CLIFFORD GEERTZ

October 27, 2006 at 9:23 pm | Posted in Asia, Books, Globalization, History, Islam, Literary, Philosophy, Research | Leave a comment

spin-globe.gif

books-globe.gif

globe-purple.gif

history.gif

world.gif

Clifford Geertz

Clifford James Geertz (born August 23,
1926 in San Francisco) is an American anthropologist
serving as professor emeritus at the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, New Jersey.

Life

After service in the U.S. Navy in World War II
(1943-45), Geertz received his B.A. from Antioch College
in 1950, and his Ph.D. from Harvard in 1956. He taught or held fellowships at a number of schools before joining the anthropology staff of the University of Chicago (1960-70); he then became
professor of social science at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton from 1970-2000, now emeritus. Geertz received a L.H.D. from Bates College in 1980.

Thought and works

At the University of Chicago, Geertz became a “champion of symbolic anthropology“, which gives prime
attention to the role of thought (of “symbols”) in society. Symbols guide
action. Culture, outlined by Geertz in his famous book The Interpretation of Cultures
(1973), is “a system of inherited conceptions expressed in symbolic forms by means of
which people communicate, perpetuate, and develop their knowledge about and attitudes
toward life.” The function of culture is to impose meaning on the world and make it
understandable. The role of anthropologists is to try (though complete success is not
possible) to interpret the guiding symbols of each culture (see thick description). Geertz was quite innovative in this
regard, as he was one of the first to see that the insights provided by common language
philosophy and literary analysis could have major explanatory force in the social
sciences.

He has conducted extensive ethnographical research in Southeast Asia and North
Africa
. He has also contributed to social and cultural
theory
and is still very influential in turning anthropology
toward a concern with the frames of meaning within which various peoples live out their
lives. He has worked on religion, most particularly Islam, on
bazaar trade, on economic development, on traditional political structures, and on village
and family life. He is presently working on the general question of ethnic diversity and
its implications in the modern world.

Harvard professor and literary scholar Stephen
Greenblatt
identifies him as a strong influence, and Geertz acknowledges Greenblatt as
a faithful interpreter of his work.

Interlocutors

Major publications

Deep Play: Notes on the Balinese Cockfight

by Clifford Geertz

The Raid

Early in
April of 1958, my wife and I arrived, malarial and diffident, in a Balinese village we
intended, as anthropologists, to study. A small place, about five hundred people, and
relatively remote, it was its own world. We were intruders, professional ones, and the
villagers dealt with us as Balinese seem always to deal with people not part of their life
who yet press themselves upon them: as though we were not there. For them, and to a degree
for ourselves, we were nonpersons, specters, invisible men.We moved into an extended
family compound (that had been arranged before through the provincial government)
belonging to one of the four major factions in village life. But except for our landlord
and the village chief, whose cousin and brother-in-law he was, everyone ignored us in a
way only a Balinese can do. As we wandered around, uncertain, wistful, eager to please,
people seemed to look right through us with a gaze focused several yards behind us on some
more actual stone or tree. Almost nobody greeted us; but nobody scowled or said anything
unpleasant to us either, which would have been almost as satisfactory. If we ventured to
approach someone (something one is powerfully inhibited from doing in such an atmosphere),
he moved, negligently but definitively, away. If, seated or leaning against a wall, we had
him trapped, he said nothing at all, or mumbled what for the Balinese is the ultimate
nonword-“yes.” The indifference, of course, was studied; the villagers were
watching every move we made and they had an enormous amount of quite accurate information
about who we were and what we were going to be doing. But they acted as if we simply did
not exist, which, in fact, as this behavior was designed to inform us, we did not, or
anyway not yet.
My wife and I were still very much in the gust of wind stage, a most frustrating, and
even, as you soon begin to doubt whether you are really real after all, unnerving one,
when, ten days or so after our arrival, a large cockfight was held in the public square to
raise money for a new school.

Now, a few special occasions aside, cockfights are illegal in Bali under the Republic
(as, for not altogether unrelated reasons, they were under the Dutch), largely as a result
of the pretensions to puritanism radical nationalism tends to bring with it. The elite,
which is not itself so very puritan, worries about the poor, ignorant peasant gambling all
his money away, about what foreigners will think, about the waste of time better devoted
to building up the country. It sees cockfighting as “primitive,”
“backward,” “unprogressive,” and generally unbecoming an ambitious
nation. And, as with those other embarrassments -opium smoking, begging, or uncovered
breasts-it seeks, rather unsystematically, to put a stop to it.

As a result, the fights are usually held in a secluded corner of a village in
semisecrecy, a fact which tends to slow the action a little-not very much, but the
Balinese do not care to have it slowed at all. In this case, however, perhaps because they
were raising money for a school that the government was unable to give them, perhaps
because raids had been few recently, perhaps, as I gathered from subsequent discussion,
there was a notion that the necessary bribes had been paid, they thought they could take a
chance on the central square and draw a larger and more enthusiastic crowd without
attracting the attention of the law.

They were wrong. In the midst of the third match, with hundreds of people, including,
still transparent, myself and my wife, fused into a single body around the ring, a
superorganism in the literal sense, a truck full of policemen armed with machine guns
roared up. Amid great screeching cries of “pulisi! pulisi!” from the crowd, the
policemen jumped out, and, springing into the center of the ring, began to swing their
guns around like gangsters in a motion picture, though not going so far as actually to
fire them. The superorganism came instantly apart as its components scattered in all
directions. People raced down the road, disappeared head first over walls, scrambled under
platforms, folded themselves behind wicker screens, scuttled up coconut trees. Cocks armed
with steel spurs sharp enough to cut off a finger or run a hole through a foot were
running wildly around. Everything was dust and panic.

