Geertz summary

“Deep Play: Notes on the Balinese Cockfight,” can be summarized as an overall commentary on the Balinese culture through deep examination of the ritual of cockfighting.  Geertz analyzed the cockfight from various angles, in essence using it as a medium in which to portray the meaning of the Balinese cultural. 

            Geertz began by commenting on the exclusivity of the culture by describing how his wife and he were treated with indifference initially.  The culture did not allow the outsiders in until they showed their loyalty by running from local police when caught at a cockfight.  Loyalty was also addressed in that the Balinese almost always bet on and support the cock of their kin. 

           

            Geertz commented on lack of materialism and social structure in the culture.  While the Balinese disliked losing money in a bet, the cockfight focused less on materialism and more on aspects of pride.  He differentiated between “deep fights,” those in which the cocks were more evenly matched and prominent members of society involved, verses “shallow fights,” lesser in both status and money involved in the betting.  The “deep fights” were thus a reflection of status rather than a reflection of gambling, and therefore more unpredictable.

Those members of society who view cockfighting as a gambling game and consistently participate in “shallow fights” are looked down upon as petty and those who do not understand the deeper meaning. Also in this way, the essay reports how cockfighting is a representation of social groups and hierarchy.   Although it may appear a mere sport or enjoyment via gambling and competition, in actuality the fight represents social structure.  “Deep fights” that attract a crowd and higher bets include more prominent members of society.  Thus, the Balinese essentially contribute to social divisions by participating in grandiose cockfights as opposed to lesser ones. 

The essay concluded by describing the cockfight as a story the Balinese tell themselves about themselves, thus discovering the temperament of the society as a whole.  As Geertz put it, cockfighting is the “master key to Balinese life,” and a definite avenue for anthropologists to get a concise feel for the cultural. 

A story I tell myself about myself.

"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, 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."

I view this quote as both interesting and important in the scheme of the entire essay.  The quote describes the underlying meaning and sentiment behind the cockfight.  The cockfight is more than just a gambling game or entertaining sport in the Balinese culture.  It represents the manner in which the Balinese willingly sort their own culture into social classes, exerting more interest and spending more money on those who are more socially relevant, while doing the opposite to those who are lower on the social ladder.  The Balinese personally engage in sorting their social classes, in essence telling a story of their own hierarchy to themselves. 

Summary

             In the article, “Ask Not What Occupy Wall Street Will Do Next; Ask How We Will Change the Status Quo,” the author initially describes the lack of publicity the Occupy Wall Street movement has received as compared to late autumn.  He then contrasts that as compared to a few months ago, people are now accepting OWS’s message as legitimate concrete demands, rather than an immature group of activists.

           

The article analogizes OWS twice; first, to a reality television show, and then to a brand name.  The reference to a reality television show is due to its surprising, sporadic behavior, and also because the movement has begun to lost its political nature and become more a source of entertainment.  The reference to a brand name is due to the general acceptance.  The author compares OWS to a brand, saying that both are generally accepted entities, with no argument surrounding them.  The OWS brand entails a group of left wing activists that fight for ‘the 99%’ against the elite controlling the nation. 

            The argument of the article is that the combination of lack of publicity paired with general acceptance is fatal for OWS.  In order to rectify this issue, OWS must resist reification (the making of a brand) by standing for the things it once stood for.  This includes criticizing the wealthy few who control the economy and thus the nation, and defending the claim that ‘private interest is a public problem.’  While continuing to do so may cause a revolution, it is necessary for the health of the nation and the world.

            The author concludes by assuring the reader that OWS includes a selfless group of individuals defending the masses selflessly.  However, the movement is losing its momentum because Wall Street and OWS are coexisting peacefully.  In order to redeem itself, people must stop asking what OWS will do next, like the nature of a reality show, and rather ask which public claims can be made to disrupt status quo, thus disturbing the brand name OWS has become.   

 

Grain

Strong reading can be defined as the capability to interact with text in various ways.  This capability means finding fulfillment in reading while understanding, comprehending, and questioning the information the author displays.  A strong reader recognizes that there are many types of reading, and understands what is demanded of him or her in each setting.  As described by The Allyn and Bacon Guide to Writing, reading rhetorically is reading with an awareness of what effect the text is meant to have.  This is a particularly advantageous skill when reading academic text because the reader can view the text in a somewhat unbiased manner, understanding the persuasion that is meant to occur, thus analyzing the perspective while consciously deciding whether to engage in the argument or not.  In my opinion, rhetorical reading is beneficial in an academic sense, but there are ample other methods of reading, all of which can be classified under the broad spectrums of "with the grain" and "against the grain."

 Reading "with the grain" is a more passive form of reading.  By passive I do not imply that reading "with the grain" is an easier form of reading, but rather that the reader acts as a passive audience of the author's perspective.   "With the grain" entails accepting the author's message for what it is worth, keeping an open mind about the author's opinion, and connecting this message within a larger context, possibly a personal experience.  Personally, I read "with the grain" quite often.  In my experience, both in an academic and casual setting, reading "with the grain" has been the type of reading that has been most prudent.  These experiences include novels I read for enjoyment, apolitical articles in the news, and textbooks. I enjoy reading most text in this manner because exposure to the perspective of others is something I find satisfying, appropriate- and quite frankly- reading "against the grain" the majority of the time would become increasingly exhausting. 

Reading "against the grain" is a more active form of reading.  "Against the grain" includes questioning, doubting, and potentially refuting the author's point of view.  "Against the grain" appears to be the type of reading that The Allyn and Bacon Guide seems to be promoting, and seems to be directly associated with the development of a strong reader.  An experience I have had with reading against the grain is when I read science journals.  I do this quite frequently as I work in a laboratory.  As a scientist one has no choice but to read "against the grain."  Another scientist publishes data and may interpret it differently from you, and it is your responsibility to question their written conclusions in order to make advancement.  Having interpretations questioned is the most challenging, frustrating, and enjoyable aspect of the field.  Although this may be more considered thinking "against the grain," it can not be denied that the two are immediately intertwined if not identical. 

I find that it is sometimes advantageous to combine the two techniques.  To initially read "with the grain," allowing the knowledge and perspective to soak in, and then think "against the grain," comparing what you ingested to what you previously thought/felt/experienced, is an approach that works well, also.