The interpretive approach and Clifford Geertz z

Description of theoretical perspective

Interpretive theory treats science as being so eclectic that it confuses the orientation of investigation
(Geertz, 1993, p. 5). The interpretive approach was developed thereby in order to solve this
problem and it is based on interpreting symbols outside of the realm of strict, scientific empiricism.
What matters is what the concepts of a culture mean to people. The interpretive theory claims that
the lucidity of explanations must be valued relative to the scientific imagination's ability to allow us
to interpret the lives of strangers (Geertz, 1993, p. 16). Geertz stated that to do this the interpretation
of data must be carried out with reference to the ambiance in which it naturally exists so as to
understand it as an integrated part of the culture as opposed to a separate, disjointed concept or
practice (Geertz, 1993, p. 18). Interpretive anthropology argues that anthropologists often try to
interpret what informants say from their own, personal, outsider point of view and it is important to
isolate the core of the cultural concept or practice which the informant is providing to really
understand how the members of a culture feel about it (Geertz, 1993, p. 20).
Terminology
Thick description: A practice or concept may have multiple layers of meaning. Coughing
exemplifies this. A small cough when suffering from a respirator problem, for example, is
involuntary yet a cough which is forced so as to alert someone of something is voluntary and its
origin is based in the desire to communicate something. If someone imitates the voluntary cougher
in order to confuse the listener of voluntary cough then their motivation for coughing is distinct to
the two aforementioned coughers. Coughing as a cultural practice has multiple meanings. Thick
description discusses this multiplicity.
Experience-near concepts: these are concepts which are provided to anthropologists by people who
have direct contact with the culture under investigation. As the informants are in direct contact with
the culture, their reports will be profoundly natural and, therefore, will recount the meanings of
practises and concepts very easily and honestly. This is useful for anthropologists because it gives
them an inside view into the working of cultures.
Experience-distant concepts: An experience-distant concept is one which various types of
specialists - an analyst, an experimenter, an ethnographer, even a priest or an ideologist - employ to
forward their scientific, philosophical, or practical aims (Geertz, 1974, p. 28).

Semiotics of culture: It should be obvious that the interpretive approach is based in the
interpretation of symbols. The semiotics of culture is the cornerstone of interpretive anthropology,
in fact. The symbols which are interpreted by anthropologists during investigation give insight into
the how societies function. Interpreting the symbolic meaning of a cultural practice of concept
provides the anthropologist with the opportunity to view people interacting through symbols which
is specific to their culture and therefore forms the culture itself.
Clusters of symbolic acts: These are clusters of actions which symbolise something within a culture
and together help the anthropologist to understand further the culture in question.
World views: the ways that an individual or group views the world due to their culture.
Historical context
Interpretive anthropology made its appearance after world war II, a time when there was much
funding about for anthropological research to be undertaken in order to better the state of the world.
As Geertz was the main founder of interpretive anthropology, and he has as background in the
humanities, when the interpretive approach appeared it was quite different to the more scientific
approaches to anthropology. It was opposed to the then popular approach of structuralism. While
both structuralism and interpretive anthropology conceived culture as language, it could be said that
they believed that different linguistic systems were where culture was to be found. Structuralism
believes that culture was the grammar of a language, the interpretive approach treats culture a the
lexis of a language. This demonstrates how interpretive anthropology diverted anthropology itself
from a strict system made of rules like most sciences post-world war II, a grammatical one; to being
an anthropology which focused on vocabulary as symbols which could be interpreted more freely,
outside the constraints of such strict scientific rules. It made new steps in the strict scientific
community at the time.

Key theorists and their works

Overall there is one outstanding theorist who, basically, developed the interpretive approach by
himself during his lifetime and that is Clifford Geertz. During his life he worked in various
American universities, and wrote extensively about the how scientific method was greatly flawed.
He claimed that science was eclectic to the extent that it confused the orientation of investigation
(Geertz, 1993, p. 5). He developed interpretive anthropology in order to solve this problem and it is

based on interpreting symbols as metaphorical texts which provide a window into cultures. Geertz
was raised in rural California and in 1943 entered the US navy. After world war II he attended
Antoch college and studied English and philosophy. In 1956 he earned a Ph.D. In anthropology at
Harvard university.
He was inspired by Wittgenstein's discussion of language which provided him with a tool to
observe how private language affects public spheres. Additionally, Geertz claimed that Max Weber
invented interpretive social science, that which Geertz himself used.
During his life Geertz published several texts including Notes on the Balinese cockfight (2005)
which is discussed below. Some more of his published works include the following:
Agricultural Involution, the Processes of Ecological Change in Indonesia,Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1963.
Peddlers and Princes, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1963.
Person, Time and Conduct in Bali: An Essay in Cultural Analysis, Yale Southeast Asia Program
Cultural Report Series, No. 14, 1966.
Islam Observed: Religious Development in Morocco and Indonesia, New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1968.
The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays, New York: Basic Books,1973, 2000.
Negara: The Theatre State in Nineteenth Century Bali, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1980.
Local Knowledge: Further Essays in Interpretive Anthropology, New York: Basic Books, 1983,
2000.
After the Fact: Two Countries, Four Decades, One Anthropologist, Harvard University Press, 1995.
Available Light: Anthropological Reflections on Philosophical Topics, Princeton University Press,
2000.

An analysis produced by the interpretive theory and methodology

The 2005 article Deep play: notes on the Balinese cockfight (Geertz) exemplifies how an analysis is
produced by the interpretive theory and methodology. In this article Geertz discusses how the
anthropologist interprets cultural concepts and practices from the assessment of texts created during
participant observation and what she/he learns from this. He states here that the approach he applied
to this case study was to focus on the metaphorical text instead of the verbal or written (Geertz,

2005, p. 83). Geertz also discusses how the interpretation of metaphor as symbolic meaning should
be further exploited (Geertz, 2005, p. 83).
After spending a prolonged period of time observing and participating in the culture of Balinese
cockfights in a Balinese village Geertz and his wife had come to various conclusions about the
practice. One of these, for example, is that the cockfights are in fact a practice which allows the
Balinese faux pas of violence to be let out into the open and to be embraced as a sort of venting
method for any accumulation of aggression that might normally be repressed by the society (Geertz,
2005, pp. 81, 84). Another example concluding from this field work is that the cock fight represents
every day happenings in an artistic form and thereby permits those who partake to observe life as
stronger-than-normal representations (Geertz, 200, p. 79). In sum, according to Geertz, cockfighting
communicates the thrill of risk, the despair of loss, the pleasure of triumph.

Critical evaluation of the interpretive theory

I find the interpretive theory to be a very useful tool for understanding other cultures as its reading
of symbols within their original context provides the opportunity to view culture as a whole without
removing its parts to a laboratory. This is important because culture is something which works as a
whole and all of its parts connect to form its entirety. The interpretive approach is totally dependent
on the anthropologists view of concepts and practices, that is to say that it is qualitative. Qualitative
research seems to me to be fitting to the humanities in general and anthropology is no exception to
this belief. I believe this because culture is something that cannot be measured with statistics.
Instead I believe that it can only be described by words.
For this reason the interpretive approach is so useful. It does not record statistics as figures,
numbers, in tables and graphs. This may also be considered as its downfall because at times it might
be necessary to collect data that must be recorded as empirical statistics. For example, specific
demographic data could be required during field work and to record this the interpretive approach is
is not sufficient.
References
Geertz, Clifford. (1993). The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books, Chapter 1 pp 3
30
Geertz, C. (2002). Deep play: Notes on the Balinese cockfight. The Interpretation of Cultures:

Selected Essays, 80-98.