Theoretical Evolution and the Interpretative Theory of Clifford Geertz

Background for the Cultural and Interpretative School

The Idea of Structuralism by Claude Levi Strauss. Then came the Culture Personality School and the Cultural Materialism School by Marvin Harris. Structuralism argued that culture is a product of the mind embedded in the psyche of the individual. But there was a shift afterwards. While structuralism and the culture personality school focused on the psychological aspect, cultural materialism focused on the material aspect. So there was a shift in methodology.

Structuralism :

The Idea of Structuralism by Claude Levi Strauss was defining culture as the product of mind embedded in the psyche of the individual. But the culture personality school that followed has a different approach to culture.

Culture Personality School:

The Culture and Personality school, which was prominent in the first half of the 20th century, explored the interaction between psychological and cultural forces shaping human experiences. While it wasn't a cohesive "school of thought," there were some key ideas shared by its practitioners:

1. Cultural Patterning: Culture and Personality theorists believed that adult behavior is "culturally patterned." In other words, cultural norms and practices influence how individuals behave and perceive the world around them.

2. Childhood Influence: Childhood experiences play a crucial role in shaping an individual's personality as an adult. The way children are socialized within their cultural context leaves lasting imprints on their personalities.

3. Reciprocal Relationship: Adult personality characteristics are reflected in cultural beliefs, social institutions, and practices. It's a two-way street: culture shapes personality, and personality influences cultural expressions.

4. Socialization and Personality Types: The study of culture and personality explored how different socialization practices led to distinct personality types. Researchers examined how upbringing, rituals, and community norms molded emotional responses, thoughts, and behaviors.

5. Reaction Against Evolutionism: Culture and Personality emerged partly as a reaction against 19th-century social evolutionism. Anthropologists like Franz Boas and his students (such as Ruth Benedict) challenged the idea that all cultures followed the same hierarchical evolutionary sequence.

6. Margaret Mead's Influence: Margaret Mead's work, especially her book *Coming of Age in Samoa* (1928), provided early insights into the relationship between personality and culture.

In summary, the Culture and Personality approach recognized the intricate dance between cultural context and individual psychology, emphasizing that both shape each other in complex ways.

Cultural Materialism: 

It is a Marxist inspired theoretical approach to studying cultural texts that first emerged in 1980 as a perspective on culture. This approach, developed by anthropologist Marvin Harris, provides insights into how society and culture intersect. Here's the essence of cultural materialism:

1. Basic Premises:

   - Coined by Marvin Harris in his influential work The Rise of Anthropological Theory (1968), cultural materialism encompasses three interconnected schools of thought: cultural materialism, cultural evolution, and cultural ecology.

Raymond Williams in 1977 book Marxism and Literature speaks about Cultura Materialism. In literature cultural materialism approaches texts by combining two distinct modes of analysis 

Cultural Materialism = Historicism (understanding the historical context underlying the text’s production) + ideological and political analysis (looking at the relation between the cultural texts and the dominant political ideology of the time) 

   - At its core, cultural materialism emphasizes that culture is deeply influenced by material realities—specifically, technological, economic, and demographic factors.

It operates within a framework of three distinct levels:

Infrastructure: This foundational level includes material conditions like technology, production, and reproduction (demographics). Infrastructure shapes and molds the other aspects of culture.

Structure: The organizational aspects of culture—domestic arrangements, kinship systems, and political economy—fall under this category.

Superstructure: Here, we find the ideological and symbolic elements of society, such as religion and belief systems.

Cultural materialists argue that infrastructure—especially economic and technological factors—plays the primary role in shaping a society. Their goal is to create a "pan-human science of society" based on logical and evidentiary grounds.

2. Culture as Material Force:

   - Cultural materialism views culture not as an abstract concept but as a tangible force. It is shaped by power structures—both economic and political.

   - These power structures often find expression in the literature produced by a society or culture.

   - In other words Culture itself is a productive process and its texts i.e., books, films, television shows, or architecture as cultural materials or products of the cultural, political and economic forces.  In this sense to understand the text the critics should be able to situate the text in a relevant historical and cultural context. 

3. Demographic, Environmental, and Technological Factors:

   - Cultural materialists invoke demographic changes, environmental contexts, and technological shifts to explain cultural variation. They focus on how these factors interact with the infrastructure to shape societal structures and superstructures.

4. Contrast with Marxist Views:

   - While cultural materialism shares some roots with Marxism, it diverges in key ways. Unlike Marxists, who emphasize reciprocal relationships between production, structure, and infrastructure, cultural materialists propose a more unidirectional influence from infrastructure to structure. For cultural materialists, production lies primarily within the infrastructure, affecting other cultural aspects.

In summary, cultural materialism underscores the material foundations of culture, emphasizing the impact of technology, economics, and demographics on shaping societies and their expressions. It's a fascinating lens through which to explore human behavior and cultural dynamics!

Arguement 2: 

Marxism looks at literature as a representation of the dominant political ideology at the time.

While cultural materialism looks at literature as a place occupied by multiple cultures and the place where counter cultures are born.

When the symbolic and interpretive theory emerged, it emphasized the non-material aspect. This means they believed that the psychological, ideological, and non-material aspects of culture are important. Therefore, there was another shift in methodology. They added the material aspect to their understanding of culture.

They criticize structuralism and Levi Strauss because they believe that Levi Strauss argued that culture is a product of the mind. This means that culture is internal to the individual. However, symbolic and interpretive theory argued that culture is not just in the mind of the individual. It can be observed and analyzed.

Cultural materialism emphasized the material aspect of culture. However, psychology and beliefs are also important elements of culture. Therefore, critics of cultural materialism argued that it neglected the non-material aspects of culture.

What are symbols? 

There are two words: symbol and sign. For example, if I see smoke, the logical conclusion is that there was fire. But Sindoor on the forehead is not a logical or scientific conclusion because someone from a Western culture might not understand its meaning. This means that symbols are culturally determined. They are a product of culture, and they have a value that is attached to them via culture. Therefore, they are not very logical because there are different cultures, practices, and symbols around the world.

Similarly, in Zoroastrianism, fire holds great value. But we might not know it or attach the same value to fire in Hindu culture. Every culture and society has unique symbols that can only be understood from within that culture. 

Criticism agains cultural materialism and structuralism: 

Materialism neglected the non-material aspects of culture. Ideas and beliefs were not given importance. Structuralism argued that culture is in the psyche of the individual. However, symbolic and interpretive theory argued that culture is not in the psyche. It is out there in public, in the behavior, and in the actions of the people.

This school emerged in America as a reaction to structuralism and materialism. It grew out of conversions of disciplines like philosophy, ethnomethodology, and hermeneutics. Symbolic and interpretive theory is a study of text and interpreting those texts. It examines various texts and their symbolism.

Interpretive theory perceives cultures as densely textured texts. Interpretive anthropology, with its roots in hermeneutics, involves interpreting cultures as texts. It is also influenced by philosophy, which emphasizes the importance of understanding cultures from their own perspectives. Ethnomethodology emerged from scientific studies of cultures and living among them. Symbolism is the study of how people understand their surroundings through symbols, rituals, and myths, and attaching meanings to them. The role of the anthropologist is to uncover these deeper meanings. Clifford Geertz was a major proponent of the concept of thick description. 

Disclaimer: This article is in the making.