Functions and interpretations. Comparative analysis of Malinowski’s and Geertz’s theoretical thesis’s Cover Image

Funkcje i interpretacje. Analiza porównawcza założeń teoretycznych Malinowskiego i Geertza
Functions and interpretations. Comparative analysis of Malinowski’s and Geertz’s theoretical thesis’s

Author(s): Kamil Buchta
Subject(s): Anthropology
Published by: grupakulturalna.pl
Keywords: Laboratorium Kultury; Bronislaw Malinowski; Bronisław Malinowski; functionalism; interpretive anthropology; regulative ideas;

Summary/Abstract: Author of Functions and interpretations carried out a comparative analysis of Malinowski’s and Geertz’s theoretical thesis. As a starting point to this reflection were chosen receptions of Polish anthropologist’s works determined by James Clifford’s “ethnographic autocreation”; as well as viewing Malinowski’s scientific works through the posthumously published Diary in the strict sense of the term. Geertz’s ideas were, whereas, often shown as innovative and different than positivistic approach present in cultural anthropology. Author of the article noticed invariant components in both Malinowski’s and Geertz’s works, since various options of the anthropological theory in terms of functionalism and interpretative method have already been emphasized in analysis of other researchers. A profound insight into the Introduction to Argonauts of the Western Pacific and on a few selected articles of the American anthropologist allowed to reveal many similarities between their studies. Buchta debates if the differences are only superficial and the analogies are set in deep structure, whereas the common core in work of both of the researchers is the cultural anthropology paradigm? Author of Functions and interpretations agrees with Ewa Nowicka, who stated, that interpretative anthropology cannot be treated as separate, breaking through manner, school or orientation in cultural sciences, which is, in fact, confirmed by the comparative analysis of Malinowski’s and Geertz’s methods. Buchta concludes, that those two theoretical statements should be regarded as regulative ideas, which, concerning, their width, exceed cognitive possibilities of an individual. This, however does not make those theories valueless. They can be read as the evidence of a specific research attitudes and approaches to studied subjects, irrespective of the stage of their fulfillment.

  • Issue Year: 2013
  • Issue No: 2
  • Page Range: 121–148
  • Page Count: 29
  • Language: Polish
Toggle Accessibility Mode