How Geertz Helped to Socialize Ryle
I have not uploaded a post for couple of months so I decided to write a short post about what currently occupies me. My blog is not dead, not yet!
First of all, I work on a paper for the annual conference of AntropoWeb which will be held in Pilsen from 17 to 19 October this year. My paper will be about my experience with studying anthropology at the Durham University. To be honest the word “work” is far from being true - I have not started yet. But I will start... soon. Do not worry if you are unable to take part, the subsequent article will be in English.
Secondly, I work on a paper about the famous anthropologist, all-star intellectual who helped a vast public make sense of the human condition (in Robert Darnton’s words), Clifford Geertz. I have been engaged with Geertz’s theory since wrote my first really academic article. In that article I argued that Geertz’s theory of religion contributes little to our understanding of religion and that very similar framework for studying religions was put forward by Émile Durkheim. The article will be online in September here. Unfortunately, it is not in English.
The article I currently work on goes much deeper (and it will be written in my idiosyncratic English!). I would like to demonstrate that Geertz’s theory is based on two mutually incommensurable theories. The first one comes from American sociologist Talcott Parsons, the second one is a result of the thinking of thoughts of an Oxonian philosopher Gilbert Ryle. One of Geertz’s real contributions is that he utilized Ryle’s ideas for the purposes of social sciences - as Durkheim socialized Kant, Geertz in a similar fashion socialized Ryle.
 |
| You can call it procrastination. |
I started this paper as a summative for the Key Issues module at the Durham University. Since then I have received some feedback, read more relevant stuff and made some progress. Step by step I am coming nearer to the summit of my writing. And as a part of my research I have read Gilbert Ryle’s famous book The Concept of Mind. Anthropologists often say that you do not have to read philosophy in order to be a good anthropologist. But I strongly disagree with that. To be honest The Concept of Mind helped me more than The Interpretation of Cultures to understand The Interpretation of Cultures. And Ryle’s book is also very helpful if you want to understand Pierre Bourdieu’s Outline of a Theory of Practice. There is a striking similarity of arguments but Ryle is much easier to read, is he not?
I do not want to draw premature conclusions in my blog post. Moreover, there is still a lot of work to be done (e.g. reading Talcott Parsons, oh my god). But if you allow me to anticipate my verdict, go and google images for “clifford geertz”. Then look for Michel Foucault...
I agree with you on philosophy. Philosophy influences other social sciences... and especially anthropology... I found that out while doing my fieldwork in the dog shelter in Durham... I have learned more on animals, their sentience and rights from philosophy than from science..
ReplyDeleteThat’s good. Have you read something from M. Midgley and A. C. Grayling? I have heard that they wrote books about animals and animal rights. So if you can recommend me something really good. Animal rights are not my topic of interest but I think that to read a book about them may be good.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, that reminds me of a paradox within anthropology - on the one hand anthropologists call for interdisciplinarity on the other hand they say that anthropological approach is far better than that of economics or philosophy.
Yes, read many books actually - the most prominent ones being the ones by Peter Singer [included chapters by Midgley], J.M. Coetzee, Tom Reagan and David Degrazia. In fact, Degrazia's short introductory book on animal rights and ethics is helpful for beginners. and Coetzee's The lives of Animals is written well and was considered provocative since it suggested that the modern treatment of animals is similar to the Holocaust.
ReplyDeleteAbout the paradox - aah, don't even get me started :D I always found our anthropology depmt. high on rhetoric and felt there were insincere attempts at interdisciplinarity. Every time one wishes to offer points of view from other disciplines - they are quashed and one is asked only to restrict to ethnographies and anthropological theory. Point is, and I am not blaming just anthropology, each discipline feels it is a magic wand and can solve world problems. But working in silos never helps. And I am also not in favour of plain theory production. I fall on the applied part of anthropology and somehow always felt a veiled contempt for any practitioner. It's like, only theory production and analysis is important for the field. Anything to do with a real world application means one is trying to 'abuse' the skills picked up.
From your words it seems to me that we should first save anthropology from itself and only after that we can think about saving the world... Anyway, I am really entertained :D
ReplyDeletehahahaha.... the task falls on your shoulders, as you'll be a part of the academic hall of fame soon...you have my best wishes for this life-long project.
ReplyDelete