Tyrone Schiff

Cultural Anthropology

It might sound a little unusual at first, but the different approaches to

anthropological study are very similar to the nightly news. Each day, countless events

take 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 plain

to see that in broadcasting news stories to the world, the various stations will use different

methods of telling the story. This analogy coincides with the range of theories associated

with anthropology. Anthropology strives to retell the stories of cultural events. In order to

do so, anthropologists employ a variety of techniques to best convey a concrete

understanding. Therefore, anthropologists develop methodologies that are not all alike.

This is not to say that one view is necessarily better than another, but rather, these

different methods add to the richness and diversity of anthropological study. It would be

very interesting to therefore explore differing methods that go into unearthing the true

interpretation of a cultural event. In order to illustrate anthropological styles working

differently, the writings of Clifford Geertz and Marshall Sahlins will be used. Geertz

provides a Balinese cockfight, while Sahlins explores the adventures of Captain James

Cook. Though these are very different examples, anthropological theory and

interpretation are central to both accounts. However, in order to truly appreciate the

various styles used by these anthropologists, it would be wise to gain an advanced

comprehension of what Geertz meant by “culture as an ensemble of text.” Furthermore, it

is 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, the

way they each get there is unique.

1
 Tyrone Schiff
Cultural Anthropology

First, 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 is

an 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 the

quotation appears to be dense, it is really quite straightforward and makes it very

apparent as to how Geertz feels about culture. Geertz suggests that a culture itself forms a

text that is written by the natives in a given studied region. The emphasis here is not

whether the natives know they are creating culture or not, but rather as event after event

is 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 culture

left behind and work on interpreting them. Geertz has a special method that he employs

in doing so. It is referred to as “thick description,” and we will investigate this

anthropological technique a little later. However, it is imperative to make the distinction

that 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 behind

scripting and dictating events that transpire in a group.

To expand upon this further, it ought to be noted that this metaphor given by

Geertz reveals his stance on the irreducibility of culture. Geertz wants to attack culture as

it 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 be

torn 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 about

anthropological interpretation.

2
 Tyrone Schiff
Cultural Anthropology

Geertz considers the way that he looks at a cultural event in relation to a native

from a given cultural group. Initially, Geertz displays apprehension about anthropological

accounts 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 an

outsider 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 true

understanding (Geertz 1973: 16). The process of verifying an outsider’s ethnographic

account also becomes very tenuous (Geertz 1973: 16). Geertz argues that it becomes

almost impossible to tell which accounts are better or worse than others, and the time

spent debating this detracts from the overall goal of anthropology (Geertz 1973: 16). This

is a justified argument, and something that scholars ought to be aware of when engaging

in interpretation of cultural events. Yet, an even stronger case for interpretation is the fact

that Geertz himself is doing it. Although there are some issues that arise in performing

cultural interpretation, Geertz sees something inherently valuable to this exercise, so long

as 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 his

interpretations (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 message

or gesture directed to someone else. However, there are so many different styles and

3
 Tyrone Schiff
Cultural Anthropology

intents that come from winking that if you are not directly involved in the situation it

becomes increasingly hard to interpret. This is Geertz’s point when it comes to “thick

description” and interpreting culture. Geertz reveals that this is true purpose of

ethnography; the journey from mere observance, as he calls it “think description,” to a

substantiated, detailed, and precise account of what truly is going on, in other words,

“thick description” (Geertz 1973: 7). In order to get to the heart of cultural actions, the

anthropologists has to work hard on infiltrating himself or herself into the culture so that

these “thick descriptions” can become readily available. Geertz provides the examples of,

“establishing rapport, selecting informants, transcribing texts, taking genealogies,

mapping fields, [and] keeping a diary” as some basic techniques in performing

ethnography well (Geertz 1973: 6). All of this is done to sift away obscuring details that

keep the anthropologist from attaining the cultural truth.

Then again, there are also some limitations that the anthropologist needs to be

aware of in seeking out “thick description.” Geertz suggests that in making

interpretations of cultural cues, such as winking, there are mental configurations and

boundaries that are constructed that do not necessarily have to exist in the first place

(Geertz 1973: 7). Furthermore, it is so much harder to extract the true meaning, because it

is told from an outsider’s perspective (Geertz 1973: 22). To further elaborate on this fact,

Geertz reminds us that “Theoretical ideas are not created wholly anew in each study […]

they are adopted from one another” (Geertz 1973: 27). This suggests that prevailing

preconceived notions are added to and applied in various interpretive activities by

anthropologists. However, if the anthropologist is conscious of these potential limits, then

it will benefit their study.

