Sunteți pe pagina 1din 22

Legacies

Clifford Geertz: Singular Genius of Interpretive


Anthropology

Ben White

INTRODUCTION

Clifford Geertz (19262006), the foremost anthropologist of his generation,


was a key figure in the interpretive turn in the social sciences and the rethinking of boundaries between the social sciences and humanities. In 1970,
he became the first professor in the new School of Social Sciences at the
Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, where he created a school of
interpretive social science,1 and devoted himself almost full-time to research
and writing for the next thirty-six years. In anthropology, after a period
of virtual saturation up to the mid-1980s, his intellectual influence began
to wane, but his influence over other disciplines has lasted much longer
(Vincent, 1990: 426).
What was the basis of his influence, and what has he left behind? Geertz
was a paradoxical scholar in many ways. He drew his inspiration not from
the great traditions of anthropology or sociology (with the exception of Max
Weber) but from mid-twentieth century linguistic philosophy and literary criticism, creatively transposing these ideas to his own work.2 A master at drawing profound implications from an ethnographic detail, his ethnographic work
on Java, Bali and Morocco was criticized as carelessly researched and prone
to too-casual generalization. His three major works on Indonesian social
history were all completed without once setting foot in an archive. Distrustful of all grand schemes and theories, he placed his first five books firmly in
the frame of modernization theory, development studies grandest evolutionary scheme of all. Awkward in person and in speech a fidgety, scratchy,
For comments, encouragement and pointers to references many thanks to Martin van Bruinessen,
Martin Doornbos, Linda Herrera, Frans Husken, John Roosa, Ratna Saptari, Henk Schulte,
Nordholt Pujo Semedi, Ann Stoler, Robert Wessing and the editorial board of Development and
Change. Spelling of Indonesian words in pre-1973 quotations has been changed to current usage.
1.
2.

Geertz, interviewed in Handler (1991: 610)


In particular, Gilbert Ryle and Ludwig Wittgenstein among the philosophers, and Kenneth
Burke in the new literary criticism.

C Institute of Social Studies 2007. Published


Development and Change 38(6): 11871208 (2007). 
by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main St.,
Malden, MA 02148, USA

1188

Ben White

given-to-mumbling sort of guy 3 he developed a distinctive, flamboyant


writing style more self-consciously erudite than that of any other anthropologist. In fact the main source of his intellectual influence was not his
ethnographic or historical work but his consummate skill as an essayist, especially in the three volumes of what he called ethnographically informed
reflections (Geertz 1973, 1983, 2000a). The first of these, The Interpretation of Cultures (1973) is widely seen as marking a major paradigm shift, a
Geertzian revolution in the theorization of the concept of culture.
Geertz wrote on a wide range of topics, and any account of his work and
legacy must be selective. I have chosen a more or less chronological treatment.
After a short account of his early career, this assessment focuses first on his
early work on Indonesian religion, politics and agrarian change, next on his
general vision on the nature of culture and ethnography, and finally asks
some critical questions on the Geertzian vision of culture, politics and social
change.
BEGINNINGS: FUNCTIONALISM AND MODERNIZATION THEORY

It is important to recall the timing and intellectual and political context of


Geertzs formative years, which shaped and constrained his early writing
and to which, eventually, he was bound to react. Post-war north American
social science, especially as it concerned the study of the new [post-colonial]
states, was driven, and generously funded, by Cold War concerns and anxieties. It was positivistic and functionalist in orientation, and its main theoretical underpinning was modernization theory.
Farmed out by his divorced parents, from the age of three, to a foster
mother in the northern California hills, Geertz went to a two-room school
in the depths of the Great Depression. He became an anthropologist and
an Indonesia specialist through a succession of happenstances. Enlisting at
age seventeen in the US Navy (194346), his four years of service gave
him access, like so many other young men of his generation, to a GI Billfunded college education. 4 He read literature, linguistics and philosophy at
Antioch College, and drew inspiration particularly from the New Criticism
of Kenneth Burke. At first he thought that he would like to be a novelist
and a newspaper man, but on graduation he drifted into anthropology with
his wife Hildred (who was to become a distinguished anthropologist in her
own right). He was lured away from philosophy by his own teachers, 5 and
3. In the words of David Apter, a close friend since the late 1940s (Apter, 2007: 111).
4. Roosevelts (1944) GI Bill of Rights gave some eight million Second World War veterans
access to job training or higher education, and was covering the costs of half the nations
expanding college student population by 1947 (Branch, 2007: 40).
5. Thomas Geiger, the disenchanted Deweyite philosopher the greatest teacher I have ever
known warned him that philosophy had fallen into the hands of Thomists, technicians
and . . . the University of Chicago (Geertz, 2000c: 53).

Legacies: Clifford Geertz

1189

into anthropology by a long meeting with Margaret Mead which convinced


the Geertzes to accept the offer of graduate fellowships at Harvards new
Department of Social Relations. Established by Talcott Parsons, the conservative, neo-Weberian structural functionalist sociologist, the Department
aimed to further Parsons vision of an integrated, interdisciplinary social
science.
Among Geertzs eminent teachers was anthropologist and Russia-watcher
Clyde Kluckhohn, the driven, imperious . . . fierce controversialist, player
of favourites, and master money-raiser (Geertz, 2002: 4), who involved
Geertz in many of his projects. One of these projects plunged him into the
heart of anthropologys most contested problematic, culture, when he was
assigned to study and comment on the draft of Kluckhohns and Alfred
Kroebers Culture: A Critical Review of Concepts and Definitions, which
aimed at a definitive compilation of all the prevailing definitions of culture,
finding 171 definitions and sorting them into thirteen categories. 6 This dry,
inductive exercise must have helped to sow the seeds of his distaste for the
vague, all-embracing definition of culture (anything human beings might
contrive to do, say, imagine, be, or believe) that held sway in North American
anthropology, and his later determination to cut the idea of culture down to
size (Geertz, 2000b: 12, 13).
As the time for field research approached, Geertz had no special regional
interest or preference. Through Kluckhohns influence in the Massachusetts
Institute of Technologys new Centre for International Studies (Cenis), both
Clifford and Hildred Geertz were invited to join MITs new Indonesia Project.
In 1952 this project sent the Geertzes and four other Harvard PhD candidates 7
to Indonesias young, revolutionary Gadjah Mada University under an agreement by which they would undertake joint research, each paired with an Indonesian graduate student, in the Central Javanese hill-town of Wonosobo.
Not long after their arrival the MIT team left, without their Indonesian counterparts, to carry out field research in and around the East Javanese town of
Mojokuto 8 and the research co-operation with Gadjah Mada fell through.
Accounts of this breakdown the first in a long series of troubled relations
between foreign PhD researchers and their Indonesian hosts are divergent. Both Koentjaraningrat (1975: 223) and Geertz (interviewed in 1988
and 1991) note the Indonesian professors disappointment and suspicion as
they found themselves hosts to a leaderless group of American graduate
students in what had been negotiated as a much higher-level, professor-toprofessor collaboration (Geertz, 1988b: 334; and in Olson, 1991: 605). 9 The
6. Geertz (2000a: 12), referring to Kroeber and Kluckhohn (1952)
7. Alice Dewey, Donald Fagg, Robert Jay and Edward Ryan.
8. Literally Middletown, the sub-district capital Pare in the heart of the important sugarcane
producing region of Kediri, East Java.
9. At the last minute the team leader Professor Douglas Oliver had decided not to join the
team.

