cmupress.th@gmail.com
ABSTRACT
This study examines the role of liminality in Tennessee Williams’ The Glass Menagerie (1945), analyzing how transitional states shape character development, identity formation, and the interplay between illusion and reality. While the play has been widely studied, the role of liminality as a framework for understanding the play’s character transformations and narrative structure has not. Grounded in anthropological theories of liminality, particularly van Gennep’s rites of passage model and Victor Turner’s concept of liminal spaces, and through thematic analysis, theoretical coding, and purposive textual interpretation, I investigated how the play characters Amanda, Tom, and Laura navigate liminal spaces, confronting personal aspirations and societal limitations. Liminality functions as a transformative force, exposing characters’ struggles with uncertainty, displacement, and unfulfilled desires. This research offers a novel theoretical perspective that integrates anthropological thought with literary analysis, enhancing the understanding of post-war American drama and its depiction of psychological and social transitions.
Keywords: Liminality, Tennessee Williams, The Glass Menagerie, Character development, Liminal spaces, American drama.
INTRODUCTION
Liminality, a concept derived from van Gennep’s rites of passage (1909) and expanded by Turner (1967), refers to a transitional phase where individuals experience uncertainty, transformation, or disorientation (Thomassen, 2016). Tennessee Williams’ (1999) The Glass Menagerie (TGM) presents a compelling exploration of liminality, with its main characters—Amanda, Tom, and Laura Wingfield—trapped between illusion and reality, past and present, and aspiration and confinement. Set in post-war America, the play reflects broader societal shifts, including the decline of traditional gender roles, economic instability, and the struggle between personal ambition and familial obligation. Through its nuanced depiction of liminal states, TGM serves as an insightful case study for understanding character development and the psychological effects of unresolved transitions.
This study applies van Gennep’s and Turner’s theories of liminality to analyze the psychological and social transitions of Amanda, Tom, and Laura. Amanda clings to nostalgia and outdated social conventions, struggling to reconcile her Southern belle past with the harsh realities of economic hardship. Tom, caught between his duty to his family and his desire for freedom, experiences internal conflict as he oscillates between being the narrator and an active participant in the play’s events. Laura, characterized by extreme shyness and physical disability, remains in a perpetual liminal state, withdrawing into her glass menagerie as a symbolic refuge from societal expectations. While scholars have examined the themes of escapism, nostalgia, and disillusionment in TGM (Bray, 1999; Sharma, 2023a), this study offers a more structured theoretical approach by reading anthropological liminality in the characters’ experiences.
Other critical perspectives, such as Freudian psychoanalysis and feminist theory, provide further insight into character development in literature. Psychoanalysis, particularly the concepts of repression and the unconscious, could illuminate the internal conflicts that prevent the TGM characters from breaking free from their liminal states. Likewise, feminist interpretations of Amanda and Laura’s constrained roles within a patriarchal society could deepen the understanding of their struggles for autonomy and self-identity. However, this study remains focused on liminality as a transformative mechanism, emphasizing its role in shaping the characters’ psychological and narrative trajectories.
Despite its widespread application in anthropology, sociology, and cultural studies, liminality remains relatively underutilized in literary analysis (Szakolczai, 2009; Stenner, 2018). The concept of liminality has evolved into a robust analytical tool, now informing a wide range of disciplines including political science, education, and literary studies (Szakolczai, 2009; Neumann, 2012; Stenner, 2018). While scholars have examined liminality in political transitions (McConnell, 2017), healthcare narratives (Blows et al., 2012), and urban marginality (Shields, 2013), fewer studies have applied it to modern novels. Literary scholars such as Andrews and Roberts (2014), and Kerstin (2020) have discussed liminality’s impact on character transformation and narrative structure in other works. I integrate the anthropological theory of liminality with literary analysis of TGM, offering a fresh perspective on Williams’ play and its depiction of existential crises and social displacement.
Given its interdisciplinary relevance, this study situates TGM within the broader discourse of liminality, extending its application beyond anthropology to dramatic literature. Turner’s (1967) work on transitional states and their impact on both individual and collective identities is particularly relevant for understanding the Wingfields’ struggles. Recent scholarship examined liminality in fields ranging from diplomatic studies (McConnell, 2017) to biomedical ethics (Squier, 2004; Taylor-Alexander et al., 2016), highlighting its applicability in diverse contexts. Bunting (2025) and Saleh et al. (2023) have explored liminality’s narrative and thematic implications for literature, reinforcing its value as a critical analytical tool. By applying these insights to TGM, this study not only contributes to literary scholarship but also underscores liminality’s broader cultural and psychological implications.
The objectives of this study are fourfold: (1) to examine the manifestation of liminality in Amanda, Tom, and Laura and its influence on their behaviors, choices, and transformations; (2) to investigate how liminal spaces create and sustain the tension between illusion and reality in the play; (3) to apply van Gennep’s and Turner’s theoretical frameworks to analyze the characters’ transitions and their incomplete rites of passage; and (4) to explore how liminal elements in TGM reflect broader post-war American social and cultural transformations. The following sections will expand on these themes, discussing the significance of liminality in literature and its role in shaping the psychological and emotional landscapes of Williams’ characters. By doing so, this study aims to deepen the understanding of how liminality operates in dramatic narratives, offering new insights into TGM and theater studies.
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
This study offers a comprehensive literary analysis of liminality in Tennessee Williams’ TGM, applying liminality to explore psychological and social complexities in character development, narrative structure, and themes. While liminality is widely studied in social sciences and anthropology (van Gennep, 1909; Turner, 1967), its application to dramatic literature remains underutilized (Szakolczai, 2009; Stenner, 2018). This study contributes to the understanding of Williams’ dramatic techniques and broadens the framework for analyzing liminal experiences in literature. It also integrates interdisciplinary perspectives from psychology, social theory, and anthropology, offering insights into how transitional states shape character identity, relationships, and struggles with illusion and reality. This aligns with Lacy’s (2019) and Saleh et al.’s (2023) argument that speculative and modern narratives increasingly use liminal tropes to probe psychological and social thresholds. This research is particularly valuable for scholars, students, and theater practitioners, providing a fresh perspective on how liminality influences dramatic storytelling and modern character studies.
LIMINALITY IN LITERATURE
In the preceding section, we observed that liminality has become a powerful analytical tool across various disciplines, including social, political, and medical studies, offering insights into character development, narrative structure, and thematic exploration (Blows et al., 2012; Shields, 2013; Leibing et al., 2016; McConnell, 2017). Turner and Hirschfield argue that great artists and writers inherently engage with liminal states, allowing them to explore fluid identities and transitional experiences in creative expression (Kerstin, 2020). The concept extends beyond individual character analysis, encompassing narrative structures and plot elements that challenge fixed identities and conventional social roles (Turner, 1967).
Liminality is common in literature, illustrating transitions between worlds, identities, and realities. Famous writers such as Shakespeare, Chaucer, Bram Stoker, Angela Carter, and C. S. Lewis, have used supernatural and speculative fiction to explore themes of transformation, identity, and belonging. Lacy (2019) further demonstrates that speculative fiction often visualizes the crossing of boundaries as a metaphor for liminal experience, complementing Saleh et al.’s (2023) spatial-literary analysis. Similarly, Hammer (2017) contextualizes liminality in Scottish fiction as a powerful transgressive tool for exploring identity fluidity and narrative openness. More recent works, such as Gaiman’s (1999) American Gods, depict characters who exist between myth and modernity, embodying liminality in cultural and existential contexts. Unlike traditional narratives that resolve transitions through ritualistic structures, such as the ‘marriage plot’, contemporary works like TGM subvert these conventions, emphasizing characters’ perpetual liminal states and the unresolved tension between illusion and reality.
The concept of liminality has been taken up in multiple disciplines, reflecting its significance in understanding human experience and social transformation (Horvath et al., 2015). Scholars have applied it to diverse fields, such as medicine, urban studies, and social change (Squier, 2004; Taylor-Alexander et al., 2016). Within literary studies, Saleh et al. (2023) explored the temporal and spatial aspects of liminality in Sulayman Al Bassam’s Petrol Station, demonstrating how liminal spaces influence character development, identity formation, and existential conflict while Crane and Abbott (2020) provide a parallel perspective from nurse education, where learning itself becomes a liminal transition shaped by institutional boundaries and identity renegotiation.
Liminality’s application in literature assists us understand narrative complexity, psychological depth, and social commentary. This study focuses on how liminality operates in TGM, shedding light on character psychology, transitional spaces, and the blurred boundaries between illusion and reality. These aspects are examined in the following sections, emphasizing liminality’s enduring role in literary analysis and dramatic storytelling.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This study employs a qualitative interpretive research methodology to explore the concept of liminality in TGM. The qualitative interpretive approach is particularly suitable for this research as it allows for an in-depth, nuanced examination of the play’s characters, themes, and underlying psychological dynamics through a theoretical lens of liminality. Unlike quantitative methods that seek to measure or quantify literary elements, the interpretive methodology enables a rich, contextual analysis that can uncover complex meanings and subtle transitions in character experiences.
The research design incorporates a comprehensive trilateral methodological framework: theoretical framework analysis, textual interpretation, and thematic analysis. Each component plays a decisive role in scientifically undoing the concept of liminality within the play. The theoretical framework analysis thoroughly examines van Gennep’s and Turner's anthropological theories of liminality, critically applying their conceptual models to the literary text. This approach allows for a structured, yet flexible exploration of how liminal states manifest in the characters’ experiences and narrative progression. Turner’s (1974) expansion of liminality to include 'liminoid' experiences—those situated in secular, individualized domains—further supports the interpretation of Amanda and Tom’s struggles as symbolic rather than ritualistic (Turner, 1974; Horvath et al., 2015).
Textual interpretation forms the core of the methodological approach, employing close reading techniques to carefully analyze dialogue, character interactions, stage directions, and symbolic representations within the play. I meticulously coded the text, identifying key passages, phrases, and narrative moments demonstrating liminal characteristics such as transition, in-betweenness, and transformative potential. This process involved multiple rounds of iterative reading, where textual elements were cross-referenced with the theoretical frameworks of liminality to develop a comprehensive understanding of how the concept operates within the dramatic structure.
The thematic analysis component systematically identifies and examines recurring patterns, emotional states, and structural elements that reflect liminal experiences. Theoretical coding was employed to categorize and interpret these thematic elements, using a constant comparative method that allowed for continuous refinement of analytical categories. This approach enabled me to move beyond descriptive interpretation to a more theoretically informed analysis that connects individual character experiences to broader social and psychological transitions.
Supplementing the primary textual analysis, I conducted a comprehensive literature review, examining published studies, critical commentaries, and scholarly works related to TGM, liminality in literature, and post-war American drama. This interdisciplinary approach enriched the interpretive methodology by providing additional contextual insights and theoretical perspectives that informed the analysis. The study, by integrating these methodological techniques, creates a healthy interpretive framework that not only applies anthropological theories of liminality to literary analysis but also demonstrates the potential for cross-disciplinary scholarship in understanding complex narrative structures and character development.
FINDINGS
While previous research on TGM has explored themes of memory, escapism, and post-war struggles (Bray, 1999; Sharma, 2023a), this study integrates van Gennep’s and Turner’s theories of liminality to analyze how Amanda, Tom, and Laura are trapped in transitional states, unable to move forward in life. Unlike traditional protagonists in bildungsroman narratives, who achieve growth through rites of passage, the Wingfields remain psychologically stagnant, reinforcing Williams’ theme of unresolved existential crisis.
According to van Gennep’s three stages of liminality, individuals must pass through separation, transition, and reintegration to complete their transformation. Similarly, Turner’s model categorizes liminality into ‘preliminal,’ ‘liminal,’ and ‘postliminal’ stages, where ‘communitas’ (a temporary state of equality and shared transformation) often emerges during the liminal phase. In TGM, however, the Wingfields fail to complete their transitions, remaining suspended in uncertainty. This inability to progress makes them perpetual liminars, reinforcing the tragic structure of the play.
Williams establishes a liminal atmosphere in TGM from the outset, depicting the Wingfields in a run-down tenement, symbolizing their stagnation and desperation. The fire escape, alley, and Mr. Wingfield’s blown-up photograph reinforce their inability to move forward. Tom’s opening line, “Yes, I have tricks in my pocket” (scene I, p. 752), introduces illusion as a central theme, highlighting their reliance on fantasy to escape reality. These spatial configurations reflect what Hertzberger (1991) calls the 'psychological architecture' of liminal spaces structures that simultaneously constrain and express identity. In urban studies, Suboticki and Sorensen (2021) similarly interpret infrastructure as both a technological and emotional passageway, a view that resonates with the Wingfields’ symbolic confinement.
Tom’s dual role as narrator and character creates a liminal narrative structure, shifting between past and present, reality and memory. This aligns with Skjoldager-Nielsen and Edelman’s (2014) argument that theatrical liminality blurs the distinction between character and audience, fiction and reality, enabling plays like TGM to serve as immersive psychological spaces. The family’s pre-liminal state intensifies as Amanda clings to nostalgic illusions, forcing Tom and Laura into unrealistic aspirations. However, her strict control over her children’s choices backfires, creating tension and trapping them in psychological liminality. As they struggle for identity and stability, their repeated failures underscore their inability to transition into a new phase of life, reinforcing the play’s theme of unresolved liminality. Amanda says to Tom in scene I:
Honey, don’t push with your fingers. If you have to push with …
And chew! chew! Animals have sections in their stomachs …
give your salivary glands a chance to function!
In reply, Tom says,
I haven't enjoyed one bite of this dinner because of your constant directions …
all this discussion of – animals’ secretion - salivary glands - mastication!
Transformation in literature often occurs within liminal spaces, where characters navigate uncertainty and change (Turner, 1967). In TGM, Williams depicts the Great Depression’s impact on Tom and Laura, highlighting economic constraints and unfulfilled aspirations. Tom, torn between familial duty and personal ambition, embodies liminality, trapped between his role as provider and his poetic dreams. Amanda, clinging to nostalgic illusions of “Blue Mountains” and “seventeen gentlemen callers” (scene I, p. 754), imposes unrealistic expectations on her children, reinforcing their psychological stagnation. Her disillusionment peaks after the failed Gentleman Caller episode, leaving her to label Tom as “selfish” and daughter Laura “unmarried sister who’s crippled and has no job” (scene VII, p. 784) and herself a “mother deserted”, solidifying their liminal entrapment.
Contrary to her dictatorial nature, Amanda appreciates her husband and shows concern at the end of scene II (p. 757) when Laura tells her that she is crippled, then Amanda says:
Nonsense! Laura, I’ve told you never, never to use that word. Why, you’re not crippled, you just have a little defect — hardly noticeable, even! … they cultivate other things to make up for it - develop charm - and vivacity- and – charm! ... One thing your father had plenty of — was charm!
She opens her heart when she says:
Try and you will succeed! … Why, you - you’re just full of natural endowments! Both of my children - they’re unusual children! Don’t you think I know it? I’m so - proud! Happy and - feel I’ve - so much to be thankful for but - promise me one thing, son! (scene IV, p. 762) … “Success and happiness for my precious children! (scene V, p. 765)
During the play, we witness a mother’s frustration when Amanda says in scene II (p. 757):
What is there left but dependency all our lives? I know so well what becomes of unmarried women who aren’t prepared to occupy a position. I’ve seen such pitiful cases in the South - barely tolerated spinsters living upon the grudging patronage of sister’s husband or brother’s wife! - stuck away in some little mousetrap of a room- encouraged by one in-law to visit another - little birdlike women without any nest - eating the crust of humility all their life! Is that the future that we’ve mapped out for ourselves?
Amanda, in denial about Laura’s chances for happiness, is compelled to confront reality after the Gentleman Caller incident. This incident leads her to lash out at Tom, and for the first time, she openly admits that she is a “mother deserted” and that her “selfish” son has a “crippled, unemployed sister” (Bray, 1999, p. 5).
Amanda’s liminal transition from a harsh dictatorial mother—“Mother was a woman of action as well as words” (scene III, p. 758)—to “realizing that extra money would be needed to properly feather the nest and plume the bird” and saying, “Rise and Shine!” (p. 759) illustrates her transformation and maturity into the world of reality away from illusion. Her liminal stages are explicitly reflected when she becomes emotional: “She breaks into childlike tears”, “you’re my right-hand bower!” and “I loved your father” (scene IV, p. 762). She shows a sense of maturity saying, “Happiness! Good fortune!”, “Spartan endurance” (scene V, p. 768), and inspiration “Don't fall down, don't fail!”, “Try and you will succeed!” (scene V, p. 768); and religiosity “Christian adults don't want it!” (scene IV, p. 763), and “a Christian martyr” (scene V, p. 764).
Tom is oppressed by his father’s desertion: “Hello - Goodbye!” (scene IV, p. 763), his own unavoidable choice between sacrifice and personal freedom created a liminal space where he quests “at the movies” and then leaves “attempting to find in motion what was lost in space.” His mother’s consistent scolding: “You live in a dream; you manufacture illusions!” (scene VII, p. 784), and calling him selfish— “Go to the movies, go! Don’t think about us, a mother deserted, an unmarried sister who's crippled and has no job! Don’t let anything interfere with your selfish pleasure, just go, go, go - to the movies! . . . Then go to the moon-you selfish dreamer!” (p. 784)—do not allow him to settle and realize his dreams, he always sacrifices for his family. In addition, his transition from pre-liminal to liminal stage is evident when he understands he is a misfit at his warehouse job: “I’m planning to change ... I’m right at the point of committing myself to a future that doesn’t include the warehouse and Mr. Mendoza or even a night-school course in public speaking” (scene VI, p. 772) to justify his decision he claims to be, “The bastard son of a bastard! See how he grins? And he's been absent going on sixteen years!” (p. 773).
Moreover, we witness his liminal transition from a quiet and caring person to speaking furiously with his mother when going out to a movie at late night (scene III, pp. 759-760):
I’m going to opium dens! Yes, opium dens, dens of vice and criminals’ hangouts, Mother. I’ve joined the Hogan Gang, I’m a hired assassin, …! They call me Killer, Killer Wingfield, I’m leading a double-life, a simple, honest warehouse worker by day, by night a dynamic czar of the underworld, Mother. I go to gambling casinos; I spin away fortunes on the roulette table!
Tom’s liminal state is demonstrated by exhibiting his worst frustration and displeasure with his life: “For sixty-five dollars a month I give up all that I dream of doing and being ever!” (p. 759), and he shouts at his mother, “You’ll go up, up on a broomstick, over Blue Mountain with seventeen gentlemen callers! You ugly - babbling old – witch” (p. 760). At the beginning of scene IV, Tom then realizes his blunder and says, “Mother. I - I apologize, Mother” (p. 762). Also, his poetic features are illustrated when Jim calls him “Shakespeare” (scene VI, p. 768).
Laura embodies extreme liminality, caught between societal expectations and personal limitations. She is terribly shy (see scene VI, p. 771), an old-fashioned type of girl (p. 776) who intensifies in Jim’s presence, evident as she “clenches her hand to her lips, to hold back a shuddering sob” (scene VI, p. 774). Economic hardships and family pressures deepen her sense of isolation, reinforcing her reliance on the glass menagerie, which symbolizes her fragility and detachment from reality. The Great Depression shapes her emotional struggles, highlighting both her vulnerability and inability to transition into adulthood (Bray, 1999). She realizes her worth when she states in scene 1:
I'm just not popular like you were in Blue Mountain ...
[Tom utters another groan. LAURA glances at him with a faint,
apologetic smile. Her voice catching a little.]
Mother's afraid I'm going to be an old maid.
Unlike Amanda and Tom, Laura is timid and reticent and falls into liminal space between the world of illusions, calling “Blue Roses” (scene II, p. 756; scene VII, p. 776), and her “glass animals” to “a nice, ordinary young man” (p. 757). The transition from the pre-liminal to the mid-liminal stage is illustrated when she visits “… art museum and the bird houses at the Zoo, I visited the penguins every day! … spending most of my afternoons in the Jewel Box, that big glass house where they raise the tropical flowers” (p. 756). Furthermore, her memory brings some relief to her shy remorseful life when Jim asks if she knows her and she responds, “When I heard your name, I thought it was probably you” (scene VII, p. 777). She compliments him on his song “Yes, yes - beautifully - beautifully!” (p. 778).
Laura’s journey through liminal spaces is depicted at the start when she is “out of school for a while with pleurosis,” which causes her to become more reserved, as Jim observes, saying, “I remember you sort of stuck by yourself.” However, Jim’s presence helps her open up, with her shyness gradually fading in his warmth, as described: “Laura’s shyness is dissolving in his warmth” (scene VII, p. 777), and later, “even her shyness fades in her complete sense of wonder” (p. 779). Her psychological and emotional transitions from introvert to extrovert are reflected in Jim’s words: “I’m glad to see that you have a sense of humor. You know – you’re - well - very different! Surprisingly different from anyone else I know!” (p. 781). People of her nature need a good companion to feel at home. Jim’s arguments bring her a smile and a glimpse of hope when he says in scene VII (p. 781):
I wish that you were my sister. I’d teach you to have some confidence in yourself. The different people are not like other people, but being different is nothing to be ashamed of. Because other people are not such wonderful people. They’re one hundred times one thousand. You're one times one! They walk all over the earth. You just stay here. They’re common as - weeds, -but -you - well, you're - Blue Roses!
Furthermore, Jim boosts her morale: “Somebody needs to build your confidence up and make you proud instead of shy and turning away and - blushing - Somebody -ought to - Ought to - kiss you, Laura!” (p. 781). Jim’s transitions from liminal to post-liminal are illustrated in this way: “Being in love has made -a new man of me!... Love is something that - changes the whole world, Laura!” (p. 782). Nevertheless, the meeting turned out to be awful for Laura when Jim disclosed his love for Betty: “Things have a way of turning out so badly!” (p. 782). “Now that we cannot hear the mother’s speech, her silliness is gone, and she has dignity and tragic beauty. LAURA’s dark hair hides her face until at the end of the speech she lifts it to smile at her mother” (p. 784).
This study expands on existing critiques of Williams’ depiction of disillusionment by applying liminality as a structured framework to analyze character struggles. While past research has examined themes of nostalgia, memory, and escapism, this analysis emphasizes how the characters’ inability to transition reflects deeper existential dilemmas. By comparing TGM to other literary works that explore liminal states, this study underscores its unique portrayal of unresolved transformation. Unlike conventional bildungsroman narratives, where protagonists undergo personal development through rites of passage, Williams’ characters remain psychologically trapped, reinforcing the play’s tragic tone. This perspective offers a fresh lens on incomplete transitions in modern drama, setting this study apart from those focusing mainly on familial tensions and social realism.
By integrating anthropological and psychological theories of liminality, this research enhances the understanding of TGM’s narrative and character development. While previous studies have explored escapism and nostalgia, this study provides a refined interpretation of the characters’ transitional struggles. The findings situate the play within a broader literary discussion on liminality, showcasing Williams’ innovative approach to portraying psychological fragmentation in post-war America. By systematically applying liminal analysis, this study contributes to academic discourse on identity, transformation, and societal disillusionment in literature, reinforcing the importance of liminality as a tool for examining unresolved transitions in modern drama.
DISCUSSION
TGM presents a nuanced exploration of familial struggle and individual aspiration, depicting the liminal experiences of the Wingfield family within the socioeconomic instability of post-Great Depression America. Unlike contemporary works that romanticize resilience, Williams exposes the psychological disintegration and cultural uncertainty experienced by marginalized individuals navigating personal and societal transitions. The play’s structural framework embodies liminality, with Tom serving as both narrator and character, creating a metatheatrical space that blurs boundaries between memory, reality, and performance. This aligns with Turner’s concept of liminoid experiences, where conventional social structures are suspended, prompting a re-evaluation of familial and societal norms (Horvath et al., 2015). Tom’s opening statement, “Yes, I have tricks in my pocket” (scene I, p. 752), establishes the play’s central theme of illusion and transition, immediately placing the audience in a liminal interpretive framework.
Amanda Wingfield exemplifies cultural and psychological liminality, oscillating between nostalgic recollections of her Southern belle past and the harsh realities of economic survival. Her predicament aligns with van Gennep’s “rites of passage,” reflecting a struggle between past identity and present adversity. Her lament, “What is there left but dependency all our lives?” (scene II, p. 757), encapsulates the anxiety of a generation confronting socioeconomic upheaval. While Amanda’s liminal state has been frequently analyzed in existing scholarship, this study extends the discussion by situating her oscillations between illusion and reality within a structured liminal framework rather than just psychological denial (Bray, 1999; Sharma, 2023a).
Laura, often overshadowed in analyses compared to Amanda and Tom, embodies the most profound state of liminality in the play. Her physical disability and extreme shyness render her an outsider, driving her into an isolated existence centered on her glass menagerie, which serves as both a metaphor and a physical manifestation of her fragile psychological state. Unlike Amanda and Tom, whose liminal struggles involve societal and familial obligations, Laura’s liminality is rooted in personal and social exclusion. Her encounter with Jim represents a fleeting moment of potential transition, yet his revelation about his engagement ultimately reinforces her entrapment in liminality. The breaking of the glass unicorn serves as a symbolic act, shattering Laura’s illusions and reaffirming her position in an unresolved transitional state. This deepens the argument that Laura’s character is not merely fragile but a representation of liminal stasis, a perspective less explored in prior studies (Horvath et al., 2015; Saleh et al., 2023).
Williams’ exploration of liminality significantly diverges from contemporary works such as Arthur Miller’s Death of a Salesman, which directly critiques the American Dream through external failures. In contrast, Williams employs psychological and intimate storytelling, portraying liminality as an internalized struggle rather than direct social commentary. The Wingfield family’s challenges transcend mere economic hardship, delving into existential and emotional liminality, making Williams’ approach more aligned with modernist depictions of fractured identities. The broader historical context of post-war societal transformation further enriches this analysis. Economic instability, shifting gender roles, and the disintegration of traditional family structures mirror the psychological fragmentation of the Wingfield family, positioning TGM within a broader discourse on post-war American liminality (Sharma, 2023a).
The characters’ transitions align with van Gennep’s three-stage model of separation, liminality, and reintegration, yet Williams subverts these expectations by leaving them in a perpetual state of transition. Unlike conventional narratives that provide clear resolutions, TGM resists closure, reflecting the uncertainties of mid-twentieth-century America. Tom’s departure does not symbolize transformation, but rather continued psychological entrapment, reinforcing the play’s tragic structure (Bray, 1999).
Williams’ (1971, 1999) depiction of unresolved liminality in TGM contrasts with other American dramatists who engage with similar themes of existential uncertainty. Albee’s (1962) Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf similarly portrays characters trapped in illusion and psychological games, yet unlike TGM, Albee’s play escalates into verbal violence rather than passive stagnation. Mamet’s (1976) American Buffalo and Shepard’s (2006) Buried Child further explore liminal spaces, particularly through the breakdown of the American Dream. Unlike Shepard’s use of physical violence and absurdity to depict family disintegration, Williams relies on internalized psychological conflict, making his portrayal of liminality uniquely introspective—Williams introduces a new genre, “plastic theater,” which amplifies the play’s liminal qualities by disrupting traditional theatrical realism (Sharma, 2023a). Daly (1990) previously examined how canonical American writers used liminal states to critique cultural rigidity, offering a useful bridge between Turner’s anthropology and literary studies. The use of memory, perception, and psychological depth transforms the play into an experiential liminal space, rather than a purely linear narrative. This innovation solidifies Williams’ contribution to American theater, positioning him alongside literary pioneers such as Emerson, Hawthorne, and Whitman (Sharma, 2023b; 2023c). The final scene, where Amanda, Tom, and Laura remain in unresolved liminality, marks Williams’ complete rejection of traditional narrative closure. The play’s lasting impact, as noted in previous scholarship (Horvath et al., 2015; Kerstin, 2020; Saleh et al., 2023), underscores its significance as a meditation on human vulnerability, aspiration, and existential uncertainty.
Thus, TGM operates beyond a simple family drama, serving as a theatrical representation of liminality. The play’s unresolved conflicts mirror the broader psychological and cultural disorientation of its era. By integrating anthropological, psychological, and literary theories, this study reinforces the enduring relevance of liminality in understanding character development, identity crises, and social transformation in modern drama. TGM shows how liminality operates not just as a theoretical construct but as a lived experience embedded in the intricate psychological and social dynamics of mid-20th-century American drama.
CONCLUSION
This study demonstrates how liminality operates as a critical framework for character development in TGM, illustrating how Amanda, Tom, and Laura remain trapped in transitional states. Unlike previous research, this study provides a structured application of van Gennep’s and Turner’s theories, revealing how Williams’ characters fail to progress through liminal stages, reinforcing the play’s tragic structure. By positioning liminality as a dynamic interpretive tool, this research contributes to literary scholarship on character transformation, social transition, and psychological disillusionment in modern drama. Thomassen (2009) emphasizes the importance of interpreting liminality not merely as a transitional phase but as a reflection of deeper existential ambiguity, a viewpoint that captures the unresolved fates of Amanda, Tom, and Laura.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Future research could explore liminal theory in other dramatic works, particularly those from similar historical periods, and conduct comparative analyses of liminal experiences across different cultural and literary contexts. Additionally, scholars may examine the intersections of liminality with gender studies, postcolonial theory, and disability studies, providing deeper insight into the sociopolitical implications of liminal spaces. Expanding the concept of liminality in contemporary dramatic and narrative forms would further enrich the discussion. This study also challenges traditional character development arcs, presenting liminality as a recurring process rather than a linear progression. Moreover, Williams’ plastic theater technique, which merges reality and illusion, could be analyzed as a liminal space in dramatic innovation. By demonstrating how liminality produces narrative tension and psychological depth, this research contributes to broader literary discussions on the relationship between individual transformation and societal structures. Ultimately, this study establishes liminality as a critical methodology in literary analysis, providing a framework for understanding how individuals navigate social and psychological thresholds in times of uncertainty and transition.
REFERENCES
Albee, E. (1962). Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? London: Penguin.
Andrews, H., & Roberts, L. (2014). Liminality. In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences (pp. 3-15). Elsevier.
Blows, E., Bird, B., Seymour, J., & Cox, K. (2012). Liminality as a framework for understanding the experience of cancer survivorship: A literature review. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 68(10), 2155–2164.
Bray, R. (1999). Introduction in The Glass Menagerie. New Directions. https://hama-univ.edu.sy/newsites/humanities/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/%20Glass-Menagerie-PDFDrive-.pdf
Bunting, J. (2025). What is liminality and why does your story need it? The Write Practice. https://thewritepractice.com/liminality-story/
Crane, J., & Abbott, M. L. (2020). Mind the gap: The relationship between liminality, learning and leaving in pre-registration nurse education. Nurse Education in Practice, 50, 102952. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2020.102952
Daly, R. (1990). Liminality and fiction in Cooper, Hawthorne, Cather, and Fitzgerald. In K. M. Ashley (Ed.), Victor Turner and the construction of cultural criticism: Between literature and anthropology (pp. 70-85). Indiana University Press.
Hammer, J. (2017). Crossing limits: Liminality and transgression in contemporary Scottish fiction [Unpublished Doctoral dissertation]. The University of Edinburgh. https://era.ed.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1842/25923/Hammer2017.pdf
Hertzberger, H. (1991). Lessons for students in architecture (4th ed.). 010 Publishers.
Horvath, A., Thomassen, B., & Wydra, H. (Eds.). (2015). Breaking boundaries: Varieties of liminality. Berghahn Books.
Gaiman, N. (2001). American Gods. New York: Harper Collins Publishers.
Kerstin. (2020, March 12). Liminality in literature: The concept of liminality and liminal beings. Pricify. https://www.pricify.co/index.php/2020/03/12/liminality-in-literature-the-concept-of-liminality-and-liminal-beings/
Lacy, D. C. (2019). Expanding the definition of liminality: Speculative fiction as an exploration of new boundaries (Master's thesis). University of New Orleans.
Leibing, A., Guberman, N., & Wiles, J. (2016). Liminal homes: Older people, loss of capacities, and the present future of living spaces. Journal of Aging Studies, 37, 10–19.
McConnell, F. (2017). Liminal geopolitics: The subjectivity and spatiality of diplomacy at the margins. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 42(1), 139–152.
Mamet, D. (1976). American Buffalo. New York: Grove Press.
Neumann, I. (2012). Introduction to the forum on liminality. Review of International Studies, 38, 473-479.
Saleh, L., Saleh, S., & Alzoubi, M. F. I. (2023). At the dawn of existence: Aspects of liminality in Sulayman Al Bassam’s Petrol Station. Jordan Journal of Modern Languages and Literatures, 15(1), 183-198. https://doi.org/10.47012/jjmll.15.1.10
Sharma, V. (2023a). Memory, media, and modernity in Tennessee Williams’ The Glass Menagerie: A twenty-first century perspective. Studies in Media and Communication, 11(6), 181-187. https://doi.org/10.11114/smc.v11i6.6194
Sharma, V. (2023b). Hawthorne’s The Scarlet Letter, a product of Puritanism or a reaction against it: A 21st-century critical perspective. World Journal of English Language, 13(5), 475-481. https://doi.org/10.5430/wjel.v13n5p475
Sharma, V. (2023c). Melville’s Ahab in Moby Dick and R K Narayan’s Vasu in The Man-eater of Malgudi: A quest to enter a “new world”. Journal Ilmiah Peuradeun, 11(2), 747-762. https://doi.org/10.26811/peuradeun.v11i2.917
Shepard, S. (2006). Buried Child (Rev. ed.). Vintage.
Shields, R. (2013). Places on the margin: Alternative geographies of modernity. Routledge.
Skjoldager-Nielsen, K., & Edelman, J. (2014). Liminality. Ecumenica, 7(1-2). https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:771489/FULLTEXT01.pdf
Squier, S. M. (2004). Liminal lives: Imagining the human at the frontiers of biomedicine. Duke University Press.
Stenner, P. (2018). Liminality and experience: A transdisciplinary approach to the psychosocial. Springer.
Suboticki, I., & Sørensen, K. H. (2021). Liminal technologies: Exploring the temporalities and struggles in efforts to develop a Belgrade metro. The Sociological Review, 69(1), 156-173. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038026120918166
Szakolczai, A. (2009). Liminality and experience: Structuring transitory situations and transformative events. International Political Anthropology, 2(1), 141–172.
Taylor-Alexander, A., Dove, E. S., Fletcher, I., Mitra, A. G., McMillan, C., & Laurie, G. (2016). Beyond regulatory compression: Confronting the liminal spaces of health research regulation. Law, Innovation and Technology, 8(2), 149–176.
Thomassen, B. (2009). The uses and meanings of liminality. International Political Anthropology, 2(1), 5–27.
Thomassen, B. (2016). Liminality and the modern: Living through the in-between. Ashgate.
Turner, V. (1967). The Forest of Symbols. Cornell University Press.
Turner, V. W. (1974). Liminal to liminoid, in play, flow, and ritual: An essay in comparative symbology. Rice Institute Pamphlet - Rice University Studies, 60, 53-89.
Van Gennep, A. (1909). Les rites de passage. E. Nourry, Éditeur.
Williams, T. (1971). The theatre of Tennessee Williams, vol. 1. New Directions.
Williams, T. (1999). The Glass Menagerie. New Directions.