Muchongolo舞蹈比赛:南非低地的深度游戏

Ethnology Pub Date : 2004-09-22 DOI:10.2307/3774033
I. Niehaus, John H. Stadler
{"title":"Muchongolo舞蹈比赛:南非低地的深度游戏","authors":"I. Niehaus, John H. Stadler","doi":"10.2307/3774033","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article argues that Geertz's concern with cultural performances as \"stories people tell themselves about themselves\" continues to be a valid focus of anthropological inquiry. Like Balinese cockfights, muchongolo dancing contests in the Bushbuckridge municipality of South Africa offer metacommentary on everyday life and struggles in the form of a competition. Through the juxtaposition of movements and costumes with the actions of spectators outside the dance arena, and through the lyrics of songs, the dancers enact a confrontation between xintu (the past, tradition) and xilungu (the present, ways of whites). This war of images and words stimulates a critical consciousness about political economic processes that cannot be captured by simplistic labels such as acquiescence and resistance. (Dance, tradition, modernity, Shangaan, South Africa) ********** Few anthropological works are as controversial as Geertz's (1972a) famous study of the Balinese cockfight. Geertz wrote this essay to demonstrate the central postulates of his interpretive approach: that people's actions are signs intended to convey meanings, and that \"doing ethnography is like trying to read (in the sense of 'construct a reading of') a manuscript--foreign, faded, full of ellipses, incoherences, suspicious emendations, and tendentious commentaries, but written not in conventionalized graphs of sound but in transient examples of shared behavior\" (Geertz 1972a:106). He treats the cockfight as an acted text, as a Balinese reading of Balinese experience, a story they tell themselves about themselves. When men engage in cockfights, Geertz suggests, they lay their own public selves on the line through the medium of their cocks. The men engage in status rivalry, a \"deep play\" that transcends calculus of material loss and gain and is a matter of life and death. Geertz finds the text subversive and disturbing. The fight says that beneath the skin of every Balinese man is an animal and that the Balinese experience is really less about poise, grace, and charm, than about jealousy, envy, and brutality. The cockfight reveals these hidden values in the context of the terrible massacres that occurred in Bali after 1965. Critical commentators claim that Geertz does not really show how to access and interpret these unspoken Balinese values. Some of his interpretations, such as his comparisons to Macbeth, are clearly those of the metropolitan scholar rather than those of Balinese themselves (Crapanzano 1986). Second, commentators also question the appropriateness of Geertz's textual metaphor, arguing that it is problematic to collapse data of various sorts (direct observations, interviews, and secondary accounts) into the status of a single type, a text (Kuper 1999). Third, critics claim that whereas Geertz provides a thick description of the actual cockfight, his analysis of the context to which the event relates is thin. Geertz only pays lip service to the history of the cockfight and to the manner in which it relates to the changing political economy of Bali. His general theoretical approach, it is claimed, privileges meaning over all else and hardly speaks about politics, violence, and exploitation (Roseberry 1982 and Scholte 1990). While accepting these criticisms, this article warns against throwing out the proverbial baby with the bath water. Despite the shortcomings of Geertz's analysis, his concern with local representations and with allegory continues to be valid. This is especially pertinent in the study of South Africa, where a one-sided emphasis on political economy often eclipses the valuable insights to be derived from the analysis of cultural meanings (Gordon and Spiegel 1993). (2) This essay aims to demonstrate the validity of Geertz's concerns with reference to an analysis of muchongolo (lit., traditional) dance contests in Bushbuckridge, a remote magisterial district in the South African lowveld. Contra some of his staunch critics, we aim to show that a focus on genres of cultural performance such as cockfights and dances elucidates rather than conceals consciousness about political economic processes. …","PeriodicalId":81209,"journal":{"name":"Ethnology","volume":"59 1","pages":"363-380"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2004-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2307/3774033","citationCount":"15","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Muchongolo Dance Contests: Deep Play in the South African Lowveld\",\"authors\":\"I. Niehaus, John H. Stadler\",\"doi\":\"10.2307/3774033\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article argues that Geertz's concern with cultural performances as \\\"stories people tell themselves about themselves\\\" continues to be a valid focus of anthropological inquiry. Like Balinese cockfights, muchongolo dancing contests in the Bushbuckridge municipality of South Africa offer metacommentary on everyday life and struggles in the form of a competition. Through the juxtaposition of movements and costumes with the actions of spectators outside the dance arena, and through the lyrics of songs, the dancers enact a confrontation between xintu (the past, tradition) and xilungu (the present, ways of whites). This war of images and words stimulates a critical consciousness about political economic processes that cannot be captured by simplistic labels such as acquiescence and resistance. (Dance, tradition, modernity, Shangaan, South Africa) ********** Few anthropological works are as controversial as Geertz's (1972a) famous study of the Balinese cockfight. Geertz wrote this essay to demonstrate the central postulates of his interpretive approach: that people's actions are signs intended to convey meanings, and that \\\"doing ethnography is like trying to read (in the sense of 'construct a reading of') a manuscript--foreign, faded, full of ellipses, incoherences, suspicious emendations, and tendentious commentaries, but written not in conventionalized graphs of sound but in transient examples of shared behavior\\\" (Geertz 1972a:106). He treats the cockfight as an acted text, as a Balinese reading of Balinese experience, a story they tell themselves about themselves. When men engage in cockfights, Geertz suggests, they lay their own public selves on the line through the medium of their cocks. The men engage in status rivalry, a \\\"deep play\\\" that transcends calculus of material loss and gain and is a matter of life and death. Geertz finds the text subversive and disturbing. The fight says that beneath the skin of every Balinese man is an animal and that the Balinese experience is really less about poise, grace, and charm, than about jealousy, envy, and brutality. The cockfight reveals these hidden values in the context of the terrible massacres that occurred in Bali after 1965. Critical commentators claim that Geertz does not really show how to access and interpret these unspoken Balinese values. Some of his interpretations, such as his comparisons to Macbeth, are clearly those of the metropolitan scholar rather than those of Balinese themselves (Crapanzano 1986). Second, commentators also question the appropriateness of Geertz's textual metaphor, arguing that it is problematic to collapse data of various sorts (direct observations, interviews, and secondary accounts) into the status of a single type, a text (Kuper 1999). Third, critics claim that whereas Geertz provides a thick description of the actual cockfight, his analysis of the context to which the event relates is thin. Geertz only pays lip service to the history of the cockfight and to the manner in which it relates to the changing political economy of Bali. His general theoretical approach, it is claimed, privileges meaning over all else and hardly speaks about politics, violence, and exploitation (Roseberry 1982 and Scholte 1990). While accepting these criticisms, this article warns against throwing out the proverbial baby with the bath water. Despite the shortcomings of Geertz's analysis, his concern with local representations and with allegory continues to be valid. This is especially pertinent in the study of South Africa, where a one-sided emphasis on political economy often eclipses the valuable insights to be derived from the analysis of cultural meanings (Gordon and Spiegel 1993). (2) This essay aims to demonstrate the validity of Geertz's concerns with reference to an analysis of muchongolo (lit., traditional) dance contests in Bushbuckridge, a remote magisterial district in the South African lowveld. Contra some of his staunch critics, we aim to show that a focus on genres of cultural performance such as cockfights and dances elucidates rather than conceals consciousness about political economic processes. …\",\"PeriodicalId\":81209,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ethnology\",\"volume\":\"59 1\",\"pages\":\"363-380\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2004-09-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2307/3774033\",\"citationCount\":\"15\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ethnology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2307/3774033\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ethnology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2307/3774033","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 15

摘要

