| 
  • If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • You already know Dokkio is an AI-powered assistant to organize & manage your digital files & messages. Very soon, Dokkio will support Outlook as well as One Drive. Check it out today!

View
 

Taking Sides Harris vs Geertz

Page history last edited by Anonymous 1 12 years, 7 months ago

This question comes right out of Taking Sides (p.191). Be sure you address the readings by Harris and Geertz in your answer. "Must all anthropologists have the same perspective, or is the discipline strengthened by having diverse theoretical points of view? Is there a middle ground between cultural materialism and an interpretive (or even a critical) anthropology." Why does Harris think there can be no middle ground?


electicism doesn't work

emma roberts

I believe that the discipline is strengthened by having diverse theoretical points of view. As I read in Harris’s book Cultural Materialism, he believes that the strength in science lies in it’s “falsifiable” theories, because we are not aloud to accept something so easily and must question and question, forcing ourselves to come up with better answers to the questions around us. Harris argues that “science is the best system yet devised for reducing subjective bias, error, untruths, lies, and frauds” and that because of this we must use science in all ethnography and as a general means to addressing the seemingly bizarre cultural phenomena that puzzle us every day. He does not acknowledge a middle ground because he believes that analysis must be consistent throughout and that theorists cannot “pick and choose” frameworks for analyzing culture. He addresses it much more in depth in Cultural Materialism, saying that he welcomes the search for other frameworks, but until someone can pose a better theory than cultural materialism, he views cultural materialism as by far the most accurate and well-shaped. He is strongly against eclecticism, and this alone is strong evidence that he does not support any sort of middle ground. Geertz also agrees that “eclecticism is self-defeating…(because) it is necessary to choose”, and how could we possibly know we are choosing the correct path. In short, I agree with both Harris and Geertz that there is too much obscurity and room for subjective error in eclecticism, and I agree with Harris that we should always question paradigms. However, I am hesitant to strongly align myself with one specific theory, because I guess I doubt humankind’s ability to explain “it all” so simply. I do like the emphasis that Geertz places on human agency (which I find Harris’s work to be lacking).

 

 

Taking Sides

EH

 

Harris’s cultural materialism is a way to look at the culture through the material conditions. For him and cultural materialists culture is “socially conditioned repertories of activities and thoughts that are associated with particular social groups or populations” (170). Whereas, Geertz think that culture is a web of significance thus, anthropology work should be an interpretative work to find the meanings.

 

Harris believes that there cannot be a middle ground between the two because he strongly believes that nothing can produce more objective, less biased and false information than science. He believes that "Anthropology’s goal should be to discover general, verifiable laws as in the other natural sciences" (168). He strongly believes in the cultural materialism as one can tell by the title of the article in The Taking Sides, “Cultural Materialism Is Alive and Well and Won’t Go Away Until Something better Comes Along.” He does not see the point of interpretative approach and he thinks that Clifford Geertz and interpretationist anthropologists “have adopted an increasing arrogant and intolerant rhetoric aimed at ridding Anthropology of all vestiges of scientific ‘totalizing’ paradigms” (172). Harris’s criticism to the science bashing, humanistic anthropology is obvious as he criticizes their ethnographic work as “idiosyncratic field studies carried out by un trained would-be novelists and ego-tripping narcissists afflicted with congenital logo-diarrhea” (172). With this hostility, it is implausible that Harris would consider a middle ground between his approach and interpretative anthropology.

 

I believe that anthropologists do not have to have a uniform perspective or methodology. Geertz mentions that there is no one answer to anthropology. (Thus, criticizes the scientific approach.) Anthropology is the study of human and human think differently thus, we shouldn’t limit to one perspective. The diversity in perspective is what gives us better understanding of cultures. Therefore, I would say that both Harris’s and Geertz’s approach should be accepted and not taken sides.

 

 

Harris and Geertz

Sara Ray

 

One point that Harris makes about science is one that is very applicable to the study of anthropology. He says "since one can only approach, never reach, perfection in regards to a scientific paradigm scientific theories are held as tentative approximations, never as 'facts.'" In considering the question at hand, I think this statement is the ultimate reason why I believe that we need many theories of anthropology, not just one. There is absolutely nothing on this earth more enigmatic than human behavior and we are never going to be able to nail down WHY anyone does anything, only observe patterns and make observations. To this end, anthropological "facts" are a lot like scientific facts-- generalizations that find their strength in the degree of their repetition. I, personally, found Harris' argument one that is compelling in a weaker form, that is, I don't think his total condemnation of other perspectives is warrnated. He does, however, make really good points in regards to effective ways to approach anthropology and I believe his argument is one that seeks to make anthropology a solid and verifiable field.

