Geertz and the interpretive approach in anthropology

Abstract

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