series
authors
data
Product: Book
ISBN-10: 0-465-09719-7
ISBN-13: 9780465097197
Publisher: Basic Books
Country:
Year: May 18, 1977
Size: 13.41 x 20.19 x 3.20cm
Number of pages: 480
Weight: 522gr
Binding: Paperback
ISBN-10: 0-465-09719-7
ISBN-13: 9780465097197
Publisher: Basic Books
Country:
Year: May 18, 1977
Size: 13.41 x 20.19 x 3.20cm
Number of pages: 480
Weight: 522gr
Binding: Paperback
editions
order
description
Product Description
Classic essays by one of the most original and stimulating anthropologists of his generation on what culture is, what role it plays in social life, and how it ought to be properly studied.
Classic essays by one of the most original and stimulating anthropologists of his generation on what culture is, what role it plays in social life, and how it ought to be properly studied.
reviews
Just a Continuation of Anti-Progressive, Anti-Science 
In the typical post-modernist sense, Geertz seeks to cast doubt on everything without leaving us with anything in place. Just like other post modernists, his theories are so vague, poorly stated, and in generally strange that they cannot be proved right or wrong. Even if he, like other post-modernists, is right, we do not gain anything but perhaps a somewhat edited understanding of our world.
In the typical post-modernist sense, Geertz seeks to cast doubt on everything without leaving us with anything in place. Just like other post modernists, his theories are so vague, poorly stated, and in generally strange that they cannot be proved right or wrong. Even if he, like other post-modernists, is right, we do not gain anything but perhaps a somewhat edited understanding of our world.
The field of cultural anthropology in and of itself is a »shady« field. The lack of biological evidence to back up Geertz's claims is immense. To think the Central Nervous System is a result of culture is simply asinine. To think that somehow culture exists out there for us to grab and chose and that it is somehow transferred through our genes and eventually influences evolution is outright ridiculous.
Just because you can make claims and cast doubt on opposing claims does not mean you are correct. There is little evidence to show that the human race is still undergoing evolution in the Darwinian sense. Geertz's failure, or rather deliberate attempt to, distinguish between the mind and the brain shows his general distaste for any sort of reasonable logic.
Please: Someone rescue anthropology from its current blinding veil of post modernist, post-structuralist ideology. Post modernism is like chewing gum that sticks to your shoe sole and impedes you from moving forward. OK, so it has our attention, now let us get it off our feet, move on into the future, and leave this decrepit, inane theory behind us all.
Anthropological classic, though not the easiest reads 
I purchased this one as it was a part of course requirements at my major. Geertz' effort in the field of anthropology is undeniable. His contributions in understanding symbols of culture and how important interpreting them in the study of culture is, these things were discussed in my class. So for that, all students of Anthropology, especially Cultural/Social should read this one somewhere along their studies. However, it has to be said that the book is a demanding read. His sentence structures are complex, long-winded and hard-to-tackle academic reading. Parts of the book deal with New Nations (born after WW2) which are not that interesting, and which don't seem all that relevant. Still, Geertz' examples from the cultures of Bali, Trinidad and Indonesia make the book more understandable and all-in-all a good read.
I purchased this one as it was a part of course requirements at my major. Geertz' effort in the field of anthropology is undeniable. His contributions in understanding symbols of culture and how important interpreting them in the study of culture is, these things were discussed in my class. So for that, all students of Anthropology, especially Cultural/Social should read this one somewhere along their studies. However, it has to be said that the book is a demanding read. His sentence structures are complex, long-winded and hard-to-tackle academic reading. Parts of the book deal with New Nations (born after WW2) which are not that interesting, and which don't seem all that relevant. Still, Geertz' examples from the cultures of Bali, Trinidad and Indonesia make the book more understandable and all-in-all a good read.
