Jump to content

Thick description: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
→‎Overview: cleanup
Changing short description from "Description of human social action" to "Description of human social action, with context"
 
(46 intermediate revisions by 31 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Description of human social action, with context}}
{{Anthropology |methods}}
{{Anthropology |methods}}


In the social science fields of [[anthropology]], [[sociology]], [[history]], [[religious studies]], [[human-centered design]] and organizational development, a '''thick description''' results from a scientific observation of any particular human behavior that describes not just the behavior, but its context as well, so that the behavior can be better understood by an outsider. A thick description typically adds a record of subjective explanations and meanings provided by the people engaged in the behaviors, making the collected data of greater value for studies by other social scientists.
In the [[social science]]s and related fields, a '''thick description''' is a description of human [[social action]] that describes not just physical behaviors, but their context as interpreted by the actors as well, so that it can be better understood by an outsider. A thick description typically adds a record of subjective explanations and meanings provided by the people engaged in the behaviors, making the collected data of greater value for studies by other social scientists.


The term was introduced by the 20th-century [[philosopher]] [[Gilbert Ryle]]. [[Anthropologist]] [[Clifford Geertz]] later developed the concept in his ''[[The Interpretation of Cultures]]'' (1973) to characterise his own method of doing [[ethnography]] (Geertz 1973:5-6, 9-10). Since then, the term and the methodology it represents has gained currency in the [[social science]]s and beyond. Today, "thick description" is used in a variety of fields, including the type of [[literary criticism]] known as [[New Historicism]].
The term was first introduced by 20th-century [[philosopher]] [[Gilbert Ryle]]. However, the predominant sense in which it is used today was developed by [[anthropologist]] [[Clifford Geertz]] in his book ''[[The Interpretation of Cultures]]'' (1973) to characterise his own method of doing [[ethnography]].{{sfnp|Geertz|1973|pp=5-6, 9-10}} Since then, the term and the methodology it represents has gained widespread currency, not only in the social sciences but also, for example, in the type of [[literary criticism]] known as [[New Historicism]].


== Overview ==
== Gilbert Ryle ==
Thick description was first introduced by British philosopher Gilbert Ryle in 1949 in "The Thinking of Thoughts: What is 'Le Penseur' Doing?" and "Thinking and Reflecting". Originally, Ryle introduced two types of descriptions: thin and thick. Thin description included surface-level observations of behavior while thick description added context. To explain this context required grasping individuals motivations for their behaviors and how these behaviors were understood by other observers of the community as well. This method emerged at a time when the ethnographic school was pushing for an ethnographic approach that paid particular attention to everyday events. The school of ethnography thought seemingly arbitrary events could convey important notions of understanding that could be lost at a first glance.<ref name=":0">{{Cite journal|last=Yon|first=Daniel A.|date=October 2003|title=Highlights and Overview of the History of Educational Ethnography|journal=Annual Review of Anthropology|volume=32|issue=1|pages=411–429|doi=10.1146/annurev.anthro.32.061002.093449|issn=0084-6570}}</ref>


Thick description was first introduced by the British philosopher [[Gilbert Ryle]] in 1968 in "The Thinking of Thoughts: What is 'Le Penseur' Doing?" and "Thinking and Reflecting".<ref>Ryle, Gilbert. [1968] 1996. "[https://web.archive.org/web/20080410232658/http://lucy.ukc.ac.uk/CSACSIA/Vol11/Papers/ryle_1.html The Thinking of Thoughts: What is 'Le Penseur' Doing?]" ''Studies in Anthropology'' 11:11. {{ISSN|1363-1098}}. Archived from the [http://lucy.ukc.ac.uk/CSACSIA/Vol11/Papers/ryle_1.html original] on 10 April 2008. Retrieved 25 June 2008.</ref>
Following Ryle's work, American anthropologist [[Clifford Geertz]] was instrumental in the popularization of the concept. Known for his symbolic and interpretative anthropological methods, Geertz's methods were in response to his critique of existing anthropological methods that searched for universal truths and theories. Because of his beliefs, he was against comprehensive theories of human behavior. While establishing new theoretical methods, he pushed for interpretive methodologies that highlighted culture as a result of how people looked at and experienced life. His book, ''Thick Description: Toward an Interpretive Theory of Culture'' synthesizes his approach.


