Geertz's Approach to Culture

Culture as text : “culture of people is and ensemble of text which the

anthropologist strains to read over the shoulders of those to h whom
they belong”

From science (testing Hypothesis) to interpretation (of symbols) Geertz

was encouraging us to think of anthropology as less of a science which
test hypothesis and more as a discipline associated with interpretation.
So anthropology is not experimental science in search of a law but an
interpretative way in search of meaning

For example, in some countries like China, it is acceptable to stare at

others in public, or to stand very close to others in public spaces. In South
Africa, if you board a nearly empty bus or enter a nearly empty movie
theater, it is regarded as polite to sit next to the only person there. On
the other hand, in a recent study of Greyhound bus trips in the US, a
researcher found that the greatest unspoken rule of bus-taking is that if
other seats are available, one should never sit next to another person.
Numerous passengers expressed that “it makes you look weird”. These
are all examples of cultural norms that people in one society may be used
to. Norms that you are used to are neither right nor wrong, just
Interpretative anthropology takes different approach.

Symbols and significance :

“ man is an animal suspended in webs of significance ,he himself has spun

“

Just like how a spider attaches itself to a wall , it can be numerous ways, it
can have concentric circles of honeycomb like structure just the same
way a human can have numerous way to attach to the reality. For
example – the attack on US twin towers, different people have different
views about it, for some people in US it was an unprecedented attack
while other believes it was a prosecution of innocent people.

“thick description”

The deeper we go into the explanation of an act, the thicker the

description and will eventually be a better description.

Culture is a pattern of meanings set in symbols

Symbols that are publicly available and we all share

Focus on sacred symbols:

-synth world view & ethos

Synthesis of our world view (what do we think the world is, how do we
think the world is) and our ethos (the way we think we should act)

- World view becomes emotionally convincing

- Ethos becomes rational

The way sacred symbols make the world seem emotionally convincing
and the way seems rational. There is a clear link over here, the way we
react to the world is the way we actually see the world. Id we believe that
there is god who determines the world,we would praise him and if we
don’t believe in god then we don’t even believe in praying or going to the
religious places.

Religion is a system of symbols [a cultural pattern] which acts to… …

Models of and for
- depends on what used for
- models for – genetic, intrinsic in animals (beaver dam ) not
humans (baby in desert )
- Models of are cultural / extrinsic & occur mainly in humans
Comparing a spider, whale and human, for the natural instincts of
survival. A spider is born with literally everything in its mind, it diesnt
learn much , it goes out abd does what is hard wired and a whale comes
with less knowledge and needs more help from its mother, in particular
to be reared. While the one with the least knowledge of all is humans, we
are born with almost no instincts to survival , we don’t know how to
make chapatis, how to hunt, how to save money for the future, how to
make a living and all these things we basically learn is culture.
So in the statement above beaver knows what to do since the starting , it
knows how to build a dam, and humans needs to have a blueprint or a
guide on how to make a dam. These are the models for how to behave.
OR As we lack instincts, we need a symbolic blueprint for how to act.
Religion provides this
Cultural patterns are both ‘models of’ and ‘models for’ at the same time.
'Models for' occur throughout nature [a bee’s dance is a natural ‘model
for’ a place of honey, the beaver has a ‘model for’ a dam, but these are
not cultural but natural]. 'Models for' can become 'models of', and vice
versa.

del for” is an ethos while “model of” is a “worldview”

…to establish powerful, pervasive and long-lasting moods and

motivations in men by…
Webs of meaning
- Ethos –style of life
 Mood
 Motivations
- World view (conception of everything)

According to geertzian approach , the bible itself is not effective

enough way to make people Christian or jews, what one actually
need is to establish long lasting and powerful, pervasive moods
and motivation in people and so moods and motivation are tied to
the ethos which is like the style of life.
For example christman makes people go out and cook turkey with friends
while new years makes people go out an pop champagne. His brings
people close together. This brings our conception of world to evenrything
as Christmas is celebrated to mark the birth of Christ and new year marks
the starting of new time.
…by formulating a conception of a general order of existence […&
conception, viz. meaningfulness that there is an order, that God is not
mad]…
The same symbols both induce a disposition [a model for, an ethos] and
place these dispositions in a cosmic framework [a model of, a world
view].
Religion “must…affirm something” at the very least “that God is not
mad”…, that is that there is some kind of order. Without symbols, man
would be more helpless than beavers. So threats to symbols create great
anxiety [like Malinowski: rituals relieve anxiety and Eliade: loss of world
axis creates meltdown]. Such chaos threatens man at the limits of
meaningfulness, that is at the limits of (i) his analytical capabilities, (ii) his
powers of endurance, (iii) moral insight.
            (i) IGNORANCE [cognitive crisis, eg. Armageddon, eclipse]: we can’t
simply be dumb-struck or else there would be disquiet. We need
explanations even if we are minimally attached to them.
            (ii) PAIN/ SUFFERING: The problem of suffering is another limit of
meaningfulness. Malinowski’s theology of optimism (namely, religion
helps us endure emotional stress) is the best but still inadequate, because
religion can affirm suffering.
            (iii) INJUSTICE: The problem of fear is really a fear of disorder.
Religion affirms the “inescapability of ignorance, pain, and injustice…
while simultaneously denying that these irrationalities are characteristic
of the world as a whole” (85). This affirmation and denial is made through
religious symbolism.

…and clothing those conceptions with such an aura of factuality that…

[religious perspective and ritual]…
How does denial come to be believed? How do we believe? It is not
merely through induction. Rather it is “he who would know must first
believe”. There are four kinds of perspective:

1. common sense, seeing is believing

2. scientific, experimenting is believing
3. aesthetic, and
4. religious. believing is seeing (if you don’t believe, you won’t see).
The religious perspective is one of commitment and encounter. In ritual
(consecrated behavior) religious conceptions are experienced as real.
Ritual fuses world view and ethos. It is especially full-blown cultural in
which “dispositional and conceptual aspects of religious life converge”

…that the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic. [and some
limiting comments]
Religious sentiments are only interspersed in experience. Religion does
not describe, in a positivistic sense, the social order. Rather it shapes it.
The common sense and religious perspective usually interact.

.