Clifford Geertz introduced the logic of anthropological research that is important in examining the distinctive locality elements of a culture. For example, understanding the myths that live amid local communities is a crucial element in understanding the local culture.
By Geertz himself, the phenomenon of myth amid society can be explored very well so that myths amid culture seem exotic, terms with wisdom values, and take place naturally. The tale, which is nothing but a product of acculturation amid this society, is likened to Geertz like a biophysical change, namely the process of mixing materials in nature with nature itself.
For example, myths are born from the phenomenon of syncretism in Javanese culture, where local Hindu-Buddhist and Islamic traditions experience a fusion. This is inclusively seen by Geertz, so that myths containing elements of local culture that exist amid society after experiencing syncretism, we no longer see something sacred as before, but as something that can be explained. Thus, we are no longer taboo to discuss this mythical issue; we think and feel it as a natural process and can understand it inclusively.
In this context, the logic of Geertz's anthropological research has succeeded in placing "rationalism" as a standard in reading mythical phenomena that he finds in the culture of the society he researches. In this area, like most other anthropologists, Geertz's ideas are also hit by pros and cons, such as his explanation of myths born from the consequences of the classification of society in Javanese Muslims, namely priyayi, santri, and abangan. Moreover, in his description of this myth, he associated it with ethical and moral standards.
Geertz also compares the differences in myths he encounters in the societies he researches and finds common ground. He concluded that adapting tales and interactions between society and its culture and nature is more than just participatory. According to him, there is direct human involvement to know directly, objectively, and without tendency. Such phenomena glorify "symbols," for example, graves.
In addition, Geertz said the importance of an anthropologist who examines myths could place themselves precisely whether as an "insider" or "outsider" in his capacity as a researcher, "first person" or "third person" in his position as a researcher, and know how to objectively approach the object of research under study by maintaining a code of ethics in research, and so on.
To overcome the problems that an anthropological researcher may experience, Geertz proposed the importance of Heinz Kohut's psychoanalytic theory used in the logic of anthropological research, especially to draw a common thread that is not based on assumptions alone, but by being directly involved with syncretic or acculturative cultural phenomena. Thus, in this context, for Geertz, an anthropological researcher needs to interpret the cultural objects he examines in the context of his experience as experience-near and experience-distant.
For example, Geertz tells his experience conducting research on the culture of Javanese, Balinese, and Moroccan people by giving its subjective meaning so that it is possible to analyze myths, mantras, cultural symbols, etc. Geertz also found that myths in Java, Bali, and Morocco surrounding the idea of selfhood are very different. For example, when a young man dies, his wife. The subjective meanings that develop amid society are not the same between Java, Bali, and Morocco.
Why is this subjective meaning significant to researchers? This is about the essential academic honesty that should exist in researchers, which is between the rationality and moral-ethical aspects, as researchers should not be separated. (Geertz, 1999)
Thus, in connection with this myth, the subject of Geertz's anthropological research intersected with his study on Javanese religion and flow politics, which we then commonly know from the results of his research. He introduced priyayi trichotomies, santri, and abangan, the urban character of people in Java as hollow towns rather than solid towns, political groupings without a class basis. He included comparisons between Indonesian Islamic models and Moroccan Islam (between the scope of religion and the force of faith). From what Geertz explained as the mythical model in Indonesian Islamic society and Moroccan Islam, the relation to the latter shows that fictitious societal differences about how religion is manifested are strongly influenced by the cultural environment that develops in societies that should not be the same.
In the context of research on myth, Geertz arguably deserves to be called an outstanding anthropologist who can make conceptual modifications to what he researches. The logic of Geertz's anthropological research on myths even found relationships between symbol systems, value systems, and evaluation systems of the societies he studied. Suppose previously myths were nothing more than cognitive systems, systems of meaning, and systems of culture. So Geertz provides anthropological tips so that others can understand the action of the myth; that is, there must be another concept that connects the system of meaning and the value system, namely the symbol system. This is because, according to the logic of Geertz's research, the importance and value systems of myths certainly cannot simply be understood by others because they are very individual. For this reason, a plan must communicate the relationship between the two, namely the symbol system. Through that system, the meaning and cognitive systems of hidden myths can be shared and understood by others.
Finally, the interest in Geertz's studies is very varied. With the logic of his anthropological research, he succeeded in studying social history through his study of social change in Indonesia's two cities: Java and Bali. Geertz studied not only mythical problems that intersect with religion and societal culture from a sociological or anthropological perspective but also studied economic problems until the theory of involution was born and much more. He significantly contributed to the world of anthropological research, even today.***
References
Geertz, C. (1999). From the Native’s of View: On the Nature Anthropological Understanding. In R. T. McCutcheon, The Insider/Outsider Problem in the Study of Religion; A Reader. Continuum.
No comments:
Post a Comment