Some Notes on ’s Interpretive Anthropology1

Achmad Fedyani Saifuddin

(Universitas Indonesia)

Abstrak

Salah satu persoalan dalam filsafat ilmu sosial adalah bagaimana menjelaskan (explain) tindakan-tindakan manusia yang beranekaragam secara ilmiah. Apakah kita dapat menerapkan metode-metode ilmu alam atau ada cara lain yang lebih tepat untuk menjelaskannya? Para ilmuwan sosial masih terus berupaya menemukan the best way untuk menjelaskan gejala-gejala sosial meskipun mereka tetap belum puas. Thomas Kuhn berpendapat bahwa ilmu sosial—tidak seperti ilmu alam—masih terlibat dalam diskusi metodologi yang tidak habis-habisnya karena belum mampu mencapai suatu kesepakatan mengenai paradigma-paradigma umum untuk membatasi masalah-masalah dan prosedur penelitian. Artikel ini berusaha mendiskusikan pandangan interpretive dari Clifford Geertz dalam mengkaji kebudayaan dan masyarakat serta kedudukannya dalam konstelasi metodologi ilmu sosial. Ada dua alasan mengapa perlu mendiskusikan masalah ini: (1) pandangan interpretive terhadap gejala-gejala sosial merupakan perkembangan penting dalam ilmu sosial selama dua dasawarsa; (2) C. Geertz yang banyak dipengaruhi teori sistem Talcott Parsons telah mengembangkan gagasan yang kaya dan luar biasa tentang bagaimana melihat dan menganalisis kebudayaan dan masyarakat. Perhatiannya tidak hanya pada masalah antropologi tetapi juga pada ilmu sosial umumnya.

Kata kunci: intrepretivisme; “thick description”; antiekonomisme; antireduksionisme.

Introduction application of natural science explanation is Alexander Rosenberg (1988) maintains that considered the most appropriate for the analy- the traditional questions for the philosophy of sis. But, quoting Rosenberg again, the appli- reflect the importance of the cation of natural science way to explain human choices of research questions and of methods action is so much less precise and less improv- of tackling them. Therefore, there is the ques- able than scientific explanation. Now, if the tion of whether human action can be explained answer is negative, then what is the right way phenomena in its domain. Suppose that the to explain social action scientifically? The an- answer is positive, the implication is that the swers will be returning to the nature of expla- nation and causation, the testing of generali- 1 This article is republished of the original version zation and laws, and it will reflect on the nature which published on ANTROPOLOGI INDONESIA vol. of thought and its relation to behavior. XV, no. 49, 1991, pp. 4–11.

Saifuddin, Some Notes on Clifford Geertz’s Interpretive 151 However, social scientists continue to see system theory of Talcott Parsons, has created themselves, as did their predecessors, trying rich and extra ordinary development of ideas to find out the “best way” of explaining social of how to see and analyze human and things, but, like their predecessors, they remain . Furthermore, Geertz has shifted his disappointed (for discussion, see Fiske & position from a traditional to a Shweder 1988; Brown 1980). Social scientists social scientist, and even a good writer, be- have seized upon Thomas Kuhn theories (1970) cause he not only concerns with the problems in part as a way of explaining the failure of any of anthropology but also of the nature of so- of the social sciences, including linguistics and cial science generally. This makes him promi- economics, to develop either the agreement on nent position in social science theories nowa- methods or the generally acknowledged clas- days. sic examples of explanation characteristics of the natural sciences. As we understand, Tho- Clifford Geertz’s interpretive view mas Kuhn (1970) argues that the strength of The following part discusses Geertz’s way natural science has laid in its ability to go be- of looking human culture and society consist- yond endless methodological discussions by ing of a description of the “Thick Description” developing general shared paradigms which as a methodological issue, antireductionism define problems and procedures. But, unfortu- and anti naturalistic theses, and his anti nately social scientists, without denying the economism view. persistence and theoretical fruitfulness of cer- tain explanatory scheme in the social sciences, The “Thick Description” methodology have never reached of the degree of basic agree- Clifford Geertz is an anthropologist who ment that characterizes modern natural science, emphasizes that anthropology should shift from at least according to Kuhn. the search for explanation to the search for This article tries to discuss Clifford Geertz’s meaning and who saw the importance of sym- interpretive view of seeing human culture and bols in anthropological research (Geertz 1973; society, and its position within the constella- 1983; 1984; 1988). He stresses the significance tion of the social science methodologies, and of social context as a crucial element in com- some controversies among social scientists prehending what symbols signify. He argues concerning this issue. This issue is important for turning away from an investigation of signs to discuss because of two reasons: first, the and symbols in abstraction, to “toward an in- interpretive way of looking social things in vestigation of signs and symbols in their natu- social science has been an important develop- ral habitat—the common world in which hu- ment in the last two decades. This model refo- man look, name, listen and make (1983:119)”. cuses attention on the concrete varieties of is based on the cultural meaning, in their particularity and com- notion that members of a society share a sys- plex texture, but without falling into the traps tem of symbols and meanings called culture. of historicism or in its clas- The system represents the reality in which sic interpretations; and second, Clifford Geertz, people live. Symbolic stress an anthropologist who started his career with system, whether it is loosely or tightly inte- his classic and traditional way of anthropol- grated, since members of a society must articu- ogy in 1960s and was much influenced by the late and share to some degree. People must

152 ANTROPOLOGI INDONESIA Vol. 30, No. 2, 2006 have some notion of what other people in their Geertz shows that cultural understanding community believes, some expectation of what by no means entails any form of special intu- their response to others will be and others to ition or mysterious powers of empathy. He out- them, so as to be able to interact and communi- lines and then demonstrates how cultural un- cate. Symbolic anthropology is dedicated to derstanding starts with a picture of the whole, studying and researching the process by which which leads the investigator to look for sym- people give meaning to their world and their bolic forms through which and in which the action in it (1973, 1983). conceptions of the persons, the social order, Interpretive anthropology seeks to redirect and the cosmology are articulated and dis- from a strategy of find- played. Taking the Balinese as an example, he ing causal explanations for human behavior to shows that the people are active interpreters one that seeks interpretations and meaning in of their own culture. Both anthropologists and human action. It is a strategy which sees the natives are busy creating and commenting on humanities rather than science as the model social life. In his article, “Deep Play. Notes on for anthropology. It seeks analogies based on the Balinese Cockfight” (1972), he presents theatre, play, drama, and literature rather than that the Balinese cockfights ritualize violent those based on crafts, mechanics, and organic conflicts and thereby orders and to an extent structures. This approach, rather than seeking domesticate it. Cultural forms play a therapeu- general propositions through the comparative tic role by organizing and thereby making com- study of many cases, takes an idiographic ap- prehensible violence and inequality (1972). proach, that is, the study of the single case With the compilation of interpretations of which can yield insights and meaning. In the texts, actions, symbols, social forms, and study of the individual case, a particular soci- events, going from particular to general and ety, for example, interpretive anthropologist back again, understanding and meaning slowly does not look at how people behave as much emerges. It is presented in the form of “thick as the meanings which persons living in the description”, it preserves the magic of life, it society give to their actions and behavior. goes back and forth from one viewpoint to an- These meaning are conveyed through the use other, from one level to another, and it leads to of symbols which stand for values, codes, and an understanding of the meaning of one’s own, rules. This viewpoint does not deny the mate- as well as other, (1973; 1983). rial world but believes that the material and social world of humans can be best understood Antireductionism and antinaturalistic theses by listening to the way persons living in the society explain and understand their institu- Clifford Geertz shows that an interpretive tions and customs. The job of anthropologists approach does not reduce the number and di- is to interpret the interpretations of the natives versity of means of understanding that are (1973, 1983). One particular things in this view available, but rather improve them (1973). If is that anthropologists should pride themselves theory per se no longer separate from the en- in “thick description” knowing a lot about each terprise, then insights, methods, and techniques case, documenting local events accurately, and from a variety of disciplines become available generalizing within cases, not across cases to us. Theory, here, is seen as itself an interpre- (1973). tation. It is seen as being in a situation with a