# thin, which includes surface-level observations of behaviour; and
Thick description differed from past anthropological methodologies in that it emphasized a more analytical approach, whereas previously observation alone was the primary mode of practice. To Geertz, analysis separated observation from interpretative methodologies. An analysis is meant to pick out the critical structures and established codes. This analysis begins with distinguishing all individuals present and coming to an integrative synthesis that accounts for the actions produced.
# thick, which adds context to such behaviour.


To explain such context required grasping individuals' motivations for their behaviors and how these behaviors were understood by other observers of the community as well.
The ability of thick descriptions to showcase the totality of a situation to aid in the overall understanding of findings was called ''Mélange of descriptors''. As Lincoln and Guba (1985) indicate, findings are not the result of thick description; rather they are the result of taking meaning to the materials, concepts, or persons being "thickly described".<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/?id=2oA9aWlNeooC&pg=PA5&dq=|title=Naturalistic Inquiry|last=Lincoln|first=Yvonna S.|last2=Guba|first2=Egon G.|date=April 1985|publisher=SAGE|isbn=9780803924314}}</ref> This practice is [[wikt:interpretation|Interpretation]].


This method emerged at a time when the [[Ethnography|ethnographic]] school was pushing for an ethnographic approach that paid particular attention to everyday events. The school of ethnography thought seemingly arbitrary events could convey important notions of understanding that could be lost at a first glance.{{sfnp|Yon|2003|p=?}} Similarly [[Bronisław Malinowski]] put forth the concept of a ''native point of view'' in his 1922 work, ''[[Argonauts of the Western Pacific]]''. Malinowski felt that an anthropologist should try to understand the perspectives of ethnographic subjects in relation to their own world.
== The Geertz article, "Thick Description: Toward an Interpretive Theory of Culture" ==
In ''Thick Description: Toward an Interpretive Theory of Culture'',  Geertz takes issue with the state of anthropological practices in understanding culture. By highlighting the reductive nature of ethnography, to reduce culture to "menial observations," Geertz hoped to reintroduce ideas of culture as semiotic. By this he intended to add signs and deeper meaning to the collection of observations. These ideas would challenge [[Edward Burnett Tylor]]'s concepts of culture as a  "most complex whole” that is able to be understood; instead culture, to Geertz, could never be fully understood or observed. Because of this, ethnographic observations must rely on the context of the population being studied by understanding how the participants come to recognize actions in relation to one another and to the overall structure of the society in a specific place and time. Today, various disciplines have implemented thick description in their work.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Thompson|first=W. B.|date=2001|title=Policy Making through Thick and Thin: Thick Description as a Methodology for Communications and Democracy|journal=Policy Sciences|volume=34|issue=1|pages=63–77|issn=0032-2687|jstor=4532522|doi=10.1023/A:1010353113519}}</ref>


== Clifford Geertz ==
The article is divided into eight numbered sections:
I: Citing its semiotic characteristics, Geertz pushes for culture to be cut down into size. By doing so, those who study culture, can search for a “web of meaning”. In one of the more popular quotes of the book; Geertz defines 'web of meaning':<blockquote>“Believing, with Max Weber, that man is an animal suspended in webs of significance he himself has spun, I take culture to be those webs, and the analysis of it to be therefore not an experimental science in search of law but an in­terpretive one in search of meaning." (Geertz 1973:5)</blockquote>These ideas were incompatible with textbook definitions of ethnography of the times that described ethnography as systematic observations.<ref name=":1" />Pre-Geertz ethnographies were systematic observations of different populations under the guise of [[Race (human categorization)|Race]] categorization and categorizing the "other".


Following Ryle's work, the American anthropologist [[Clifford Geertz]] re-popularized the concept. Known for his [[Interpretive anthropology|symbolic and interpretive anthropological]] work, Geertz's methods were in response to his critique of existing anthropological methods that searched for universal truths and theories. He was against comprehensive theories of human behavior; rather, he advocated methodologies that highlight culture from the perspective of how people looked at and experienced life. His 1973 article, "Thick Description: Toward an Interpretive Theory of Culture", synthesizes his approach.<ref>{{Harvcoltxt|Geertz|1973}}</ref>
ll: ''Thin description vs. Thick description:''