On the established anthropological principle, When in Rome, my wife and I decided, only
slightly less instantaneously than everyone else, that the thing to do was run too. We ran
down the main village street, northward, away from where we were living, for we were on
that side of the ring. About half-way down another fugitive ducked suddenly into a
compound-his own, it turned out-and we, seeing nothing ahead of us but rice fields, open
country, and a very high volcano, followed him. As the three of us came tumbling into the
courtyard, his wife, who had apparently been through this sort of thing before, whipped
out a table, a tablecloth, three chairs, and three cups of tea, and we all, without any
explicit communication whatsoever, sat down, commenced to sip tea, and sought to compose
ourselves.

A few moments later, one of the policemen marched importantly into the yard, looking
for the village chief. (The chief had not only been at the fight, he had arranged it. When
the truck drove up he ran to the river, stripped off his sarong, and plunged in so he
could say, when at length they found him sitting there pouring water over his head, that
he had been away bathing when the whole affair had occurred and was ignorant of it. They
did not believe him and fined him three hundred rupiah, which the village raised
collectively.) Seeing my wife and I, “White Men,” there in the yard, the
policeman performed a classic double take. When he found his voice again he asked,
approximately, what in the devil did we think we were doing there. Our host of five
minutes leaped instantly to our defense, producing an impassioned description of who and
what we were, so detailed and so accurate that it was my turn, having barely communicated
with a living human being save my landlord and the village chief for more than a week, to
be astonished. We had a perfect right to be there, he said, looking the Javanese upstart
in the eye. We were American professors; the government had cleared us; we were there to
study culture; we were going to write a book to tell Americans about Bali. And we had all
been there drinking tea and talking about cultural matters all afternoon and did not know
anything about any cockfight. Moreover, we had not seen the village chief all day, he must
have gone to town. The policeman retreated in rather total disarray. And, after a decent
interval, bewildered but relieved to have survived and stayed out of jail, so did we.

The next morning the village was a completely different world for us. Not only were we
no longer invisible, we were suddenly the center of all attention, the object of a great
outpouring of warmth, interest, and, most especially, amusement. Everyone in the village
knew we had fled like everyone else. They asked us about it again and again (I must have
told the story, small detail by small detail, fifty times by the end of the day), gently,
affectionately, but quite insistently teasing us: “Why didn’t you just stand there
and tell the police who you were?” “Why didn’t you just say you were only
watching and not betting?” “Were you really afraid of those little guns?”
As always, kinesthetically minded and, even when fleeing for their lives (or, as happened
eight years later, surrendering them), the world’s most poised people, they gleefully
mimicked, also over and over again, our graceless style of running and what they claimed
were our panic-stricken facial expressions. But above all, everyone was extremely pleased
and even more surprised that we had not simply “pulled out our papers” (they
knew about those too) and asserted our Distinguished Visitor status, but had instead
demonstrated our solidarity with what were now our covillagers. (What we had actually
demonstrated was our cowardice, but there is fellowship in that too.) Even the Brahmana
priest, an old, grave, half-way-to-Heaven type who because of its associations with the
underworld would never be involved, even distantly, in a cockfight, and was difficult to
approach even to other Balinese, had us called into his courtyard to ask us about what had
happened, chuckling happily at the sheer extraordinariness of it all.

In Bali, to be teased is to be accepted. It was the turning point so far as our
relationship to the community was concerned, and we were quite literally “in.”
The whole village opened up to us, probably more than it ever would have otherwise (I
might actually never have gotten to that priest and our accidental host became one of my
best informants), and certainly very much faster. Getting caught, or almost caught, in a
vice raid is perhaps not a very generalizable recipe for achieving that mysterious
necessity of anthropological field work, rapport, but for me it worked very well. It led
to a sudden and unusually complete acceptance into a society extremely difficult for
outsiders to penetrate. It gave me the kind of immediate, inside view grasp of an aspect
of “peasant mentality” that anthropologists not fortunate enough to flee
headlong with their subjects from armed authorities normally do not get. And, perhaps most
important of all, for the other things might have come in other ways, it put me very
quickly on to a combination emotional explosion, status war, and philosophical drama of
central significance to the society whose inner nature I desired to understand. By the
time I left I had spent about as much time looking into cockfights as into witchcraft,
irrigation, caste, or marriage.

Of Cocks and Men

As much of America surfaces in a ball park, on a golf links, 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 there. Actually, it is men.

To anyone who has been in Bali any length of time, the deep psychological
identification of Balinese men with their cocks is unmistakable. The double entendre here
is deliberate. It works in exactly the same way in Balinese as it does in English, even to
producing the same tired jokes, strained puns, and uninventive obscenities. Bateson and
Mead have even suggested that, in line with the Balinese conception of the body as a set
of separately animated parts, cocks are viewed as detachable, self-operating penises,
ambulant genitals with a life of their own. And while I do not have the kind of
unconscious material either to confirm or disconfirm this intriguing notion, the fact that
they are masculine symbols par excellence is about as indubitable, and to the Balinese
about as evident, as the fact that water runs downhill.

The language of everyday moralism is shot through, on the male side of it, with
roosterish imagery. Sabung, the word for cock (and one which appears in inscriptions as
early as A.D. 922 ), is used metaphorically to mean “hero,” “warrior,”
“champion,” “man of parts,” “political candidate,”
“bachelor,” “dandy,” “lady-killer,” or “tough
guy.” A pompous man whose behavior presumes above his station is compared to a
tailless cock who struts about as though he had a large, spectacular one. A desperate man
who makes a last, irrational effort to extricate himself from an impossible situation is
likened to a dying cock who makes one final lunge at his tormentor to drag him along to a
common destruction. A stingy man, who promises much, gives little, and begrudges that is
compared to a cock which, held by the tail, leaps at another without in fact engaging him.
A marriageable young man still shy with the opposite sex or someone in a new job anxious
to make a good impression is called “a fighting cock caged for the first time.”
Court trials, wars, political contests, inheritance disputes, and street arguments are all
compared to cockfights. Even the very island itself is perceived from its shape as a
small, proud cock, poised, neck extended, back taut, tail raised, in eternal challenge to
large, feckless, shapeless Java.

