Victor Turner and Clifford Geertz in Anthropology — 2019 Paper I
Examine critically the contributions of Victor Turner and Clifford Geertz in anthropology.
Model Answer
VAID ICSApproach
- Demand of Question: Critically examine Turner’s and Geertz’s contributions to symbolic and interpretive anthropology.
- Structuring the Response: Discuss Turner’s ritual-process approach and Geertz’s interpretive-symbolic approach, followed by their contributions and limitations.
- Key Dimensions to Cover: Ndembu, liminality, communitas, social drama, symbols, thick description, webs of significance and interpretive anthropology.
Model Answer
Introduction: Victor Turner and Clifford Geertz shifted anthropology away from explaining culture only through structure and function towards analysing symbols, meanings and lived cultural experience. Turner concentrated particularly on ritual and social process, while Geertz developed an interpretive approach to culture as a system of meanings.
Victor Turner: Symbolic and processual anthropology: Turner developed his ideas primarily through fieldwork among the Ndembu of Zambia, especially in Schism and Continuity in an African Society (1957) and The Ritual Process (1969).
- Ritual symbols: Turner regarded ritual symbols as multivocal, capable of carrying several meanings simultaneously.
He distinguished between:
- exegetical meaning — explanations given by participants;
- operational meaning — how a symbol is actually used;
- positional meaning — meaning derived from its relationship with other symbols.
Thus:
Symbol → Multiple meanings → Ritual action → Social experience
- Liminality: Building on Arnold van Gennep, Turner analysed rites of passage through:
Separation → Liminality → Incorporation
The liminal stage is a transitional condition in which individuals are “betwixt and between” established social statuses.
- Communitas: During liminality, normal hierarchy may temporarily weaken and participants experience intense solidarity or communitas.
Turner contrasted:
Structure ↔ Communitas / Anti-structure
This demonstrated how rituals can temporarily suspend social differentiation while ultimately contributing to social renewal.
- Social drama: Turner also analysed conflict through the concept of social drama, consisting broadly of:
Breach → Crisis → Redressive action → Reintegration/Schism
This moved anthropology from static structure toward process, conflict and change.
Turner’s limitations: His emphasis on ritual symbolism can:
- underplay political economy;
- romanticize communitas;
- assume greater symbolic consensus than may actually exist;
- insufficiently address gender and unequal power.
Clifford Geertz: Interpretive anthropology: Geertz defined culture in The Interpretation of Cultures (1973) as historically transmitted “webs of significance” created by humans themselves.
For him, anthropology is therefore not primarily an experimental science searching for universal laws, but an interpretive science seeking meaning.
- Thick description: Borrowing from Gilbert Ryle, Geertz argued that ethnography requires thick description.
An identical physical movement—for example, closing one eye—may represent:
- a twitch;
- a wink;
- imitation;
- mockery.
The anthropologist must reconstruct the cultural context that makes action meaningful.
Thus:
Observed behaviour + Cultural context → Social meaning
- Culture as text: Geertz treated cultural practices as texts that anthropologists interpret.
His analysis of the Balinese cockfight showed that the event was more than gambling; it dramatized:
- masculinity;
- status;
- rivalry;
- prestige.
He described it as a form of “deep play.”
- Religion as a cultural system: Geertz viewed religion as a system of symbols that establishes powerful moods and motivations by presenting a meaningful conception of reality.
Geertz’s limitations:
- interpretation may become excessively subjective;
- focus on meaning can neglect material conditions and political economy;
- societies may contain conflicting interpretations rather than one shared cultural text;
- the anthropologist retains considerable authority in deciding what symbols “mean.”
Comparative contribution
| Victor Turner | Clifford Geertz |
| Symbolic/processual anthropology | Interpretive anthropology |
| Ritual and social process | Meaning and cultural interpretation |
| Liminality and communitas | Thick description |
| Social drama | Culture as text |
| Ndembu ethnography | Bali and other comparative ethnographies |
Together they shifted attention:
Structure/function → Symbol → Meaning → Interpretation and process
Conclusion
Turner demonstrated how ritual symbols mediate transition, conflict and social transformation, while Geertz established culture as a field of meanings requiring contextual interpretation. Despite limitations concerning power and material conditions, both profoundly strengthened the symbolic and interpretive turn in anthropology.
Want feedback on your answer?
Join the Anthropology workshop or get structured answer-writing guidance from VAID ICS.