Summary
As Geertz launches into his interpretation of cockfight wagering, he explains that the wagering is as concerned with status as it is with money.
In fact, "deep play" matches (where the stakes are so high it is technically illogical to be involved in them) become opportunities to figuratively wager oneself (along with one's money).
Geertz lists a number of wagering trends he observed during cockfights, noting that allegiance to one's kin usually dictated how one would wager (rather than any specifics about the cocks). It is in this way that, Geertz argues, the Balinese social hierarchy – well defined in other areas of society – bleeds into the cockfight itself.
Notably, cockfight wagering has no real effect on social hierarchy, as one cannot climb the social ladder through wagering alone.
This observation leads Geertz to the conclusion that cockfighting is an art form, and one that reflects and displays Balinese society through a distinctly Balinese experience.
In the final section of the article, Geertz turns to a more abstract interpretation of his subject, arguing that Balinese cockfighting can be "read" like a text, due to its many nuances and its relationship to humanity more broadly.
He ultimately concludes that Balinese cockfighting not only represents Balinese society (of which hierarchy is a part), but actually helps create and maintain it – much like the way many interpret the function of literature in the West.
Analysis
In the final sections of the article, Geertz shifts from a largely ethnographic tone – in which one presents observations, data, and findings in a relatively straightforward manner – to an abstract, interpretive, and analytical one. These final sections of the article build on one another until Geertz arrives at his final conclusion that cockfighting is both a portrayal and catalyst of Balinese society.
In making this interpretive leap, Geertz amalgamates all the elements of cockfighting he has already discussed and draws parallels between those elements and Balinese society more largely. These collected features include the notion of cocks as extensions of the male form, cocks as inversions of the human form, wagering as a practice rooted more in status and kinship than in monetary gain, and the seeming incongruity between center bets and side bets redefined to show their reliance on one another.
These features are, Geertz argues, components of Balinese culture that are reflected in the cockfight. They are also, however, created and maintained by the cockfight itself.
Geertz's final interpretive shift showcases his academic advocacy for symbolic anthropology. That is, Geertz favored anthropological studies that took symbols as their primary subject, symbols that would be interpreted to gain a deeper understanding of a particular society or culture. For Geertz, of course, the symbol of study for Balinese culture is cockfighting.
However, he makes a case for this methodology by comparing cockfighting to a text that one would interpret, implicitly equating the symbolic importance of cockfighting for the Balinese with the symbolic importance of literature in the West. Like a text, Geertz argues, cockfighting in Balinese culture is where one turns to see their own culture on display. However, also like literature, cockfighting as societal practice is also a generator – and not simply a reflection – of cultural meaning, social behavior, and one's understanding of their place in their community.