But the intimacy of men with their cocks is more than metaphorical. Balinese men, or
anyway a large majority of Balinese men, spend an enormous amount of time with their
favorites, grooming them, feeding them, discussing them, trying them out against one
another, or just gazing at them with a mixture of rapt admiration and dreamy
self-absorption. Whenever you see a group of Balinese men squatting idly in the council
shed or along the road in their hips down, shoulders forward, knees up fashion, half or
more of them will have a rooster in his hands, holding it between his thighs, bouncing it
gently up and down to strengthen its legs, ruffling its feathers with abstract sensuality,
pushing it out against a neighbor’s rooster to rouse its spirit, withdrawing it toward his
loins to calm it again Now and then, to get a feel for another bird, a man will fiddle
this way with someone else’s cock for a while, but usually by moving around to squat in
place behind it, rather than just having it passed across to him as though it were merely
an animal.

In the houseyard, the high-walled enclosures where the people live, fighting cocks are
kept in wicker cages, moved frequently about so as to maintain the optimum balance of sun
and shade. They are fed a special diet, which varies somewhat according to individual
theories but which is mostly maize, sifted for impurities with far more care than it is
when mere humans are going to eat it and offered to the animal kernel by kernel. Red
pepper is stuffed down their beaks and up their anuses to give them spirit. They are
bathed in the same ceremonial preparation of tepid water, medicinal herbs, flowers, and
onions in which infants are bathed, and for a prize cock just about as often. Their combs
are cropped, their plumage dressed, their spurs trimmed, their legs massaged, and they are
inspected for flaws with the squinted concentration of a diamond merchant. A man who has a
passion for cocks, an enthusiast in the literal sense of the term, can spend most of his
life with them, and even those, the overwhelming majority, whose passion though intense
has not entirely run away with them, can and do spend what seems not only to an outsider,
but also to themselves an inordinate amount of time with them. “I am cock
crazy,” my landlord, a quite ordinary afficionado by Balinese standards, used to moan
as he went to move another cage, give another bath, or conduct another feeding.
“We’re all cock crazy.”

The madness has some less visible dimensions, however, because although it is true that
cocks are symbolic expressions or magnifications of their owner’s self, the narcissistic
male ego writ out in Aesopian terms, they are also expressions- and rather more immediate
ones-of what the Balinese regard as the direct inversion, aesthetically, morally, and
metaphysically, of human status: animality.

The Balinese revulsion against any behavior as animal-like can hardly be overstressed.
Babies are not allowed to crawl for that reason. Incest, though hardly approved, is a much
less horrifying crime than bestiality. (The appropriate punishment for the second is death
by drowning, for the first being forced to live like an animal.) Most demons are
represented-in sculpture, dance, ritual, myth-in some real or fantastic animal form. The
main puberty rite consists in filing the child’s teeth so they will not look like animal
fangs. Not only defecation but eating is regarded as a disgusting, almost obscene
activity, to be conducted hurriedly and privately, because of its association with
animality. Even falling down or any form of clumsiness is considered to be bad for these
reasons. Aside from cocks and a few domestic animals-oxen, ducks-of no emotional
significance, the Balinese are aversive to animals and treat their large number of dogs
not merely callously but with a phobic cruelty. In identifying with his cock, the Balinese
man is identifying not just with his ideal self, or even his penis, but also, and at the
same time, with what he most fears, hates, and ambivalence being what it is, is fascinated
by-The Powers of Darkness.

The connection of cocks and cockfighting with such Powers, with the animalistic demons
that threaten constantly to invade the small, cleared off space in which the Balinese have
so carefully built their lives and devour its inhabitants, is quite explicit. A cockfight,
any cockfight, is in the first instance a blood sacrifice offered, with the appropriate
chants and oblations, to the demons in order to pacify their ravenous, cannibal hunger. No
temple festival should be conducted until one is made. (If it is omitted someone will
inevitably fall into a trance and command with the voice of an angered spirit that the
oversight be immediately corrected.) Collective responses to natural evils-illness, crop
failure, volcanic eruptions-almost always involve them. And that famous holiday in Bali,
The Day of Silence (Njepi), when everyone sits silent and immobile all day long in order
to avoid contact with a sudden influx of demons chased momentarily out of hell, is
preceded the previous day by large-scale cockfights (in this case legal) in almost every
village on the island.

In the cockfight, man and beast, good and evil, ego and id, the creative power of
aroused masculinity and the destructive power of loosened animality fuse in a bloody drama
of hatred, cruelty, violence, and death. It is little wonder that when, as is the
invariable rule, the owner of the winning cock takes the carcass of the loser- often torn
limb from limb by its enraged owner-home to eat, he does so with a mixture of social
embarrassment, moral satisfaction, aesthetic disgust, and cannibal joy.

The Fight

Cockfights (tetadjen; sabungan ) are held in a ring about fifty feet square. Usually
they begin toward late afternoon and run three or four hours until sunset. About nine or
ten separate matches (sehet) comprise a program. Each match is precisely like the others
in general pattern: there is no main match, no connection between individual matches, no
variation in their format, and each is arranged on a completely ad hoc basis. After a
fight has ended and the emotional debris is cleaned away-the bets paid, the curses cursed,
the carcasses possessed- seven, eight, perhaps even a dozen men slip negligently into the
ring with a cock and seek to find there a logical opponent for it. This process, which
rarely takes less than ten minutes, and often a good deal longer, is conducted in a very
subdued, oblique, even dissembling manner Those not immediately involved give it at best
but disguised, sidelong attention; those who, embarrassedly, are, attempt to pretend
somehow that the whole thing is not really happening.

