- Geertz claims that "man so desperately seeks symbolic
sources of inspiration such as these (systems of cultural
checks such as principles and directives, as he explains
on p. 53 of his book - Y.C.) in order to find his way in
this world. Among lower primates than man, patterns of behavior
are part of their physical makeup, at least far more so
than they are for man. They act according to genetic instincts.
Man, in contrast, inherently possesses only the most basic
reactions, which allow far more flexibility and complexity,
and in those rare cases that everything is running as it
should - also far better results. They do not, however,
precisely regulate his behavior… Without the direction
of cultural norms, the system of meaningful symbols, human
behavior would be absolutely ungoverned. It would turn into
chaos and pandemonium of meaningless actions and emotional
outbursts. Culture, in its cumulative totality of patterns
of this type, is not a mere adornment of humanity's existence,
but an essential condition, and as such the basis of its
uniqueness." Further on, Geertz explains that according
to earlier anthropological studies that were popular until
the beginning of the twentieth century (his book was published
in 1973), cultural development paralleled the physical development
of man's brain, a fact that leads us to conclude that man's
ability to learn, the fact that man can't function without
'an educational system' advanced his genetic development,
since "man is an imperfect incomplete creature, and
the difference between him and sub-humans stems less from
his ability to learn (as great as it is), and more from
the quality and quantity of the things that he must learn
in order to simply function…man's physical existence
came into being as a result of regular methods of genetic
mutation and natural selection, until his anatomical structure
reached approximately the level of perfection of its present
state. At this point, cultural development began. An incidental
genetic mutation of some form that occurred at a certain
point in the development of the human race, endowed man
with the ability to create a culture and to sustain it.
From that point on, his genetic instincts became fundamentally
and almost exclusively cultural responses. When man first
spread out all over the world, he wore fur skins in cold
climates, and a loincloth in warmer climates; but he didn't
change how his body reacted to different temperatures. He
devised weapons in order to enhance his genetically inherited
hunting skills and began to cook his food in order to make
more foods potentially edible. Man became man, the story
continues, when in crossing a certain mental Rubicon, he
attained the ability to transmit to his descendants and
neighbors through teaching and to acquire from his ancestors
and neighbors through learning - knowledge, beliefs, laws,
ethical principles, and customs (like Edward Taylor's definition
of classical culture). After this miracle occurred, the
advancement of Homo sapiens almost completely stopped being
dependent on cultural development, on the growth of conventional
practices." According to the most current studies,
he explains, "Evolution of Homo sapiens began approximately
four million years ago...the beginning of culture preceded
man by more than a million years…It was an overlapping
period…the ice age - in which the initial steps of
cultural history took place…Culture became a primary
guiding force in the evolution [of man]…invention of
tools, development of organized hunting and food gathering,
beginnings of family units, discovery of the uses of fire…growing
reliance on systems of meaningful symbols - language, art,
myth, ritual - for purposes of orientation, communication,
and self control - all these created a new environment that
man needed to adapt to…the same creature who started
out as a prehistoric Australopithecus with a diminutive
brain became a large brained totally human Homo sapien…
Man created himself in the simple sense of the word, even
if he did it unconsciously…This is the period in which
the human brain expanded, especially the forebrain, to its
present incredible proportions…What happened in the
Ice Age was…we had to rely on cultural resources -
on the growing wealth of meaningful symbols…Symbols
of this sort, then are not simply expressions, instruments…of
our biological, psychological, and social existence, but
preconditions. No doubt, without men there is no culture,
but to the same extent and more significantly, without culture
there are no men. The gist of the matter is that human beings
are imperfect or unfinished creatures who perfect or complete
themselves through culture…through very specific individual
forms of culture, Dubai, Java or Italian culture, high or
low culture, academic culture or business culture…people
build dams and shelter, find food, organize their social
groups, and find a mate according to directives hidden in
flow charts and blue prints, in hunting traditions, in systems
of morality and in esthetic judgment. We live in what is
incisively described as an "information gap" -
between what our bodies tell us and what we must know. And
we fill it with information (or false information) provided
by our culture. The line between innate and culturally learned
behavioral limits is not well defined…we do not need
cultural guidance in order to know how to breathe any more
than does the fish. Our ability to speak English, however,
is without a doubt cultural. To smile in response to a pleasant
stimulus and to frown in response to an irritating one is
definitely genetically rooted behavior to a certain extent…a
cynical smile and a sneering frown, though are essentially
cultural…" This progression, as described by Geertz,
relates to motivations - What led man (the term man also
includes lower species from which man developed) to use
skills other than biological ones, to fill voids essential
for his existence? How did man's brain develop as a result?
Geertz fails to address certain issues, let alone to solve
them. He overlooks the source of skills man acquired to
compensate for the deficiencies that were inherent to him,
and whether these skills developed out of paternal skills
and motivations. He also ignores the source of the secondary
skills, which created language -the inclination to connect,
to make order, and to find underlying principles. He ignores
the maternal-motivation, the emotional tendency that joined
people together and caused them to cooperate and to communicate
in a manner that would transmit information from generation
to generation, traits that served man not only by linking
different generations, but also different societies and
ethnic groups. Diamond cut diamond. No matter how hard Geertz
tries to elevate man to the level of self-creator, he cannot
avoid the question of who and what trait enabled man 'to
create himself.' Man demonstrated an inclination to search
for connections between individual facts, to attempt to
link isolated events, to find the common denominator to
different natural phenomenon, to establish a code of social
behavior that doesn't address every specific case but rather
offers underlying principles, to not limit himself to solving
each and every problem separately as it arises but to strive
to find an all-encompassing solution. The social developments
and relationships that developed that were predicated on
feelings and on sympathy for the weak, traits lacking in
other creatures must be viewed in light of these inherent
tendencies. All these, according to the approach that Geertz
develops, are paternal-influences that directed man on the
path that he described. These influences will be examined
in the next chapter.
