Skip to main content

Maximal Interpretation in Clifford Geertz and the Strong Program in Cultural Sociology: Toward a New Epistemology

  • Chapter
Interpreting Clifford Geertz

Part of the book series: Cultural Sociology ((CULTSOC))

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  2. For example, Rabinow, P. and W. M. Sullivan (1979). Interpretive Social Science: A Reader. Berkeley, CA, University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  3. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Geertz, C. (1988). Works and Lives: The Anthropologist as Author. Stanford, CA, Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  5. 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.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  6. Popper, K. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. New York: Routledge; Kuhn, T. 1996. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  7. Reed, I. (2007). “Why Salem Made Sense: Culture, Gender, and the Puritan Persecution of Witchcraft.” Cultural Sociology 1 (2): 209–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Geertz, C. (2000c). Thick Description: Toward an Interpretive Theory of Culture. The Interpretation of Cultures. New York, Basic Books: 26.

    Google Scholar 

  9. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  10. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Macfarlane, A. (1970). Witchcraft in Tudor and Stuart England: A Regional and Comparative Study. New York, Harper & Row.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  12. Thomas, K. (1971). Religion and the Decline of Magic. New York, Scribner.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Federici, S. (2003). Caliban and the Witch: Women, the Body and Primitive Accumulation. New York, London, Autonomedia Pluto.

    Google Scholar 

  14. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Clark, S. (1980). “Inversion, Misrule, and the Meaning of Witchcraft.” Past and Present 87: 98–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Clark, S. (1997). Thinking with Demons: The Idea of Witchcraft in Early Modern Europe. New York, Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Clark, S., Ed. (2001). Languages of Witchcraft: Narrative, Ideology, and Meaning. New York, St. Martin’s Press.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Ayer, A. J. (1947). Language, Truth, and Logic. London, V. Gollancz Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Erikson, K. (1966). Wayward Puritans: A Study in the Sociology of Deviance. New York, Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Benton, T. (1977). Philosophical Foundations of the Three Sociologies. Boston, Routledge & Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Bhaskar, R. (1979). The Possibility of Naturalism: A Philosophical Critique of the Contemporary Human Sciences. Atlantic Highlands, NJ, Humanities Press.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Archer, M. S. (1995). Realist Social Theory: The Morphogenetic Approach. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  23. Manicas, P. T. (2006). A Realist Philosophy of Social Science: Explanation and Understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press;

    Book  Google Scholar 

  24. Reed, I. (2008). “Justifying Sociological Knowledge: From Realism to Interpretation.” Sociological Theory 26 (2).

    Google Scholar 

  25. Geertz, C. (2000b). Deep Play: Notes on the Balinese Cockfight. The Interpretation of Cultures, 441.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Obeyesekere, G. (1992). The Apotheosis of Captain Cook: European Mythmaking in the Pacific. Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Sahlins, M. D. (1995). How “Natives” Think: About Captain Cook, For Example. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  28. Geertz, C. (2000a). Available Light: Anthropological Reflections on Philosophical Topics. Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press: 197.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Editor information

Jeffrey C. Alexander Philip Smith Matthew Norton

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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics