What is unique about Clifford Geertz's 'Thick Description' approach to anthropology?
If possible I'd like the name of other anthroplogists whose work I could compare to Geertz's. Thanks!
Answers:
Geertz originally adopted the term 'Thick Description' from philosopher Gilbert Ryle. Ryle pointed out that if someone winks at us without a context, we don't know what it means. It might mean the person is attracted to us, that they are trying to communicate secretly, that they understand what you mean, or anything. As the context changes, the meaning of the wink changes.
Geertz argues that ALL human behaviour is like this. He therefore distinguishes between a thin description, which describes only the wink itself, and a thick description, which explains the context of the practices and discourse within a society. According to Geertz, the task of the anthropologist is to give thick descriptions.
The above poster summed up "thick description" nicely.
There are three ways you could compare Geertz to others.
1. Other symbolic anthropologists, to explore this school of thought fully: Victor Turner, David Schneider, Mary Douglas. (Douglas has a great article on 'The Abominations of Leviticus.')
2. Anthropologists whose approach is incompatible with Geertz's, e.g. Marvin Harris and cultural materialism.
3. Other anthropologists of different schools of thought who studied the same cultures as Geertz, e.g. Java, or topics, e.g. religion
It's wrong headiness. Take the wink analogy. I may concede that one as context dependent. To say all human behavior is so and has some relativistic meaning is false. For instance; murder is a human behavior. If I am murdering you, can you in any context think otherwise? Could I be communicating with you? Communicating that I want you dead, maybe. You can do that all day with many similar, though less drastic, human behaviors. Geertz's thought that we are fully shaped by our environment; even down to the nervous system. He was wrong.
Do you share your your intimate secrets with your girlfriends?
.why does the word if cause so much heartache?
how does one fix a broken family that knows not of he that wishes to mend their hearts as one to uniform it ba
Social work as an Art.?
This one's for the ladies, what is the best way to chat you up?
why do scientists need to classify organisms?
How far should I go?
Why do some people.?
Answers:
Geertz originally adopted the term 'Thick Description' from philosopher Gilbert Ryle. Ryle pointed out that if someone winks at us without a context, we don't know what it means. It might mean the person is attracted to us, that they are trying to communicate secretly, that they understand what you mean, or anything. As the context changes, the meaning of the wink changes.
Geertz argues that ALL human behaviour is like this. He therefore distinguishes between a thin description, which describes only the wink itself, and a thick description, which explains the context of the practices and discourse within a society. According to Geertz, the task of the anthropologist is to give thick descriptions.
The above poster summed up "thick description" nicely.
There are three ways you could compare Geertz to others.
1. Other symbolic anthropologists, to explore this school of thought fully: Victor Turner, David Schneider, Mary Douglas. (Douglas has a great article on 'The Abominations of Leviticus.')
2. Anthropologists whose approach is incompatible with Geertz's, e.g. Marvin Harris and cultural materialism.
3. Other anthropologists of different schools of thought who studied the same cultures as Geertz, e.g. Java, or topics, e.g. religion
It's wrong headiness. Take the wink analogy. I may concede that one as context dependent. To say all human behavior is so and has some relativistic meaning is false. For instance; murder is a human behavior. If I am murdering you, can you in any context think otherwise? Could I be communicating with you? Communicating that I want you dead, maybe. You can do that all day with many similar, though less drastic, human behaviors. Geertz's thought that we are fully shaped by our environment; even down to the nervous system. He was wrong.
The answers post by the user, for information only, UKQnA.com does not guarantee the right.