The following paper will be comparing and contrasting two ethnographies which are: Zora

Neale Hurston excerpt from of Mules and Men and also Clifford Geertz, Balinese Cockfights.
It will do so by comparing ethnographic approach between the piece of writings, the focus of
their observation, the narrative voice and also the assumptions and judgements made.

In Mules and Men(2009) by Zora Neale Hurston, here She outstandingly makes a recording
of various songs, slave tales and conversations by combining these cultural practices with the
ethnographic account. She is an objective observer, in this piece of writing Zora utilised two
voices, that is the voice of an ethnographer and the voice of a community member. The
ethnographic method used here is the participant observation method.

In the opening of Mules and Men, Zora Hurston (2009) instantly starts an outline of two
linking attitude expressed: the attitude expressed of the ethnographer and the attitude
expressed of the community participant. Here in this part, Hurston institutes her view in
relation to anthropology and ethnography in two manners. Firstly, Hurston conveys to the
person reading that the field of anthropology presented her the ’spy-glass’ that she required in
order to stand off. The allusion to the spyglass is a contention that her explanation will be a
detached outlook of herself and the community she will observe (Hurston, 2009:1). Through
the usage of this picture, Hurston tries to form reliability- though with irony - as someone that
has the ability to detach herself from the culture of African American, in spite of her inbuilt
entrenchment and interest in the society. Hurston’s assertion to such method and so to
impartiality is only one facet of the creation of an academic persona. Asserting
anthropological technique as a convenient means with which to assess her culture also
functions to instil Hurston with a particular amount of power. Hurston will not only be
recording and listening to folkloric accounts in a disorganised way. Rather, she shows that
these reports will be methodically attained and interpreted within a hypothetical
framework(Hurston, 2009: 3). By mentioning the concept and method of an academic field,
Hurston instils herself with a range of credentials that validate her concluding inscribed
product. This ’spy-glass’ does not only serve as a picture that precisely places Hurston as the
objective observer, but also as a tool with the hypothetical and literal latent to impose
violence on the examined(Hurston, 2009:7). Hurston starts, in the opening of Mules and Men,
by stating that collecting “’Negro’ folklore ’would not be a new experience for me. When I
pitched headforemost into the world, I landed in the crib of negroism” (Hurston, 2009: 1).
Hurston declares her association in the society and then speaks to the matter’s authority and
cultural legitimacy. Hurston gives surety to her reader that she is part of the ’Other’s’ circle

This study source was downloaded by 100000863758155 from CourseHero.com on 03-11-2023 13:52:27 GMT -06:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/111941393/anthropology-essay-hurston-and-geertz-finaldocx/
 and classifies herself as an ’insider’. On the second page of the opening, Hurston maintains
no matter how educated she maybe she would never be separated from her community. If
certainly she were to try pre-eminence over her people, then the people of her community
would remind her quick that she would ’just be a Zora’ . By uncovering this data, Hurston
recognises that her community implements the great rule of identifying her as simply ’Zora’,
therefore levelling the influence disparities. Hurston continues to give surety to her readers
that her accumulation is not infested with data intended to make the ’outsider anthropologist’
seem unwise; her folk tales are as dependable as she herself is (Hurston, 2009: 10). The
outline that Hurston raises for the reader is such that she attributes to herself the authority and
objectivity of an anthropologist and the genuineness and authority of a community
participant. In a manner in which Hurston informs her audience to a form of code-switching
that will transpire as she intercedes among two creations: the authoritative ’insider’
community member and the authoritative ’outsider’ anthropologist, displaying that the two
are not mutually exclusive( Hurston, 2009: 15).

On the other side, Balinese Cockfight by Clifford Geertz is an exceptional instance of an

anthropological approach, he was observing people in their cultural setting. Thus, the
ethnographic method utilised here is the participant observation method. The narrative voices
utilised here is that of Geertz and his wife. Geertz initiated the notion of examining a certain
culture through its own symbology by deciphering and figuring out those symbols for
research purposes. Balinese Cockfight is the writing paper accountable for starting this
approach of study.

Geertz illuminates his approaches of cultural analysis utilising the representation of

cockfighting. In this way, Geertz utilises the occurrence of a cockfight and draw conclusions
and also examines all the several perceptions and outcomes of the fights in the depiction of
their culture. What is the reason for the fights to happen? Which people are eligible to
participate in the fights? What is the prize their fighting for? All these queries have both an
accurate response relating to the physical events and they hold an emblematic response for
the values of the culture too( Geertz, 1973:4). Geertz(1973) maintains that " Believing, with
Max Weber, than 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 search of law but an interpretive one in search of meaning." Geertz had an interest
in the gradations of cultural events because they did not have to occur. Balinese Cockfight is
an exciting and consummate text, even though for explanations besides the reasons usually

This study source was downloaded by 100000863758155 from CourseHero.com on 03-11-2023 13:52:27 GMT -06:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/111941393/anthropology-essay-hurston-and-geertz-finaldocx/
 presented. In this writing, one is able to see Geertz applying an explanatory method that in
fact shows us the manner in which to realistically portray a better analysis of meaning. Geertz
method is like cultured falsifications. The well explanation can reason for observations that
are abnormalities from another interpretation’s perception, secondly can incorporate the other
explanation, that is, can clarify the fractional victory of the other interpretation and also can
deliver more approval for phenomena that is meaningless according to the other explanation.

All in all, the paper above has successfully compared the two ethnographies. Both of these
author’s are using the participant observation ethnographic approach, but Geertz also uses the
narrative voice of him and his wife whereas Hurston utilises voices of an ethnographer and a
voice of a community member.

This study source was downloaded by 100000863758155 from CourseHero.com on 03-11-2023 13:52:27 GMT -06:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/111941393/anthropology-essay-hurston-and-geertz-finaldocx/
 Bibliography

Hurston, Z.N. (2009) “Introduction” in Mules & Men. Harper Colllins :1-18.

Geertz, C.. 1973 “ Deep Play: Notes on the Balinese Cockfight.” In the Interpretation of
Cultures. New York: Basic Books : 1-37.

This study source was downloaded by 100000863758155 from CourseHero.com on 03-11-2023 13:52:27 GMT -06:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/111941393/anthropology-essay-hurston-and-geertz-finaldocx/
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)