Clifford Geertz 1926-
1926 Born San Francisco
1950 BA Antioch College
Ohio studying English and
Philosophy
1950 Meets Margaret
Mead and decides enrolls in
anthropology at Harvard
1952-54 to Java as part of a
research team with the
explicit goal of improving
economic growth
1956 PhD. on religion and
social change in Java
1960 The Religion of Java
1963 Peddlers and Princes
•a study in how religion plays
a role in adopting to economic
change
1963 Agricultural Involution
•a macro-economic
examination of Indonesia’s
economic problems
1965 The Social History of an
Indonesian Town
•A synthesis of political and
economic development in the
community from its mid
19tyh century establishment
to the late 1950s.
1960-70, the University of Chicago
1965 until the early 1970s, periodic fieldwork in Sefrou
Morocco.
1968 Islam Observed
1973 The Interpretation of Cultures
1983 Local Knowledge:
Further essays in
interpretive
anthropology
1988 Works and lives:
The anthropologist as
author.
Thick Description Toward and
Interpretive Theory of Culture
“The concept of culture I espouse…is
essentially a semiotic one. Believing, with
Max Weber, that man is an animal
suspended in webs of significance he
himself has spun, I take cultures to be those
webs, and the analysis of it to be therefore
not an experimental science in search of
law, but an interpretive one in search of
meaning”. (Geertz 1973:5)
Geertz’ Interpretive Anthropology:
PREMISE: “man is an animal suspended in webs of
significance he himself has spun” and our name for
those webs is culture
CONCLUSION: “the analysis of it therefore is not an
experimental science in search of law but an
interpretive one in search of meaning”
THICK DESCRIPTION
A wink or a twitch
“between what Ryle calls the "thin description"
of what the rehearser (parodist, winker, twitcher .
. .) is doing (“rapidly contracting his right
eyelids”) and The "thick description" of what he
is doing ("practicing a burlesque of a friend
faking a wink to deceive an innocent into thinking
a conspiracy is in motion") lies the object of
ethnography: a stratified hierarchy of meaningful
structures in terms of which twitches, winks, fakewinks, parodies, rehearsals of parodies are
produced, perceived, and interpreted
Unraveling and identifying those context and
meanings requires “thick description:.
Geertz argues that this is precisely what
ethnographic writing does
Unlike many postmodernists (for whom there
can be no theory), Geertz seeks to situate
interpretive or semiotic anthropology in an
historical matrix (harking back to Weber and
Sapir)...
“Anthropological writings are themselves
interpretations, and second and third-order
ones to boot. (By definition, only a ‘native’
makes first-order ones: it’s his culture).
They are, thus, fictions; fictions in the sense
that they are ‘something made’, ‘something
fashioned... not that they are false...”
Case example: the story of Cohen, as
recounted by Cohen in 1965.
PLAYERS & CULTURAL CONCEPTS
1. Cohen — Jewish trader (spoke Thamazighth [Berber],
Arabic and French) with a shop near Sefru
2. Capitaine Dumari — French commander of the town of
Sefru and its environs
3. Marmusha (Imarmushen) — Transhumant Berber tribe of
the Middle Atlas, in 1912 unpacified by the French
* * *
mezrag: pact in an inter-tribal code of trading honor, in areas of
siba (highland Berber tribes, beyond government control) —
those linked by such a pact can move and trade unmolested and
their deals will be enforced by the shaikhs of the tribes
‘ār: indemnity for a wrong (blood feud, or violation of a mezrag
pact) — failure to pay reflects shame on the shaikh
THE STORY OF COHEN
 Date: 1912. French control lowland Morocco. Seek to pacify
Berber tribes of the Middle Atlas. To this end, prohibit mezrag.
 Cohen’s shop near Sefru robbed. Cohen is injured, robbed, &
2 guests killed by a raiding party of Marmusha tribesmen
 Cohen asks Dumari’s permission to go to Marmusha shaikh &
claim the ‘ār. Dumari can’t give written permission but gives
verbal permission: “If you get killed, it’s your problem.”
