17 Symbolic and Interpretive Anthropology

Sarika Negi

Contents

Introduction

1. History Of The Interpretive Research Tradition

2.Interpretive Anthropology

3. A Critical Perspective on Interpretative Anthropology 3.1 Objectification of researcher

3.2 Causality and Interpretation of culture

3.3 Validation in the interpretive anthropology

4. Recent trends in Cognitive anthropology

5. Summary

Learning Outcomes

• To develop an understanding about the concept of interpretive and symbolic Anthropology
• To know about the contribution of various scholars to the concept
• To be able to critically analyze the topic
• To know about the recent trends in Cognitive Anthropology

Introduction

The anthropological studies seeks aspects of social structure & the analogy involved, which has been taken to the area of understanding of people’s action and how the structure has been placed with the help of symbols and decoding their meaning understood by a shared understanding of the people. It has been quoted in anthropological language “reading between lines”, mean interpreting underlying ‘meaning or message’ (understanding the social code underlying those actions). The interpretive theorists believed that, reality is not ‘out there’ but in people’s mind and the reality is experienced internally, constructed in social realm through interaction and interpreted by the actors, and is based on the definition people attach to it.

The primary desire of present Ethnographic approach is to outline the ‘native point of view’ and to explain how different ‘cultural design of reality’ affects ‘social action’. It emphasizes on the peoples’ shared understanding of their own culture, how they locate their own self in it and their experiences. The culture is attributed to the agglomeration of symbols having particular meaning and which is interpreted via actors and therefore interpretive can be understood as study of actor-centred action.

In anthropological literature Geertz was the leading figure in Interpretive Anthropology, he considered the concept of culture essentially, ‘Semiotic’ one, i.e. symbolic. Interpretive anthropology is referred as Symbolic Anthropology as well. It has two lines running parallel to each other headed by two different leaders inheriting ideas from different ideals. Symbolic anthropology is led by both, Clifford Geertz and Victor Turner, Geertz was influenced by Max Weber and Turner was influenced by Durkheim.

1.    HISTORY OF THE INTERPRETIVE RESEARCH TRADITION

It grew out of convergence of disciplines such as philosophy, phenomenology, hermeneutics, ethno – methodology and sociology. The interpretive social science can be related to the work of Giovanni Batista Vico (1668-1744), Dilthey (1833-1911) and most of all of Weber (1864-1920). In his work Vico consciously developed his idea of scienza (science or knowledge) in opposition to Descartes’ philosophy, the most basic idea from which all knowledge could be derived by way of deductive rules. Vico criticized it in a way that it renders phenomena which cannot be expressed logically or mathematically as illusions of one sort or another. He argued that, complete knowledge of any thing involves ‘how it came to be’, ‘what it is’ as a ‘result of human action’ and the principle attribute of human beings. He is relatively unrecognized for his ideas but, cannot be denied credit for developing vision of human centred phenomena and explanation of these. He emphasized on the cause of phenomena which is a step towards producing a theory. His ideas penetrated in social sciences directly or indirectly in one or the other way.

Interpretive drew ideas from hermeneutics too; a prominent figure who made contribution towards the present context was Dilthey who was a historian cum sociologist cum hermeneutic philosopher. Dilthey proposed that the human being live in a web having meanings and that they make these webs them self and to study human we need to comprehend those webs. He is the one who distinguished between human science (Geisteswissenschaften) and natural science (Naturwissenschaften) and also suggested for implementation of hermeneutic methodology to social sciences. Hermeneutics is a subject directed study, drawn from word “Hermes “, a Greek god who was given the job of delivering and interpreting the messages of the other gods for humans. From this came the word ‘Hermeneus’ or ‘interpreter’. The hermeneutic as an ideology came into the social sciences with the close and careful study of all free flowing texts. The hermeneutic approach stress (1) on myths or narrative having meaning in a collective consciousness of the society in sense or knowledge of culture (2) it is the job of social researcher to discover those meaning (3) an acknowledgment to that, the meaning can change with time and can also be different for groups or sub-groups with in a society.

