| 
  • If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • Get control of your email attachments. Connect all your Gmail accounts and in less than 2 minutes, Dokkio will automatically organize your file attachments. You can also connect Dokkio to Drive, Dropbox, and Slack. Sign up for free.

View
 

Symbolic and Interpretive Anthropology

Page history last edited by Jack Teague 9 years, 8 months ago

Symbolic and Interpretive Anthropology Table of Contents

 


 


 

Main Points

          Symbolic and Interpretive Anthropology is the study of symbols in their social and cultural context, which was brought about in the 1960s and progressed through the 1970s. These symbols are generally publically shared and recognized by many and could be words, customs, or rituals. Symbolic Anthropologists describe and interpret symbolic meaning in emic terms meaning that they interpret the symbols in the context of the culture that they are studying. A symbolic anthropologist believes that culture can be found in the public performance of symbolic systems and that there is generally a response to these symbols. Symbolic Anthropology was created in contrast to structuralism.[1][2]

          Symbolic and Interpretive Anthropology states that symbols are learned and shared. This means that most symbols can be recognized by the people in that culture and often by people in other cultures. It also states that symbols are vehicles of culture, meaning they hold cultural meaning and significance. Symbols also transmit meaning and communicate ways that people should view the world and feel about the world. 

          Clifford Geertz (1926-2006) the main key figure of Interpretive Anthropology, was considered to be the world’s most influential anthropologist of the second half of the 21stcentury.[3]Geertz argues in Symbolic and Interpretive Anthropology that "culture is not a model inside people's heads but rather is embodied in public symbols and actions".[4] Geertz also focuses on the meaning of the symbols: "Believing, with Max Weber, that man is an animal suspended in webs of significance he himself has spun, I take cultures to be those webs, the analysis of it to be therefore not an experimental science in search of law but an interpretive one in search of meaning".[5]

There are two main theoretical ideas that were coined by Clifford Geertz. The first is that otherwise unintelligible beliefs are understandable when understood as a part of a cultural system of meaning.[6] The second is that actions are guided by interpretation. For this reason Symbolic Anthropology and Interpretive Anthropology are sometimes merged, as in this case.[7]

          Victor Turner is the main key figure of Symbolic Anthropology who "approached symbolic analysis from a different angle".[8] Turner "examined symbols as mechanisms for the maintenance of society"[9] vs Geertz who looks at cultural symbols in order to see a worldview of a society. Turner did not follow Geertz's thick description, instead "he believed that the interpretation of ritual symbols could be derived from three classes of data: (1) external form and observable characteristics, (2) the interpretations of specialists and laymen within the society and (3) deduction from specific contexts by the anthropologist".[10] This is seen to be a combination of both emic and etic descriptions.

          Turner believed "Ritual symbols were the primary tools through which social order was renewed"[11] which is similar to what Clifford Geertz's student Sherry Ortner then went on to study. Ortner was also a very big contributor to Symbolic and Interpretive Anthropology with her first book, Sherpa Through Their Rituals published in 1978. In this book Ortner maps out a few rites which are related to the field of Symbolic and Interpretive anthropology. The first of these rites is the rite of atonement which is a rite used to bring back together the family and the symbols of the family after someone or thing has been hindered by sin. The second rite is the rite of exorcism which is a right that takes are persons from poverty, meaning they have no value in their life currently and are unaffiliated with the community, and resores them to wealth, meaning they are being brought back into the community. The third and final rite is the rite of hospitality which is a rite that incorporated symbols of power, authority and order into how you would treat someone if they were to come to your home or present themselves to you . Ortner's concluding point that she presented in her book was, "the symbols of rituals lead us toward discovery of structural conflict, contradiction, and stress in the wider social and cultural world".These rites are specifically important within Symbolic and Interpretive anthropology because all rites are designed to fix something or to make sure something stays the same.[12]

     

Anthropology of Art and Sport

          The anthropology of Art and the Anthropology of Sport are also affiliated with Symbolic and Interpretive anthropology because symbolic anthropologists have been the leaders of these fields. The anthropology of art is the concept that all art is symbolic and all art has some sort of meaning within different cultures. This meaning varies from culture to culture, as well as the fact that there are cultural guidelines for what is considered art. The anthropology of sport is also a symbolic concept due to the way that most people chose to conduct themselves while playing a sport. Whether something is considered a sport is also cultural, and who can play that sport is cultural as well.

