Ethnography as Thick Description: Insights on the Study of Cultures from Geertz, Winch and Taylor - Literature review Example

Ethnography as 'Thick Insights on the Study of Cultures from Clifford Geertz, Peter Winch and Charles Taylor I. INTRODUCTION Ethnography as a social science that sprung from the late 20th century developed from two important changes that occurred in this period: the gradual emergence of challenges against positivism as a dominant way of thinking in the fields of academics and research, as well as the introduction of ethnography as an alternative method and perspective of generating data and information about societies and cultures considered by Westerners and Europeans as "other-worldly." The discovery of new societies and cultures, and the radical differences of these to Western beliefs and values, prompted researchers and academicians alike to develop the method of immersion and observation in the "field"-that is, the site wherein said society or culture can be found. Thus, through this method, ethnography was created and later developed to become one of the most important contributions of human society to the science of knowledge in the 20th century. As ethnography became the predominant form of data collection in this period, one of its proponents, Clifford Geertz, considered this new, emerging form of social science as a "thick description." Ethnography as a social science that possesses "thick description" is reflective of its ability to bring out a multitude of perspectives from a single observation of a society or culture. However, this very character of ethnography as a social science is also 'interpreted' in various ways, and this will be the focus of the discussions that follow from this text. Discussing and analyzing the works of Clifford Geertz, Peter Winch, and Charles Taylor concerning the issue of ethnography as an alternative form of knowledge and perspective in the field of social science, the concept of "thick description" is best illustrated. This paper posits that Geertz, Winch, and Taylor's interpretations of ethnography as a "thick description" contained variations of how each proponent viewed research in social science must be conducted. Each proponent offered different views on the epistemological roots of ethnography both as a methodological and conceptual discipline or field of study in social science. II. Clifford Geertz: Balance between quantitative and ethnographic data Clifford Geertz is one of the leading ethnologists that began the 'ethnographic revolution,' an American social scientist who developed the field of symbolic anthropology, wherein symbols and rituals are interpreted based not on their ecological and economic meanings, but on the meanings of these symbols and rituals within the context of the culture wherein they are found and practiced. He was also the one who introduced the term "thick description" to describe the science of ethnography. In order to make sense of this concept of 'thick description,' it is best to understand how Geertz utilized his knowledge and ability to interpret cultures using a different, non-Western perspective in his classic work, "Deep Play: Notes on the Balinese Cockfight." In this particular ethnographic study, Geertz looked into Balinese society and culture in terms of its most dominant and prevalent ritual: cockfighting. In "Deep Play," the anthropologist interpreted Balinese cockfighting as a ritual that is symbolic in nature, wherein his interpretations included the findings that cockfighting is symbolic of Balinese men's masculinity, and the collective nature of Balinese society in general. Cockfighting as a ritual that reflected Balinese men's masculinity is specifically represented by the cock itself, wherein the Balinese man "is identifying not just with his ideal self, or even his penis, but also, at the same time, with what he most fears, hates" Moreover, as a collective ritual participated by the many, Balinese cockfights are also symbolic of what Geertz termed as the "migration of the Balinese status hierarchy into the body of the cockfight" (Geertz, 1973). Both in individualistic and collective terms and levels, cockfighting is able to represent Balinese culture. It is worth noting that Geertz's interpretation of cockfighting in the context of Balinese culture takes into account both the individual and the society. That is, ultimately, Geertz tries to understand the Balinese individual's psyche in order to make sense of Balinese culture in general. This is a difficult endeavor to achieve, for positivism assumes the position that cultures cannot be interpreted in general based on a few cases or incidences demonstrating a particular psyche or characteristics. This is actually an important issue that surrounded social science during this period: the emergence of anthropology, or qualitative methodologies and perspectives, versus the dominant quantitative methodologies and positivist perspective in the social sciences (Jones, 2004:3). In "Deep Play," Geertz tried to create a balance between quantitative and qualitative methods and perspectives by interspersing statistical data with his findings from the ethnographic data about Balinese society and culture. Although his analysis was dominated by ethnographic data on Balinese culture, Geertz tried to incorporate the generalizability quality of his data by comparing his findings against the statistical data that he has, wherein he surveyed the prevalence of cockfighting rituals and processes involved in this ritual, among different cockfights happening in Bali. Through this method, he was able to reconcile the conflict that might possibly emerged, wherein academicians and social scientists alike are wont to question the validity of his generalizations just by projecting a case finding from a specific Balinese man to reflect those of Balinese men's experiences in general. The same precaution or balance was observed in Geertz's analysis and generalization of Balinese culture. These precautions that he observed was demonstrated in his statement towards the last part of "Deep Play," wherein he enumerated the generalizations he found about cockfighting and its relevance to Balinese society and culture: "The easiest way to make this clear, and at least to some degree to demonstrate it, is to invoke the village whose cockfighting activities I observed the closest-the one in which the raid occurred and from which my statistical data are taken" (Geertz, 1973). III. Peter Winch: Non-subsistence to statistical data, Subsistence to qualitative means of data interpretation From Geertz's analysis and article on Balinese cockfighting, 'thick description' is found to be the anthropologist's way of describing the multi-faceted nature of anthropology as a social science. While he tried to create a balance between statistics and anthropology in "Deep Play," Geertz