A match made, the other hopefuls retire with the same deliberate indifference, and the
selected cocks have their spurs (tadji) affixed- razor sharp, pointed steel swords, four
or five inches long. This is a delicate job which only a small proportion of men, a
half-dozen or so in most villages, know how to do properly. The man who attaches the spurs
also provides them, and if the rooster he assists wins its owner awards him the spur-leg
of the victim. The spurs are affixed by winding a long length of string around the foot of
the spur and the leg of the cock. For reasons I shall come to, it is done somewhat
differently from case to case, and is an obsessively deliberate affair. The lore about
spurs is extensive-they are sharpened only at eclipses and the dark of the moon, should be
kept out of the sight of women, and so forth. And they are handled, both in use and out,
with the same curious combination of fussiness and sensuality the Balinese direct toward
ritual objects generally.

The spurs affixed, the two cocks are placed by their handlers (who may or may not be
their owners) facing one another in the center of the ring. A coconut pierced with a small
hole is placed in a pail of water, in which it takes about twenty-one seconds to sink, a
period known as a tjeng and marked at beginning and end by the beating of a slit gong.
During these twenty-one seconds the handlers (pengangkeb) are not permitted to touch their
roosters. If, as sometimes happens, the animals have not fought during this time, they are
picked up, fluffed, pulled, prodded, and otherwise insulted, and put back in the center of
the ring and the process begins again. Sometimes they refuse to fight at all, or one keeps
running away, in which case they are imprisoned together under a wicker cage, which
usually gets them engaged.

Most of the time, in any case, the cocks fly almost immediately at one another in a
wing-beating, head-thrusting, leg-kicking explosion of animal fury so pure, so absolute,
and in its own way so beautiful, as to be almost abstract, a Platonic concept of hate.
Within moments one or the other drives home a solid blow with his spur. The handler whose
cock has delivered the blow immediately picks it up so that it will not get a return blow,
for if he does not the match is likely to end in a mutually mortal tie as the two birds
wildly hack each other to pieces. This is particularly true if, as often happens, the spur
sticks in its victim’s body, for then the aggressor is at the mercy of his wounded foe.

With the birds again in the hands of their handlers, the coconut is now sunk three
times after which the cock which has landed the blow must be set down to show that he is
firm, a fact he demonstrates by wandering idly around the rink for a coconut sink. The
coconut is then sunk twice more and the fight must recommence.

During this interval, slightly over two minutes, the handler of the wounded cock has
been working frantically over it, like a trainer patching a mauled boxer between rounds,
to get it in shape for a last, desperate try for victory. He blows in its mouth, putting
the whole chicken head in his own mouth and sucking and blowing, fluffs it, stuffs its
wounds with various sorts of medicines, and generally tries anything he can think of to
arouse the last ounce of spirit which may be hidden somewhere within it. By the time he is
forced to put it back down he is usually drenched in chicken blood, but, as in prize
fighting, a good handler is worth his weight in gold. Some of them can virtually make the
dead walk, at least long enough for the second and final round.

In the climactic battle (if there is one; sometimes the wounded cock simply expires in
the handler’s hands or immediately as it is placed down again), 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. If the wounded one can get a stab in and
stagger on until the other drops, he is the official winner, even if he himself topples
over an instant later.

Surrounding all this melodrama – which the crowd packed tight around the ring follows
in near silence, moving their bodies in kinesthetic sympathy with the movement of the
animals, cheering their champions on with wordless hand motions, shiftings of the
shoulders, turnings of the head, falling back en masse as the cock with the murderous
spurs careens toward one side of the ring (it is said that spectators sometimes lose eyes
and fingers from being too attentive), surging forward again as they glance off toward
another – is a vast body of extraordinarily elaborate and precisely detailed rules.

These rules, together with the developed lore of cocks and cockfighting which
accompanies them, are written down in palm leaf manuscripts (lontar; rontal) passed on
from generation to generation as part of the general legal and cultural tradition of the
villages. At a fight, the umpire (saja konong; djuru kembar) – the man who manages the
coconut – is in charge of their application and his authority is absolute. I have never
seen an umpire’s judgment questioned on any subject, even by the more despondent losers,
nor have I ever heard, even in private, a charge of unfairness directed against one, or,
for that matter, complaints about umpires in general. Only exceptionally well-trusted,
solid, and, given the complexity of the code, knowledgeable citizens perform this job, and
in fact men will bring their cocks only to fights presided over by such men. It is also
the umpire to whom accusations of cheating, which, though rare in the extreme,
occasionally arise, are referred; and it is he who in the not infrequent cases where the
cocks expire virtually together decides which (if either, for, though the Balinese do not
care for such an outcome, there can be ties) went first. Likened to a judge, a king, a
priest, and a policeman, he is all of these, and under his assured direction the animal
passion of the fight proceeds within the civic certainty of the law. In the dozens of
cockfights I saw in Bali, I never once saw an altercation about rules. Indeed, I never saw
an open altercation, other than those between cocks, at all.

This crosswise doubleness of an event which, taken as a fact of nature, is rage
untrammeled and, taken as a fact of culture, is form perfected, defines the cockfight as a
sociological entity. A cockfight is what, searching for a name for something not
vertebrate enough to be called a group and not structureless enough to be called a crowd,
Erving Goffman has called a “focused gathering”-a set of persons engrossed in a
common flow of activity and relating to one another in terms of that flow. Such gatherings
meet and disperse; the participants in them fluctuate; the activity that focuses them is
discreet-a particulate process that reoccurs rather than a continuous one that endures.
They take their form from the situation that evokes them, the floor on which they are
placed, as Goffman puts it; but it is a form, and an articulate one, nonetheless. For the
situation, the floor is itself created, in jury deliberations, surgical operations, block
meetings, sitins, cockfights, by the cultural preoccupations-here, as we shall see, the
celebration of status rivalry-which not only specify the focus but, assembling actors and
arranging scenery, bring it actually into being.

