Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Subscribe now for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

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

In the field but not of the field: Clifford Geertz, Robert Bellah, and the practices of... 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. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png European Journal of Social Theory SAGE

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

Loading next page...
 
/lp/sage/in-the-field-but-not-of-the-field-clifford-geertz-robert-bellah-and-4nj5t8ZXMw

References (43)

Publisher
SAGE
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2019
ISSN
1368-4310
eISSN
1461-7137
DOI
10.1177/1368431018823140
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

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.

Journal

European Journal of Social TheorySAGE

Published: Aug 1, 2020

There are no references for this article.