Geertz and the Interpretive Approach in Anthropology

Author(s): Michael Martin

Reviewed work(s):
Source: Synthese, Vol. 97, No. 2, Empiricism in the Philosophy of Social Science (Nov., 1993),
pp. 269-286
Published by: Springer
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20117842 .
Accessed: 10/10/2012 00:19
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Synthese.

http://www.jstor.org

MICHAEL

GEERTZ

AND

MARTIN

THE

INTERPRETIVE

IN ANTHROPOLOGY

APPROACH

name has become

In contemporary
closely
thought, Clifford Geertz's
not
but
associated with an interpretive
only to anthropology
approach
Peter
also to social science generally
(including
history).1 Although
Gad
Winch, Charles Talyor, Alfred Schutz, Paul Ricoeur, Hans-Georg
are also advocates
of interpretivism,
amer, and J?rgen Habermas
is perhaps
Geertz
the only well known one who has actually used this
in practicing
social science. Thus, while the other advocates'
approach
a philosophical
have
theoretical
rationale, Geertz's
writings
provided
with
fieldwork
have
his
papers together
anthropological
provided both
a rationale and a concrete model of what the results of an interpretive
look like.
approach would
There is no doubt that Geertz's work has had a great impact on the
and the
itself. It has revived the holistic
profession
anthropological
to
of
and
Boas
in
culture
Kroeber
American
of
humanistic
approaches
to reject
his colleagues
In addition,
he has challenged
anthropology.2
the profession. As
the natural science approach that tends to dominate
Paul Shankman
Geertz

has

proposed
rather

understanding
science variety

has noted:
that

social

than causal

scientists
laws,

study meaning
and reject mechanistic
He has
explanations.

rather

than behavior,
seek
of the natural
explanations
to take
invited his colleagues

in favor of interpretive
as text
to consider
and metaphor,
human
the possibilities
of analogy
seriously
activity
to rework,
and symbolic
In other words,
he has asked social scientists
action as drama.
en
if not abandon,
their traditional
about
the nature of their intellectual
assumptions
terprise.3

to his work
and the critical response
Geertz's
Despite
importance
that has been generated
in the anthropological
literature,
however,
of the social sciences have not given his theories the critical
philosophers
In this paper I will elucidate
they deserve.4
evaluate Geertz's
In particular,
interpretive approach.
one of the root problems with Geertz's
theory is the
analogy of interpreting a text. This analogy leads him
tant questions
from the purview of social science, to
attention

97: 269-286,
1993.
Synthese
1993 Kluwer Academic
Publishers.

Printed

in the Netherlands.

and then critically

I shall show that
domination
to exclude

of the

impor
underestimate
the

270

MICHAEL

MARTIN

significance of causality in social science, and to propose an inadequate

account of the validation
of social scientific interpretations.

1.

1.1.

Interpretive

THEORY

GEERTZ'S

Anthropology

Geertz's
is interpretivism?5
answer,
given in his paper Thick
an
Toward
of Culture',6
is that,
Theory
Descriptions:
Interpretive
in order to understand
should
detailed
culture,
give
ethnographers
that are based on a complex web of interpreta
microscopic
descriptions
are not precluded,
these descriptions
tions. Although
generalizations

What

make
theorizing difficult.
assumes
Geertz
that one of the primary aims of anthropology
culture. "The concept of culture I espouse",
he says,
understand
is essentially
in webs
of
of

analysis

interpretive

is to

with Max Weber

that man
is an animal suspended
Believing
to
I
be
himself
has
take
culture
those webs,
and the
spun,
significance
not an experimental
in search of laws but an
it to be therefore
science
a semiotic

one.
he

one

in search

of meaning.7

for ethnogra
In order to find this meaning,
he believes
it is necessary
a
term
to
from
Gilbert
what,
Ryle, he calls
borrowing
phers
provide
"thick descriptions":
... is the
is in fact faced with
of complex
the ethnographer
multiplicity
conceptual
are at
of them superimposed
into one another,
which
structures,
many
upon or knotted
once
first to grasp and
and which
he contrives
somehow
strange,
irregular,
inexplicit,
levels of his
then to render. And
this is true at the most down-to-earth,
jungle fieldwork

What

informants,
interviewing,
observing
. . .
his
households
lines, censuring
writing
a reading
read (in the sense of "construct

activity:

ellipses,
written

incoherences,
suspicious
not in conventional
graphs

kin terms, tracing property

is like trying to
ethnography
? manuscript
full of
faded,
foreign,
and
tendentious
but
commentaries,

rituals,
journal.
of")

eliciting

Doing

emendations,
of sound but in transient

examples

of shaped

behavior.8

are inter
that ethographers'
thick descriptions
acknowledges
on
are
these
based
in
the
Indeed,
part
descriptions
interpre
pretations.
of what inform
tations of informants, which in turn are interpretations
to Geertz,
ants think they are doing.
In other words,
according
are
themselves
and
second
writings
interpretations
"anthropological
stresses that anthro
Geertz
and third order ones to boot".9 However,
are seeking neither to become natives
in their interpretations
pologists
nor to mimic
and
in
another
that it is not
them,10
paper he emphasizes
Geertz

GEERTZ

AND

or sympathize

to empathize

necessary

INTERPRETIVE

THE

with

APPROACH

the natives

271

to provide

these

interpretations.11

An
of thick descriptions
is that they are
characteristic
important
that is, they are interpretations
of cultural details. This is
microscopic;
not to say that there are not some broad interpretations:
"It is merely
to say that the anthropologist
such broader
characteristically
approaches
more
and
abstract
from
the
direction
of ex
analyses
interpretations
extended

with extremely
small matters".12
The
acquaintances
about
is
their
thing
findings
important
"anthropological
complex speci
Geertz
ficness, their circumstantiality".13
However,
rejects the idea that
can be regarded on a "microcosmic
model";
ethnographic
descriptions
that is, he rejects the view that the subject of such a description
is a
tremely

miniature

version

of the larger society

1.2. The Refiguration

of Social

of which

it is a part.

