300 words due Monday Feb 1st by 1:00 p.m.
Explain at least one point of contact and one point point of conflict between Huizinga/Caillois and Geertz. What possible critiques of Geertz might we generate? What isn't he taking into consideration? What is missing from this account of "deep play"?
Here is a link to the article:
http://rfrost.people.si.umich.edu/courses/MatCult/content/Geertz.pdf
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The Rules of The Fabricated World: Comparison and Constrast
ReplyDeleteIn Geertz’ dissertation on the nature of Balinese cockfighting, he describes the unique place this form of entertainment has in Bali’s culture. Geertz explains how the rules and traditions that make up Balinese cockfighting give it an almost ritualistic aspect, noting that those very elements have a great influence on the lifestyle of the Balinese. The cockfighting arena generates its own set of “world rules” that are respected even outside of that particular fabricated world. This particular game is one that not only contributes to Balinese culture, but also reflects it. Geertz argues that “As much of America surfaces in a ball park…much of Bali surfaces in a cock ring.” Setting the obvious sexual innuendo aside, Geertz accurately identifies the ties between Bali’s traditional cultural mentality and its play through this statement.
Geertz’ emphasis on this particular game encourages comparison to the analysis of Huizinga and Caillois. All three essays address the dynamics of play and human psychology, as well as the identifiable elements of games. However, Geertz is not as concerned with defining play itself as broadly as Huizinga and Caillois have. While Geertz focuses on the cultural significance of cockfighting, as well as the dynamics this element of play has, he refuses to look at Balinese cockfighting as anything but a display of “animal savagery”, phallus worship, and male pride. Geertz defines the psychology of this game in an anthropological (and in some ways, almost Freudian) way. His analysis is a more specialized one, highlighting the specific cultural, psychological, and sexual elements that pertain to one distinct game only. In contrast, Huizinga looks at the psychology and elements of play as a whole. Caillois takes the middle ground, breaking down play into classifications of games. Geertz cannot be faulted for focusing on so narrow a subject, as his essay accurately describes the game world of Balinese cockfighting. However, as an analysis of play and game theory, it does not cover all of the elements Huizinga and Caillois describe.
Word count: 330
"Deep" and "Serious"
ReplyDeleteIn "Deep Play: Notes of the Balinese Cockfight", Clifford Geertz describes how the cockfight is a stage for battles and exertion of status in Balinese society. Like Huizinga's characterization of play, the cockfight follows very specific rules (within the time and space of the event), such as the procedures for placing a bet, both in the center of the fight and at the edges. Also, the cockfight reinforces certain social groupings when family members or residents of a village bet on the side of their "own" cock. Protocol exists on how and who to bet on in order to properly honor your family or village. To a certain degree, the material interest and profit gained from the gambling aspect is not so important: Geertz says that the Balinese people remember the actual fights better than how much money they won (or lost). This also follows Huizinga's definition of play.
But Geertz seems to have left out the "not serious" aspect of play. The cockfight appears to be taken pretty seriously, partially due to the relatively high stakes involved. Because of these stakes, which are both monetary and status-based, the cockfight can be considered a kind of "deep play". These forms of "deep play" are problematic for Huizinga's idea of play because they cannot be separated from the player's ordinary life. Instead of the outcome of the fight existing independent of the cock owner's daily life, what happens in the cock ring has implications on many other aspects of the participant's life: financial issues, family relationships, village relationships, pride, status, and so on. So how can this seemingly playful activity - a competition of animals - have such serious aftermath and still be considered play? It is also difficult to balance this seriousness with what Geertz claims in the conclusion of the reading: that the cockfight is not necessarily the actual battleground for status, but rather a way for the Balinese to interpret their own status and heirarchical systems. It could be that the cockfights in Bali have more functions than what Geertz identifies in his writing.
(350 words)
Geertz writings on "Deep Play" are his telling about the game of Cockfights in the Balinese culture. He describes a type of play among men and their birds (which are representational of their manhood, strength and power). The men are, "solid citizens, who are involved in the everyday politics of prestige"(pg. 9). This quote explains that the sport of cockfighting is not looked down upon or thought of a dirty. It is well respected and played in all seriousness. The rules are complex containing qualities found in three of Caillois classifications of play; Agon, Alea, and Mimicry. In a cockfight that are two sides creating competition, but men are not the object of fight, the birds are generating an aspect of chance. The make-believe world resonate in the idea that bird represents man and his qualities.
