Notes over Clifford Geertz

Born in 1926, Clifford Geertz was an Anthropologist at the Institute of Advanced Study
in Princeton, N.J. His collection of essays published in the middle to late 70’s, The
Interpretation of Cultures, helped to redefine what exactly what Anthropologists should
be looking for, especially in the works of ethnography and analysis. He is primarily
concerned with the idea of culture as seen through complex symbolism of a society and
its actions. The idea is too look deeper, beyond the surface to grasp at the complex
‘webs’ of human society.

The Concept of ‘Thick Description’

In traditional ethnography, (around the mid 70’s) the going trend of ethnography was to
simply observe and detail every action in an attempt to come to understand the deeper
meanings behind the ritual or action observed. Yet simply looking at one isolated event
and attempting to interpret what that means in the background of a whole society is futile
according to Geertz. What is needed is a deeper understanding of the whole and not the
piece.

Example is given of the meaning of a wink. Can one tell the difference between the
nervous tick of a winking eye, or the purposeful conveyance of communication? What if,
upon observing one man wink to another, a third party mimics the wink in a mocking
fashion- could an outsider be able to detail the complex meanings behind each individual
action, even though they might appear on surface to be almost exactly the same action?
Societal actions are complex, containing many meanings fused or knotted together to
create a meaningful message.

Culture is not a power, it is a context. Thus “Cultural Analysis is guessing at

meanings, assessing the guesses, and drawing explanatory conclusions from the
better guesses, not discovering the Content of Meaning and mapping out its bodiless
landscape.” – Geertz.

Cultural Theory is not its own master and it cannot be predictive. It only provides an
explanation of the how and why, but cannot make future predictions on how a society
will react.

Danger of Generalizations

At first, Anthropology saw humanity, in its core being, as the same. Different peoples
may have different traditions and rituals, yet stripped away of these differences; all men
are the same creatures. This view is completely false according to Geertz. There are no
cultural universals, save those of the base existence.

Culture should not be seen as complexes of concrete behavior patterns- customs, usages,
traditions, and habit clusters- but as a set of control mechanisms- plans, recipes, rules,
and instructions- for the governing of behavior. Man is the animal most desperate for this
ordering of his behavior.

Development and Role of Culture

There is a view that culture suddenly exploded on the scene of man. Geertz states that
this is false, and attempts to show how cultural development closely followed
physiological development. At first, our ancestors began to use crude tools to access
greater stores of food, and the continual use of these tools stimulated the development of
greater motor skills and the accompanying brain growth necessary to develop those skills.

The rise of these skills allowed development of language, social groups, etc… After the
ending of the Ice Age, the organic development of man slowed to a crawl, but the cultural
development began to really take off. As our nervous system developed to greater
degrees, the sensory input function increased, but our automatic responses become more
and more self-regulated. Our instinct is subverted by the intellect. As such, culturally
Man seeks stimulation of the mind and develops complex relationships to stimulate his
development.

Culture provides the link between what men are capable of becoming and what they
actually become.

Religion in Culture

Geertz defines Religion as “A system of symbols which acts to establish powerful,

pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by formulating conceptions of
a general order of existence and clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality
that the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic.”

Religion uses ritual to celebrate and justify its worldview upon a particular culture. This
can be seen in Religious Ceremonies, but also in other displays of cultural expression. In
particular, however, Religion seeks to explain the world around a culture- they “spread
beyond their specifically metaphysical contexts to provide a framework of general ideas
in terms of which a wide range of experience- intellectual, emotional, and moral- can be
given meaningful form.” Religion uses powerful symbols in practice, and understanding
how these symbols permeate the culture is of prime importance for the Anthropologist.
1. First, analysis of system of meanings embodied in the symbols that make up
the religion proper
2. Relate these systems to socio-structure and psychological processes.

Ideology as a Cultural System

Ideology draws upon the Social Sciences to justify its existence. But when these
Sciences seek only selective questions, or target only narrow problems for analysis, then
the Ideology it seeks to uphold becomes more and more detached from the reality of the
situation. Ideology also seeks to over-exaggerate those social realities recognized. Thus,
the discrepancy between the real and ‘realized’ becomes further strained.

What explanation does Ideology take?

1. Cathartic Explanation- Ideology seeks to explain current situation through the
placement of problems on a target enemy. The communists or the Jews are
good examples of targeted populations.
2. Solidarity Explanation- seeks to bind a social group together. Think of the
symbols associated with the idea of the “South” and you see Solidarity.
3. Advocatory Explanation- the Ideology establishes problems to be solved,
takes a definite side, and enacts a plan of action.

We must understand where Ideologies come from, their symbols used, and force these
Ideologies to come to terms with the real situation.

Nationalism
In modern day, nationalism is a method for populations to realize their independence. It
is a powerful advocator and propagator of culture and ideology, via national language,
definition of ethnic makeup, and establishment of new identity.

Rulers must present themselves as powerful expressions of force in contemporary social

life. Peoples of these new states seek to establish themselves as recognized actors whose
wishes and views matter on the world scene, as well as establish a modern state. The
conflict created by these two motivations is the driving force of evolution of the state.

Thus, the state seeks to tie as many citizens into the well being of such a state. Civil
Service, police, education- all of these institutions seek to not only grow the state but also
perpetuate it. Race, language, region, religion, and custom all fit together.

If a group of peoples feel threatened, because they cannot express their meaningful
wishes, they will tend to react, sometimes violently, against the state. This conflict arises
mostly over language of instruction in educational institutions.

Jeremy Antley
jantley@gmail.com