1190

Ben White

Americans were also alarmed at the large numbers of Indonesian students


who planned to join them in fieldwork (Geertz, 1995: 105). Later Geertz laid
the blame for the breakdown on the Indonesian professors, who apparently
insisted that the American and Indonesian students fieldwork be conducted
from the comfort of an old Dutch resort hotel; local officials would summon
people from the surrounding countryside to the hotel to be interviewed in
groups, in an extraordinary reincarnation of the pith-helmet procedures of
colonial ethnology (ibid.). But he also recalls that at the time, an armed
gang of leftist rebels controlled much of the countryside around Wonosobo
(ibid.: 106), which helps to explain the Gadjah Mada professors reluctance
to let their young American guests loose there. Wherever truth lies (somewhere in between the various accounts, perhaps) it is the later pith-helmet
version which will stick, now adopted and further exaggerated by Geertzs
intellectual biographer (Inglis, 2000: 314).
Under its Director Max Millikan (previously the CIAs Director of Economic Research), Cenis aimed at the production of an alternative to Marxism (Rosen, 1985: 29). Other core staff included Walt Rostow, who was
busy writing The Stages of Economic Growth: A Non-communist Manifesto
(Rostow, 1960). Kluckhohn, who had brokered the Ford Foundation funding
for the Indonesia project, was himself an important conduit for CIA area
studies funds (Ross, 1998). The Indonesia project as a whole was intended to
explore a common thesis on the contexts and conditions of Rostovian takeoff into economic growth, summarized in the words of the project director:
A take-off is most likely when the growth of an indigenous entrepreneurial
class occurs simultaneously with the appearance of a political elite which has
the power and the will to provide a policy framework favourable for the exercise of entrepreneurial talents (Higgins, 1963: ix). Geertzs task in the team,
to study Javanese religion, was also conceived in relation to this broader
scenario of the entrepreneurial roots of economic growth; his thesis proposal
was a test of the Weberian hypothesis, that the strongly Muslim sector would
be the functional equivalent of the Protestants in the Reformation (Geertz
in Handler, 1991: 605).
In Mojokuto, the Geertzes lived in the house of a railroad worker on the
fringe of town, spending their time mainly in extended interviews with key
informants and participant observation. Returning to Cambridge, Geertz was
offered a research position at Cenis where he embarked on a great rush of writing on a wide range of topics, overlapping considerably with those assigned
to his fellow Mojokuto team members. In 1956, besides completing his 700page thesis on the religion of Java, Geertz produced two book-length monographs for the project: The Development of the Javanese Economy: A SocioCultural Approach (Geertz, 1956a) and The Social Context of Economic
Change: An Indonesian Case Study, a social history of Mojokuto (Geertz,
1956b). These monographs attracted little attention at the time, but most of
Geertzs many publications in the following decade can be seen as the working out, topic by topic, of ideas first sketched out in them (Smail, 1965).

Legacies: Clifford Geertz

1191

New fieldwork in Bali (1958) was followed by a teaching job at Berkeley


and a year at Stanfords Centre for Advanced Studies. Among the fellows
at Stanford, Edward Shils and David Apter from the University of Chicago
persuaded Geertz to join them in the new Committee for the Comparative
Study of New Nations, which also sponsored a teaching appointment. In the
next decade at Chicago, Geertz produced a flood of landmark publications.
Besides numerous articles and chapters on Indonesian religion and rural
society, six books emerged in eight years: The Religion of Java (Geertz,
1960), Agricultural Involution (Geertz, 1963a), Peddlers and Princes
(Geertz, 1963b), Old Societies and New States (Geertz, 1963c), The Social History of an Indonesian Town (Geertz, 1965), and (after new fieldwork
in Morocco in 1963) Islam Observed: Religious Development in Morocco
and Indonesia (Geertz, 1968). By the mid-1960s it had become impossible
to discuss almost any aspect of Indonesian society, or more general debates
on Third World religion or politics, without reference to Geertzs work.
GEERTZ IN JAVA: RELIGION AND AGRARIAN CHANGE

Geertzs best-known books on Indonesia are The Religion of Java (1960),


Agricultural Involution (1963a) and Negara: The Theatre State in NineteenthCentury Bali (1980). 10 The Religion of Java 11 is the first, masterly exemplar
of the classic Geertzian style which so many subsequent generations of anthropologists have imitated. The book has no clear objectives and makes no
effort to locate itself in relation to previous scholarship or ongoing debates
on Indonesian society, or on Islam. 12 It is simply an extraordinary, readable and powerful work of descriptive ethnography. The informants speak
for themselves (or an eye-witness account of an event is described by the
ethnographer), and the ethnographer often appears himself, something which
earlier generations of anthropologists might not consider quite proper, as the
material is relayed verbatim in the standard Geertzian indented excerpts from
field notes, as in the following example
I talked to Joyo on the corner the other night about his marvelous grandfather . . . He said his
grandfather was able to disappear magically. Also he could go great distances in a short time.
He would walk out of the house and announce to his wife that he was going to Semarang
[three or four hundred miles away] and in fifteen minutes he would walk back in . . . His

10. Peddlers and Princes (1963b), a comparative study of entrepreneurship cast in the language
of modernization and take-off theory, has not stood the test of time; The Social History of
an Indonesian Town (1965), in my view one of Geertzs best-written books, attracted little
notice outside of Indonesian studies.
11. The book is a largely unrevised version of Geertzs 1956 PhD thesis (supervised by Cora
Dubois), minus the introductory and concluding chapters.
12. The book has literally less than two dozen citations and no bibliography, and makes only
passing reference to a few previous studies on Indonesian society and two general works on
Mohamedanism.

1192

Ben White

grandfather was arrested once by the Dutch and taken to Bragang and put into jail because
of his ilmu [science] all his pupils walking along behind him as he was led in. When they
returned home, they found him there in the house ready to teach, and it turned out that he was
in both places at once . . . (Geertz, 1960: 89)

Joyos tall tale, relayed neutrally in simple prose and without further comment or interpretation, is admitted, not as a curiosity, but as something that
reasonably passes between two persons (Siegel, 1995: 94); I talked to Joyo
on the corner the other night places the reader right there, listening to Joyo
over Geertzs shoulder, and invited to reflect on what he says, making the
overall effect of the episode unforgettable (Anderson, 1995: 20). This being
there approach to field research and writing is a source of the great evocative power of Geertzs work, but also of some of its weaknesses. As critics
were quick to note, The Religion of Java embodied quite serious problems
in Geertzs depiction of the Javanese social world, and the place of Islam in
that world.
In this and other works, Geertz distinguished three main aliran (streams)
or cultural types which reflect the organization of Javanese culture: the
santri (orthodox, modernist), abangan (Javanist, syncretist) and priyayi (Indic, Hindu-Buddhist) varieties of Javanese Islam (Geertz, 1960: 4). This
tripartite horizontal social cleavage is put forward with typical Geertzian
panache, as too apparent to be missed by even the most positivist sociologist (Geertz, 1965: 124). Both Indonesian and foreign scholars were quick
to point to Geertzs conflation of horizontal (religious orientation and world
view) and vertical (social class) axes of social distinction, both of which are
equally important in Javanese society, and which do not coincide but cut
across each other; priyayi refers to a distinction of social class (opposed to
wong cilik or common people) rather than of religious culture, and priyayi
may be either orthodox or syncretist Muslims (Cruikshank, 1972; Bachtiar,
1973; Hefner, 1987; Koentjaraningrat, 1960). This is an early example of
the reluctance to recognize the importance of distinctions of class and power
which runs like a red thread through Geertzs work.
Geertzs determination to explore everyday Islam through ethnographic
study of the practices through which ordinary Muslims experienced their
religion (Hefner, 1999: 14), was a healthy reaction to prevailing Orientalist
traditions of historical and literary (textual) scholarship on Islam. However,
Geertz seems to have accepted uncritically his modernist santri informants
narrow views of what is really Islamic, dismissing the religious practices of
abangan and priyayi as Hindu-Buddhist and un-Islamic. He thus embraced,
perhaps unwittingly, an updated version of colonialisms comfortable, Orientalist vision of Islam as a thin, late-deposited cultural veneer floating
loosely on the bedrock of real eastern culture, and in this way contributed
to the relative marginalization of Islam in Indonesian (and more generally
Southeast Asian) studies, which later scholarship has had to redress (Hefner,
1999: 1116).