ReplyDeleteThere are three major points of conflict that I see, one being the inability to leave or be free of the game. As explained by Caillois one could leave the game by simply saying "I do not want to play anymore" or by leaving the specific space allotted to the game or activity, if and when boundaries were included. Cockfights end with the death of one bird or sometimes both, not allowing the birds owner to quit the fight. Secondly this game excludes women and children. Never in Caillois's description was there any discrimination, sex or age. It actually told of classifications of games that pertained more so to children. lastly It is apparent that the Balinese allow the cockfights to effect their real life. In Caillois, Man, Play, and Games, there is a definite line between the play world and real world, play is a break in life. Geertz mentions that no mater how 'DEEP' the play is when it comes down to it, its, "only a cockfight" (pg. 10). This statement comes nine pages into the article and he quickly moves the reader back into the serious interworkings of cockfighting. So is it really only a cockfight?
Word Count: 334
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhile seeking a better understand of the Balinese culture, Clifford Geertz has concluded that their societal situations are played out in game-like atmospheres, complete with phallic, male aggression and cockfighting. The cockfights, which Geertz chronicles while insisting on his insider-status (merely by luck and as a result of cowardice), are a form of game play, presented as "deep play." Deep play refers to a game in which the stakes for playing are so high, it would be "irrational for men to engage in it at all."
ReplyDeleteGeertz' detailed and well researched ritual of cockfighting is vividly documented, I found myself pulled into the story as if I was in the same police chase. The fights exist as a combination of Caillois' agon and alea types, in strict competition for status as well as an event worth wagering on. One could make a case for the crossover into mimicry as well, since Geertz states that the cock-fighter sees the cock as an extension of himself. Overall, the game corresponds with Caillois and Huizinga's notions of play as having an uncertain outcome, which is rooted in an equal onset. "Each match is precisely like the others in general pattern," the rules tend to stay the same and the process repeated.
If, as Caillois says, play is ultimately unproductive then it would seem that basing the internal hierarchies and social status of the Balinese, as though one were interpreting the cockfighting match from an essentially outsider perspective, would lead to little or no finite conclusions on the matter of the culture at large. He has also marginalized a large population, namely Balinese women and their contribution to the game/society, and doesn't address the class structure in a deep way.
To me it seems that Geertz reads into the the game too much. While I have little doubt of its importance in uniting a community or as an outlet for certain tendencies, it still remains a game; entertainment, and in reference to Caillois and Huizinga, not a symbolic reading of real-life or ordinary life.
Word count: 341
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn "Deep Play: Notes of the Balinese Cockfight", Clifford Geertz analyzes and exposes cockfighting as a corner stone of Balinese culture upon which men pit themselves against each in a loosely shrouded fight for class. He draws many analogies between the rooster and the cock, the ego, the position in society. We the reader leave this essay understanding the central role that cockfighting plays for the Balinese. Which brings me to my first point of conflict between the game that Geertz is defining and the concept of game that Callois and Huizinga defined.
ReplyDeleteHuizinga and Callois write that a game is by definition inconsequential. Huizinga states this in it's truest form, that games can't have any consequence in the non-game world. Callois understands and points out one flaw in Huizinga's argument by bringing up gambling. No one doubts that gambling is but a game, and follows every one of Huizinga's definitions of play, except that it has a very real monetary influence outside of the game. We can be sure that Huizinga and Callois would enjoy a game of monopoly. Geertz' cockfighting, though, is consequence on a much deeper level. His game is so important that his definition, an "animal mirror of the psychic form... a simulation of the social matrix... a status bloodbath" rings on many chords we today understand as much more than a game. Indeed the three page list of rules outlining how games are played is a hint at how deeply cockfighting is tied in Balinese culture. Huizinga and Callois would agree with some things, though.
Geertz, in his writing, paints a very nice picture of the ring in which the game takes place. Indeed this magical ring is so well delineated that the exact center of the ring becomes holier than any other part inside the ring. There is hierarchy within the game space. Huizinga and Callois would appreciate the Balinese cock ring. It is a highly structured highly respected game space.
Word count: 328
The cockfights which Clifford Geertz witnessed, studied, and wrote about in his essay “Deep Play: Notes on the Balinese Cockfight” include many aspects of play as defined by Huizinga and later Caillois, but contain some key attributes which set cockfighting slightly to the side of the kind of play they described.
ReplyDeleteThe ways in which Balinese cockfights -- as described by Geertz, a scholar, and very much an outsider to the culture his test subjects are part of -- can be categorized as a game are fairly apparent. The participants all prescribe to a predetermined set of rules. The game exists in a place, specifically a cock ring, and has a clear beginning and a clear ending. The activity includes aspects of competition, chance, and role playing, all characteristics of Huizinga and Caillois’ key defining aspects of play.
There are, however, several undeniable components in which it becomes murky as to wether the almost ritualistic cock fighting activities fall into this ream of play. Geertz describes cock fighting as an event with enormously high stakes both in terms of money, social status, duty, and pride. It sounds as though the results of a fight are deeply intertwined with the life that exists outside of the game. Geertz goes as far as to state that what happens in the cock ring is a dramatization or metaphor of their everyday day lives, social structures and a description of their collective priorities, ideology, values and passions. With this much importance it is hard to believe that the game is still a free voluntary activity where one is not pressured to play and has the capacity to simply back out as soon as they are no longer having fun. One has an immense pressure to engage in the game if they want to be regarded as an important member of society, and once engaged is bound to follow through as money and allegiances are on the line.
While entertaining and thorough in description Geertz analysis feels overly tainted by subjectivity. His research conducted in only one town with presumably a consistently repetitive assortment of competitors feels less than scientific. Another fault in his writing is that he refrains from including the interpretations of the activity from the perspective of a local, participant or otherwise, but relies on his own understanding as an outsider who is coming from the background of a very different culture.
398
The analysis of Balinese Cockfights by Geertz, gives us an overview of a particular kind of game that is deeply rooted in society and traditions. In describing the game he explores the effects it has on the community and on the everyday life of ‘cock crazy’ people.
ReplyDeleteFor it is possible to think of this text as an example of a particular game, comparisons can be made between this reading and those by Huizinga and Caillios that aimed to describe and classify games and play.
One important difference that exists between the games described in the latter two texts and that of Geertz is that cockfights seem not to bounded by time and space, like other games are. Instead the very nature of the game requires extra time to be allotted to rituals and serious training sessions prior to the game, which inevitably compromise the everyday life of Balinese men.
Moreover this game seems to be an activity that has trespassed the fictional edge into reality and does not, as Huizinga and Caillios establish, allow the players to step out of the ordinary life. Because it is so deeply rooted in the community it ends up ruling and governing the social sphere of the city. In fact, the game is able to bring people together and also to divide the public in different rival teams.
That said, I think that Geertz analyzed a particularly complex example of a game that does not compute to those by Huizinga and Caillios because cockfights became more of a social phenomenon in Bali, - meaning something that has the power to shape society – rather than being just a simple game. Never the less they share similarities. Cockfights and games are both fun, and require tension to obtain something. They provide order in the chaos of excitement and they create communities, thus maybe in different scales.
(312)
In his essay, Geertz explains the Balinese cockfight from the point of view of an anthropologist. Throughout Geertz’s description of the cockfight, perhaps on purpose or perhaps by chance, he accurately describes many of the principals of play that Huizinga and Caillois describe, in their essays about play.
ReplyDeleteIn their writings, Huizinga and Caillois talk about a defined time and space in which the game takes place as one of the principals of play. Geertz indeed describes in great detail when and where the Balinese cockfight takes place. However, Huizinga and Caillois refer to this time and place as “isolated from the rest of life,” in which “nothing that takes place outside this ideal frontier is relevant” (p6). According to Geertz’s descriptions of the Balinese cockfight these events are actually a representation of social structures from “real life” in the form of a game.
In his description of the Balinese cockfight, Geertz describes in great detail the “game” itself: the different stages, the rules, who participates, and in which way. But he neglects telling us about the state in which the people are in while playing, a critical aspect of play according to Caillois. It seems like the men participating are very passive. Perhaps, the cockfight for them is a form of entertainment rather than a game. Even the betting that they take part in is not done autonomously. The players cannot bet on the side they want to, and as much as they want to, these things are determined in advance depending on the place of the individual participant in society.
(262)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete“Deep Play” by Geertz shows the reader the culture of Balinese men and the game of cockfighting. Even though the game itself is illegal, men still take great pride in these games and highly prize their animals. Huizinga and Caillois say that play and real life should not be merged but clearly, cockfighting is embedded deeply in to the Balinese culture and is a deeper sort of play than what they describe.
ReplyDeleteBoth Caillois and Huizinga believe that there should be boundaries between play and real life. But to the Balinese people, cockfighting is symbolic of their pride and they believe that their animals represent themselves and their manlihood. Three of Caillois’ forms of play are present in these cockfights. First there is the competition of who has the better and stronger animal, the agon. There are fixed rules in the game and a structure. Then there is alea, the betting on the “winning” cock. And finally, there is mimicry, the role playing. Balinese men use their animals to represent themselves and they see them as an extension of themselves. They believe that the animals symbolize their manlihood, courage, and status within the community. Winning and losing a cockfight are major highlights and letdowns. Cockfights determine social statuses among the men and because of that, men become more obsessed with this game. The Balinese men care and tend to their animals very carefully and idolize what they represent.
Games should be fun and help relieve stress but for the Balinese men it is more serious than that. Of course there is fun involved with the cockfighting games, but there is also a great deal of seriousness. The “status bloodbath” is deeply embedded into the Balinese culture that it takes on a new form of play, a deep play. It is not just enjoyment but deeper than that. Things don’t end when the game is over, but it determines status, monetary gains and losses, and the men’s prides.
Word count: 329
In comparing and contrasting the efforts of Geertz, Caillois, and Huizinga, it is essential to recognize that the methods and contexts for examining play are widely different. There is a structural difference between Geertz's analysis and those of Caillois and Huizinga that makes it difficult to critique them against each other directly. While all three are writing under the blanket term of play, they write in directions tangential to each other.
ReplyDeleteGeertz writes about play from an anthropological perspective, focusing on one culture, of a single system of play. Geertz's taxonomy of deep play, while broad in its own way, categorizes the facets of a single play system. The Balinese cockfight is a sort of super game that leads to many differing forms of play within, dependent on the individual statuses of the players. Various modes of play arise within the game that simultaneously conform to the categories of Caillois, while transitioning between them. The way the whole system pivots around gambling, and gambling's central position within the Deep Play spectrum, is what confounds the comparison to Caillois and Huizinga's taxonomies. Geertz is not so much interested in whether there is consequence from one facet of the game or another, but in analyzing how the contradictory methods of play form an image of the society playing the game.
Geertz's deepness of play is a function of the variables of the game of cockfighting, not a method to compare it to other games. However, this discrepancy in the scope of the categorization of play between Geertz and Caillois or Huizinga is inversely proportional to the modes of play presented for analysis. Caillois alludes to the possibility of games crossing over between his boundaries, such as the multi-mode games of gambling mixed with sport, but in his model the sport loses its play nature. For Geertz, multiple conflicting modes of play (even conflicting betting odds!) can exist within a system, as his interest is in the interplay, not in the separation. These methods are not mutually exclusive, rather oddly complimentary.
wc:338
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBetween Huizinga/Caillois and Geertz
ReplyDeleteThe space of play is a common element in the writings of Geertz and Huizinga. In “Deep Play”, Geertz describes the space of Balinese cock fighting as clearly defined, and highly respected by all participants and observers. The space is described by precise dimensions, and occurring a particular time. The ring is occupied and surrounded in a particular way by the participants, each aware of their place within the event. Huizinga’s description of the space of play is as a "consecrated spot" in which special rules apply. With these descriptions both writers agree on these aspects of the space of play.
“Inside the circle of the game the laws and customs of ordinary life no longer count.” With this quote Huizinga describes play as something outside of normal life. Play is understood by its own set of rules separate from the social constructs of daily life. In Greertz’s “Deep Play”, play is very much influenced and understood through the social caste system of the Balinese people. Each group participates in different activities within the event depending on their social standing. Each of these social groups invests in the event in different ways, and at different levels. In the case of the Balinese cock fighting, a person’s social standing is directly reflected by the game, and even reinforced be their actions within the event.
Geertz lays out an in-depth argument for the reflective quality of the Balinese cock fight on the culture of the Balinese people. His understanding of the rules and interactions surrounding this activity are clearly defined. Geertz’s focus on these issues does little to allow consideration of other interpretations of cock fighting as a social activity. Could these activities be seen in another light? It is hard to believe that these gatherings are strictly a reflection of the social structure. These events could be seen to be operating on other levels. This play could be argued as celebration or as distraction from the normal day to day lives of the participants. Geertz’s framing of the contest is from a particular view and does little to suggest that these games could be seen in a broader context within the culture.
365 words
Ryan K. said...
ReplyDeleteGeertz in his essay “Deep Play: Notes on the Balinese cockfight” recounts his study of the cockfights in Balinese. Although even in the title it mentions play, what Geertz is talking about throughout his article is the direct relationships between the cockfights and the Balinese people. The people have raised cockfighting up to ritualistic form of a game. This game while brutal and savage is steeped in pride and great reward for the Balinese people. It not only monetary rewards them if they happen to win on a bet, but the winning cock fighter gets the acclaim and glory of having the better cock.
Geertz however does not relate this game with play in the same sense that Huizinga and Caillois have. While Huizinga and Caillois were mostly trying to break down separate forms of play and how they might interact with each other, Geertz was focused mostly on recounting the events that he studied in the realm of cock fighting. There is no attempt to generalize or bring into the article other forms of play. Cock fighting falls into the alea and agon categories of gaming, dealing both with the gambling aspect of the game as well as the competition of the physical match between the two cocks. After reading through the account I did not see Geertz bringing any sort of generalization about gaming or games into his argument. He was concerned with one form of play while Caillois and Huizinga were concerned with all forms of play.
wc 300
Krista said...
ReplyDeleteGeertz essay has some points of contact and some points of conflict with Huizinga's Nature and Significance of Play as a Cultural Phenomenon and with Caillois' Man, Play, and Games. Most of Geertz topic goes along with both anthropologist theories about play and how play is a way to remove ones self from practicality of normal life. Geertz touches on many aspects of play; such as why the Balinese have these cock matches, how they are arranged, who participates, and how much a part of the Balinese culture the sport is. I think what Geertz is missing is that the sport of cockfighting might not even be considered as playing since the competitors are being forced to interact.
Geertz explanation of the sport of cockfighting conflicts with Huizinga's theory of play in that he claims play has no material interest. Clearly cockfighting is gainful, not to obtain profit but for the purpose of gaining pride and status. In this case Geertz would agree with Caillois' theory that play is lucrative.
Huizinga says that play is not serious, which Geertz would prove wrong because men are quite serious when participating in a cockfight match. Caillois declares that play is not forced or against ones will but in the instance of cockfighting, the chickens are forced to feud against their will. Since obligation of the chicken is involved, the sport falls out of the realm of fun.
Analyzing Geertz, I find that his topic of cockfighting would fall along the lines of the category alea from Caillois' writing. Geertz says it is "status gambling" since there is chance, luck, and fate involved through the betting of the viewers and the fate of the owner’s status in the hands of the chickens, so to speak. It seems that Geertz is not contemplating the serious characteristics of play.
Richard said...
ReplyDeleteIn an excerpt from The Interpretation of Cultures, Clifford Geertz’s “Deep Play: Notes on the Balinese Cockfight,” Geertz and his wife, as anthropologists, investigate the Balinese culture first hand. Upon living with the native peoples, he became interested in the relationship between the people and cock fighting. In comparison to the works of Huizinga and Caillios, they aim to classify and define play. Although, Geertz describes cock fighting in a way that can be classified under the descriptions of Huizinga and Caillios, Geertz writes as though cock fighting is more than just a game, but a way of life.
Under the parameters set by Huizinga and Caillios, cock fighting is falls under Ludus because it creates winners and losers, then subcategorizes into agon, alea and ilinx. Other places in which they agree upon each other include the idea of a specified space and time. In cock fighting it’s the ring and the amount of time is measured by sinking a stabbed coconut. Then, the first rule of play “1.free: in which playing is not obligatory.”by Caillios, This rule holds true granted the if the man is the player.
However, according to Greertz the connection between the man and the cock is one in the same. The cock is a reflection of the man in all aspects of a person. In society and in courtship, the way a man provides and how the cock performs reflects upon the man and therefore is judged through such means. In that cultural sense, if the man is the cock and the cock is the one that’s fighting, then the cock intern also becomes the player. According to the first rule of play laid out by Caillios, the players participating must play out of free will. However, as Geertz describes the subject, the cocks are not always willing to fight. The cocks are put together in the ring and at times they do nothing or one attacks while the other runs away. After countless sinking of the coconut, the force the two cocks into a wicker cage to enclose the space forcing the two cocks to fight. Cock fighting takes one rule of play which is the idea of space and shrinks it to ensure that the time is also upheld within the rules. Yet, in doing so, it breaks the rules of free play. That is of course, if one considers the cock as the player, in actuality, Geertz see’s the opposite of the equation. If cock equals man then man is the player and is therefore morally justified, however in the same token, if man equals cock then the cock is the player and is therefore morally wrong.
Can someone tell me for what class this blog was made, and at what university?
ReplyDeleteThanks!