Central Debates within Central Debates within Anthropology 2008Anthropology 2008

Theme 5: Practice, culture and Theme 5: Practice, culture and agencyagency

Culture, knowledge and social Culture, knowledge and social actionaction

Thursday 30 OctoberThursday 30 October

Clifford Geertz (1926-2006): Clifford Geertz (1926-2006): the ’interpretative turn’the ’interpretative turn’

‘‘culture’ must be seen culture’ must be seen as the ‘webs of as the ‘webs of meaning’ within which meaning’ within which people live; meaning people live; meaning is encoded in symbolic is encoded in symbolic forms (language, forms (language, artefacts, etiquette, artefacts, etiquette, rituals , calendars, and rituals , calendars, and so on), which must be so on), which must be understood through understood through acts of interpretationacts of interpretation

Geertz and cultureGeertz and culture two interlocked dimensions of Geertz’s two interlocked dimensions of Geertz’s

‘interpretative turn:‘interpretative turn:- - ontological (what culture is)ontological (what culture is): a system of : a system of meanings embodied in symbolsmeanings embodied in symbols- - epistemological (how we can know it)epistemological (how we can know it): : interpretation of the publicly available forms in interpretation of the publicly available forms in which culture is encodedwhich culture is encoded

SO: The fundamental assumption that people are SO: The fundamental assumption that people are always trying to make sense of their lives, always always trying to make sense of their lives, always weaving fabrics of meaning, however fragile and weaving fabrics of meaning, however fragile and fragmentary, still holds.fragmentary, still holds.

Geertz and culture: subjectivityGeertz and culture: subjectivity An important aspect of Geertzian cultural analysis An important aspect of Geertzian cultural analysis

is its focus on the cultural construction of is its focus on the cultural construction of subjectivity (following Max Weber)subjectivity (following Max Weber)

Geertz (cited in Ortner (2006:118) on the Balinese Geertz (cited in Ortner (2006:118) on the Balinese cock fight: ‘Yet, because .. that subjectivity does cock fight: ‘Yet, because .. that subjectivity does not properly exist until it is thus organized, art not properly exist until it is thus organized, art forms generate and regenerate the very forms generate and regenerate the very subjectivity they pretend only to display’.subjectivity they pretend only to display’.

Symbolic systems are not additive to human Symbolic systems are not additive to human existence but constitutive of it. This includes existence but constitutive of it. This includes human subjectivity. human subjectivity.

Sherry Ortner on Sherpas and Sherry Ortner on Sherpas and Sahibs (1999): developing agency Sahibs (1999): developing agency

Geertz provides a model for understanding the Geertz provides a model for understanding the cultural construction of agency in particular times cultural construction of agency in particular times and places, point of departure for theorising and places, point of departure for theorising agency in a non-reductive way.agency in a non-reductive way.

- - assumes an ‘actor’ whose subjectivity is both the assumes an ‘actor’ whose subjectivity is both the source and the product of cultural constructionssource and the product of cultural constructions

- - assumes that ‘the actor’s point of view’ is central assumes that ‘the actor’s point of view’ is central to the interpretative practice of ‘thick descriptionto the interpretative practice of ‘thick description

-- it has to be complemented with a focus on the it has to be complemented with a focus on the power dimension of agency (Foucault, a.o.)power dimension of agency (Foucault, a.o.)

Sherry Ortner on Sherpas and Sherry Ortner on Sherpas and Sahibs (1999): developing agency Sahibs (1999): developing agency

The concept of The concept of agencyagency is part of the both the is part of the both the power problematic and the meaning problematic:power problematic and the meaning problematic:

a. a. powerpower: agency is that which is made or denied, : agency is that which is made or denied, expanded or contracted, in the exercise of powerexpanded or contracted, in the exercise of power

b. b. meaningmeaning: agency represents the pressures of : agency represents the pressures of desires and understandings and intentions on desires and understandings and intentions on cultural constructions cultural constructions

Sherry Ortner on agency Sherry Ortner on agency (Anthropology and Social Theory, 2006)(Anthropology and Social Theory, 2006)

Sherry Ortner (2006: 139): the notion of Sherry Ortner (2006: 139): the notion of agencyagency can be said to have two fields of can be said to have two fields of meaning or two ‘faces’meaning or two ‘faces’

a. agency is about a. agency is about intentionality intentionality and the and the pursuit of (culturally defined) projectspursuit of (culturally defined) projects

b. agency is about b. agency is about power, power, about acting about acting within relations of social inequality, within relations of social inequality, asymmetry, and force.asymmetry, and force.

