Communitas & Marginality
Victor Turner (1969, pp. 125–130) describes how marginalized groups can often function as carriers of a more “open morality,” in contrast to the more bounded and norm-driven morality that characterizes privileged and structured groups. At the same time, he emphasizes that these positions are not fixed, but that individuals may occupy both privileged and marginalized positions depending on context.
As a passing trans man, I have a complex relationship to the category of gender, in which I belong to a privileged group in some contexts and a marginalized one in others. In terms of social gender, I am read as male in most situations, which grants me access to privileges in relation to those who are read as women. At the same time, as a trans person, I belong to a marginalized group in relation to cis people.
Because I pass as male in everyday life, I have gradually become accustomed to several of the advantages this entails. Having been raised and socialized as a woman, I may have a different awareness of these privileges than many cis men, but I can also honestly – and not without discomfort – acknowledge that I have, in many cases, adapted to them. This can involve seemingly small things, such as being able to walk alone down a dark street without feeling the same fear as before. If I see a woman walking alone ahead of me, it may take a moment before I realize that I am the one who might be perceived as a potential threat. In conversations, I also notice that I am more likely to be listened to and interrupted less than before. There are likely many situations in which I am assumed to be the norm without even reflecting on it. In these contexts, morality can appear more self-evident and less questioned – an example of what Turner describes as a more closed morality.
At the same time, my position as a trans man adds another dimension. In certain contexts, my body and identity become sources of vulnerability. Gender-segregated changing rooms are a clear example, where my body deviates from the normative male body and becomes visible in ways that break expectations. Another area is healthcare. Due to my legal gender, I am not automatically included in screening programs that are relevant to my anatomy, which means I must take initiative myself. Here, it becomes clear how the system is structured around a cisnormativity that does not accommodate my situation.
At the same time, this marginalized position also involves experiences of what Turner describes as a more open morality. In encounters with other trans people, especially in spaces that exist outside formal structures, I often experience greater flexibility around categories, identities, and bodies. Gender norms become less rigid, and there is a greater acceptance of variation and complexity. This openness means that morality is less based on fixed rules and more on context, relationships, and mutual understanding.
To further explore Turner’s argument, I also reflect on a marginalized group that I do not belong to, namely cis women in feminist and witchcraft-related spaces. These groups often emerge in opposition to patriarchal structures and therefore carry a clear ambition to develop more open and inclusive moral systems. This can be seen, for example, in how they challenge gender roles, create alternative spiritual practices, and value experiential knowledge over fixed doctrines.
At the same time, in these contexts I have also observed how new norms can emerge, where cis female bodies and experiences become an implicit point of reference. Despite an explicitly trans-inclusive value framework, practices can sometimes be shaped by assumptions about bodies, cycles, or shared experiences that do not fully include trans people. Here, I see how a group striving toward open morality may simultaneously develop more closed structures in practice.
My own position within these spaces is therefore complex. In groups dominated by cis women, I am both privileged, by being read as male, and marginalized, as a trans person. This makes it difficult to clearly situate myself as either inside or outside the group. It has also led me to reflect on my own moral positioning. At times, I can see a tendency toward a more restrictive stance, where I seek a defined place within a space that may not fully be mine. At other times, I may lean toward a more boundless stance, attempting to transcend categories without always accounting for the experiences that shape the group.
The conclusions I draw are based on my lived experiences of moving between these positions, as well as reflections on how different contexts function in practice rather than in theory. For me, this has led to a greater awareness of how both open and closed moralities can coexist within the same group, and even within the same individual.
This also shapes my own spiritual practice. Within paganism and other spiritual contexts, where questions of body, identity, and tradition are often present, it becomes important for me to remain aware of these dynamics. I need to be able to navigate existing structures while also remaining open to what exists outside of them. In this way, Turner’s concepts become not only theoretical tools, but also practical frameworks for understanding my place in relation to others.
Sources
Turner, V.W. (1969) The ritual process: structure and anti-structure. Aldine Publishing (The Lewis Henry Morgan lectures, 1966).