Thick description emphasized a more analytical approach, whereas previously observation alone was the primary approach. To Geertz, analysis separated observation from interpretative methodologies. An analysis is meant to pick out the critical structures and established codes. This analysis begins with distinguishing all individuals present and coming to an integrative synthesis that accounts for the actions produced. The ability of thick descriptions to showcase the totality of a situation to aid in the overall understanding of findings was called ''mélange of descriptors''. As Lincoln & Guba (1985) indicate, findings are not the result of thick description; rather they result from analyzing the materials, concepts, or persons that are "thickly described."<ref>Lincoln, Yvonna S., and Egon G. Guba. 1985. {{Cite book|url=https://archive.org/details/naturalisticinqu00linc|title=Naturalistic Inquiry|year=1985|isbn=9780803924314|url-access=registration}} SAGE. {{ISBN|9780803924314}}.</ref>
Geertz asks how can one come to understand a culture without understanding the meanings and symbols of said culture? The answer, to Geertz, lies with descriptive writing. For this, Geertz reiterates Ryle’s example to demonstrate the practical implication of symbolic interpretation.


{{Harvcoltxt|Geertz|1973}} takes issue with the state of anthropological practices in understanding culture. By highlighting the reductive nature of ethnography, to reduce culture to "menial observations," Geertz hoped to reintroduce ideas of culture as semiotic. By this he intended to add signs and deeper meaning to the collection of observations. These ideas would challenge [[Edward Burnett Tylor]]'s concepts of culture as a "most complex whole" that is able to be understood; instead culture, to Geertz, could never be fully understood or observed. Because of this, ethnographic observations must rely on the context of the population being studied by understanding how the participants come to recognize actions in relation to one another and to the overall structure of the society in a specific place and time. Today, various disciplines have implemented thick description in their work.{{sfnp|Thompson|2001}}
Imagine, says Ryle, two boys “rapidly contracting their right eyelids”. For one of the boys the contractions are involuntary, for the other it is being used as signal to a friend (a wink). To simple observation, the eye movements appear identical. Ryle adds a third boy to his example to further prove his point. The actions of the third boy are done in mimicry of the others. According to Ryle, the complexity of these observations (blinking vs winking, vs mimicking) would be lost in thin description.


Geertz pushes for a search for a "web of meaning". These ideas were incompatible with textbook definitions of ethnography of the times that described ethnography as systematic observations{{sfnp|Barth|2007|p=?}} of different populations under the guise of [[Race (human categorization)|Race]] categorization and categorizing the "other."{{citation needed|date=July 2019}} To Geertz, culture should be treated as symbolic, allowing for observations to be connected with greater meanings.<ref>{{Harvcoltxt|Geertz|1973}}</ref>
It is not until one understands the rituals, customs, and ideas of who they are observing that they can come to begin to comprehend the events they witness. Geertz points out that ethnographical data is obscure. Data is simply ethnographers' ideas, interpretations, or constructs of other people’s ideas, interpretations or constructs. Because of the way data is collected Geertz says anthropology is more observational than interpretative. To Geertz, analysis separates observation from interpretative methodologies. An analysis is meant to pick out the critical structures and established codes. This analysis begins with distinguishing all individuals present and coming to an integrative synthesis that accounts for the actions produced.


This approach brings about its own difficulties. Studying communities via large-scale anthropological interpretation will bring about discrepancies in understanding. As cultures are dynamic and changing, Geertz also emphasizes the importance of speaking ''to'' rather than speaking ''for'' the subjects of ethnographic research and recognizing that cultural analysis is never complete. This method is essential to approach the actual context of a culture. As such, Geertz points out that interpretive works provide ethnographers the ability to have conversations with the people they study.<ref>{{Harvcoltxt|Geertz|1973}}</ref>
* Thin description: "Rapidly contracting his right eyelid (Geertz, 1973: 7)"
* Thick description: "Practicing a burlesque of a friend faking a wink to deceive an innocent into thinking a conspiracy is in motion (Geertz, 1973: 7)"


== Interpretive turn ==
III: In Thick Description: Toward an Interpretive Theory of Culture Geertz addresses culture and concludes that it is more than the habits, skills, and knowledge one possesses; it stems from the meaning individuals give to these things. For example, as Geertz says, one cannot perform a sheep raid without knowing what it means to steal sheep.
Geertz is revered for his pioneering field methods and clear, accessible prose writing style ([[cf.]] Robinson's critique, 1983). He was considered "for three decades...the single most influential cultural anthropologist in the United States."{{sfnp|McCloskey|1988|p=?}}