Practice Theory Practice Theory Practice theory: tPractice theory: took up challenge to overcome ook up challenge to overcome

the opposition between theories of ‘constraint’ the opposition between theories of ‘constraint’ (functionalism, symbolic anthropology, political (functionalism, symbolic anthropology, political economy, French structuralism) and theories of economy, French structuralism) and theories of human social action (symbolic interactionism, human social action (symbolic interactionism, transactionalism)transactionalism)

3 central works in the late 1970s, early 1980s: 3 central works in the late 1970s, early 1980s: Pierre Bourdieu: Outline of a Theory of Practice Pierre Bourdieu: Outline of a Theory of Practice (1978); (1978); Anthony Giddens: Central problems in social Anthony Giddens: Central problems in social theory: action, structure and contradiction in theory: action, structure and contradiction in social analysis (1979); social analysis (1979); Marshall Sahlins: Historical Metaphors and Marshall Sahlins: Historical Metaphors and Mythical Realities (1981)Mythical Realities (1981)

Practice TheoryPractice Theory DialecticalDialectical rather than rather than oppositionaloppositional relationship relationship

between the structural constraints of society and between the structural constraints of society and culture on the one hand and the ‘practices’ of culture on the one hand and the ‘practices’ of social actors on the other: ‘objectivist’ and social actors on the other: ‘objectivist’ and ’subjectivist’ perspectives are not seen as ’subjectivist’ perspectives are not seen as opposed ways of doing social science but rather opposed ways of doing social science but rather as ‘moments’ in understanding the dialectics of as ‘moments’ in understanding the dialectics of social life.social life.

The seeming contradiction: ‘history makes The seeming contradiction: ‘history makes people, but people make history’ is perhaps the people, but people make history’ is perhaps the profoundest truth of social life’ (Ortner 2006:2)profoundest truth of social life’ (Ortner 2006:2)

Three overarching paradigms 1Three overarching paradigms 1

PositivismPositivism (Durkheim, Malinowski, a.o)(Durkheim, Malinowski, a.o)

social facts as thingssocial facts as things methodological unity of sciences methodological unity of sciences

(explanation)(explanation) mechanical and organic metaphorsmechanical and organic metaphors observation as methodobservation as method scientific community as referentscientific community as referent objective truth as central criterion of objective truth as central criterion of

validityvalidity

Three overarching paradigms 2Three overarching paradigms 2

Interpretative paradigm (Geertz, Turner, a.o)Interpretative paradigm (Geertz, Turner, a.o)

social facts as constructionssocial facts as constructions interpretation (humanities) versus interpretation (humanities) versus

explanation (sciences)explanation (sciences) culture as textculture as text hermeneutic methodhermeneutic method community studied as referentcommunity studied as referent interpretative/communicative successinterpretative/communicative success

Three overarching paradigms 3Three overarching paradigms 3

Practice paradigm (Bourdieu, Sahlins, Barth, Practice paradigm (Bourdieu, Sahlins, Barth, Marcus, a.o)Marcus, a.o)

social facts as actionssocial facts as actions dialectic of explanation and interpretationdialectic of explanation and interpretation economic and performative metaphorseconomic and performative metaphors participation and engagementparticipation and engagement complicity, dialogue and social actioncomplicity, dialogue and social action knowledge as social actionknowledge as social action

Fredrik Barth on human actionFredrik Barth on human action

Fredrik Barth Fredrik Barth (b. 1928) speaks at (b. 1928) speaks at the holism the holism conference conference Sandbjerg, Sandbjerg, Denmark, July 2008Denmark, July 2008

(photo Maria (photo Maria Bræmer)Bræmer)

Barth (2002): focus on knowledge Barth (2002): focus on knowledge instead of culture instead of culture

Knowledge: what a person employs to Knowledge: what a person employs to interpret interpret and act on the worldand act on the world; this includes feelings ; this includes feelings (attitudes) as well as information, embodied skills (attitudes) as well as information, embodied skills as well as verbal taxonomies and concepts: all as well as verbal taxonomies and concepts: all the ways of understanding that we use to make the ways of understanding that we use to make up our experienced, grasped reality.up our experienced, grasped reality.