In sociology as well Ethno methodology emerged as a critique methodology of conventional sociology which was founded by Harold Garfinkel, a sociologist. Garfinkel wrote ‘Studies in Ethno methodology’ in 1967 in which he showed concern for the methodological problems in understanding of social order. He cited Ethno methodology as the investigation of logical properties of indexical expressions and other practical actions as cause of on -going achievement of organized practices of everyday life. The indirect influence from Durkheim can be traced when, Garfinkel, talks of expression and actions in a relation to the collectively of people. He explained the concept of ‘common culture’ as socially approved ground of inference and action that people use in their everyday affairs and which are assumed by actors as in common or used by others in the same way and these approved facts consists of explanations from the point of view of the members in collective manner.

Garfinkel was majorly influenced by Alfred Schutz, whose worked to bridged traditions, sociology and phenomenology but, Garfinkel never denied of ideas brought from sociologists like Talcott Parsons (action theory), who in turn was admirer of sociologist like Max Weber and Durkheim (collective consciousness) and phenomenologist’s like Edmund Husserl (1859-1938). Although interpretivism differed from phenomenology but, phenomenology has contribution in developing this theoretical perspective.

In sociological tradition, it was Max Weber whose approach of ‘Verstehen’, was taken up even in Hermeneutics and other sciences, which is deciphered as ‘understanding’. He held a prominent figure in relation to interpretivism as developed interpretive sociology. It was Weber and his followers who gradually took forth the idea of understanding texts to understanding actors and their social life in general. Weber’s idea was that, man is an animal suspended in the webs of significance, which was adopted by Geertz therefore only he was the one taking culture as webs and he propounded use of interpretive analysis instead of experimental science for examining such webs of significance. Weber in 1978 said that, ‘sociology is a science concerning itself with the interpretative understanding of social action and thereby with a causal explanation of its course and consequences… speak of action insofar as the acting individual attaches a subjective meaning to his behaviour (Keyes, 2002).

2.  Interpretive Anthropology:

Interpretivism in anthropological historical discourse was used by Evans Pritchard when he wrote literature on Nuer Religion but, the flagship went to Geertz as this tradition is best reflected in his work and is pursued in his every piece of work. In the anthropological writing a paradigm shift could be observed with Pritchard but, became very much visible with Geertzian ideas and work. His work ‘The Interpretation of Culture’ came in 19th year when Pritchard passed and became a landmark in the interpretive anthropology. Geertz’s work is often seen as a reaction to the disappointment with Levi Strauss’s work on meaning, where contrast between characters of culture was covered and not on the meaning.

2.1 Geertzian Anthropology

Clifford Geertz proposed interpretative analysis in order to study culture and the webs of significance. He utilized Gilbert Ryle’s’ notion of “Thick Description” to define the original aim of anthropology. In actual sense, Ryle’s example of “Twitching and Winking” has made the understanding or study of cultural phenomena more explicit with this example. Geertz explained the aim of interpretative studies as, to draw large conclusions from small, but very densely textured facts; to support broad assertions about the role of culture in the construction of collective life by engaging them exactly with complex specifics. The approach is not visible in his paper on puppets show in java only but, in all other writings. The most popular of his works is the one that of Balinese cockfight, where he linked it with the status hierarchy, tension inside the society and between societies and kinship bonding. Geertz found that, ‘Sabung’, the word used for a cock is having several meanings in the society, which metaphorically meant ‘a hero’, ‘warrior’, ‘tough guy’, ‘lady killer’, etc. He also noted in his chapter ‘Deep play’, that, both a type of man like, a man who make irrational effort ‘extracting’ himself is compared to a roster with a dying cock, etc.