Legacies: Clifford Geertz

1193

Agricultural Involution: The Processes of Ecological Change in Indonesia (1963a) set the agenda for much subsequent research on social change in
rural Java for the next two decades. The book is not directly based on field
research research findings from Mojokuto or other locations are not
referred to at all but on a few, mainly Dutch, publications on Indonesian
colonial history. Using statistics from 1920 to show a positive relation between sugarcane production, population density and per-hectare rice yields,
and doing history backwards to figure out how the situation characteristic
of this later period could have been produced (Geertz, 1963a: 70), Geertz
argued that the Javanese response to colonial pressures on production and
population growth had consisted of a combination of labour intensification in
subsistence production, and increased complexity on both the technical and
the social side of agriculture. Geertz invoked the concept of involution, the
overdriving of an established form in such a way that it becomes rigid through
an inward overelaboration of detail (ibid.: 82) 13 (contrasted, therefore, with
evolutionary or developmental patterns of change) to depict the cultural
response of Java and other regions of inner Indonesia to Dutch colonial
policies, made possible by their ecological setting. Irrigated rice terraces,
he argued, can respond to labour intensification almost indefinitely without
loss of soil fertility, but with only stable or declining per capita output, and
this allowed a symbiotic rotation of the main export and subsistence crops
(sugarcane and paddy) from the early nineteenth century until Indonesian
independence and beyond.
Agricultural change thus consisted mainly of involutionary technical hairsplitting and unending virtuosity in pregermination, transplantation, more
thorough land preparation, fastidious planting and weeding, razor-blade harvesting, double-cropping, a more exact regulation of terrace flooding, and the
addition of more fields at the edge of volcanoes (ibid.: 778). The hallmark
of Javas involuted rural society of the 1950s was a relative social-economic
homogeneity of village communities, encapsulated in the phrase shared
poverty, 14 achieved by dividing the economic pie into a steadily increasing
number of minute pieces through the elaboration of traditional land-tenure
and labour relations, mechanisms through which the agricultural product
was spread, if not altogether evenly, at least relatively so, throughout the
huge human horde which was obliged to subsist on it (ibid.: 97); this elaboration being matched and supported by a similar involution in rural family
life, social stratification, political organization, religious practice, as well

13. The term involution is borrowed from Kroebers student Alexander Goldenweiser (1936)
who had applied it in the 1930s to Maori woodcarving.
14. Geertz claimed his use of the term shared poverty was an allusion to Winston Churchills
characterization of communism (Geertz, 1984: 527), though many have considered it more
likely borrowed from Boeke.

1194

Ben White

as the folk-culture value system . . . in terms of which it was normatively


regulated and ethically justified (ibid.: 1012). 15
Agricultural involution acts against development, threatening for example
to incorporate any productivity changes through technical change into further stagnation in the absence of any genuine reconstruction of Indonesian
civilization (ibid.: 146). This reconstruction would require the breaking
down of involutionary constraints to the emergence of a modern, commercial
farming community (ibid.: 90), or as Geertz explained in the Social History
of an Indonesian Town: one of Javas greatest needs: a virile yeomanry
(Geertz, 1965: 49).
Subsequent, detailed research by social historians, anthropologists and others has undermined almost every argument in the involution thesis, leaving
it as a brilliant hypothesis, brought down by available evidence (Brown,
1997: 110). These criticisms questioned both involutions supposed ecological basis (for example, ecological mutuality of sugarcane and rice) and its
economic and social features (labour-intensification, and shared poverty).
As Wertheim remarked, Geertzs vision mirrored the blindness of colonial and
post-colonial e lites, whose idea of the harmonious and homogeneous village
community was derived from, and promoted by, the village e lite themselves
(Wertheim, 1975: 177214; cf. Utrecht, 1973: 40). There is certainly a striking lack of fit between Geertzs accounts of Javanese homogeneous rural and
small-town culture and the many violent political conflicts in the region both
before and after his fieldwork. Many of the critics (including this author) had
originally admired and even been inspired by his work; but they emerged from
fieldwork (or, in the case of the social/economic historians, from the colonial
archives of The Hague or Jakarta) with an empirically grounded reading of
Javanese society which they simply could not find in the pages of Geertzs
book. Irritated by these criticisms and particularly by this authors review
article (White, 1983), 16 Geertz responded in kind, dismissing the critics as
having failed to see what the book was about; failing to see the involution
thesis in its relation to his other work, and approaching the study of rural
Javanese society with the wrong theoretical and methodological baggage,
but still leaving readers feeling that he had side-stepped the main points of
criticism (Geertz, 1984).
Peddlers and Princes, also published in 1963, pursued a parallel search
for an emerging middle class on the urban side, by comparing small-town
15. Geertz never attempted a more detailed analysis of involutionary change in Javanese culture
generally, although he had intended to do so: The one thing I do regret about Agricultural
Involution is that I didnt, as I had originally planned, connect up my ecological argument
with a general analysis of Javanese culture, but I just felt at the time that if I tried to do that
I would be writing the damn thing for a quarter of a century (Geertz, letter to the author,
15 April 1983).
16. The review did strain the bounds of academic decorum by making indirect reference to
Geertzs work on Indonesia as imperialist software (White, 1983: 30, citing Wertheim,
1973 and Utrecht, 1973).

Legacies: Clifford Geertz

1195

entrepreneurial practices in Mojokuto and Tabanan (Bali). It concludes with


six propositions on pre-take-off social change, all of them about the dynamics of innovative economic leadership (entrepreneurship) (Geertz, 1963b:
14753). A third book published that year rounded off Geertzs early contributions to modernization theory, by turning his attention to Third World
politics. In Old Societies and New States: the Quest for Modernity in Asia
and Africa, Geertzs much-cited essay The Integrative Revolution: Primordial Sentiments and Civil Politics in the New States adopts Shilss (1957)
notion of primordial ties based on (assumed) ties of kin, race, language,
region, religion or custom. The conflict between primordial and civil sentiments threatens governments and nations and requires, in Geertzs view, an
integrative revolution led by modernizing e lites to defuse, dismantle or at
least to domesticate primordial sentiments and reduce them to civil order
(Geertz, 1963d). This general schema was the subject of much debate among
political scientists, following an early critique by Doornbos (1972); further
critique of these notions as applied to Indonesian political dynamics was to
follow in the 1980s and 1990s.
CULTURE, ETHNOGRAPHY AND THE INTERPRETIVE TURN

In all his early work Geertz was preoccupied, like his teachers and mentors
at Harvard, MIT and Chicago, with the problems of modernization. Agricultural Involution, Peddlers and Princes and the integrative revolution all
make frequent reference to the modernization theories of Parsons, Rostow
and Shils. While firmly wedded to their ideas on development, Geertz was
increasingly uncomfortable with their positivistic approach to social science
epistemology and method and it was inevitable that he would make an explicit break with this tradition. His Cambridge and Chicago years also saw
the emergence of fierce debates on the concept of culture. In the 1960s, as
the younger generation tried to make sense of Marxism and Levi-Straussian
structuralism, North American anthropology became the site of polarized
struggles and stand-offs between the advocates of a (positivist, materialist)
science of culture (Harris, 1968, 1979) on the one hand, in which human affairs are essentially caused by the ways human beings cope with nature and
on the other a more humanistic, mentalist, qualitative approach which saw
humankind as spinning ever more complex webs of signification through
autonomous processes of the symbolic faculty (Wolf, 1984a: 148). All of
Geertzs publications of the 1960s show a clear alignment with the symbolic
approach, although he preferred to give his version of it another name.
Once at Princeton that island of upmarket composure (Geertz, 2000c:
53) and secure in his reputation, Geertz finally freed himself from his
uneasy relationship with the modernization theorists, threw down the gauntlet
against the functionalist and positivist science represented by his Harvard and
Chicago mentors, and argued eloquently, forcefully and often for what he

1196

Ben White

called interpretive anthropology. The Interpretation of Cultures (Geertz,


1973) is a collection of twelve essays published between 1957 and 1972.
While some of these essays already appeared outdated, the books great and
lasting impact which makes it figure in various lists of the twentieth
centurys greatest books came from its introductory and closing essays.
In Thick Description: Toward an Interpretive Theory of Culture, Geertz
attacked eclectic notions of culture singling out his mentor Kluckhohns
work as an example of the conceptual morass which they reflect (Geertz,
1973: 45) 17 and proclaimed a narrowed, semiotic concept of culture,
encapsulated in the ever-quoted passage: Believing, 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 not to be an experimental
science in search of law but an interpretive one in search of meaning (ibid.:
5).
If culture is webs of meaning, what then is ethnography, the anthropologists practice of studying it? To explain this, Geertz invoked Gilbert Ryles
distinction between a twitch and a wink, and a not untypical excerpt from
my own field journal: a Moroccan tale of murder, robbery and kidnapping
involving a tribal sheikh, the Jew Cohen, the local commandant Captain Dumari, herds of sheep and various other characters. What ethnographers do
is what Ryle called thick description: sorting out the structures of signification . . . and determining their social ground and import, the result of
which he calls, reflexively, our constructions of other peoples constructions
of what they and their compatriots are up to (ibid.: 9). Doing ethnography,
he wrote, is like trying to read (in the sense of trying to construct a reading
of) a manuscript (ibid.: 10).
The closing essay, Deep Play: Notes on the Balinese Cockfight, exemplifies the new paradigm of how to study culture. It begins again with a fieldwork
story, but this time one which gets the writer directly into the action. When in
1958 the Geertzes moved into a Balinese village, their initial efforts to build
rapport were met with studied indifference: people acted as if we simply
did not exist. Everything changed after some days when the police raided
an illegal cockfight they were attending, and they ran away with the other
villagers. When the police marched into the compound in which they had
taken refuge and demanded to know what they were doing there: our host
of some minutes leaped instantly to our defence, producing an impassioned
description of who and what we were, so detailed and so accurate that it was
my turn, having barely communicated with a living human being save my
landlord and the village chief for more than a week, to be astonished (ibid.:
41215). This anecdote actually has little relevance to the intricate analysis
of Balinese cockfighting and its interpretive function which follows, but this
does not seem to have bothered readers; the rhetorical technique has since
17. The reference is to Kluckhohns (1949) Mirror for Man, which defined culture in eleven
different ways in the space of a few pages.

Legacies: Clifford Geertz

1197

become a major (and now perhaps, dully repetitive) strategy of both writing
and analysis in ethnographic, historical and literary scholarship (Marcus,
1999: 106).
These two essays sent a tidal wave across the disciplines, by showing:
how to take a piece of culture a ritual, a tall tale, a performance, a symbol, or an event
and treat it as text . . . Liberated from the rigours of explanation and able to take as a focal
text any piece of the social world, great or small, historians . . . , literary critics . . . and even
policy analysts . . . were freed to put culture centre-stage. (Swidler, 1996: 300).

Geertz thus located culture and ethnography squarely within the semiotic turn
in anthropology, and the general revival of intellectual interest in hermeneutic (meaning-centred) approaches in many other disciplines. But he also
distanced himself implicitly from the more rarefied schools of symbolic and
cognitive anthropology, and structuralism, that treat culture as purely a symbolic system, and thus run the danger . . . of locking cultural analysis away
from its proper object, the informal logic of actual life (Geertz, 1973: 17). In
another equally well-quoted passage (later forgotten by many of his followers) he argues: If anthropological interpretation is constructing a reading of
what happens, then to divorce it from what happens from what, in this time
or that place, specific people say, what they do, what is done to them, and
from the whole business of the world is to divorce it from its applications
and render it vacant (ibid.: 18).
For the next decade, while the Indonesia specialists, irritated by his apparent carelessness and disregard for evidence, engaged in a long season of
Geertz-bashing, Geertz himself emerged as north American anthropologys
superstar (a position formerly occupied by Margaret Mead, who died in 1978)
and its chief ambassador to other disciplines, with major influence on the
other social sciences, literary studies, philosophy, and beyond (Sewell, 1999:
35).
THE THEATRE STATE IN BALI

Negara: The Theatre State in Nineteenth Century Bali (1980), Geertzs most
important work on Bali, is the only one of his Indonesia books written after
he had abandoned modernization theory, although many of its main ideas had
been sketched out in earlier publications (Geertz, 1966a, 1977; Geertz and
Geertz, 1975). Negara is also the only one of Geertzs works which makes
significant use of the work of Indonesian scholars. 18
18. While Geertz was revered among Indonesian scholars, he seems to have had a very low
opinion of their work. In 1972, in an influential consultancy report for the Ford Foundation
on the state of the social sciences in Indonesia, Geertz characterized Indonesian intellectual life as centralised, over-organised, spasmodic, practical, and strongly influenced by
economists, and social science training as bookish, speculative, and . . . philosophical or

1198

Ben White

Like Agricultural Involution, Negara adopts a strategy of doing history


backwards and is not mainly based on his village fieldwork, although that
has informed the chapters on kinship and irrigation organization. Available
(mainly Dutch) literature and retrospective interviews with elderly Balinese
are invoked to build a much broader thesis about the nature of the classical
Balinese state. The precolonial Balinese state, Geertz argued, contravened
Western theories of politics and power, being first and foremost concerned
with spectacle and symbolism, not as means to (political or economic) ends
but as ends in themselves:
The expressive nature of the Balinese state was apparent through the whole of its known
history, for it was always pointed not toward tyranny, whose systematic concentration of
power it was incompetent to effect, and not even very methodically toward government,
which it pursued indifferently and hesitantly, but rather toward spectacle, toward ceremony,
toward the public dramatization of the ruling obsessions of Balinese culture: social inequality
and status pride. It was a theatre state in which the kings and princes were the impresarios,
the priests the directors, and the peasants the supporting cast, stage crew, and audience. . . .
Power served pomp, not pomp power. (Geertz, 1980: 13)

