Culture as a System of Meaning: Geertz and the Linguistic Turn

Clifford Geertz’s interpretive anthropology revolutionized the study of culture by treating it as a system of meaning rather than a set of fixed structures or functions. His approach was deeply influenced by the linguistic turn, a broad intellectual movement that emphasized the centrality of language, symbols, and discourse in shaping human understanding. Thinkers like Ferdinand de Saussure, Ludwig Wittgenstein, and later structuralists and poststructuralists reshaped the humanities and social sciences by arguing that meaning is not inherent in objects or actions but is constructed through signs and language. Geertz adopted key elements of this perspective while also challenging aspects of structuralism and formalist linguistic analysis. This article explores Geertz’s engagement with the linguistic turn and his unique contributions to the study of culture.

The Linguistic Turn: From Structure to Meaning

The linguistic turn, which emerged in the early to mid-20th century, marked a shift in the humanities and social sciences toward viewing language as the foundation of knowledge and culture. Ferdinand de Saussure’s Course in General Linguistics (1916) laid the groundwork by arguing that meaning is not inherent in words but is produced through differences between signs in a structured system. Structuralists like Claude Lévi-Strauss extended this insight to anthropology, claiming that myths, kinship systems, and rituals function like language, governed by deep, universal structures of the human mind.

Later, poststructuralist thinkers such as Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida criticized this model, emphasizing that meaning is unstable, context-dependent, and shaped by power. Wittgenstein, in his later work, also challenged static conceptions of meaning, arguing that language operates through use within specific social language games. These ideas created an intellectual environment in which meaning was no longer seen as fixed or self-evident but as constructed, contingent, and embedded in social practices.

Geertz’s Interpretive Anthropology: Culture as a Text

Geertz absorbed many of these linguistic insights but developed them in a distinctive way. In The Interpretation of Cultures (1973), he proposed that culture should be studied as a "web of significance" that people themselves have spun. He famously defined culture as:

“an historically transmitted pattern of meanings embodied in symbols, a system of inherited conceptions expressed in symbolic forms by means of which men communicate, perpetuate, and develop their knowledge about and attitudes toward life.”

For Geertz, culture is not an external structure imposed on people, as structuralists might suggest, but rather an ongoing process of meaning-making. He likened ethnographic work to textual analysis: just as a literary scholar interprets a novel, an anthropologist must interpret the “texts” of culture, from rituals to political performances to everyday gestures. His thick description methodology emphasized the layered and context-sensitive nature of meaning, rejecting the idea that culture operates according to universal laws.

Breaking from Structuralism: Agency and Interpretation

Geertz’s approach diverged from Saussurean and Lévi-Straussian structuralism in crucial ways. While structuralists sought deep structures underlying cultural practices, Geertz emphasized surface meanings as they are lived and experienced. Rather than looking for universal cognitive patterns, he insisted that meaning is always local, historical, and embedded in particular social contexts.

Moreover, Geertz rejected the idea that meaning could be fully systematized. Unlike Saussure, who saw language as a closed system of differences, Geertz saw culture as open-ended and evolving. This aligns with Wittgenstein’s later philosophy, which treats meaning as fluid and shaped by use rather than by fixed rules.

Implications for the Study of Culture

By applying the insights of the linguistic turn to anthropology, Geertz helped shift the discipline away from deterministic models and toward an appreciation of interpretation, narrative, and symbolic action. His work had profound implications:

• Ethnography as Interpretation: Geertz’s textual analogy transformed ethnographic writing, encouraging anthropologists to acknowledge their role as interpreters rather than neutral observers.
• Meaning as Contextual: He reinforced the idea that meaning is never fixed but is shaped by historical, political, and social contexts.
• Culture as Expressive, Not Just Functional: Unlike functionalists like Durkheim, who saw culture as a mechanism for social cohesion, Geertz emphasized its expressive and creative dimensions.
• 
  

Between Language and Culture

Geertz’s interpretive anthropology stands as a bridge between the linguistic turn and contemporary cultural analysis. While he adopted the idea that meaning is constructed through symbols and discourse, he resisted the more deterministic aspects of structuralism and maintained a strong focus on agency and historical specificity. His approach continues to influence fields beyond anthropology, including literary studies, political theory, and philosophy.

