Clifford Geertz attempts to explain how anthropologists come to understand culture and to expose the possible dangers of how they do their research. Geertz ends with a possible way to avoid this danger. Geertz states that anthropologists use ethnographies to try to understand the cultures around them, and to him, ethnographies are extensive descriptions of the people and culture they are observing (6). He continues by mentioning that sometimes our perspective may be “obscured because most of what we need to comprehend a particular event, ritual, custom, idea, or whatever is insinuated as background information before the thing itself is directly examined” (9). He urges anthropologists, in order to combat that, to “sort out structures of signification…and determine their social ground” (9). Geertz believes that culture is semiotic and that there are signs that need to be interpreted (14). However, some of the dangers of interpreting a culture is that although we can make it more real by explaining it we could also be reducing it. Geertz asserts that “understanding a people’s culture exposes their normalness without reducing their particularity” (14). This is something that we should strive to do. We need to make sure that we are not separating that event or ritual away from its place of natural belonging but instead clarifying the event to those who may not be as familiar to it (Geertz 16-17). A way to avoid such dangers is “to plunge into the midst of them” because the ultimate goal of anthropology is “not to answer our deepest questions, but to make available to us answers that others…have fun…to include them in the consultable record of what man has said” (Geertz 30).
An example of evidence that Geertz provides in terms of analysis and interpretation problems is the story of the two boys who both seem to be either twitching or winking. One boy in reality could be twitching due to genetics while the other boy could be trying to send a message through a wink. Geertz added another boy who seemed to be doing the same thing, but in actuality, he might have been mocking the other two boys (7). One interpretation of this event could be that the boys could be playing a winking game and later another boy joins while another interpretation could be that they are all brothers who seem to be twitching together. These interpretations, based on Geertz, needs to be put into context based on their culture, finding the unique reason why this event is happening, while being careful not to reduce the event.
- One statement Geertz make that is simple yet holds an important insight is that “culture is public because meaning is” (12). What do you think Geertz trying to get at here?
- What do you think of Geertz’s solution to avoid reducing culture? Can you think of another way?
- If culture was not characterized to be semiotic and culture was based on another definition, how might the interpretations and dangers of analysis be different?
Sherine Hamdy looks at accounts of where patients use religion to help make their decision on whether to include biotechnological intervention. Hamdy argues that “people’s understandings of religion and biomedical efficacy are often inextricably enmeshed and together factor into their cost-benefit calculations about medical intervention” (144). One piece of evidence she provides for this argument is man named Muhammad who suffered from kidney failure and had to decide between life spent with dialysis or getting a kidney transplant (Hamdy 145-146). In order to make his decision, Muhammad used religion to look at his costs and benefits, in which he concluded that the “costs outweigh the benefits, given that transplant operations are not always successful” (Hamdy 146). He would rather live his life continuously thanking and praising God for still being alive than to risk his life going through a transplant in which he may not come out alive (146). Hamdy states Muhammad’s doctor did not think that Muhammad’s submission to God’s will was correct (147). Hamdy argues that the decision to appeal to God’s will is an active one that is made to help cope with suffering (156). She also does not dismiss the fact that sometimes biotechnology is not always efficient treatment (156). She concludes by asserting that passivity to religion should not be looked down upon but rather should be paid more attention to its interrelation with biotechnology (157).
“An appreciation for what it means to embody a religious tradition in which religious reasoning and sentiment are not understood as external to the self, but as central to it, can help us broad our understanding of medical life-and-death decision and of ethical formations in devout patients’ lives” (Hamdy 157).
- What are the ethical implications of Hamdy’s stories in terms of patient-doctor relationships?
- How can Hamdy’s advise also be applied to ethnographies attempting to explain and describe different cultures?
Carol Delaney discusses the issue of frozen embryos and whether they should be used as research. She mentions the split in opinions by giving the example of the two doctors Ibrahim and Basalama. Ibrahim said that a fertilized egg and an embryo different in terms of what should be considered to have bodily integrity rights and is okay to be used for research while Basalama said that embryos should be returned to the woman Delaney (62). This issue was complicated even further by Ibadi and Yasin. Ibadi forbade making frozen embryos at all while Yasin said that certain conditions need to be present for frozen embryos to undergo research (68). Delany concludes that Islamic bioethics as well as Islam is not steadfast but instead of ongoing process (73).
- Have you ever experienced had your “truth” shattered by presenting new evidence or rendering old evidence null?
- What is your opinion what can and cannot be done on frozen embryos?
- Compare and contrast the evidence Delaney and Hamdy uses for their argument. Do you think it is sufficient?
This is a nice outline of the key points central to the readings. Geertz highlights ethnography as a fundamental tool for anthropologists to understand other cultures. You mentioned the possibility of reducing culture as key concern in ethnographic studies. Like you mentioned, I think the best way to avoid this is by conducting ethnographic research that seeks to uphold cultural relativism. Also, it is necessary to avoid focusing on any particular area of study in a culture. Rather, if a researcher enters a community with an open mind, their observations will be less subject to their background ideas, and they will be less prone to take situations out of context. The Handy did an excellent job of applying Geertz’ ideas about ethnography to the study of kidney transplants in Egypt. It would be interesting to look at the evidence Handy uses to make assertions about ideas toward religion and transplants. It seems like she mostly uses interviews, but she focuses on only a small group of individuals. Her long term connection with patients like Ali and Muhammad serves to provide deep insights into the dynamic attitudes towards transplants.
This response was for Unit 2 ^^
Although I found your blog post very informative, I think there was some confusion about Carol Delaney’s paper, which focused on gender and feminism in Turkey. I believe the description you provided in your response was of Brockopp and Eich’s excerpt, Muslim Medical Ethics, which focused on the religious dilemmas surrounding freezing embryos. In this paper, I found it interesting to see the discrepancies surrounding the idea of embryo freezing, especially within different organizations of Muslim scholars. I never differentiated the terms “embryo” and “blastocyst,” but it is interesting to see the different perceptions and reactions to leftover IVF samples due to the terminology used to describe them.
To answer your question regarding patient-provider relationships, I believe that Hamdy’s stories of Muhammad and Ali’s medical experiences show that good communication and understanding can influence change within even the most religious communities. Although I don’t know if this is necessarily the correct approach, I believe that engaging in open communication is essential to provide patients with the best medical options. We can see it in the example of Ali when he decided to go for tissue testing after realizing that there is no single interpretation of the use of life-saving organ donation.
In response to your questions on Geertz statement “culture is public because meaning is” (12), I would have to argue against the idea that meaning is public when it comes to culture. Parts of culture can be public, openly displayed for various others to interpret. But the meaning behind it, or really supporting the culture, is much more hidden. Geertz quotes Wittgenstein about how anthropologists may “say of some people that they are transparent to us. It is, however, important as regards to this observation that one human being can be a complete enigma to another…even given a mastery of the country’s language. We do not understand the people.”(13)
From this, I wouldn’t necessarily interpret meaning as private, but simple more hidden than the observable behavior or artwork. This rational also comes from the symbolism of culture as an iceberg, where only a small part of it can be easily seen by the observer but has so much more than is easily seen, a larger expansion that is deeper. I’ve experienced this from some of my travels, being unable to understand the ways of the culture despite knowing and speaking the language.
Hi Giang,
I think you summarized the three articles well. I had some difficulty understanding the first article by Geertz, but reading your summary was a really nice supplement and made me understand the article much better. I think the questions you are asking are great and very thought provoking. I also had an additional question about Muhammad’s story which I think would be interesting to consider: If you are very religious, why couldn’t you say these medical advancements like transplant surgery and blood transfusions exist because God wanted them to be invented/ led the physicians and scientists invent them because he wanted human lives to be saved by the means of modern medicine.
Like I said, I really enjoyed reading your summaries, but I wish you would have also included some of your own thoughts about the three articles. I think it was a good idea to end each summary of the three articles with some thought-provoking question!
Your blog very accurately and concisely described our handful of readings. The central theme of Hamdy and Geertz seems to be, as you have identified, a stress on an emic perspective and methodological approach. I believe this has, in a way, gone too far in the emic v. etic debate. She skirts over benefits and advantages of a reductionist etic approach, but that may be my inner quantitative scientist. To address your commentary on Delaney’s passage, I think you harped on something important—dogma, and the attachment to existent information and belief. Your questions overall were thought provoking and intelligent.
What does harped on mean here? I think you are looking for another word.
Hi Giang,
Thanks for this blog–please read all the comments, I think some of them have useful suggestions. I appreciate your comments about Geertz, which we will discuss today in class. Please make sure to proof all your posts, as this one had some typographical or grammatical errors that detract from its effectiveness.
I found Geertz’s assertion that culture is semiotic to be an interesting take on culture. On the one hand, I agree that culture is semiotic in the sense that it contains many symbols that can sometimes be hard to explain, but represent a particular meaning. But, I also do agree that by attempting to explain a semiotic analysis of culture could ultimately reduce its true meaning. I think Geertz’s solution to this problem would work, but it is hard to do. While you can immerse yourself in the culture, I could see how it might be hard to fully understand a different culture without bringing in previous notions/beliefs from your original culture.