Firth Media

Balinese Cockfighting

Written and Researched By: Jess Firth

The following aticle is analysis of a series of six photographs of the Balinese cockfight. Firstly, I will outline the significant circumstances that lead to my positioning among a group of Balinese engaging in the ritual of cockfighting. An approach of comparing and contrasting the writings of Clifford Geertz’s and his interpretive account of the Balinese cockfight will be addressed, followed by an in-depth analysis of the problems of accurate representation and interpretation of Geertz’s writing and my photographs. Inclusive in the overall text focus will be drawn to the relevance of photography as a tool in ethnography.

Technical Data:

Photographer: Jess Ramon Firth

Photos taken: February 2004.

Fuji NPH 400asa 35mm colour film, the six colour prints are 8×12inch originals.

Camera used: Canon SLR EOS 3000 with 28-80mm lens.

Shots where taken in low light conditions with slow shutter speeds, between 30^th and 60^th of a second, this has had the effect of softening the images and showing movement.

Positioning Space and Time.

The sequence of photos provided, at a first glance are a series of images of the Balinese cockfight. Firstly, I feel obliged to give explanatory account of my presence among the Balinese; this is to help further illuminate the realities of the space and time which the six photos are reflective of. This is an attempt to clarify how and why I was privileged enough to take part in the culturally significant ritual of cockfighting, as well as to justify the authenticity of the ritual in the sense of it being in no way staged for the delights of tourist photography.

In late February 2004 I arrived with a friend on the Indonesia archipelago, spending several weeks traveling through Java, Bali and Lombok. During my time in Bali my travel companion and I investigated the islands landscape by the mode of motorcycle; unfortunately I was involved in a minor accident, being knocked off my bike about 30 kilometers north of Depensar. Fortunately I was able to push my damaged bike and body to a nearby village where I came in contact with a Balinese man named Suko. Suko was to be my savior, fixing my motorcycle, dressing my wounds, and later that afternoon inviting my friend and me to a traditional Balinese cockfight. It was most likely my probing questions of the cockfight and praise for his magnificent roosters that where caged near the entrance of his house that lead to our invite to the ritual late that afternoon. Geertz describes in “Deep Play: Notes on the Balinese Cockfight” that if one is not part of Balinese society or culture then they are treated as almost as a transparent being. In Geertz’s account he explains “We were intruders, professional ones, and the villagers dealt with us as Balinese seem always to deal with people not part of their life who yet press themselves upon them: as though they were not there. For them, and to a degree for ourselves, we were non persons, spectators, invisible men.” (1973:412). It is from my experience this textual description rings not entirely true. From the moment I meet Suko he went out of his way to help, and further, introducing me to his family and friends. In this particular instance Geertz’s cultural interpretation and representation of the Balinese presents itself in contrast to my own experience of the Balinese, but it is possible that this may be because of broader historical realities, such as the increase of western influences and impact in Balinese society since 1958 when Geertz visited the island. (Fox, 1991). But in contrast to the above statement, on arrival to the site in which the cockfighting took place I experienced this treatment of social invisibility that Geertz so clearly describes. During my time spent with the Balinese men as they actively engaged in the cockfighting ritual my friend and I were indeed “invisible men”, with the exception of the occasional acknowledgement from Suko and his invite to bet our money for us on his own fighting cock.

Textual and Photographic Account

Geertz’s descriptive and interpretive ethnographic accounts of culture can be seen as problematic; the totality of his writing is reliant on the descriptive abilities of his writing, based on his own interpretation of culture through finding meaning in “webs of significance” (1973:5), Geertz ignores the possibility of photography as an accompanying documentation method, using text as his only reflection of culture. For example, “The concept of culture I espouse, . . . is essentially a semiotic one. Believing, with Max Weber, that man is an animal suspended in webs of significance he himself has spun, I take culture to be those webs, and the analysis of it to be therefore not an experimental science in the search of law but an interpretive one in search of meaning.” ( Geertz, 1973:5 ).

These ideas are the bases to Geertz’s theoretical approaches and conceptual methods towards the interpretation of culture through symbolic meaning, and fundamentally have acted as premises for Geertz’s ethnographic inquiries and writings to be articulated and interpreted within modern anthropology. (Barnard, 2000). It is my argument that Geertz’s confidences in his ethnographic writing abilities, has lead him to disregarding the use of photography as a valid ethnographic research and documentation tool. Throughout Geertz’s ethnography’s, in particular “Deep Play” there is not a single use of photography; instead he represents the Balinese cockfight purely through his own experience and interpretation in his writing. For example, In “Deep Play: Notes on the Balinese Cockfight” Geertz’z has taken ethnographic authority in interpreting the surface symbolism of the actual event of the cockfight, adding depth and meaning by in a sense dissecting the metaphorical presentation of the fight, and in result textually describing this cultural event and its relevance to understanding Balinese society with great depth. “In identifying with his cock, the Balinese man is identifying not just with his ideal self, or even his penis, but also, and at the same time, with what he most fears, hates, and ambivalence being what it is, is fascinated by - The Powers of Darkness.” (Geertz, 1973:420). I believe that this symbolic interpretation of the Balinese cockfight could have been illuminated further with the combined assistance of photographs of the event, thus illustrating Geertz’s discourse on the subject with greater depth and interpretive insight to his own experience of being there as the ethnographer. Photographs could have added additional insight into the actual event of the cockfight, framing particular aspects that Geertz witnessed and displaying the environmental influences that aided in shaping his interpretations, thus giving the reader of the ethnography a more holistic account.

