Introduction 17individual mind: "Th

Introduction 17


individual mind: "Thinking as an overt, public act, involving the purpose­ ful manipulation of objective materials is probably fundamental to human beings and thinking as a coven, private act and without recourse to such materials, a derived, though not unuseful, capability" (Geertz 1973:76) and "cultural resources are ingredient, not accessory, to human thought" (Geertz
1973:83).
The position that cultural meanings are encoded in public symbols ex­
pressed in social action in particular places and with particular histories and times leads Geertz to a strong position of cultural relativism. To paraphrase Becker (1995) he is interested in particularity, the deep understanding of the differences across cultures. The basic discipline of anthropology is trans­ lation - to gain access to the worlds of significance of those others that we study. Various descriptions of a cultural practice can provide different "takes" on it and thus yield alternative construals of these other worlds, but the understanding is always partial, some things always being omitted, as in any translation. We always strive for deeper and deeper understanding, with multiple perspectives. Given that the worlds of significance of members of different cultures are emhedded in very diverse practices with generally separate histories, there is no reason to expect their complete commensur­ ability across cultures. Indeed, our modern scientific ways of conceptual­ izing, our theories, are the products of our particular Western intellectual and social history, traceable back to the ancient Greeks) and may be very poor models for understanding the conceptual systems of other peoples widely separate from us in cultural tradition. Indeed, theories arc no more than cultural tools for our intellect. They are culturally constructed tools of investigation, frameworks with which (0 interpret our experiences. Our knowledge of a theory lies in large part in our tacit use of it. Like all tools, theories amplify our human powers, but do so against a background of tacit knowledge much of which is tacit unquestioned cultural knowledge. Some­ one "testing" a theory is necessarily relying in an uncritical way upon other tacitly accepted theories and assumptions, of which they cannot, during this testing procedure, be explicitly aware; we cannot scrutinize our spectacles when we are using them to see with.
Goertz does not deny the possibility of human cultural universals, but he
does believe that if such exist, they must be too abstract and insubstantial to provide much help in the deeper interpretation of the rich tapestries of meanings found in the world's cultures. For such a relativist, this diversity needs to be real and understood, but it need not result in complete chaos, with no intellectual or moral hearings. Becker (1995:420) perhaps says it best:


A relativist like me doesn't think anything goes. A relativist does think,
however, that many things go, and that many different languagesand their

Results (Indonesian) 1:

Pengenalan 17individu pikiran: "Berpikir sebagai tindakan berlebihan, umum, melibatkan manipulasi ful tujuan obyektif bahan mungkin dasar manusia dan berpikir sebagai coven, undang-undang pribadi dan tanpa bantuan bahan tersebut, turunan, meskipun tidak membuang, kemampuan" (Geertz 1973:76) dan "sumber daya budaya adalah bahan, tidak aksesori, pemikiran manusia" (Geertz1973:83).Posisi bahwa makna budaya dikodekan dalam simbol-simbol umum expressed in social action in particular places and with particular histories and times leads Geertz to a strong position of cultural relativism. To paraphrase Becker (1995) he is interested in particularity, the deep understanding of the differences across cultures. The basic discipline of anthropology is trans­ lation - to gain access to the worlds of significance of those others that we study. Various descriptions of a cultural practice can provide different "takes" on it and thus yield alternative construals of these other worlds, but the understanding is always partial, some things always being omitted, as in any translation. We always strive for deeper and deeper understanding, with multiple perspectives. Given that the worlds of significance of members of different cultures are emhedded in very diverse practices with generally separate histories, there is no reason to expect their complete commensur­ ability across cultures. Indeed, our modern scientific ways of conceptual­ izing, our theories, are the products of our particular Western intellectual and social history, traceable back to the ancient Greeks) and may be very poor models for understanding the conceptual systems of other peoples widely separate from us in cultural tradition. Indeed, theories arc no more than cultural tools for our intellect. They are culturally constructed tools of investigation, frameworks with which (0 interpret our experiences. Our knowledge of a theory lies in large part in our tacit use of it. Like all tools, theories amplify our human powers, but do so against a background of tacit knowledge much of which is tacit unquestioned cultural knowledge. Some­ one "testing" a theory is necessarily relying in an uncritical way upon other tacitly accepted theories and assumptions, of which they cannot, during this testing procedure, be explicitly aware; we cannot scrutinize our spectacles when we are using them to see with.Goertz does not deny the possibility of human cultural universals, but hedoes believe that if such exist, they must be too abstract and insubstantial to provide much help in the deeper interpretation of the rich tapestries of meanings found in the world's cultures. For such a relativist, this diversity needs to be real and understood, but it need not result in complete chaos, with no intellectual or moral hearings. Becker (1995:420) perhaps says it best:A relativist like me doesn't think anything goes. A relativist does think,however, that many things go, and that many different languagesand their

