The Interpretive Anthropology of Football and Crazy Fans.

Growing up in the rural mountains of Tennessee you learn pretty quick that football isn’t just a sport, it’s a religion. From a young age I learned that entire weekends are blocked off for 10-16 weeks at a time. Friday is dedicated to the local high school football team, Saturday belongs to college football, and Sunday was meant for church and NFL football. Every individual had his or her unique mix of team allegiances and when Monday rolled around the losing fan was always pointed out at the water cooler. My entire town of two thousand people followed this routine in the Fall and after reading Geertz’s “Deep Play: Notes on the Balinese Cockfights”, I realized that this dedication to football is significant to fans in the same way cockfights are significant to the Bali people. Geertz explained how the cockfight serves as a cultural text, which embodies what it means to be Balinese. Similarly, I argue that intimately identifying with a football team to a point of aggression is the making of a crazy fan.

In his ethnography, Geertz reports that the Balinese people gamble on the fights and in fact that gambling is a major part of the cockfight. However, Geertz argues that there is more at stake than just money. Monetary bets only serve to symbolized the risk because prestige and status are also on the line. This is very similar to the occasional bet between friendly companions on a football game. Winning money is great and it can definitely come in handy, but the amount of money wagered only symbolizes the risk. Everyone knows that the real victory is the chance to rub your team’s victory in the face of your counterpart. A team’s victory feels like an individual fan’s personal victory when he or she identifies with a specific team. The team then becomes a proxy between two individuals in competition. That is why the gloating and bragging feels like the better prize for victory.

In this report Geertz distinguishes “deep bets”, with high wages, and “shallow bets”, usually with low wages of both gambling and prestige. These deep fights have high stakes and people can lose their rationality because the results are so unpredictable. Those who participate in deep fights are usually dominant members of society. In terms of football, the people who participate in deep fights are those with winning teams and it has been well established that a good game is composed of two good teams with an unpredictable outcome. Sometimes a fan can become irrational when these deep fights happen and they can lose a lot of money. The higher the status of the participants in the cockfight, the deeper the fight is, the more a person identifies with his cock. This can similarly be said about football and its fans. The better your team is in terms of victories, the more competitive the games are, and the more a person identifies with that team.

Cockfights in Bali, just like football in America, are symbolic manufactured representations of something very real in the social life. Geertz noted that the cockfights channel aggression and rivalry into an indirect symbolic sphere of engagement. I argue that the same case can made for American football and its fans. When fans intimately identify with their teams they become aggressive over actions that they don't control. This argument can made for multiple sports in America and I only note football as an example because of my up-bringing. Across the board though, there are “crazy fans” that act aggressively because, by proxy, the teams represent the fan’s status among the world of fans.



Geertz, Clifford. "Notes on the Balinese Cockfight" in The Interpretation of Cultures, Basic Books, 1973.

White and the Rational Individual

We all understand White as a cultural ecologist who found inspiration in Spencer and Morgan’s evolutionary theories. While White was a distant student of Boas, his theories vary widely from the foundations that Boas set in historical particularism and holism. White returns to the idea of cultural evolution, analyzing how energy and tool use drive a culture’s progression. White proposes an empirical method to study the progression of a culture by observing and recording the increase in the amount of energy harnessed per capita per year or the efficiency of technology for utilizing that energy increase. This is measurable and allows for the researcher to be culturally comparative. However, this focuses on the technological system of a culture, and I feel that within this theory we also lose a holistic and important view of the culture. White’s theory and formula runs on the assumption that all cultures, and more importantly individuals, are purely rational and biological beings as we desire cultural complexity mainly through energy utilization.

                This theory assumes that cultures and individuals will farm and eat the crops and animals with the highest nutritional content. Or possibly that cultures and individuals will most likely farm food which uses the least amount of energy to harvest but offers the highest amount of energy in return. We must consider that the foundations of this theory could be faulty. While it is a fair, but subjective, means to define or rate a society based off of efficiency of energy and technology use, it would be wrong to say that this is the primary drive for a culture’s development. There are numerous examples of individuals or cultures choosing not to farm and eat food which would possibly result in more efficient harnessing of energy, which does not fit into White’s theory. One possible example may for Hindus, it may be more calorically efficient for some to eat beef, however there are cultural and religious reasons for not eating beef. If we were purely rational beings, then we would eat whatever food took the least amount of energy to harvest but offers the highest amount of energy in return, but this may not be the case across the world. We are cultural beings, and our culture impacts our use of energy and tools. Cultures and individuals do not simply act because of energy efficiency, but rather there are other cultural reasons for our actions. White’s theory of cultural evolution does not focus on the individual or the reasons behind the actions of an individual within a culture. Because of this, I think that the system which White has devised to organize culture overlooks variables which drastically impact our ability to efficiently use energy and tools within our environment.

(Disclaimer: I am not well versed in the caloric value of beef versus milk or the exact practices of Hindus or if this applies more or less widely. This is a possible situation, and please feel free to correct any misinformation, this is just my current understanding.) 