Interpretive methodologies were needed to understand culture as a system of meaning. Because of this, Geertz's influence is connected with "a massive cultural shift" in the social sciences referred to as the ''[[interpretive turn]]''. The interpretive turn in the social sciences had strong foundations in cultural anthropological methodology. In doing so, there was a shift from structural approaches as an interpretive lens, towards meaning. With the interpretive turn, contextual and textual information took the lead in understanding reality, language, and culture. This was all under the assumption that a better anthropology included understanding the particular behaviors of the communities being studied.{{sfnp|Bachmann-Medick|2016|p=?}}{{sfnp|Hodder|Shanks|1997|p=?}}
IV: Geertz emphasizes the importance of speaking ''to'' rather than speaking ''for'' natives (The word native has origins from the beginnings of anthropology. Originating with the idea of the “other”, natives were deemed to be of lower mental capacity than their European counterparts.  Thick description is an expansion of [[Bronisław Malinowski]]’s  “native point of view” where In his work, [[Argonauts of the Western Pacific]]'', '' Malinsokwi states “the goal of the anthropologist, or ethnographer, is "to grasp the native's point of view, his relation to life, to realize ''his'' vision of ''his'' world" (1961:25)). This method is essential to approach the actual context of a culture. Geertz notes that it is not the job of the ethnographer to become native or to collect facts about the natives to bring them home. Instead, their job is to clarify what is going on in these places.


Geertz's thick description approach, along with the theories of [[Claude Lévi-Strauss]], has become increasingly recognized as a method of symbolic anthropology,{{sfnp|Barth|2007|p=?}}{{sfnp|Yon|2003|p=?}} enlisted as a working antidote to overly [[Technocracy|technocratic]], [[mechanistic]] means of understanding cultures, organizations, and historical settings. Influenced by [[Gilbert Ryle]], [[Ludwig Wittgenstein]], [[Max Weber]], [[Paul Ricoeur]], and [[Alfred Schütz]], the method of descriptive ethnography that came to be associated with Geertz is credited with resuscitating field research from an endeavor of ongoing objectification—the focus of research being "out there"—to a more immediate undertaking, where participant observation embeds the researcher in the enactment of the settings being reported. However, despite its dissemination among the disciplines, some theorists<ref>e.g. {{Harvcoltxt|Munson|1986}}, {{Harvcoltxt|Robinson|1983}}</ref> pushed back on thick description, skeptical about its ability to somehow interpret meaning by compiling large amounts of data. They also questioned how this data was supposed to provide the totality of a society naturally.{{sfnp|Barth|2007|p=?}}
V: Culture should be treated as symbolic. In treating culture as symbolic, observations are connected with greater meanings. This connection lays out the structure of system (or society) and centers it around core values. These values, which include a multitude of factors aid in the organization of the system and a better understanding (although not the complete understanding) of a culture.

VI: Because culture has to be taken into context, there will always be discrepancies when studying communities via large scale anthropological interpretations.

VII: Geertz discusses the difficulty of theorizing interpretive works because of culture's dynamic nature. Again, Geertz points out that interpretive works provide ethnographers the ability to have conversations with the people they study.

VIII: Geertz sums up his theory with a final point: cultural analysis can never be complete. He goes on to add that the more in-depth the analysis, the more inherently incomplete it is. He ends stating, “Anthropology, or at least interpretive anthropology, is a science whose progress is marked less by a perfection of consensus than by a refinement of debate (Geertz, 1973: 29).”

==Adoption==
Interpretive methodologies were needed to understand “culture as a system of meaning.” Because of this, Geertz’s influence is connected with  “a massive cultural shift” in the social sciences referred to as the interpretive turn. The interpretive turn in the social sciences had strong foundations in cultural anthropological methodology. In doing so, there was a shift from structural approaches as an interpretive lens, towards meaning. With the interpretive turn,  contextual and textual information took the lead in understanding reality, language, and culture. This was all under the assumption that a better anthropology included understanding the particular behaviors of the communities being studied.<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/?id=g4hlCwAAQBAJ&pg=PT103&dq=Anthropology+%22interpretive+turn%22#v=onepage&q=geertz%20%22interpretive%20turn%22&f=false|title=Cultural Turns: New Orientations in the Study of Culture|last=Bachmann-Medick|first=Doris|date=2016-01-15|publisher=Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG|isbn=9783110403077|language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/?id=IFKNL65TwcEC&pg=PA48&dq=Anthropology+%22interpretive+turn%22#v=onepage&q=Anthropology%20%22interpretive%20turn%22&f=false|title=Interpreting Archaeology: Finding Meaning in the Past|last=Hodder|first=Ian|last2=Shanks|first2=Michael|date=1997|publisher=Psychology Press|isbn=9780415157445|language=en}}</ref>