Pink argues that, “Ethnographic research is intertwined with visual images and metaphors.” (2001:17). In Geertz’s cases he relays the visual images and metaphors of culture through what he describes as “Thick Desciption”, which is essentially the Geertzian framework for interpreting and textually presenting culture. (Shankman, 1984). “Looked at in this way, the aim of anthropology is the enlargement of the universe of human discourse. That is not, of course its only aim. . . But it is an aim to which a semeiotic concept of culture is peculiarly well adapted. As an interworked system of construable signs (what, ignoring provincial usages, I would call symbols), culture is not power , something to which social events, behaviors, institutions or processes can be casually attributed; it is a context, something within which they can be intelligibly­ - that is, thickly - described.” (Geertz, 1993:14).

Geertz is fundamentally reliant on his own discourses in the ethnographic inquiry of culture, thus transcending imagery through his text to be cognitively interpreted by the reader. Ultimately, I believe that Geertz’s writings on the Balinese cockfight could have been improved with the inclusion of photography as a visual aid in his work. This would have demonstrated the visual realities of the space and time of the ethnographic environment Geertz was immersed in, thus allowing further interpretation of the ritualistic setting of the cockfight to be made by the reader.

Representation and Interpretation of Geertz’s writing and my photography.

In my own photography of the Balinese cockfight I have arranged six selected images in the attempt to visually tell a story of this aspect of Balinese culture. These images are a demonstration of visual representation of the Balinese cockfight, and are essentially an attempt to explain the actions of the cockfight. In effect, “patterns of culture are what we are presenting when we do anthropology; and taking photographs, or looking, or taking notes are tools for articulating and stating the patterns that we anthropologists, wish to show others.” (Mead, 1980:190). Being an anthropology student and having been influenced by the field of study I felt compelled in the instance of attending the Balinese cockfight to document these cultural actions through the use of photography. In photo 1 is a Balinese man presenting a cock to the crowd, enticing those who wish to bet on the cock to place a bet. In the centre of the photograph one can see the attached steel spur to the rooster’s leg; Geertz also illuminates this in his monograph of the cockfight. “The selected cocks have their spurs (tadji) affixed – razor-sharp, pointed steel swords, four or five inches long.” (Geertz, 1973:421). The textual description of Geertz appears comparatively aligned with photo 1, which visually aids his commentary and ultimately presents a visual guide to his text. “In many cases, social investigators choose to create some marriage of text and image, where each provides a commentary on the other.” (Banks, 1995). Arguably, as stated earlier the accuracy of Geertz’s work could have been improved if he had of “married” his monograph of the cockfight with additional photography. It is possible that if Geertz presented the reader with additional photography of the cockfight the reader would not be entirely dependant on cognitively shaping interpretive understandings of the text. Therefore, the reader would not have to rely only on intertextual references to illuminate the text, meaning that the photo becomes a point of visual reference and essentially reinforces the ethnographic narrative.

Photo 2 depicts two cocks being placed in the centre ring area by their handlers. The mid-range close up camera angle used here focuses attention towards the cocks that are about to engage in fighting, selectively drawing attention away from the surrounding crowd. This approach could be seen as a prime example that raises Collier’s point of, “The camera, however automatic is a tool that is highly sensitive to the attitudes of its operator. Like the tape recorder it documents mechanically but does not by its mechanics necessarily limit the sensitivity of the human observer; it is a tool of both extreme selectivity and no selectivity at all.” (1986:9). As all photography is bound by this reality, photo 2 clearly demonstrates my own selectivity towards placing emphases upon the roosters about to fight, which raises the point of the authority of representation. Representation of culture or a cultural manifestation within the historical boundaries of anthropology is most often served and trusted by the ethnographic researcher that has experienced the alternative culture, such as through participant observation. “. . . The experience of the researcher can serve as a unifying source of authority in the field. Experiential authority is based on a “feel” for the foreign context, a kind of accumulated savvy and a sense of the style of a people or place.” (Clifford, 1988:35). In the particular case of photo 2 I have taken authority into my own hands, although I am no ethnographer, I have been enculturated with anthropological ideas through my studies, and it is possible that my own subjectivities have been influenced to focus on documenting what I have come to understand as the key visual elements of the Balinese cockfight. Collectively, the six photos have selectively been chosen chronologically to represent the act of a Balinese cockfight beginning to end. Therefore, the representational authority of the Balinese cockfight in this instance is reflective of my own subjective photographic approach; Geertz’s (1973) writing on the subject could also be viewed in the same manner, due to the inescapable reality that ones own subjectivity and ethnocentricities will always be present in their own interpretation and representation of culture. (Keesing, 1976).

