Geertz is inspired by Gilbert Ryle and his project is to promote a semiotic approach to the analysis of culture by making “thick descriptions” of cultures, moving from the particular towards a more general description of culture.

“The aim is to draw large conclusions from small, but very densely textured facts; to support broad assertions about the role of culture in the construction of collective life by engaging them in exactly with complex specifics.” (p. 28)

I am not sure what conslusions to draw with regard to Geertz view on the possibility of understanding the role of culture. To me he seems to say, that analysis cannot begin with reflections on the macroentity (culture). That thick description forgo interpretation and understanding because the description might reveal a pattern of meanings shared by a population.

Jim, what you repeat here is a common, but still profoundly misleading, interpretation of Geertz. Geertz was very much a product of the Harvard Human Relations Program and his concept of culture was not confined to how people perceive and think about their lives. Culture as a public text also included artifacts and landscapes, products of human activity as well as what people said about them.

That said, the “Geertzian” position you describe has had the unfortunate effects you describe.

P.S. It has been a long time. I hope this comment finds you well.