Anth Elec 211

Anthropological Theory
The Symbolic Turn
Parallel Developments: The symbolic turn in anthropology ran parallel to developments
in various other anthropological approaches, including nomothetic, materialist, ecological,
cognitive, and bio-behavioral perspectives.

British and American Contexts: In Britain, traditional social analysis rooted in

Durkheimian structuralism and structural-functionalism had started to show limitations, as
it was seen as static and lacked focus on the flexible nature of social and cultural meaning.
In the United States, a new generation of anthropologists found Boasian-inspired
frameworks to be ethnocentric and rigid, leading to the emergence of interpretive
anthropology.

Concern for Meaning: The symbolic turn was driven by a growing concern for
understanding the systematic character of cultural meaning and its central role in social
and political change across different cultures.
Critique of Structuralism: Structuralist theories, in their various forms, were criticized
for emphasizing that culture constrained or controlled people rather than serving or
enabling them. This dominion of structures was seen as unacceptable by a growing
number of anthropologists.

Rediscovery of Max Weber: The rediscovery of Max Weber's theories, particularly in the
United States, stimulated a new interest in the importance of meaning and human agency
in shaping culture and society.

Symbolic Anthropology: The symbolic turn was characterized by the emergence of

symbolic anthropology, which focused on exploring the role of symbols and interpretation
in understanding cultural meaning and social change.

Empirical Research: Symbolic and interpretive anthropologists aimed to conduct sound

empirical research in the anthropological tradition. They rejected the idea that culture was
merely a reflex of material conditions.
Roots in Neo-Kantian Philosophy: The roots of symbolic anthropology in Britain and
interpretive anthropology in the United States can be traced indirectly to the neo-Kantian
philosophy of Wilhelm Dilthey and others. This distinction separated natural sciences from
social sciences and emphasized the subjective understanding of cultural life as "lived
experience."

Interpenetrating Networks of Symbols: Symbolic and interpretive anthropologists shared the

belief that human societies are distinctive because of their capacity for culture. They
emphasized that social and cultural life is held together by networks of symbols, each carrying
cultural meaning.

Differences and Impact: While symbolic and interpretive anthropologists shared common
ground in their focus on meaning and symbols, there were clear differences between the two
schools, shaped by the respective research traditions and contexts in Britain and the United
States. These differences had a significant impact on the character of their research.
 Victor Turner and
Symbolic Anthropology
Background: Victor Turner, a significant figure in British anthropology, was born in
Glasgow, Scotland, and initially had an interest in poetry and classics. He later turned his
attention to anthropology after serving in World War II and became a student of Max
Gluckman.

Early Work: Turner's early research, based on fieldwork among the Ndembu of Northern
Rhodesia (now Zambia), emphasized the importance of ritual in maintaining social order.
His findings were published in the influential monograph "Schism and Continuity in an
African Society" (1957).

Shifting Perspective: Over the 1960s, Turner moved away from the previous generation
of structural-functionalists and shifted his focus from concrete institutions to the systems
of symbolic logic that connect people. This perspective had similarities with Lévi-Strauss's
structuralism, emphasizing the role of symbols.
Problematic Social Unity: Turner challenged the idea that social unity is natural and
believed that people are forced to construct social life against natural forces that threaten to
destroy it. Symbols play a key role in organizing this solidarity, serving as instruments for
the reproduction of social order.

Symbolic Instruments: Turner explored how various objects and actions in rituals function
as complex instrumental symbols. These symbols are the "means to the ends" of specific
rituals, such as using rootlets from fruit-bearing trees to enhance female fertility.

Dominant Symbols: Turner introduced the concept of "dominant" symbols, which played
multivocal and ubiquitous roles in various rituals. These symbols could represent
conflicting interests within the Ndembu community, revealing the conflicted nature of
social order.
Symbolism and Social Integration: Turner argued that Ndembu social integration and
coherence had to be forcibly maintained against self-destructive tendencies. Symbols,
particularly dominant symbols, played a crucial role in achieving unity and continuity.

The Forest of Symbols: Much of Turner's theoretical exposition on symbols and symbolic
performance was published in his widely read collection of ethnographic essays titled "The
Forest of Symbols" (1967).

Influence of Arnold van Gennep: Turner revitalized the ideas of Arnold van Gennep, who
had earlier proposed the concept of the "ritual process." Van Gennep's work "The Rites of
Passage" (1959) influenced Turner's concept of ritual, including the stages of "separation,"
"transition," and "incorporation."
Liminality and Anti-Structure: Turner's theory included the concept of "liminality,"
where rituals create a liminal period in which social "structure" is temporarily undone. He
termed this temporary negation of social structure as "anti-structure." This concept was
applicable to various transitional rites and events, such as coronation ceremonies, death
rituals, and carnivals.

