminal becomes a tool for social intervention.

Tourism and liminality

The term ‘liminality’ originally stems from the work of Van Gennep (1909). He noted the importance of transitions in small-scale societies and used the term ‘rites of passage’ to describe the rituals-associated change in social status of individuals and societal changes that were associated with seasonal patterns. Concentrating on the former type of transition, he argued that all rites de passage are marked by three phases: separation, transition and incorporation (Turner and Turner, 1978: 2). Stemming from ‘liminal’ defined as ‘the specific spaces of betweenness, where a metaphorical crossing of some spatial and/or temporal threshold takes place’ (Moran, 2013: 342), the term ‘liminality’ is used to describe the middle (transitional) phase where subjects become separated from existing social structures and statuses passing into a sort of ‘social limbo’ (Turner, 1982). The liminal phase is simultaneously destructive and constructive. It is a time when social structures are inverted and through various ritual practices individuals are encouraged to question tacit knowledge. Turner (1982) notes that by experiencing uncertainty and chaos, the importance of the traditional order of a culture is underlined. Hence, for the individuals involved, liminality can contribute to a sense of uncertainty about identities, positions and routines since beyond normative social structures individuals are separated from conventional behaviour (Simpson et al., 2010). Liminality marks a transition from the known to the unknown, and while it may be accompanied by unease in some cases, it may also produce a feeling of heightened sensitivity or a deeper awareness of the special qualities of a place.

In a series of reflections, Turner (1969, 1974, 1982) applied the concept of liminality to large-scale (post-industrial) societies. Turner noted the concept of ‘communitas’, which is based on the understanding of the ways in which humans relate to one another. In the liminal, ‘free from the culturally defined encumbrances of (his) role, status, reputation, class, caste, sex or other structural niche’ individuals may experience ‘spontaneous communitas’ (Turner, 1982: 48). In this mode of human relatedness, individuals identify with one another in the ‘here-and-now’ (Turner, 1982: 48), displaying comradeship and homogeneity, whereby social groups form strong bonds free from any structural constraints (Moran, 2013). Yet, Turner also recognises that spontaneous communitas may be short-lived, soon giving way to normative communitas where in a defensive attempt to maintain free relationships, groups develop norm-governed social structures.

In acknowledgment of the different social structures of complex post-industrial contexts compared with small-scale stable pre-industrial societies, Turner (1982) suggested that liminal rites would largely become replaced by the ‘liminoid’. He argued that in pre-industrial societies, the liminal is part of society; it inverts but does not subvert the status quo (Turner, 1982), and there is a requirement to undertake social rituals and enter the liminal phase. While in post-industrial societies, the liminoid is a break from society, an ‘out-of-ordinary’ experience, often subversive of the central values of society, whereby individuals are free to choose and seek liminoid experiences on a voluntary basis. Furthermore, while emphasis is placed on the individual in the liminoid, in the liminal, social cultural growth is communal and anonymous. Yet, ‘liminality’ does not simply disappear; rather, it is reconfigured as the liminoid and represents a ‘freedom from’ obligations, a break from normality, and a ‘freedom to’ transcend social structural limitations, a playful ‘as-if’ experience. Although, as Thomassen and Balle (2012) note, ‘the liminoid develops outside that framework of ritual passage which was so fundamental to the very concept of liminality’ (p. 85), for Turner, liminoid experiences retain liminal qualities, most notably in terms of the features of anti-structure. Additionally, it involves a reflexivity that may generate self-understanding and perhaps even aid in reconfiguring social roles, hierarchies or values, with possible ramifications for the wider public sphere in a way that is not always possible in pre-industrial societies (Thomassen and Balle, 2012).

Thomassen (2009) explains there are various dimensions to liminality. It is applicable to both space and time and can be applied to individuals, groups or whole societies. He further differentiates the ‘scale’ with which liminality is experienced along with a distinction in whether liminality is artificially produced or occurs naturally and whether it is sought after or applied involuntarily to individuals or groups (Thomassen, 2009: 18). These varying dimensions and potentially broad applicability of the concept of liminality have led to a growing body of literature from various academic disciplines. As Andrews (2012) notes, the concept of liminality found an expression in the tourism literature through Graburn’s (1989) seminal article about the parallels between tourism processes of departure, absence and return to the everyday with that of the ritual process.

Although the distinction between liminal and liminoid is not always made explicit, Thomassen and Balle (2012) note the influence that Turner’s framework has had on the study of liminal experiences in tourism. In particular, Turner’s ‘out-of-the ordinary’ concept has been applied widely. For example, Preston-Whyte (2004) discusses social, surfing and nudist beach spaces as examples of where liminality may be found and experienced in various ways. He argues that visitors find a space where the stress of normal workaday life is temporarily suspended. For the surfer, liminality is experienced in the exhilaration of confronting breaking waves and where newcomers are required to participate in a rite of passage to demonstrate their skill and ability to cope with formidable waves, reminiscent of the transition described by Van Gennep (1909). While for nudists, liminality is experienced in the sense of liberation that comes with disrobing. Currie (1997) notes that tourists are ‘liberated from the normal mode of societal action and interaction. The rules of society no longer apply to tourists; they are temporarily allowed to create their own rules within which to operate’ (p. 894). This epitomises the idea of anti-structure that characterises liminality and the possibility to enact transgressive behaviours. For example, Shields (1991) applied the concept of liminality to understand how particular spaces give rise to sanctioned behaviour that lies outside normative everyday conventions, while others have used liminality to understand clubbing experiences in Ibiza (Goulding and Shankar, 2011), periods of long-term travel (White and White, 2004) and charter yacht tourism (Lett, 1983).