This bold vision required Geertz to make the heroic assumption that elderly
informants interviewed in the late 1950s could reliably recall conditions of
precolonial Bali, more than a half-century earlier, and also that no important
structural changes had occurred in Bali from the fifteenth century until the
Dutch conquest in 19068. It is thus actually a kind of anti-history, ostensibly situated in time but greatly underplaying historical change (Errington,
2007: 196). As with Agricultural Involution, subsequent detailed work by
various authors (in this case, with colonial archives and court manuscripts)
has eroded Geertzs claim that Balis royal elites were not involved in precolonial village rule, irrigation organization, taxation and the like. They suggest,
instead, that what Geertz saw as classical Bali was, in fact, the very result
of 20th century colonial policy and ideology (Schulte Nordholt, 1981: 474):
Anthropologists like Geertz and [Stephen] Lansing have, for reasons of their own, overlooked
the role of the king as a ruler . . . The kings were dispossessed of their power to manage and
control irrigation, manpower, taxes, and adjudication by the bureaucratic colonial state . . .
In sum, the kings were left with the roles that anthropologists have labeled the theatre state
and the peasants with the democratic irrigation model. (Hauser-Schaublin, 2003: 170)

even doctrinal (Geertz, 1974: 365, 369). Those who have worked in Indonesia during this
period will recognize the truth of much of Geertzs assessment. On the other hand, he seems
to have retained from his Yogyakarta days twenty years previously the pith-helmet view
of Indonesian academics avoiding real field research, in favour of a brief study trip in
search of written records, or an interview or two, a generalized summary of the accessible
literature on the subject, or a fish-net type of fact-gathering survey (ibid.: 369). This
sweeping dismissal did no justice to the pioneering village-level research of many Indonesian academics and their students during the 1950s and 1960s, including path-breaking
efforts at what is now called participatory action research (White, 2005: 11320), which
Geertz does not appear to have read, never mentioning them in his own work.

Legacies: Clifford Geertz

1199

QUESTIONS ON GEERTZIAN INTERPRETIVISM

Paradoxically, the moment when history and other disciplines began to take
serious notice of Geertzian anthropology was precisely the moment when
anthropologists began to question it (Rabinow, 1986: 2412). William Sewell,
a social historian, encapsulates the edgy relationship between Geertz and
his anthropological colleagues:
The positivists criticize Geertz for abandoning . . . scientific values in favour of the more
glamourous or alluring qualities of interpretive method. The post-modernists, by contrast,
reproach him for not pushing his interpretive method far enough in particular, for failing to
subject his own interpretive ethnographic practice to critical interpretation. The materialists,
finally, criticize him for his neglect of history, power, and social conflict. (Sewell, 1999: 356)

The years 19824 in particular saw a barrage of critique of many of the


key ideas on which Geertz had made his reputation, in the attacks on his
Balinese work (Roseberry, 1982), on agricultural involution in Java (summarized in White, 1983), on his conceptions of religion (Asad, 1983) and
ideology (Wolf, 1984b), primordialism (Anderson, 1983) and on the interpretive paradigm generally (Shankman, 1984). Geertz, however was, more
often than not, conspicuously absent from these and other debates surrounding his work, both in the 1980s and later. He declined to join an otherwise
balanced discussion of Shankmans positivist critique in a Current Anthropology debate: the enigmatic silence of Clifford Geertz hovers over this
commentary like a cloud (Shankman, 1984: 276). When persuaded or provoked to join in the merriment, as he once put it, his rejoinders to criticism
were acerbic this dog is mean, he bites when he is kicked 19 and often
side-stepped the main points of criticism. 20 From the mid 1980s onwards his
writing, still prolific, was largely devoted to literary criticism and reflective
commentary: on the method and style of other anthropologists, review essays on a variety of themes aimed at a broad North American intelligentsia
in the New York Review of Books and The New Republic, and from the late
1980s onwards, a series of reflections on his own career in books (Geertz,
1995), essays (Geertz, 2000a, 2002), lectures (Geertz, 1999) and interviews
(Geertz, 1988b; Handler, 1991; Micheelsen 2002; Olson, 1991).
Culture, Politics and Social Change

Geertz argued that ideology (Geertz, 1964), religion (Geertz, 1966b), common sense (Geertz, 1975), art (Geertz, 1976), and many other aspects of
19. Geertz, letter to the author, 3 January 1985, referring to his (1984) response to critiques of
Agricultural Involution.
20. See for example his response to critiques of The Theatre State (Geertz, 2003) and of his
views on post-colonial and post-socialist states (Geertz, 2004).

1200

Ben White

social life and ideas are cultural systems, and (as we have seen) that culture itself is a general system of symbolic forms, to be understood in their
actual practice. But he never explained precisely what he thought symbols
are, what he really meant by systems of symbols, or how they should be
analysed (Lieberson, 1984: 11); indeed he proclaimed, late in life: I am an
ethnographer . . . from beginning to end; and I dont do systems (Geertz,
2000a: x).
On the Geertzian method, Elizabeth Colson noted in an early review that
Geertz s ethnography does not provide a model for other anthropologists
or sociologists of lesser talent to follow since he proceeds from an intuitive
grasp of what is important and reaches his conclusion with a flourish that
conceals the tedium of the procedures (Colson, 1975: 6378). A great deal of
debate around Geertzian interpretivism has centred around the lack of clear
criteria for evaluating alternative cultural interpretations, or intuitive grasps
of what is important. In the mid-1980s Geertz joined the debate by turning
his talents as a literary critic on to his own discipline, most notably in Works
and Lives: The Anthropologist as Author (1988a). Taking selected works of
Claude Levi-Strauss, Edward Evans-Pritchard, Bronislaw Malinowski and
Ruth Benedict, he exposed their distinctive styles of writing in new criticism
mode, and asked where lay their capacity to persuade readers . . . that what
they are reading is an authentic account (Geertz, 1988a: 143). Arguing in this
and other writings that anthropology is ultimately a literary and rhetorical
vocation, Geertz came perilously close to arguing that the best interpretations
of culture and social life are simply the best-written ones, a position taken
up by various post-modernist authors and carried to extremes from which
he had to distance himself. Geertz thus provided fuel for the debate among
postmodernists around ethnographys double crisis of representation and
of legitimation (Brewer, 2000: Ch. 2; Clifford, 1988; Clifford and Marcus,
1986; Marcus and Fischer, 1986: 4576).
Despite Geertzs warning against those varieties of hermeneutics which
divorce culture from the whole business of the world, this seems to have
been forgotten by many of his followers, who continue to neglect issues
of power, interests, economics, and historical change . . . in favour of simply
portraying the native point of view as richly as possible (Marcus and Fischer,
1986: 77; cf. Hefner, 1990: xiii). This has led some scholars to question the
ability of interpretive frameworks to explicate the things we most wish to
understand such as contemporary processes of domination, displacement,
marginality and violence (Steedly, 1999: 432).
The fact that social historians, who are professionally concerned with questions of transformation over time, should have been so strongly influenced by
Geertzs insistently synchronic work, is something of a paradox. Geertzs
cultural systems do appear somewhat impervious to change, but the Geertzian
approach did open the door to modes of historical enquiry and exegesis based
on thick description, at a time when social history was gaining in popularity. If historians want to combine this with diachronic analysis, however,