Dated and irritating in places
Geertz has done much to enrich our understanding of societies, and the role ideas and beliefs play within them. But shouldn't an anthopologist, of all people, also be evaluated for how fairly s/he looks at other cultures? And here I think work like some contained in this book is indefensible. How can essentializing, stereotyping garbage like this be sold by anyone as great anthropology? From the last essay in the collection, »Deep Play: Notes on the Balinese Cockfight«: »The villagers dealt with us as Balinese seem always to deal with people not part of their life who yet press themselves upon them: as though we were not there.« Easy, pal, didn't occur to you that perhaps they just didn't like you and you? »To anyone who has been in Bali the identification of Balinese men with their cocks is unmistakable« C'mon, I mean, don't y'all just see how they identify? »The Balinese revulsion against any behavior regarded as animal-like can hardly be overstressed. Babies are not allowed to crawl for that reason. Incest, though hardly approved, is a much less horrifying crime than bestiality.« Find me a culture to which most of this doesn't apply. »The Balinese never do anything in a simple way that they can contrive to do in a complicated one.« Is it the great anthropologist speaking here, or my grandma Grace upon returning from her ten-day vacation to the island? In sum, while I can certainly see why so many find some of Geertz's work valuable and inspiring, I'm shocked that so few are bugged by his patronizing, essentializing, and plain bellicose mode of looking at other cultures in some other. I think this is an important point, that has to be on this page, no matter how many »unhelpful« votes I get.
Geertz has done much to enrich our understanding of societies, and the role ideas and beliefs play within them. But shouldn't an anthopologist, of all people, also be evaluated for how fairly s/he looks at other cultures? And here I think work like some contained in this book is indefensible. How can essentializing, stereotyping garbage like this be sold by anyone as great anthropology? From the last essay in the collection, »Deep Play: Notes on the Balinese Cockfight«: »The villagers dealt with us as Balinese seem always to deal with people not part of their life who yet press themselves upon them: as though we were not there.« Easy, pal, didn't occur to you that perhaps they just didn't like you and you? »To anyone who has been in Bali the identification of Balinese men with their cocks is unmistakable« C'mon, I mean, don't y'all just see how they identify? »The Balinese revulsion against any behavior regarded as animal-like can hardly be overstressed. Babies are not allowed to crawl for that reason. Incest, though hardly approved, is a much less horrifying crime than bestiality.« Find me a culture to which most of this doesn't apply. »The Balinese never do anything in a simple way that they can contrive to do in a complicated one.« Is it the great anthropologist speaking here, or my grandma Grace upon returning from her ten-day vacation to the island? In sum, while I can certainly see why so many find some of Geertz's work valuable and inspiring, I'm shocked that so few are bugged by his patronizing, essentializing, and plain bellicose mode of looking at other cultures in some other. I think this is an important point, that has to be on this page, no matter how many »unhelpful« votes I get.
An Imperative Classic 
»Man is an animal suspended in webs of significance he himself has spun, I take culture to be those webs … « These cultural »webs of significance« Clifford Geertz speaks of are constructed of religious beliefs and practices, cultural customs, social interactions, attitudes and behavior –- everything around us that we have constructed as rational beings capable of thought and imagination. According to Geertz, the role of the anthropologist is, in a sense, to 'decode' the symbolic meanings of these certain events, practices, customs and interactions that take place within a specific culture, however insignificant they may seem to the observer. Detail is of utmost importance. An anthropologist must become part of the culture –- looking in from the outside he will understand nothing. Of course, in order to reduce the occurrence of the anthropologist's own cultural bias and to attempt to more accurately understand a culture, one could easily say that it is imperative that anthropologists emerge themselves in the customs and practices of that culture. But, even then, is it ever possible for one to grasp an understanding of a culture in which one was not born into? Are humans socialized from birth to perceive all cultural customs and practices through a shady lens, clouded by perceptions of the world they have acquired during childhood? Geertz believes that, while to some extent it is possible to reach an understanding of a culture outside of our own, it is important to understand that anthropological writing is merely a »thick description,« an interpretation of an interpretation. In other words, the anthropologist is interpreting the culture's interpretation of the event that is taking place. There is nothing precise, categorically logical or rational about anthropological writing: Cultural analysis is strictly the process of creating various hypotheses, examining those hypotheses, and then deriving explanations from the best hypotheses. As Geertz says, the analysis of it is not an »experimental science in search of law« but, rather, »an interpretive one in search of meaning.« It is the job of an anthropologist to first attempt to understand how an event is interpreted by the culture in which it takes place, then to make an interpretation of that interpretation, and then it is left up to the reader of anthropological writing to interpret the final interpretations. It is difficult, if not impossible, to derive any absolute factual conclusion from data constructed of so many interpretive layers; thus, interpretation is not definitive. The role of an anthropologist, according to Geertz, is to construct the finest interpretations possible, and most importantly, to be an active participant in the culture, rather than a passive observer. This book is THE classical text for a modern cultural anthropologist. It's also an excellent book for anyone skeptical of social science in general, and serves as a great introduction for anyone just curious about anthropology.