In photo 3 I have selectively attempted to portray a more holistic view of the Balinese cockfight by using a wide angle shot that includes both the audience of the cockfight and the cocks themselves. Comparatively, this photo further brings to light Geertz textual account, “Surrounding all this melodrama the crowd is packed tight around the ring, following in near silence. . .” (Geertz, 1973:423). Interpretively, photo 3 illustrates great similarities to this text. Furthermore, it is likely that my motivations to frame photo 3 in this manner stem from the broader social realities of how photography is used and presented in my own society. For example, “Ethnographers themselves are members of societies in which photography and video are already practiced and understood in particular ways. The ways in which individual ethnographers approach the visual in their research and representation is inevitably influenced by a rage of factors, including theoretical beliefs, disciplinary agendas, personal experience, gendered identities and different visual cultures.” (Pink, 2001:29). In my own case the above stated factors can broadly be applied to influencing my own approach and style of documenting cultural facets through photography, not only in photo 3 but in all images I consume and produce. It is possible that my previous contact with Geertz’s descriptive writing of the cockfight acted as a key proponent in influencing how and why I documented the Balinese cockfight. In addition, the stylistic approach to framing photo 3 in its presented manner is possibly due to influence of the imagery I have come in contact with in my own society. Therefore, the consumption and production of images, namely photographs, is shaped to ones own enculturation and exposure to surrounding influences; by acknowledging this and attempting to realise the significance and existence of ones own subjectivity a reflexive appreciation is achieved, which ultimately “. . . recognises the centrality of the subjectivity of the researcher to the production and representation of ethnographic knowledge.” (Pink, 2001:19).

Because Photo 4 and 5 have been shot with a slow shutter speed the captured effect is blurred movement of the cocks fighting. These two photos effectively highlight the reality of movement in the frames of focus. Arguably, this depiction of movement is functional of intensifying significant actions; it can be viewed as a stylistic attempt to captivate the attention of the audience. Although photos 4 and 5 may functionally demonstrate movement of roosters fighting, they could also be viewed as being slightly artistic in nature, thus moving them stylistically into the frame of the postmodernism realm, rather than that of an ethnographic account. (Banks, 1995). In stating this though, I believe photos 4 and 5 are essential to the ethnographic theme of the series of photos, and combined with all of the images are essential to shaping what I purpose as a visual ethnographic narrative.

Photo 6 quite simply depicts the end result of the Balinese cockfight, portraying the feather plucking of the losing cock, that I was told is returned to its handler, who then will generally eat it. Interestingly, Geertz does not draw any attention to this social reality, whether he felt it was irrelevant or just neglected to includ it in his notes, raises the point again that ethnographic authority is highly subjective.

Photographic Relevance in Ethnography

The overall purpose of taking photos of the Balinese cockfight was to document the social actions of the event; ultimately the photos were taken as a visual reference for me. The series of photos also act as a visual depiction of the cockfight, presenting a narrative of the event that is selectively influenced by my own subjectivities.

Although, photography may be subjectively selective in the framing of social action, it still acts as a documented point of reference to any sort of social action, acting merely as a window that assists further interpretive investigation into any subject of focus. (Grimshaw, 2001). It is my argument that the use of photography in ethnographic field work is valid as a supplementary support that can add depth to ethnographic text. I have demonstrated with my photography a narration of social action that is indeed selective in nature, but still presents a visual reality. “Postmodern thinkers have argued that ethnographic knowledge and text can only ever be a subjective construction, a fiction that represents only the ethnographer’s version of reality, rather than an empirical truth.” (Pink, 2001:19). Photography of the Balinese cockfight or any social or cultural aspect in my view further shapes the formation of ethnographic knowledge, as it acts as a reflective visual reference for the ethnographer, and also helps further contextualise the representation of culture in ethnographic text.

In conclusion, it appears that in the comparison made between Geertz’s writing and my photographs of the Balinese cockfight there are differences and similarities of representation. Obviously the immediate difference is the technical style of documentation of the Balinese cockfight, with Geertz using text to record and depict the event, whereas I have used photography to document and present the cockfight. In comparing the general narrative of my photos they appear to coincide with much of Geertz’s narrative on the cockfight, but combined with my own experience they also illuminate aspects of the cockfight that Geertz has selected not to focus on or has interpreted differently, and vice versa with Geertz’s writings addressing far more scope than the narrow focus of my photos. This reinforces my argument of the reality of ethnographic inquiry being influenced by ones own subjectivity, and in addition centralises my presented ideas of photography being used in collaboration with ethnographic text, which I believe adds greater depth to the textual analysis and representation of culture. As photography proves to be problematic through representing and interpreting culture so does the writing of culture. By taking a reflexive approach of being aware of such problems as subjectivity in the representation and interpretation of culture, both the use of photography and writing can be improved. Therefore, the analysis of my own photography and of Geertz’s writing on the Balinese cockfight has lead me to believe that the combination of both text and photography helps present a more holistic account of cultural manifestations, and ultimately adds to the greater depth of ethnographic inquiry.