An Evaluation of Geertz' Interpretive Anthropology

Essay from the year 2013 in the subject Ethnology / Cultural Anthropology, grade: 64%, University of Cambridge, language: English, abstract: As Geertz himself has recognised, ¿one cannot write a ¿General Theory of Cultural Interpretation¿¿ (TD, 26). It might therefore be wrong right from the beginning to talk about his ¿project¿. Accepting this notion for a moment, one has furthermore to acknowledge that Geertz has only picked up different traditions ¿ namely those of Weber, Boas and Kluckhohn in the social sciences and Wittgenstein and Husserl in philosophy ¿ and ¿melted¿ them into a distinguishable whole (Ortner, 1984). If one also dismisses this historical analysis for a moment and takes Geertz project of an ¿interpretive anthropology¿ as a given whole, a description develops around his notions of semiotic culture, thick description, small matters and native narratives.
It is in those ideas that one finds both Geertz¿ strengths and weaknesses as I argue below. Arguing both in abstract, theoretical terms and in relation to Geertz¿ major ethnographies ¿ Negara, Meaning and order in Moroccan society and Deep play ¿ the significance of the interpretive project is undeniable but not without limitations:

Does the interpretation of culture as a text make sense? How does Geertz link his focus on ¿small matters¿ towards an analysis of culture? Is it possible to deny theory?