Social and Political Enquiry

2395847

Are findings based on Ethnographic research valid? Discuss with specific reference to Geertzs Notes on the Balinese Cockfight.

Word Count: 1994

In Notes on the Balinese Cockfight, Geertz writes the story of the so called status bloodbath (Goffman 1961, quoted in Geertz 1973, p.436), that becomes of the cockfight and a level of deep play that is attributed to this aspect of Balinese culture. Arguably, these are either fictions, or at least partial truths (Clifford 1986, p.7), and thus invalid. Ethnography provides only a deeply personal and interpretative account, where its results can only be renderings of reality as one particular individual sees it. Findings from it therefore cannot be taken as universal fact. Moreover, Ethnography as a process does not lend itself to validity. Different properties of it, including its methods, the write up process, and its selection of topic naturally proliferate errors in data, or data that cannot be considered accurate. Throughout this essay, I will discuss the failings of ethnography, making use of Geertzs essay Notes on the Balinese cockfight as a way of assessing ethnographys validity.

The issue of validity is not an issue with the ethnographer writing about what physically happens in a culture. It is more an issue with what conclusions the writer makes from what he records. We can apply this to Geertz. There is no denying that he did attend 57 cockfights (Geertz 1973, p.426), or even that illegal cockfights do take place in Bali. But there exists a deep gulf between recording social events, and pronouncing conclusions of social phenomena that extend from this. The argument here then is that an ethnographic researcher manufactures conclusions from thin air,

Social and Political Enquiry

2395847

or that personal interpretations play too much of a role in the shaping of ethnographic writing. If true reality, then ethnographic constructions must then be considered totally invalid.

Ethnographic data, unlike data from the natural sciences for example, is subject to change depending on the social scientist that records it. Its facts are based on the individuals mental representations- both of the self and its objects (Eyre 1985, p.38). Distinctions are made from contrasts the ethnographer makes from his life and that of his object of study. Accordingly, its findings are based on personal accounts and feelings that, as Geertz (when discussing betting rules) inaccurately says, can simply be [pronounced] to be fact1 (Geertz 1973, p.437). This is far from correct. Crucially, in order for something to be valid, it must be valid universally. This is a virtual impossibility for Ethnography, as a different researcher could enter the field, keep the variables the same, study the same fifty seven fights, and produce a completely different set of conclusions. As learnt, from Geertzs own work, Thick Description permits a multitude of interpretations to arise from social interaction. However, the ethnographer always thinks, as Geertz did, that he has a clean inside view grasp (Geertz 1973, p.412) of his object of study. This is unlikely, as all researchers viewpoints are tainted by their own histories.

It is the aim of the ethnographer to suspend preconceived notions and even existing knowledge(LeCompte & Goetz 1982, p.44) of a culture, but this is impossible in practice. Geertz only sees deep play in Bali culture because he is predisposed to
1

The fact that Geertz so blatantly states that for this specific case instead of providing ethnographic evidence for the structure and rules behind deep play, it is acceptable just to simply pronounce [something] as fact(Geertz 1978, p.437), makes all ethnographic findings questionable, if not instantly invalid. How many times does the writer use this artistic license? Once, twice, or perhaps throughout the entire text?

Social and Political Enquiry

2395847

Jeremy Benthams concept, and therefore biased. In the study Geertz attributes this borrowed concept of deep play to the cockfight perhaps when it doesnt even exist. As the ethnographer cannot truly maintain an objective and detached position, devoid of any preconceived knowledge, the ethnographer himself influences the findings.

Unlike any trustworthy science, in ethnography, we are not provided with researchers workings that help establish theories. For all the reader knows, these workings may not exist. Is it not then possible to consider all findings of this kind of research, products of ethnographic imagination? (Atkinson 1980) Notice how Geertz is willing to pay specific attention to the rules of the betting system in a four-page spread of his essay; as he knows he can back up his claim allegedly with data from informants. But at what point does Geertz ever allude to their being any solid proof (given by his informants) for his theory of status exchange in the cockfight? Ethnographic claims are taken as fact in good faith on the basis that the ethnographer claims to have some proof. This level of trust is enough to allow the writer to make the most ludicrous of claims. The very nature of fieldnotes (where the evidence for findings should be), is so backstage and hidden(Fine 1980), we do not have access to anything that could support its findings. Ethnography cannot claim validity until its findings are supported by concrete data.

To his credit, Geertz does attempt to justify his theory. However, it appears that the ethnographer will use anything to support his claims, even though evidence may be in reality arbitrary. Amongst other examples:

Social and Political Enquiry

2395847

Geertz provides a description of a cock-crazy(Geertz 1973, p.413) Bali male, caring for his rooster almost sensually almost as if intrinsically linked, as the image of a typical member of society. But consider Geertzs theory that the fighting cocks become surrogates of their owners(Geertz 1973, p.436). Geertz attempts to use his description as evidence for his theory. But given some rational thought, perhaps Geertz confuses simple affection for ones pet for the surrogacy he needs to see to validate his research.

The eternal sceptic of ethnography should argue that it could never be valid due to its own methodology. There is too much scope for inaccurate results to be created and used, and as a result distorting the findings of ethnography. The writing process, and the position of the researcher in the field, amongst other things invalidate ethnographic findings.

