Vincent Crapanzano is one of the postmodern anthropologists who claim that objectivity does not exist in cultural analysis. In his work, Hermes’ Dilemma, Crapanzano demonstrates this principle by analyzing ethnographic writing of others. One of Crapanzano’s analyses is on Deep Play: Notes on a Balinese Cockfight by the symbolic anthropologist, Clifford Geertz. The cockfight is a traditional gambling for prestige in Bali. Geertz depicted symbolic meanings in the cockfight and explained how these meanings influenced the Balinese lives.
Crapanzano states that Geertz’ writing is far from objective descriptions of Bali culture because Geertz controlled the texts by using various rhetorical devices. Crapanzano first points out the non-existence of the author in the texts, or a lack of reflection. Geertz described Bali society as if his presence did not affect the people in the society. Since Geertz was not a member of Bali society, he must have influenced the Balinese behaviors and thoughts just by being there. Crapanzano argues that Geertz did not consider this impact. For example, Geertz stated that the Balinese did not pay attention to him, and therefore, they acted as if he “simply did not exist” (McGee and Warms 2004:602). Crapanzano argues that Geertz’ view is not necessarily accurate. Just because Geertz felt like a non-person does not mean the Balinese viewed Geertz that way.
Crapanzano argues that ethnographers tend to mix what they believe natives think with how natives actually feel. This mistake stems from authors’ attempts to establish their authority regarding the accuracy of their texts. When an author does not distinguish between his own view and native’s views, readers tend to forget that the author’s voice is the only one they hear in the writing. Therefore, readers feel as if the text is transmitting an objective reality without any bias or interpretation of the author.
Another point Crapanzano makes is that anthropologists generalize the whole population of a particular society. For example, based on his experience with a group of informants in his research, Geertz described Balinese character as follows: “the Balinese never do anything in a simple way when they can contrive to do it in a complicated way” (McGee and Warms 2004:603) and “the Balinese are shy to the point of obsessiveness of open conflict” (McGee and Warms 2004:603). Crapanzano argues that this kind of generalization reveals a conventional attitude of anthropologists in front of their research subjects. Anthropologists tend to separate themselves from a population they are studying and reject to see the people as equal individuals. Crapanzano claims that Geertz, as an anthropologist, separated the “anthropologist” and “his Balinese” (McGee and Warms 2004:603).
The underlying concept of Crapanzano’s work is that anthropologists construct meanings by writing ethnography. Although ethnographic data themselves are mute, the act of writing is a literary construction of the author. As previous analysis shows, Crapanzano takes apart and examines rhetorical devices in ethnographic writings. The method for this critical analysis is called deconstruction, which reveals interpretations and hidden biases that authors have for justifying their authority. Deconstruction does not resolve inconsistencies, but rather reveals underlying hierarchies involved in conveying information. With this knowledge, we can look at texts with a different, more critical perspective. Deconstruction forced anthropologists to become sensitive to their unconscious assumptions and authorities.
McGee, R. Jon and Richard L. Warms. 2004 Anthropological Theory: An Introductory History. New York: McGraw Hill.
This page was created by Minnesota State University, Mankato student. Last updated 12/15/03