Communitas: Turner argued that anti-structure and liminality lead to creative possibilities
and a newfound solidarity, referred to as "communitas." This reintegration and increased
awareness of the social order occur after periods of inversion and transformation of norms
and identities in ritual contexts. Turner's ideas align with Durkheim's notion that rituals are
emotionally effervescent events.
 Clifford Geertz and
Interpretive Anthropology
Background: Geertz was a prominent figure in the development of interpretive
anthropology, and he studied philosophy as an undergraduate at Antioch College before
pursuing graduate studies at Harvard, which had an interdisciplinary Department of Social
Relations.

Influence of Talcott Parsons: Geertz studied under Talcott Parsons, a renowned

American sociologist who emphasized the importance of individual motivations and goals
in understanding social interaction. Parsons's ideas, particularly the incorporation of
Weberian agency into a structural-functional framework, influenced Geertz's approach.

Cultural Meaning and Values: Geertz's work focused on understanding culture through
the lens of integrated moral values that preserve the correspondence between the world "as
it is" and "as it should be." He believed that culture is based on a coherent system of
symbols that make the world intelligible, and he considered culture to be a network of
meaningful signifiers on public display.
Ethnographic Method: Geertz introduced the concept of "thick description" as a research
technique for ethnographers to reveal the fine details of human life that make behavior
intelligible. This method involves interpreting the "text" of culture through the examination of
various layers of meaning in rituals and social practices.
Interpretive Perspective: Geertz used the interpretive perspective to analyze the "Balinese
cockfight" in one of his famous essays. He argued that the significance of this ritual was in its
ability to convey multiple messages about the cultural ethos, specifically the status
competition between individuals in a hierarchical and gendered social environment. Geertz
believed that such rituals symbolically performed hidden social relations, making them
publicly meaningful.
Symbolic Microcosm: Geertz viewed the cockfight as a symbolic microcosm of Balinese
society, a collective story that the Balinese tell themselves about their social relations. It
allowed participants and observers to emotionally engage with and understand their social
world.
Legacy: Geertz remains an iconic figure among American anthropologists, known for infusing
Weberian corrections to earlier ethnocentric approaches. Despite the rise of postmodernism in
the twenty-first century, his work is highly respected, and he is considered one of the most
Post-Processual Archaeology
Disenchantment with New Archaeology: Many archaeologists were dissatisfied with
the scientific approach of Lewis Binford's New Archaeology, which emphasized
Cartesian rationalism and objectivity. They believed that archaeology was more closely
aligned with history than science and preferred holistic explanations similar to Boasian
particularism.

Shift to Interpretive Perspective: In the 1980s, British archaeologist Ian Hodder

formalized the interpretive, contextual, or "post-processual" archaeology. This
perspective rejected the quest for law-like processes of culture change and embraced the
idea that archaeological interpretation is subjective, requiring scrutiny of biases.
Cultural Discourse and Power: Hodder's "contextual" perspective argued that artifacts
are embedded in cultural "discourse" that affirms social relations and empowers
privileged groups. It focused on the interplay of cultural meaning and social power.

Landscape Archaeology: Post-processual archaeology evolved into landscape

archaeology, where the spatial distribution of artifacts and features becomes a cultural
landscape that integrates meaningful elements of nature. This approach abandoned purely
positivist scientific objectivity.

Critiques and Inclusivity: Post-processual archaeology helped integrate archaeology

with cultural anthropology and introduced non-traditional voices, including those of
women and Indigenous communities, into archaeological research.
 The Influence of Symbolic
and Interpretive Approaches
Growing Apprehension: Symbolic and interpretive approaches coincided with a growing
apprehension within anthropology that claims to authoritative knowledge were tenuous in
the late 20th-century academic environment.

Political Economy Perspective: In the mid-1970s, political economy emerged as a

perspective emphasizing history and objectivity, opposing symbolic and interpretive
anthropology. It argued that cultures were translocal phenomena shaped by power and
material resources. It criticized symbolic approaches for not accommodating social
change.
Postmodern Turn: The postmodern paradigm, popular in the 1980s and 1990s,
challenged even the theoretical distinction between the observer and the observed. It can
be seen as having anthropological antecedents in the analyses of symbols and meaning
by Turner, Geertz, and Hodder.

Critique of Transactionalism: Transactionalism, which emphasized individual cultural

agents, was criticized for its narrow, prepolitical, overly rational, and unhistorical
perspective of individual actions. This critique deepened the concern for understanding
social integration and structure in anthropology.
Post-processual archaeology and the influence of symbolic and interpretive
approaches represented a shift away from purely scientific and positivist views,
embracing subjectivity, cultural discourse, and inclusivity in anthropological research.
These developments also fueled a broader discussion on the nature of social
integration and structure within the field of anthropology.