Results (Indonesian) 2:

Pendahuluan 17


pikiran individu: "Berpikir sebagai, tindakan publik terbuka, yang melibatkan tujuan manipulasi ful bahan obyektif mungkin penting untuk manusia dan berpikir sebagai coven, tindakan pribadi dan tanpa jalan lain untuk bahan-bahan tersebut, sebuah diturunkan, meskipun tidak unuseful, kemampuan "(Geertz 1973: 76) dan" sumber daya budaya yang bahan, tidak aksesori, pemikiran manusia "(Geertz
1973: 83).
posisi yang makna budaya dikodekan dalam simbol ex publik
ditekan dalam aksi sosial di tempat-tempat tertentu dan dengan tertentu sejarah dan kali mengarah Geertz ke posisi yang kuat relativisme budaya. Mengutip Becker (1995) dia tertarik kekhususan, pemahaman mendalam tentang perbedaan lintas budaya. Disiplin dasar antropologi adalah lation trans - untuk mendapatkan akses ke dunia dari arti dari orang lain bahwa kita belajar. Berbagai deskripsi dari praktek budaya dapat memberikan yang berbeda "mengambil" di atasnya dan dengan demikian menghasilkan construals alternatif dunia lain, tetapi pemahaman selalu parsial, beberapa hal selalu yang dihilangkan, seperti dalam terjemahan. Kami selalu berusaha untuk pemahaman yang lebih dalam dan lebih dalam, dengan berbagai perspektif. Mengingat bahwa dunia signifikansi anggota budaya yang berbeda emhedded dalam praktek sangat beragam dengan sejarah pada umumnya terpisah, tidak ada alasan untuk mengharapkan kemampuan commensur lengkap mereka di seluruh budaya. Memang, cara-cara ilmiah modern kami izing konseptual, teori-teori kita, adalah produk dari sejarah intelektual dan sosial Barat kami khususnya, dapat dilacak kembali ke Yunani kuno) dan mungkin model yang sangat miskin untuk memahami sistem konseptual orang lain secara luas yang terpisah dari kami dalam tradisi budaya. Memang, teori busur tidak lebih dari alat budaya untuk akal kita. Mereka dibangun budaya alat penyelidikan, kerangka kerja dengan yang (0 menafsirkan pengalaman kami. Pengetahuan kita tentang teori terletak pada sebagian besar digunakan diam-diam kami itu. Seperti semua alat, teori memperkuat kekuatan manusia, tetapi melakukannya dengan latar belakang pengetahuan tacit banyak yang pengetahuan budaya dipertanyakan tacit Beberapa satu "menguji" teori yang tentu mengandalkan secara tidak kritis pada teori lain dan asumsi diterima secara diam-diam, yang mereka dapat tidak, selama prosedur pengujian ini, secara eksplisit menyadari;. kita tidak bisa meneliti kacamata kami ketika kami menggunakan mereka untuk melihat dengan.
Goertz tidak menyangkal kemungkinan universal budaya manusia, tetapi ia
tidak percaya bahwa jika seperti itu ada, mereka harus terlalu abstrak dan substansial untuk menyediakan banyak membantu dalam interpretasi yang lebih dalam permadani kaya makna yang ditemukan dalam budaya dunia. untuk relativis seperti itu, keberagaman ini perlu menjadi nyata dan dipahami, tetapi tidak perlu mengakibatkan kekacauan lengkap, tanpa dengar pendapat intelektual atau moral. Becker (1995: 420) mungkin mengatakan itu yang terbaik:


Sebuah relativis seperti saya tidak berpikir apa-apa terjadi. Sebuah relativis tidak berpikir,
bagaimanapun, bahwa banyak hal pergi, dan bahwa banyak yang berbeda languagesand mereka