Geertz (Hertz) (Geertz) Clifford( American anthropologist)
Comments for Geertz (Hertz) (Geertz) Clifford
Biography Geertz (Hertz) (Geertz) Clifford
(p. 1926) - Amer. anthropologist, a representative of interpretive anthropology, had a great influence on the development of cultural anthropology in the U.S.. In 1950 received the title of Bachelor. Philosophy, in 1956 - the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Harvard. Zap, he taught at Berkeley and Chicago. In 1970 he became Professor. Social Sciences in the Institute of Higher those research tion, Princeton, New Jersey. In the present. time - an associate professor of anthropology, will be performed, Secretary of the Committee to compare the study of new nations in Chicago. un-te, from 1972 member of the editorial board of 'Dedalus'.
G. created anthropology interprvtativnuyu, npedstavlyayuschuyu a synthesis of traditions amer. Cultural Anthropology with ideas sovr. hermeneutics (Gadamer, Ricoeur), Sociology. concepts (Pearson, M. Weber), my analysis. Wittgenstein's philosophy of language, etc.. Based on the ideas diffusionism, the influence to-ryh felt in his earlier works, Mr.. comes to understanding the theoretical and methodological. failure of previous kulturantropol. concepts.
Analyzing the problem of interpretation of cultures and the influence of the concept of culture on the concept of human T. believed that scientific explanation does not consist in reducing complexity to simplicity, but rather the replacement of the less intelligible to the complexity more intelligible. Even Levi-Strauss called attention to the fact that the scientific development (in t.ch. and to study human) usually consists in replacing the simple paintings to more complex. Former simplicity appears now intolerable simplification. Whitehead, according to GM, determined maxim for Natural Science. Science should. way: 'look for simplicity and SUBMIT it questioned'. He might well suggest another maxim for social sciences: 'look for complexity and streamline it', in accordance with a swarm, and developed research culture.
The emergence of the Enlightenment scientific understanding of the culture was accompanied by the overthrow of the ruling while simplistic views on chelov. nature. G. puts at the center of its analysis, the concept of culture. He is critical of the anthropological taylorovskomu. approach to culture and defines cultural anthropology (at etnogr. stage of its development) as a 'dense description', are to-cerned in the construction of a stratified hierarchy of meaningful structures. But fieldwork the ethnographer is faced with very complex, nonstandard and implicit structures to rye, it is difficult to understand and reproduce. G. identifies a number of characteristics etnogr. descriptions, are to-cerned in the interpretation of the flow of social discourse and fixation results in forms that are available for language communication. G. opposed attempts to present culture as a special 'sverhorganich. reality 'or as a set of behaviors. He argues with cognitive anthropology Goodenough, focuses on the subjectivity of culture. Anthropologists have often ignored the fact that they were not dealing with the culture itself and 'native models' culture is nothing like reflective abstraction.
Subsequent scientific development was connected with attempts to reconstruct the assessment of human and cultural. Outlined in the early. 70-ies. review methodology. position toward the development of multiple, non-board-l. global theory. schemes, independent concepts reflected in the anthropological. studies. This process was clearly recorded T. his Sat. 'Interpretation of Cultures' (1973). He believes that anthropologists, trying to find the complexity and finding it on a scale to-ryh they did not anticipate bogged down in tortuous efforts to streamline its.
The concept of culture in the work of Mr.. evolved from the description of culture as a value-oriented action in the spirit of M. Weber to understand it as a diverse set of playable games. Later G. begin to view culture as text, rather, as a web of values, woven entangled in her man. Consequently, for T. important thesis that the understanding of culture is impossible without dialogue and cultural analysis is not in seeking schemes and laws. On the basis of personal experience and intuition of an anthropologist trying to dive into the world of culture under study, this research effort will be more successful than the more values and symbols, he will be able to interpret.
Based on the ideas of character, the approach to culture, to-ing, in his opinion, in its pure form. suffers schematic, D. created a culture of semiotic project, a Rui-he understands how the culture of the speaker, producing tools and symbols of the animal. Only man has a culture and, accordingly, religion as a system of meanings created. Interesting discussion Mr.. with culture theologian Tillich, for to-cerned religion - 'an unexpected meeting with the meaning of human existence'. If Tillich represented religion as 'ultimate concern', as the source, the basis of all cultural meanings, then for T. Religion can be regarded as a cultural system. Culture in general is a set of values embodied in the character forms, which includes actions, expressions, and semantic objects decomp. kind, thanks to-Eye individuals interact with each other and share their experiences, ideas and beliefs. Within this concept of culture D. formulates DOS. demands of cultural analysis: the essence of it to clarify these sets and interpretive explication of the values embodied in the symbolic. forms. Thus, GA, as noted spare. scientists, the study of culture brings to the work, more similar to the interpretation of the text than with the classification of natural objects, flora and fauna. The study of culture requires not only the relations scholar, aimed at the classification and qty. analysis of how the sensitivity of the interpreter seeks to divide the types of values, to distinguish between shades of meaning and be seen as intelligible the way of life, to-ing is already filled with values for those who lead. Thus, in the work of Mr.. cultural anthropology is presented not as a pilot, are looking for laws, as well as an interpretive science, aimed at finding meaning and.
His areas of special. interests - to compare, analysis re-Leagues. and economical. development in developing regions. Later works Mr.. devoted to the history of cultural studies. thought, the interpretation of texts in the works of classics of cultural anthropology: Levi-Strauss, Malinowski and others