Rachel Burgess
Dr. Shawn Schulenberg
PSC 207-201

After reading Geertz article, “Deep Play: Notes on the Balinese Cockfight,” I decided that I agree with the author’s idea that culture could be seen as a set of texts to be interpreted. However, for me, I believe that after considering the above; it is important to then understand the vital question of how texts are created and where do they come from? In this sense, this is where history comes into play. I believe cockfighting can be identified in many complex ways relating back to human nature itself. However, the social origin of status in Balinese society is never really discussed. It is important to decide whether or not these cockfights are metaphorical to the battles over status rather than battles over money. To my beliefs, it seemingly appears that the article could be considered slightly agnostic due to the fact that Geertz believes ones status and character can be defined through the distinguished success of their fighting cock. However, I would like to argue that this should not be taken as truth. In other words, I suggest that in the event and processes of cockfights are only symbolizing the idea of establishing power of ranks in Balinese villages. The main purpose of the article is the interpretation of different cultures. At first, Geertz was failing to conduct his research adequately due to the lack of recognition of existence that he and his wife were receiving from the people of Bali. Eventually however, after participating to flee from a raid at the local cockfight, the villagers found amusement in the tourists’ actions, breaking the tension, and then generally accepting Geertz and his wife. This was the turning point in the author’s quest and it is what made the observations and interviews possible between Geertz and the villagers. The author is writing about the problem of explaining why cockfighting prevails in Balinese culture by trying to explain so in “Deep Play.” Deep play can be defined as a game with stakes so high that no rational person would engage in it. Geertz is suggesting that culture can be interpreted as a set of texts to be discovered by anthropologists in his symbolic analysis. He is interested in identifying the symbolism of cockfighting rather than defining its shallow purpose in society. Geertz aims to provide a specific study of human society with an understanding of “thick description.” He claims that the nature of culture has a consequence for the social sciences and it has a typically unnoticed use of emotions for cognitive ends. Balinese cockfighting is a lesson within itself to Bali villagers to reinforce and educate the people on how to conduct order in their everyday lives. The author writes, “For it is only apparently cocks that are fighting there. Actually, it is men.” This is suggesting that the men take pride in themselves through their cock to establish prestige and power in the community. The key research question the author addresses is; can culture itself be identified as a cultural text waiting to be read by anthropologists? Another research question being asked is how can cockfighting be interpreted and compared to the owner’s own character? In other words, the “symbolic expressions or magnifications of their owner’s self,” lived through their fighting cock. The author’s hypothesis is yes, by showing how a cockfight serves as a cultural text which embodies the real meaning behind Balinese culture, which can be interpreted by anthropologists. Furthermore, cockfighting in Balinese life is seen to be merely metaphorical for the masculinity of men. He describes how a cock is to be representative to powerful men in the village and what they consider their ideal self. It can also be understood that it is representative to not only the man’s penis but also with what he “most fears, hates, and the ambivalence being what is- The Power of Darkness.” The methodology being used in this article is comparative. The author is comparing merely everything in the daily lives of the Balinese people to cocks and cockfighting. Geertz himself was a long-term participant observing the scene himself. He portrays the Balinese attitude towards cocks and cockfighting for his intended American readers by expressing how the cock represents a narcissistic male ego. He comparatively relates cockfighting’s masculinity to American cultural stereotypes such as playing baseball or poker. Geertz provides sufficient data and personal experience to support his interpretation of cockfighting in Bali and how it can be symbolic to the man himself. He collected field data during the 1950s in Bali, where he was conducting anthropology research with his wife on the real meaning of Balinese culture. Meanwhile, the author used historical and literary research and cross-cultural comparisons in his work. He uses prior knowledge such as how the Balinese associate animals and demons together, to his advantage when trying to understand the nature of symbolism being applied to cocks and cockfighting in Balinese civilization. However, Geertz fails to apply how cockfighting may be essential and representative to the women of Bali. He seemingly is biased to the idea that cockfighting is only geared and symbolic towards men. The main conclusions are identifying the allegorical significance when comparing cockfighting to the idea of assorting humans into hierarchical ranks and then organizing a unified function around so. This defines cockfighting as a sociological entity such as “focused gathering.” It is to be understood that the indication behind cockfighting is, “the thrill of risk, the despair of loss, and the pleasure of triumph.” Culture is “a historically transmitted pattern of meanings embodied in symbols, a system of inherited conceptions expressed in symbolic forms by means of which men communicate, perpetuate, and develop their knowledge about and their attitudes toward life.” Geertz explains that the main function of cockfighting is to be interpreted by Balinese villagers. He states, “It is a Balinese reading of Balinese experience; a story they tell themselves about themselves.” The first point I would like to address about the quality of this article is based on whether or not I believe that Geertz may have been so called “obsessed” with cockfights. Including, all of the myths about the ceremony, which could have increased the amount of importance of them to Bali culture in the author’s own opinion. In my assessment, I would say it could definitely be true that the author seemingly exaggerated the amount of symbolism cockfights have to the daily lives of Balinese people. Next, I would like to think that the author not only primarily focused on cockfighting, but neglected the many other cultural and social aspects of Balinese culture. He doesn’t directly quote anyone in his story but only talks about what he believes versus the village people themselves. Also, I do not find it to be very comparative to how different villagers of Bali are from the people of America. The author only describes how cockfighting’s masculine demeanor can be set side by side to what is considered to be masculine in American culture. Lastly, I believe Geertz could be considered chauvinist due to the aspect that cockfighting has no correlation to the women of Bali. He never once considers how cockfighting could affect the lives of women and their attitudes, or in what ways is it symbolic to Balinese women? Considering, I am unable to answer these questions due to the lack of consideration Geertz acknowledges; I do believe if he would have included this in his research then he would have provided a less biased opinion and a more accurate study. It is merely an interpretation of an interpretation to what degree cockfighting has influence over Balinese culture.