Understanding and Interpreting Culture: A Comparison of the Perspectives of Clifford Geertz and Pierre Bourdieu

I. Introduction

What is "culture" for anthropology? How do anthropologists understand and interpret "culture"? This article will take the works of two modern anthropologists Geertz and Bourdieu as the core of the discussion, first integrate and explain their arguments, then try to compare and analyze the similarities and differences between the two, and finally discuss the characteristics of "common sense" in culture, and make a brief introduction conclusion.

2. Geertz: From Web of Meaning to Thick Description

First of all, Geertz believes that the definition of cultural concepts such as "complex whole" is not conducive to relevant discussions, so he quotes Max Weber's statement that "human beings are animals hanging on the web of meaning weaved by themselves" as the definition of culture , thinking that to analyze culture is not to look for laws, but to explore meaning and interpretation.

So how can we describe the "web of meaning" clearly? The operationalism of anthropology is a way, through ethnographic fieldwork, interview records, genealogy construction, diary writing and other processes, as an attempt to "thick description". "Thick description" is a concept quoted from Gilbert Ryle. Compared with "thin description" which only regards behavior as behavior, "thin description" outlines the structure of meaning in layers and places behavior in the cultural category , resulting in behavioral meaning. For example, blinking is the same behavior, but in fact it may be an exchange of information, or it may be a mockery of deliberate imitation. To judge the meaning of blinking, it is necessary to understand the actor, social situation, message content and other considerations. The act of blinking fits into and connects to these conditions.

Geertz emphasized that culture is owned by the public, not in the minds of individuals, and it must be noted that although placing culture in a web of meanings can be used to understand the meaning of behavior, it does not mean that understanding behavior is equivalent to on the behavior itself. Neither an idealist/subjectivist view nor a materialist/objectivist view can explain the concept of culture. The former regards culture as a psychological phenomenon or a cognitive structure, while the latter regards culture as the sum of material phenomena. Both attempts at law and logic Consolidation is futile. The "Native's point of view" (Native's point of view) that anthropologists attaches great importance to is already an explanation, not the actions of the actors themselves.

However, the ethnography that anthropologists try to write and construct still has value. Ethnography is a kind of interpretation, and this kind of interpretation of social discourse preserves past social discourse, and this kind of micro-research gives anthropologists a unique perspective on culture. By recording, describing and interpreting specific and individual cultural phenomena, we can Extend its analysis to a wider context. Geertz believes that this does not represent a crude comparison, nor does it regard the field as a natural laboratory, but is based on local experience, using social structure as a cultural entity, and embedding theoretical concepts in social structure. In the meticulous and compact arrangement of events in the book, it presents an interpretive point of view—the role of culture in human life.

3. Bourdieu: Structure-Practice Interaction

Between idealism/subjectivism and materialism/objectivism, Bourdieu tries to construct a unique perspective on the practice of actors. Subjectivism believes that the awakening of subject consciousness is the key to initiative, while objectivism believes that the limitations of objective structures have a great influence on individual actions, but both of these points are too one-sided: the former overemphasizes the subject’s initiative and ignores the influence of structure, while the latter It overly underestimates the effect of the subject's actions on the structure. Therefore, Bourdieu put forward the "Theory of praxis", using Habitus to connect structure and practice.

Habitus is the social structure internal to the individual, and it is the influence of the social structure on people. Individuals use habitus as the basis for judging actions and reproduce social structures in practice. And habitus is not only personal, but also historical and collective. Individuals are used to getting along with other individuals similar to habitus, not only because they are in a social structure with similar backgrounds, but also because habitus tends to maintain its existence and promote Individuals with similar habits gather to form collectives to reproduce social structures. Due to the characteristics of habitus, different social structures can shape different groups and social classes, and due to the influence of the social structure in which actors live, they will use past habitus as the basis of practice to deal with the current situation, so Cause "hysteresis effect".

And how to understand the practice under the social structure? Bourdieu believes that it is not feasible to try to analyze practice through mechanistic scientific inductive logic, because in addition to habitus, practice is also affected by the current field and time, and individuals make judgments and actions in an instant in response to these conditions. This rhythm, Rhythm and intentionality are difficult to disassemble and summarize with the logic of natural science, and it is easy to sacrifice rigor for simplicity and summary. To understand the logic of practice, it is necessary to grasp the time, space, customs, norms, action strategies and other elements in the social situation, and use the symbolic system to understand the social structure.