Legacies: Clifford Geertz

1201

they need to adopt a different theory of culture than Geertzs, focusing not
on the assumed unity of cultural systems but on multivocality and internal differentiation as sources of change (Sewell, 1999). Both historians and
anthropologists have argued that Geertzs vision of cultures as systems of
shared symbols (and associated practices) blinded him to questions of social
differentiation, social conflict, and associated negotiations and contestations
over meanings. Who in society gets to spin the webs of significance, and
who gets caught in the web? These questions bring us into areas of enquiry
which thick description cannot so easily reach, and raise questions about
Geertzs approach to politics.
In general, Geertz appeared indifferent to the trend to place issues of power
and history more centrally in anthropology, 21 as reflected in Roseberrys
(1982) critique of his work on Bali and Asads (1983) critique of his approach
to religion. Geertzs own political stance was more or less that of the liberal
North American humanist; he rarely took public stands or joined campaigns:
my own general ideological position is largely the same as that of Aron,
Shils, Parsons and so forth; . . . I am in agreement with their plea for a civil,
temperate, unheroic politics (Geertz, 1973: 200)
Geertzs avoidance of any serious discussion of the Indonesian mass murders of 19656, and what they mean for our understanding of Indonesian
politics, is both puzzling and revealing. The bulk of the killings occurred in
Geertzs two fieldwork regions of Central/East Java and Bali. Some weeks
after the crushing of a bungled leftist coup attempt in Jakarta (which killed
twelve persons in total), an orchestrated anti-Communist backlash resulted
in the massacre of hundreds of thousands by the army and army-trained
militias. In the years that followed Geertz alluded only in passing to the
killings, with a weary resignation, in which striking insights are encompassed in turns of phrase full of the kind of detachment and wryness that
has angered his younger critics (Marcus, 1999: 107, fn 15). In a 1973
postscript to his (pre-1965) article on primordialism, Geertz described the
killings as having been done in Java at least, mainly along . . . primordial lines pious Moslems killing Indic syncretists (Geertz, 1973: 282).
On Bali, where the killing was relatively more severe than in any other region, Geertz wrote in the landmark cockfight article: if one looks at Bali
. . . also through the medium of its cockfights, the fact that the massacre
occurred seems, if no less appalling, less like a contradiction to the laws
of nature (ibid.: 452). Such cultural accounts of the massacres became
untenable as the years passed and more became known: it is clear that
the military bears the largest share of responsibility and the killings represented bureaucratic, planned violence rather than popular, spontaneous violence (Roosa, 2006: 28). On Bali, Geoffrey Robinsons historical account
of political conflict along class, caste and ideological lines offers a powerful
21. A key mover in this trend was Eric Wolf (192399), Geertzs near-contemporary and another
GI Bill beneficiary (Wolf, 1982, 1999; see Gledhill, 2005)

1202

Ben White

counterpoint to aliran- and primordiality-centred views (Robinson, 1995;


Sidel, 1997).
Three decades later, in After the Fact, Geertz describes the massacres in
and around Mojokuto, mainly through a two-page excerpt from the 1971
account of a retired Nationalist Party leader: In the beginning, things could
have gone either way. Each side was trying to kill the other side first, and when
the Communists saw that the Muslims had the upper hand, they just gave up
(Geertz, 1995: 10). In relaying the old nationalists account without critical
comment the only version that Indonesians were permitted to parrot under
the new regime Geertz appears virtually to endorse the official view of
the Indonesian army and the CIA, that the slaughter of Communists was
a matter of self-defence and therefore justified (Reyna, 1998). Accounts of
such contested matters require the ethnographer to be more than ventriloquist,
to go beyond Joyo-on-the-corner modes of exposition, and to have a point
of view.
Dancing with Words

By his own account Geertz wrote all his work by hand, very slowly about
a paragraph a day and never wrote drafts: I write from the beginning
to the end, and when its finished its done . . . I would not advise that other
people write this way (in Olson, 1991: 5). The result is a unique, dense prose:
erudite, meandering, seductive, often playful and self-deprecating, difficult
to ignore: Almost everyone initially gets side-tracked by the visibility and
distinctiveness of Geertzs writing style, which is like Cyrano de Bergeracs
nose. It is conspicuous, it is spectacular, but . . . it is best just to ignore it, for
the sake of getting on with a discussion of his ideas (Shweder, 2005: 2).
From about the mid-1970s onwards, when Geertz was more or less finished with fieldwork and became a full-blown essayist, something seemed
to happen to his writing style as the self-conscious flourishes threatened to
take over the substance (Anderson, 1995: 20). Local Knowledge, the second
volume of essays written between 1974 and 1982 (Geertz, 1983), did not
develop his central position on culture and interpretive anthropology but
consisted mostly of general reflections on dissimilar topics, in prose which,
for all its irreverence and occasional brilliance, is too often digressive and
clotted with metaphor, tending to a self-conscious virtuosity that is at first
immensely attractive but in the end forced and almost oppressive. Drugged
into a kind of exhilaration by his racing sentences . . . one sooner or later
realizes that one has no clear idea of his view (Lieberson, 1984: 11).
A few years later Works and Lives (Geertz, 1988a) provoked Edmund
Leach to vent his irritation at Geertzs habit of tacking long, comma-riddled
lists (of names, places, events, schools of thought) on to every point: every
point of argument is reinforced as if it needed to be supported by a thesaurus. The resulting garrulity quickly becomes intolerable (Leach, 1989:

Legacies: Clifford Geertz

1203

139). Many younger readers, however, were simply captivated by Geertzs


style. It is hardly fair to blame Geertz (or Foucault, or other authors with distinctive writing styles) for those who try, with less success, to imitate them,
but the new fashion of incomprehensible writings by less talented followers
(Schulte Nordholt, 2007: 34) is one of his less fortunate legacies. 22 In 2002,
at a special session of the American Anthropological Association honouring
his life and work, Geertz responded to various good-natured jibes about his
shaggy sentences, list-laden discursivity, and prozy maze. He took explicit
issue with Shweders recommendation to separate the style from the ideas:
Having toiled over [my style] for many years, I am quite aware of its deficiencies . . . I . . . question whether style and substance are so easily separable
. . . I do think that much of what I have to say inheres in how I say it . . .,
and added some advice to younger anthropologists: It pays, really pays, in
hard, tenurable cash . . . to be readable. Better over the top than under the
pile (Geertz, 2005: 109, 112)
A COMPLEX LEGACY

Despite his skills in ethnographic field work, Geertz was an awkward and
somewhat reclusive person, and many found his erudition and encyclopaedic
knowledge intimidating, although he got on well with students, preferring
to teach undergraduates. Certainly not a born teacher, he could also inspire,
as recalled by Robert Darnton who taught a Princeton undergraduate course
with him for many years:
He talked too fast and mumbled into his beard so badly that the students found it difficult
to understand him . . . The rumpled, disheveled figure at the far end of the table frequently
said nothing, apparently lost in its own thoughts. Then suddenly it would explode in talk. The
words would tumble out in a torrent, and we would sit back amazed . . . When his eyes lit up,
and the words poured out, he infected students with the excitement of the chase. (Darnton,
2007: 323)

The excitement which Geertzs work provoked, and his greatest legacy, lie
not so much in research findings as in his vision of culture and ethnography,
and in the evocative power of his writing. For four decades, he kept Indonesia
specialists and anthropologists inspired and irritated in equal measure by his
research, and a much wider group of intellectuals inspired by his vision: for
many social scientists Geertz literally changed the way we study culture
(Swidler, 1996: 299).
Geertzs legacy is not straightforward; it endures by way of, and through,
the critique that succeeded him (Marcus, 2001: 167). His polemical stands
for interpretation against explanation, for description against theory, and
22. This problem peaks in the tortured, manneristic prose of Fred Inglis, Geertzs sycophantic
intellectual biographer in the Key Contemporary Thinkers series (Inglis, 2000).

