What Does it Mean?

I am not an anthropologist, nor do I aspire to be one. So when I even mention the name, “Geertz” remember that I really know very little of what I am talking about. I’m outside of my element just as an anthropologist would be if talking about Lindbeck or Barth. Yet I have finished Geertz’s The Interpretation of Cultures, and The Fate of “Culture”: Geertz and Beyond (essays in response to Geertz and continuing the work of Geertz) and feel like I should say something.
I understand that Geertz is trying to say something, to push a certain approach of anthropology. It was not until I read the last essay in The Fate of Culture that I started to get what it is that makes Geertz so different. In this essay, “Thick Resistance: Death and the Cultural Construction of Agency in Himalayan Mountaineering,” Sherry Ortner discusses Geertz’ aversion to positivist functionalism in cultural analysis and prefers to look to meaning in cultures rather than function. Thus Geertz does not so much ask what the function of an individual is in a culture, but what the underlying meaning may be for that culture. Geertz offers a fun and fantastic description of the Balinese Cockfight and rather than looking for the function of such an event in Bali he looks at the symbolic meaning found within that event for the participants, onlookers, etc.
I have been thinking about this with my own work. I am concerned with the understanding of ordination in the Baptist context. I could look at the function of the minister in the local church. I could use that as the focus and claim that ordination labels one’s function within a community. Or I could look at the meaning of ordination, the meaning the minister points to via presence and relationality. I am leaning towards the later. It is not so much function as it is presence that holds significant depth. I believe that the minister represents something, sometimes despite the minister himself. If one were to hold to such an approach, then ministry becomes much less about doing and more about being. It is not a ministry of function then a ministry of presence. Granted, one does do things, but that is not the essence of ordination. One could say this goes for all Christians. When one becomes a Christian, one should not focus on the function, on what you do but instead on who you are; your presence.
With all of this said, Geertz offers a good methodological foundation for discerning meaning within a community (via “thick description”). So, this novice will attempt to use Geertz in his meager theological work. May all anthropologists have mercy on his soul.

Afterthought: Ortner and others point out that Geertz fails to address issues of power (a la Foucault) in his approach. She offers a way to maintain a Geertzian focus and to open the door for discussions of power and relationships. As I continue to look at the minister, Ortner’s suggestions (as well as Foucault’s concerning power) are helpful.