Geertz, however, takes a different stance totally and talks about the virtues of thick description and an emic perspective. To Geertz, the scientific method isn't useful within anthropology because it either provides generalizations that are far too general or far too specific, either way defeating the point of study. I think Geertz provides a remarkably useful way to approach the study of anthropology from an emic perspective, a perspective that even Harris conceds is an important one. Ultimately, I think the problem with both articles is that they argue about the overarching importance of one perspective (either etic or emic) and downplay the other when, in reality, there are scenarios when both approaches are useful.

I think the middle ground is that both sides have to concede the massive, all encompassing nature of anthropology. Not only is the field itself huge, but the ways in which it can be utilized are vast as well. There are times when a regulatory, scientific approach and the generalizations it yields will be more applicable to a situation and times when detailed, contextual thick description will be more applicable. Since the field we study will never find "FACTS" as much as "theories," both approaches are useful and necessary to use in anthropology.

 

Harris vs Geertz

Erin Neill

I feel very strongly that all anthropologists don't need to have the same perspective, rather I feel that many different perspectives and approaches are necessary to create a valid and varied body of study that can be used to its full potential. By finding a middle ground all sides are able to discover new perspectives, that when applied along with their previous knowledge and beliefs can allow for new understandings. I believe that the more varied the perspectives, the richer the field of anthropology is.

 

Although neither Harris or Geertz would likely not be able to agree on a middle ground between cultural materialism and an interpretive anthropology, both write about the need to embrace outside opinions and use facts sparingly in the case of generalizations. Harris writes that "cultural materialists seek probabilities rather than certainties" as a means to understand human culture (173). Harris makes it very clear that he does not feel that generalizations are always applicable or correct, but he does argue that they are effective in helping to understand many situations. Geertz writes that making generalizations is "an extension of our analysis to wider contexts that.... recommends them to general attention and justifies our constructing them" (187). Geertz recognizes the importance of such statements in anthropology despite dismissing all scientific means by which such generalizations are made. Clearly there is some middle ground, despite both authors dismissal of the idea. Harris writes that "science bashers are not mollified" by the claims of cultural materialists and that any objections are minimal if not entirely fallacies. Finally Harris writes that as long as anthropologists refuse positive social science, they will continue to see the world as they believe it, eliminating any possibility of middle ground.

 

Re: Julia's Response

Erin Neill

 

I strongly agree with Julia that Harris is difficult to like given the way that he dismisses the field of interpretive anthropology with constant name calling. In fact, I think it represents a major problem in anthropology of theorists that are far to stubborn to be objective. Someone like Harris who feels he needs to deride all those who feel differently than he does seems to be exposing a weakness in his own theories. His scientific model doesn't allow for the intricacies of human relationships that Geertz discusses. Such intricacies in the use of language are well demonstrated by the words that Harris uses to display his discontent with interpretive anthropologists, ultimately showing the holes in his argument concerning a cultural materialist anthropology. Julia is exactly right in saying that Harris is missing the point.

 

 

Re: Erin's Post

Lindsey Scott

 

I agree with Erin's post, especially with the main point that there needs to be different perspectives in order to fully understand what is being studied. Erin also brings up that Geertz and Harris would not agree on a middle ground between cultural materialism and interpretive anthropology, and again I feel as though she is correct. I think that Geertz and Harris would have a very hard time finding a middle ground between them, though they are open to outside opinions. It is interesting to see the common trait in Harris and Geertz's beliefs about generalization: they are necessary, though Geertz believes they are more important in understanding human behavior while Harris thinks they are useful in explaining ideas. I think that until anthropologists explore every perspective and find some middle ground, anthropology as a field will not be as "full" or "bountiful" as it could be.

 

Response

Dave Schatz

 

When I saw the readings and the subject we would be exploring this week, as well as this question, I knew there would be some strong viewpoints taken. I think that all of the posts thus far offer insightful answers to the question. Personally, I am not really swayed by either Harris' or Geertz's main arguments, stances taken to determine the valid road toward successful anthropology. Upon reading their articles, depending on the person reading, you either feel a stale, strict sense about Harris' interpretation on anthropology, or you feel that Geertz's interpretation is too free, spread too thin for anthropological goals.

