Symbolic anthropology

show This article may be expanded with text translated from the corresponding article in German. (April 2014) Click [show] for important translation instructions. View a machine-translated version of the German article. Machine translation like DeepL or Google Translate is a useful starting point for translations, but translators must revise errors as necessary and confirm that the translation is accurate, rather than simply copy-pasting machine-translated text into the English Wikipedia. Consider adding a topic to this template: there are already 6,530 articles in the main category, and specifying|topic= will aid in categorization. Do not translate text that appears unreliable or low-quality. If possible, verify the text with references provided in the foreign-language article. You must provide copyright attribution in the edit summary accompanying your translation by providing an interlanguage link to the source of your translation. A model attribution edit summary Content in this edit is translated from the existing German Wikipedia article at [[:de:Interpretative Ethnologie]]; see its history for attribution. You should also add the template {{Translated|de|Interpretative Ethnologie}} to the talk page. For more guidance, see Wikipedia:Translation.

Anthropology
Outline History
show Types Archaeological Biological Cultural Linguistic Social
show Archaeological Aerial Aviation Battlefield Biblical Bioarchaeological Environmental Ethnoarchaeological Experiential Feminist Forensic Maritime Paleoethnobotanical Zooarchaeological
show Biological Anthrozoological Biocultural Evolutionary Forensic Molecular Neurological Nutritional Paleoanthropological Primatological
hide Social Cultural Applied Art Cognitive Cyborg Development Digital Ecological Environmental Economic Political economy Feminist Food Historical Institutional Kinship Legal Media Medical Museums Musical Political Psychological Public Religion Symbolic Transpersonal Urban Visual
show Linguistic Anthropological Descriptive Ethnological Ethnopoetical Historical Semiotic Sociological
show Research framework Anthropometry Ethnography cyber Ethnology Cross-cultural comparison Participant observation Holism Reflexivity Thick description Cultural relativism Ethnocentrism Emic and etic
show Key concepts Culture Development Ethnicity Evolution sociocultural Gender Kinship and descent Meme Prehistory Race Society Value Colonialism / Postcolonialism
show Key theories Actor–network theory Alliance theory Cross-cultural studies Cultural materialism Culture theory Diffusionism Feminism Historical particularism Boasian anthropology Functionalism Interpretive Performance studies Political economy Practice theory Structuralism Post-structuralism Systems theory
show Lists Anthropologists by nationality Anthropology by year Bibliography Journals List of indigenous peoples Organizations
v t

Symbolic anthropology or, more broadly, symbolic and interpretive anthropology, is the study of cultural symbols and how those symbols can be used to gain a better understanding of a particular society. According to Clifford Geertz, "[b]elieving, with Max Weber, that man is an animal suspended in webs of significance he himself has spun, I take culture to be those webs, and the analysis of it to be therefore not an experimental science in search of law but an interpretive one in search of meaning".^[1] In theory, symbolic anthropology assumes that culture lies within the basis of the individuals’ interpretation of their surrounding environment, and that it does not in fact exist beyond the individuals themselves. Furthermore, the meaning assigned to people’s behavior is molded by their culturally established symbols. Symbolic anthropology aims to thoroughly understand the way meanings are assigned by individuals to certain things, leading then to a cultural expression. ^[2] There are two majorly recognized approaches to the interpretation of symbolic anthropology, the interpretive approach, and the symbolic approach. Both approaches are products of different figures, Clifford Geertz (interpretive) and Victor Turner (symbolic). ^[3] There is also another key figure in symbolic anthropology, David M.Schneider, who does not particularly fall into either of the schools of thought. Symbolic anthropology follows a literary basis instead of an empirical one meaning there is less of a concern with objects of science such as mathematics or logic, instead of focusing on tools like psychology and literature. That is not to say fieldwork is not done in symbolic anthropology, but the research interpretation is assessed in a more ideological basis. ^[2]