Thought

In his later writings, Geertz generalizes

his program for cultural anthro
a
to
of
social
"refiguration
pology
thought" that links the social sciences
and the humanities.
'Blurred Genres'
Thus, he opens his essay
by
are
"A
I
of
is that there has
number
true".
One
think,
things,
saying:
in intellectual
been a great amount of genre mixing
life. Social scientists,
he

says, have

turned

away

from explanations

in terms of

laws. They

are
and pendulums
less for the sort of thing that connects
and more
for the
looking
planets
sort that connects
and swords. Yet another
is that analogies
drawn from
chrysanthemums
are coming
to play the kind of role in sociological
the humanities
that
understanding
drawn
from the crafts and technology
have played
in physical
analogies
understanding.
I not only think these things are true, I think they are true together;
and it is
Further,
the culture shift that makes
them so that ismy subject: the refiguration
of social thought.14

Geertz
of this is that it is
goes on to argue that one implication
harder to think of the social sciences as either "underdeveloped
natural
sciences" or "ignorant
and pretentious
of
the
mission
of the
usurpers
or "comprising
a clearly distinctive
a
humanities"
third
enterprise,
culture to Snow's canonical
two".15
He says that the interpretive movement
in the social sciences has
grown

tremendously.

[T]he move

toward

representations,
(sense,

import,

conceiving

significants,
signification,

of

social

Darstellungen
Bedeutung.

in terms of symbols
life as organized
(signs,
... the
varies) whose
terminology
meaning
. we must
that
grasp if we are to understand
.)

272

MICHAEL

organization
The woods

and

its principles,

formulate

MARTIN

has

by now

grown

to formidable

proportions.

are full of eager

interpreters.
not just exalted glossography
and it is a form of explanation,
Interpretive
explanation
on what
trains it attention
events,
institutions,
actions,
utterances,
customs,
images,
to those whose
all the usual objects of social-scientific
interest, mean
actions,
institutions,
and

customs,

so on

systematic
live.16
paranoids

are. As

they

or mechanisms

Volta's,
Freud's

a result,
it issues not
but in constructions

like Darwin's

unpacking

of

the conceptual

world

laws

like Boyle's,
like Burckhardt's,
in which
condotiere,

or

forces

like

Weber's

or

Calvinists,

or

of things in terms of analogies.

conceives
Science, Geertz maintains,
in the social sciences to give them new life. In
New analogies are needed
from natural science and engineering
particular, mechanistic
analogies
should be replaced by ones derived from "cultural performance".
Non
reductive

social sciences have borrowed

from the "theater,
analogies
What
the
lever
did
for
the chess
law,
literature,
painting,
play.
physics,
move promises
to do for sociology".17
an analogy between
As other interpretive
theorists, Geertz makes
a
a
text
and
culture.
Paul Ricoeur,
Following
interpreting
interpreting
he argues that the key to the transition from text to text analogue
is
the concept of inscription,
that is, the fixation of meaning.
The meaning
as well as actions in a culture persists and can be recorded.
of utterances
as readable, Geertz
To see social institutions
says, is to change our
sense of what
to "shift it toward
is
and
sociological
interpretation
or
modes of thought rather more familiar to the translator,
the exegete,
than to the test giver, the factor analyst, or the pollster".18
iconographer
"cultural performance"
such as the game
After explaining
analogies
and the drama that are now used in social science, Geertz
concludes:
are neither
and they are not likely to become
stable nor consensual,
to come magnificently
is not how all this muddle
is going
interesting
question
but what does all this ferment mean.

Matters

so. The
together,

a challenge
to some
is that, however
is being mounted
raggedly,
thing it means
social science. The strict separation
the central assumptions
of mainstream
of theory
a formal vocabulary
to create
and data,
the "brute
fact" idea; the effort
of analysis
to moral
of
all
the
"ideal
and
claim
the
references,
idea;
subjective
purged
language"
- none
and Olympian
the "God's
truth" idea
of these ideas can prosper
view,
neutrality
One

of

when
rather
will
what

comes
to be regarded
explanation
to its determinants.
than behavior
if it continues,
it is we want

it just may
postulating
them.19

be

a sea change
in our
Social events

to know.

to discovering
and measuring
them

that the road

forces

as a matter

to its sense
of connecting
action
or
of social theory represents,
refiguration
not so much
is but
notion
of what knowledge

The

do have
what
than

we

causes
assert

through

and

social

institutions
effects;
this lies less through
and inspecting
expressions

in asserting

noting

AND

GEERTZ

1.3.

