A Geertzian Perspective On Rethinking Comparison
Rethinking Comparison: Innovative Methods for Qualitative Political Inquiry (2021), edited by Erica S. Simmons and Nicholas Rush Smith provides a comprehensive analysis regarding the methods of comparative politics. The book is highly critical of inferential capabilities within controlled comparisons which tend to make general claims. Unlike natural science, there are difficulties inherent in social science in terms of determining causative factors, establishing credible causal findings, and guaranteeing internal validity (Simmons & Smith, 2021: 4) Thus, Simmons and Smith focus on the richness and relevance of non-controlled comparisons from Aristotle’s political theory to Wallerstein’s world systems theory (Simmons & Smith, 2021: 6). I argue that Clifford Geertz’s anthropological studies in Indonesia, named “Deep Play: Notes on the Balinese Cockfight” (1973) and “Ritual and Social Change: Javanese Example” (1957) can demonstrate the richness and significance of going beyond controlled comparisons as proposed in Rethinking Comparison. I will discuss the concepts within the several chapters of the book, including unbound comparison, ethnographic sensibility, siting, and encompassing comparison which can be discovered in Geertz’s studies.
In Chapter 4, Cheesman introduces “unbound comparison,” which diverges from traditional comparative methods by focusing on the pursuit of traits that capture the “paradigmatic style” of communities and practices, rather than enumerating every case or taking a representative sample (Simmons & Smith, 2021: 66). Similar to bound comparison, the unbound comparison looks for common understandings and makes necessary adjustments to empirical domains rather than following rigid methodological rules. It is appropriate for constitutive rather than causal research initiatives since it concentrates on articulating contingent generalizations rather than verifying hypotheses. Unbound comparison can reach a large audience and add to larger discussions about political topics, even though it might not satisfy external validity requirements (Simmons & Smith, 2021: 72). It can be argued that Geertz’s study in Indonesia so adequately captures the “paradigmatic style” of Balinese society and their cultural practice of cockfight that it can acknowledge the cultural link between the fights and broader Balinese society. For instance, the cockfight serves as a metaphor for status competition among men in the village (Geertz, 1973: 16) and despite being illegal, it persists as a form of “deep play” (Geertz, 1973: 15) where the stakes are high, which reveals the Balinese attitudes towards authority and law.
Furthermore, this brings the discussion on the distinction between ethnographic comparisons and controlled comparisons. Ethnographic comparisons involve examining political processes within their cultural contexts, emphasizing the qualitative understanding of these processes rather than focusing solely on their outcomes. Conversely, controlled comparisons prioritize the comparison of political outcomes and the variables esteemed to influence these outcomes, often employing quantitative methods to identify patterns and causal relationships.
Rethinking Comparison implies that a critical aspect of political research lies in understanding the political process itself rather than simply assessing the end results. It critiques the controlled comparison literature for its tendency to prioritize statistical analysis without sufficiently considering the contextual meaning of the variables under examination. This approach, they suggest, can lead to a superficial understanding of political phenomena and may overlook the intricacies of real-life situations.
Thus, in relation to Geertz’s concepts of meaning and action, positivist and interpretive approaches present contrasting perspectives. Akan argues that this perceived divide between positivist and interpretive approaches is arbitrary, as interpretation is inherent in the process of explanation (Akan, 2017, p. 38). Geertz’s study exemplifies how interpretation can be utilized to elucidate the underlying meanings behind observed actions, transcending the limitations of rigid methodological divides, so it seems inconsistent to grasp Geertz’s ideas of meaning and action through positivist and interpretive perspectives.
In Chapter 12, Erica S. Simmons and Nicholas Rush Smith, touch upon the range of maneuvers that ethnographic sensibility can provide, such as comprehending meaning, contextual embeddedness, language, and symbols (Simmons & Smith, 2021: 249–252). Gaining an understanding of ethnographic sensibility makes it possible to see how people interpret their social and political reality and make sense of the world around them. This method explores the underlying meanings and interpretations associated with actions and behaviors rather than simply observing them. Hence, Geertz’s Balinese Cockfight serves as an example of how qualitative methods can develop broader understanding of a “case” that seems unique. In Bali’s context, the cockfight is a crucial but frequently disregarded facet of Balinese culture since it offers important insights into the temperament of Balinese people. The Balinese males have a strong psychological bond with their fighting cocks, which represents both their idealized selves and their fears of animality and demonic forces. There is a widespread symbolic association in Balinese language and cultural practices between cocks and masculinity. Cockfighting is explicitly associated with dark powers and is used as a blood sacrifice to appease demons.
Moreover, the intended objective changes when using an ethnographic sensibility as a point of comparison. Simmond and Smith contend that translation is a distinct goal in comparative research to produce ideas that are still understandable or identifiable in a new context — even though there may be changes in how an idea or political action is understood or carried out in that environment (Simmons & Smith, 2021: 250). In that sense, Geertz’s interpretation of the cockfight as a Balinese text, a symbolic representation for the social order and self-esteem in their society, and a means of conveying to the Balinese a sentimental education that teaches them about their own sensibility and the ethos of their culture (Geertz, 1973: 83).
Even though it is aimed to develop “generalizable” conclusions that can work in various contexts within prevailing comparison methods (Simmons & Smith, 2021: 250), Seawright underlines the dynamic nature of units that are subject to be created by researchers (Simmons & Smith, 2021: 31). To create one’s own unit of analysis that transcends particular regime types, groups, or locations and delves into context-specific new meanings; comparison can be a useful tool in developing a discursive strategy. Choosing what to compare is one of the most determinative aspects of how to compare. As such, a researcher who is insulated from the constraints of controlling variables in the controlled comparison can engage in critical cases and non-controlled comparisons.
The question can still be a comparative one in a critical case. In Chapter 6, Riofrancos mentions the discussions about single-case studies (Simmons & Smith, 2021: 112) and posits that the phrase “single-case study” is misleading, given that a case study encompasses several variables. She proposes the strategy of “siting,” which is watching a particular place where more general processes take place. By moving their focus from limited cases to specific sites, researchers can explore phenomenon beyond national boundaries as Geertz did regarding the state legitimacy. He conducts a critical case study that departs from traditional narratives of state legitimacy and power, which frequently place an emphasis on coercion through force and economics. Rather, he emphasizes the importance of rituals and symbolic acts of authority (Geertz, 1957: 86). This viewpoint comprehensively engages with social and cultural components of state creation, expanding our understanding of it beyond its economic and coercive features.
In Chapter 9, Schwedler points out the idea of encompassing comparisons, which originated from Tilly, in comparative analysis highlights how individual cases are connected to bigger structures and processes (Simmons & Smith, 2021). Encompassing comparisons recognize that whereas broader systems and procedures can influence specific instances, they do not have a determining effect. Between specific instances and more extensive frameworks, they are dialectical. This method seeks to describe the dynamics and trajectories of specific examples while taking into account how those situations relate to various broader processes or structures. In Javanese Example, the act of burying a child is imbued with significance by individuals, as they attribute meaning to their actions. However, why cannot this alone serve as an explanation for a social event?
In Modjokuto, the burial of a young boy becomes a source of social strain due to ideological differences between the santri (orthodox Muslims) and abangan (syncretic Javanese Muslims) (Geertz, 1957: 41). The slametan, a communal feast and central ritual in Javanese syncretism, fails to function effectively as it is charged with both sacred and political significance, which led to uncertainty as to whether the event was religious or political, causing cultural ambiguity and social conflict. The issue of “burying a kid” requires investigating The Javanese religious tradition which is a syncretism of Hindu, Buddhist, and Islamic elements, with communal feasts called slametans being central to social and religious life (Geertz, 1957: 35). Encompassing comparison can seek the broader framework behind this small daily incident, establish connections with existing structures. For instance, urbanization and modernization disrupt traditional social structures, which leads to a shift in geographical and ideological ties, with increasing conflicts between orthodox Muslims and adherents of local syncretism (Geertz, 1957: 36). On the other hand, nationalist movements and political parties intensify the santri-abangan divide, and politicize religious symbols and rituals, consequently affects everyday social interactions (Geertz, 1957: 50).
In conclusion, through discussions on unbound comparison, ethnographic sensibility, siting, and encompassing comparison, Rethinking Comparison emphasizes the importance of understanding political processes within their cultural contexts. By drawing parallels with Clifford Geertz’s anthropological studies in Indonesia, particularly his analysis of the Balinese cockfight and Javanese rituals, this paper underscores the significance of qualitative methods in uncovering deeper meanings and interpretations, and transcending rigid methodological divides to enhance our understanding of political dynamics.
This paper is written for the Pols 472 class in the 2024 spring term at Boğaziçi University.
References
Akan, M. (2017). The Politics of Secularism: Religion, Diversity, and Institutional Change in France and Turkey. Columbia University Press.
Geertz, C. (1957). Ritual and Social Change: A Javanese Example. American Anthropologist, 59.
Geertz, C. (1973). Deep Play: Notes on the Balinese Cockfight. In The Interpretation of Cultures (pp. 412–453). New York: Basic Books.
Simmons, E. S., & Smith, N. R. (Eds.). (2021). Rethinking Comparison: Innovative Methods for Qualitative Political Inquiry. Cambridge University Press.