4
 Tyrone Schiff
Cultural Anthropology

To best summarize Geertz’s take on anthropological interpretation, consider the

following quotation, “Ryle’s example presents an image only too exact of the sort of

piled-up structures of inference and implication through which an ethnographer is

continually trying to pick his way” (Geertz 1973: 7). In trying to peel away the layers of a

culture, there are so many obstacles that have the potential to veer an anthropologist off

track. Yet, this process is unbelievably important to Geertz. Being challenged by one’s

material and working to dig deeper to find the true meaning is the noble and essential

component of anthropology. It is about shaving away the layers in order to arrive at the

core of a particular issue. In order for this to occur, Geertz employs a tactic of “complex

specificness,” which is the result of a long, first hand experience that uncovers the true

concepts of culture (Geertz 1973: 23).

Geertz displays his approach to accumulating knowledge about culture in his

stories of Balinese cockfights. In order to extract meaningful interpretations of this event,

Geertz looks at the event not as a singular activity, but rather a tangible interpretation of

the culture (Geertz 1973: 23). He does this in a number of ways and separates them easily

for the reader. In particular, Geertz looks at four aspects of the cockfight and its relation

to Balinese culture at large: The Raid, Of Cocks and Men, The Fight, and Odds and Even

Money. Each component of Geertz’s account is like an allegory that gets the reader one

step closer to fully understanding Balinese culture. It is done in a methodical and precise

way, in which Geertz only presents what he knows, rather than making superficial

guesses. This is seen very well in The Raid section. The Raid section discusses an event

regarding the cockfights in which policemen came and scared everyone off, because

cockfights are prohibited in Bali (Geertz 1973: 414). As a result, the crowds cleared away

5
 Tyrone Schiff
Cultural Anthropology

and from this Geertz was able to derive an interesting and fundamental lesson of Balinese

culture.

Geertz explains that following the panic, “everyone was extremely pleased and

even more surprised that we had not simply ‘pulled out our papers’ […] [we] instead

demonstrated out solidarity with what were no our covillagers” (Geertz 1973: 416).

Without directly saying it, Geertz demonstrates an action that seems to resonate deeply

within the culture of the Balinese. The Balinese were pleased with Geertz’s decision to

stick with them, and this sign of solidarity helped forge a relationship between the two

parties. Therefore, a great deal of understanding about the culture in Bali and what truly

matters to them is acquired through Geertz’s account. It is critical to remember that the

interpretation of solidarity stems from a description of an event that Geertz provides. By

retelling this event fully and accurately, reasonable deductions can be made about

Balinese culture. This is at the heart of Geertz’s “ensemble of texts.” The ability to be

able to take away meaning from allegorical stories that fundamentally relate to culture.

There are some significant differences to how Marshall Sahlins goes about the

process of anthropology in relation to Geertz. To begin, the most obvious difference

would be the fact that Geertz’s account was made first hand, whereas, Sahlins’ discussion

of Captain James Cook is obviously interpreted from historical documents and records.

Sahlins is therefore forced into developing and discussing interpretations of what this

event means to the Hawaiian people. For instance, Sahlins suggests about the incident

with Captain Cook, “I take this incident as a condensed paradigm of the subsequent

course of Hawaiian history: of changing relations between chiefs and common people”

(Sahlins 1985: 138). At first, Sahlins presents the story of the death of Captain Cook, but

6
 Tyrone Schiff
Cultural Anthropology

he takes it a step further and interprets the event based on what he believes to be true

about cultural groups. Drawing on some of the critiques and limitations that exist in

interpreting cultural events, one can make the case that this outlook frames the event with

a narrowed scope (Geertz 1973: 7). This is unfair and limiting to the vast array of

possibilities that may really be true of the Hawaiian people. By presenting his own

interpretation, he is establishing a framework in which to view and understand this aspect

of history. Geertz would contend that it is far more important for the actions and words of

the people involved in the culture to speak for themselves, rather than an unnecessary and

perhaps skewed interpretation by an anthropologist to take the forefront. However, one

must also consider the complexities of assigning a frame to view this cultural event.

Sahlins most definitely accumulated sufficient materials and must have studied and

reflected on them for quite some time. Ultimately, one has to be aware of the frame that

the anthropologist chooses, but must also be willing to trust that they are conveying the

message to the best of their abilities.

Another point that Sahlins makes that runs counter to the thoughts of Geertz is his

understanding of culture as a constantly changing element. Geertz supposed that a culture

was irreducible and for the most part consistent, whereas Sahlins proposes culture as a

shifting and representative object of its times. Sahlins states, “Every reproduction of

culture is an alteration […] the categories by which a present world is orchestrated pick

up some novel empirical content” (Sahlins 1985: 144). Sahlins sees culture as a

“synthesis of stability and change,” which makes it far more relative to its time (Sahlins

1985: 144). Sahlins takes the stance that anthropology views cultures in terms of the

contributions by and players of other cultures. This then suggests that culture is merely a

7
 Tyrone Schiff
Cultural Anthropology

function of time, and is not as Geertz suggests, something irreducible, because layers

have to be peeled away in order to truly get a sense.

