One of the twentieth century's most influential books, this classic work of anthropology offers a groundbreaking exploration of what culture is
With The Interpretation of Cultures, the distinguished anthropologist Clifford Geertz developed the concept of thick description, and in so doing, he virtually rewrote the rules of his field. Culture, Geertz argues, does not drive human behavior. Rather, it is a web of symbols that can help us better understand what that behavior means. A thick description explains not only the behavior, but the context in which it occurs, and to describe something thickly, Geertz argues, is the fundamental role of the anthropologist.
Named one of the 100 most important books published since World War II by the Times Literary Supplement, The Interpretation of Cultures transformed how we think about others' cultures and our own. This definitive edition, with a foreword by Robert Darnton, remains an essential book for anthropologists, historians, and anyone else seeking to better understand human cultures ( )

This is a difficult and dense volume laying out Clifford Geertz's theory of culture and how they might be interpreted. He is , when he wants to be, a gifted writer and can on occasion come up with a beautiful almost lyrical account of complicated theories. But it is hit or miss. He can also be extraordinarily confusing when he gravitates towards an academic style. He, for instance, diminishes a tautology by loading each side of the equation with so many qualifiers that the initial tension in the contrast vanishes. To see him try and describe the peculiarly Balinese concept of time was hopeless. The other drawback is that one should have, more than I do, a better understanding of the schools of thought that are referenced. I have some understand of Durkheim but not enough for some of the back and forth about its strengths and deficiencies. He is at that point speaking to divisions in the field and it is inside baseball. Geertz comes at his subject at a time in which the social sciences are being attacked for being unscientific. He would like to square the circle. What is clear is that Geertz has very little interest in theories that are not closely aligned with subject from which they spring. He says quite eloquently that anthropology is only a description or dialogue it is not predictive nor should it be. In the opening chapter he goes through many of the fallacies attendant upon those who place theory first. Geertz having worked in a number of different countries is very concerned with nationalism and how the emerging states - particularly those throwing off Colonialism - come by their self definition. He creates a continuum by which to describe the process emphasizing what he calls essentialism on the one hand , or the Indigeneous Way of Life with what he calls epochalism or the Spirit of the times. He will take a culture and examine it according to these two abstractions. Indonesia for instance cannot be strong on essentialism because it is geographically, enthnically, religiously so diverse. There is no center, whereas Morroco would have essentialism because it was so long a monarchy with a strong central government. But my favorite part of the book was the description of Bali at the end just because the Balinese approach to life is so different, their conception of time is permutational, their naming system has five rungs and interpersonal behavior is governed by stage fright or the fear that one might not do the ceremony justice. He contrasts this with their love of cockfights where spontaneity and raw hatred cut through. ( )

This is the best book I've ever read on cultural anthropology, and a great influence on my work.

"Thick description" is the term Geertz coined for what he did. I try. ( )

Just a Continuation of Anti-Progressive, Anti-Science: In the typical post-modernist sense, Geertz seeks to cast doubt on everything without leaving us with anything in place. Just like other post modernists, his theories are so vague, poorly stated, and in generally strange that they cannot be proved right or wrong. Even if he, like other post-modernists, is right, we do not gain anything but perhaps a somewhat edited understanding of our world. The field of cultural anthropology in and of itself is a "shady" field. The lack of biological evidence to back up Geertz's claims is immense. To think the Central Nervous System is a result of culture is simply asinine. To think that somehow culture exists out there for us to grab and chose and that it is somehow transferred through our genes and eventually influences evolution is outright ridiculous. Just because you can make claims and cast doubt on opposing claims does not mean you are correct. There is little evidence to show that the human race is still undergoing evolution in the Darwinian sense. Geertz's failure, or rather deliberate attempt to, distinguish between the mind and the brain shows his general distaste for any sort of reasonable logic. Please: Someone rescue anthropology from its current blinding veil of post modernist, post-structuralist ideology. Post modernism is like chewing gum that sticks to your shoe sole and impedes you from moving forward. OK, so it has our attention, now let us get it off our feet, move on into the future, and leave this decrepit, inane theory behind us all.

An interesting read. Geertz puts forth a semiotic view of culture. States that culture is a semiotic framework that we use to navigate in the world we live in. He also argues in favour of "thick" descriptions. Heavy interpretative descriptions, of which there is a beautiful example in the back of the book: Geertz own description and analysis of cockfights in Indonesia. Not all of the essays were that good, but it is worth reading. Particularly "Thick Description", "Toward an interpreative theory of culture", The Cerebral Savage" and the one on cockfights. ( )