In classical times (that is to say, prior to the Dutch invasion
of 1908
) when there were no bureaucrats around to improve popular morality, the
staging of a cockfight was an explicitly societal matter. Bringing a cock to an important
fight was, for an adult male, a compulsory duty of citizenship; taxation of fights, which
were usually held on market day, was a major source of public revenue; patronage of the
art was a stated responsibility of princes; and the cock ring, or wantilan, stood in the
center of the village near those other monuments of Balinese civility-the council house,
the origin temple, the marketplace, the signal tower, and the banyan tree. Today, a few
special occasions aside, the newer rectitude makes so open a statement of the connection
between the excitements of collective life and those of blood sport impossible, but, less
directly expressed, the connection itself remains intimate and intact. To expose it,
however, it is necessary to turn to the aspect of cockfighting around which all the others
pivot, and through which they exercise their force, an aspect I have thus far studiously
ignored. I mean, of course, the gambling.

Odds and Even Money

The Balinese never do anything in a simple way that they can contrive to do in a
complicated one, and to this generalization cockfight wagering is no exception.

In the first place, there are two sorts of bets, or toh. There is the single axial bet
in the center between the principals (toh ketengah), and there is the cloud of peripheral
ones around the ring between members of the audience (toh kesasi ). The first is typically
large; the second typically small. The first is collective, involving coalitions of
bettors clustering around the owner; the second is individual, man to man. The first is a
matter of deliberate, very quiet, almost furtive arrangement by the coalition members and
the umpire huddled like conspirators in the center of the ring; the second is a matter of
impulsive shouting, public offers, and public acceptances by the excited throng around its
edges. And most curiously, and as we shall see most revealingly, where the first is
always, without exception, even money, the second, equally without exception, is never
such. What is a fair coin in the center is a biased one on the side.

The center bet is the official one, hedged in again with a webwork of rules, and is
made between the two cock owners, with the umpire as overseer and public witness. This
bet, which, as I say, is always relatively and sometimes very large, is never raised
simply by the owner in whose name it is made, but by him together with four or five,
sometimes seven or eight, allies- kin, village mates, neighbors, close friends. He may, if
he is not especially well-to-do, not even be the major contributor, though, if only to
show that he is not involved in any chicanery, he must be a significant one.

Of the fifty-seven matches for which I have exact and reliable data on the center bet,
the range is from fifteen ringgits to five hundred, with a mean at eighty-five and with
the distribution being rather noticeably trimodal: small fights (15 ringgits either side
of 35 ) accounting for about 45 per cent of the total number; medium ones (20 ringgits
either side of 70) for about 25 per cent; and large (75 ringgits either side of 175) for
about 20 per cent, with a few very small and very large ones out at the extremes. In a
society where the normal daily wage of a manual laborer – a brickmaker, an ordinary
farmworker, a market porter – was about three ringgits a day, and considering the fact
that fights were held on the average about every two-and a-half days in the immediate area
I studied, this is clearly serious gambling, even if the bets are pooled rather than
individual efforts.

The side bets are, however, something else altogether. Rather than the solemn,
legalistic pactmaking of the center, wagering takes place rather in the fashion in which
the stock exchange used to work when it was out on the curb. There is a fixed and known
odds paradigm which runs in a continuous series from ten-to-nine at the short end to
two-to-one on the long: 10-9, 9-8, 8-7, 7-6, 6-5, 5-4, 4-3, 3-2, 2-1. The man who wants
the underdog cock shouts the short-side number indicating the odds he wants to be given.
That is, if he shouts gasal, “five,” he wants the underdog at five-to-four (or,
for him, four-to-five); if he shouts “four,” he wants it at four-to-three
(again, he putting up the “three”), if “nine” at nine-to-eight, and so
on. A man backing the favorite, and thus considering giving odds if he can get them short
enough, indicates the fact by crying out the color-type of that cock – “brown,”
“speckled,” or whatever.

Almost always odds calling starts off toward the the long end of the range –
five-to-four or four-to-three- and then moves toward the shorter end with greater or less
speed and to a greater and lesser degree. Men crying “five” and finding
themselves answered only with cries of “brown” start crying “six.” If
the change is made and partners are still scarce, the procedure is repeated in a move to
“seven,” and so on. Occasionally, if the cocks are clearly mismatched, there may
be no upward movement at all, or even movement down the scale to four-to-three,
three-to-two, very, very rarely to two-to-one, a shift which is accompanied by a declining
number of bets as a shift upward is accompanied by an increasing number. But the general
pattern is for the betting to move a shorter or longer distance up the scale toward the,
for sidebets, nonexistent pole of even money, with the overwhelming majority of bets
falling in the four-to-three to eight-to-seven range.

The higher the center bet, the more likely the match will in actual fact be an even
one. In a large-bet fight the pressure to make the match a genuinely fifty-fifty
proposition is enormous, and is consciously felt as such. For medium fights the pressure
is somewhat less, and for small ones less yet, though there is always an effort to make
things at least approximately equal, for even at fifteen ringgits (five days work) no one
wants to make an even money bet in a clearly unfavorable situation. And, again, what
statistics I have tend to bear this out. In my fifty-seven matches, the favorite won
thirty-three times over-all, the underdog twenty-four, a 1.4 to 1 ratio. But if one splits
the figures at sixty ringgits center bets, the ratios turn out to be 1.1 to 1 (twelve
favorites, eleven underdogs) for those above this line, and 1.6 to 1 (twenty-one and
thirteen) for those below it. Or, if you take the extremes, for very large fights, those
with center bets over a hundred ringgits the ratio is 1 to 1 (seven and seven); for very
small fights, those under forty ringgits, it is 1.9 to 1 (nineteen and ten).

The paradox of fair coin in the middle, biased coin on the outside is thus a merely
apparent one. The two betting systems, though formally incongruent, are not really
contradictory to one another, but part of a single larger system in which the center bet
is, so to speak, the “center of gravity,” drawing, the larger it is the more so,
the outside bets toward the short-odds end of the scale. The center
bet thus “makes the game,” or perhaps better, defines it, signals what,
following a notion of Jeremy Bentham’s, I am going to call its “depth.”