1204

Ben White

against all general theory, were important at the time, to make the point.
But they are now largely red herrings (Swidler, 1996: 302). To express these
contrasts in either/or terms is to misunderstand the nature of both the natural sciences and of the humanities. Hermeneutics is not the only legitimate
approach to social analysis; good anthropological (and sociological, and historical) research combines and feeds on the dynamic tensions between particularistic thick descriptions and comparative enquiry into larger realities, 23
and it is the engagement of general theory and localized research that makes
anthropology a discipline (Hefner, 1990: xii): the most humanistic of the
sciences, and the most scientific of the humanities.

REFERENCES
(For a complete bibliography of Geertzs works, and other biographical material with links
C WorldCatalogue, available at
to archives and video interviews, see the HyperGeertz
http://hypergeertz.jku.at)
Anderson, Benedict OG. (1983) Old State, New Society: Indonesias New Order in Comparative
Historical Perspective, The Journal of Asian Studies 42(3): 47796.
Anderson, Benedict OG. (1995) Djojo on the Corner, London Review of Books 24 August:
1920.
Apter, David (2007) On Clifford Geertz, Daedalus 136(3): 11113.
Asad, Talal (1983) Anthropological Conceptions of Religion: Reflections on Geertz, Man:
Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 18(2): 23759.
Bachtiar, Harsja W. (1973) The Religion of Java: A Commentary, Majalah Ilmu-Ilmu Sastra
Indonesia 5(1): 85118.
Branch, T. (2007) Justice for Warriors, The New York Review of Books 54(6): 403.
Brewer, John (2000) Ethnography. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Brown, Colin (1997) Economic Change in Southeast Asia, c. 18301980. Kuala Lumpur: Oxford
University Press.
Burawoy, Michael (1998) The Extended Case Method, Sociological Theory 16(1): 433.
Burawoy, Michael et al. (1991) Ethnography Unbound: Power and Resistance in the Modern
Metropolis. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Burawoy, Michael et al. (2000) Global Ethnography: Forces, Connections and Imaginations in
a Postmodern World. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Clifford, James (1988) The Predicament of Culture. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Clifford, James and George Marcus (1986) Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press
Colson, Elizabeth (1975) Review of Geertz, The Interpretation of Cultures, Contemporary
Sociology 4(6): 6378.
Cruikshank, Robert B. (1972) Abangan, santri and prijaji: A Critique, Journal of Southeast
Asian Studies 3(1): 3943.
Darnton, Robert (2007) On Clifford Geertz: Field Notes from the Classroom, New York Review
of Books 54(1): 323.
Doornbos, Martin (1972) Some Conceptual Problems Concerning Ethnicity in Integration Analysis, Civilizations 22(2): 26383.

23. As argued powerfully, and practised, by Eric Wolf (see note 22) and Michael Burawoy (1998;
also Burawoy et al. 1991 and 2000).

Legacies: Clifford Geertz

1205

Errington, Shelley (2007) In Memoriam Clifford Geertz (19262006): An Appreciation, Indonesia 83 (April): 18998.
Geertz, Clifford (1956a) The Development of the Javanese Economy: A Socio-Cultural Approach.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Center for International Studies.
Geertz, Clifford (1956b) The Social Context of Economic Change: An Indonesian Case Study.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Center for International Studies.
Geertz, Clifford (1960) The Religion of Java. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Geertz, Clifford (1963a) Agricultural Involution: The Processes of Ecological Change in Indonesia. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Geertz, Clifford (1963b) Peddlers and Princes: Social Development and Economic Change in
Two Indonesian Towns. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
Geertz, Clifford (ed.) (1963c) Old Societies and New States: The Quest for Modernity in Asia
and Africa. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.
Geertz, Clifford (1963d) The Integrative Revolution: Primordial Sentiments and Civil Politics
in the New States, in C. Geertz (ed.) Old Societies and New States, pp. 10557. Glencoe,
IL: The Free Press.
Geertz, Clifford (1964) Ideology as a Cultural System, in D. Apter (ed.) Ideology and Discontent,
pp. 4776. New York: Free Press (also reprinted in Geertz, 1973).
Geertz, Clifford (1965) The Social History of an Indonesian Town. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Geertz, Clifford (1966a) Person, Time and Conduct in Bali: An Essay in Cultural Analysis.
Cultural Report Series no 14. New Haven, CT: Yale University Southeast Asia Programme.
Geertz, Clifford (1966b) Religion as a Cultural System, in M. Banton (ed.) Anthropological
Approaches to the Study of Religion, pp. 146. London: Tavistock (also reprinted in Geertz,
1973).
Geertz, Clifford (1968) Islam Observed: Religious Development in Morocco and Indonesia. New
Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Geertz, Clifford (1973) The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books.
Geertz, Clifford (1974) Social Science Policy in a New State: A Programme for the Stimulation
of the Social Sciences in Indonesia, Minerva XII (3): 36581.
Geertz, Clifford (1975) Common Sense as a Cultural System, Antioch Review 33: 4753 (also
reprinted in Geertz, 1983).
Geertz, Clifford (1976) Art as a Cultural System, MLN 91: 147399 (also reprinted in Geertz,
1983).
Geertz, Clifford (1977) Centres, Kings, and Charisma: Reflections on the Symbolics of Power,
in J. Ben-David and T.N. Clark (eds) Culture and Its Creators, pp. 15071. Chicago. IL:
Chicago University Press (also reprinted in Geertz, 1983).
Geertz, Clifford (1980) Negara: The Theatre State in Nineteenth-Century Bali. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Geertz, Clifford (1983) Local Knowledge: Further Essays in Interpretive Anthropology. New
York: Basic Books.
Geertz, Clifford (1984) Culture and Social Change: The Indonesian Case, Man (n.s.) 19: 511
32.
Geertz, Clifford (1988a) Works and Lives: The Anthropologist as Author. Stanford, CA: Stanford:
University Press.
Geertz, Clifford (1988b) Reflections of an Itinerant Career, Bulletin of Indonesian Economic
Studies 24(3): 3151.
Geertz, Clifford (1995) After the Fact: Two Countries, Four Decades, One Anthropologist. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Geertz, Clifford (1999) A Life of Learning. American Council of Learned Societies, Occasional
Paper no 45. http://www.acls.org/op45geer.htm (accessed 10 November 2006).
Geertz, Clifford (2000a) Available Light: Anthropological Reflections on Philosophical Topics.
Princeton, NJ and Oxford: Princeton University Press.
Geertz, Clifford (2000b) Passage and Accident: A Life of Learning, in C. Geertz Available

1206

Ben White

Light: Anthropological Reflections on Philosophical Topics, pp. 320. Princeton, NJ and