He has talked extensively on the owner and their cocks, how they take care of their cocks and they start reflecting their own image in their rosters, the money involved (the primary bet and the secondary one along with their characteristics), the fight and how these fights vary on the basis of money and the prestige involved. He showed that even the status in society is connected with rosters and a hierarchy based on participation and a link to the status oriented fights. In Balinese society where, participants taking part in larger bet have the highest social status, the kind of status gamble involved make them important in other affairs of society whereas poor, women, children are the one, lowest in hierarchy, who either are starting or do not play or gamble in pennies. It is reported in the account that, the hierarchy is felt so strongly that, none of the men would like to a around the one lowest in the social hierarchy. He also talked of function of these fights in resolving inter and intra group tension via defeating the other person but, at the same time brought out that for the people who bet often it is not a matter of prestige in fact a mode of economic gain. Geertz drew from Balinese cockfight that, the themes of gambling, status hierarchy involved, aesthetic evoking excitement, etc. are all connected to rage and its fear, bound by rules they have a symbolic structure in which the inner social ties can be felt where one is having close friends and kin in their centre bet while when it is between two villages, allies is the one from the same village and the roster of Home is supported.

After Geertz, the doctrine became popular in Anthropology and many other scholars pursued this method. Along with Geertz, the interpretivism in anthropology is best reflected in Victor Turner’s work with Ndembu’s. Later, Turner (Ndembu), Mary Douglas (Natural Symbols) and David Schneider also became popular for practicing interpretative anthropology.

2.2 Turner’s Anthropology

Interpretative anthropology becomes visible in Turner’s work on Ndembu’s of Northern Rhodesia, titled ‘Schism and Continuity in an African Society: A study of Ndembu Village Life’, 1957. Turner focused on the link between rites of passage and social drama along with the idea of liminality, which is understood as in the Nkang’a, the puberty ritual of a girl. In his account narration of neophyte wrapped in a cloak is laid at the foot of a ‘mudyi’ sapling is given focusing on the event and phenomena occurring. The broader aspects of processual phases of these rite de passage rituals constructed by Turner were 1) separation, where ritual subject is made sacred, 2) margin involving full or partial separation from everyday life and new names have been given to these ritual subjects symbolizing their transitional phase and liminality of the status and 3) re-aggregation known as Ku-tumbuka involving, treatment and celebration dance for the end of isolation. In his approach to ritual Turner constructed some elemental aspect of it where, first remained the ritual as a process of ongoing social drama, the second being centrality of symbols as smallest unit in ritual activity. Third, revolves around meaning of these symbols which can be multiple, concerned with the social order and need of individual in transition.

The tree, Diplorrhyncus condylocarpon is known for its white latex in the community, giving milky beads when bark is scraped. The tree is called as ‘milk tree’ by the author, which is explored by him among the community women for its meaning to them emerging as being ‘senior’ (mukulumpi) tree of the ritual which Turner categorised under the head of ‘Dominant Symbol’ known for their axiomatic values i.e. not only fulfilling the motive of a ritual but at the same time referring the values regarded as ends in themselves. The other perspective which marked the emic perspective of ritual and its symbolic characters was tree resembling the human breast milk and the breast as well which is giving it. This corresponded the facts of Nkang’a performed near the mudyi sapling symbolising girl’s breast maturing. Turner calls it the ritual showing connection with the mother and child, more importantly the nurturing ties of it involving biological act of breast feeding to social linkage in domestic relations and in the structure of the society which is matrilineal. In the third notion which emerged in the study pointed out it being ‘the tree of a mother and her child’.

The discussion on puberty ritual of a girl is taken forwards to the concepts of nourishment and learning which are equated in the content of the milk tree. The child narrated to be swallowing instructions as a baby swallows milk, here the milk tree undertaking of directives in Ndembu culture followed by inititation rituals in both the genders (circumcisions in boys and long trial of lying without moving in girls). In the Nkang’a the focal element of the ritual is the integration of Ndembu women, Mudyi itself more specifically, is the flag of Ndembu women. In certain situations, girl’s particular tree symbolizes her shift in social personality as a grown woman filled with maturity.