By treating culture as a dynamic system of meaning rather than a fixed structure, Geertz provided scholars with tools to understand the richness and complexity of human life—an enduring legacy of the linguistic turn.

Baudrillard and The System of Objects: Consumption as a Language of Signs

Jean Baudrillard’s The System of Objects (1968) is a foundational work in his critique of consumer society. In it, he argues that modern objects—furniture, appliances, cars, fashion—are not just functional commodities but signs in a system of meaning, much like words in a language. Rather than simply fulfilling material needs, objects are consumed for their symbolic value, shaping personal identity, social status, and cultural belonging.

Beyond Use-Value and Exchange-Value

Marxist economic theory distinguishes between:

• Use-value: The practical function of an object (e.g., a chair is for sitting).
• Exchange-value: The monetary worth of an object in market trade.

Baudrillard introduces a third category:

• Sign-value: The way an object signifies social meaning beyond its function or price.

For example, a luxury handbag is not just a bag (use-value), nor just an expensive item (exchange-value); it signals wealth, taste, and status (sign-value). In consumer culture, this symbolic function often outweighs practical considerations. People buy products not just to use them but to communicate something about themselves.

Objects as a System of Signs

Baudrillard sees objects as forming a structured system, much like language. Just as words gain meaning through their differences from other words, objects derive meaning through their relations within a network of commodities. A sports car is desirable not just because of speed or engineering, but because it contrasts with an economy car—it signifies prestige, power, and masculinity.

This system extends to all aspects of consumer life:

• Interior design signals personality and aesthetic sophistication.
• Tech gadgets indicate modernity, intelligence, or affluence.
• Fashion choices communicate subcultural affiliations or class distinctions.

Through consumption, individuals construct their identities. But in doing so, they also become trapped in an endless cycle of sign-exchange, where personal meaning is dictated by market logic.

The Illusion of Choice and Freedom

Consumer society presents itself as a world of limitless choice, but Baudrillard argues this is an illusion. Our preferences are pre-structured by the system, and even rebellion (e.g., buying countercultural fashion) is quickly absorbed as another marketable style. Every choice reinforces the system rather than subverting it.

In this way, objects consume us as much as we consume them. We think we are expressing individuality, but in reality, we are participating in a structured, semiotic game dictated by capitalist logic.

Conclusion: Consumption as a Social Code

Baudrillard’s The System of Objects reveals that modern consumption is not about satisfying needs but about participating in a symbolic system. Objects function as a language through which social relations, power, and identities are negotiated. The paradox is that while consumer society promises freedom and self-expression, it ultimately shapes our desires, limits our choices, and absorbs all opposition into its logic.

see also: Disneyland and Watergate

Is Aristotle a Foundation — or a Limit? critique of Aristotelian Logic

There is hardly an introduction to philosophy that doesn't begin with Aristotle. At times, it seems he doesn't merely represent the origins of rational thought but stands as the very foundation upon which Western culture rests. The Aristotelian syllogism—a structure in which a conclusion necessarily follows from two premises—became the prototype for valid reasoning. For centuries, Aristotle served as the model of "common sense" and clear thinking, and few dared to challenge his status.

But what if the Aristotelian foundation is also a restriction on philosophical imagination? What if this logic is not a starting point but a low ceiling?

Thinking as Cataloguing: Aristotle’s Order of Reality

Aristotle’s achievements are undeniably impressive. He was among the first to systematically classify, conceptualize, and formulate internal laws for every field of knowledge—from ethics and politics to biology and poetry. Yet many modern critics see this not only as a development but also a narrowing of thought.

Aristotelian thinking is built on rigid categories: everything must belong to a defined type, and every attribute is either-or (e.g., good or bad, just or unjust). This logic excludes ambiguity, nuance, contradiction, and paradox—the very spaces where groundbreaking thinking often emerges.

Other Readings of Aristotle

Some of the most influential thinkers of the 20th century—particularly within postmodern and poststructuralist traditions—offered strong critiques of Aristotelian heritage. Jacques Derrida, for instance, challenged logocentrism—the privileging of rational, structured language that presents itself as “truth” while marginalizing whatever lies outside its bounds. Michel Foucault pointed out that classifications, definitions, and categories—Aristotle’s essential tools—are also tools of power, reinforcing cultural and social hierarchies.

Feminist philosophers like Luce Irigaray and Julia Kristeva proposed alternative modes of thinking—often emotional, embodied, and non-dualistic—that resist what they saw as the male-centered logic rooted in Aristotelian structure.

These critiques don’t reject Aristotle or logic entirely. They acknowledge his influence but seek to uncover its limits—and to open space for other possibilities. From entirely different directions, Buddhist philosophy, for example, offers a different logic: one of paradoxes, non-binary insight, and the understanding of emptiness as the basis of reality. Thinkers like Franz Brentano and Edmund Husserl, central to the phenomenological tradition, described consciousness and intentionality in ways that go beyond formal logical structures.

Aristotelian Logic: Foundation or Boundary?

Aristotle may have laid the groundwork for what we call the "language of thought." But is it the only language we can speak? Perhaps it is time not only to use it—but also to listen to what it silences. Aristotelian logic can be a powerful tool, but it should not be the only one. Not every question can be answered by syllogism, and not every truth fits neatly into binary categories.

Interpretive Theory of Culture after Geertz

Clifford Geertz’s interpretive theory of culture reshaped anthropology by emphasizing meaning over structure, interpretation over scientific generalization. His idea that culture is a "web of significance" woven by humans introduced an approach that saw social life as a text to be read and analyzed rather than a system to be reduced to universal laws. However, Geertz’s work was not the end of interpretive cultural analysis—it was the beginning. Several scholars across anthropology, sociology, and philosophy have expanded, critiqued, and reinterpreted Geertz’s ideas, pushing interpretive theory in new directions.

Paul Rabinow: Bringing Reflexivity to Interpretation

One of Geertz’s most direct intellectual successors was Paul Rabinow, who sought to refine interpretive anthropology by introducing self-awareness and reflexivity into ethnographic research. In Reflections on Fieldwork in Morocco, Rabinow challenges the idea of the neutral observer, arguing that the anthropologist is always entangled in the cultural web they study.

For Rabinow, interpretation is never objective—it is shaped by the historical and political context of the researcher. His work influenced the rise of postmodern anthropology, which questioned the authority of ethnographers to claim definitive knowledge about other cultures. By acknowledging the subjectivity of interpretation, Rabinow deepened the interpretive tradition, showing that culture is not just read by scholars but also co-created in the act of ethnographic writing.

James Clifford: Culture as a Text in Flux

Building on both Geertz and Rabinow, James Clifford pushed interpretive theory further by arguing that culture is not a stable text but an ongoing, contested narrative. In The Predicament of Culture, Clifford critiques Geertz’s tendency to present cultures as coherent systems of meaning, pointing out that cultures are full of contradictions, negotiations, and power struggles.

Clifford’s influence is particularly strong in the study of colonialism and globalization, where he highlights how cultural identities are constantly shifting due to migration, historical encounters, and hybridization. His work challenges the idea that anthropologists can offer a single, authoritative interpretation of culture, instead suggesting that multiple, competing narratives exist simultaneously.

Sherry Ortner: Bringing Agency into Interpretation

While Geertz focused on symbols and meaning, Sherry Ortner added another layer: human agency. She argued that while people operate within cultural structures, they are not passive recipients of meaning—they actively reshape and reinterpret culture.

In Theory in Anthropology Since the Sixties, Ortner critiques Geertz’s reluctance to engage with power dynamics and social change. She suggests that interpretive anthropology must account for how individuals and groups challenge cultural norms, creating new meanings rather than simply reproducing old ones.

Talal Asad: The Power of Interpretation

One of the strongest critiques of Geertz comes from Talal Asad, who argues that interpretation is never neutral—it is shaped by power. In Genealogies of Religion, Asad challenges Geertz’s definition of religion as a "cultural system," pointing out that who gets to define religion is itself a political struggle.

Asad’s work highlights how cultural meanings are often imposed by dominant groups, whether colonial administrators defining "proper" Islam or Western anthropologists framing non-Western cultures through their own biases. By emphasizing the political dimension of interpretation, Asad forces scholars to recognize that cultural analysis is never separate from power relations.

The Evolution of Interpretive Theory

While Geertz laid the foundation for interpretive cultural analysis, scholars like Rabinow, Clifford, Ortner, and Asad expanded its scope, making it more reflexive, dynamic, and critically aware of power and agency. Their contributions transformed interpretive anthropology into a more flexible, self-aware, and politically engaged discipline.

The study of culture remains an unfinished project, constantly evolving as new voices challenge old assumptions. The question is no longer just "What does culture mean?" but also "Who gets to interpret it?", "How does meaning change over time?", and "What power dynamics shape cultural narratives?". In this sense, interpretive theory continues to evolve—just like the cultures it seeks to understand.

Interpretive Anthropology vs. Cultural Materialism

Anthropology has long grappled with the question of what drives human culture. Two of the most influential yet opposing theories in the field—interpretive anthropology and cultural materialism—offer starkly different answers.

• Interpretive anthropology, championed by Clifford Geertz, sees culture as a system of meanings and symbols that people construct and interpret.
• Cultural materialism, led by Marvin Harris, argues that culture is primarily shaped by material conditions, economic factors, and ecological constraints.

While both approaches seek to explain cultural behavior, they diverge in their methodologies, assumptions, and ultimate goals. This article explores these differences and their broader implications.

Interpretive Anthropology: Meaning Over Matter

Interpretive anthropology arose in response to earlier structuralist and functionalist approaches that treated culture as a system governed by fixed rules or biological needs. Instead, Clifford Geertz argued that culture is:

• A “web of significance” that humans construct.
• Best understood through interpretation rather than scientific laws.
• Not just behavior, but the meaning behind behavior.

Thick Description and Symbolic Meaning

Geertz’s method, known as thick description, involves deep ethnographic analysis of cultural symbols. His classic study of the Balinese cockfight illustrates this approach:

• Rather than seeing it as mere gambling or entertainment, Geertz argued that the cockfight was a symbolic ritual reflecting status, masculinity, and power dynamics in Balinese society.
• He insisted that anthropologists must "read" culture as they would a text, decoding its metaphors and symbols.

For Geertz, humans are meaning-making creatures, and anthropology should seek to understand how people experience and interpret their world rather than just catalog material conditions.

Cultural Materialism: The Primacy of Material Conditions

In direct opposition to interpretive anthropology, Marvin Harris’s cultural materialism posits that:

• Material conditions determine cultural practices, not abstract meanings.
• The best way to understand a culture is to examine its environment, economy, and technology.
• Ideological beliefs (including religion and symbolism) emerge as adaptations to practical realities.

Infrastructure, Structure, and Superstructure

Harris developed a three-tier model to explain cultural development:

1. Infrastructure – The foundation of culture, including environment, economy, and modes of production (e.g., agriculture, technology, resource availability).
2. Structure – The social organization that emerges from the infrastructure (e.g., kinship systems, political structures).
3. Superstructure – The ideas, beliefs, and symbolic systems that rest on the first two layers (e.g., religion, art, philosophy).

For Harris, superstructure is shaped by infrastructure, not the other way around. For example:

• Hinduism’s sacred cows: Rather than seeing cow worship as a purely religious phenomenon, Harris argued that it served an economic function—cows were more valuable alive (for milk and plowing) than as meat, so religious taboos against eating them helped preserve essential resources.

This materialist approach is explicitly scientific, favoring empirical data over subjective interpretation.

Two Lenses for Understanding Culture

Interpretive anthropology and cultural materialism offer competing yet valuable perspectives on human society.

• If we want to understand how people experience their world, interpretive anthropology provides deep, nuanced insights.
• If we want to explain why cultural patterns emerge and persist, cultural materialism offers a powerful, scientific approach.

Rather than choosing one over the other, modern anthropology increasingly recognizes that both meaning and material reality shape human culture. In a complex and interconnected world, a truly comprehensive approach must account for both the symbols we live by and the material conditions that sustain them.

Przeworski on Democracy and the Limits of Self-Government

Adam Przeworski, one of the most influential political scientists, addresses a fundamental paradox of democracy in his book Democracy and the Limits of Self-Government (2010): the tension between democratic ideals and political reality. On the one hand, democracy is founded on principles of public participation, representation, and equality. On the other hand, it operates within institutional, economic, and social constraints that prevent it from fully delivering on its promises.

