"The North African mule talks always of his mother's brother, the horse, but never of his father, the donkey, in favor of others supposedly more reputable"

This quote from Clifford Geertz uses metaphor to show styles of identity, heritage, and social status. It suggests an example with how people or groups might highlight aspects of their family tree or background that are viewed to be more prominent or trusted, while minimizing or neglecting those thought about less so.

The recommendation to the "North African mule" highlights the concept of blended heritage. Mules, being the offspring of a mare (horse) and a jack (donkey), are hybrids, resulting from 2 different species. In this context, "the mule" symbolizes individuals straddling diverse cultural or social identities. The option to "talk constantly of his mom's sibling, the horse", highlights a preference to associate with a part of one's lineage that is seen as remarkable. Horses, historically connected with nobility, strength, and grace, frequently represent higher social standing. Alternatively, the dad's identity, the donkey, usually connected with labor, stubbornness, and lower status, is easily omitted. This suggests a societal bias where specific identities or origins are valued over others.

Geertz's quote accentuates a universal human tendency to line up oneself with stories or identities that boost self-perception or social capital. It may reflect social dynamics where individuals or neighborhoods focus on connections to more esteemed or effective cultural or familial stories, in some cases for tactical assimilation, approval, or survival.

From an anthropological perspective, the quote motivates reflection on how social hierarchies and cultural histories affect identity formation. It highlights how people and societies construct identities that reflect social worths and aspirations, sometimes at the expense of their whole heritage. This might likewise suggest the external pressures that enhance the desirability of particular identities and the marginalization of others.

In conclusion, Geertz's words invite readers to critically take a look at how heritage and identity are selectively acknowledged and represented, both personally and collectively. They prompt a reassessment of the social constructs that affect how heritage is perceived and communicated.