Turner interpreted ‘milk tree’ endowing order and structure on Ndembu social life as both locally operating system, matrilineal descent and virilocality, counteracting and preventing stronger group formation larger than village and at the same time hindering the growth of deep lineages and increasing probability of individual movement and village fission. Within village quiet unstable marriages allowed Turner to exhibit social drama as a tool to look beneath the layer of social regularities, hidden contradictions and eruption of conflict in the social structure. The social drama in Ndembu society in its processual form is interpreted to following four stage, 1) a violation of regular norm governed social ties between individuals or groups of a social unit, 2) crisis stage due to extension of violation, unless conflict is sealed, 3) measures brought into operation by leading members of the unit; and 4) reintegration of the upset social unit or social recognition of an irreparable violation or schism. The redressive mechanism are the rituals performed at community level which were performed by cult – associations cross cutting the boundaries of lineages and villages, creating wider networks of association, which is treated by turner as a social glue holding the Ndembu society together. The principle of matriliny as element in semantic structure of the milk tree, itself symbolizes the total system of interrelations between groups and persons that makes up Ndembu society. At its highest level of abstraction, therefore, the milk tree stands for the unity and continuity of Ndembu society. These thoughts were supported by perceptions of educated Ndembu’s explaining the milk tree as british flag above the political spaces stating Mudyi being their flag.

It is important to not only include the emic perspective but at the same time the processual aspects of the ritual adhering to the meanings associated with symbols and in totality symbolizing their solidarity.

Turner collected properties of these symbols through observation and data collection process. Through his processual approach towards ritual he made a distinction between life cycle ritual and rituals of affliction which are more of cult associated, i.e. when a person is caught by spirits or shades as used by Turner.

3   A Critical Perspective on Interpretative Anthropology

3.1 Objectification of researcher

In anthropological tradition, when a move from scientific to humanistic came, Interpretative Anthropology grew as a dominant tradition making anthropological study more people and their perspective centric.

Geertz in his paper on ‘the interpretation of culture’ said that anthropological work is like a text which was criticised later by scholar of post – modern thoughts considering that researcher is not detached from the work and argued for a reflexivity in the work. It argue the research is not only about people’s centric account only but, the observations or action of observers in the social system affecting the very situation as well and should be acknowledged, understood and reported in the text also incorporating preconception of researcher as a part of the text.

The concept Objectivity, which marked the researcher’s detachment from the research, was contradicted by postmodern anthropological tradition. The postmodern scholars argued for reflexivity in approach, which pointed towards that, a hundred percent of objectivity or detachment cannot be achieved.

3.2 Causality and Interpretation of culture

Earlier, Michael Martin criticised Geertz for undermining the causal laws in his study in turn rejected the causality being the focal point in the natural science. On this basis, as argued that, he repressed the use of language in specific to incorporate cause relation to the human actions. Although, later he adds that, subjugation of causality in his account is not full but, Geertz did focus on psychology of people participating, the practice of cock fight and association of it with these fights.

Geertz acknowledged that, social sciences does attend cause and only that we rather focus on the collecting expressions and analysing them and less by formulating forces and measuring them. The notion of causality is well tackled in Tuner’s paper where causality is explained in terms of Ndembu social structure and function of such practice. Ndembu social life as both, locally operating system, matrilineal descent and virilocality where stronger group formation could not be achieved in groups larger than village and at the same time hindering the growth of deep lineages and increasing probability of individual’s movement and village fission.

3.3 Validation in the interpretive anthropology

Another criticism to the approach of interpretative work is Reliability on the interpretation where, Geertz himself argued that, validation of interpretation is problematic where subjectivity was added to the meaning asserted by individuals. He himself has explained the levels of interpretation first involving insider, second researcher and third reader or any other which actually justified the notion of subjectivity and various minds involved. He talked of interpretation of interpretation of a person, which forming the second level of argument where understanding of researcher, insider’s projection and how much the researcher could capture can be argued.

