Symbolic and Interpretive Theories (Turner, Schneider and Geertz) | Anthropology Optional for UPSC PDF Download

Symbolic and Interpretive Theories
The major focus of symbolic anthropology is studying the ways in which people understand and interpret their surroundings, including the actions of the other members of their society. Leading proponents of this school include Clifford Geertz, Victor Turner and David Schneider.
Symbolic anthropology can be considered as a reaction to structuralism. Structuralism was grounded more in linguistics and this dissatisfaction can be seen in Geertz's article- "The Cerebral Savage: on the work of Claude Levi Strauss". Structuralism focused more on the meanings as they are derived from aspects of culture rather than derived from symbols. Secondly, structuralists focused on actions, not on actors while symbolic anthropologists believed in actor-centric actions. This split between the idealism of symbolic anthropologists and structuralists dominated around 1960-1970.
Symbolic Anthropology is also a reaction against materialism. Materialists define culture strictly in terms of overt, observable behavior patterns, and they share the belief that techno environmental factors are primary and causal, while symbolic anthropologists view cultures in terms of symbols and mental terms.
Symbolic anthropology views culture as independent system of meaning deciphered by interpreting key symbols and rituals. There are two major premises governing symbolic anthropology.
1. Beliefs, however unintelligible, become comprehensive when understood as part of a cultural system of meaning.
2. Actions are guided by interpretation, allowing symbolism to aid in interpreting- ideal as well as material activities.
Traditionally, symbolic anthropology has focused on religion, cosmology, critical activity and expressive, customs such as mythology and performing arts.

Approaches of Symbolic Anthropology
Symbolic Anthropology can be divided into two major approaches. The Interpretive Approach, associated with Clifford Geertz and The Symbolic Approach of Victor Turner.
According to Geertz, Man is in need of symbolic interpretation to orient himself with respect to the system of meaning that is any culture. This shows the interpretive approach to Symbolic Anthropology. Turner states that symbols constitute social action and they incline persons and groups to action. This shows the symbolic approach to Symbolic Anthropology.

Interpretive Approach
1. Geertz believes that analysis of culture should not be an experimental science in search of law but ah interpretive one, in search of meaning.
2. Culture is expressed by the external symbols that a society uses rather than being locked inside people's heads.

3. He defines culture as "a historically transmitted pattern of meanings embodied in symbols, a system of inherited conceptions expressed in symbolic forms by means of which men communicate, perpetuate and develop knowledge about and their attitudes towards life". 4. Societies use symbols to express their world view, Value-orientation, ethos and other aspects of culture.
5. Symbols are vehicles of culture, meaning that symbols should not be studied in and of themselves, but should be studied for what they can reveal to us about culture.
6. Geertz's main interest is in how symbols shape the ways that social actors see, feel and think about the world.

Symbolic Approach
1. Turners approach was very different from Geertz's interpretive approach. Turner was not interested in symbols as vehicles of culture but was instead interested in symbols as "operators in social process".
2. According to Turner, symbolic expressions of shared meanings, not material interests, those lie at the center of human relationships.
3. Symbols instigate social action and exert determinable influences on persons and groups to action.
4. Symbols i.e., operators by their arrangement and context produce social transformation.
5. Social Transformations tie the people in a society to the society's norms, resolve conflict and aid in changing the status of actors.

Methodology
1. Like all forms of cultural anthropology, symbolic anthropology is based on cross cultural comparison.
2. One of the major changes made by symbolic anthropology was the movement to a literary based rather than a science-based approach; ex; symbolic anthropology utilized literature from outside the bounds of traditional anthropology.
3. Symbolic anthropology examines symbols from different aspects of social life, rather than from one aspect at a time, isolated from the rest.
4. Symbolic anthropology focuses largely on culture as a whole rather than on specific aspects of culture that are isolated from one another.

Accomplishments
1. The major accomplishment of symbolic anthropology has been to turn anthropology towards issues of culture and interpretation rather than grand theories.
2. Symbolic anthropology helped anthropology turn to sources outside the bounds of traditional anthropology, such as philosophy and sociology.
3. Geertz's main contribution tb anthropological knowledge is in changing the ways in which American anthropologists viewed culture - from being concerned with the operations of culture to the way in which symbols act as vehicles of culture.
4. Another contribution can be seen in the emphasis of studying culture from perspective of those actors that exist within that culture.
5. Turner's major addition to anthropology was the investigation of how symbols actually operate i.e., do they actually function in ways in which symbolic anthropologists say they do.

Criticism
1. Marxists criticized symbolic anthropology for neglecting historical conditions crucial to the development of hon-cultural practices.
2. Marxists .also charge that symbolic anthropology  while describing social conduct and symbolic systems does not attempt to explain these systems, instead focusing on the individual systems themselves.
3. Another attack on symbolic anthropology came from cultural ecology. According to them, symbolic anthropology did not attempt to carry out their research in a manner so that other researchers could reproduce their results. Also, since different anthropologists could view the same symbol in different ways, it was attacked as being too subjective.