 

Key Terms, Anthropology of Art and Sport

          Some key terms in relation to anthropology of art are, expressive culture, which is all the ways that people express themselves culturally. This could include clothing, jewelry, and the art that people chose to incorporate into their lives. Art is considered be an object or event that evokes an aesthetic reaction and this is one of the areas where anthropology becomes philosophical.[13] Also in relation to anthropology of art is aesthetic, which is an appreciation of artistic qualities and beauty. The beauty being referred to here could differ from culture to culture. Sometime this beauty is referred to as "taste", which is also a cultural trait, it differs from culture to culture as well but not everyone within one culture will have the same taste. Another key term used within the anthropology of sport is liminality, which is the "in between period, a time of transition, creativity, outside of normal".[14]

 

Main Method

          The main method that is used in symbolic and Interpretive Anthropology is participated observation which was coined by Malinowski, who is the key figure for functionalism.[15] It is generally believed by anthropologists today that field work is very important in anthropology and studying a culture and this is especially true in Symbolic and Interpretive Anthropology. The main reason for this is the fact that symbols mean different things to different cultures and can also be interpreted differently by different people within one culture. 

 

Key Terms

          Symbolic and Interpretive anthropology uses many ideas and concepts from anthropological fields that were developed before this concept came about. It looks at things from an emic perspective,[16]meaning Symbolic and Interpretive anthropologists interpret the symbols in the context of the culture they are currently studying, as opposed to applying it to their own culture or another culture which would be etic.[17] Comparisons from culture to culture are often made but this is generally after the anthropologist believes that they fully understand the ideas that they are studying. Symbolic and Interpretive anthropologists use cultural hermeneutics when attempting to determine what a symbol means. Hermeneutics is "the study of meaning, especially in literary texts, applied by interpretive and postmodern anthropologists to the study of culture".[18] Symbolic and Interpretive anthropologists also use the method of field work in order to absorb the culture that they are studying as much as possible. Fieldwork is a term developed by Melinowski, which is participating in the culture's customs and practices in order to fully understand the concepts from that culture.[19] One concept that is specific to Symbolic and Interpretive anthropology is thick description, a term coined by Clifford Geertz, which is "interpreting culture as text".[20] Geertz "developed his own semiotic perspective on interpretive anthropology",[21]semiotic meaning "pertaining to the relationship between symbols and what they represent".[22] Rituals are also very important within the field of Symbolic and Interpretive anthropology, mainly Turner's Symbolic Anthropology. A ritual is considered to "reveal sources and forces of cultural meaning".[23] While studying rituals, Turner also coined the term communitas which is "a term...to refer to the ritual fusion of individuals into a collective identity".[24] Also during his study of rituals, Turner began to believe "that rituals generate a liminal period in which all notions of social 'structure' are undone through the physical and symbolic separation of certain individuals from society".[25] Liminal is "an ephemeral psychosocial space in which social arrangements are subject to transformation, inversion, and affirmation"[26] which is basically a time of transition.

 


 

Key Figures

 

Clifford Geertz

 [27]

          Clifford Geertz is the most famous Symbolic and Interpretative anthropologist of the 21st century.  He came up with new way of viewing and interpreting culture. He is best known.for The Interpretations of Culture written in 1973 and his essay on Balinese cock fighting titled Deep Play: Notes on The Balinese Cockfight, which is the last chapter of this book.[28]

          Clifford Geertz was born in San Francisco August 23, 1926.  At age 17 Geertz volunteered for the Navy and served two years from 1943-1945.  After World War Two ended, he went straight to college. He attended Antioch College in Yellow Springs, Ohio.  Geertz first declared himself as an English major but soon changed his major to philosophy, he graduated in 1950 with an A.B. in philosophy.  He then attended graduate school at Harvard and graduated with a PHD in Anthropology in 19551.[29]                       