Przeworski identifies four fundamental principles of democracy: equality, participation, representation, and liberty. These principles form the cornerstone of democratic governance, yet he highlights the challenges in fully implementing them. For instance, while political participation is meant to be universal, numerous barriers—economic, educational, structural, and sometimes deliberately political—limit citizens’ ability to actively engage in decision-making processes.

A central discussion in the book revolves around the democratic decision-making process. Przeworski argues that although democracy is based on the idea of popular rule, in practice, citizens often make decisions that do not necessarily align with their own interests. This issue arises from the fact that democracies rely on knowledge and information, which are not distributed equally. As a result, certain groups—typically those with wealth and influence—are able to shape public discourse and steer decision-making in ways that serve their interests.

Another critical point Przeworski raises is the role of the market within democracy. While free economies are often perceived as complementary to democratic systems, he demonstrates how markets do not always function in ways that promote equality and participation. The economic power of corporations and private entities can distort the political process, creating a reality in which democracy exists primarily in form rather than substance—present on paper but far from being fully realized.

Przeworski does not limit himself to critique; he also proposes paths for improvement. He argues that to bridge the gap between ideal democracy and political reality, mechanisms for fair representation must be strengthened, a balance between economic interests and the public good must be maintained, and broader political education and information dissemination must be ensured. In this sense, he issues a call to action: democracy is not merely a system of laws and institutions but an ongoing struggle to realize its foundational principles.

Przeworski’s book serves as both a reminder of democracy’s importance and a warning about the challenges it faces. In doing so, he provides not only a theoretical analysis but also a framework for critical reflection on the political systems in which we live.

Baudrillard on The Implosion of Meaning

Jean Baudrillard’s concept of the implosion of meaning describes a paradox of modern media and communication: as information increases exponentially, meaning does not become clearer but instead collapses. In a world saturated with signs, messages, and simulations, we are no longer able to distinguish between what is real, important, or meaningful. Instead, meaning itself dissolves under the weight of excessive representation.

From Representation to Hyperreality

Traditionally, meaning was derived from the relationship between a sign (a word, an image, a symbol) and the reality it represented. A newspaper article about a political event, for example, was assumed to reflect something real. However, Baudrillard argues that in contemporary media culture, signs no longer refer to a stable reality. Instead, they refer only to other signs, creating an endless cycle of self-referential meaning. This leads to hyperreality, where images, narratives, and messages exist in a world detached from any objective truth.

The result is an implosion of meaning—not because information is lacking, but because there is too much of it. We are bombarded with news, social media, entertainment, advertisements, and political messaging, all competing for our attention. But instead of producing clarity, this excess creates confusion, apathy, and disorientation. When everything is signified, nothing is significant.

Media Saturation and the Loss of Reality

Baudrillard suggests that media does not inform—it absorbs. The 24-hour news cycle, for example, presents endless streams of crises, scandals, and spectacles, making it difficult to differentiate between what truly matters and what is just another fleeting media event. The more we consume, the less engaged we become. Events that would have once been shocking or meaningful are reduced to mere media content, quickly replaced by the next story.

This implosion occurs because media does not simply reflect reality—it produces it. A war, a protest, or a political campaign is not just covered by the media; it is shaped by how it is represented. The distinction between "real" and "mediated" collapses, leaving only an endless circulation of images that generate their own self-referential reality.

The Crisis of Meaning in Everyday Life

This phenomenon extends beyond politics and media. In everyday life, consumer culture, branding, and social media turn personal identity into another space of hyperreality. Individuals are no longer just people; they are constructed images, curated for digital display. We present versions of ourselves online, constantly producing content about our lives, but in doing so, we risk losing any true sense of authenticity.

Baudrillard’s theory of the implosion of meaning warns that in a world where everything is visible, represented, and commodified, meaning does not deepen—it collapses. The more we try to communicate, the more communication itself becomes meaningless. The challenge, then, is to find ways to resist this saturation—perhaps not by seeking more information, but by creating spaces where meaning can still emerge outside the endless circulation of signs.

The System of Objects

The Gulf War Did Not Taken Place

Baudrillard on "Consumer Society"

The Mirror of Production

Baudrillard on The Ecstasy of Communication

Disneyland and Watergate