Clifford Geertzs Thick Description

Published Date: 02 Nov 2017

In his early career during the 1960s Geertz studied the social sciences inter disciplinary under the direction of Talcott Parsons, Parsons had grand designs for the social sciences, he wanted to bring them together to have an all-round view of what he classed as culture. Parsonism was heavily rooted in science, which Geertz did not quite believe in so during the early 1970s Geertz turned his attention towards promoting his understanding of what he classified interpretive anthropology which veered away from the scientifically testable social sciences and more into the humanities. For Geertz anthropology should not be an extension of the other social sciences but a field within its own right. Geertz focused his anthropology on the study of culture, without references to politics or economics.

Anthropologists have argued over what culture actually is and what it means since its inception into the social sciences. Within anthropology the various schools have their own differing views of culture what it entails and what constitutes a valid way of studying it, just like philosophy no one can actually define a standard definition that all agree upon. Cultural anthropologist Clifford Geertz defines culture through his own theories of interpretation and semiotics, he was known for his influence in the practice of symbolic anthropology and is considered influential in the resulting rise of postmodernism after his pioneering book ‘The interpretation of cultures’. Within this book, One of Geertz’s main theoretical approaches was formed and explained that of ‘thick description’; which is the idea that an ethnographic description has many levels or layers of meaning and is how someone identifies the way in which another person perceives how their culture is seen by others .

Geertz’s idea of interpretivism is that as an anthropologist, he believes that culture is studied by way of interpretation particularly through ethnographical research. Geertz’s theory of the thick description was borrowed from the essays of Gilbert Ryle (1968), which he acknowledges by stating ‘to borrow a notion from Gilbert Ryle, "thick description".’ Geertz, C. (1973, p. 6). He uses this theory as the backbone of his writings. The way Gilbert Ryle explains his idea of the thick description is to discuss the idea of ‘winking’ and how it can be interpreted as an action to mean different notions by different people. The idea that winking can be seen as an involuntary twitch by some people but interpreted as a type of communication by others, and hence one has meaning and the other doesn’t is what Gilbert Ryle meant by the term ‘thick description’. By thickly describing an event or action the meanings are made clearer, emotion is added or ambience set.

Ethnographies for a long time were seen as the observation of a culture rather than the interpretation of a culture. The first change of how ethnographies were undertaken was by Bronislaw Malinowski when he brought about participant observation and stepped ‘off the veranda’. Before this there had only been what was known as ‘armchair ethnographies’ where cultures were only observed and in most cases not even in person by the anthropologists themselves, where the anthropologists research were carried out by reading fieldwork from others typically missionaries or traders. However, even though Malinowski’s work was ground breaking, his ethnographic writing was from his personal point of view, which can be reflected within his diaries that he wrote whilst he was in the field.

What is Thick Description?

Clifford Geertz most influential work was done between the 1960’s and 1970’s, for example, his book- The Interpretation of Cultures (1973), which is made up of his essays, he discusses anthropology as a cultural translation of symbols and their meaning, using his key concept -‘thick description’. The thick description by Clifford Geertz is not only used within anthropology but is also used within a wide variety of areas by academics as it is the easiest way of interpreting the data found in a way that non-academics will understand.

Geertz separates the meanings that have meaning from the ones that don’t as he wants to figure out what the participants he is studying are actually doing. He looks at the action in the way of what he thinks the participants think about the actions they are doing, so the thick description is what the action means to them not us. ‘A thick description…does more than record what a person is doing. It goes beyond mere fact and surface appearances. It presents detail, context, emotion, and the webs of social relationships that join persons to one another’. Denzin (1989, in Ponterotto, J. 2006).

Scientific validity cannot be used in accordance with Geertz’s theory as it is the quality of interpretation of a social action as academics seek to use scientific methods to find what relates to what in the way of these actions, hence it is culturally relative to a subject and therefore not quantifiable. It is not the qualitative data alone that is recorded during the ethnographies, it is the use of the thick description to describe the data collected which is what will make it better than the scientific assessable methods. The use of statistical scientific data can be confusing and not very valid. Trying to record data in ethnographies scientifically to test or support a theory by descriptive writing was the problem Geertz sought to solve. Realising this could not be achieved as Hammersly (1990) puts it ‘descriptions cannot be theories. Descriptions are about particulars (objects and events in specific time-place locations)’. Geertz’s thick description approached ethnographic study from an interpretive angle. Hammersly also states ‘what we include in descriptions is determined in part by what we think causes what’. Hammersly (1990), Geertz seems to disagree especially where objectivity or subjectivity is involved.

Clifford Geertz did not agree with the idea of structuralism as other anthropologists such as Levi-Strauss and Radcliffe-Brown and these believed that every cultural behaviour had links to another, (Universalisms) whereas Geertz believed that cultural phenomena was a one-time thing that never happened again in exactly the same way and that is how the action is unique. Geertz also believed that cultural actions were to be explained and not categorised so that we as anthropologists could record these actions through interpretations and record them as unique actions that were specific to that time, place and action. ‘The ethnographer does not, and in my opinion, largely cannot, perceive what his informants perceive’. Geertz, C. (1974). He expands this a bit further by later adding ‘I have tried to arrive at this most intimate of notions not by imagining myself as someone else – but by searching out and analyzing the symbolic forms – words, images, institutions, behaviours – in terms of which, in each place, people actually represent themselves to themselves and to one another’. Geertz, C (1924, p. 30).