Interpretive

Social

THE

INTERPRETIVE

Science

in Action:

APPROACH

The Balinese

273

Cockfight

In order to see Geertz's

one of his best-known

in action, let us consider

approach
interpretive
on
cultural interpretations:
'Deep Play: Notes
the Balinese
In what has been called "an elegant and
Cockfight'.20
in Bali, which
revelatory essay",21 he describes the sport of cockfighting
he says may appear to be a superficial
social practice but in fact is
related to deep elements of the Balinese
and
culture, self-conception,
world-view.

men

amount of time on the various

spend an enormous
activities
involved in cockfighting:
they groom and train the cocks, they
feed them special diets, they watch them fight, they bet on them, they
talk endlessly about them. Geertz describes
these activities
in detail in
the context of a Balinese
the jokes and
village. He also describes
and explains the special social
language that are related to cockfighting
Balinese

and

cultural

the

significance

sport

has within

the broader

Balinese

culture.

for all the details he gives us, Geertz's

of
However,
interpretation
Balinese
cockfights remains somewhat elusive. Indeed, different schol
ars, apparently focusing on different things that Geertz
says, have come
these can be
up with what seem to be different
readings. Whether
reconciled

is not

clear.

understand

Sullivan

For

Geertz

They
peutic interpretation.
cates and organizes violence:

Paul Rabinow
and William M.
example,
as providing what might be called a thera
say that on his view the cockfight domesti

As Geertz
and

it, the Balinese

presents
cockfight
to an extent domesticates
it. Cultural

and

thereby

making

comprehensible

ritualizes
form

violence

and

plays

violent

conflict

a therapeutic

and

thereby orders
role by organizing

inequality.22

This rendering of the main

thrust of Geertz's
should
interpretation
as saying that the
be contrasted with Daniel Little's. Reading Geertz
is a surrogate for the struggle between
cockfight
good and evil, Little
argues

that Geertz

gives

what

might

be

called

a symbolic

struggle

interpretation:
on cockfights
as emblemizing
the pattern
of large-scale
social
interprets
betting
relations
in local society
and status relationships.
And
he construes
kinship,
village,
or negative
the cockfight
itself as an emblem
for elements
in Balinese
positive
life ....
in
is
the
Balinese
for animal
Geertz's
distaste
account,
Particularly
important,
like behavior
in human
animals
the "Powers
of Darkness."
Geertz
beings;
represent

He

274

MICHAEL

construes

the fascination

with

cockfighting

MARTIN

as a surrogate

for the struggle

between

good

and evil.23

yet a different

paper,
aspect of Geertz's
to him, Geertz presents
According
interpretation.
and commentary
what might be called a status organization
interpreta
is a simulation
of
that the cockfight
tion. Geertz,
he says, maintains
on
the social matrix, while at the same time it provides a commentary
William

arrives

Roseberry,
at a different

stressing

this matrix:
to the
in the cockfight.
Both are related
looks to two aspects of significance
is a
of the Balinese
that the cockfight
society. He first observes
organization
.... As
or following
a "status bloodbath"
"simulation
of the social matrix",
Goffman,
he has not yet referred
toward the second aspect of significance,
Geertz moves
although
Geertz

then

hierarchical

as a text, he begins
to refer to it as "an art form." As an art form display,
to the cockfight
in the hidden
in Balinese
that are
it "displays"
fundamental
society
passion
passions
As an atomistic
inversion
of
from view in ordinary
hidden
daily life and comportment.
the way Balinese
status hierarchy

normally
present
sense
in another

but as a commentary

cockfight

Little's

struggle

symbolic
paper:

Geertz's

on

to the
to themselves,
the cockfight
relates
themselves
- no
of the
organization
longer as a status-based
in the first place.24
the existence
of the status difference

reading

of Geertz

finds

support

in the text of

with
such Powers
with
the
and cockfighting
[of Darkness],
to invade
the small space
in which
the
threaten
constantly
is quite explicit. A
its inhabitants,
have so carefully
built their lives and devour
Balinese
is in the first instance a blood sacrifice offered, with the appropri
any cockfight,
cockfight,
to pacify
ate chains
to the demons
in order
their ravenous,
cannibal
and oblations,
The

connection

animalistic

bloody

cocks
that

man
and evil, ego
and beast,
good
of loosened
and destructive
power
masculinity
and death.25
of hatred,
violence,
cruelty,

In the cockfight

hunger....
powers

of

demons

of

aroused

drama

and

id,

animality

the

creative
fuse

in a

and commentary
social organization
However,
Roseberry's
interpre
that the cock
tation can also find support there. Geertz does maintain
fight is "a simulation of the social matrix":26
animal mirrors
of psychic
cocks may be surrogates
for their owners
personalities,
to be - simulation
is more
is made
of the
forms, but the cockfight
exactly,
deliberately
the involved
social matrix,
groups
system of cross-cut,
highly
corporate
overlapping,
"castes"
in
the
which
societies,
irrigation
temple
congregations,
village,
kingroups,

The

devotees

live. And

the prestige,
in it...

it, and just plain bask

it of the cockfight.27

to affirm it, defend

the necessity
it, justify
it, celebrate
so also ... is
force in any society,
is perhaps
the central

he also argues that the cockfight is a "Balinese

reading of Balinese
a
about
themselves
tell
themselves":28
story they
experience,

And

AND

GEERTZ

THE

APPROACH

INTERPRETIVE

275

the thrill of risk, the

of sentiment
the cockfight
says it says in a vocabulary
....
a cockfight
in
and participating
of triumph
Attending
despair of loss, the pleasure
a kind of sentimental
What
he learns there is what
them is, for the Balinese,
education.
his culture's
certain aspects of them)
ethos and his private
look
sensibility
(or, anyway,

What

like when

spelled

out

externally

in a collective

text.29

forms and discov

he says that in the cockfight, "the Balinese
Moreover,
ers his temperament
at the same time".30
and his society's temperament
and Sullivan is
The therapeutic
suggested by Rabinow
interpretation
not stated explicitly
in Geertz's
article but it might be thought to be
is
by some of the things he says. If the cockfight
naturally
suggested
one
and
it
of
then
for
the
evil,
suppose
good
might
symbolic
struggle
has the function

of ritualizing

2.