 

Harris' account rests in logical positivism, a movement among several logicians and philosophers, which sought to determine what was science and what was not. The ultimate determinants arrived, first, in the form of formulas that "proved" testability and logical truth among other things. Several amendments to this basic formula later, and several critiques of the form by other philosopher, we arrive at the decline and fade of logical positivism. You simply cannot make a model that encompasses all that is accepted by science. It is important to note that the 5 criteria that Harris draws upon for the sciences, claiming that anthropology holds true to all 5, come from Kuhn's characteristics of good scientific theory. These criteria are probably the weakest part of Harris' argument for anthropology as a strict science. Criteria like "broad scope" and "fruitfulness" are highly subjective, the exact thing that society prescribes as the least scientific, the very concept Harris himself claims as weak. Harris says that anthropology should develop laws, but laws are only as firm as their founders and foundations. If the anthropological community at large does not believe in the framework of a law, then how strong is this cultural law. Laws are also supposed to be all-encompassing, yet studies of culture are culture-specific, so how far can those laws really go, and how do we know that the law has been tested for all cases?

 

Geertz's interpretation is a little vague. How can anthropology avoid natural science models, yet still be considered a "science of interpretation"? Although I do agree that anthropology has principle ties to ethnography, and thus has a data set, there may be some issues with comparison. Science is often seen as a progression of ideas, and thick description, as Harris argues, seems like a road to nowhere. What do we actually find out when we describe cultures to the fullest, making interpretations of them based on what we find?

 

I think both accounts have flaws, but both have pieces of interpretations that we should take into the field. Anthropology does not have to be classified as a science per se (science is a cultural construct in itself) in order to yield data. In any science not all data stand alone, and theoretical interpretations are necessary. The only way we can avoid generalizations, however, is to "test" several cultures on similar grounds. Without a basis of study, a goal, anthropology has no skeleton, and its findings would be meaningless. I don't know if there is a clear answer here, but I can say that every single anthropologist has a concept of what anthropology is seeking to tell us about culture. Based on this very foundational answer, the testing goes from there. We shouldn't tell people to put on the same set of glasses to see the cultures of the world, because it skews the real color. But we also should not be so free as to take off all glasses and rely on vision out of focus.

 

Re: Julia's Response

Lauren Deal

 

I agree with Erin and Julia. What is difficult to swallow with Harris is how limiting his approach is. He has a very strict focus and is dismissive of anything that doesn't fit with in it. I think that Geertz's thick description is able to handle a lot of the subject matter that Harris is interested in without dismissing the rest of culture. Geertz's interpre approach is very holistic and, in my opinion a much stronger, and realisitc approach. As Geertz says, how scientific can something be if the scientist can't control any of the variables. The most we are able to do is to attempt to interpret what we witness.

 

Re: Julia's Response

Sara Coburn

 

I absolutely agree with Julia and Erin. It does make Harris very hard to like because he dismisses interpretive anthropology so fevently. I think it is to Harris' and the cultural materialists' disadvantage to not look at the value in having more than one methodology for studying people. While I think interpretive anthropology can sometimes be so interpretive that it cannot necessarily tell us something concrete and stable, I do think that cultural materialism is far more limiting because it takes away the non-scientific aspects of anthropology that makes anthropology what it is. Anthropology is a social science, and while there should be standardized methods of performing field work, the actual analysis of the work at hand cannot and should not be boxed in by natural science laws. That is why we have 4 main disciplines of anthropology. I think biological anthropology is even worse off than cultural anthropology. At least cultural anthropologists (most) agree that the study of culture cannot be reduced to scientific theory. Biological anthropology, on the other hand, is caught truly in the middle between interpretive anthropology and cultural materialism....biological anthropology requires both scientific law but with an interpretive eye.

 

Dear Clifford and Marvin:  Why Can't We All Just Get Along?

Abigail Parker

Marvin Harris and Clifford Geertz are juxtaposed in Taking Sides, to give the impression that they are two diametrically opposed positions, however their essays are ideologically compatible.  Furthermore, anthropology is enriched by the incorporation of both a cultural materialist and interpretive view.