Oxford: Princeton University Press.
Geertz, Clifford (2000c) Geiger at Antioch, The Antioch Review 58(1): 53.
Geertz, Clifford (2002) An Inconstant Profession: An Anthropological Life in Interesting Times,
Annual Review of Anthropology 31: 119.
Geertz, Clifford (2003) Comment, in B. Hauser-Schaublin The Precolonial Balinese State
Reconsidered: A Critical Evaluation of Theory Construction on the Relationship between
Irrigation, the State, and Ritual, with a Comment, Current Anthropology 44(2): 171.
Geertz, Clifford (2004) What is a State if it is not a Sovereign? Reflections on Politics in
Complicated Places, Current Anthropology 45(5): 57793.
Geertz, Clifford (2005) Commentary, in Richard Shweder and Byron Good (eds) Clifford Geertz
by his Colleagues, pp. 10824. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
Geertz, Clifford and Hildred Geertz (1975) Kinship in Bali. Chicago, IL: Chicago University
Press.
Gledhill, John (2005) Some Histories are More Possible than Others: Structural Power, Big
Pictures and the Goal of Explanation in the Anthropology of Eric Wolf, Critique of Anthropology 25(1): 3757.
Goldenweiser, Alexander (1936) Loose Ends of a Theory on the Individual Pattern and Involution
in Primitive Society, in R. Lowie (ed.) Essays in Anthropology Presented to A.L. Kroeber,
pp. 99104. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Handler, Richard (1991) An Interview with Clifford Geertz, Current Anthropology 32(5): 603
13.
Harris, Marvin (1968) The Rise of Anthropological Theory. New York: Random House.
Harris, Marvin (1979) Cultural Materialism: The Struggle for a Science of Culture. New York:
Random House.
Hauser-Schaublin, Brigitta (2003) The Precolonial Balinese State Reconsidered: A Critical
Evaluation of Theory Construction on the Relationship between Irrigation, the State, and
Ritual, with a Comment, Current Anthropology 44(2): 15381.
Hefner, Robert (1987) Islamizing Java? Religion and Politics in Rural East Java, The Journal
of Asian Studies 46(3): 53354.
Hefner, Robert (1990) The Political Economy of Mountain Java: An Interpretive History.
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Hefner, Robert (1999) Islam in an Era of Nation States: Politics and Religious Renewal in
Muslim Southeast Asia, in R. Hefner and P. Horvatich (eds) Islam in an Era of Nation-States,
pp. 340. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press.
Higgins, Benjamin (1963) Foreword, in Clifford Geertz Agricultural Involution, pp. viixviii.
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Inglis, Fred (2000) Clifford Geertz: Culture, Custom and Ethics. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Kluckhohn, Clyde (1949) Mirror for Man. New York: MacGraw Hill.
Koentjaraningrat (1960) Review of Geertz, Religion of Java, Majalah Ilmu-Ilmu Sastra Indonesia 1(2): 18896.
Koentjaraningrat (1975) Anthropology in Indonesia. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
Kroeber, Alfred and C. Kluckhohn (1952) Culture: A Critical Review of Concepts and Definitions.
Cambridge, MA: The Peabody Museum.
Leach, Edmund (1989) Writing Anthropology, American Ethnologist 16(1): 13741.
Lieberson, Jonathan (1984) Interpreting the Interpreter, New York Review of Books 31(4), 15
March. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/5914 (accessed 10 November 2006).
Marcus, George (1999) The Use of Complicity in the Changing Mise-en-Sc`ene of Anthropological Fieldwork, in Sherry Ortner (ed.) The Fate of Culture: Geertz and Beyond, pp. 86109.
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Marcus, George (2001) Review of Fred Inglis, Clifford Geertz, Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 7(1): 1667.

Legacies: Clifford Geertz

1207

Marcus, George and Michael Fischer (1986) Anthropology as Cultural Critique. Chicago, IL:
Chicago University Press.
Micheelsen, Arun (2002) I Dont Do Systems: An Interview with Clifford Geertz, Method
and Theory in the Study of Religion: Journal of the North American Association for the Study
of Religion 14(1): 220.
Olson, Gary A. (1991) Clifford Geertz on Anthropology and Social Construction, JAC 11(2)
http://jac.gsu.edu/jac/11.2/Articles/geertz.htm (accessed 22 December 2006)
Rabinow, Paul (1986) Representations are Social Facts: Modernity and Post-Modernity in Anthropology, in J. Clifford and G. Marcus, Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography, pp. 23461. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Reyna, Stephen P. (1998) Right and Might: Of Approximate Truths and Moral Judgements,
Identities 4(34): 43165.
Robinson, Geoffrey (1995) The Dark Side of Paradise: Political Violence in Bali. Ithaca, NY:
Cornell University Press.
Roosa, John (2006) Pretext for Mass Murder: The September 30th Movement and Suhartos Coup
in Indonesia. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
dEtat
Roseberry, William (1982) Balinese Cockfights and the Seduction of Anthropology, Social
Research 49(4): 101328.
Rosen, George (1985) Western Economists and Eastern Societies: Agents of Change in Southeast
Asia. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Ross, Eric B. (1998) Cold Warriors Without Weapons, Identities 4(34): 475506.
Rostow, Walt W. (1960) The Stages of Economic Growth: A Non-Communist Manifesto. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schulte Nordholt, Henk (1981) Negara: A Theatre State?, Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en
Volkenkunde 137(4): 47076.
Schulte Nordholt, Henk (2007) Clifford Geertz, Inside Indonesia (AprilJune): 34.
Sewell, William H. (1999) Geertz, Cultural Systems, and History: From Synchrony to Transformation, in Sherry B. Ortner (ed.) The Fate of Culture: Geertz and Beyond, pp. 3555.
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press
Shankman, Paul (1984) The Thick and the Thin: On the Interpretive Theoretical Paradigm of
Clifford Geertz, Current Anthropology 25(3): 26180.
Shils, Edward (1957) Primordial, Personal, Sacred and Civil Ties, British Journal of Sociology
8: 13045.
Shweder, Richard (2005) Cliff Notes: The Pluralisms of Clifford Geertz, in Richard Shweder
and Byron Good (eds) Clifford Geertz by his Colleagues, pp. 19. Chicago, IL: Chicago
University Press.
Sidel, John (1997) Dark Play: Notes on a Balinese Massacre, Indonesia 63: 18794.
Siegel, James (1995) In Place of an Interview, Indonesia 59 (April): 936.
Smail, John (1965) Review of Geertz Agricultural Involution: The Processes of Ecological
Change in Indonesia, The Journal of Southeast Asian History 6(2): 15861.
Steedly, Mary (1999) The State of Culture Theory in the Anthropology of Southeast Asia,
Annual Review of Anthropology 28: 43154.
Swidler, Ann (1996) Geertzs Ambiguous Legacy, Contemporary Sociology 25(3): 299
302.
Utrecht, Ernst (1973) American Sociologists on Indonesia, Journal of Contemporary Asia 3:
3945.
Vincent, Joan (1990) Anthropology and Politics: Visions, Traditions and Trends. Tucson, AZ:
University of Arizona Press.
Wertheim, Willem (1973) Do Not Overrate the Danger of Imperialist Software, Journal of
Contemporary Asia 3: 4712.
Wertheim, Willem (1975) Elite en Massa. Amsterdam: van Gennep.
White, Ben (1983) Agricultural Involution and its Critics: Twenty Years After, Bulletin of
Concerned Asian Scholars 15(23): 1831.

1208

Ben White

White, Ben (2005) Between Apologia and Critical Discourse: Agrarian Transitions and Scholarly
Engagement in Indonesia, in Vedi Hadiz and Daniel Dhakidae (eds) Social Science and Power
in Indonesia, pp. 10741. Jakarta and Singapore: Equinox/ISEAS
Wolf, Eric (1982) Europe and the People Without History. Berkeley, CA: University of California
Press.
Wolf, Eric (1984a) Materialists vs. Mentalists: A Review Article, Comparative Studies in
Society and History 24: 14852.
Wolf, Eric (1984b) Incorporation and Identity in the Making of the Modern World, Suomen
Antropologi 3: 8292.
Wolf, Eric (1999) Envisioning Power: Ideologies of Dominance and Crisis. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Ben White is Professor of Rural Sociology at the Institute of Social Studies,


PO Box 29776, 2502 LT The Hague, The Netherlands (e-mail: white@iss.nl)
and Professor in Social Sciences, University of Amsterdam. His main research interests focus on agrarian change in Indonesia (where he has been
involved in research since the early 1970s), and anthropology/sociology of
childhood.

S-ar putea să vă placă și