Observation In Geertz

The narrative of the French, Jewish, and Berber relations, while an exceptionally well-rounded story does not acknowledge, in the text itself, Geertz’s role in the situation - thus giving an incomplete account of the events. To not be reminded of the author's role, allows the reader to view the narrative as fact when in actuality the author’s observation and interpretation separate the reader from the truth. Observation is often taken for granted as an ethnographer's view and understanding is changed depending on the perspective he uses. While his approach to ethnography provides the reader with a coherent narrative, it neglects to show how the information was gathered or an evaluation of the reliability of the sources. Had he placed himself

Geertz states the event transcribed took place in 1912, but only recounted in 1968. Nevertheless, the degrees of separation from which I am to the story changes my interpretation of the events. The original recounting of the events, told my whomever, was likely not accepted without skepticism from Geertz, however, he does not specify his sources. If he was directly involved in the story (perhaps as a confidant to Cohen) then the retelling of it would be different (and less questioned) than if someone else recited the story to Geertz. If he gathered many different accounts and each community had a different story from the others, but the individuals in the community had the same story, then it would be important for Geertz to understand if the story has already been told it has already been modified. Additionally, it is important to note that Geertz may have simplified the story by leaving out what appeared at the time to be unnecessary details. Furthermore, as the best narratives have meaning in them, Geertz’s selective with the information he included is questionable. However, the benefit of a simplified account of the events which implies an accurate meaning despite the risk of misinformation may outweigh the downsides in ethnographic