Brandon Wynne English W-131 Katherine Blake 26, October 2012 Deep Play: Understanding How the Balinese

Understand Themselves In the Pacific Ocean sits an elongated arrangement of archipelagoes known collectively as Indonesia. These archipelagoes have vast cultures whose identities range from western ideas to eastern religions such as Hinduism, Buddhism and Islam. Bali, being one of the thirty-three providences scattered between Indonesia, has a history of conquest and violence because it has been held captive by neighboring and foreign nations such as the Javanese, Dutch, and Japanese. The gradual succession of rulers as well as the complicated social structure attributed to Hinduism has created a question of identity to the Balinese. Author Clifford Geertz implies, through his ethnography Deep Play, that the Balinese use cockfighting as a way to identify themselves in their society. Through the use of deep play within cockfights the Balinese are able to reenact complex social issues such as the caste system and momentarily relive what it means to be Balinese. Geertzs Deep Play is an anthropological text, or ethnography, that illustrates his assimilation and study of the Balinese culture through the use of cockfighting. By his participation as a spectator of local cockfights, Geertz established a positive position within the ranks of the Balinese society and gave himself an excellent position to analyze the Balinese culture. Geertzs breakdown of the Balinese can be understood through several concepts from cockfighting: culture, betting, and deep play.

During a cockfight, the handlers place two chickens into a ring with fixed spurs so that they may face each other (Geertz 9). The winning cock is simply the bird that does not die during combat (Geertz 7). There are two types of bets within the circle, one within the circle and bets from outside the circle (Geertz 12). The center bet is the official one and the outer bets are arrangements based off the first (Geertz 12). The more even the match, the higher the bets, and this works both ways. This high bet, even match, can be described as a deep match and is what the Balinese aim for within every match. When deep play is attained the outcome of the match is unpredictable and the stakes are very high (Geertz 16.) Thus this deep play is when the stakes are so high that it is or was irrational to begin in the first place. Balinese culture is deeply rooted within the fundamental elements of cockfighting. Cockfighting emblemizes the religious values, violence, and social issues that the Balinese have been a part of historically. Religiously, the Balinese have a strong distaste in anything that resembles an animal act and this can be seen in depictions of animals as demons (Geertz 7). This distaste for animality can even be seen in essential tasks such as eating and babies crawling (Geertz 7). Only few animals, such as the cock, are omitted from this impression (Geertz 7). The cock can be seen as an extension to the male being and almost a reflection of narcissism and this view of the animal are shared throughout the Balinese (Geertz 7). Just like religion, the violent clash of the cockfight can be seen as a reconstruction of the violent history that the Balinese have experienced and the clash of good vs. evil, or humans vs. omens respectively (Geertz 7). Anthropologist Daniel Little argues for the same view, in Michael Martins Geertz and the Interpretive Approach in Anthropology, that cockfighting is a surrogate for the struggle of good vs. evil (274). Although Daniel believes that religion and violence are key points in Geertzs analysis, there is a deeper level that can be understood with complications associated with the

social system. Through the introduction of Hinduism, the Balinese caste system creates voids in between the classes because the higher class and the lower class are broken up socially (Balinese). These different classes often support each other and other sub factions that develop within their class (Geertz 18). With cockfighting these voids are connected and displayed explicitly, especially in deep play. Deep play, which could be described as Geertzs most important concept in his ethnography, is an almost perfect example of how the Balinese visualize their culture. From the officials, representing the high class, setting the bets inside the ring, to the spectators, representing the lower class, scrambling for spin off bets outside, deep play covers it all. When the match starts being deep it no longer matters economically and becomes more important socially (Geertz 17-18). In deep matches betters will join with their faction group, kinship, or friends and pool money for a higher, central bet (Geertz 21-22). This tie in with whom you know is very important to the Balinese and it is very rare that somebody bets against the grain in a match (Geertz 20). It is more acceptable socially to walk away from a match of whom you support both factions than to bet against them (Geertz 20). With deep play an individual can also momentarily move up or down the social status ladder, within the cockfight, by winning or losing a match (Geertz 23). The cockfight, which Geertz argues is more of an educative art form or text that uses themes from religion, social life, and violence and places it into a form that the Balinese can enjoy (24). The cockfight is essential in understanding what it means to be Balinese because it takes all the hard subjects within their society and makes them relatively easy to notice and understand. It is an expression, a metaphor and its role is to neither assuage social passions nor to heighten them, but what it does instead is display them (Geertz 24). What this art form is, for

the individuals lucky and educated enough to understand Balinese history, is a reading of the Balinese experience; a story they tell themselves about themselves (Geertz 27).

Works Cited 1.) Geertz, Clifford. "Deep Play: Notes on the Balinese Cockfight." Daedalus 101.1 (1972): 137. Print. 2.) "Indonesia - Balinese." Indonesia - Balinese. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Oct. 2012. <http://countrystudies.us/indonesia/47.htm>. 3.) Martin, Michael. "Geertz and the Interpretive Approach in Anthropology." Synthese 97.2 (1993): 269-86. JSTOR. Web. 17 Oct. 2012. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/20117842?&Search=yes&searchText=interpretive&searchT ext=geertz&list=hide&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3Dgeertz% 2Binterpretive%26acc%3Don%26wc%3Don&prevSearch=&item=6&ttl=4924&returnAr ticleService=showFullText>.