Tyrone Schiff Cultural AnthropologyIt might sound a little unusual at first, but the different approaches toanthropological study are very similar to the nightly news. Each day, countless eventstake place that are covered by various news stations. The events are then compiled,interpreted, and framed in particular ways that tell one aspect of the story. Thus, it is plainto see that in broadcasting news stories to the world, the various stations will use differentmethods of telling the story. This analogy coincides with the range of theories associatedwith anthropology. Anthropology strives to retell the stories of cultural events. In order todo so, anthropologists employ a variety of techniques to best convey a concreteunderstanding. Therefore, anthropologists develop methodologies that are not all alike.This is not to say that one view is necessarily better than another, but rather, thesedifferent methods add to the richness and diversity of anthropological study. It would bevery interesting to therefore explore differing methods that go into unearthing the trueinterpretation of a cultural event. In order to illustrate anthropological styles workingdifferently, the writings of Clifford Geertz and Marshall Sahlins will be used. Geertz provides a Balinese cockfight, while Sahlins explores the adventures of Captain JamesCook. Though these are very different examples, anthropological theory andinterpretation are central to both accounts. However, in order to truly appreciate thevarious styles used by these anthropologists, it would be wise to gain an advancedcomprehension of what Geertz meant by “culture as an ensemble of text.” Furthermore, itis also important to unveil some limitations that result from this viewpoint. Ultimately,while Geertz and Sahlins are both intent on finding a deeper understanding of culture, theway they each get there is unique.1

Tyrone Schiff Cultural AnthropologyFirst, let us explore Geertz’s metaphor. In

The Interpretation of Cultures

, Geertz provides the following quotation to summarize his thoughts, “The culture of a people isan ensemble of texts, themselves ensembles, which the anthropologist strains to read over the shoulders of those to whom they properly belong” (Geertz 1973: 452). Though thequotation appears to be dense, it is really quite straightforward and makes it veryapparent as to how Geertz feels about culture. Geertz suggests that a culture itself forms atext that is written by the natives in a given studied region. The emphasis here is notwhether the natives know they are creating culture or not, but rather as event after eventis acted out, it adds to and evolves the meaning and understanding of culture. Geertz believes that the task of the anthropologist is therefore to dig up these events that cultureleft behind and work on interpreting them. Geertz has a special method that he employsin doing so. It is referred to as “thick description,” and we will investigate thisanthropological technique a little later. However, it is imperative to make the distinctionthat culture is the keystone in the relationship between the anthropologist and his work.The anthropologist is fueled by the underlying idea that culture is the force behindscripting and dictating events that transpire in a group.To expand upon this further, it ought to be noted that this metaphor given byGeertz reveals his stance on the irreducibility of culture. Geertz wants to attack culture asit is, peeling away at the many levels that exist. In this sense, if we were to compare the physical properties of an onion, which has the inherent ability for multiple layers to betorn away, it would be consistent with Geertz’s conceptualization of culture. To gain better understanding of the Geertz’s view of culture, let us look at how Geertz feels aboutanthropological interpretation.2

Tyrone Schiff Cultural AnthropologyGeertz considers the way that he looks at a cultural event in relation to a nativefrom a given cultural group. Initially, Geertz displays apprehension about anthropologicalaccounts when he says, “In short, 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)” (Geertz 1973, 15). Geertz reveals that it is almost impossible for anoutsider to interpret culture, because he or she is viewing all the activities as an outsider.Therefore, an incorrect interpretation can be made which can be a huge detriment to trueunderstanding (Geertz 1973: 16). The process of verifying an outsider’s ethnographicaccount also becomes very tenuous (Geertz 1973: 16). Geertz argues that it becomesalmost impossible to tell which accounts are better or worse than others, and the timespent debating this detracts from the overall goal of anthropology (Geertz 1973: 16). Thisis a justified argument, and something that scholars ought to be aware of when engagingin interpretation of cultural events. Yet, an even stronger case for interpretation is the factthat Geertz himself is doing it. Although there are some issues that arise in performingcultural interpretation, Geertz sees something inherently valuable to this exercise, so longas it is done properly. Geertz is a huge proponent of an interpretive method called “thick description.” Geertz suggests that so long as anthropologists follow this method,interpretation is done most accurately.To elaborate further on the “thick description” and its relation to interpretation,Geertz provides an example by Gilbert Ryle who used “thick description” in hisinterpretations (Geertz 1973: 6). Ryle provides the example of winking (Geertz 1973: 6).At its most basic level, winking is a twitching of the eye, along with a deliberate messageor gesture directed to someone else. However, there are so many different styles and3