 Marmusha chief agrees Cohen has ‘ār coming to him; goes
with Cohen & group of henchmen & collects an indemnity of
500 sheep from the clan of the thieves/murderers
 Cohen passes by a French fort on Marmusha border with his
500 sheep and is stopped by the commandant. When asked
what his sheep are, he says “they’re my ‘ār.” Commandant
concludes he is a spy and imprisons him.
Ait Mgild tents, Middle Atlas
Geertz’ anthropological interpretation of this story = the
“sorting out of the structure[s] of signification...
distinguishing three unlike frames of interpretation
(Jewish, Berber, French)... and why in a particular
circumstance “their copresence produced a situation in
which systematic misunderstanding reduced traditional
form to social farce... i.e. what tripped Cohen up.
“...ethnography is thick description. What
the ethnographer is in fact faced with —
except when (as of course, he must do) he is
pursuing the more automatized routines of
data collection — is a multiplicity of
complex conceptual structures, many of
them superimposed upon or knotted into one
another, which are at once strange,
irregular, and inexplicit, and which he must
contrive somehow first to grasp and then to
render...
“Doing ethnography is like trying to
read (in the sense of constructing a
reading of) a manuscript-foreign,
faded, full of ellipses, incoherencies,
suspicious emendations, and
tendentious commentaries, but written
not in conventional graphs of sound
but in transient examples of shaped
behaviour”. (1973:10)”
What Culture is Not
A semiotic emphasis does not give priority to
technology or to any other conception of the
nature/culture interface
culture does not exist in some superorganic realm
subject to forces and objectives of its own
culture cannot be reified.
culture is Neither “brute behaviour” or “mental
construct” subject to schematic analyses or
reducibility to ethnographic algorithms.
What Culture is
Culture consists of socially established structures of
meaning, with which people communicate; it is
inseparable from symbolic social discourse
Culture is Public because “meaning is,” and systems of
meanings are what produce culture, they are the
collective property of a particular people
Culture is Symbolic
Culture is Communication
Meaning is contextual
Culture is Complex
Culture is an assemblage of texts
Culture is the fabric of meaning in terms of which
human beings interpret their experience and guide
their action; social structure is the form that action
takes, the actually existing network of social
relations. Culture and social structure are then but
different abstraction from the same phenomena.
(Geertz 1973:145).
the method of the “interpretive
anthropologist” (who accepts a semiotic view
of culture) is similar to the method of literary
critique analyzing a text
Javanese Funeral.
“Ritual and Social Change : A Javanese Example (1957)
Funeral parade
religion in Java is a syncretic mix of Islam and Hinduism
overlain on an indigenous SE Asian animism
Hindu gods and goddesses, Moslem prophets and saints,
and local spirits and demons all found a proper place
 This balance has been
upset increasingly during
the 20th century as
conservative Islamic
religious nationalism
crystallized in opposition
to a secular, Marxist
nationalism which
appealed to pre-Islamic,
Hinduist-animist
“indigenous” religions
In post-independence Indonesia, political parties formed
along these dividing lines:
Masjumi became the conservative Islamic party and
Permai, the anti-Islamic mix of Marxism and nativism.
The mood of a Javanese funeral is not one of
hysterical bereavement, unrestrained sobbing, or even
of formalized cries of grief for the deceased’s
departure (1973:154).
Rather, it is a calm, undemonstrative, almost languid
letting go, a brief ritualized relinquishment of a
relationship no longer possible
This willed serenity and detachment depends on the
smooth execution of a proper ceremony that seamlessly
combines Islamic, Hindu and indigenous beliefs and
rituals. Javanese believe that it is the suddenness of
emotional turmoil that causes damage
But in this particular case, the dead boy was from a
household loosely affiliated with the Permai party, and when
the Islamic village religious leader was called to direct the
ceremony, he refused citing the presence of a Permai political
poster on the door and arguing that it was inappropriate for
him to perform the ceremony of “another” religion.
