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.