2.1.

The Scope

violence

and domesticating

THEORY

GEERTZ'S

of Interpretive

it.

EVALUATED

Anthropology

as
conceives of the task of the anthropologist
seen, Geertz
a
a
text.
it
to
of
Since
culture
is
the
like
text,
analogous
interpreter
must be interpreted,
in
itsmeaning
Geertz's
deciphered. Unfortunately,
of social science the text analogy
takes over and dictates
conception
even to the extent of
is conceived
how the discipline
off,
by cutting

As we have

and approaches.
Even
those
questions
noninterpretive
a
has
in
who
believe
that
their
interpretation
anthropologists
place
not
it
is
that
believe
that
the
whole
story,
discipline might
noninterpre
tive questions can and should be asked. How important is interpretation
for Geertz? His answer is that it is all-important.
In Thick
Descrip
for he
tions', he does not allow for any tasks besides
interpretation,31
assumes that, since culture consists of complex structures of meanings,
sense of these.
must limit themselves
to making
anthropologists
the text analogy,
there are more
Yet even if one accepts
jobs for
excluding,

social scientists to do than just interpret. The text analogy need not be
so restrictive. A reader of a text might well ask not only what the text
means
in the first place, why it
but also why the text was produced
takes this form rather than that, what functions it has, what psychologi
cal effects a given interpretation
has on readers who accept it. Just as
a reader might want to know how a text developed,
a social scientist
might

want

to know

how

a culture

developed.

Just as he or she might

276

MICHAEL

MARTIN

form while a similar text has a

wonder why one text has a particular
a
social scientist might wonder
different
one,
why a culture has a
one. Just as a
a
different
form while
another culture has
particular
a
in what function
certain part of a text has
reader might be interested
a
social scientist might be interested
(given a certain interpretation),
a social practice
of a culture has (given a certain
in what function
Just as
interpretation).
effects an interpretation
tist might desire to find
in a certain
(interpreted

a reader desires
has on someone

to find out what psychological

who accepts it, a social scien
out what psychological
effects a social practice
in
way) has on a social actor who participates

it.

like these in either

does not ask noninterpretive
Geertz
questions
or
he gives no indi
In
the
Thick
former,
Play'.
Descriptions'
'Deep
are legitimate
cation that such questions
and, in the latter, he almost
For
of the Balinese
cockfight.
entirely avoids them in his discussion
no
one
is
idea
there
has
after
Geertz's
why
reading
study,
example,
in Bali, why males engage in it, why cock
the practice of cockfighting
forms in other cultures.
fighting takes this form in Bali and different
answers
to
these
the
questions might well involve causal
Presumably
the
that go beyond
factors - psychological,
sociological,
geographical
the
of
purview
interpretive
approach.32
of what
the question
considers
it is not clear if Geertz
Moreover,
not
in
He
does
has
Bali.
function or dysfunction
certainly
cockfighting
a
use functional
Does
he
attribute
in
his
paper.
implicitly
language
and Sullivan main
function to cockfighting? As we have seen, Rabinow
and organizes vio
domesticates
tain that Geertz
says that cockfighting
this is as a functional
lence. One way to understand
thesis; however,
seems strained.
It is not justified by any direct
this reading of Geertz
the whole
from the text.33 Furthermore,
spirit of Geertz's
a
to
is
functional
of
opposed
anthropology
philosophy
approach.34
remarks throughout
Geertz makes
'Deep Play' that might
Although
as psychological
statements
about the effects of
well be interpreted
on
of
the
the
effects
issue
Balinese
males,
cockfighting
psychological
quotations

is not explicitly posed and ans

in cockfighting
those participating
Insofar as he cites the psychological
in any systematic way.
- for
that the person who eats the
effects of cockfighting
example,
aesthetic
cock
disgust as well as cannibalistic
joy35
losing
experiences
no effort to explore
the
He makes
it is to justify his interpretation.
so
own
to
to
be
investi
do
would
because
in
its
right, perhaps
question

on

wered

GEERTZ

AND

THE

INTERPRETIVE

APPROACH

277

and would
involve using psychological
theories and
gate causal matters
laws. However,
this is exactly what Geertz
is suspicious of.
in the issue of the psychological
As a result of Geertz's
disinterest
are not asked,
let alone
effects of cockfighting,
important questions
one would
answered.
like to know whether men who
For example,
or psychological
raise and fight cocks have a different personality
profile
from those who don't; what Balinese women
think of cockfighting
and
how their attitudes
toward it affect their relations with men; whether
of the recent tougher
the psychology
of men has changed because
on
how
attitudes
men's
governmental
cockfighting;
policy
psychological
are affected by their formal education,
toward cockfighting
by religious
ideas and values.
conversion,
by the influx of western
In sum, questions
and psychological
about origins, functions,
effects
social science. Since they are
the scope of interpretive
go well beyond
that excludes
them has serious
legitimate and important, any approach
limitations.

2.2.