Saifuddin, Some Notes on Clifford Geertz’s Interpretive Anthropology 153 particular problem to work on. Therefore, it can altogether as something for the Javanese in- use what is appropriate to the case. Being it vestigators to deal with seems to lead to as- self situated, both theoretically and practically, cending indeterminacy instead of increase pre- it no longer can autonomously see the terms cision. “Only the recontextualization of the for discussion. But a discussion of a problem Javanese and Indonesian economic processes is impossible without it (1973). within the Javanese and Indonesian life as con- His critiques on the quantifying way of cretely enacted, the de-externalization of cul- social things and cultures are implicit in his ture, can reduce this indeterminacy, however works in 1960’s. But in 1980’s he has consis- slightly, and deliver answers we can have some tently been grasping his ideas to attack quan- faith in, however modest. It is economism, the titative methods, especially in confronting, and notion that a determinate picture of social defending himself from, many critiques com- change can be obtained in the absence of an ing from many scholars of various disciplines understanding of the passions and imagining who also studies the Javanese agricultural tra- that provoke and inform it (1984:523)”. dition, the theme he studies in 1960’s, from dif- From the above description we understand ferent point of views. He argues: that the stress on the qualitative is close to “Both (convergent and divergent methods) have merging with another typical antinaturalistic their uses; for some purpose they complement thesis, that social scientists must understand one another; and it is possible to get things pre- social life intuitively. We have noted that Geertz cisely or vaguely wrong, employing either of has been sensitive to the methodological prob- them. But the sharp turn towards the divergent data, approach does serious questions about the lems. Writing about the view that the settings adequacy of interpretations of the contempo- in which qualitative researchers gather data are rary scene in rural Java which flows from such a “natural laboratories”, he argues: “what you count is what you get” sort of analy- sis (1984:522).” “The natural laboratory notion has been . . . pernicious, not only because the analogy is Geertz further argues that quantitative ar- false—what kind of a laboratory is it where none guments are extremely tricky to make, not only of the parameters are manipulable?—but because are the numbers unreliable as such, many of it leads to a notion that the data derived from ethnographic studies are purer, or more funda- them having been made up in some administra- mental, or more solid, or less conditioned... than tive offices or other for purposes more rhetori- those derived from other sorts of social inquiry. cal than analytic, but the great complexity of The great natural variation- of cultural forms is proprietary institutions within the historic ... not, even metaphorically, experimental varia- tion, because the context in which it occurs var- Javanese local community makes the applica- ies along with it, and it is not possible (though tion of familiar measures of rural inequality there are some who try) to isolate their y’s from based on a simple view of ownership often quite the x’s to write a proper function (1973:23– 23).” misleading. The tendency to rely on numerical measures, however uncertain, rather institu- Antieconomism view tional descriptions, is again part of the general Clifford Geertz criticizes the “economism”, turn to an economistic approach to the analy- the term he uses to call the way of thinking sis of rural society and the externalization of leading to the re-externalization of cultural (or culture that attend it He sums up that the pul- sociocultural) matters reminiscent of the cul- verization of village into num- ture-as-barrier versus the culture-as-stimulus bers and the setting aside of cultural factors

154 ANTROPOLOGI INDONESIA Vol. 30, No. 2, 2006 framework (1984:516). Unfortunately, his cri- Another Geertz’s important critique deal- tiques toward “economism” come much more ing with “economism” is to the tendency of explicit twenty years later, 1980’s when he has social scientists to aggrandize the “famous” been very busy to defend himself against theories rather than appreciate the function of sharply critiques coming from many scholars them to enable to research. This tendency of various disciplines. It seems that he made makes the relationship between the social much improvements in his latest article pub- theory and social research rather backward, lished in Man, 1984, much better than his origi- keeping the habit of social scientists to apply nal work. one famous theory coming from Western ratio- The term of “economism” basically comes nal-based action tradition to, for example, a from Marshal Sahlins, an economic anthropolo- small traditional Javanese village. It is the func- gist, with Marxist version, who views that mov- tion of theory to accelerate research model, and ing forces in individual behavior (and thus in by this function social theory and social re- society), are those of a need-driven utility search will pushed forward into progress. seeker maneuvering for advantage within con- Summarizing this section, there are two im- text of material possibilities and normative con- portant points: firstly, the “Thick Description” straints. Man the strategizer, manipulating is a methodological solution in anthropologi- “means-ends relations (within) an eternal tele- cal, or even in social, research. The “thick de- ology of human satisfactions, takes the center scription” implies that researchers must explore of and most of the rest of the social stage. Cus- one case deeply, document local events accu- tom, convention belief, and institution are not rately, and generalize within cases, not across regarded as important forces. cases; and secondly, social scientists have to Geertz argues that Sahlin’s approach is far take full consideration the important of explor- from precise for analyzing Javanese case, but ing “tacit knowledge” of the people studied. it is probably the most suitable model for un- The implication of this is the rejection of natu- derstanding Western rational-based actions. ralistic-quantitative way of seeing human so- He warned the danger of placing cultural mat- ciety and culture. ters outside social processes. The externalization of the Javanese (or Indonesian) moral, politi- Discussion: agreements and contro- cal, practical, religious and aesthetic ideas, the versies conceptual framework within which the In contemporary anthropological theory, Javanese perceive what happens to them and there has been a variety schools of thought respond to it, ends not with the discovery of that are all with us today—structural-functional, the “real” material determinants of change but , Marxism in various kind of vari- with a disjunction between them that neither eties, personality and culture, , the most desperate of speculations nor the , neo-evolutionism, most determined of dogmas can paper over. culture materialism, etc.—but none is dominant Whatever happened in pre-independence (Kuper 1987). This may be the future condition Java—involution, class formation, or anything of anthropology: a pluralistic disciplines that else—it did not consist in the progressive work- loosely shelters those variety of interest and ing out of “the logic of capitalism”, and it did which lacks a center. not take place in a cultural vacuum (1984:520).

