Common Sense as a Cultural System

Geertz and Common Sense

Geertz: Analysis Common Sense

I have come to agree with Geertz in his conclusion that common sense is shaped by the society and culture we live in. Geertz describes common sense as "a relatively organized body of considered thought" (p. 75). Throughout Local Knowledge, he refers to common sense as being based in history and personal experiences. He offers that myth and accepted generalizations in a society for the foundation of what we call common sense. I particularly agree with Geertz in his assessment of the way intersexuality confuses the biological science scene and communities because common sense generally places sexuality into two categories: "maleness and femaleness." There is no room for an in-between.

Common sense, as Geertz defines it, is more than the "matter-of-fact apprehension of reality" (pp. 75-76). Common sense can be viewed as a cultural system because it is a loosely organized body of knowledge, similar to a regime such as art, science, and religion, but different in being only a set of accepted, everyday beliefs and oversimplifications. According to Geertz, common sense is made up of reflections on experience, with these reflections debated, discussed, and organized into a culture-specific system of wisdom (p. 80). I would go further and say that common sense is based on group think and societal norms.

Geertz uses intersexuality to point out that common sense differs from culture to culture. To support this argument, he points out that most Americans regard intersexuality with "horror" (p. 82). I think that this is because it offends most people's common sense to imagine such a physical condition. Problems arise, however, when instead of going out, seeking knowledge, and formulating opinions, we just take another's word on things that we don't know or understand. We abandon common sense and instead of turning to the Internet, literature, and/or individuals with direct experience on a subject, we are content to absorb whatever we hear in passing from others. Often this is based on misinformation and ignorance.

Interestingly, Geertz uses two stark examples of cultural reactions to intersexuality that are both somewhat irrational. In a Navaho tribe, instead of prompting horror or disgust, intersexuality might evoke wonder and awe. In Navaho common sense, intersexuals are considered blessed (p. 83). By contrast, in an East African Pokot tribe, intersexed people are regarded as useless due to their inability to reproduce and extend the all-important family line. They are frequently killed or ousted. The lives they live are miserable; they are neglected, lonely, treated with indifference. In Pokot common sense, intersexed people would have been better off never existing. As the two extremes suggest, there is no grey area for intersexuality. Someone is either male or female -- and that condition is either great or horrible. The overall social attitude on the subject is shaped solely by the collective "common sense" of the dominant culture. We see from these examples that there are myriad ways that local cultures think about the world.