Interpretation

and Causality

is good reason to suppose that Geertz

represses causal consider
to causal laws in the social
in his theory. He forsakes appeals
to the social sciences
in
sciences,
rejects the natural science approach
which causal attribution
is central, fails to list 'cause' or 'causality' in
the indexes of The Interpretation of Cultures and Local Knowledge,
and
refrains from using explicit causal language
in his interpretive work.
This repression of causality is understandable
if one lets the text analogy
dominate one's thought, for causality plays no role in the interpretation
There
ations

of texts.
In
On the other hand, this repression
of causality
is not complete.
he acknowledges
'Blurred Genres',
that there are causal considerations
in the social sciences and only rejects the way the analysis of causality
is approached:
"[Sjocial events do have causes and social institutions
it just may be that the road to discovering
what we assert in
effects;
this lies less through postulating
forces and measuring
them
asserting
than through noting expressions
and inspecting
them".36 Apparently,
is concerned with causes after all. Un
then, interpretive
anthropology
in
it
is
unclear
what
it is worth noting that,
way. However,
fortunately,
in all three readings of his interpretation
of Balinese
each
cockfighting,
has a causal dimension.

278

MICHAEL

MARTIN

as offering a thera
When Rabinow
and Sullivan understand Geertz
to which the cockfight domesticates
and
according
peutic interpretation
violence,
they do not speak in causal terms. However,
they
organizes
- the
are surely saying that cockfighting
of the participants,
psychology
the social practice and its implications,
and so forth - causally affects
in such a way that their
albeit in some unspecified
manner,
people,
violent behavior
is controlled
and tamed.37 The symbolic struggle read
ing of Geertz suggested by Little also has a causal aspect. Males presum
belief connected with the symbolic struggle
ably have an unconscious
between
circumstances
good and evil that under certain unspecified
causes them to be obsessed with cocks, to be ambivalent
about eating
a dead cock, and so forth. Causal
considerations
also apply to the
and commentary
social organization
reading of Geertz
suggested
by
On
this
the
views
and attitudes that Balinese
Roseberry.
interpretation
men have of the social matrix of their society are transformed by some
and sociological
into the institution
process
psychological
unspecified
in turn stimulates
of the cockfight. This institution
this social matrix
a commentary
on it. The way this transformation
and provides
works
are involved is not made clear by Geertz.
and what causal mechanisms
In short,
causal considerations
and mechanisms
Geertz's
of
the
Balinese
cockfight. The
interpretation
to obscure
their presence.
2.3.

The Validation

are implicit
in
text analogy tends

of Interpretations

status of cultural interpretations?

is the epistemological
Are some
one
true
cannot
true and
and
others
false?
If
of
interpretations
speak
are some interpretations
false interpretations,
better
than others?
If
are
or
can
true
in
science
how
social
their
truth
false,
interpretations
or falsehood
If some are better or worse
be validated?
than others,

What

what

criteria

of better

or worse

should

be used?

in answering
is not very helpful
these ques
Unfortunately,
one suspects
tions. Again
that the text analogy adversely
affects his
are either
to
him
that
cultural
account,
suppose
leading
interpretations
or
on
like subjective
based
considerations
that
literary interpretations38
InThick
have nothing to do with the validation of scientific hypotheses.
are subjective
he seems to suggest that interpretations
Descriptions',
and that therefore
there are no objective
criteria for evaluating
them.
as
a
accurate
criterion
of
the
rejecting
prediction
validity of
Explicitly
Geertz

AND

GEERTZ

interpretation
- he indicates

THE

INTERPRETIVE

APPROACH

279

- at least in "the strict

of the term" prediction39
meaning
is problematic:
of interpretations
that the verification

to anything
sin of interpretive
literature,
dreams,
symptoms,
besetting
approaches
to resist, conceptual
is that they tend to resist, or to be permitted
articulation
culture
of assessment.
You
either grasp an interpretation
and thus to escape
modes
systematic
or you do not, see the point of it or you do not, accept
in
it or you do not. Imprisoned

The

as self validation,
as validated
it is presented
the immediacy
of its own detail,
or, worse,
to
of the person who presents
sensitivities
it; any attempt
by the supposedly
developed
as a travesty - as the anthropol
cast what
it says in terms other than its own is regarded
severest
term of moral
abuse, ethnocentric.
ogist's
am not timid about the
however
of study which,
I, myself,
timidly (though
asserts
this just will not do. There
is no reason why
itself to be a science,
structure
the conceptual
of a cultural
should be any less formidable,
and
interpretation
canons of appraisal,
to explicit
thus less susceptible
than that of, say, a biological
obser
- no reason
or a physical
vation
that the terms
in which
such a
except
experiment
For

matter

a field

at all),

formulation
to insinuating

can be

cast

theories

are,

because

if not wholly
nonexistent,
very nearly
we lack the power
to state them.40

so. We

are reduced

In this passage Geertz

links the difficulty of verifying
interpretations
science with the lack of a well-articulated
theoretic
language.
it is unclear why one needs well-articulated
theories in order
However,
in social

In the natural sciences

it is possible
interpretations.
theories.
that lack
ill-articulated
theories
Indeed, verifying
to
articulation
is
often
the
necessary
theory in more
precise
develop
seems
to
in
Geertz
fact
have
backwards.
Far from
ways.
rigorous
things
to
is
theories
verification
verification,
necessary
being
well-developed
well-articulated
often necessary
for developing
theories.
In other places, Geertz assumes a less subjective account of interpre
are better
tations and argues that some interpretations
than others.
are unclear.
the criteria he uses in making
such assessments
However,
to verify
to verify

He

cultural

says:

- a
a person,
a history,
a ritual,
of anything
poem,
good interpretation
a society - takes us into the heart of that of which
it is the interpretation.
not do that, but leads us instead somewhere
of its
else
into an admiration
of its author's
of
the
of
Euclidean
it may
beauties
order
cleverness,
. . . calls for.41
else than what
the task at hand
charms; but it is something

One
that
supposes
take one to the heart
he does not explicate
not explain how one
in Thick

Geertz

an institution,
When
it does
own
have

elegance,
intrinsic

is saying here that good interpretations

whereas bad ones do not. However,
what this involves exactly; in particular,
he does
tells what the heart of the matter
is.42 Elsewhere
he says that "[a] study is an advance
if it is
Descriptions'
of the matter

280

MICHAEL

MARTIN

- than those that

it".
incisive - what ever that means
preceded
Could this be an attempt to explicate what it means
for 'an interpreta
If so, it does not help, since
tion that goes to the heart of the matter'?
the criterion of being more
incisive is no clearer than the criterion of

more

to the heart of the matter.

one anthropologist
X is more
argues that interpretation
Suppose
the opposite.
incisive than interpretation
Y, while another maintains
is correct? Geertz
How can one tell which anthropologist
suggests it is
very difficult to do so:
going

to attention
account
of an ethnographic
does not rest on its author's
ability to
. . .but on the
to which
facts in faraway places
he is able to
degree
primitive
to reduce
the puzzlement
what manner
of men are
clarify what goes on in such places,
- to
acts
out
unfamiliar
unknown
these?
which
of
emerging
backgrounds
naturally
give
of verification,
all right
rise. This raises some serious problems
is
or, if "verification"

The

claim

capture

too
you

for too soft a science

strong a word
(I, myself,
one. But
can tell a better account
from a worse

would
this

prefer
"appraisal"),
is precisely
the virtue

of how
in it.44

It is unclear why Geertz believes

this is a virtue, since the objectivity
of interpretive
social science is thereby called into question.45 He goes
on to say that interpretations
cannot be judged against uninterpreted
the cogency of our explications,
but
data and that "we must measure
us
to
touch
of
the
the
scientific
into
power
bring
imagination
against
this new criterion - bringing
with lives of strangers".46 Unfortunately,
is not very helpful
anthropologists-into-touch-with-the-lives-of-natives
and is not clearly
can one tell which

with the criterion of incisiveness.

How
compatible
us
in
of two conflicting
better
brings
interpretations
touch with the lives of natives? Furthermore,
why should one suppose
will bring anthropologists
incisive interpretation
into
that the more
close touch with the lives of the natives? After
incisive
all, the more
in language
that is divorced
from the
may be couched
interpretation

and their concepts, while

the interpretation
that
experiences
us
to
not
the
of
natives
be.
close
lives
may
brings
is to be preferred over
it is unclear why this criterion
Furthermore,
one might
be
For
others
that
many
might
suggested.
judge
example,
terms
in
of
traditional
scientific
criteria like
alternative
interpretations
power and simplicity. The text analogy seems to obscure
explanatory
natives'

this obvious point.

with Geertz's
The epistemological
connected
problems
to
his
affect
reading of
certainly
proach
interpretation
us
he is giving
let
that
suppose
cockfight. Following Little,

general ap
the Balinese
the symbolic

GEERTZ

AND

THE

INTERPRETIVE

APPROACH

of Balinese
cockfighting.
struggle interpretation
to the following
understand Geertz as appealing
to justify this interpretation:
(1)

(2)

(3)

281

Is it justified? One can

sorts of considerations

Balinese males
bases this
identify with their birds. Geertz
on the things that Balinese males say. He admits that he has
no "unconscious
material
either to confirm or disconfirm
this intriguing notion".47 Nevertheless,
he argues that it is
the
Balinese
that cocks are the
by
universally
recognized
masculine
symbol par excellence.
The moral
language of Bali has roosterish
imagery. Geertz
bases this on examples. The Balinese word for cock is used
to mean
'hero', 'warrior', 'tough guy'; court
metaphorically
are
to cockfights,
and so forth.
wars,
etc.,
trials,
compared
Men are obsessed with cocks and cockfights. Geertz
bases
this on the vast amount

of time men

spend tending, feeding,

grooming,
training their birds and on the way they
describe
their activities.
are revolted by any behavior
The Balinese
regarded as ani
mal. Geertz
cites examples
like eating and defecation
that
are regarded as almost obscene
activities because
of their
and

(4)

(5)

association
with animals.
When
the owner of the winning
cock takes the carcass of
the losing cock "home to eat, he does so with a mixture
of
social embarrassment,
moral
aesthetic
satisfaction,
disgust,
and cannibal
based on his per
joy".48 This is presumably
sonal observations
of the culture and his conversations
with
Balinese.

Are

(6)

A man who "has lost an important

[cock]fight is sometimes
driven to wreck his family shrines and curse the gods, an act
of metaphysical
(and social) suicide".49 This is based on the
as (5) above.
same evidence

(7)

Balinese
compare heaven to the mood of a man whose cock
has just won and hell to the mood of a man whose cock has
as (5).
just lost. This is based on the same evidence

true? At best, Geertz offers impressionistic

and anecdotal
(l)-(7)
some of which
to support
evidence
these claims,
involve statistical
inferences. For example,
(1) is supported by appeal to a few examples
and by Geertz's
and (2)
recognized,
impression of what is universally