This provides a platform for one of the first limitations of Geertz’s perspective on

culture. Knowing that Geertz looks at culture in a “thick” way, and reports it as he sees it,

does not take into account historical matters that have occurred in a culture. This is

imperative, because history surely does matter. To illustrate this point, consider the

symbol of the Western Wall in Judaism. In the year 2007, millions of tourists with a

shared ancestry will come to this focal point of religious history. People will stand in

front of a tall wall and pray to it, and it is collectively considered the most holy spot in all

of Judaism today. However, it is just a wall. An anthropologist utilizing “thick

description” on this matter will incorrectly transmit the true meaning and significance of

the wall, because history is not accounted for. It is important in anthropological pursuits

to remember to incorporate relevant pieces of history. The case that Geertz makes about

cockfights in Bali is substantiated but lacks a historical context. This places unnecessary

limitations on his exploration into this cultural aspect.

Another limitation that is intrinsic to Geertz’s method is the equal portrayal of

involved parties. All cultures are made up of many people who fit differing roles; men,

women, children, the elderly, etc. In order to tell an accurate ethnography nobody should

be left out, but as is the case with cockfighting, some groups just are. In order to truly

achieve a precise anthropological report it is important to include both the accounts of

men and women. In particular, Geertz’s discussion of the Balinese cockfights does not

include women at all. The reason that Geertz does not explore the role of women in

cockfights is due to the fact that they do not participate. The event includes and is solely

8
 Tyrone Schiff
Cultural Anthropology

about men. By forgetting to include women as a piece of the cultural puzzle, a huge

disservice is done to the academic community. To combat this, Geertz could explore what

women do while the cockfights go on. This way, at least both genders are accounted for

in some way. The reason that it is important is because anthropological accounts become

documents that describe more than just occurrences but rather, “inscriptions that can be

consulted” (Geertz 1973: 19). The way in which anthropologists tell their story is critical

to the future understanding of culture, and therefore, more emphasis needs to be placed

on studying all the groups that combine to form a culture without forgetting about a few

of them.

Even with these limitations, there is a tremendous amount to gain from both the

writings of Clifford Geertz and Marshall Sahlins. Their works display just two of the

many faces that belong to anthropology. Anthropology is an academic art form that can

be told in a number of different ways. The various ways in which it is told contributes to

the lessons that can be derived from it. Even though Geertz’s method has some

limitations embedded in his style, it plays an important role in revealing what is

necessary in order to create a successful anthropological account.

Geertz looked at culture as an ensemble of texts. What this essentially means is

that people, or natives, would have the opportunity to tell their own story in the way they

choose to tell it. This story ultimately becomes their culture. Geertz did this through the

lens of Balinese cockfights. There must have been thousands of other rituals that he could

have studied in Bali, but he chose this one to represent and thus become representative of

their culture.

9
 Tyrone Schiff
Cultural Anthropology

In a similar manner, Marshall Sahlins looked at the death of Captain James Cook

in order to tell the historical significance and story about the Hawaiian people. It cannot

be disputed that Sahlins is an anthropologist, yet he uses methods to tell his story in a

much different way than Geertz. Sahlins is interpreting something historical, and

attributes events as forces that shape culture, as opposed to the other way round which

Geertz would suggest. These different takes on anthropology are what make the study

great. There is diversity in style and explanation which make it a constantly changing and

adaptive field. In the future, it will be interesting to see what new styles of anthropology

will arise. It would be fascinating to see a hybrid of Geertz and Sahlins, where “thick

description” is used in combination with some sort of historical context. This would make

for an extremely comprehensive account. Ultimately, it is most beneficial if people

studying anthropology become aware of the varying styles that exist. This cognition will

help contribute to and further an overall understanding of culture, due to the fact that

several perspectives will help establish a holistic view of the culture being studied. With

this in mind, it is plain to see that anthropology will continue to be an appealing field, in

which the participants work to excavate, learn, and grow with their material.

10
 Tyrone Schiff
Cultural Anthropology

References:

Geertz, Clifford. “Thick Descriptions: Toward an Interpretive Theory of Culture,” in The

Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays. New York: Basic Books,

1973, pp.3-30; 412-453

Sahlins, Marshall. “Structure and History,” in Islands of History. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press, 1985, pp.104-156

11