Knowledge provides people with Knowledge provides people with materials for materials for reflection and premises for actionreflection and premises for action, whereas , whereas culture too readily comes to embrace also those culture too readily comes to embrace also those reflections and those actions.reflections and those actions.

Fredrik Barth 2Fredrik Barth 2

Knowledge is Knowledge is distributeddistributed in a population, in a population, while culture makes us think in terms of while culture makes us think in terms of diffuse sharingdiffuse sharing

DifferencesDifferences in knowledge provide much of in knowledge provide much of the momentum for our social interaction, the momentum for our social interaction, from gossip to the division of labour.from gossip to the division of labour.

Knowledge is not universal but is Knowledge is not universal but is constructed in constructed in traditionstraditions

Fredrik Barth (2002) Fredrik Barth (2002)

A A tradition of knowledgetradition of knowledge has three has three interconnected ‘faces’interconnected ‘faces’

a corpus of substantive assertions and a corpus of substantive assertions and ideas about aspects of the worldideas about aspects of the world

a range of media of representation, a range of media of representation, through which it is instantiated and through which it is instantiated and communicated (words, concrete symbols, communicated (words, concrete symbols, gestures, actions)gestures, actions)

social organization: it is distributed, social organization: it is distributed, communicated, employed, and communicated, employed, and transmitted within a series of instituted transmitted within a series of instituted social relations.social relations.

Barth on knowledge and agencyBarth on knowledge and agency

The knowledge perspective forces The knowledge perspective forces the researcher to give close attention the researcher to give close attention to the knowers and the acts of the to the knowers and the acts of the knower – the people who hold, learn, knower – the people who hold, learn, produce, and apply knowledge in produce, and apply knowledge in their various activities and lives. In their various activities and lives. In the close analysis of action we see the close analysis of action we see the mutual determination between the mutual determination between the three ‘faces’ of knowledge.the three ‘faces’ of knowledge.

Fredrik Barth: Fredrik Barth: values and concernsvalues and concerns

Values: explicit cultural constructs, Values: explicit cultural constructs, expressed in words or symbolsexpressed in words or symbols

Concerns: Implicit cultural constructs Concerns: Implicit cultural constructs that guide people’s behaviour but that guide people’s behaviour but that are not explicitly formulated as that are not explicitly formulated as values; they are a precipitate of the values; they are a precipitate of the experience of living as member of a experience of living as member of a community.community.

Central concepts in Barth’s theory of Central concepts in Barth’s theory of culture and human action culture and human action

Implicit ‘concerns’ versus explicit ‘values’Implicit ‘concerns’ versus explicit ‘values’

traditions of knowledge are characterized bytraditions of knowledge are characterized by• Body of ideas, with distinctive source and historyBody of ideas, with distinctive source and history• Social organization, in particular interested actorsSocial organization, in particular interested actors• Media of representationMedia of representation• Criteria of validityCriteria of validity

Cultural premises of human actionCultural premises of human action(adapted from Barth 1993: 159)(adapted from Barth 1993: 159)

Further readingFurther reading

Ortner, S. 1984. Theory in Anthropology since the Ortner, S. 1984. Theory in Anthropology since the Sixties. Sixties. Comparative Studies in Society and Comparative Studies in Society and HistoryHistory 26: 126-166. 26: 126-166.

Ortner, S. 2006. Ortner, S. 2006. Anthropology and Social Theory: Anthropology and Social Theory: Culture, Power, and the Acting Subject.Culture, Power, and the Acting Subject. Durham & Durham & London: Duke University Press.London: Duke University Press.

Fredrik Barth 1993a. Fredrik Barth 1993a. Balinese WorldsBalinese Worlds. Chicago & . Chicago & London. The University of Chicago Press.London. The University of Chicago Press.

Fredrik Barth 1993b. Are values real? The enigma Fredrik Barth 1993b. Are values real? The enigma of naturalism in the anthropological imputation of of naturalism in the anthropological imputation of values. In: Michael Hechter et al. (eds.) values. In: Michael Hechter et al. (eds.) The origin The origin of valuesof values, New York: Aldine de Gruyter, New York: Aldine de Gruyter..