ANTH 303 Anthropological Theory Fall 2018
I acknowledge that St FX is in Mi’kma’ki, the ancestral and unceded territory of the Mi’kmaq People.
Oct. 29: Balinese Cockfight X 2 READ: Geertz, Clifford (2005)“Deep Play: Notes on the Balinese Cockfight.” Daedalus. 134(4): 56- .URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20028014
READ: Roseberry, William (1982) “Balinese Cockfights and the Seduction of Anthropology.”  Social Research. 49(4):1013-1028. http://pao.chadwyck.com/PDF/1354736278175.pdf

The following questions will help guide our discussion as we try to make sense of this, and other, theories. In addition, we will apply the theory to the video shown in the first day of class:

How can this theory be seen as a product of the historical period in which it was created?
What questions does this theory ask?
What information does this theory see as important?
What are other relevant assumptions made by the theory?
How does the theory analyse this information to answer the questions it sees as important?
What are the strengths and weaknesses of this approach?

Some key concepts from Geertz:
- interpretive anthropology
- culture as text: as “a story they tell themselves about themselves” (Geertz 2005: 84)
- or, culture as “webs of significance” (Geertz, cited in Roseberry 1982: 1016).
- culture as “assemblage of texts”
- influence of Weber, structural functionalism (via Parsons)
- influence of Wittgenstein and philosophical interpretation of language/“reality”
- social status and status markers
- link between “Culture” (i.e. as literature, art, etc.) and “culture” in the more anthropological sense
- deep play
- the importance of writing:
- thick description
- “experience near” versus “experience distant” – what do“natives” think they are up to versus how the researcher describes events
- influence on "writing culture" anthropologists, part of the post-modern turn that questions "meta-narratives" and perspectives
- among earlier work, Agricultural Involution, was influential; (but see critics, e.g. Benjamin White (1983) Agricultural Involution and its Critics. Working Paper Series, No. 6. The Hague: Institute of Social Studies. repub.eur.nl/pub/18760/wp6.pdf.


Some concepts from Roseberry:
- note how he anatomizes Geertz (pp. 1017-1019)
    - challenges Geertz’ selectivity in choosing the cultural “text” he will analyse
    - challenges Geertz for ignoring historical context, especially with respect to: earlier practice of lords to tax markets and cockfights; Dutch colonial experience; Indonesian dominance
    - challenges Geertz for not engaging with status formation
        - similarly, says Geertz does not engage with a variety of forms of inequality
    - challenges idea of culture as text: “a text is written; it is not writing” (p. 1022)
        - Roseberry wants process studied, not just product
            - who is writing, for whom, at what historical point; how does the story change over time
        - further, Roseberry insists that culture is material social process
- importance of “cultural materialism” à la Raymond Williams versus Marvin Harris
- social reproduction
- importance of history
- Roseberry was a marxist anthropologist who was strongly influenced by Eric Wolf


Applying Geertz and Roseberry to the video:
    - Geertz: how does a job interview as text reveal important themes in this culture?
        - what do stories about job interviews/different interviewers/different applicants tell us about what important issues people in this culture think are central to who they are?
    - Roseberry: what are the messages in such a video that address or seek to buy compliance with political and economic inequalities?