balinese cockfight Clifford Geertz 1993 Essays

Deep play/ balinese cockfight Clifford Geertz 1993 Essays Deep play/ balinese cockfight Clifford Geertz 1993 Paper Deep play/ balinese cockfight Clifford Geertz 1993 Paper therefore it was through the cockfight Geertz could learn and communicate the Balinese culture. Geertz goes on to use this banal and mundane practice to unpack the tellings of this certain culture. He does not look for absolute truth but rather the meaning. He holds no views he just passes on his understanding, for example people may argue that cockfighting is morally wrong and barbaric however Geertz does not convey any judgement he is concerned in what the cockfight means for the Balinese, for example â€Å"the cock who landed the first blow usually proceeds to finish off his weakened opponent. But this is far from an inevitable outcome, for if a cock can walk, he can fight, and if he can fight he can kill, and what counts is which cock expires first† (Geertz 1993:423). Bentham argues against the betting, as he believes it to be irrational, Geertz counters this argument by suggesting people do irrational things the whole time and that it doesn’t matter because the important thing in this situation is status, therefore bringing in the politics of the practice. Geertz implies that the cockfight is a way of expressing power from which they don’t usually have. â€Å"As much of America surfaces in a ball park, on a golf link, at a race track, or around a poker table, much of bali surfaces in a cock ring. For it is only apparently cocks that are fighting. Actually it is men† (Geertz 1993:417) Geertz has used this cockfight as not only a way to experience and communicate with the locals and its culture but also as an illustration of a method. It has been analysed in a way to create an analogy and reveal big themes in Balinese society such as status, inequality, rage and passion. What he has done is similar to Shakespeare in his plays. Geertz’s approach is entirely a symbolic analysis with no deep empathy. Although he brings out a lot of interesting theories and suggestions from symbolising this can be criticised because it is purely an interpretation, therefore how can we verify it?