At that moment the self-willed and culturally defined
composure surrounding the death-unraveled
Geertz describes the emotional chaos that ensued, tracing
its roots to a central ambiguity: religious symbols had
become political symbols and vice-versa, which combined
sacred and profane and created “an incongruity between the
cultural framework of meaning and the patterning of social
interaction
It’s an example of thick description
Nothing about this case, its selection, its historical
background, the political dimensions, the cultural
expectations, the motives of distraught family and
neighbors, none can be explained except by
exposing “… a multiplicity of conceptual structures,
many of them superimposed upon or knotted into
one another, which are at once strange irregular,
and inexplicit, and which the anthropologists must
contrive to somehow first to grasp and then to
render” (1973:10).
Geertz distinguishes the experiences –nearer native
point of view from the experience-distant realm of
social theorists and argues that the ethnographer’s
task is to explicate the links between the two.
The presentation of ethnographic interpretations as
observed facts simply reflects the selection of a genre,
not an epistemological reality
His method involves a case study ( a better sense
than ethnography which implies a traditionally
formatted overview of a culture) of an extrapolation
of meaning system ie. Culture, from a localized place
or event, usually in essay format
Deep Play: The Balinese Cockfight
It is not just cocks that are fighting but men
Cocks are masculine symbols
The word cock is used metaphorically to mean bachelor,
lady-killer, tough guy etc
The Balinese
cockfight, is
fundamentally a
dramatization
of status
concerns.
nothing really
happens at a
cockfight.
The conflicts, alliances, wins and losses are all symbolic of
things that happen elsewhere.
In the cockfight all action is symbolic.
The real causes lie elsewhere, presumably in material
circumstances.
Questions
If cultural knowledge is inherently interpretive, how can
we invalidate the truth of an interpretation since there are
potentially as many true interpretations as there are
members of a culture?
I.e. If ethnography is interpretation how can we know that
interpretation is correct.
Most of us cannot go to Bali or northern Morocco and
check the interpretation
We need some other ways to evaluate the ethnographer’s
claims but what are they?
In traditional ethnographies we could
search for various validation points:
is the ethnographer fluent in the local language,
did she live in the culture for an extended period
was he or she methodical or biased in their
observations?
Were the informants representative of a larger
culture?
if all such claims are equally valid, then the
most anthropology can hope for is to create a
rich documentary of multiple interpretations,
none denied and none privileged.
This means that it cannot be a science since it
cannot generalize from truth statements or
tests the statements against empirical data; the
nature of culture precludes this
Geertz triggered a profound rethinking of the
anthropological enterprise
forced anthropologists to become aware of the cultural
contexts they interpret and the ethnographic texts they create.
He is also touched off a major debate in about the
fundamental nature of anthropology
The Interpretation of Cultures was catalyst for a debate in
anthropology
What is the nature of culture?
How is it distinct from social structure?
How is culture understood?
What is the relationship between observer and observed?