 

First of all, Harris and Geertz are not even arguing directly opposing points.  A close look at Harris's essay reveals he focuses on getting anthropologists to use the scientific method as a thought process.  He realizes that science is not just cell mitosis and chemical reactions; it is a method of hypothesis-retest-refute-theorize.  (171-173)  Early on, Harris characterizes anthropology as the "central intellectual experience of anthropology is not enthnography [sic] but the exchange of data and theories among different fields and subfields concerned with the global, comparative, diachronic, and synchronic study of humankind" (170).  He simply sees science as the best way for experts in a field to construct a textual dialogue, and sees positivism as the only way for anthropology to continue.  "The problem is not," Harris concludes, "that we have had too much of positivist social science but that we have had too little" (179).

 

Geertz on the other hand focuses on what practitioners of anthropology actually do (181), in other words analysis and interpretation of ethnographic data.  This, for Geertz is multi-faceted, and perhaps best illustrated early on, when Geertz describes culture as "man is an animal suspended in webs of significance" (180).  Every action, every reaction, is interpreted very differently by individuals -- often the ethnographer is interpreting interpretations of interpretations.  In this context, trying to approximate some notion of scientific "truth" seems rather silly and hopelessly futile.  It's not as though an etic view can do an event justice, as sometimes the interpretation is the defining characteristic of an action (e.g. a wink versus an eye tic).  This is why anthropologist must recognize that "cultural analysis is intrinsically incomplete" (188).

 

Ultimately, I don't see any reason why these two ideas are incompatible in one's view of anthropology.  I agree with Harris, that the scientific method of retesting and hypothesising is an incredibly useful paradigm for doing anthropological work.  Furthermore, cultural materialism is arguably the only way to do work in branches of anthropology like archaeology.  However, I don't think that one should limit anthropology to a scientific field.  An interpretive angle is necessary in understanding complicated structures, and enriches our understanding of the human experience. 

 

Taking Sides

Sara Coburn

No, I do not think that all anthropologists must have the same perspective. Having diverse theoretical points of view absolutely strengthens the discipline because opposing thoughts inherently lead to discussion and each is forced to critically think about their own point of view to prove it, but they also will have to acknowledge the other’s point of view in order to figure out if they agree or disagree. I think that multiple schools of thoughts in the same discipline is beneficial to all anthropologists because it helps us to build our own frames of thought by studying others. From there we can take pieces of the past and borrow them and rearrange them to create new theories.

 

 

 

On another note, I think it’s is extremely difficult to find a “middle ground” between cultural materialism and interpretive anthropology. Both theories are at such opposite ends of the spectrum that I find it hard to think of Geertz and Harris even handling sitting at opposite ends of a room together! The reading by Marvin Harris, “The Cultural Ecology of India’s Sacred Cattle,” is a paper dedicated to explaining the economic benefits of the religious beliefs of the Hindu and the involvement of the cattle. While Harris does bring up some interesting thoughts that perhaps cultural and religious beliefs do have a scientific, testable explanation, I do think that Harris is missing out on the larger picture of the sacred cattle in India. Harris is too wrapped up in explaining the cultural ecology and rationale for preserving cattle that he ignores the emic view of the people he is studying. NOT TO MENTION HE DID NOT EVEN GO TO INDIA! This is a huge no-no in my opinion. I think his lack of field work makes his view even weaker because he is essentially just trying to explain away why Hindu consider cattle sacred by looking at history and economic interest.

 

 

 

Geertz, on the other hand, is much more in-touch with the idea that to study the scope of human culture is virtually something that will never be able to fit into a scientific definition. Each culture, according to Geertz, is worthy of its own value judgment and cannot and should not be based from a law-based philosophy. Touching on Geertz’s paper on the significance of cockfighting in Balinese culture, I think Geertz is clever to look at symbolic meaning behind actions because it takes us away from rationalizing Balinese culture in Western terms. Personally, when I was staying in a rural community in El Salvador, I met an older man and he loved to make cock jokes. At first, I want to rationalize his love for chicken jokes and near obsession with chickens, but when I take a step back and think about what Geertz would think, I realize that I need to go deep within the culture and think like one of them.

 

 

 

Anthropology IS subjective and it always will be. For better and for worse, anthropology is largely interpretive and even Harris, whether he likes it or not, is interpreting culture because he is actively deciding that culture can be scientifically studied. Any way you look at culture, it is interpretive. Science is in a sense interpretive. I think that Harris thinks that there can be no middle ground because he views science as so absolute and giving of definitive answers, that anything outside the realm of logical and explainable from a scientific methods point of view is not valid.

 

 

 

I think there must be some sort of middle ground. I am not sure where it is exactly, but I personally lean on the side of Geertz.

 

Comments (0)

You don't have permission to comment on this page.