Thick description along with the theories of Levi-Strauss were widely used methodologies for interpreting culture and societies.<ref name=":1">{{Cite journal|last=Barth|first=Fredrik|date=2007-09-01|title=Overview: Sixty Years in Anthropology|journal=Annual Review of Anthropology|volume=36|issue=1|pages=1–16|doi=10.1146/annurev.anthro.36.081406.094407|issn=0084-6570}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Yon|first=Daniel A.|date=October 2003|title=Highlights and Overview of the History of Educational Ethnography|journal=Annual Review of Anthropology|volume=32|issue=1|pages=411–429|doi=10.1146/annurev.anthro.32.061002.093449|issn=0084-6570}}</ref>. However, despite its dissemination among the disciplines, some theorists pushed back on thick description. They were skeptical about Thick discription's ability to somehow interpret meaning by complying large amounts of data. They also questioned how this data was supposed to provide the totality of a society naturally.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Barth|first=Fredrik|date=2007-09-01|title=Overview: Sixty Years in Anthropology|journal=Annual Review of Anthropology|volume=36|issue=1|pages=1–16|doi=10.1146/annurev.anthro.36.081406.094407|issn=0084-6570}}</ref>

Geertz's "thick description" approach has become increasingly recognized as a method of symbolic anthropology, enlisted as a working antidote to overly technocratic, mechanistic means of understanding cultures, organizations, and historical settings.

Influenced by [[Gilbert Ryle]], [[Ludwig Wittgenstein]], [[Max Weber]], [[Paul Ricoeur]], and [[Alfred Schütz]], the method of descriptive ethnography that came to be associated with Geertz is credited with resuscitating field research from an endeavor of ongoing objectification—the focus of research being "out there"—to a more immediate undertaking, where participant observation embeds the researcher in the enactment of the settings being reported (For critique, see e.g. Munson 1986).

Geertz is revered for his pioneering field methods and clear, accessible prose writing style (compare Robinson's [1983] critique). He was considered "for three decades...the single most influential cultural anthropologist in the United States."<ref>McCloskey, Deirdre. "Thick and Thin Methodologies in the History of Economic Thought," in ''The Popperian Legacy in Economics. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1988. 245-57.''</ref>


==See also==
==See also==
Line 66: Line 48:


===Bibliography===
===Bibliography===
*{{Cite book|last=Bachmann-Medick|first=Doris|year=2016|title=Cultural Turns: New Orientations in the Study of Culture|publisher=Walter de Gruyter|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=g4hlCwAAQBAJ&pg=PT103|isbn=9783110403077|language=en}}

*{{Cite journal
* Geertz, Clifford. 1973. "Thick Description: Toward an Interpretive Theory of Culture". In ''The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays''. New York: Basic Books. 3-30.
|last=Barth
* [[Deirdre McCloskey|McCloskey, Deirdre]]. 1988. "Thick and Thin Methodologies in the History of Economic Thought". In ''The Popperian Legacy in Economics''. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. 245-57.
|first=Fredrik
* Munson, Henry. 1986. "Geertz on Religion: The Theory and the Practice". Religion 16: 19-32.
|year=2007
* Robinson, Paul. 1983. "From Suttee to Baseball to Cockfighting". The New York Times September 25, 1983.
|title=Overview: Sixty Years in Anthropology
{{refend}}
|journal=Annual Review of Anthropology
|volume=36
|issue=1
|pages=1–16
|doi=10.1146/annurev.anthro.36.081406.094407
|issn=0084-6570
}}
* {{citation
|last=Geertz
|first=Clifford
|author-link=Clifford Geertz
|year=1973
|chapter=Thick Description: Toward an Interpretive Theory of Culture
|title=The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays
|place=New York
|publisher=Basic Books
|pages=3–30
}}
*{{Cite book
|last1=Hodder
|first1=Ian
|last2=Shanks
|first2=Michael
|year=1997
|title=Interpreting Archaeology: Finding Meaning in the Past
|publisher=Psychology Press
|isbn=9780415157445
|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=IFKNL65TwcEC&pg=PA48
|language=en
}}
*[[Martyn Hammersley|Hammersley]], M. (2008) 'On thick description: Interpreting Clifford Geertz', in ''Questioning Qualitative Inquiry: Critical Essays'', London, Sage.
*{{Cite book
|last1=Lincoln
|first1=Yvonna S.
|last2=Guba
|first2=Egon G.
|year=1985
|title=Naturalistic Inquiry
|url=https://archive.org/details/naturalisticinqu00linc
|url-access=registration
|publisher=SAGE
|isbn=9780803924314
}}
*{{citation
|last=McCloskey
|first=Deirdre
|author-link=Deirdre McCloskey
|year=1988
|chapter=Thick and Thin Methodologies in the History of Economic Thought
|title=The Popperian Legacy in Economics
|place=Cambridge
|publisher=Cambridge University Press
|pages=245–57
}}
* {{cite journal |last=Munson |first=Henry |date=1986 |title=Geertz on Religion: The Theory and the Practice |work=Religion |volume=16 |pages=19-32}}
* {{cite news |last=Robinson |first=Paul |title=From Suttee to Baseball to Cockfighting |newspaper=The New York Times |date=September 25, 1983}}
*{{Cite journal
|last=Thompson
|first=W. B.
|year=2001
|title=Policy Making through Thick and Thin: Thick Description as a Methodology for Communications and Democracy
|journal=Policy Sciences
|volume=34
|issue=1
|pages=63–77
|issn=0032-2687
|jstor=4532522
|doi=10.1023/A:1010353113519
|s2cid=153151073
}}
*{{Cite journal
|last=Yon
|first=Daniel A.
|year=2003
|title=Highlights and Overview of the History of Educational Ethnography
|journal=Annual Review of Anthropology
|volume=32
|issue=1
|pages=411–429
|doi=10.1146/annurev.anthro.32.061002.093449
|issn=0084-6570
}}


==External links==
==External links==

Latest revision as of 02:45, 28 June 2024

In the social sciences and related fields, a thick description is a description of human social action that describes not just physical behaviors, but their context as interpreted by the actors as well, so that it can be better understood by an outsider. A thick description typically adds a record of subjective explanations and meanings provided by the people engaged in the behaviors, making the collected data of greater value for studies by other social scientists.

The term was first introduced by 20th-century philosopher Gilbert Ryle. However, the predominant sense in which it is used today was developed by anthropologist Clifford Geertz in his book The Interpretation of Cultures (1973) to characterise his own method of doing ethnography.[1] Since then, the term and the methodology it represents has gained widespread currency, not only in the social sciences but also, for example, in the type of literary criticism known as New Historicism.

Gilbert Ryle

[edit]

Thick description was first introduced by the British philosopher Gilbert Ryle in 1968 in "The Thinking of Thoughts: What is 'Le Penseur' Doing?" and "Thinking and Reflecting".[2]

  1. thin, which includes surface-level observations of behaviour; and
  2. thick, which adds context to such behaviour.

To explain such context required grasping individuals' motivations for their behaviors and how these behaviors were understood by other observers of the community as well.

This method emerged at a time when the ethnographic school was pushing for an ethnographic approach that paid particular attention to everyday events. The school of ethnography thought seemingly arbitrary events could convey important notions of understanding that could be lost at a first glance.[3] Similarly Bronisław Malinowski put forth the concept of a native point of view in his 1922 work, Argonauts of the Western Pacific. Malinowski felt that an anthropologist should try to understand the perspectives of ethnographic subjects in relation to their own world.

Clifford Geertz

[edit]

Following Ryle's work, the American anthropologist Clifford Geertz re-popularized the concept. Known for his symbolic and interpretive anthropological work, Geertz's methods were in response to his critique of existing anthropological methods that searched for universal truths and theories. He was against comprehensive theories of human behavior; rather, he advocated methodologies that highlight culture from the perspective of how people looked at and experienced life. His 1973 article, "Thick Description: Toward an Interpretive Theory of Culture", synthesizes his approach.[4]