The Balinese attempt to create an interesting, if you will, “deep,” match by
making the center bet as large as possible so that the cocks matched will be as equal and
as fine as possible, and the outcome, thus, as unpredictable as possible. They do not
always succeed. Nearly half the matches are relatively trivial, relatively
uninteresting-in my borrowed terminology, “shallow”- affairs. But that fact no
more argues against my interpretation than the fact that most painters, poets, and
playwrights are mediocre argues against the view that artistic effort is directed toward
profundity and, with a certain frequency, approximates it. The image of artistic technique
is indeed exact: the center bet is a means, a device, for creating
“interesting,” “deep” matches, not the reason, or at least not the
main reason, why they are interesting, the source of their fascination, the substance of
their depth. The question why such matches are interesting-indeed, for the Balinese,
exquisitely absorbing-takes us out of the realm of formal concerns into more broadly
sociological and social-psychological ones, and to a less purely economic idea of what
“depth” in gaming amounts to.

Continued in …..

Part Two of Deep Play: Notes on the Balinese
Cockfight

Deep Play: Notes on the Balinese Cockfight pt 2

by Clifford Geertz

Playing with Fire

Bentham’s
concept of “deep play” is found in his
The Theory of Legislation. By it he means play in which the stakes are so high that
it is, from his utilitarian standpoint, irrational for men to engage in it at all.This,
I must stress immediately, is not to say that the money does not matter, or that the
Balinese is no more concerned about losing five hundred ringgits than fifteen. Such a
conclusion would be absurd. It is because money does, in this hardly unmaterialistic
society, matter and matter very much that the more of it one risks the more of a lot of
other things, such as one’s pride, one’s poise, one’s dispassion, one’s masculinity, one
also risks, again only momentarily but again very publicly as well. In deep cockfights an
owner and his collaborators, and, as we shall see, to a lesser but still quite real extent
also their backers on the outside, put their money where their status is.
It is in large part because the marginal disutility of loss is so great at the higher
levels of betting that to engage in such betting is to lay one’s public self, allusively
and metaphorically, through the medium of one’s cock, on the line. And
though to a Benthamite this might seem merely to increase the irrationality of the
enterprise that much further, to the Balinese what it mainly increases is the
meaningfulness of it all. And as (to follow Weber rather than Bentham) the imposition of
meaning on life is the major end and primary condition of human existence, that access of
significance more than compensates for the economic costs involved.
Actually, given
the even-money quality of the larger matches, important changes in material fortune among
those who regularly participate in them seem virtually nonexistent, because matters more
or less even out over the long run.

This graduated correlation of “status gambling” with
deeper fights and, inversely, “money gambling” with shallower ones is in fact
quite general.
Bettors themselves form a sociomoral hierarchy in these terms. As
noted earlier, at most cockfights there are, around the very edges of the cockfight area,
a large number of mindless, sheer-chance type gambling games (roulette, dice throw,
coin-spin, pea-under-the-shell) operated by concessionaires. Only women, children,
adolescents, and various other sorts of people who do not (or not yet) fight cocks – the
extremely poor, the socially despised, the personally idiosyncratic – play at these games,
at, of course, penny ante levels. Cockfighting men would be ashamed to go anywhere near
them. Slightly above these people in standing are those who, though they do not themselves
fight cocks, bet on the smaller matches around the edges. Next, there are those who fight
cocks in small, or occasionally medium matches, but have not the status to join in the
large ones, though they may bet from time to time on the side in those. And finally, there
are those, the really substantial members of the community, the solid citizenry around
whom local life revolves, who fight in the larger fights and bet on them around the side.
The focusing element in these focused gatherings, these men generally dominate and define
the sport as they dominate and define the society. When a Balinese male talks, in that
almost venerative way, about “the true cockfighter,” the bebatoh
(“bettor” ) or djuru kurung (“cage keeper”), it is this sort of
person, not those who bring the mentality of the pea-and-shell game into the quite
different, inappropriate context of the cockfight, the driven gambler (potet, a word which
has the secondary meaning of thief or reprobate), and the wistful hanger-on, that they
mean. For such a man, what is really going on in a match is something rather closer to an
affaire d’honneur (though, with the Balinese talent for practical fantasy, the blood that
is spilled is only figuratively human) than to the stupid, mechanical crank of a slot
machine (….Continued…)

What makes Balinese cockfighting deep is thus not money in itself, but what, the more
of it that is involved the more so, money causes to happen: the migration of the Balinese
status hierarchy into the body of the cockfight. Psychologically an Aesopian
representation of the ideal/demonic, rather narcissistic, male self, sociologically it is
an equally Aesopian representation of the complex fields of tension set up by the
controlled, muted, ceremonial, but for all that deeply felt, interaction of those selves
in the context of everyday life. The cocks may be surrogates for their owners’
personalities, animal mirrors of psychic form, but the cockfight is – or more exactly,
deliberately is made to be – a simulation of the social matrix, the involved system of
crosscutting, overlapping, highly corporate groups –villages, kingroups, irrigation
societies, temple congregations, “castes” – in which its devotees live. And as
prestige, the necessity to affirm it, defend it, celebrate it, justify it, and just plain
bask in it (but not given the strongly ascriptive character of Balinese stratification, to
seek it), is perhaps the central driving force in the society, so also – ambulant penises,
blood sacrifices, and monetary exchanges aside – is it of the cockfight. This apparent
amusement and seeming sport is, to take another phrase from Erving
Goffman, “a status bloodbath.”

The easiest way to make this clear, and at least to some degree to demonstratee it, is
to invoke the village whose cockfighting activities I observed the closest – the one in
which the raid occurred and from which my statistical data are taken.