282

MICHAEL

MARTIN

we have no reason to
supported by a few examples. However,
are representative
or that Geertz's
that these examples
im
is reliable. Thus, one would
like to know how widespread
pression
in comparison
roosterish
with
imagery is in Balinese moral
language
other imagery that might
indicate a different
interpretation.
Although
is also

suppose

we know from Geertz's

nese moral
language,

paper that there is roosterish

imagery in Bali
it perhaps
appears
rarely while other imagery

appears frequently.
are well-established
that (l)-(7)
let us suppose
However,
proposi
use
culture and society. How might Geertz
tions about the Balinese

(l)-(7)
(8)

to support:
Cockfighting
and evil?

is a surrogate

for the struggle

between

good

Itmight, however, be justified

(8) is obviously not entailed by (l)-(7).
inductive grounds. For example,
(8) might be an 'inference to the
That is to say, this hypothesis might be the
best possible explanation'.
of the evidence.
Is (8) the best explanation
best explanation
of (1)
a
in
this
line
of
Viewed
inductive
way,
reasoning
(7)?
leading
possible
to (8) can be reconstructed:50
from (l)-(7)
on

(8) has

a nonnegligible

(a)

The

(b)

prior probability.
If the symbolic struggle hypothesis
(8) is true, then the evi
to
used
dence statements
support it are probably
((l)-(7))

symbolic

struggle

hypothesis

true.

(c)

No other hypothesis
is as strongly confirmed by the evidence
that
statements;
is, any other hypothesis H such that if H is
are probably
true has a lower prior proba
then
true,
(l)-(7)

bility than (8).

Given (l)-(7) and (a)-(c), (8) iswell supported.
When

it is reconstructed
along these lines, the symbolic
struggle
a
is
that should be evaluated
by the
interpretation
simply
hypothesis
then ask if it is better confirmed
than rival
usual criteria. One would
are initially less plausible
if (c) is met,
if rival hypotheses
hypotheses,
than (8), and as a consequence
have less prior probability
than (8).
not
rival
Geertz
does
consider
and
does
Unfortunately,
interpretations
not attempt to determine
if (c) has been met.
One

obvious

rival hypothesis

that

is simpler

than

(8) is that cock

GEERTZ

AND

THE

INTERPRETIVE

APPROACH

283

is regarded with great ambivalence

by Balinese males. They
fighting
are attracted
to its macho quality and yet are profoundly
repelled by
need not
On this interpretation
its animalistic dimensions.
cockfighting
as it does on the symbolic
have cosmic moral
struggle
significance
of course, be en
The ambivalence
might,
hypothesis
interpretation.
but it certainly would not
tailed by the symbolic
struggle hypothesis,
than (8)? Given
entail it. Is this hypothesis
initially more plausible
the simplest
that, other things being equal,
understanding
most
it
is.
If
Geertz
this connec
is
the
one,
rejects
hypothesis
plausible
us
an
owes
he
with
tion between
explanation.
simplicity
plausibility,
the symbol
Would
the ambivalence
hypothesis
explain everything
not
to
It
does
appear
struggle hypothesis
explain (6) above:
explains?
that a person who loses a cockfight sometimes wrecks his family shrine
the usual

curses

the gods. However,

Geertz
cosmic
gives such incidents
so
in
that
the
commits
loser
by saying
acting
"metaphysical
meaning
suicide". This reading of the action might well attribute more
signifi
cance to it than is warranted.
such
One wants to know how common
the frustrated Balinese
losers give to
actions are and what significance
and

them.

that it is. For

is (b) true? It is certainly not obvious
is
then
would men
if
the
true,
example,
symbolic struggle interpretation
as they are pictured
be as openly obsessed with cocks and cockfighting
that the male obsession
with cock
One would
suppose
by Geertz?
more
more
and
would
be
less
ambivalent
than
subtle,
obvious,
fighting
Geertz describes. The mixed emotions connected with eating the loser's
- social
cock as Geertz
moral
describes
embarrassment,
satisfaction,
- seem
aesthetic
cannibalistic
absent
from the
joy
disgust,
strangely
of
activities
and
the
cocks.
training
daily
fighting
Moreover,

3.

CONCLUSION

to
Geertz
is a leading advocate of the interpretive
Although
approach
a rationale as well as a concrete model
the social sciences, providing
of what the results of such an approach would entail, his account has
a
serious limitations. Geertz
is not only vague about what constitutes
in his theoretical writings,
valid interpretation
his interpretation
of the
Balinese

also leaves many questions

In parti
unanswered.
cockfight
it is unclear exactly what his interpretation
of the Balinese
cock
amounts
is
the
whether
it
and
to,
evidence,
fight
why it
supported by
cular,

284

MICHAEL

MARTIN

on Geertz's
to alternatives.
In addition,
should be preferred
view,
limited to providing
social science is arbitrarily
thick
interpretations
and no other tasks are permissible.
causality has
Finally,
descriptions
a much more
important role to play in the social sciences than Geertz
if one restricts social science to the giving of interpreta
allows. Even
enter into the specification
of the web of
tions, causal considerations
If the job of social science
of social practices and institutions.
meanings
is conceived
than merely
of as including more
the culture,
interpreting
as we have seen it surely does,
then causality plays an even more
important role.

NOTES
1
2
3

See Walters
Peacock

(1980).
(1981,

pp.

122-23).