          Clifford Geertz defines culture as ideas based on cultural learning and symbols.  He believed during enculturation a person learns meanings and symbols.  People use the system of culture to define their world, express feelings and make judgments.[30]  Geertz’s main influences were Ludwig Wittgenstein and Max Weber.  Ludwig Wittgenstein, born in Vienna Austria, was a very influential philosopher of the twenty first century.  He believed philosophical problems arise from misunderstandings of the logic of language.  Geertz found Wittgensteins work very relatable to his own.[31]  Language and symbols are deeply intertwined in the sense you use language to communicate the meaning of symbols. 

          Max Weber also had a great impact on Geertz’s work.  Max Weber was a German sociologist and political economist.  Geertz credits Weber with being the inventor of interpretative social science.  Interpretative social science states that in social interaction individuals are aware of the expectations of others, but they do not necessarily conform to these expectations in their reactions.[32] Weber uses culture, religion and ideals of humans to explain modernization. 

          Clifford Geertz’s main contribution in simplest form is the idea that  symbols are a direct reflection of a culture.  Symbols are the product and formations of social everyday interactions.  Geertz looks at culture not as social structure but as social meaning.[33]  Geertz’s main goal was to understand others understandings.  Geertz did not see anthropology as a science but an interactive way to find meanings.

 

Victor Turner

[34]

          Victor Turner was born May 28, 1920 in Glasgow, Scotland. At age 11, he moved with his mother to England to live with his maternal grandparents.[35] He studied poetry and the classics at University College, but unfortunately World War II interrupted his studies.[36] During that five-year period he acquired an interest in anthropology, influenced by the studies of Margaret Mead and A. R. Radcliffe-Brown.[37]  After returning to college, Turner graduated at age 29 with a Bachelors Degree and Honors in Anthropology.  He went on to study at the University of Manchester to study under Max Gluckman.[38]  With support from the Gluckman Rhodes-Livingstone Institute, Turner conducted fieldwork amongst the Ndembu in Northern Rhodesi (Zambia) and here began to focus on rituals, which would become the central focus of his career.[39] He received his Ph.D. in 1955, and stayed at Manchester as a lecturer while completing two monographs and his dissertation, Schism and Continuity in an African Society: A Study of Ndembu Village Life (1957). Beginning in 1961, Turner, worked at Standford where he wrote, The Drums of Affliction: A Study of Religious Processes among the Ndembu (1968). Though he returned to Manchester only after a year, the atmosphere of American academia had a significant impact on him, and in 1964 he accepted a position at Cornell University. In 1968 he moved to the University of Chicago where he embarked on a long-term study of contemporary Christian pilgrimage. He took his final position at the University of Virginia.[40] Victor Turner passed away on December 18, 1983.[41]

          During his undergraduate career Turner worked with and was influenced by structural-functionalists, A. R. Radcliffe-Brown, Darryl Forde, Meyer Fortes, Raymond Firth and Edmund Leach. This was evident in his ethnography, Schism and Continuity in an African Society. Despite the obvious functionalist influence in this work, he contributed a new emphasis on social processes or systems in change. Still, one individual particularly influenced Turner studies and beliefs. In graduate school, Max Gluckman, introduced Turner to conflict theory and political anthropology. Gluckman heavily influenced Turner’s political anthropology and work in ritual.[42]

          Turner’s well known contribution to Symbolic and Interpretive Anthropology was his study of ritual and ritual symbolism. He brought about the term multivocality to indicate that one symbol can stand for multiple things. His greatest contribution to anthropology though is said to his work on liminality and communitas.[43]

 


 

Key Texts

 

The Interpretation of Cultures (1973)

Written by Clifford Geertz

[44]