Thick description emphasized a more analytical approach, whereas previously observation alone was the primary approach. To Geertz, analysis separated observation from interpretative methodologies. An analysis is meant to pick out the critical structures and established codes. This analysis begins with distinguishing all individuals present and coming to an integrative synthesis that accounts for the actions produced. The ability of thick descriptions to showcase the totality of a situation to aid in the overall understanding of findings was called mélange of descriptors. As Lincoln & Guba (1985) indicate, findings are not the result of thick description; rather they result from analyzing the materials, concepts, or persons that are "thickly described."[5]

Geertz (1973) takes issue with the state of anthropological practices in understanding culture. By highlighting the reductive nature of ethnography, to reduce culture to "menial observations," Geertz hoped to reintroduce ideas of culture as semiotic. By this he intended to add signs and deeper meaning to the collection of observations. These ideas would challenge Edward Burnett Tylor's concepts of culture as a "most complex whole" that is able to be understood; instead culture, to Geertz, could never be fully understood or observed. Because of this, ethnographic observations must rely on the context of the population being studied by understanding how the participants come to recognize actions in relation to one another and to the overall structure of the society in a specific place and time. Today, various disciplines have implemented thick description in their work.[6]

Geertz pushes for a search for a "web of meaning". These ideas were incompatible with textbook definitions of ethnography of the times that described ethnography as systematic observations[7] of different populations under the guise of Race categorization and categorizing the "other."[citation needed] To Geertz, culture should be treated as symbolic, allowing for observations to be connected with greater meanings.[8]

This approach brings about its own difficulties. Studying communities via large-scale anthropological interpretation will bring about discrepancies in understanding. As cultures are dynamic and changing, Geertz also emphasizes the importance of speaking to rather than speaking for the subjects of ethnographic research and recognizing that cultural analysis is never complete. This method is essential to approach the actual context of a culture. As such, Geertz points out that interpretive works provide ethnographers the ability to have conversations with the people they study.[9]

Interpretive turn

[edit]

Geertz is revered for his pioneering field methods and clear, accessible prose writing style (cf. Robinson's critique, 1983). He was considered "for three decades...the single most influential cultural anthropologist in the United States."[10]

Interpretive methodologies were needed to understand culture as a system of meaning. Because of this, Geertz's influence is connected with "a massive cultural shift" in the social sciences referred to as the interpretive turn. The interpretive turn in the social sciences had strong foundations in cultural anthropological methodology. In doing so, there was a shift from structural approaches as an interpretive lens, towards meaning. With the interpretive turn, contextual and textual information took the lead in understanding reality, language, and culture. This was all under the assumption that a better anthropology included understanding the particular behaviors of the communities being studied.[11][12]

Geertz's thick description approach, along with the theories of Claude Lévi-Strauss, has become increasingly recognized as a method of symbolic anthropology,[7][3] enlisted as a working antidote to overly technocratic, mechanistic means of understanding cultures, organizations, and historical settings. Influenced by Gilbert Ryle, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Max Weber, Paul Ricoeur, and Alfred Schütz, the method of descriptive ethnography that came to be associated with Geertz is credited with resuscitating field research from an endeavor of ongoing objectification—the focus of research being "out there"—to a more immediate undertaking, where participant observation embeds the researcher in the enactment of the settings being reported. However, despite its dissemination among the disciplines, some theorists[13] pushed back on thick description, skeptical about its ability to somehow interpret meaning by compiling large amounts of data. They also questioned how this data was supposed to provide the totality of a society naturally.[7]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Footnotes

[edit]
  1. ^ Geertz (1973), pp. 5–6, 9–10.
  2. ^ Ryle, Gilbert. [1968] 1996. "The Thinking of Thoughts: What is 'Le Penseur' Doing?" Studies in Anthropology 11:11. ISSN 1363-1098. Archived from the original on 10 April 2008. Retrieved 25 June 2008.
  3. ^ a b Yon (2003), p. ?.
  4. ^ Geertz (1973)
  5. ^ Lincoln, Yvonna S., and Egon G. Guba. 1985. Naturalistic Inquiry. 1985. ISBN 9780803924314. SAGE. ISBN 9780803924314.
  6. ^ Thompson (2001).
  7. ^ a b c Barth (2007), p. ?.
  8. ^ Geertz (1973)
  9. ^ Geertz (1973)
  10. ^ McCloskey (1988), p. ?.
  11. ^ Bachmann-Medick (2016), p. ?.
  12. ^ Hodder & Shanks (1997), p. ?.
  13. ^ e.g. Munson (1986), Robinson (1983)

Bibliography

[edit]
[edit]