Saifuddin, Some Notes on Clifford Geertz’s Interpretive Anthropology 155 Among the constellation of various meth- late that the web of meaning constitutes hu- ods developed in social science, Geertz’s point man existence to such extent that it cannot ever of view is inevitably one of the most frequently be meaningfully reduced to constitutively prior quoted in the last two decades. There has been speech acts, dyadic relations, or any predefined a great numbers of responses, pro or con or elements. uncertain, coming from many scholars of vari- ous kind of disciplines (see, for example, Geertz Explanation and prediction 1984:n.4, p.524). It has been recognized that Clifford Geertz, in term of anthropology pre- the impact of his model not only on the devel- diction asserts that anthropology cannot as- opment of anthropology theories but also on pire to be a science in the way that the physical other disciplines such as ecology, history, eco- sciences are, with laws and generalizations nomics, and political science. based on empirical and verifiable data. He be- While not denying the persistence and theo- lieves that anthropology must be based on retical fruitfulness of certain explanatory concrete reality, but, from reality, one derives schemes in the social science, social scientists meanings rather than predictions based on have never reached the extraordinary degree empirical data This arguments make Geertz’s of basic agreement, something characterizes position differs from the nature of scientific modern natural sciences. The strength of natu- explanation of Carl G. Hempel (1970). ral science, according to Thomas Kuhn, has Hempel’s concept on scientific explanation laid in its ability to go beyond endless method- can be outlined as the following: Firstly, sci- ological discussions by developing general ence consists of a search for “general laws” to shared paradigms which define problems and explain events; secondly, the statement of a procedures. Social scientists have attempted general law can have different logical forms, to follow the way natural science explains but it typically makes a universal generaliza- things but they fail to develop agreement which tion across some domains of events, for ex- characterizes the natural sciences. This failure ample, “all gases expand when heated under makes the condition which Donald W. Fiske constant pressure”; thirdly, the main function and Richard A. Shweier (1986) call “the crisis in of general laws is to connect events in pat- social science”. The crisis also concerns the terns, which are usually referred to as “expla- nature of social investigation itself. The con- nation” and “prediction”. It is clear that Geertz’s ception of the human sciences as somehow point of view differs from Hempel’s in the sense necessarily destined to follow the path of the that Geertz shifts anthropology from the re- modern investigation of nature is at the root of search for explanation to the search for mean- this crisis. ing and interpretation. He stressed the signifi- The emergence of interpretive approach is cant of social context, as crucial element in com- a philosophy matter, and the social science is prehending what symbols signify. I feel it is moving in a different direction. The interpre- important to note D’Andrade (1986) who ques- tive approach denies the claim that one can tions the descriptive adequacy of the covering somehow reduce the complex world of signifi- law model of science, Hempel’s model, and in cation to the products of a self-consciousness doing so, attempts to clarify the nature of some in the traditional philosophical sense (Rabinow of the problems confronted by the social sci- & Sullivan 1987). It may begin from the postu- ences and psychology. He says that Hempel’s

