Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ANTHROPOLOGIES
AND
HISTORIES
Essays in Culture, History,
and Political Economy
William Roseberry
RUTGERS
NEW
U N I V E R S IT Y PRESS
BRUNSWICK
AND
LONDON
BIBLIOTECA
LWS
GONZA
O N E
Balinese Cockfights
and the Seduction
of Anthropology
Few anthropologists in recent years have enjoyed wider in
fluence in the social sciences than Clifford Geertz. Sociologists,
political scientists, and social historians interested in p op ular cul
tu re an d mentalits have tu rn e d increasingly to anthropology, and
the anthropologist most often em braced is Professor Geertz.
A n u m b e r o f factors can be addu ced to account for this
trend. In the first place, G eertzs position at the Institute for
Advanced Study has allowed him to transcend the disciplinary
and subdisciplinary involution that characterizes anthropology
and o th e r social sciences. At the Institute, he is able to attract
scholars from a variety o f disciplines, adopting an antidisciplinary m ood an d focus that is rare in cu rren t academic prac
tice. Second, Geertz is an excellent e th n o g rap h er who writes
with an eloquence and sophistication uncom m on for the social
sciences. His cultural essays can be read with profit by introd uc
tory students o r g rad u ate students in advanced seminars. A nd
his descriptions o f life in Bali or Java or Morocco call to mind
one o f the aspects o f anthropology that has always been so
seductive: the lure o f distant places an d oth er modes o f being.
Thus, in part, the title o f this essay. But the title is intended to
suggest an o th e r aspect o f G eertzs work as well, for there is a
sense in which anthropologists and other social scientists
have been seduced by G eertzs writings on culture.
intervene in the social process. T h a t is, the tales are com m entar
ies on w hat is h a p p en in g to them an d their families that call for
particular form s o f action to alter th e situation. This is a crucial
methodological step in the construction o f a concept o f culture
not simply as a p ro d u ct b u t also as production, not simply as
socially constituted but also as socially constituting. Given this
fram ework, the authors then em bark on a detailed symbolic
analysis o f the tales and, finally, suggest that the tales were at
tem pts by peasant w om en to resp o n d to the disruption o f fam i
lies and the d raftin g o f their disinherited sons. T h e suggested
response: inheriting dau g h ters should reno unce their in heri
tance, move from the region, m arry elsewhere, and offer a re f
uge for their fleeing brothers. Taylor and Rebel show that such a
response is in accord with dem ograp hic evidence from lateeighteenth-century Hesse, although it cannot yet be d em o n
strated w heth er the process they suggest actually occurred.
Nonetheless, the autho rs have pro d u ced a cultural analysis that
goes significantly fu rth e r th an does G eertzs in his Notes on the
Balinese Cockfight. To ask o f any cultural text, be it a cockfight
or a folk tale, who is talking, who is being talked to, what is being
talked about, an d w hat fo rm o f action is being called for, is to
move cultural analysis to a new level that rend ers the old antino
mies o f m aterialism an d idealism irrelevant.6
It m ight be arg u ed that this is precisely what Geertz does. As
one o f o u r most able eth n o g rap h ers, he is one o f the few a n th ro
pologists who can provide detailed ecological, economic, and
political inform ation at the same time that he engages in sophisti
cated symbolic analysis. His exam ination o f the th eater state in
nineteenth-century Bali is an exam ple o f this: we find treatm ents
o f political a n d social structure at ham let, irrigation system, and
tem ple levels, o f caste divisions, o f trade, and of the rituals of
hierarchy. T h a t G eertz sees all o f these as necessary for a cultural
argum ent, an d th at he sees his inclusion o f these elements as
ren d erin g an idealist charge absurd, is clear from his conclu
sion to Negara. A lthough all the elem ents are presented and
connected in a fashion, they are never fully joined. C ulture as
text is rem oved fro m the historical process that shapes it an d that
it in tu rn shapes. W hen we are told that in Bali culture came
from the top dow n . . . while pow er welled u p from the bottom
(1980: 85), the im age makes perfect sense given the analysis of
state structure that precedes it. B ut the image implies separation,
a rem oval o f culture from the wellings-up o f action, interaction,
power, an d praxis.
We re tu rn , then, to the com parison of G eertzs promise with
his practice. A lthough this essay already contains m ore q u ota
tions than it can easily bear, it closes with yet another. T h e
quotation re tu rn s us to the prom ising approach to culture ex
pressed in T hick D escription, an d it is a statem ent o f connec
tion ra th e r th an separation. T h e passage establishes a standard
for cultural in terp retatio n that is in accord with the premises of
this essay. T h a t it also serves as a standard in term s of which
G eertzs cultural analysis can be criticized should be apparent.
I f anthropological interpretation is constructing a reading o f
what happens, then to divorce it from what happens from
what, in this time or that place, specific people say, what they
do, what is d o n e to them , from the whole vast business o f the
world is to divorce it from its applications and render it
vacant. A g o o d interpretation o f anything a poem , a person,
a history, a ritual, an institution, a society takes us into the
heart o f that o f which it is an interpretation. W hen it does not
do that, but leads us instead som ew here else into an admira
tion o f its ow n elegance, o f its authors cleverness, or o f the
beauties o f Euclidean order it may have its intrinsic charms;
but it is som ething else than what the task at hand . . . calls for.
(1973b: 18)