In the field but not of the field: Clifford Geertz, Robert Bellah, and the practices of interdisciplinarity

Abstract

The intellectual trajectories of social scientists Robert N. Bellah and Clifford Geertz are compared as a case study in the production of successful interdisciplinary work. Geertz and Bellah started from a similar position, in terms of scholarly habits, network centrality, and symbolic capital. However, while Geertz became an interdisciplinary star and left his mark in disciplines as diverse as history, sociology, and cultural studies, Bellah’s interdisciplinary appeal was more limited, while his ability to speak to the general public as a public intellectual was unmatched by Geertz. We thus review Bellah’s and Geertz’s parallel careers using a multidimensional analytical model intended to complete current field-based and performative-pragmatist models of intellectual success, arguing that interdisciplinary success can be accounted for by a combination of local ecological factors, images of intellectual work, and texts showing a high degree of cross-disciplinary fluency.

The sociology of intellectuals in the 20th and 21st century

“…I argued that the subdiscipline has changed significantly from seeing intellectuals as an objective category of actors who were often analytically bound to a social group, towards more meaning‐sensitive approaches that account also for performativity or dovetail structural factors with creative agency. In other words, it has changed towards cultural explanations that focuses on intellectuals' ability to articulate particular symbols in specific historical moments (Baert, ) or effect of local and institutional environments (Bortolini & Cossu, ; Gross, ) their trajectory. However, as I noted, the integration of the performative turn and cultural sociological approach has not been completed so far, with nontextual aspects of performance and aesthetic and material representations of intellectual success largely escaping the scope of sociological research.…”

“…Occasionally, when not concerned with success, fame, or influence, sociologists explored their lack of it or the differences in their types and shades. Bortolini and Cossu (), for example, recently explored the discrepancy between the recognition of Robert Bellah and Clifford Geertz, of whom the latter became an interdisciplinary star and the former an intellectual with an appeal to the general public. In their answer to this puzzle, the authors focus on Bellah's and Geertz's different conceptions of cross‐disciplinary writing and local ecologies that encourage particular forms of scholarly tendencies, in this case the Harvard Department of Social Relations, “which required cross‐disciplinary fluency and the ability to work… with close attention to this interdisciplinary space, in terms of problem framing, topic selection, and research output” (Bortolini & Cossu, , p. 17).…”

“…Bortolini and Cossu (), for example, recently explored the discrepancy between the recognition of Robert Bellah and Clifford Geertz, of whom the latter became an interdisciplinary star and the former an intellectual with an appeal to the general public. In their answer to this puzzle, the authors focus on Bellah's and Geertz's different conceptions of cross‐disciplinary writing and local ecologies that encourage particular forms of scholarly tendencies, in this case the Harvard Department of Social Relations, “which required cross‐disciplinary fluency and the ability to work… with close attention to this interdisciplinary space, in terms of problem framing, topic selection, and research output” (Bortolini & Cossu, , p. 17). In another study, Gill () investigated the different positions occupied in the sociological pantheon by Charles W. Mills and Alvin W. Gouldner who received different levels of disciplinary attention despite marked similarities in their major topics.…”

“…In their studies, scholars tend to privilege actors who achieved the pinnacle of success or even became true global celebrities. In the recent decades, the focus of sociological studies of intellectuals had usually been on individuals such as Sartre (Baert, ), Fromm (McLaughlin, ), Bellah and Geertz (Bortolini, ; Bortolini & Cossu, ), Foucault and Małinowski (Bartmanski, ), or Rorty (Gross, ). In other words, the face of the field is changing from the sociology of intellectuals to a sociology of famous intellectuals.…”

Erased or Surviving Despite Challenges? The State of Anthropology in Poland

“…Indeed, Geertz was a poster child of interdisciplinarity. He influenced disciplines as diverse as history, sociology, and cultural studies (Bortolini & Cossu, 2020) without ever ceasing to bring anthropology to the table. He certainly did not advocate erasing anthropology.…”