how are interpretations constructed by the anthropologist who
works in turn from the interpretations of his informants
These Issues arose against a backdrop of a changing
world and world view
new Third World nations that emerged after WWII
interconnected world in which there were no
uncontacted societies living in Eden-like isolation
As independence movements transformed former
colonial subjects into new national citizens, intergroup
conflicts intensified as power was reconfigured and
new governments exerted their control
In the face of such change, the idea of functionally
integrated societies was difficult to maintain since
there were no isolated societies and little evidence of
equilibrium
The anthropologist’s role had
changed as well
Instead of studying an isolated society for a year or
two and returning to be the expert on their people,
anthropologists were working in communities and
institutions in the US, Europe and developing
countries among people who had their own story to
tell and means to tell the,
The relationships between anthropologists and
informants also changed, sparking a selfexamination of the nature of anthropological inquiry
POSTMODERNITY
THE ITERATION OF AN
ERA AFTER THE MODERN
Anthropological theory largely developed on the
assumption that the ‘Modern’ paradigm of society
mass, industrial societies
± democratic and pluralistic
was the evolutionary end-point of all social change
But by the mid ’80s many social theorists began to posit
a post-modern era
MODERNIZATION THEORY
IN SOCIOLOGY & ECONOMICS
primitive
traditional
taken-for-granted:
the ‘modern’ pattern
is the end-point of
social evolution
the notion that a
further pattern of
social economy
would follow was
unconsidered
premodern
modern
• predominantly urban society in a
democratic nation-state
• thriving industrial economy tweaked by
restrained government intervention
• secular education provided by state
• consumer economy
THE POSTMODERN ECONOMY
footloose capital — ability of corporations to relocate manufacturing
facilities rapidly and
cheaply
Volkswagen
assembly plant,
Cuernavaca,
Mexico
THE POSTMODERN ECONOMY
global reach of capital — multinational corporations diffuse similar
goods and tastes worldwide
MacDonald’s
in Beijing
THE POSTMODERN ECONOMY
relative cheapness of transport of goods makes distance increasingly irrelevant
Container
port, Kobe,
Japan
THE POSTMODERN ECONOMY
world transport networks erode political barriers
Convoys trucking goods to Baghdad at height of UN embargo
THE POSTMODERN ECONOMY
goods that
enhance individual
autonomy find
their way to the
remotest corners
of the Earth
THE POSTMODERN ECONOMY
worldwide shift from heavy industrial
economy to service and information
economy
in information economy, jobs can ‘come
to people’ (reversal of pattern of the
industrial age)
THE POSTMODERN ECONOMY
inexpensive communications equipment enable people to bypass
governments’ control over information
THE POSTMODERN ECONOMY
inexpensive travel allows global contact on a regular basis
CHEAP, ACCESSIBLE, COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGIES ERODE
ESTABLISHED AUTHORITY & EMPOWER
NEW & COMPETING FORMS OF AUTHORITY
mimeographed leaflets and posters — the ‘modern’
technology to attack state authority
cassette players and tapes — sermons of Imam Khomeni
diffused throughout Iran prior to fall of Shah’s regime
videocams — crucial in filming repressions during collapse
of USSR & DDR, Tienamin Square crackdown, Rodney King
beating
computers — major source of communication for all
counter-cultural and revolutionary movements in the world
THE POSTMODERN ECONOMY
worldwide diffusion & marketing of commodities
THE POSTMODERN ECONOMY
worldwide diffusion & marketing of commodities
Street
market,
Kumasi,
Ghana
THE POSTMODERN ECONOMY
worldwide ‘branding’ — corporate
logos on a par with ‘dominant
symbols’ of nation-states and
religions
KFC in Seoul
THE POSTMODERN PATTERN
• breakdown of the exclusive authority of centralized institutions
(state, church, universities)

coexistence of multiple authorities, each vying for the
assent of the individual
• cultural blending becomes routine — ‘fusion’ cuisine, music,
architecture, religion

the hallmark of the postmodern — the juxtaposition of
culturally disparate elements
THE POSTMODERN PATTERN
globalization — awareness everywhere of
other societies and countries
THE POSTMODERN PATTERN
international patterns of migration transform
First World societies
THE POSTMODERN PATTERN
new lines of diffusion change traditional
cultures
THE POSTMODERN PATTERN
new lines of diffusion transform ‘modern’
cultures
THE POSTMODERN PATTERN
new lines of diffusion transform ‘modern’
cultures
Postindustrial
Cleveland,
Ohio
THE POSTMODERN PATTERN
juxtaposition of disparate cultural elements
Young
Twareg
nobles,
Algeria
Tamanghasset,
THE POSTMODERN PATTERN
reinterpretation of old elements within new patterns
Mt. Shasta,
CA
IMPLICATIONS OF POSTMODERNITY
FOR THE STUDY OF SOCIETIES AND
CULTURES
1.
anthropological authority (along with all other
authorities) in question
2.
shift to ‘interpretive’ schemas, situated-knowledge
paradigms
3.
what’s left of the concept of culture?