Consider, then, as support of the general thesis that the
cockfight, and especially the deep cockfight, is fundamentally a dramatization of status
concerns
, the following facts:

  1. A man virtually never bets against a cock owned by a member of his own kingroup. Usually
    he will feel obliged to bet for it, the more so the closer the kin tie and the deeper the
    fight. If he is certain in his mind that it will not win, he may just not bet at all,
    particularly if it is only a second cousin’s bird or if the fight is a shallow one. But as
    a rule he will feel he must support it and, in deep games, nearly always does. Thus the
    great majority of the people calling “five” or “spes the great majority of
    the people calling”five” or “speckled” so demonstratively are
    expressing their allegiance to their kinsman, not their evaluation of his bird, their
    understanding of probability theory, or even their hopes of unearned income.
  2. This principle is extended logically. If your kin group is not involved you will support
    an allied kingroup against an unallied one in the same way, and so on through the very
    involved networks of alliances which, as I say, make up this, as any other, Balinese
    village.
  3. So, too, for the village as a whole. If an outsider cock is fighting any cock from your
    village you will tend to support the local one. If, what is a rarer circumstance but
    occurs every now and then, a cock from outside your cockfight circuit is fighting one
    inside it you will also tend to support the “home bird.”
  4. Cocks which come from any distance are almost always favorites, for the theory is the
    man would not have dared to bring it if it was not a good cock, the more so the further he
    has come. His followers are, of course, obliged to support him, and when the more
    grand-scale legal cockfights are held (on holidays and so on) the people of the village
    take what they regard to be the best cocks in the village, regardless of ownership, and go
    off to support them, although they will almost certainly have to give odds on them and to
    make large bets to show that they are not a cheapskate village. Actually, such “away
    games,” though infrequent, tend to mend the ruptures between village members that the
    constantly occurring “home games,” where village factions are opposed rather
    than united, exacerbate.
  5. Almost all matches are sociologically relevant. You seldom get two outsider cocks
    fighting, or two cocks with no particular group backing, or with group backing which is
    mutually unrelated in any clear way. When you do get them, the game is very shallow,
    betting very slow, and the whole thing very dull, with no one save the immediate
    principals and an addict gambler or two at all interested.
  6. By the same token, you rarely get two cocks from the same group, even more rarely from
    the same subfaction, and virtually never from the same sub-subfaction (which would be in
    most cases one extended family) fighting. Similarly, in outside village fights two members
    of the village will rarely fight against one another, even though, as bitter rivals, they
    would do so with enthusiasm on their home grounds.
  7. On the individual level, people involved in an institutionalized hostility relationship,
    called puik, in which they do not speak or otherwise have anything to do with each other
    (the causes of this formal breaking of relations are many: wife-capture, inheritance
    arguments, political differences) will bet very heavily, sometimes almost maniacally,
    against one another in what is a frank and direct attack on the very masculinity, the
    ultimate ground of his status, of the opponent.
  8. The center bet coalition is, in all but the shallowest games, always made up by
    structural allies – no “outside money” is involved. What is “outside”
    depends upon the context, of course, but given it, no outside money is mixed in with the
    main bet; if the principals cannot raise it, it is not made. The center bet, again
    especially in deeper games, is thus the most direct and open expression of social
    opposition, which is one of the reasons why both it and match making are surrounded by
    such an air of unease, furtiveness, embarrassment, and so on.
  9. The rule about borrowing money – that you may borrow for a bet but not in one – stems
    (and the Balinese are quite conscious of this) from similar considerations: you are never
    at the economic mercy of your enemy that way. Gambling debts, which can get quite large on
    a rather short-term basis, are always to friends, never to enemies, structurally speaking.
  10. When two cocks are structurally irrelevant or neutral so far as you are concerned
    (though, as mentioned, they almost never are to each other) you do not even ask a relative
    or a friend whom he is betting on, because if you know how he is betting and he knows you
    know, and you go the other way, it will lead to strain. This rule is explicit and rigid;
    fairly elaborate, even rather artificial precautions are taken to avoid breaking it. At
    the very least you must pretend not to notice what he is doing, and he what you are doing.
  11. There is a special word for betting against the grain, which is also the word for
    “pardon me” (mpura). It is considered a bad thing to do, though if the center
    bet is small it is sometimes all right as long as you do not do it too often. But the
    larger the bet and the more frequently you do it, the more the “pardon me” tack
    will lead to social disruption.
  12. In fact, the institutionalized hostility relation, puik, is often formally initiated
    (though its causes always lie elsewhere) by such a “pardon me” bet in a deep
    fight, putting the symbolic fat in the fire. Similarly, the end of such a relationship and
    resumption of normal social intercourse is often signalized (but, again, not actually
    brought about) by one or the other of the enemies supporting the other’s bird.
  13. In sticky, cross-loyalty situations, of which in this extraordinarily complex social
    system there are of course many, where a man is caught between two more or less equally
    balanced loyalties, he tends to wander off for a cup of coffee or something to avoid
    having to bet, a form of behavior reminiscent of that of American voters in similar
    situations.
  14. The people involved in the center bet are, especially in deep fights, virtually always
    leading members of their group-kinship, village, or whatever. Further, those who bet on
    the side (including these people) are, as I have already remarked, the more established
    members of the village – the solid citizens. Cockfighting is for those who are involved in
    the everyday politics of prestige as well, not for youth, women, subordinates, and so
    forth.
  15. So far as money is concerned, the explicitly expressed attitude toward it is that it is
    a secondary matter. It is not, as I have said, of no importance; Balinese are no happier
    to lose several weeks’ income than anyone else. But they mainly look on the monetary
    aspects of the cockfight as self-balancing, a matter of just moving money around,
    circulating it among a fairly well-defined group of serious cockfighters. The really
    important wins and losses are seen mostly in other terms, and the general attitude toward
    wagering is not any hope of cleaning up, of making a killing (addict gamblers again
    excepted), but that of the horseplayer’s prayer: “Oh, God, please let me break
    even.” In prestige terms, however, you do not want to break even, but, in a
    momentary, punctuate sort of way, win utterly. The talk (which goes on all the time) is
    about fights against such-and-such a cock of So-and-So which your cock demolished, not on
    how much you won, a fact people, even for large bets, rarely remember for any length of
    time, though they will remember the day they did in Pan Loh’s finest cock for years.
  16. You must bet on cocks of your own group aside from mere loyalty considerations, for if
    you do not people generally will say, “What! Is he too proud for the likes of us?
    Does he have to go to Java or Den Pasar [the capital town] to bet, he is such an important
    man?” Thus there is a general pressure to bet not only to show that you are important
    locally, but that you are not so important that you look down on everyone else as unfit
    even to be rivals. Similarly, home team people must bet against outside cocks or the
    outsiders will accuse it – a serious charge – of just collecting entry fees and not really
    being interested in cockfighting, as well as again being arrogant and insulting.
  17. Finally, the Balinese peasants themselves are quite aware of all this and can and, at
    least to an ethnographer, do state most of it in approximately the same terms as I have.
    Fighting cocks, almost every Balinese I have ever discussed the subject with has said, is
    like playing with fire only not getting burned. You activate village and kingroup
    rivalries and hostilities, but in “play” form, coming dangerously and
    entrancingly close to the expression of open and direct interpersonal and intergroup
    aggression (something which, again, almost never happens in the normal course of ordinary
    life), but not quite, because, after all, it is “only a cockfight.”