156 ANTROPOLOGI INDONESIA Vol. 30, No. 2, 2006 covering law model is not the ideal form for all ing social action is to limit our unit of observa- scientific thinking, and he examines the foun- tion into a narrow domain, a small scale inves- dation of those semiotic or semantic sciences tigation, and study it as maximum as possible. that eschew an interest in law like generaliza- But, still, we confront with another serious prob- tion and seek, instead, to understand “imposed lem in science that is generalization, a level of order” (see also, Fiske & Shweder 1986). conclusion which all sciences dream of. Some Since anthropology has serious constraints others argue for reducing the social things into in explaining and predicting, two main compo- statistical numbers (see, for example, Papineau nents is scientific laws, it can not be character- 1978). They maintain that numerical and statis- ized as a science. Another uneasy problems in tical way out offer much wider scope and more Geertz’s concept is the problem of context. Bar- possibility to draw generalization. But, still, as bara Frankel (1986), for example, says that con- Frankel (1986) says, the reductionism tends text is peculiarly difficult matter. It is, after all, a only to draw patterns and structures of the slippery concept, for there is no telling a priori social things rather than exploring causes and where a context begins or ends. processes. Clifford Geertz is also criticized in term of Finally, interpretive anthropology takes the who are studied. People of the community stud- humanities as its model. Whatever the outcome, ied or a key informant? Some social scientists interpretive anthropology is based, in part, on argue that there is no guarantee that if an an- the trends in scientific methodologies in the thropologist interviews a key informant he al- human sciences in early 1980s. However, what- ready know what all people living in the com- ever the results, social scientists continue see- munity think and do. ing themselves, as did their predecessors, try Some other social scientists prefer to take a to find out the “best way” of looking social moderate way. They say that the only way to things. The debates and controversies do not do to achieve a maximal precision in interpret- seem to end in future.

References

Brown, S.C. 1979 Disputes in Social Sciences. New York: The Free Press. D’Andrade, R. 1986 “Three Scientific World Views and the Covering Law Model”, in D. Fiske and R. Shweder (eds) Metatheory in Social Science. University of Chicago Press. Pp. 19–41. Fiske, D. and R. Shweder 1986 “Introduction: Uneasy Social Science”, in D. Fiske and R. Shweder (eds) Metatheory in Social Science. University of Chicago Press. Pp. 1–18. Frankel, B. 1986 “Two Extremes on the Social Science Commitment Continuum”, in D. Fiske and R. Shweder (eds) Metatheory in Social Science. University of Chicago Press. Pp. 339– 335.

Saifuddin, Some Notes on Clifford Geertz’s Interpretive Anthropology 157 Geertz, C. 1960 The Religion of Java. Chicago: Aldine. 1963 Agricultural Involution: The Process of Ecological Change in Indonesia. Univer- sity of California Press. 1966 “Religion as a Cultural System”, in Michael Banton (ed.) The Anthropological Ap- proaches to the Study of Religion. ASA Monograph 4, London: Tavistock. Pp. 1–40. 1972 “Deep Play: Notes on the Balinese Cockfight”, in C. Geertz (ed.) Myth, Symbols, Cultures. New York: The Free Press. Pp. 45–73. 1973 The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books.

1983 Local Knowledge: Further Essays in Interpretive Anthropology. New York: Basic Books. 1984 “Culture and Social Change: The Indonesian Case”, Man (19)4:514–532. 1988 Works and Lives: The Anthropologist as Author. Stanford University Press. Hempel, C.G. 1970 Aspects of Scientific Explanation and other Essays in the Philosophy of Science. New York: The Free Press. Kuhn, T.S. 1962 Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press. Kuper, A. 1987 Pokok dan Tokoh dalam Antropologi (translated from Anthropology and Anthro- pologist, 1983, Oxford, by Achmad Fedyani Saifuddin). Jakarta: Bhratara Karya Aksara. Papineau, D. 1978 For Science in the Social Sciences. New York: St. Martin’s. Rabinow, P. and W. Sullivan 1987 Interpretive Social Science. A Second Look. University of California Press. Rosenberg, A. 1988 Philosophy of Social Science. Boulder: Westview Press.

158 ANTROPOLOGI INDONESIA Vol. 30, No. 2, 2006