While many studies have focused on specific dimensions of liminality, Selanniemi (2003) draws together the interrelated perspectives of place, time and self in an examination of liminality and the liminoid in tourism. He highlights a fourfold transition/transgression which entails a spatial, temporal, mental and sensual transition which ‘changes our psychological state, the social order, and our bodily state or the way we perceive and experience our surroundings’ (Selanniemi, 1996 from Selanniemi, 2003: 27). Although originally based on Finnish mass tourism, he stresses the importance of realising the significance of the process of travelling when attempting to understand the experiences of any kind of tourists. Furthermore, while it is often the negative transgressive or transitional behaviours that command most attention, ‘one must keep in mind that the transitions tourists go through on holiday most often lead to positive results’ (Selanniemi, 2003: 28).

The notion of communitas has also found saliency in tourism studies (cf. Jafari, 1987). Jafari argues that separation from home establishes ‘tourist culture’ as distinct from an individual’s normal culture. This transient state of being enables (but does not guarantee) the creation of communitas among fellow travellers. Getz (2007) expands on this in a discussion of the planned event experience, referring to a liminal zone at an event as the creation of ‘time out of time: a special place’ and to the extent that it is possible, ‘all those involved with the event should experience the belonging and sharing that defines communitas’ (p. 179). For Preston-Whyte (2004), cultures merge, egalitarianism flourishes and bonds of friendship are forged in surfer communities, while for nudists communitas is experienced in social beach spaces epitomised by a sense of belonging and of unquestioned acceptance.

However, the concept of liminality is not unproblematic. The varied use of the term, differing definitions and privileging of certain aspects over others have led to tensions and contradictions. For example, the notion that liminality represents the linear progression of transformation always leading to a new social status in complex modern societies has been contested (Butler Brown, 2007). In relation to individuals with disabilities, Phillipps (1990) contends that individuals may become identified in a state of permanent liminality, suspended between representations of sick and well bodies. Some musicians have similarly been identified as existing in a permanent liminal state (Butler Brown, 2007). Prison visiting rooms have been identified as a site where liminality is experienced, not once, but repeatedly (Moran, 2013). Furthermore, these liminal experiences are followed not by post-liminal reintegration into a different social status but by a return to the state experienced before liminal detachment.

Although not well developed in the tourism literature to date, the tensions produced by the varied use and definitions of liminality are beginning to be explored. For example, Andrews (2012) notes that tourism studies of liminality are generally linked to ideas of the ludic and inversion or suspension of normative social and moral structures of everyday life and ‘becoming’. Yet, she argues that the extent to which tourism industry organises spaces and experiences that engender social control, surveillance and territorialisation, thus limiting tourist agency, invites an urgent reassessment of the meanings attached to ideas of the liminal in tourism studies. In a study of bungy jumping, Thomassen and Balle (2012) argue that while losing some anti-structure features that Turner claims to be liminoid, the practice retains many of the (liminal) ritual elements and symbolic importance. The authors also note a limited self-reflection and return to norms in the post-liminal. Hence, they caution against simply embracing Turner’s terminology and his conceptualisation of the liminoid.

Pritchard and Morgan (2006) argue convincingly for hotels to be understood as liminal places. They contend that while hotels are ‘seemingly a place of anonymity … and where the normal social conventions can be challenged and flouted’, they are also subject to ‘the same laws and mores which govern our lives elsewhere’ (Pritchard and Morgan, 2006: 764). Similarly, in a study of drugs and risk-taking in tourism, Uriely and Belhassen (2006: 345) dispute the notion of tourists as unrestrained action-seekers and question whether transgressive behaviours are indeed uncontrolled. Instead, drug-taking in tourism appears to comply with Featherstone’s (1995) notion of controlled–decontrolled types of behaviour. For Featherstone (1995), while individuals open themselves up to a wider range of sensations and emotional experiences, the ability to experience them requires self-control, the capacity to manage swings between intense involvement and detachment and the capacity to tolerate close proximity without feeling threatened ‘and for those who lack such control there lurks in the background surveillance by security guards and remote control cameras’ (p. 24). These studies start to question the notion of ‘freedom’ in tourism studies. These critiques also call for a more nuanced understanding of Turner’s anti-structure.

Relating the discussion to the current context, unlike hotels, participants in residential camps are liberated from the normal mode of action and interaction, and yet they are not free to create their own rules. Instead, they are required to operate within a new set of rules, which are designed to challenge social conventions within the everyday socio-spatial context. Furthermore, while not compelled to attend, participation in the camps is also not deliberately sought. Nonetheless, as the article will demonstrate, the camp retains certain liminal qualities and characteristics. The following section briefly explores these contextual qualities.

Residential activity camps

Henderson et al. (2007) note ‘evidence is mounting that well-designed, well-implemented, youth-centred programmes … have positive outcomes for both young people and their communities’ (p. 989). It is from this perspective that research has predominately been conducted, whereby the residential camp forms the context or backdrop to programmes that are designed to challenge normal behaviours or confront challenges faced by young people in their daily lives. These studies have, for example, analysed residential experiences as a general therapeutic setting for children dealing with serious illnesses (Hunter et al., 2006), obesity (McKenzie, 1986), grief (Hrenko, 2005), trauma (Hyer et al., 1996) or addiction recovery programmes (Bennett et al., 1998). Another stream of the literature focuses on individual programmes particularly assessing the contribution of residential camps in the achievement of specific outcomes, such as the development of social skills (Hanna, 1998; Moore, 2001; Vincke and Van Heeringen, 2004), self-esteem (Anshel et al., 1986), and shared values through participation and social learning (Yuan et al., 2005).

These programmes have also been linked to transformative social and spatial outcomes. In an outdoor education context, for example, Norris (2011) found that the notion of rites of passage was widespread and gives various examples of descriptions of programmes that draw on the concept. The ‘ritual’ aspects of the experience and the transition between childhood and adulthood are emphasised in many programmes. However, while the concept of rites of passage is used extensively, Lertzman (2002) notes that limited formal research has been undertaken, and therefore, little is known about how liminality is experienced. Norris (2011) argues that far greater attention must be paid to the experience of communitas, which ‘may allow for an extra-ordinary experience that has transformational potential, and that is largely unavailable in other social settings’ (p. 124). Little is known about participants’ temporal and spatial experiences of these camps, their touristic qualities and the contribution of these to transformational outcomes. It is an exploration of these aspects that is the focus of this study.

Methodology

In order to allow for a detailed investigation of young people’s experiences of the camp, an ethnographic approach was selected. Fieldwork consisted of overt observation and informal conversations with groups of young people ‘in situ’, together with semi-structured interviews with (school and community) group leaders and residential activity centre staff. Overt participation was an important strategy because of the necessity for consent and to ensure that children and organisers were all fully aware of the aims of the study. Similarly, it was important that the researcher was an active participant, rather than a passive observer in order to communicate informally with the young people. In this way, the researcher role was recognised, but not obstructive. Arguing for an overt participant observational strategy in relation to a study of tourists on a coach tour, Tucker (2007) identifies that ‘letting the fellow passengers know of the research intentions enabled pointed conversations with people throughout the tour’ (p. 142). This approach allowed the researcher access to the group and to talk freely to young people during the activities. Selby (2004) advocates the use of conversations as a research tool and as a way to ‘uncover the knowledge which is salient to particular respondents within specific contexts’ (pp. 194–95).

The research was conducted in four rural activity centres in England managed by the Youth Hostel Association. Young people attending camps consisted of groups that had been brought together from different neighbourhoods within cities in England. These groups were either from different schools where cohesion issues existed or were brought together as part of a voluntary community organisation initiative designed to alleviate a specified community cohesion problem. The types of cohesion issues mentioned by the groups in this study were gang activity; racial, religious or ethnic tensions; conflicts and neighbourhood rivalry; isolation; disabilities; crime; sexual health; truancy and poverty/social exclusion. The ages of the people participating ranged from 9 to 19 years, although the majority of groups consisted of people at the older end of this spectrum, between 14 and 19 years. While a number of schools (3) participated, the young people in those groups were aged between 13 and 15 years, with just one group of 30 children at age 9–11 years. In total, 15 groups representing a diverse range of community groups (including one Muslim and one Christian youth organisation) and specialist educational service providers (looking after children with behavioural difficulties or disabilities) comprised the sample totalling 262 young people. Group size varied considerably from 10 to 30 participants. Each group was organised and accompanied by teachers or facilitators.

Ethical issues were of vital importance, given the sensitivities of conducting research with children. Issues of consent, approach and methods were negotiated prior to each visit with the group/school leaders. All data were digitally recorded and then stored on an encrypted server. Data were anonymised to ensure compliance with data and child protection policies. At all times throughout the data collection phase, adults (hostel staff, teachers, youth group leaders, etc.) were present while the research was taking place. This did not mean that interviews with children were ‘overseen’ by adults. Children had the chance to express their views freely due to the informal nature of the research and the open environments in which the research took place, whereby adults were merely ‘in the vicinity’. Groups had been prepared for the presence of the interviewer by the school/group leaders and activity centre staff. They were generally open-minded, happy to talk and found the digital recorder unobtrusive and sometimes an interesting focus for lively chat, although there were, as expected, some more reserved individuals within groups.

The researcher accompanied the groups wherever possible to join alongside them in activities, including high ropes, walking, bouldering, abseiling, canoeing and climbing, as well as meal times in the canteen. Conversations explored feelings about the activities and experiences on the camp, whether young people made any new friends or met new people during the trip, as well as discussion of the specific issues being faced in their communities and their attitudes towards different groups within them. Conversations with a total of 63 young people were recorded during the study. While it is recognised that this is not an ideal framework for detailed ethnographic research, and not all the young people were equally able to express their views and feelings, the setting of the camps and the general affability of participants did lead to revealing and sometimes quite profound sentiments being expressed.

A total of 25 interviews were conducted and recorded with group leaders, teachers (and trainee teachers) and activity centre leaders. Group leaders were asked about the specific issues relating to community cohesion in their area, the effects of these issues and the reasons why particular groups had been chosen, as well as the perceived benefits and negative experiences. The transcribed interviews and conversations were examined thematically to explore the role of the camp space in the experiences of the young people. The researchers specifically focused on issues such as the camps as a transitional zone, a site of liminal experience and communitas. The significance of the ritualised aspects of the organisation of the camps was also explored. Hence, the themes were guided by the conceptualisation of liminality. Transcripts were read in their entirety, and recurring points of view and accounts of experiences and comments were noted and categorised. More focused readings were subsequently conducted to identify any sub-themes and to select exemplars of the themes for citation.¹

Liminality in residential activity camps

Analysis of the data revealed specific interrelated and organised elements that contribute to the liminal qualities of the residential camp. These include a separation and detachment from everyday social structures and physical environments leading to the sense of ‘out of time and space’ of the camp. Also, young people were in a contact situation and participated in programmed activities. We argue that these structural properties contribute to the sense of the liminal as experienced by the individuals and provide a context for a state of existence which is out of the ordinary, providing a ‘transitional zone’ through which development of the individual occurs.

Separation and detachment

The first important event that occurs is the removal of the individual from the home environment. This separates individuals in both spatial and temporal terms. In terms of the former, residential camps are ‘away’ from home, meaning a geographical movement from one place to another, a journey (Turner, 1982). The journey does not need to be lengthy. Rather, it is the process of ‘going away’ that has a symbolic value:

Its cause none of this group have ever been away from home, when we had them dropped off they were dropped off by their families, three, four members of their families dropping them off and hugging and kissing them and it was an amazing sight to see you should have seen it, mother, father, siblings in the back, all dropping one child off and they only live round the corner and waiting till the coach left, so we have thirteen young people and we must have had forty people to see them off and there was people stopping thinking ‘whats going on’ and like we were saying we are going on a residential 30 miles down the road. (Community Group Leader 3)

Yet, it is more than a simple geographical movement. The occasion is marked through the behaviour of friends and family ‘seeing them off’ which clearly highlights the significance of the ‘separation’ to those involved. The fact that the residential break was for many the first time they had ever been away from home is important. Going away from home for the first time is a key landmark in people’s lives. It signals their maturing status and is recognised accordingly by their families. From this perspective, it is not dissimilar to a rite of passage marked by an elaborate ritual.

While separation detaches the young people from the social norms and structures of their own culture, the residential camp experience does not represent a structural reversal or rejection of structural constraints (Turner, 1982). They are highly structured in nature, and liminality is experienced as liberation from normative constraints where territorial boundaries no longer exist; thus, conscious membership of specific cultural groups is diminished. Some structural aspects of the residential camps can be likened to the ‘levelling’ process described by Turner (1982), whereby signs of pre-liminal status are destroyed and non-liminal status applied. For instance, the young people were required to share dormitory-style accommodation and bathroom facilities and to take their meals together in a communal dining room. This type of communal living is not familiar to many of the young people, and as such, adjustments were required. For example, one community leader described how it was unusual for individuals from a specific community to stay at the dinner table once they had finished eating. However, after the first day, these young people routinely remained seated until others had finished. The communal living arrangements impose a type of uniformity among the young people.

During the residential camp, the young people participated in programmed and often challenging activities, many of which required specific clothing be worn for health and safety reasons. The wearing of uniformed clothing also appears to contribute to the ‘levelling’ process:

Because once you strip the make-up off them, not literally but, once you put green wellies on all of them, red coats on all of them, no one’s standing out, no one’s any better so they leave the street cred thing behind and they have to become a team coz they have to work together so they’re made to be with each other, you know the safety aspects of it, it’s that bit what’s good about residentials and the team building and the stuff that they did when they were there. (Community Group Leader 3)

Having ‘Street Cred’ denotes a type of role played within everyday social structures, one which requires work by young people in both acquisition and maintenance. Yet in the residential camp, these roles are diminished. As the comment ‘no one’s standing out’ suggests, previously held differences between the young people were reduced through the wearing of the special clothing to the point where ‘no one’s any better’, suggesting a more equal status among the participants.

Yet, the quote also highlights another important aspect of the residential camps. Governed by the social rules of the camp and required adherence to the instructions of leaders, the young people were ‘made to be with each other’, and they also had to ‘work together’ to complete tasks. Hence, residential camps impose proximity and a degree of intimacy with others, a mode of human relatedness, an orchestrated communitas. While communitas can occur spontaneously in many environments, in terms of the residential camps it is the structured environment that provides the frame in which spontaneous communitas may possibly be induced.

Providing an environment in which communitas could occur was deemed as crucial to the aims of the camp. This is epitomised in the following comment where one of the community group leaders discusses what she hopes would happen in the future:

It might take two years before the fifteen, sixteen years olds are in the pub but the eighteen, nineteen year olds won’t forget that girl and in two years’ time they’ll have that, they’ll have someone that they know, that’s what you have created with them it’s really, it’s that bond. (Community Group Leader 4)

Turner (1982) argues that spontaneous communitas cannot be sustained as what is experienced becomes a memory of communitas eventually developing a structure whereby ‘free relationships between individuals become converted into norm-governed relationships between social personae’ (p. 47). However, while Turner discusses this rather negatively in terms of the ‘fate’ of communitas, this normative communitas was positively valued by the community group leaders.

Experiencing liminality

It is important to understand how the structural properties of the camp contributed to the sense of the liminal as experienced and how this, in turn, provided a type of ‘transitional zone’ in which development of the individual could occur. The sense of the spatial and temporal separations from the ‘everyday’ that the individuals experienced is evident in the following comment from one of the young people:

It’s about getting away from normal life, just forgetting everything else and just coming here and just … it’s like leaving everything else our normal day to day lives, going home, doing anything at home, it’s like we’re just staying here for a couple of days it’s like you leave everything behind and you don’t have to think about anything else, just focus on yourselves. (Young Person 1WA)

The camp is perceived to be outside the normal and beyond routine. The process of separation facilitates transgression from the routine behaviours of everyday life and the normal ‘mode of being’. Yet through the comment ‘just staying a couple of days’, there is also an awareness of the temporal nature of this experience and to the ‘in-betweenness’. It has the effect of differentiating the camps as a ‘special time/place’. Important in terms of providing a space for development, the process of ‘going away’ facilitates a re-focus of attention onto the individual and a new state of existence.

Although detachment from normal social structures can often be experienced with apprehension, a reoccurring theme was the sense of liberation that was felt. For example, in today’s society where ubiquitous technology contributes to a ‘switched on, always available’ culture, it might be expected that the lack of a mobile phone signal could be frustrating. Yet as the comment below suggests, it contributed to this sense of liberation:

Its so peaceful, you can’t get a signal so you don’t get people texting me all the time. (Young Person 8B)

The young people were free from the social obligation of having to constantly reply to numerous text messages. The lack of a mobile telephone signal also distinguished the residential camp space from the everyday as extra-ordinary. Similarly, as noted previously, the young people were required to wear special clothing. Yet, the young people did not resent the wearing of uniform or the removal of their ‘street cred’. On the contrary, as intimated in the following comment, it created a sense of liberation. In some ways, this is not dissimilar to the liminal experience of the nudists in Preston-Whyte’s (2004) study of the beach. For nudists, liminality is experienced in the sense of liberation that comes with disrobing and the removal of the masks we wear in life. For the young people in the camps, liberation comes from the imposed adornment of ‘stupid clothes’, meaning that concern for how one looked individually was no longer a consideration:

… like caving, being wet in clothes, but like everybody else is wet and like wearing stupid clothes, I mean I know it’s for your health and safety and stuff but wearing stupid stuff that everybody wears so you don’t look a fool, it’s all right, you get used to the harnesses coz you like, live in them. (Young Person 12B)

As ‘everybody else’ was wearing similar clothes, this combines a loss of ego with an acceptance of the rules, which are also accepted by others. This contributes to the sense of communitas in terms of the perception of a relatively undifferentiated community.

Participation in the challenging activities also played an important role in the experiencing of communitas. For many, this aspect of the camp was perceived as risky and dangerous, and participants frequently spoke of their initial fear when confronted with the tasks. Participation in activities can be likened to ritual practices in rites of passage and redolent with the transition originally proposed by Van Gennep (1909). Yet, it is this element of risk which fostered a sense of understanding among groups. Individual fears and difficulties became shared among the group; as the comment below suggests, a sense of belonging and community is honed through the shared knowledge of coping with these challenges and overcoming fears:

… like if you’re scared of something you don’t have to be scared alone. (Young Person 4R)

Preston-Whyte (2004) argues that newcomers to the surfing beach are required to participate in a rite of passage to demonstrate their skill and ability in order to achieve acceptance and respect from surfing groups. In terms of the residential breaks, the challenging activities serve a similar purpose:

… but she did the leap of faith and that changed how the others saw her, still talked like a baby, [but] they weren’t calling her a mard arse anymore, they called her a mard arse on Friday but they didn’t call her a mard arse on Saturday. (Community Group Leader 2)

As the comment above suggests, individuals are no longer seen in terms of ethnic or cultural background but as fellow participants, and completion of activities leads to a degree of mutual respect for one another.

The camp as a liminal zone

The importance of the liminal experience in residential camps can only be truly appreciated through an understanding of the socio-cultural contexts experienced by the young people. As explained by the group leaders, many of the young people live in ‘ghettoised’ neighbourhoods largely populated by a specific cultural group. It is normal that individuals never ‘cross the divide’ of these territorialised areas, creating barriers to social interaction with other communities. Quite often, however, there is simply a lack of opportunity for people to mix with one another. For example, the organisational systems and historical practices within some districts restrict contact with people from different cultural or ethnic backgrounds. Thus, cultural stereotypes and misconceptions rarely get challenged, communities become entrenched and people lack aspirations. As one community leader commented, ‘they seem to be stuck in a bit of a bubble’.

Individuals in these communities have been described as living ‘parallel lives’ (Cantle, 2005), yet they could also be described as being liminal – as being part of society but never fully integrated (Thomassen, 2009). Liminality is perceived in this situation by those living outside, and it may not be recognised by those within. Yet, what is interesting in terms of the residential camps is the movement of the young people from one type of liminality to another in order to facilitate a non-liminal status upon return. The young people may not recognise the liminality of their ordinary existence, but in experiencing the liminality of the residential camps, they are encouraged to see beyond the boundaries of their liminal existence to see the liminality of their pre-liminal state.

In the liminal space of the residential camp, young people are liberated from the pervasiveness of normal surveillance. In this context, young people in urban neighbourhoods are often under the watchful gaze of peers, and the concomitant constraints of the home society may well lead to self-surveillance. Away from this gaze, ‘in this state [liminality] people are more relaxed, uninhibited and open to new ideas’ (Getz, 2007: 178):

Break from peer group and community pressures, so tempted to give it a go but whereas at home they might not … away from the pillock factor…ok to give things a go away from the eyes of the world. (Activity Centre Leader 2)

Away from the ‘eyes of the world’ and familiar boundaries, the young people are more prepared to try new experiences. This willingness does not simply relate to the structured activities; it also relates to communication with others. Through experiencing a sense of the liminal where anything is possible and boundaries can be broken, previously held perceptions about achievement and barriers to communication are effectively removed, enabling transgressive behaviour and a freedom to experience things that would not normally be acceptable in their home environment. And yet in the contexts of the camp, this transgressive behaviour is dissimilar to the ludic transgressions depicted in previous studies, often characterised by a sense of abandon. ‘Normal surveillance’ and ‘the eyes of the world’ are replaced by the surveillance of the activity and group leaders along with the other participants. In this respect, the experience is more akin to a controlled transgression.

This controlled transgression is an important facilitator of a learning process. Participants learn new activity skills. However, what is learned is less important than the process undertaken in the learning:

Of course it has got nothing to do with teaching people how to abseil, it might be rock climbing … it’s about trying something new in an encouraging environment and find out it’s not so bad and who knows what they might give a go to and try out next time. (Activity Centre Leader 1)

As the quote suggests, the encouraging environment provided in the camps is critical. Featherstone (1995) argued that the ability to undertake a wider range of experiences requires self-control and the capacity to manage swings between intense involvement and detachment. In some respects, the processes of learning can be likened to the concept of controlled–decontrolled behaviour. Exposure of the young people to such challenging activities was designed to shift attitudes towards achievement. Hence, through the accomplishment of the individual activities during the camp, participants may then start to think about what else they can accomplish in their everyday lives, to see beyond the boundaries of their pre-liminal existence.

White and White (2004) argue that journeys serve as a rite of passage and an ideal way to achieve distance from the old and exposure to the new. Furthermore, they note that travel provides an environment in which people can test themselves and a space in which to search for a revitalised sense of self. Similarly, describing rites of passage, Thomassen (2006) argues that outside their normal environment, individuals are brought to question their self and the existing social order. Participation in the residential camps put participants situationally and temporally apart from the social system. It represented a journey into the unknown and a space where they could test their abilities and develop their sense of self.

Turner (1969) argued that society is the product of the relationship between structure and anti-structure. It is a way of generating variability while also ensuring the continuity of values and norms. There is an assumption in this statement that the values and norms of society are shared. Yet in the residential camps, the values and norms of the young people’s ordinary existence were challenged. The removal of norms was designed to alter attitudes. The territorial boundaries which constrained physical and social interactions were replaced by the liminal space of the activity centre – a neutral territory in which belonging and communitas were negotiated through shared participation in programmed activities. Emphasis was placed upon acquiring values and norms of the wider society beyond their ‘bubble’, and in this respect, the liminality of the residential camps is more akin to being a ‘pocket of time which contains the germ of future social development, of societal change’ (Turner, 1982: 45).

The design, location and programming of the camps signal them as a ‘special place’, outside the normal and beyond routine. The sense of liminality created through this space/place generates reflexivity and the reconfiguring of roles, values and established view (Thomassen and Balle, 2012). As Goulding and Shankar (2011) note in the liminal period, ‘the meanings ascribed to artefacts, ego development and belief systems change … (and) … this often involves changes in perception of the environment (social or natural) and of the self’ (p. 1446). From this perspective, the residential break experience enabled young people to see things differently – themselves, those around them and their environment.

Thomassen (2006) notes that periods of the liminal are destructive as well as constructive. The liminal experiences of the residential camps were destructive in terms of removing individuals from the prejudices that are reinforced in their home environments and from the barriers that restrict achievement and interaction. They were also constructive in terms of the way the structured activities developed individual’s skills while the social setting enabled the renegotiation of social spaces and interactions. Furthermore, as one community leader explained, they provided ‘intensity’ in the degree of transition, which was unique. Young people moved from one form of the liminal to another which facilitated a post-liminal reintegration, a changed perspective and understanding of their environment and their position within it.

Conclusion

Liminality is commonly understood as the metaphorical crossing of spatial or temporal boundaries (Pritchard and Morgan, 2006) from the known to the unknown. In liminal space, the rules of society no longer apply, and the individual experiences freedom from the constraints of everyday life, allowing them to enact the inversionary behaviours of the anti-structure (Currie, 1997). A growing body of the literature has sought to conceptualise tourism spaces as liminal places, and this article highlights the way in which residential camps, as a special type of tourism experience, are constructed as liminal space. However, although detached from the social structures and rules of their home environment, participants were not free to set their own rules; instead, they were presented with a new set of rules which governed their behaviour in the camp experience. Yet although highly structured, the young people still experienced a sense of freedom through anonymity and the extra-ordinariness of place.

The notion that liminality enables behaviour which would not be acceptable in the home environment has resulted in research which explored transgressive behaviours experienced in liminal tourism places. As Selanniemi (2003) notes, it is often the ludic, excessive or sexual behaviours that have received the focus of attention, to the neglect of the other behaviours which can also be facilitated by ‘place’. Furthermore, the social norms of the home environment are implicitly perceived positively as ‘correct’ behaviour. However, in the context of this particular study, often it was the social norms of the home environment that had a restrictive effect on young people, deterring them from interacting with those outside their own neighbourhoods, local culture and environment and from participating in wider activities.

Like other studies, this article has presented transgressive behaviour in terms of the norms governing social interaction and involvement. It has also demonstrated how transgression was facilitated by the liminal, yet ordered tourism space. However, unlike other studies, this orchestrated transgression was to achieve transition of the norms of the home environment in an effort to break down boundaries between young people and through the experience of a unique environment, together with structured, challenging activities, to transform attitudes. Moreover, like other studies, this article also begins to question the applicability of the linear transition which epitomises liminality in modern societies. In this study, the individuals return not to the same social structure with a different status, but return with the experience of a different social structure and a similar but revised status, having been changed by their experiences.

This article has shown that the concept of liminality and the liminal space can be readily applied to interactions between tourists and to tourism places. There is limited research within tourism geography on the role of place and environment in shaping experiences (Suvantola, 2002). This study shows how touristic experiences in what would otherwise be perhaps ambiguously defined as tourism can demonstrate positive associations between place experiences, and individual and social outcomes. This has implications for social policy, in terms of the value of residential activity camps as a form of positive intervention, and for tourism geography, where further research is needed on the personal and social meanings of interactions within tourism settings.

Footnotes

Funding

The data used in this paper was gathered during a research project which received funding from the Youth Hostel Association (England and Wales). The project was an evaluation of the Community Cohesion Breaks scheme, which was not published. The data have been re-analyzed separately for this paper.

Notes

Author biographies

Clare Foster is a Lecturer in Marketing at Keele University Management School. Her research interests are in tourism consumer behaviour, including tourist complaints and atrocity stories, tourist performances and participation. She is also interested in the construction and consumption of (territorial) space and in ethnomethodology and performative research approaches.

Scott McCabe is Associate Professor in Tourism Management/Marketing at Nottingham University Business School. His research interests are in tourism experience and behaviour, including issues of equity of participation and Social Tourism. He is also interested in the marketing discourses of tourism promotion and destination branding and in qualitative research methods, particularly socio-linguistics.

References

Andrews

(2012) ‘Introduction’, Journal of Tourism Consumption and Practice 4(1): 1–4.

Anshel

M. H.

Muller

Owens

V. L.

(1986) ‘Effect of a Sports Camp Experience on the Multidimensional Self-Concepts of Boys’, Perceptual and Motor Skills 63(2): 363–6.

Baumgartner

(2012) ‘Social Tourism and Sustainability’, pp. 166–77 in McCabe

Minnaert

Diekmann

(eds) Social Tourism in Europe: Theory and Practice. Bristol: Channel View Publications.

Bennett

L. W.

Cardone

Jarczyk

(1998) ‘Effects of a Therapeutic Camping Program on Addiction Recovery: The Algonquin Haymarket Relapse Prevention Program’, Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 15(5): 469–74.

Butler Brown

. (2007) ‘Liminality and the Social Location of Musicians’, Twentieth-Century Music 3: 5–12.

Cantle

(2005) Community Cohesion: A New Framework for Race and Diversity, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Currie

(1997) ‘A Pleasure-Tourism Behaviours Framework’, Annals of Tourism Research 24(1): 884–97.

Desforges

(2000) ‘Travelling the World: Identity and Travel Biography’, Annals of Tourism Research 27(4): 926–45.

Featherstone

(1995) Consumer Culture and Postmodernism. London: SAGE.

10.

Getz

(2007) Event Studies. London: Elsevier Ltd.

11.

Goulding

Shankar

(2011) ‘Club Culture, Neotribalism and Ritualised Behaviour’, Annals of Tourism Research 38(4): 1435–53.

12.

Graburn

(1989) ‘Tourism: The Sacred Journey’, pp. 21–37 in Smith

(ed.) Hosts and Guests: The Anthropology of Tourism, 2nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell.

13.

Hanna

N. A.

(1998) ‘Predictors of Friendship Quality and Peer Group Acceptance at Summer Camp’, Journal of Early Adolescence 18(3): 291–318.

14.

Harrison

(2003) Being a Tourist: Finding Meaning in Leisure Travel. Toronto, ON, Canada: University of British Columbia Press.

15.

Henderson

Scheuler Whitaker

Bialeschki

. (2007) ‘Summer Camp Experiences. Parental Perceptions of Youth Development Outcomes’, Journal of Family Issues 28(8): 987–1007.

16.

Hrenko

K. D.

(2005) ‘Remembering Camp Dreamcatcher: Art Therapy with Children Whose Lives Have Been Touched by HIV/AIDS’, Art Therapy 22(1): 39–43.

17.

Hunter

H. L.

Rosnov

D. L.

Koontz

. (2006) ‘Camping Programs for Children with Chronic Illness as a Modality for Recreation, Treatment, and Evaluation: An Example of a Mission-Based Program Evaluation of a Diabetes Camp’, Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings 13(1): 67–79.

18.

Hunter-Jones

(2003) ‘The Perceived Effects of Holiday-Taking upon the Health and Wellbeing of Patients Treated for Cancer’, International Journal of Tourism Research 5(3): 183–96.

19.

Hyer

Boyd

Scurfield

. (1996) ‘Effects of Outward Bound Experience as an Adjunct to Inpatient PTSD Treatment of War Veterans’, Journal of Clinical Psychology 52(3): 263–78.

20.

Jafari

(1987) ‘Tourism Models: The Sociocultural Aspects’, Tourism Management 8(2): 151–9.

21.

Lean

(2012) ‘Transformative Travel: A Mobilities Perspective’, Tourist Studies 12(2): 151–72.

22.

Lehto

Choi

Lin

Y. C.

. (2009) ‘Vacation and Family Functioning’, Annals of Tourism Research 36(3): 459–79.

23.

Lertzman

D. A.

(2002) ‘Rediscovering Rites of Passage: Education, Transformation and the Transition to Sustainability’, Conservation Ecology 5(2). Available at: http://www.consecol.org/vol5/iss2/art30/ (accessed 13 July 2012).