More observations of this sort could be advanced, but perhaps the general point is, if
not made, at least well-delineated, and the whole argument thus far can be usefully
summarized in a formal paradigm:

THE MORE A MATCH IS . . .

    1. The closer the identification of cock and man (or: more properly, the deeper the match
      the more the man will advance his best, most closely-identified-with cock).
    2. The finer the cocks involved and the more exactly they will be matched.
    3. The greater the emotion that will be involved and the more the general absorption in the
      match.
    4. The higher the individual bets center and outside, the shorter the outside bet odds will
      tend to be, and the more betting there will be over-all.
    5. The less an economic and the more a “status” view of gaming will be involved,
      and the “solider” the citizens who will be gaming.
  1. Between near status equals (and/or personal enemies)
  2. Between high status individuals
  3. THE DEEPER THE MATCH.

    THE DEEPER THE MATCH

    Inverse arguments hold for the shallower the fight, culminating, in a reversed-signs
    sense, in the coin-spinning and dice-throwing amusements. For deep fights there are no
    absolute upper limits, though there are of course practical ones, and there are a great
    many legend-like tales of great Duel-in-the-Sun combats between lords and princes in
    classical times (for cockfighting has always been as much an elite concern as a popular
    one), far deeper than anything anyone, even aristocrats, could produce today anywhere in
    Bali.

    Indeed, one of the great culture heroes of Bali is a prince, called after his passion
    for the sport, “The Cockfighter,” who happened to be away at a very deep
    cockfight with a neighboring prince when the whole of his family-father, brothers, wives,
    sisters-were assassinated by commoner usurpers. Thus spared, he returned to dispatch the
    upstarts, regain the throne, reconstitute the Balinese high tradition, and build its most
    powerful, glorious, and prosperous state. Along with everything else that the Balinese see
    in fighting cocks-themselves, their social order, abstract hatred, masculinity, demonic
    power-they also see the archetype of status virtue, the arrogant, resolute, honor-mad
    player with real fire, the ksatria prince.

    Conclusion

    What sets the cockfight apart from the ordinary course of life, lifts it from the realm
    of everyday practical affairs, and surrounds it with an aura of enlarged importance is
    not, as functionalist sociology would have it, that it reinforces status discriminations
    (such reinforcement is hardly necessary in a society where every act proclaims them), but
    that it provides a metasocial commentary upon the whole matter of assorting human beings
    into fixed hierarchical ranks and then organizing the major part of collective existence
    around that assortment. Its function, if you want to call it that, is interpretive: it is
    a Balinese reading of Balinese experience; a story they tell themselves about themselves.

    What the cockfight says it says in a vocabulary of sentiment-the thrill of risk, the
    despair of loss, the pleasure of triumph. Yet what it says is not merely that risk is
    exciting, loss depressing, or triumph gratifying, banal tautologies of affect, but that it
    is of these emotions, thus exampled, that society is built and individuals put together.
    Attending cockfights and participating in them is, for the Balinese, a kind of sentimental
    education. What he learns there is what his culture’s ethos and his private sensibility
    (or, anyway, certain aspects of them) look like when spelled out externally in a
    collective text; that the two are near enough alike to be articulated in the symbolics of
    a single such text; and-the disquieting part-that the text in which this revelation is
    accomplished consists of a chicken hacking another mindlessly to bits.

    Every people, the proverb has it, loves its own form of violence,
    The cockfight is the Balinese reflection on theirs: on its look, its uses, its force, its fascination. Drawing on almost every level of Balinese experience, it brings together themes-animal savagery, male narcissism, opponent gambling, status rivalry, mass excitement, blood sacrifice-whose main connection is their involvement with rage and the
    fear of rage, and, binding them into a set of rules which at once contains them and allows
    them play, builds a symbolic structure in which, over and over again, the reality of their
    inner affiliation can be intelligibly felt. If, to quote Northrop Frye again, we go to see Macbeth to learn what a man feels like after he has gained a kingdom and lost his soul, Balinese go to cockfights to find out what a man, usually composed, aloof, almost obsessively self-absorbed, a kind of moral autocosm, feels like when, attacked, tormented, challenged, insulted, and driven in result to the extremes of fury, he has totally triumphed or been brought totally low.

TrackBack URI


Entries and comments feeds.

%d bloggers like this: