Crapanzano s Dilemma Logical Fallacies in Critiquing Deep Play
... Thus it is not remarkable that Vincent Crapanzano, in his essay Hermes’ Dilemma: The Masking of Subversion in Ethnographic Description, has attacked many of the claims made by Clifford Geertz’s essay, Deep Play: Notes on Balinese Cockfights. However, under further examination, Crapanzano’s critiques involving Geertz’s subjectivity, his drawing of conclusions, his use of sensationalism, and his not finding the whole truth have more major logical and interpretative fallacies than any point Geertz made in Deep Play. One of the most important points Crapanzano tries to make in his essay is that Geertz is not objective in his interpretations of the Balinese villagers. He claims that Geertz does not even attempt to bring the native’s point of view into his essay, simply making ill-fitting interpretations of an event based upon Western prejudices. Crapanzano states “… (Geertz) constructions of constructions of constructions appear to be little more that projections, or at least blurrings, of his point of view, his subjectivity, with that of the native, or, more accurately, of the constructed native” (Crapanzano 74). Thus, in his view, Geertz’s essay has no real basis on the Balinese meaning of their cock-fights, but rather the meaning of Balinese cock-fights to Western observers. Upon reading this criticism of Geertz, one can infer that Crapanzano thinks that a native interpretation of the Balinese cockfights would be much more objective and accurate. ... Geertz, in Deep Play, describes culture “…as an ensemble of texts, themselves ensemble, which the anthropologist strains to read over the shoulder of those to whom they properly belong” (Geertz qtd. Crapanzano 74). ... Crapanzano also spends a great deal of time in his essay critiquing the interpretations that Geertz makes about the cockfights. He claims that all of Geertz’s theories are based on Western interpretations of the cockfights. He also claims that Geertz never describes one, specific cockfight, instead he “…gives the illusion of specificity when there is no specific temporal of spatial vantage point” (Crapanzano 75). Finally, Crapanzano charges Geertz with drawing too much meaning from the cockfights - “…the cockfight itself becomes a grand metaphor for Balinese social organization, and, as such, closes in on itself” (Crapanzano 75). It is hard to tell from Crapanzano’s argument whether he is criticizing the type of interpretations that Geertz drew, or if he is criticizing the fact that Geertz drew interpretations at all from his studies.