To get valid results, a researcher must remain neutral to his object of study. But by its very nature, ethnography is not this. The researchers and their practice are obtrusive to the culture they are observing. They enter into a scene, and ultimately influence. Geertz in the opening chapter describes himself and his wife as both intruders, professional ones and a non person (Geertz 1973, p.412). To be a non person in the field would be a coup, but of course this is untrue of Geertzs study. Unless operating covertly, the object of study know of the ethnographers presence, and perhaps goal. The study of the cockfight was clearly overt. The Balinese know who and what [they] were (Geertz 1973, p.414). So then it is entirely possible that informants change their behaviour in front of the researcher. The Balinese were quick to falsely pretend that they had not noticed the ethnographers, thus ruining any first

Social and Political Enquiry

2395847

impressions that the ethnographers could take from their experience. But thinking of the converse, when accepted the Balinese were [pouring] out from all sides to see (Geertz 1973, p.414). This is not standard behaviour, and anything that the Balinese did from this point onwards could be considered spurious data(LeCompte & Goetz 1982, p.48). Furthermore, with an ethnographer present, and the desire to represent themselves in the best possible light or say what a researcher would want to hear (Fine 1982, p.271), informants are likely to mislead, evade, lie, or put up fronts( Fine 1982, p.271), resulting in inaccurate findings.

The production of fieldnotes is central to ethnography, but the sheer voluminous nature of their production is essentially the reason why they are not accurate enough to draw valid results from. To take the case of the Balinese cockfight, Geertz took notes of fifty-seven cockfights, each lasting about four hours. Even the most experienced ethnographer would have difficultly, both recording and evaluating all the information taken to establish a theory based on all the data. Ethnographic research is too extensive for its own good. The ethnographer can spend any amount of time in the field, some spending up to three years in the field, with the aim to become a co-villager(Geertz 1973, p.416). But this going native is an issue for validity; the ethnographer can no longer draw contrasts and conclusions of the culture. For example: he explains the cockfights as precisely like the others in general pattern, odds calling tends to be very consensual. He overgeneralizes, perhaps because of being in the field too long, and therefore misses what could be important information that could invalidate his prior findings.

Social and Political Enquiry

2395847

Ethnographers cannot hope to observe everything. Geertz states that "of the 57 bets [he has] exact data on the center bet"-but to be sure of this; he must have not observed the bets taken on the periphery that occur simultaneously. As a result, the researcher does not have the entire picture, and cannot make fully informed decisions that affect the validity of his argument. Further to this, how does an ethnographer write up his notes without skewing the data? The only two plausible ways of recording field notes, is observing for hours upon hours, then writing up, or writing up as you go in front of the informants. Here, human created error is rife; recording from memory is not accurate, and writing in front of informants encourages false answers (Fine, 1980).

Ethnography is usually protected by the ideal that it is "valid on its own terms". But how can this be a true measurement of validity? For something to be valid, it has to be valid universally, and any methodology should come to the same conclusion. In On Ethnographic Validity, Sanjek states that Margaret Meads findings in Coming of Age in Samoa was disproved by Freeman not because they used the same method, but because they used a different technique and came to different conclusions. But surely, if they set out to answer the same question, no matter what method they used, ethnographic or not, they should have come to the same conclusion. As a result, at least one of these methods must be irrefutably invalid.

The object of study is ever changing, to quote from Clifford (1986): Cultures do not hold still for their portraits. The ethnographer offers their attempt at a snapshot view of culture. Perhaps this is why ethnographic findings are invalid; because culture is ever changing, what an ethnographer may say in the eighties may be true then, but now may be completely useless. The observations then are only valid in their age.

Social and Political Enquiry

2395847

Ethnography, by its own design, cannot be considered an accurate method for drawing precise conclusions. Being and ethnographer disturbs the natural social order, and

Ethnography, by its own design cannot draw about accurate results. Ethnographers have too much influence in the field for its results to be considered valid. The ethnographer may aim to be unobtrusive, and unbiased, but this is an impossibility to achieve. The data he receives is influenced. Furthermore, any conclusions it does make from this spurious data(LeCompte & Goetz 1982, p.48) can be considered invalid if thought as manifestations of the writers imagination. It is understandable why ethnographic findings can be considered partial truths(Clifford 1986)- they are based on real life events that are shaded-in(Fine 1993, p.282) with one particular writers interpretation of what social events mean. Everything from the process of collecting data, commenting on data, and finally the write up of data make its findings invalid.

Social and Political Enquiry

2395847

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Atkinson, P. (1990). The ethnographic imagination : textual constructions of reality. Routledge: London

Clifford, J. (1986) Introduction from James Clifford and George E. Marcus (eds), Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography. Pp.1-26, Berkeley: University of California Press.

Eyre, S. L. (1985) The Deconstruction of Thick Description: Changing Portrayals of Bali in the Writing of Clifford Geertz. Indonesia, Vol. 39 (Apr., 1985), pp. 37-51

Fine, G. A. (1993) Ten Lies of Ethnography. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 22 (1993: Apr,-1994: Jan.) p.267

Geertz, C. J. (1973) The Interpretation of Cultures. Basic Books: New York

LeCompte, M.D. & Goetz, J. P. (1982) Problems of Reliability and Validity in Ethnographic Research. Review of Educational Research. Spring 1982, Vol. 52, No. 1, Pp. 31-60

Sanjek, R (1990) Fieldnotes. Ithaca: London