Prominent figures in symbolic anthropology include Clifford Geertz, Max Weber, David M. Schneider, Victor Turner and Mary Douglas.^{[citation needed]}

Different perspectives[]

Clifford Geertz's interpretive approach asserts that humans are in need of symbolic “Sources of illumination” to orient themselves to the system of meaning in a particular culture. Geertz was influenced largely by sociologist Max Weber and concerned himself more with overall cultural operation. Victor Turner believed that symbols initiate social actions, and are “determinable influences inclining persons and groups to action.” Turner's influence came largely from Emile Durkheim, caring more about the way symbols functioned within society. ^[3] The two different schools of perspective on symbolic anthropology also have their roots in different cultures, the work of Victor Turner traditionally being recognized as the British way of thought, while the work of Clifford Geertz is viewed as the American way.

Conceptual Terminology[]

The purpose of symbolic and interpretive anthropology can be described through a term used often by Geertz that originated from Gilbert Ryle, "Thick Description." By this what is conveyed, is that since culture and behavior can only be studied as a unit, studying culture and its smaller sections of the structure, thick description is what details the interpretation of those belonging to a certain culture. ^[3] Victor Turner proposed the concept of  “Social Drama” to describe social interactions that entail some sort of conflict in society, proposing their symbolic significance. His model suggests that there are four phases to any conflictive interaction 1 - Breach; 2 - Crisis; 3 - Redress; 4 - Reintegration; each of these can describe the sequence of events that occurs from a drama in any given social relation. In this way Turner displays his theory of this linear ritual in society involving several exhibits of symbolism. Turner states that his theory was derived after observing the Ndembu people’s interactions in West-Central Angola in Africa, then later perceiving it among most other people. ^[4]

Symbolic anthropology and psychology[]

Anthropology and psychology have both always had some influence on one another from very early on, especially due to the influence different figures had on one another such as Sigmund Freud, Carl Jung and Claude Lévi-Strauss. French anthropologist Strauss much like Jung wanted to understand the mind through understanding myth. Symbolic or interpretive anthropology is a specifically significant example of the relationship anthropology and psychology can have because of symbolic anthropology's emphasis on the individual's interpretation of what occurs around him, and how that interpretation further enhances the more collectively perceived characteristics or rituals of a group. Furthermore, this is only real difference in the aims of the two fields, one focusing on the collective and the other on the individual, however, it is important to note that you can't draw a clear line between mind culture and the mind, they both contribute to one another. Thus methodology between the two fields requires similar approaches, unrelated to the different schools of thought, although the specific data sets and settings are still different. There was in the beginning however, always some type of hesitation between major figures in the two fields to integrate one into the other despite clear overlaps in thought such as Durkheim's and Jung's indirect influence on some of each-other's theories. There are a few problems that perpetuate the stigma of anthropology being a phenomenon standing on its own such as the belief that the field cannot be condensed down into psychology in any way, or that culture alone determines behavior, disregarding the role the individual psyche plays in collective traits expressed through thick description. ^[5]

Key publications[]

• Geertz, Clifford (1973) The interpretation of cultures, Basic Books, New York
• Geertz, Clifford. (Ed.) (1974) Myth, symbol, and culture, W. W. Norton, New York
• Sahlins, Marshall (1976) Culture and practical reason, University of Chicago Press, Chicago
• Schneider, David (1968) American kinship: A cultural account. Prentice-Hall, New Jersey
• Turner, Victor (1967) The forest of symbols: Aspects of Ndembu ritual, Cornell University Press, Ithaca
• Turner, Victor (1974) Dramas, fields and metaphors: Symbolic action in human society, Cornell University Press, Ithaca

See also[]

• Collective unconscious
• Interpretive sociology
• Semiotic anthropology
• Max Weber

References[]

External links[]

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Symbolic anthropology.

• "Symbolic and interpretive anthropologies", Department of Anthropology, University of Alabama, retrieved March 13, 2013
• Culture and Public Action: Symbolic anthropology

This article about cultural anthropology is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by .

• v
• t