Finally, Bourdieu emphasized the importance of symbolic capital, because the class that owns symbolic capital can grasp the definition of social capital and cultural capital, and use this to shape the social structure and affect the accumulation of economic capital. By manipulating the symbolic system under the "Mythico-ritual" framework, the upper class can use ritual relationships to cover up the interactive nature of exchange and exploitation, and to obtain material benefits. By continually reproducing social structures in favor of vested interests, the dominators are able to maintain the dominance of symbolic violence.

4. Comparison and Analysis of Cultural Interpretation

From the integration of the viewpoints of Geertz and Bourdieu above, it can be found that the two have two things in common: first, both believe that idealism/subjectivism and materialism/objectivism are not enough to understand social culture, and social culture is incomplete. It is thinking, cognition, and individual actions, and it is not entirely the shackles and manifestations of social structures. To understand culture, one must understand the interaction between actors and their social structures and contexts, and observe social events in actual situations. Second, both feel that without an essential cultural understanding, it is impossible for researchers to extract a scientific logic, and the record itself is a second- and third-level understanding, not the cognition of the actors themselves.

Both believe that symbols are the core of understanding social culture, but Geertz and Bourdieu have some differences in the role of symbols. Geertz uses symbols to see the meaning of behavior, and uses symbols to embody the meaning of actions under the social structure, while Bourdieu believes that symbols are a cover for the upper class to exercise dominance. modeling, and the actual conditions in which actors practice.

In addition, Geertz and Bourdieu think that the role of behavior in social culture is not consistent. According to Geertz, the meaning of behavior must be placed in the cultural category. Here, behavior exists as a condensed attachment of meaning and is the entity of culture. Through the careful arrangement of various events, we can learn from the meaning of action. The state of social structure can be seen in the behavior of the participants. Bourdieu, on the other hand, believes that behavior is the embodiment of social structure in individuals, which can be observed through habitus, and behavior is a medium for reproducing social structure, and the existing cultural state can be maintained through the practice of actors.

In summary, both Geertz and Bourdieu believe that culture is closely related to social structure, and understanding the context of time and space is an indispensable condition for interpreting culture. From the cultural interpretation of the two, we can clearly understand that theory and practice are not the opposite of binary opposition, but that theoretical concepts can be developed on the basis of cultural phenomena through the observation, narration and interpretation of the actual situation by researchers. . If theory is not interwoven and inlaid with practice, it is a nihilistic frame that is divorced from reality.

5. Common sense and taking it for granted (Doxa)

Based on the above discussion, we can further compare the similarities between Geertz's "Common sense" (Common sense) and Bourdieu's "Of course" (Doxa) [1] .

Geertz believes that "common sense" in culture is natural, practical, superficial, irregular, and easy to obtain. Changeable, common sense is irregular and contradictory. What Bourdieu refers to as "taken for granted" refers to the established cognition that is considered needless to say beyond the universe of discourse, and will not involve disputes and discourse dominance between orthodoxy and heterodoxy snatch.

Both Geertz and Bourdieu's descriptions of "common sense" and "taken for granted" are based on similar definitions, and both have natural characteristics, but Geertz's common sense is a concept extracted from social culture, and the characteristics of the concept of common sense discusses in detail, while Bourdieu draws out what is taken for granted by defining the boundary of discussion/non-discussion scope, and discusses how the movement of the boundary affects the field of "taken for granted".

In general, Geertz and Bourdieu use different concepts. Although based on similar definitions, the directions of attention are different: the former compares it to the interaction between the ancient city, the suburbs, and modern society, while the latter observes the shifting of the discussion/non-discussion boundary through the process of competing for orthodoxy in the field of discourse with changes.

6. Summary

The understanding and interpretation of the meaning of "culture" is an important topic in symbolic anthropology, and through the theoretical integration, simple comparison and analysis of the works of two important modern anthropologists Geertz and Bourdieu, the discussion of cultural interpretation can be more meaningful. Clear understanding. At the same time, as actors and human apprentices under the social structure, we are deeply influenced by the cultural context in which we live, and we hope to understand the meaning of culture. It is painful to have such reflexivity (Reflexivity), but it is also the greatest luck.

references

Bourdieu, Pierre

1977[1972] Outline of a Theory of Practice , translated by Richard Nice. Cambridge, Britain: Cambridge University Press.

1984[1979] Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste , translated by Richard Nice. MA: Harvard University Press.

1992[1980] The Logic of Practice , translated by Richard Nice. CA: Stanford University Press.

Geertz, Clifford

1973 The Interpretation of Cultures . NY: Basic Books.

1983 Local Knowledge: Further Essays in Interpretive Anthropology . NY: Basic Books.

____________________

Remark:

[1] Doxa is often translated as "belief" or "belief" in the Chinese translation of Bourdieu's works. The author believes that the translation "of course" can more accurately express the meaning of its "natural, needless basic cognition".