»Man is an animal suspended in webs of significance he himself has spun, I take culture to be those webs … « These cultural »webs of significance« Clifford Geertz speaks of are constructed of religious beliefs and practices, cultural customs, social interactions, attitudes and behavior –- everything around us that we have constructed as rational beings capable of thought and imagination. According to Geertz, the role of the anthropologist is, in a sense, to 'decode' the symbolic meanings of these certain events, practices, customs and interactions that take place within a specific culture, however insignificant they may seem to the observer. Detail is of utmost importance. An anthropologist must become part of the culture –- looking in from the outside he will understand nothing. Of course, in order to reduce the occurrence of the anthropologist's own cultural bias and to attempt to more accurately understand a culture, one could easily say that it is imperative that anthropologists emerge themselves in the customs and practices of that culture. But, even then, is it ever possible for one to grasp an understanding of a culture in which one was not born into? Are humans socialized from birth to perceive all cultural customs and practices through a shady lens, clouded by perceptions of the world they have acquired during childhood? Geertz believes that, while to some extent it is possible to reach an understanding of a culture outside of our own, it is important to understand that anthropological writing is merely a »thick description,« an interpretation of an interpretation. In other words, the anthropologist is interpreting the culture's interpretation of the event that is taking place. There is nothing precise, categorically logical or rational about anthropological writing: Cultural analysis is strictly the process of creating various hypotheses, examining those hypotheses, and then deriving explanations from the best hypotheses. As Geertz says, the analysis of it is not an »experimental science in search of law« but, rather, »an interpretive one in search of meaning.« It is the job of an anthropologist to first attempt to understand how an event is interpreted by the culture in which it takes place, then to make an interpretation of that interpretation, and then it is left up to the reader of anthropological writing to interpret the final interpretations. It is difficult, if not impossible, to derive any absolute factual conclusion from data constructed of so many interpretive layers; thus, interpretation is not definitive. The role of an anthropologist, according to Geertz, is to construct the finest interpretations possible, and most importantly, to be an active participant in the culture, rather than a passive observer. This book is THE classical text for a modern cultural anthropologist. It's also an excellent book for anyone skeptical of social science in general, and serves as a great introduction for anyone just curious about anthropology.
An Academic Giant
This is a book for scholars but it is very readable and will definitely throw you into what anthropology is (should be?) about. You might have to read through each essay a couple of times to make sure you understood the points he was making, but it's not annoying to do because the points he is making are so excellent. One of the best book purchases I have ever made.
This is a book for scholars but it is very readable and will definitely throw you into what anthropology is (should be?) about. You might have to read through each essay a couple of times to make sure you understood the points he was making, but it's not annoying to do because the points he is making are so excellent. One of the best book purchases I have ever made.
keywords
related products
James Clifford (Eds.), George E. Marcus (Eds.)
University of California Press; 1986
Paperback
Prof. Pierre Bourdieu, Richard Nice (translator)
Cambridge University Press; 1977
Paperback
© 1994–2010 Sascha Hendel
last update: 3/20/2010
URL: http://www.book-info.com/isbn/0-465-09719-7.htm
- search