Clifford Geertz’s Ritual and Social Change: A Javanese Example explores how rituals, traditionally viewed as forces of social cohesion, can also become sites of tension and transformation. Using a disrupted funeral ritual in a Javanese village as his case study, Geertz critiques classical functionalist perspectives, arguing that rituals are not merely stabilizing mechanisms but can also expose and exacerbate social conflicts/
The central ritual in Javanese society, the slametan, is a communal feast intended to reinforce social bonds and bring spiritual harmony. Traditionally, these rituals have unified different religious influences—animism, Hinduism, and Islam—into a coherent syncretic system. However, as Geertz demonstrates, broader socio-political changes in Java, including urbanization, economic differentiation, and ideological divisions, have disrupted these integrative functions.
The case study centers on a funeral that failed to function as expected. The deceased boy belonged to a family affiliated with Permai, a nationalist, anti-Islamic political movement. When the local Modin (Islamic religious official) refused to conduct the burial rites, the situation escalated into a community-wide crisis. Instead of a seamless ritual transition, the funeral became a site of ideological struggle between santris (devout Muslims) and abangans (adherents of a syncretic Javanese spiritual tradition), revealing deep fractures within the community.
Reassessing Functionalism
Geertz challenges the conventional functionalist view, particularly that of Durkheim and Malinowski, which sees rituals as mechanisms for social cohesion and psychological reassurance. He argues that such perspectives fail to account for social change and conflict. In this case, the funeral did not "reinforce traditional social ties"; instead, it highlighted how religious symbols had become politically charged, leading to discord rather than unity.
One of Geertz’s key insights is that rituals do not simply "mirror" social structures—they actively shape them. The slametan, originally a territorial, village-based ritual, assumed a fundamental homogeneity among participants. But in an increasingly urbanized and ideologically divided Java, such assumptions no longer held. The ritual, rather than smoothing over differences, amplified them. This analysis pushes anthropology beyond static models of equilibrium and forces scholars to consider how cultural practices interact dynamically with broader historical shifts.
A Strength and a Critique
Geertz’s essay is groundbreaking in its rejection of rigid structural-functionalism. By emphasizing the symbolic and interpretive dimensions of ritual, he offers a more nuanced, historically aware perspective. His method—what he calls "thick description"—allows for an analysis of the meaning rituals hold for participants rather than simply their structural role in society.
However, one limitation of his approach is that it leans heavily on interpretation without fully addressing material conditions. While he vividly describes ideological tensions, he does not sufficiently explore how economic or political power dynamics influence religious affiliations. For instance, were santris and abangans divided along class lines? Did economic inequality play a role in the fragmentation of communal religious life?