acknowledges that there are also other ways through which anthropology can be conducted and cultures and societies interpreted. Peter Winch is a British philosopher who offered an alternative, albeit radical and extremist view of understanding cultures and societies other than through quantitative methods and perspectives. In "Understanding a Primitive Society," Winch proposed that the key to understanding a complex concept such as culture and society should not be analyzed based on quantitative methods and analyses, which was the dominant perspective and methodology during the 20th century. In his essay, the philosopher argued that what "is needed is a better interpretation, not something different in kind." He asserted this kind of argument in the essay, applying this perspective as he set out to analyze the extant interpretation on the culture of African Azandes. In his analysis of the culture of the Azande, Winch introduced the dilemma of the 'right' way of interpreting and analyzing cultures that have different experiences from the Western experience in general. Problematizing on the manner in which the Azande culture was analyzed by Western anthropologists, Winch's proposal was based on the philosophical grounds, explaining how interpretation based on anthropological data alone-that is, through observation-is most sufficient and can, in fact, become the basis of generalization about a culture or society. This assertion brings into question the problem of qualitative methods' supposed inability to generate sufficient data that could support a specific assertion or argument, which can be applied to a culture or society in general. Again, the issue of 'thick description' is brought into fore. In Winch's view, 'thick description' is solely applied to qualitative methods and analysis, and the multi-faceted quality of anthropology only varies on the manner in which the anthropologist conducts his/her data collection. And it is through Winch's notion of anthropology that became the most important insight in "Understanding." In his essay, he elaborated on the different "realities" of the observer and the culture being observed, a difference that can produce difficulties in interpretation. However, the philosopher extended his wisdom on this issue, positing that analysis must be conducted with an understanding of the culture being observed. That, in order to generate an understanding of the "other," one must be able to momentarily devoid himself/herself of his/her personal values and beliefs (in this case, the 'European worldview) (Martin, 1999:10; Winch, 1990). the context from which the suggestion about contradiction is made, the context of our scientific culture, is not on the same level as the context in which the belief about witchcraft operates. Zande notions of witchcraft do not constitute a theoretical system in terms of which Azande try to gain a quasi-scientific understanding of the world. This in turn suggests that it is the European, obsessed with pressing Zande thought where it would not naturally go-to a contradiction-who is guilty of misunderstanding, not the Zande. The European is in fact committing a category-mistake. The 'guilt of misunderstanding' embedded in the Azande anthropological interpretation is an issue that confronted Westerners during the period of 'discovery' in their conduct of anthropology in newly-discovered cultures and societies-that is, societies that are non-Western in culture. Confronting the issue of committing a "category-mistake" in the interpretation of qualitative data was indeed a 'fault' of early anthropologists during this period of anthropological discoveries. Winch's essay, "Understanding," is reflective of the issue and concept of 'thick description,' discussing directly the problematic nature inevitably found in anthropological studies. The key, then, as reflected in Winch's analysis, is to assume a stance wherein the observer/anthropologist also 'explores'-up to a point wherein s/he attempts to develop an understanding of another culture through a different perspective: the non-European perspective. IV. Charles Taylor: The dilemma of acultural theory and the development of atomistic culture in modernism Charles Taylor is another philosopher who became relevant to the history and development of anthropology because of his insights on the culture of modernism, and on the manner in which anthropologists tried to interpret the difference between 'non-modern' and categorically, modern, cultures. In his essay, "Two theories of modernity," Taylor focused on two extant theories, which explains two radically different views of modernity. In his analysis of the theories of modernity, Taylor argued that the acultural theory of modernity is "bad," since it "describe(s) the transition in terms of a loss of traditional beliefs and allegiancesold views and loyalties are eroded" The negative tone assumed in the acultural theory eliminates other factors that can be considered as positive and helpful as modernism became the dominant and prevalent culture of today's societies (Taylor, 2001:4). The relevance of Taylor's analysis in "Two theories" is reflective of the stance that Winch utilized in his analysis of the Azande culture and the anthropological circumstances surrounding the issue of interpretation. In Taylor's terms, interpretation should be based on cultural theory, which is defined as "one that characterizes the transformations that have issued in the modern West mainly in terms of the rise of a new culture" (Taylor, 2001:1). In the cultural theory, any change in a culture is interpreted positively and functionally, a perspective that should be subsisted to in anthropological analysis. Taylor's analysis brings into fore another perspective in looking at anthropology as a field of social science, which is to analyze cultures in terms of development-whether this culture is Western in nature or not. Like Winch's analysis, Taylor assumes a pragmatic stance in understanding cultures, and analyzing them anthropologically. 'Thick description' in Taylor's terms are categorized and described specifically through the cultural theory. Although Taylor's concept of 'thick description' is also dichotomous, his pragmatic analysis of cultures coincides with Winch's description of a rational and categorically correct analysis. Bibliography Geertz, C. "Deep Play: Notes on the Balinese Cockfight." In The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays. NY: Basic. Jones, T. (2004). "Uncovering "cultural meaning": problems and solutions." Behavior and Philosophy, Vol. 32. Martin, M. (1999). Verstehen: The Uses of Understanding in Social Science. NJ: Transaction Publishing. Taylor, C. (2001). "Two theories of modernity." The International Scope, Vol. 3, Issue 5. Winch, P. (1990). The Idea of a Social Science and its Relation to Philosophy. London: Routledge. Read More