24.

Lett

J. W.

(1983) ‘Ludic and Liminoid Aspects of Charter Yacht Tourism in the British Virgin Islands’, Annals of Tourism Research 10: 35–56.

25.

Lew

(2003) ‘Editorial: Tourism in Places and Places in Tourism’, Tourism Geographies 5(2): 121–2.

26.

Light

(2009) ‘Performing Transylvania: Tourism, Fantasy and Play in a Liminal Place’, Tourist Studies 9(3): 240–58.

27.

McCabe

(2009) ‘Who Needs a Holiday? Evaluating Social Tourism’, Annals of Tourism Research 36(4): 667–88.

28.

McCabe

Minnaert

Diekmann

(2012) Social Tourism in Europe: Theory and Practice. Bristol: Channel View.

29.

McKenzie

T. L.

(1986) ‘A Behaviourally-Oriented Residential Camping Program for Obese Children and Adolescents’, Education & Treatment of Children 9: 67–78.

30.

Mahoney

J. L.

Stattin

(2000) ‘Leisure Activities and Adolescent Antisocial Behaviour: The Role of Structure and Social Context’, Journal of Adolescence 23: 113–27.

31.

Moore

V. A.

(2001) ‘“Doing” Racialized and Gendered Age to Organize Peer Relations: Observing Kids in Summer Camp’, Gender & Society 15(6): 835–58.

32.

Moran

(2013) ‘Between outside and inside? Prison Visiting Rooms as Liminal Carceral Spaces’, GeoJournal 78: 339–51.

33.

Norris

(2011) ‘Crossing the Threshold Mindfully: Exploring Rites of Passage Models in Adventure Therapy’, Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning 11(2): 109–26.

34.

Phillipps

(1990) ‘Damaged Goods: Oral Narratives of the Experience of Disability in American Culture’, Social Science & Medicine 30(8): 849–57.

35.

Preston-Whyte

(2004) ‘The Beach as a Liminal Space’, pp. 349–59 in Lew

Hall

C. M.

Williams

(eds) The Blackwell’s Tourism Companion. Oxford: Blackwell.

36.

Pritchard

Morgan

(2006) ‘Hotel Babylon? Exploring Hotels as Liminal Sites of Transition and Transgression’, Tourism Management 27(5): 762–72.

37.

Selanniemi

(2003) ‘On Holiday in the Liminoid Playground: Place, Time, and Self in Tourism’, pp. 19–29 in Bauer

McKercher

(eds) Sex and Tourism: Journeys of Romance, Love and Lust. Binghamton, NY: Haworth Press.

38.

Selby

(2004) ‘Consuming the City: Conceptualizing and Researching Urban Tourist Knowledge’, Tourism Geographies 6(2): 186–207.

39.

Shields

(1991) Places on the Margin: Alternative Geographies of Modernity. London: Routledge.

40.

Simpson

Sturges

Weight

(2010) ‘Transient, Unsettling and Creative Space: Experiences of Liminality through the Accounts of Chinese Students on a UK-Based MBA’, Management Learning 41(1): 53–70.

41.

Sirgy

Kruger

Lee

D. J.

. (2011) ‘How Does a Travel Trip Affect Tourists’ Life Satisfaction?’, Journal of Travel Research 50(3): 261–75.

42.

Suvantola

(2002) Tourist’s Experience of Place: New Directions in Tourism Analysis. Poway, CA: Ashgate.

43.

Thomassen

(2006) ‘Liminality’, pp. 322–23 in Harrington

Marshall

Müller

H. P.

(eds) Routledge Encyclopedia of Social Theory. London: Routledge.

44.

Thomassen

(2009) ‘The Uses and Meanings of Liminality’, International Political Anthropology 2(1): 5–27.

45.

Thomassen

Balle

(2012) From Liminoid to Limivoid: Understanding Contemporary Bungee Jumping from a Cross-Cultural Perspective’, Journal of Tourism Consumption and Practice 4(1): 59–93.

46.

Tucker

(2007) Performing a Young People’s Package Tour of New Zealand: Negotiating Appropriate Performances of Place’, Tourism Geographies 9(2): 139–59.

47.

Turner

(1969) The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

48.

Turner

(1974) ‘Liminal to Liminoid in Play, Flow, and Ritual: An Essay in Comparative Symbology’, Rice University Studies 60(3): 53–92.

49.

Turner

(1982) From Ritual to Theatre. New York: PAJ Publications.

50.

Turner

(1978) Images and Pilgrimage in Christian Culture: Anthropological Perspectives. New York: Columbia University Press.

51.

Uriely

Belhassen

(2006) Drugs and Risk-Taking in Tourism’, Annals of Tourism Research 33(2): 339–59.

52.

Van Gennep

. (1909) The Rites of Passage (translated in 1960 by Vizedom

Coffee

). London: Routledge.

53.

Vincke

Van Heeringen

(2004) ‘Summer Holiday Camps for Gay and Lesbian Young Adults: An Evaluation of Their Impact on Social Support and Mental Well-Being’, Journal of Homosexuality 47(2): 33–46.

54.

White

(2004) ‘Travel as Transition. Identity and Place’, Annals of Tourism Research 31(1): 200–18.

55.

Yuan

F. C.

Pedlar

Mannell

R. C.

(2005) ‘Building Community and Social Capital through Children’s Leisure in the Context of an International Camp’, Journal of Leisure Research (Special Issue: Leisure and Social Capital) 37(4): 494–518.