Evans Pritchard also uses anthropology as a cultural translation when writing his book; Nuer Religion (1956), where the idea of cultural translation is that the anthropologist sees culture as a language (a foreign language) where the anthropologist translates this language in to a language that their own culture will understand. The whole point of translating a culture is to capture the predominant qualities of the culture, but for critics such as structuralists, these predominant qualities cannot be understood without first understanding the basic fundamental parts of the culture. Once again, the other theoretical development by Geertz was ‘thick description’ which was the idea that culture was like a category within literature, developed with people becoming more aware of good and bad writing within anthropology; however, a negative part of Geertz’s writing was the way he would make the reader agree with whatever he was writing because he was so dominant within the interpretation.

Critically Evaluate Geertz’s Approach to Culture and Cultural Analysis. .

Symbols

Since the 1960s there have been certain themes that have ran through anthropology and many of these points to an idealist nature. Many definitions of culture have been found to have been dominated by symbolic culture and this has had several consequences, for instance according to Moore ‘this symbolic approach to culture means that ethnographic studies that emphasise materialist concern have fallen in to disfavour’ (Moore, 1997, p. 47). The purpose of symbols is to create and convey meanings so if culture is symbolic then it to should create and convey meanings. If these meanings are then the end products of culture then these meanings have to be understood in order to understand culture. As an etic model is based on criteria from outside a particular culture then from this point of view culture will be out of reach of the etic observer as the meanings of the culture are only obtainable from the emic insider’s point of view. The interpretive task becomes so since symbols contain multiple layers of meaning. Looking at culture in the way of symbols can be traced back to Talcott Parsons or even as far back as Max Weber (Rice, 1980, p. 213).

When reading Geertz’s most famous ethnography: Deep Play, Notes on a Balinese Cockfight you can tell that he definitely practices what he preaches. The whole ethnography is extremely thickly described, the only thing about Geertz’s writing is that he leaves no room for reader’s interpretation; he is very forceful and certain about what he writes. When Geertz talks about why using the thick description is the correct method to use he just says it is and will not allow for any deviance from it.

Within Peacock, J. L (2001, pp. 69-70)it was stated that the famous ethnography Geertz wrote on the Balinese cockfight showed that he established a role within the Balinese community following his visit to the cockfight and this step in his field work led to the next step which was that of interpretation. Lévi-Strauss found this field work to be a waste o time, however it certainly was not time wasted but this field work was also not under taken simply for the fun of it even though whilst reading the ethnography it did sound as though Geertz enjoyed it. As an anthropologist Geertz had to record, describe, analyse (thickly) and eventually sum up what he had found in order to be able to conclude his findings and subsequently turn this data in to an ethnography. Peacock, J. L also stated that ‘ethnography is unlike literature and like science in that it endeavours to describe real people systematically and accurately , but it resembles literature in the way that it waves facts in to a for that highlights patterns and principles. Peacock, J. L (2001, p. 104).

Even though Geertz is certain about the thick description and the sole use of the qualitative method, one is left to think whether introducing structuralism and using it alongside the ideas of Geertz would be of use and allow a full interpretation from all sides as structuralism uses the scientific quantifiable methods, with this in mind Alexander et al stated ‘furthermore we might insist that the structuralist move does not eliminate the possibility for sensitive and situated interpretation, as Geertz claimed, but rather can assist in the task’(Alexander et al, 2011, p. 19). As the 1980’s saw Geertz ideas within his writings within The Interpretation of Cultures to become passed over and Alexander et al thought that ‘the fateful mistake was that Geertz rejected structuralism’ Alexander et al (2011, p. 29.).

Alexander et al (2011, p. 56) made a point that the humanities and social sciences saw a split when Clifford Geertz was one of the most important thinkers and for forty years he tried to make the humanistic nature of social sciences go against the grain of the discipline but also went against his teachers who was Talcott Parsons.

Even though we can get much data and many conclusions from statistical data the use of quantitative data alone is not enough. As we see from Geertz’ work the use of thick description and qualitative data when looking at culture is imperative to be able to delve deep within that culture.

When looking over his life’s work it is difficult to see why he faded so far in to the background but by other disciplines like sociology and philosophy using his idea of the thick description to make sense and emotively describe their work effectively kept his spirit alive only for his ideas to be brought back to the forefront of anthropology and once again greatly used and appreciated.

Even though his push against structuralism and post modernism saw his downfall it shows he really believed in his ideas and his elaborate ‘go all out’ attitude is what made him one of the forefathers of anthropology and he came to be very well respected within the many disciplines that used his ideas.

While we know the use of quantitative data is scientifically testable and repeatable by using it alone cannot give us all of the answers that we seek it is the use of the qualitative data in such a way that Geertz saw. He knew that statistics would not give the insight needed for ethnographies to become invaluable and useful to its readers and so the idea of ‘thick description’ was born.

‘What did he contribute? Most importantly, a concept of culture and demonstration of the importance of culture in life as a whole and especially as a ways of defining meaning and shaping meaning in the midst of action and change.’ Peacock, J. (2005, p. 54).