Synopsis

          The Interpretation of Cultures was published by Clifford Geertz in 1973, and is a compilation of fifteen highly influential theoretical essays and illustrative case studies. The collection of essays spans over seventeen years of study done by Geertz since obtaining his Ph.D. from Harvard University. [45]In this work, and similarly in his other works, Geertz sets out to theorize how symbols explain social processes, and to show the role they play in people's lives; he is not simply interested in symbols for their own sake, or their relationship to one another. His goal of theory is to understand other's understanding and interpretation or use of their cultural symbols and the symbol's public and private meanings and connotations in that society.[46]

 

"Deep Play: Notes on the Balinese Cockfight"

          "Deep Play: Notes on the Balinese Cockfight" is considered one of Clifford Geertz's most seminal works, and is the last essay of the collection in The Interpretation of Cultures. In short, the essay is an in-depth look at what cockfighting means in Balinese culture based on Geertz's observations and interpretations made during his time in Bali in 1958. The essay is divided into seven sections, each describing a different aspect of the Balinese cockfighting culture, and is extremely important because it provides a summary of the cockfighting in the bigger context of overall Balinese society. This shows how Geertz'method of studying the meaning of symbols in a cultural, and thus further study of the cultural overall, can be applied to other cultures all over the world.

          This essay also demonstrates a key part of Geertz's methodology. Geertz explains how his study of cockfighting all started when a police raid took place at a cockfight that his wife and he had been watching, and how in the commotion of everyone running from the police, they his wife and he hid with a Balinese couple in their courtyard acting as they had been there all along, and not at the cockfight that had just been broken up.[47] By running from the police, and in essence 'taking the side of the villagers', Geertz was able to gain their respect and trust, which allowed him to more closely study the role that cockfighting played in their society. This emphasizes Geertz's belief that in order to thoroughly study a culture and truly understand it, especially with regards to studying its' symbols and symbolic practices, it is extremely important to be integrated into that culture; in a way, it is more important to be on the 'inside looking out', than the 'outside looking in'. Another method explored in this essay is how Geertz found it important to read cultural practices as "texts", enabling one to bring out an aspect of that culture that might otherwise go unnoticed.[48] Geertz writes that "[t]he culture of a people is an ensemble of texts, themselves ensembles, which the anthropologist strains to read over the shoulders of those whom they properly belong."  Essentially, he creates a metaphor for how various cultures and cultural functions are all "text" and that fieldwork is the "reading" done by anthropologists of those texts.[49]

 

Legacy and Critique

          The Interpretation of Cultures helped to define for an entire generation of anthropologists what their disciple is ultimately about. It served to introduce an important new concept of culture, and how culture should or could be studied. Especially in regards to this work, Clifford Geertz remains one of the few anthropologists frequently cited outside, as well as inside, the discipline.[50] One of the main critiques of "Deep Play: Notes on the Balinese Cockfight" is that Geertz overlooks the importance of women in Balinese culture, even though he recognizes that they are a part of it, and that Geertz does not first explain the social origins of status in Balinese society to give context to his theories and interpretations of what he saw and studied.[51] Of the collection of essays overall, there are two key critiques. The first is that there is an inevitable limitation to the culture-as-text approach - it fails to consider how that "text" was created in the first place, and the significance of its' development in the society. The second is that it does not address the bigger pictures in cultures overall, such as how they were formed, and the historical context for why symbols are created or occur. In the end, Geertz's work provokes thought regarding the nature of culture and how it is studied, and was greatly influential in shaping the symbolic and interpretive anthropology.

 

The Forest of Symbols: Aspects of Ndembu Ritual (1967) 

Written by Victor Turner

[52]

Synopsis

Victor Turner published “The Forrest of symbols” in 1967. It is a collection of 10 essays about symbolism in the rituals of the Ndembu people in Northern Rhodesia (Zambia). 

 

“Muchona the Hornet, Interpreter of Religion"

“Muchona the Hornet, Interpreter of Religion", is the tale of Muchona, an Ndembu chimbuki (doctor). The article mostly focuses on the symbolism in the rituals he performs to help people[53]. Muchona has a very interesting position in Ndembu society. He was born to a slave mother, and had no concrete roots in any one society. He was a small man with a high-pitched voice, but he was extremely intelligent. In his village he was for the most part resented by the men and adored by the women[54]. This was probably the result of the many women’s cults that he was a part of throughout his upbringing. Muchona’s position in society allowed him a unique view into the lives of both men and women.

Turner was able to extract information form him through a series of daily interviews where Muchona provided descriptions of rituals, and insight into daily life. One of the most important symbols described in the article is the red gum of the mukula tree. It is used to symbolize blood, either in hunting, puberty ceremonies, or childbirth[55]. Turner draws the connection between the symbolic significance of blood, and the color red in both Christian, and Ndembu religious practice.  Over the eight-month period that Turner worked with Muchona, he was able to expanded upon much of his research on symbolism that was still rather vague, and gained new insight into medical practices and ceremonies from the vantage point of a doctor[56].

 

Legacy and Critique

Turner will be most remembered for his work in bringing symbols, and the interpretation of symbols to the forefront of anthropological thought[57]. In the case of “Muchona the Hornet, Interpreter of Religion", he could be critiqued as relying too much on one source for information. Muchona was a rare exception from normal Ndembu citizens. While he was highly intelligent, and highly trained, he came from a strange background, and was not well liked by the men of the community[58]. Also, Turner neglected to gain the insight of female members of society, even though many of the rituals discussed only concerned women. Relying too much on one person for information, can lead to a narrow view of society, and the way that symbols are interpreted[59].

 

 

 

 


 

Critiques

          Though Symbolic and Interpretive Anthropology provide great insight into a human’s individual understanding of symbols embedded into culture and how it affects the way people think, it does not provide concrete ideas to support it.  Symbolic anthropology does not take into account the importance of materialism, physical sciences, and empirical data.  Symbolic anthropologists take a lot of what they know from imaginative insight into cultures and because of this their knowledge does not provide a good basis for figuring culture out as a universal phenomenon.[60]  Anthropologists studying symbols in cultures cannot prove that their logic is correct because the theory requires the individual to enforce their subjective thoughts.  Meaning for things are not so much inside our brains but rather symbols that are displayed publicly.  This is an issue because people have different interpretations of symbols and these interpretations vary across cultures and vary even within cultures.  Symbolic Anthropology has been thought of as too subjective and more like a literary approach to studying culture rather than a more scientific one.          

 

Marxist Critique

          Marxists think that symbolic anthropologists put too much thought into cultural concepts instead of focusing on the social reality.  There is not enough emphasis on explaining how the symbols affect social systems and people; instead they focus on the symbols themselves too much.[61]  They believe that symbols should be the cause of constructing social systems rather than simply existing for people’s cultural interpretation.

 

Feminist Critique

          In the majority of cultures men dominate symbolism and the interpretations of them.  In Geertz’s study of the Balinese cockfighting, he overlooks the roles of women in society and focuses too much on male dominance.  Looking over the importance of women in this context is a big flaw because it discounts the contributions that women have in cultures.

 

Crisis of Representation Critique

          This theory argues that symbols are meant to represent a meaning and often times that meaning can be misinterpreted by people through various misleadings but primarily the media.  Since we all have different interpretations of symbols, it is therefore impossible to generalize the beliefs of one culture together.

As Teresa L. Elbert of the University of Minnesota describes in her essay, The Crisis of Representation in Cultural Studies: Reading Postmodern Texts, how people can misunderstand thing they read about, “Readers, therefore, can no londer decode these representations by relying on an available and shared consensus about the nature of reality”.[62] Basically, the media and other external factors have started ‘confusing’ people by bringing other points of views other than their own, culturally valued ones on them.

 

 

 

 

Footnotes

  1. http://anthrotheory.pbworks.com/w/page/Structuralism
  2. McGee, R. Jon and Richard L. Warms. 2004[1996]. Anthropological Theory: An Introductory History (Third Edition). New York: McGraw HIll. pg. 468.
  3. Lecture, Professor Carole McGranahan, ANTH 2100 Frontiers of Cultural Anthropology, 13 Oct 2010
  4. McGee, R. Jon and Richard L. Warms. 2004[1996]. Anthropological Theory: An Introductory History (Third Edition). New York: McGraw HIll. pg. 467.
  5. McGee, R. Jon and Richard L. Warms. 2004[1996]. Anthropological Theory: An Introductory History (Third Edition). New York: McGraw HIll. pg. 467.
  6. Lecture, Professor Carole McGranahan, ANTH 2100 Frontiers of Cultural Anthropology,13 Oct 2010
  7. Lecture, Professor Carole McGranahan, ANTH 2100 Frontiers of Cultural Anthropology,13 Oct 2010
  8. McGee, R. Jon and Richard L. Warms. 2004[1996]. Anthropological Theory: An Introductory History (Third Edition). New York: McGraw HIll. pg. 468.
  9. McGee, R. Jon and Richard L. Warms. 2004[1996]. Anthropological Theory: An Introductory History (Third Edition). New York: McGraw HIll. pg. 468.
  10. McGee, R. Jon and Richard L. Warms. 2004[1996]. Anthropological Theory: An Introductory History (Third Edition). New York: McGraw HIll. pg. 468.
  11. McGee, R. Jon and Richard L. Warms. 2004[1996]. Anthropological Theory: An Introductory History (Third Edition). New York: McGraw HIll. pg. 468.
  12. Lecture, Professor Carole McGranahan, ANTH 2100 Frontiers of Cultural Anthropology,13 Oct 2010
  13. Lecture, Professor Carole McGranahan, ANTH 2100 Frontiers of Cultural Anthropology, 13 Oct 2010
  14. Lecture, Professor Carole McGranahan, ANTH 2100 Frontiers of Cultural Anthropology, 13 Oct 2010
  15. http://anthrotheory.pbworks.com/w/page/Functionalism
  16. Lecture, Professor Carole McGranahan, ANTH 2100 Frontiers of Cultural Anthropology, 01 Sept 2010
  17. Lecture, Professor Carole McGranahan, ANTH 2100 Frontiers of Cultural Anthropology, 01 Sept 2010
  18. Erickson, Paul A. and Liam D. Murphy. 2008. A History of Anthropological Theory (Third Edition). Toronto: University of Toronto Press. pg. 158.
  19. Lecture, Professor Carole McGranahan, ANTH 2100 Frontiers of Cultural Anthropology, 8 Sept 2010
  20. Erickson, Paul A. and Liam D. Murphy. 2008. A History of Anthropological Theory (Third Edition). Toronto: University of Toronto Press. pg. 163.
  21. Erickson, Paul A. and Liam D. Murphy. 2008. A History of Anthropological Theory (Third Edition). Toronto: University of Toronto Press. pg. 162.
  22. Erickson, Paul A. and Liam D. Murphy. 2008. A History of Anthropological Theory (Third Edition). Toronto: University of Toronto Press. pg. 162.
  23. Lecture, Professor Carole McGranahan, ANTH 2100 Frontiers of Cultural Anthropology, 13 Oct 2010
  24. Erickson, Paul A. and Liam D. Murphy. 2008. A History of Anthropological Theory (Third Edition). Toronto: University of Toronto Press. pg. 162.
  25. Erickson, Paul A. and Liam D. Murphy. 2008. A History of Anthropological Theory (Third Edition). Toronto: University of Toronto Press. pg. 161.
  26. Erickson, Paul A. and Liam D. Murphy. 2008. A History of Anthropological Theory (Third Edition). Toronto: University of Toronto Press. pg. 161.
  27. http://www.as.ua.edu/rel/aboutrelbiogeertz.html
  28. Wilk Richard, “Anthropologists Biographies-Geertz”. Indiana University. .[accessed October 08, 2010]
  29. Drislane Robert and Parkinson Gary, “Interpretive Social Science.” On Line Dictionary of the Social Sciences, [accessed October 08, 2010]
  30. http://www.wou.edu/las/socsci/anthro/communitas.php
  31. http://www.cas.sc.edu/socy/faculty/deflem/zturn.htm
  32. http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/information/biography/pqrst/turner_victor.html
  33. Moore, Jerry. 2009. Visions of Culture: An Introduction to Anthropological Theories and Theorists (Third Edition). Lanham and New York: Alta Mira Press.
  34. Moore, Jerry. 2009. Visions of Culture: An Introduction to Anthropological Theories and Theorists (Third Edition). Lanham and New York: Alta Mira Press.
  35. Moore, Jerry. 2009. Visions of Culture: An Introduction to Anthropological Theories and Theorists (Third Edition). Lanham and New York: Alta Mira Press.
  36. http://www.indiana.edu/~wanthro/turner.htm
  37. http://www.cas.sc.edu/socy/faculty/deflem/zturn.htm
  38. http://www.indiana.edu/~wanthro/turner.htm
  39. Moore, Jerry. 2009. Visions of Culture: An Introduction to Anthropological Theories and Theorists (Third Edition). Lanham and New York: Alta Mira Press.
  40. http://www.iwp.uni-linz.ac.at/lxe/sektktf/gg/Books/Interpretation-Culture.htm
  41. Cleveland State Univeristy, http://academic.csuohio.edu/as227/spring2003/geertz.htm, (accessed on October 11, 2010).
  42. Savage Minds, Anthro Classics Online: Geertz's Notes ont he Balinese Cockfight, http://savageminds.org/2006/05/27/anthro-classics-online-geertzs-notes-on-the-balinese-cockfight/, (accessed on October 11, 2010).
  43. Thoughts on “Deep Play: Notes on the Balinese Cockfight”, The Paginator, http://thepaginator.wordpress.com/2009/02/12/thoughts-on-deep-play-notes-on-the-balinese-cockfight/, (accessed on October 11, 2010).
  44. Wilk Richard, “Anthropologists Biographies-Geertz”. Indiana University. .[accessed October 08, 2010
  45. Hoffman, Katherine E., Culture as Text: Hazards and Possibilities of Geertz's Literacy Metaphor, http://www.international.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=81400, (accessed on October 17, 2010).
  46. Wilk Richard, “Anthropologists Biographies-Geertz”. Indiana University. .[accessed October 08, 2010
  47. Savage Minds, Anthro Classics Online: Geertz's Notes ont he Balinese Cockfight, http://savageminds.org/2006/05/27/anthro-classics-online-geertzs-notes-on-the-balinese-cockfight/, (accessed on October 11, 2010).
  48. http://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/cup_detail.taf?ti_id=320
  49. "The Forrest of Symbols: Aspects of Ndembu Ritual", Victor turner (pg. 131-150)
  50. "The Forrest of Symbols: Aspects of Ndembu Ritual", Victor turner (pg. 131-150)
  51. "The Forrest of Symbols: Aspects of Ndembu Ritual", Victor turner (pg. 131-150)
  52. "The Forrest of Symbols: Aspects of Ndembu Ritual", Victor turner (pg. 131-150)
  53. Moore, Jerry. 2009. Visions of Culture: An Introduction to Anthropological Theories and Theorists (Third Edition). Lanham and New York: Alta Mira Press.
  54. "The Forrest of Symbols: Aspects of Ndembu Ritual", Victor turner (pg. 131-150)
  55. Teresa L. Ebert Reviewed work(s): Critical Angles: European Views of Contemporary American Literature by Marc Chenetier American Quarterly Vol. 38, No. 5 (Winter, 1986), pp. 894-902
  56. McGee, R. Jon and Richard L. Warms. 2004[1996]. Anthropological Theory: An Introductory History (Third Edition). New York: McGraw HIll.
  57. http://www.as.ua.edu/ant/cultures/cultures.php
  58. Teresa L. Ebert Reviewed work(s): Critical Angles: European Views of Contemporary American Literature by Marc Chenetier American Quarterly Vol. 38, No. 5 (Winter, 1986), pp. 894-902

Comments (0)

You don't have permission to comment on this page.