Explanation of the Liminality Concept in the Inside-Outside Dialectic of Boundaries in Architecture

The creation a place boundary[1] in architecture is likened to the formation of an ‘inside’ within an ‘outside’.  In this paper, the concept of ´boundary´ in architecture refers to ‘being or having inside’. The constituents of place boundary, including borders, centrality, and scope of determined enclosures, seek to preserve this ´inside´; as the connection to the ‘outside’ in a place boundary is an inevitable reality, its neglect in defining the boundaries of places could result in the loss of the ‘inside’ attributes of place boundaries. In formulating the theoretical framework of this research, the following fundamental questions served as a starting point: which factors influence the explanation of boundaries? How can the application of the concept of liminality assist in explaining place boundaries in architecture? Perceiving the notion of liminality as a process in the inside-outside dialectic to define boundaries of places has aided in the discovery of the most important findings in this study. The research approach in this study is qualitative, with a descriptive-analytical method and based on logical reasoning. In this paper, after first defining the concept of boundary and analyzing the inside-outside dialectic, a theoretical model to figure boundaries of places is presented by referring to the emerging concept of liminality in architecture. The outcome demonstrates that liminality, as a consequence of the inside-outside dialectic, is composed of three states; namely “separation, transition and reaggregation". The ‘transition’ state as a liminal period and the most important state in the liminality process by emphasizing "in-being inside" defines a place boundary and by considering the direction and destination in approach to the places determines the quantity and quality of the separation and reaggregation characteristics in this process. Edges of a place which, following the hierarchical structure of this paper, provides three distinct relationships between these boundaries: Oppositional, Interaction and Transcendence. Each of these stages, due to their perspective and outlook to architecture, designate different roles for each of the constituent components of place boundaries, which could construct the experience of being fully ‘inside’ (unity) or fully ‘outside’ (alienation) for the perceiver, and could devise criteria for the development of these boundaries. These stages, which have been outwardly and inwardly arranged in a hierarchical perspective to analyze boundaries in architecture, describe the three different forms of connection of two place boundaries as the following: 1- the Oppositional state in the connection of boundaries due to neglecting the state of transition, in which transition is limited to only one border. 2- In the interaction state, the stage of transition in liminality simultaneously draws attention to the separation and reaggregation of boundaries and furthers their relation from a common boundary to a common separation. 3- Finally, the transcendence state of relation of boundaries leads to emergence on the edges of place boundaries. The expansion and reduction of a boundary is not a mechanically controlled process which could be easily expanded or limited, rather the factors influencing the concept of liminality as well as the comprising components of a place should be examined and researched.