« The Power of Bloggers | Main | White House Approves Pass For Blogger »

March 07, 2005

Thoughts on Geertz

"Another view is that of George Herbert Mead the pragmatist philosopher and psychologist, who argued that understanding was based on the ability to 'take the role of the other' - that is, on a form of empathy. And Malinowski pressed the notion that in field work, 'participant observation' was indispensable to even a correct reporting, for only by actually doing what the native did could one understand what it meant to him."

I find it hard to agree with this view. Empathy, while potentially helpful to certain kinds of understanding, cannot possibly form the basis for understanding in general. The notion of "meaning" is interpreted differently, with different intended consequences, to every single person; someone who grew up in middle-class America, for instance, no matter how immersed he became in rural China - even to the point of "doing what the native did" - will never be able to "understand" what each nuance of rural life signifies to its "natives". Thus I doubt the importance (and indeed relevance) of "participant observation" in anthropological reporting. What the anthropologist and outsider observes is deciphered in the only context in which it would make any sense to him, i.e. a context determined by the combination of background and knowledge peculiar to him. Perhaps this is being simplistic, but I always thought anthropologists attempted to leave the narration of "meaning" to their subjects, concentrating instead on the accurate reporting thereof.

Geertz's argument, therefore, of comparing different "sets" of perceptions to bridge the gap between participant (the subject) and observer (and his audience) makes more sense. "In short, accounts of other peoples' subjectivities can be built up without recourse to pretensions to more-than-normal capacities for ego-effacement and fellow-feeling... whatever accurate or half-accurate sense one gets of one's informants are "really like" comes not from the experience of that acceptance as such, which is part of one's own biography, not of theirs, but from the ability to construe their modes of expression, what I would call their symbol systems, which such an acceptance allows one to work towards developing."

The importance of social contextualization as envisioned by Geertz, however, seems to lay a path for the conception of individual (or, more often, group) identity through exclusion, i.e. the definition of "person"/"people" by contrasting him/her/them to other individuals/societies. In the emphasis on sorting, hierarchy, and public relationships (as opposed to personal, individual, private selves) lies the danger of an inclination towards relativism rather than absolutism, towards the group rather than the individual, and towards public labels rather than intimate knowledge. Conceiving of people as inextricably attached to their backgrounds causes a definition of identity that lacks not in customization but in personalization (as Geertz puts it: categorization but not type; placing but not portrayal). "Selfhood is never in danger because, outside the immediacies of procreation and prayer, only its coordinates are assured." But in online communities (using this word in its broadest sense), the conceptualization of "selfhood" is completely opposite to what is outlined in Geertz's article. There is a marked lack of categorization and of situation (save for IP addresses, which can be blocked) -- one's portrayal of oneself is purely individual and deliberate, rather than an accident of birth or circumstance. Why do we, then, think that this is a more evolved communication of selfhood?

For reference:

verstehen: German for to understand. 1. To perceive and comprehend the nature and significance of, to know. 2. To know thoroughly by close contact with or by long experience of the phenomenon. 3. To grasp or comprehend the meaning intended or expressed by another. 4. To know and be empathetic toward. Weber used the term to refer to the social scientist's attempt to understand both the intention and the context of human action.

einfuhlen: German, meaning to try and become what you're studying and look at it from the inside.

Posted by chan at March 7, 2005 10:37 PM