Geertz, and I know this for a fact ,was never happy about being called a "podermodernist," in fact he was strongly against it. Rather, he became a particularist later in his career, a much more apt term form someone who studies a group of people on their own terms without imposing anthropological categories on them, or at least not without explicitly defining those categories. Deciphering between a "twitch" and a "wink" isn't necessarily postmodern.
... and he believed that anthropology's task is "sorting out the structures of signification in order to determine their social ground and import." He also says "what makes other cultures different is a lack of familiarity with the imaginative universe within which their acts are signs", hardly the viewpoint of someone who "didn't even RESPECT other cultures as a life style"
Furthermore, to espouse that Geertz and other postmodernists "were justifying bullshit or manipulating for their own self interest." Seems excessive. What obvious gains did Geertz ascertain by his "manipulation"?
Geertz was simply trying to demonstrate the changing relationships between the observer and the observed, the text and its subject, etc. During his prominence it became a relevant point of inquiry, and he wanted to highlight aspects of semiotics that are often ambiguous.
Clifford Geertz is Phillipe Petain of American anthropology. Geertz betrayed what Anthropologists should have stood for. Thanks his creative writing, now American sociocultural anthropologists have no interest in science of human-the idea which Boaz stood for.
Today, All those so-called "activists" care are "interpreting cultures" for their political interest in the name of relativism. For them, culture is only toys which can manipulated.
I didn't attack HIM in person, but i dislike his ideas.
The degree of objectivity that is possible to be obtained through social science is a major issue for postmodern anthropologists. The fact that Geertz raised and promoted the significance of this question has very little to do with the relevance of scientific inquiry in regards to human documentation and understating.
This is not to say his ideas and theories are not flawed; they are. But they opened doors that warranted prying
Science can hardly be objective does not mean that postmodernists can justify bullshit, or manipulate information for their self-interest.
i am mad on Geertz because he didn't even RESPECT other cultures as a life style (for him, culture is only a "game"), like most of American anthropologists today. If all cultures are "interpretative", why do we even NEED anthropologists? All we need are propagandists who "interpret" other culture for their own interest!
There's no need for such broad statements ("...like most american anthropologists today"). You argument is valid but these generalizations detract greatly from what you're saying. Of all the anthropologists i've studied and worked with, i can't think of one, not one, that "didn't even respect other cultures as a life style". Such an inference would be not only counterproductive. Maybe this applies to Geertz, maybe not, but to apply it to "most american anthropologists today" is flawed thinking.
I want him to cough so badly.....
123theref 1 week ago
podrian subir una con subtitulos en español!!!???
elcar98 2 months ago
I LOVE THIS INTERVIEW.
llvf1 9 months ago
@llvf1
good to know
something else ?
YunaBonbeurre 7 months ago
Loving it!
llvf1 9 months ago
Geertz, and I know this for a fact ,was never happy about being called a "podermodernist," in fact he was strongly against it. Rather, he became a particularist later in his career, a much more apt term form someone who studies a group of people on their own terms without imposing anthropological categories on them, or at least not without explicitly defining those categories. Deciphering between a "twitch" and a "wink" isn't necessarily postmodern.
MrVitaactiva 1 year ago 2
cultures are toys that are manipulated daily.
human808 2 years ago
... and he believed that anthropology's task is "sorting out the structures of signification in order to determine their social ground and import." He also says "what makes other cultures different is a lack of familiarity with the imaginative universe within which their acts are signs", hardly the viewpoint of someone who "didn't even RESPECT other cultures as a life style"
fluic 2 years ago 4
Furthermore, to espouse that Geertz and other postmodernists "were justifying bullshit or manipulating for their own self interest." Seems excessive. What obvious gains did Geertz ascertain by his "manipulation"?
Geertz was simply trying to demonstrate the changing relationships between the observer and the observed, the text and its subject, etc. During his prominence it became a relevant point of inquiry, and he wanted to highlight aspects of semiotics that are often ambiguous.
fluic 2 years ago 5
Thanks for uploading!
bremckee 2 years ago
Clifford Geertz is Phillipe Petain of American anthropology. Geertz betrayed what Anthropologists should have stood for. Thanks his creative writing, now American sociocultural anthropologists have no interest in science of human-the idea which Boaz stood for.
Today, All those so-called "activists" care are "interpreting cultures" for their political interest in the name of relativism. For them, culture is only toys which can manipulated.
I didn't attack HIM in person, but i dislike his ideas.
inferno0020 2 years ago
The degree of objectivity that is possible to be obtained through social science is a major issue for postmodern anthropologists. The fact that Geertz raised and promoted the significance of this question has very little to do with the relevance of scientific inquiry in regards to human documentation and understating.
This is not to say his ideas and theories are not flawed; they are. But they opened doors that warranted prying
fluic 2 years ago
Science can hardly be objective does not mean that postmodernists can justify bullshit, or manipulate information for their self-interest.
i am mad on Geertz because he didn't even RESPECT other cultures as a life style (for him, culture is only a "game"), like most of American anthropologists today. If all cultures are "interpretative", why do we even NEED anthropologists? All we need are propagandists who "interpret" other culture for their own interest!
inferno0020 2 years ago
There's no need for such broad statements ("...like most american anthropologists today"). You argument is valid but these generalizations detract greatly from what you're saying. Of all the anthropologists i've studied and worked with, i can't think of one, not one, that "didn't even respect other cultures as a life style". Such an inference would be not only counterproductive. Maybe this applies to Geertz, maybe not, but to apply it to "most american anthropologists today" is flawed thinking.
fluic 2 years ago
Great to see the grand old man up on YouTube. Ayabaya we owe you our thanks.
*****subscribed.
formless777 2 years ago
En español?? Sustitulos por favor
fakuh81 2 years ago
True dat!
MrChinnery1 2 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
hehe
HEY! lets meet up! MSG me on M.S.N. vV
HalFGOoN1212 3 years ago
Great Post -- Just seeing Geertz makes me want to watch a Balinese cockfight.
mandescending 3 years ago 10
I know what you mean, though there's plenty of 'deep play' going on in this interview!
LadyPuddleton 2 years ago
@mandescending why?
llvf1 9 months ago
@mandescending
amen
YunaBonbeurre 7 months ago
great post, thanks alot! Clifford is our man!
dainbramage777 3 years ago
Is this video really 59:02 long?? O_o isnt that like against the rules or something?
ghostboy07 3 years ago
Fascinating!
cvjucla3 3 years ago
Great! Thanks for posting!
zsand83 4 years ago