Symbols are the foundation of human culture and social reality. They shape our understanding of the world, define group identities, and structure collective life. While both Clifford Geertz and Émile Durkheim recognized the central role of symbols in society, their approaches to symbolic meaning and function diverge significantly. Durkheim, as a foundational sociologist, saw symbols as instruments of social cohesion and moral order, whereas Geertz, as an interpretive anthropologist, treated symbols as texts rich with cultural meaning. This article explores their contrasting perspectives and the implications of their theories for understanding social reality.
Durkheim: Symbols as Social Glue
For Durkheim, symbols are the essential building blocks of social integration. In The Elementary Forms of Religious Life (1912), he examined how religious symbols and rituals reinforce collective solidarity. He argued that religious symbols are not merely representations of divine forces but, more fundamentally, representations of society itself. When people engage in rituals and honor sacred symbols, they are reaffirming their commitment to the moral order that binds them together.
Durkheim’s theory suggests that symbols have a functional role in maintaining social stability. The totem of an indigenous Australian clan, for example, is more than an animal or a plant; it is a sacred emblem that embodies the group's shared identity and values. By respecting the totem, individuals reaffirm their collective belonging and reinforce the structure of social life. In this sense, symbols are external to individuals; they originate from society and serve to regulate behavior and belief.
From a Durkheimian perspective, symbols are powerful not because of any intrinsic meaning they hold but because they operate as mechanisms of social control. They ensure continuity, generate collective effervescence (the energy of shared experiences), and create moral boundaries that define who belongs and who does not.
Geertz: Symbols as Meaning-Making Tools
While Durkheim focused on symbols as instruments of cohesion, Geertz shifted the focus to their interpretive dimension. In The Interpretation of Cultures (1973), Geertz argued that symbols are best understood as vehicles of meaning rather than as mere instruments of social order. Culture, for Geertz, is a system of symbols that people use to make sense of their world, and the anthropologist’s task is to uncover those meanings through thick description.
Unlike Durkheim, who saw symbols as imposed by society, Geertz saw them as part of a dynamic process of interpretation. He famously described culture as a "web of significance" that people themselves have spun, suggesting that meaning is not simply dictated by society but is actively produced by individuals through participation in cultural practices.
For example, in Deep Play: Notes on the Balinese Cockfight, Geertz analyzes cockfighting as a symbolic activity that encodes Balinese social hierarchy, masculinity, and status. The cockfight is not just entertainment but a ritualized performance of deeper social meanings. Unlike Durkheim, who would likely emphasize the function of the ritual in maintaining social cohesion, Geertz highlights its role in communicating ideas about honor, risk, and identity.
Key Differences and Implications
The primary distinction between Durkheim and Geertz lies in how they conceive the nature of symbols:
- Durkheim sees symbols as binding agents of social cohesion, reinforcing moral order and group identity.
- Geertz sees symbols as texts to be interpreted, illuminating how individuals construct meaning in their social world.
These differences have broad implications for how we study culture and society. A Durkheimian approach might analyze national flags, religious icons, or political slogans in terms of their role in reinforcing collective identity and institutional authority. A Geertzian approach, by contrast, would focus on how people interpret and experience those symbols in different ways based on context, history, and personal perspective.
Two Perspectives on the Social Power of Symbols
Both Durkheim and Geertz offer compelling insights into the role of symbols in social life, but their approaches highlight different aspects of cultural reality. Durkheim reminds us that symbols are not just passive markers of meaning; they actively shape social structures and regulate collective life. Geertz, on the other hand, deepens our understanding by showing how symbols function as expressive tools through which people make sense of their world.
