Balaš, Dualism and monism 128 ON DUALISM AND MONISM IN ANTHROPOLOGY: THE CASE OF CLIFFORD GEERTZ

Introduction Clifford Geertz is one of the most celebrated anthropologists in twentieth-century anthropology. Starting his career in the late nineteen-fifties, he represented the American branch of symbolic anthropology, also known as interpretive anthropology. Geertz’s work continues to influence present-day authors, even after anthropology shifted to different topics than those lying within the range of Geertz’s interests. Even in 2005, almost forty years after the publication of Geertz’s influential paper on religion, Kevin Schilbrack argued that Geertz’s theory of religion ‘continues to be a fruitful way to understand an important aspect of religious beliefs and practices’ (Schilbrack 2005: 429–430). This is not really surprising, for Geertz was the fifth most quoted scholar in anthropology between 2005 and 2010, and his book, The interpretation of cultures, was his most quoted book, ranking first in the list (see Anthropology Author Citation Rankings, n.d.). Geertz was also well known outside anthropology, being quoted by such influential academics as Richard Rorty, Quentin Skinner and Hans Medick (Kuper 1999: 114, 119; Medick 1987). Daniel Pals wrote in 1996: ‘His critics are few; his admirers legion’ (quoted from Frankenberry and Penner 1999: 617). To dispel any doubts about Geertz’s achievements, one should read Robert Darnton’s words: ‘As an anthropologist, philosopher, political scientist, literary critic, and all-around, all-star intellectual, Clifford Geertz helped a vast public make sense of the human condition’ (2011: 197). The author of this article does not think that Geertz deserves such admiration. Only if we dislodge Geertz from his pedestal will we be able to discern not only the shortcomings of his theory, but the reality of his contribution to anthropology as well.