On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 12:37 PM, Alan Rudy <alan.rudy at gmail.com> wrote:
> I think this is mostly correct: a few extensions/clarifications.
>
> The meanings (plural) symbols (individually) come to possess are tied to
> their materiality, or material expression in linguistic forms, but - and
> this is the important moment for me - these meanings are bound up in
> cultural systems - they are bound up in networks of meanings. The reason I
> fought Charles' claims about human culture vs mere animal action is not so
> much because I think he's wrong but because my sense that culture, as he
> expressed it, was too simple... its definition too straightforwardly
> opposed
> to animal capacities
>
> I guess there are two things important to me. First, the symbolic meaning
> of an act/object is never singular - even within a culture (whatever that
> means, since the spatiotemporal boundaries of cultural practices are never
> clearcut) - because all acts/objects are engaged in an array of - always
> contested - meaning systems... think of the rabbinical traditions or
> standpoint epistemologies if you'd like. Second, my sense of the human
> condition is not one where we can clearly say that this or that aspect of
> human cultural practice is absolutely not shared by animals (as if that
> were
> a coherent category), it is one where we are better off saying that it is
> the qualitatively different, mutually reinforcing and dialectical ways
> humanity can and sometimes does actively engage material, individual and
> social networkings other species enter into a few at a time and with far
> less frequency - and as a result -with far less depth and historicity.
>
> I think Geertz is really useful but we need to remember that his writing in
> The Interpretation of Cultures occurs at the climax, and as the
> death-knell,
> of ethnocentric scientism/objectivism in cultural anthropology. His work
> then serves as one of the foundations for reflexive ethnographic writings
> which simultaneously introduce the author's thought process more
> transparently into ethnographic writing and decenter the author as a
> result. While this kind of public auto-deconstruction became all-but
> onanistic in its ironic playfulness at the height of post-modernism it also
> decentered the researcher, set the stage for reflexive ethnographies of
> advanced industrial social relations - including science - and contributed
> powerfully to the debate over feminist standpoint epistemology, situated
> knowledges and the democratization of scientific research - where research
> subjects actually gain some subjectivity.
>
> Everything from science as a labor process (see Robert Young et al in the
> Science as Culture collective) to cultural anthropological studies of
> laboratory practices (see Bruno Latour and Steve Woolgar or Karin Knorr
> Cetina) to sci/tech/med studies (see Langdon Winner, Donna Haraway, Rayna
> Rapp and/or Adele Clarke) all start to raise major epistemological
> questions
> about the status/activity/contribution of objects, natures, others/othering
> etc. to knowledge and culture. My sense is that Geertz' work is VERY
> useful
> but is also very situated in its late-60s production... it serves as a very
> readable introduction to more powerful and transformative recent material.
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 12:04 PM, Jeffrey Fisher <jeff.jfisher at gmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> > I see where you're going semiotically here, but this what Geertz is
> doing.
> > The symbol is the object/act. The meaning it carries is the abstract
> > concept, not an object. But he does think of these concepts/conceptions
> as
> > meaningful primarily in terms of their being expressed materially, which
> is
> > part of why any objects or acts can be symbols -- if they carry meaning.
> > This underscores the centrality of ritual, and religious doctrine (for
> > example) then is seen as important insofar as it matters for what people
> > actually do (whether in ritual strictly speaking, or in simply acting
> more
> > broadly). There is something William James about it, in that respect. But
> I
> > think it's fair to say that Geertz is very much in the tradition of
> > Durkheim
> > and Weber.
> > But Geertz is worth reading, imo, and I think the case is much more solid
> > than with Badiou. Everyone talks about the balinese cockfight essay, and
> > I'm
> > not dissing it, but for me the ones that have always mattered are "thick
> > description" and the essay on "religion as a cultural system," the latter
> > of
> > which I usually make students in religion classes read. Both are in _the
> > interpretation of cultures_. The problem, as Alan already noted, is his
> > emphasis on meaning. On the one hand, this is very compelling, and on the
> > other, it means (as it were) that he misses things. Myself, I'm fine with
> > that, because his approach to the question of religion, and of culture in
> > general, is useful.
> >
> > and i'm presuming that if
> > i've said anything wildly misleading, alan or someone will correct me.
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > > 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
> > > > >
> > > > ___________________________________
> > > > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> > > >
> > >
> > > __________________________________________________
> > > Do You Yahoo!?
> > > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> > > http://mail.yahoo.com
> > > ___________________________________
> > > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> > >
> > ___________________________________
> > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> >
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>