Thick Description: Toward an Interpretive Theory of Culture (Group 06)

Section 1: Paragraph 1-3 Luky Portillo

    In The Interpretation of Cultures, Clifford Geertz discusses the importance of looking into a culture as not an “experimental science in search of law but an interpretive one in search of meaning" (298).  Geertz argues that culture is not ruled by law. Instead, it is semiotic and is understandable by symbols and people’s interactions with them. He then discusses the role of the ethnographer who does not only observe and record his/ her observation but to analyze and interpret the action in a cultural context. To see all the possible meanings of an action, one should use Gilbert Ryle’s “thick description”. 
    Eye contact for example can make a Japanese uncomfortable but in Western countries, it only shows a person’s interest and engagement in the conversation.

Section 2: Paragraph 4 Aram Kim

Geertz explains about Ryle’s discussion of “thick description” by using the example of two boys contracting their right eyelids. One boy contracts his eyelid involuntarily that has no social meaning, while the other contracts with the purpose of signaling a friend. Although both actions seem identical on the surface, one has the socially understood and mutually shared meaning in the action, while the other doesn’t deliver any message. This is the point that Geertz emphasizes. Any action to be social and communicable, “it should be (1) deliberate, (2) toward a particular person, (3) containing particular message, (4) according to a socially established code that is commonly shared among a group of people and (5) without cognizance of the rest of the company” (299). Winking your eye lids on purpose has a context in doing so, a purpose of achieving something and an intention of delivering a specific message to someone particular. Thick description of culture should contain a meaning and context that people within a society can interpret and understand, otherwise it is a random behavior or thought which cannot trigger any communication over it. Let’s consider “Hopi ceremonial dance” (Merton 243). It is practiced among the community members who commonly interpret it as a prayer for rains, therefore, is meaningful, deliberate, communicable and defined as a ‘culture’. Without its meaning and context, it is just a random irrational dance containing no purpose or message, hence, that no one can understand.

Section 3: Paragraph 5 Seyoung Ahn

From beginning of paragraph 5 to end of page 299

Geertz further explains Ryle's "thick description" and "thin description" by expanding possible complexities of his example of two boys - twitcher and winker. He adds third boy who parodies the first boy's wink, the parodist. By not winking nor twiching but parodying, parodist's wink instantly gain another socially established code. If this parodist rehearsed his wink at home this too gains another socially established code. In "think description", the actions - winks, twitches, parodies and rehearsal - are the same and means the same thing: "rapid contraction of one eyelid". However "think description" of these actions gives "a stratifies hierarchy of meaningful structures"(299) in terms of how these different acts are produced, perceived and interpreted.

Hand gestures that hold different meaning in different countries can only be understood through "think description" of each action. For example, calling someone with index finger can be seen as s disrespectful action in other culture. Greetz argues that we have to look at the practitioners of the actions, and thus emphasized ethnography as a method of doing sociology.

Section 4: Paragraph 5-7 Carmel Laniado

After establishing a foundation to 'thick description', Geertz delves into what ethnography is by introducing 'thin description'. Geertz claims "between the 'thin description' of what the rehearser is doing, and the 'thick description' of what he is doing, lies the object of ethnography: a stratified hierarchy of meaningful structures in terms of which [...] parodies produced, perceived, and interpreted and without which they would not exist. Geertz uses the example of 'the wink vs the twitch' to explain two distinct things. Firstly, that the example of the wink/twitch demonstrates how there is constant structures and interference which an ethnographer has to identify. Geertz explains that Culture is "not an occult entity", or, a supernatural organism. Instead Geertz argues, "once human behaviour is seen as symbolic action, the question as to whether culture is patterned conduct or a frame of mind, loses sense". Instead of asking what the ontological source of the behaviour is, we must ask, 'what is their import' - what is stemming a certain statement/behaviour? I think Geertz is on one hand simplifying and obscuring culture - he demands for us to see culture as a tangible 'thing', we can shape it and have agency over it. Yet, Geertz also pushes us to see that each action is propelled by something deeper, and that though we have agency to shape our actions, the actions we 'chose' still have symbolic meaning.

Section 5: Paragraph 8-10 Kejing Peng

Page 300 from "This may seem like an obvious truth " to "likely to assent".

There are two ways we can obscure the definition of culture. One is to think culture as an independent, with power and purpose like a reality, defined as “super-organic.” Another way is to think culture exists in an unconscious mode, we can observe the culture in some identifiable comminuties, and the confusions about culture will always exist. However, undoubtedly, like Ward Goodenough, culture exists in people’s mind and heart. Culture should also be shared by individuals in the form of “writing out of systematic rules” (page 300), so they can operate based on the cultural content, and people all recognize it. Thus, Geertz thinks extreme subjectivism and extreme formalism would argue about what natives ”really” thinks, or it is just a clever simulation. Then Geertz gives an example by using a Beethoven quartet as a sample of culture. He thinks that this piece of music is only a presentation of music, a form of music, so no one should relate this to the skill require to play it, or the knowledge of music. This example helps him to illustrate Beethoven’s work is a presentation of music, and we all shared a common understanding of what music is, it is not anyone’s knowledge or belief.

ALEXIS (comment) Culture is a reciprocal and dynamic interaction between individual desires and collective shared goals. The synthesis of these two (often opposing) forces is simultaneously inorganic and organic. Culture is both tyranny and security - our relationship to it is ambivalent and it is a necessary condition for the formation of a social self. The extreme subjectivism and extreme formalism that Geertz points out is mirrored in the discourse around technology right now. Techno-determinists (formalism) and techno-utopians (subjectivists?) disagree about the nature of the relationship between society and technology and which shapes which. Our experience is never this clear cut - the multiplicity of subjectivity and of formal structure works to dissolve the line between the two - for example, technology and culture co-evolve.

Thanks for Alexis's comment, and you've made an interesting point that formalism and subjectivism argue about the relationship between society and technology. So based on this, one question I want to ask is since culture is so dynamic in form, how should we interpret culture under different content? For example, under a tyranny regime, culture is an element unite people together, the extreme united on this form of common knowledge will destabilize the society. One real example is the culture revolution in China.

Section 6: Paragraph 11-12 Anja Hedji

Geertz (1973) exemplifies that one needs certain cultural knowledge and the correct context in order to play the violin. Similarly, he argues that one also needs to understand the correct cultural meanings and context to successfully make a trade pact in Morocco. He emphasizes the importance of the context within a culture, and the cultural meanings in order to perform the correct cultural act. According to Geertz “culture, is public because meaning is”, thus it is accessible to everyone but we need to be aware of this and we need to resist “taking thin descriptions for thick” (301). He concludes that cultural studies should be analyzed with similar formal methods to those of math and logic, because it requires the same attention and skill to study culture. Geertz’s theory on thin and thick description connotes similarities to Merton’s (1949) ideas of manifest and latent functions. We can use a social phenomenon of people in Vancouver thanking bus drivers, which can be viewed negatively in other cultures, as an example to further understand Geertz’s theory on culture and context.