Although, Geertz himself argued that, the two interpretation done on a culture is difficult be compared while an ethnographic account’s attention is not connected with the scholar’s ability to caricature facts but is on the extent to which he can clarify the local phenomena and puzzles. The postmodern thoughts also questioned about researcher’s eye and conceptions built on it. These problems were finding their solution in the postmodern methodologies, which are coming up more in practice in the current trends.

4    Recent trends in Cognitive anthropology

The recent studies were the endeavours to redirect interest of Symbolic Anthropology majorly to Metaphor and Metonymy, and also to the Synecdoche and Irony and take away from symbols. Saussarian approach of syntagmatic and paradigmatic analysis and dramatistic approach of Kenneth Burke gave directions to these recent trends. Burke’s approach was centred around the interaction with situation, actions, agents, agencies and reasons, power of language based conception to construct situations, yielding actions, undermining agents, recognise and entitle agencies, and conceiving and following the reason. The Saussurian concept are best reflected in the work of Jakobson who focused on the similarity and closer associations in cultural productions. It became a model and had a influence on the Lévi Strauss where in The Savage Mind a contrast berween the metaphorical and metonymical order of social and cultural relations and alterations take place between the two orders – the similarity and contiguity, i.e. closer association.

The Saussure-jakobson are distinguished by Tambiah when he discussed about the word’s magical power in Trobriander garden spells and pregnancy rites where attributes are conveyed via spells to the subjects, like garden by connecting them metonymically and metaphorically to the qualities in these other object. His contribution was more clearer than Malinowski’s account and showed how these spells were so effective in handing down these and confirming these characters. Some other works were of I. A. Richards and William Empson.

Summary

Symbolic or Interpretive Anthropology is concerned with the process through which actors are giving meaning to their world and these meaning finding a place in system or systems of cultural symbols. The study conducted by Geertz is basically guessing about the meanings and enveloped it in his account by analysing them and caricaturing the explanatory conclusions. Along with criticisms and arguments involved something which is important to observe that via his study, where the humanistic approach kind of lost ground was brought back by his work while in addition, Turner’s work and his became the gems in anthropological tradition. Although symbolic anthropologists have never outlined the methodology for this sort of work but characterised the kind of work needed in anthropological tradition by leading a paradigm shift where actor centric approach was further refined by post modernists as a critique to this modernist tradition. Along with the emergence of post modern tradition certain development were made in modern which reshaped it with some other attributes taking it to the next level and recording a continuous development with the basic ideology of people.

Suggested Reading

• “Social Dramas and Stories about them.” Critical Inquiry 7(1980).:141-168.
• Douglas, Mary. Natural Symbols: Exploration in Cosmology. New York: Pantheon, 1970.
• Dramas, Fields, and Metaphors: Symbolic Action in Human Society. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
• Geertz, Clifford. The interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays. New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1973.
• Marcus, George E. and Michael M. J. Fischer (eds). Anthropology as Cultural Critique: An Experimental Moment in the Human Sciences, 1986. p. 17-45.
• McGee, R. Jon and Richard L. Warms (eds). Anthropological Theory: An Introductory History.4thedition. New York: The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 2008.
• Ortner, Sherry B. Theory in anthropology since the Sixities, Comaparitve. Studies in Society and History. 26(1) (1984): 126-166.
• Schism and Continuity in an African Society: A study of Ndembu Village Life. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1957.
• Schneider, David. American Kinship: A cultural Account. 2ndedition. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1980.
• Schneider, Mark A. “Culture-as-Text in the Work of Clifford. Theory and Society.” Nov. 16, no. 6. (1987): 809-839.
• Spencer, Jonathan.  “Symbolic  Anthropology”.  in  Encyclopedia  of  Social  and  Cultural Anthropology, edited by Alan Barnard and Jonathan Spencer, London and New York: Routledge, 1996. P. 535-539.
• Tongs, Alans.  “The  Philosophical  Basis  of  Geertz’s  Social  Anthropology.”  Eastern Anthropologist 46, (1993): 1-17.
• Turner, Victor W.
• Turner, Victor W. The Forest of Symbols: Aspects of Ndembu Ritual. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1967.