本文认为,格尔茨对文化表演作为“人们告诉自己关于自己的故事”的关注仍然是人类学研究的有效焦点。就像巴厘岛的斗鸡一样,南非布什巴克里奇市的muchongolo舞蹈比赛以比赛的形式提供了对日常生活和奋斗的元评论。通过舞场外观众的动作和服装的并置,以及歌曲的歌词,舞者们上演了“新土”(过去、传统)和“西伦古”(现在、白人的方式)之间的对抗。这场图像和文字之战激发了一种对政治经济过程的批判意识,这种意识不能被默许和抵制等简单的标签所捕捉。(舞蹈,传统,现代,上海,南非)**********很少有人类学著作像格尔茨(1972a)对巴厘岛斗鸡的著名研究那样有争议。格尔茨写这篇文章是为了证明他的解释方法的中心假设:人们的行为是旨在传达意义的符号,而且“做民族志就像试图阅读(在‘构建阅读’的意义上)一份手稿——陌生的、褪色的、充满了省略、不连贯、可疑的修订和有偏见的评论,但不是用常规的声音图表写的,而是用共同行为的短暂例子写的”(格尔茨1972a:106)。他把斗鸡当作表演文本,作为巴厘人对巴厘人经历的解读,一个他们告诉自己关于自己的故事。格尔茨认为,当男人参与斗鸡时,他们通过自己的鸡巴把自己的公众自我置于危险之中。男人们相互竞争地位,这是一种超越物质得失的“深度游戏”,是一种生死攸关的问题。格尔茨认为文本具有颠覆性,令人不安。这场战斗告诉我们,在每个巴厘男人的皮肤下都是一种动物,巴厘人的经历与其说是关于平衡、优雅和魅力,不如说是关于嫉妒、嫉妒和残忍。斗鸡在1965年后发生在巴厘岛的可怕屠杀的背景下揭示了这些隐藏的价值。批评人士声称,格尔茨并没有真正展示如何获取和解释这些未言明的巴厘价值观。他的一些解释,例如他与麦克白的比较,显然是那些大都市学者的解释,而不是巴厘岛人自己的解释(Crapanzano 1986)。其次,评论家也质疑格尔茨的文本隐喻的适当性,认为将各种类型的数据(直接观察,访谈和次要描述)分解为单一类型的状态是有问题的,一个文本(Kuper 1999)。第三,批评人士声称,尽管格尔茨对实际的斗鸡进行了大量描述,但他对事件相关背景的分析却很薄弱。对于斗鸡的历史,以及斗鸡与巴厘岛不断变化的政治经济之间的关系,格尔茨只是嘴上说说而已。据称,他的一般理论方法是特权意义高于一切,几乎不涉及政治、暴力和剥削(Roseberry 1982和Scholte 1990)。在接受这些批评的同时,本文警告不要把婴儿和洗澡水一起倒掉。尽管格尔茨的分析有缺点,但他对地方表征和寓言的关注仍然是有效的。这在对南非的研究中尤为重要,在南非,片面强调政治经济往往掩盖了从文化意义分析中获得的有价值的见解(Gordon and Spiegel 1993)。(2)本文旨在通过对Bushbuckridge(南非低地一个偏远的地方行政区)的muchongolo(传统的)舞蹈比赛的分析来证明Geertz的担忧的有效性。与他的一些坚定的批评者相反,我们的目标是表明,对斗鸡和舞蹈等文化表演类型的关注阐明了而不是隐藏了对政治经济过程的意识。…
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Muchongolo Dance Contests: Deep Play in the South African Lowveld
This article argues that Geertz's concern with cultural performances as "stories people tell themselves about themselves" continues to be a valid focus of anthropological inquiry. Like Balinese cockfights, muchongolo dancing contests in the Bushbuckridge municipality of South Africa offer metacommentary on everyday life and struggles in the form of a competition. Through the juxtaposition of movements and costumes with the actions of spectators outside the dance arena, and through the lyrics of songs, the dancers enact a confrontation between xintu (the past, tradition) and xilungu (the present, ways of whites). This war of images and words stimulates a critical consciousness about political economic processes that cannot be captured by simplistic labels such as acquiescence and resistance. (Dance, tradition, modernity, Shangaan, South Africa) ********** Few anthropological works are as controversial as Geertz's (1972a) famous study of the Balinese cockfight. Geertz wrote this essay to demonstrate the central postulates of his interpretive approach: that people's actions are signs intended to convey meanings, and that "doing ethnography is like trying to read (in the sense of 'construct a reading of') a manuscript--foreign, faded, full of ellipses, incoherences, suspicious emendations, and tendentious commentaries, but written not in conventionalized graphs of sound but in transient examples of shared behavior" (Geertz 1972a:106). He treats the cockfight as an acted text, as a Balinese reading of Balinese experience, a story they tell themselves about themselves. When men engage in cockfights, Geertz suggests, they lay their own public selves on the line through the medium of their cocks. The men engage in status rivalry, a "deep play" that transcends calculus of material loss and gain and is a matter of life and death. Geertz finds the text subversive and disturbing. The fight says that beneath the skin of every Balinese man is an animal and that the Balinese experience is really less about poise, grace, and charm, than about jealousy, envy, and brutality. The cockfight reveals these hidden values in the context of the terrible massacres that occurred in Bali after 1965. Critical commentators claim that Geertz does not really show how to access and interpret these unspoken Balinese values. Some of his interpretations, such as his comparisons to Macbeth, are clearly those of the metropolitan scholar rather than those of Balinese themselves (Crapanzano 1986). Second, commentators also question the appropriateness of Geertz's textual metaphor, arguing that it is problematic to collapse data of various sorts (direct observations, interviews, and secondary accounts) into the status of a single type, a text (Kuper 1999). Third, critics claim that whereas Geertz provides a thick description of the actual cockfight, his analysis of the context to which the event relates is thin. Geertz only pays lip service to the history of the cockfight and to the manner in which it relates to the changing political economy of Bali. His general theoretical approach, it is claimed, privileges meaning over all else and hardly speaks about politics, violence, and exploitation (Roseberry 1982 and Scholte 1990). While accepting these criticisms, this article warns against throwing out the proverbial baby with the bath water. Despite the shortcomings of Geertz's analysis, his concern with local representations and with allegory continues to be valid. This is especially pertinent in the study of South Africa, where a one-sided emphasis on political economy often eclipses the valuable insights to be derived from the analysis of cultural meanings (Gordon and Spiegel 1993). (2) This essay aims to demonstrate the validity of Geertz's concerns with reference to an analysis of muchongolo (lit., traditional) dance contests in Bushbuckridge, a remote magisterial district in the South African lowveld. Contra some of his staunch critics, we aim to show that a focus on genres of cultural performance such as cockfights and dances elucidates rather than conceals consciousness about political economic processes. …
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信