[lbo-talk] Blue Dogs cashing in

[Jeffrey Fisher]

//
Geertz’s theoretical contributions start with his definitions and
descriptions of culture.  For Geertz, culture is “an historically
transmitted pattern of meanings embodied in symbols, a system of inherited
conceptions expressed in symbolic forms by means of which men [sic!]
communicate, perpetuate, and develop their knowledge about and their
attitudes toward life” (Geertz 1973d:89).  In an alternative (and more
quoted) formulation, Geertz states, “Believing, with Max Weber, that man
[srsly!] is an animal suspended in webs of significance he himself has spun,
I take culture to be those webs, and the analysis of it to be therefore not
an experimental science in search of law but an interpretative in search of
meaning” (Geertz 1973f:5).

              Geertz, following Wittgenstein’s stance on language, believes
that culture is not something that occurs in the heads of humans; “Culture
is public, because meaning is” (Geertz 1973f:12).  Cognition is largely the
same throughout humanity (Geertz 1973f:13), while the symbols that people
use to communicate are different.  Symbols are not to be studied to gain
access to mental processes, but as formations of social phenomena.
//

from http://www.indiana.edu/~wanthro/theory_pages/Geertz.htm<http://www.indiana.edu/%7Ewanthro/theory_pages/Geertz.htm>

as for the definition of symbol, basically a symbol is anything that serves
as a "vehicle" for a concept/ion, which is its meaning. this can be an act
or an object. he also uses the framework of symbols as being "extrinsic
sources of information." this could be more precise, but i think the failure
to rigorously distinguish between sign and symbol, as chuck notes (or to
draw on peirce even further, for example), doesn't really vitiate the
project. but clearly it's important that the whole thing is public int he
sense of being out there in the world, somehow, not just in our heads.
symbols, and so meaning, are fundamentally social, unless i really
misunderstand geertz, and i sure hope i don't. i don't have the essay right
here, so i can't quote him directly on the definition of symbol, but
hopefully alan or someone else can correct or bring more in line, if that's
necessary.

how did we get to be talking about this in the first place? i have lost the
thread of this thread.

On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 2:18 PM, Chris Doss <lookoverhere1 at yahoo.com> wrote:


>
> Is meaning defined circularly, so that to have meaning and/or be a concept
> something has to be defined using symbols? (Never having read Geertz.)
>
>
> --- On Tue, 8/11/09, Jeffrey Fisher <jeff.jfisher at gmail.com> wrote:
> > yeah, not to get into semiology. i
> > was thinking of the way geertz talks
> > about modeling, and this comes out in his definition of
> > religion, which is
> > my main work with geertz. but alan is on this -- for geertz
> > it's about
> > meaning. concepts. symbols are abstract representations of
> > concepts, i think
> > is what he says? and the important part for geertz is
> > meaning.
> >
>
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>