Analysis Of Bronislaw Malinowski And Clifford Geertz

Theories from the late 19th to 20th century has shaped modern day anthropology. Two leading anthropologists that have changed the way one interprets culture and people is Bronislaw Malinowski and Clifford Geertz, respectively. Both established their own theories and interpretations in anthropology that has been used and criticized. According to “A History of Anthropology” by Thomas Eriksen and Finn Nielsen, Malinowski was one of the four founding fathers of twentieth century anthropology, influencing the current state of the discipline (2015:47). After his work in a Trobiand village, Malinowski referred to his approach as functionalism, meaning that social practices and institutions “fit together in a functioning whole, which they contributed
In his article, Geertz begins illustrating how in the year 1958, him and his wife visited a village in order to do anthropological work. Because they were outsiders, they were seen as “nonpersons, specters, invisible men” (Geertz 1972:412). After the couple observes a cockfight, the police raid the area, causing people to race away because it is an illegal event. The couple follows the public’s lead and runs away, seeking refuge with two locals. Police found them, questioning what they were doing there and the local Balinese man defends them. After this event, everybody heard what Geertz and his wife has done, and they received an outpour of attention and openness (1972:416). Geertz goes into detail about the significance and symbols behind the act of cockfighting in the Balinese society. In addition, there is a deep “psychological identification” of Balinese men and the cocks (1972:417). He delves into the psyche between the man and its cock, referencing and comparing it to genitals. The relationship between the man and his cock is metaphorical, but also more than that (Geertz 1972:418). The obsession with cocks is seen to represent Balinese men and it is seen through Geertz’s extensive description of the pattern of cockfighting and how it is performed. Yet, Geertz did not jut look at the psychological aspect, he
Both scholars put a major emphasis on ethnographic work and immersing into society to find meaning. What is similar about both methods is the need to form connections. While they both differ in how and to what connections they are trying to make, it is important to see that functionalism and the interpretative method heavily rely on extracting some sort of meaning. For example, functionalism connects society to the physiological needs of a person. Interpretative method tries to connect symbols to the overall culture of a society (as mentioned above in Geertz’s study of the Balinese village) Like Malinowski, Geertz looked into other aspects of society such as economics, social control, political organization and more. However, functionalism stresses on the individual and their psychological needs while interpretive method looks at how culture is expressed through