Abstract
The defining epistemological tension of the “cultural turn” is the question as to whether culture should be brought in as one more cause in the study of society and history or whether culture constitutes a world unto itself whose study necessarily eschews explanation and invites or even demands interpretation instead. The strong program in cultural sociology is but one example of a mode of research and research in the human sciences that has forced itself to navigate, mitigate, or live with (and perhaps sublimate) this tension between explanation and interpretation. Insofar as the strong program as it was defined by Alexander and Smith1 is proposed as a research program in the Lakatosian sense, and insofar as it intends to produce sociologists who present at annual meetings of sociological associations, address the discipline at large through publication in core sociological journals, and internalize the imperative to explain social behavior/action, then it necessarily takes on the burden of explanation and the problem of making clear to a set of scientistically inclined gatekeepers why “culture matters.” However, insofar as the strong program is “strong” precisely in its willingness to put meaning, rather than social structure as it has usually been conceived in sociology, at the center of its program of study, it engages a series of influences and imperatives from hermeneutics, poststructuralist theory, and the more literary and humanistic disciplines that are of only passing interest to most sociologists.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
Alexander, J. and P. Smith (2003). The Strong Program in Cultural Sociology: Elements of a Structural Hermeneutics. The Meanings of Social Life: A Cultural Sociology. New York, Oxford University Press: 11–26.
For example, Rabinow, P. and W. M. Sullivan (1979). Interpretive Social Science: A Reader. Berkeley, CA, University of California Press.
Jameson, F. (1987). The Politics of Theory: Ideological Positions in the Postmodernism Debate. Interpretive Social Science: A Second Look. P. Rabinow and W. M. Sullivan. Berkeley, CA, University of California Press: 351–64.
Geertz, C. (1988). Works and Lives: The Anthropologist as Author. Stanford, CA, Stanford University Press.
The language for this distinction, of course, derives from the distinction made by Hans Reichenbach (1938) and used extensively by Popper (2002) between the “context of discovery” and the “context of justification.” In their case, the purpose was to separate the psychological and social parts of science—how the scientist came upon her discoveries—from the philosophically specifiable logic that enabled scientific theories to be objectively justified. In technical terms, what I am calling the context of investigation would include both the context of discovery and the context of justification—indeed, Thomas Kuhn (1970) suggested that these two were not so easily separable and argued that the context of investigation as a whole, in natural scientific activity, was unified by a paradigm. Reichenbach, H. (1938). Experience and Prediction: An Analysis of the Foundations and the Structure of Knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Popper, K. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. New York: Routledge; Kuhn, T. 1996. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Reed, I. (2007). “Why Salem Made Sense: Culture, Gender, and the Puritan Persecution of Witchcraft.” Cultural Sociology 1 (2): 209–34.
Geertz, C. (2000c). Thick Description: Toward an Interpretive Theory of Culture. The Interpretation of Cultures. New York, Basic Books: 26.
Perhaps our interest in explaining certain phenomena rather than others is conditioned by our values, as suggested by Weber. But this explains that social facts “demand” explanation and not how we go about explaining them, which is what concerns me here. Weber, M. 1949. The Methodology of the Social Sciences. New York: The Free Press.
Boyer, P. S. and S. Nissenbaum (1972). Salem-Village Witchcraft: A Documentary Record of Local Conflict in Colonial New England. Belmont, CA, Wadsworth Pub. Co.
Macfarlane, A. (1970). Witchcraft in Tudor and Stuart England: A Regional and Comparative Study. New York, Harper & Row.
Thomas, K. (1971). Religion and the Decline of Magic. New York, Scribner.
Federici, S. (2003). Caliban and the Witch: Women, the Body and Primitive Accumulation. New York, London, Autonomedia Pluto.
Whitney, E. (1995). “International Trends: The Witch ‘She/The Historian ‘He’: Gender and the Historiography of the European Witch-Hunts.” Journal of Women’s History 7 (3): 77–101; Reed 2007.
Clark, S. (1980). “Inversion, Misrule, and the Meaning of Witchcraft.” Past and Present 87: 98–127.
Clark, S. (1997). Thinking with Demons: The Idea of Witchcraft in Early Modern Europe. New York, Oxford University Press.
Clark, S., Ed. (2001). Languages of Witchcraft: Narrative, Ideology, and Meaning. New York, St. Martin’s Press.
Ayer, A. J. (1947). Language, Truth, and Logic. London, V. Gollancz Ltd.
Erikson, K. (1966). Wayward Puritans: A Study in the Sociology of Deviance. New York, Wiley.
Benton, T. (1977). Philosophical Foundations of the Three Sociologies. Boston, Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Bhaskar, R. (1979). The Possibility of Naturalism: A Philosophical Critique of the Contemporary Human Sciences. Atlantic Highlands, NJ, Humanities Press.
Archer, M. S. (1995). Realist Social Theory: The Morphogenetic Approach. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Manicas, P. T. (2006). A Realist Philosophy of Social Science: Explanation and Understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press;
Reed, I. (2008). “Justifying Sociological Knowledge: From Realism to Interpretation.” Sociological Theory 26 (2).
Geertz, C. (2000b). Deep Play: Notes on the Balinese Cockfight. The Interpretation of Cultures, 441.
Obeyesekere, G. (1992). The Apotheosis of Captain Cook: European Mythmaking in the Pacific. Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press.
Sahlins, M. D. (1995). How “Natives” Think: About Captain Cook, For Example. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
Geertz, C. (2000a). Available Light: Anthropological Reflections on Philosophical Topics. Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press: 197.
Editor information
Copyright information
© 2011 Jeffrey C. Alexander, Philip Smith, and Matthew Norton
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Reed, I.A. (2011). Maximal Interpretation in Clifford Geertz and the Strong Program in Cultural Sociology: Toward a New Epistemology. In: Alexander, J.C., Smith, P., Norton, M. (eds) Interpreting Clifford Geertz. Cultural Sociology. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230118980_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230118980_7
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, New York
Print ISBN: 978-0-230-11172-1
Online ISBN: 978-0-230-11898-0
eBook Packages: Palgrave Social Sciences CollectionSocial Sciences (R0)