Shankman

(1984, p. 261).
texts like Braybrooke
in standard
For example,
(1987) and Rosenberg
at all. While
Little
considers
Geertz's
is not mentioned
view,
(1991)
are rather brief.
comments
5
on Shankman
I have relied heavily
of Geertz.
(1984) in my exposition
6
Geertz
(1973, pp. 3-30).
7
Geertz
(1973, p. 5).
8
Geertz
(1973, p. 10).
9
Geertz
(1973, p. 14).
10
Geertz
(1973, p. 13).
11
Geertz
(1983, pp. 55-59).
12
Geertz
(1983, p. 21).
13
Geertz
(1983, p. 23).
14
Geertz
(1983, p. 19).
15
Geertz
(1983, p. 21).
16
Geertz
(1983, pp. 21-22).
17
Geertz
(1983, p. 20).
18
Geertz
(1983, p. 31).
19
Geertz
(1983, pp. 34).
20
Geertz
(1973, pp. 421-53).
21
Rabinow
and Sullivan
(1987, p. 26).
22
Ibid.
23
Little
(1991, p. 69).
24
(1982, p. 1018).
Roseberry
25
Geertz
(1973, pp. 420-21).
26
Geertz
(1973, p. 436).
27
Ibid.
28
Geertz
(1973, p. 448).
29
Geertz
(1973, p. 449).
4

(1988),
Little's

Geertz
critical

30
31

Geertz

(1973, p. 451).
to claim
not want

I do

belies

THE

AND

GEERTZ

he

the restrictions

that Geertz
on

imposes

APPROACH

INTERPRETIVE

social

285

consistent.
Some of his research
is completely
see Little
in this paper. On this point,
science

(1991 p. 238, n. 4).

32
It might be replied

in terms of narrative
of origins might be addressed
that questions
are interpretive,
still remains
the question
such explanations
Assuming
explanations.
can be addressed
accounts.
This
of origins
whether
all legitimate
by narrative
questions
is surely an open question.
33
are not listed in the index of Geertz
or 'functionalism'
'function'
the terms
Indeed,
to reject one of the
functionalism
In Geertz
only
(1983, p. 99) he mentions
(1973).
it.
of holding
implications
34
no evidence
in this case, he provides
that
to function
If Geertz
is implicitly
appealing
cockfighting
in terms of

has

this function.

The

function

of
consequences
the causal consequences

the causal

of a cultural

the practice,
of organizing

has
cockfighting
35
Geertz
(1973, p. 421).
36
Geertz
(1983, p. 34).
37
and Sullivan
strong
(1987),
Perhaps Rabinow
would
However,
reject this causal interpretation.

is ordinarily
understood
practice
no evidence
that
and he provides
and domesticating
violence.

advocates

of

they provide

social science,
interpretive
no alternative
account and

is available.
it is hard to see what other
38
cannot be
to suppose
that literary
there is no good reason
However,
interpretation
considerations.
based on objective
F0llesdal
See, for example,
(1967).
(1979) and Hirsch
39
Geertz
(1973, p. 26).
40
Geertz
(1973, p. 24).
41
Geertz
(1973, p. 18).
42
See Shankman
(1984, p. 263).
43
Geertz
(1973, p. 25).
44
Geertz
(1973, p. 16).
45
can be objective.
I have argued
that interpretations
See Martin
Elsewhere
(1993).
46
Geertz
(1973, p. 16).
47
Geertz
(1973, p. 420).
48
Geertz
(1973, p. 421).
49
Ibid.
50
see Salmon
For this sort of analysis of confirmation,
(1982, pp. 49-51).

REFERENCES
David:

Braybrooke,
Cliffs.
F0llesdal,
al?ctica

Dagfinn:

1987,
1979,

Geertz,

33, 319-36.
Clifford:
1973,

Geertz,

Clifford:

Hirsch,
Little,
Martin,

E. D.,
Daniel:
Michael:

Philosophy

of

'Hermeneutics

the Social
and

Science,

Prentice

the Hypothetico-Deductive

Hall,

Englewood
Method',

Basic Books,
New York.
The Interpretation
of Cultures,
Basic Books,
New York.
1983, Local Knowledge,
Jr.: 1967, Validation
in Interpretation,
Yale University
Press, New
Westview
Press, Boulder.
1991, Varieties
of Social Explanations,
1993,

'Taylor

on

Interpretation

and

the Sciences

of Man',

Di

Haven.

in Michael

286

MICHAEL MARTIN

in the Philosophy
and Lee Mclntyre
of Social Science, MIT
(eds.), Readings
Massachusetts.
Cambridge,
and Geertz',
James:
The Anthropo
Peacock,
1981, 'The Third Stream: Weber,
Parson,
1, 122-29.
logical Society of Oxford
M. Sullivan:
in Paul Rabinow
Rabinow,
Paul, and William
1987, 'The Interpretive
Turn',
Martin
Press,

Social Science: A Second Look, Univer

Interpretative
(eds.),
pp. 1-30.
Berkeley,
and the Seduction
of "Anthropology"',
1982, 'Balinese Cockfights
Social Research
49, 1013-28.
Alexander:
1988, Philosophy
Press, Boulder.
of the Social Sciences, Westview
Rosenberg,
H.:
and Archaeology,
Academic
1982, Philosophy
Press, New York.
Salmon, Merrilee
and William

M.

Sullivan

sity of California
William:
Roseberry,

Shankman,

Paul:
Current

Geertz',

Press,

1984, The

Ronald
Walters,
Research
47, 537-56.

of Philosophy
Department
Boston
University
745 Commonwealth
Boston,
U.S.A.

MA

Thick

and

25,
Anthropology
G.:
1980, 'Signs of

02215

Avenue

the Thin:

On

the Interpretive

Program

of Clifford

261-70.
the Times:

Clifford

Geertz

and Historians',

Social