My Not So Fun St. Patty's Day

I’m Irish, and I am proud of it. My aunt lived in Ireland for nearly twenty years, and when I visited her in Dublin, I too, fell in love with the island nation. Its people, its castles, and its scenery all grabbed my attention, and I always wished I had an Irish accent. I would live there in a heartbeat, and that’s why I recognize St. Patrick’s Day as a special day of the year.

This year, St. Patrick’s Day took place on the first day back from Spring Break. After working on endless applications and papers over break, I was ready to celebrate St. Patrick’s Day in a legal (I am 21 years old) and responsible way. My vision was to go celebrate the festive day with a few friends enjoying a Guinness and relaxing at a bar downtown. Did I mention that I did not have class the following day?

I began to speak with some of my friends (who do not have Irish blood) about doing something for St. Patrick’s Day. Overwhelmingly, the answer was “Nope” or “Nah bro” or something along the lines. In order to understand why such a phenomena happened with roughly four of my closest friends, I want to examine what some monumental theorists would say about the negativity surrounding a casual beer for St. Patty’s Day.

From the desk of Marx: Ty, you are acting like you are controlling these poor people. While you may not be completely controlling their means of production and they are not your laborers per se, you are attempting to exert force over them to benefit you and your feelings, instead of money. They are revolting against you, they do not like you, and you will fall from your cowardly social position.

From the desk of Malinowski: Ty, relax. It’s not that your friends don’t like you. Rather, your friends are enabling discipline so that they can meet their own needs to survive. First off, they probably don’t drink beer as they are probably eating healthy to fulfill their basic need of nutrition. Secondly, they want to stay in their bed because it is safe, provides bodily comforts, and it allows them to relax. Finally, your friends are in a very difficult and demanding school to satisfy a secondary need of getting a job. This job relates back to the primary needs of movement and bodily comforts and is indirectly related to other needs as well that are fulfilled to survive. Don’t sweat it, Ty.  

From the desk of Freud: Ty, your friends may have instinctively wanted to go have a beer with you, but because we live in society, those instincts are sublimated, similarly to men’s desire to urinate on a fire being squashed. As a society we also demand cleanliness and order. Your friends enjoying a beer may turn into something sloppy, and that is not what society expects out of you. I’m sure if you asked them to help clean your bathroom, they might agree.

From the desk of Benedict: Ty, historically speaking, Irish people do in fact like to celebrate St. Patrick’s Day. However, your friends who are not Irish are not accustomed to such a day and its festivities. Thus, as an Irishman, you are fixated by valuing friendship and enjoying a beer on this special day. However, your friends, having not grown up with Irish influences, do not value those traits as much. Those cultural traits of yours are selected by your Irish culture and do not pertain to everyone of this Earth.

Thus, from examining the different perspectives from theorists associated with anthropology, we may never know the true reason for why my friends did not want to have a casual beer with me in downtown Winston-Salem to celebrate St. Patrick’s Day. However, I can only hope for a better turnout next year.

The Life and Times of Capt. James Cook

          Imagine yourself as a Naval Officer in the British Royal Navy with the name James Cook. You’re an experienced explorer with the rank of Captain and you are told of a new chain of islands in the south Pacific (Hawaii). Of course natives inhabit the land but you have your orders to claim the islands for the Crown. You set sail for the journey of a lifetime and finally arrive on the beautiful white beach to see confused local people just starring at you. Violence is always a last resort to you, so instead you offer friendship. Suddenly though, the people are chanting the name Lono and treating you as if you are royalty. You use your newly acquired “God status” to your advantage and believe that you have found success in conquering a people. Then after a period of miscommunications the natives kill you regardless of this status. What the heck just happened? I thought I was fine and I thought I had these people in my pocket?

            Marshall Sahlins used this infamous example of Captain James Cook to argue that the cultural structure of any community is not static but rather open to transformation depending on context. The Native Hawaiians understood Cook to be Lono, a fertility god, because he was nicely dressed and acted accordingly with the mythical expectations of divinity. However in their eyes, Cook was neither man, native king, or supernatural god. He was a hybrid of all three: man, king, and god. Instead of treating Cook like either of the three, the people adapted this hybridization to their indigenous beliefs. Hence, Cook became Lono whose annual return and sacrifice was crucial to smooth functioning of Hawaiian society.

            Marshall Sahlins (b. 1930) was a critical component to structuralism after Levi-Strauss. He believed that contact or “conjuncture,” between two distinct cultural structures caused change in both. Sahlins argues that this “structure of conjuncture” must be explored in order to understand how static cultural structures change through time. 

            I believe that this theory, “structure of conjuncture”, has its strengths and weaknesses. Strength wise I believe that uncommon situations are the reasons behind adaptations of indigenous belief. An example I thought of was that of the Trobriand Islanders and the game of cricket. When Christian missionaries first came to the islands they saw immense warfare between tribes. The missionaries introduced them to the game of cricket as a distraction from war but instead of conforming to European rules they developed their own. They added more players and customized the bats and balls. The junction of Christian and Trobriand cultural structures, such as sport, caused the islanders to remain dynamic and form a new cultural gathering.

A Reflection on Marshall Sahlins

Marshall Sahlins was an American anthropologist heavily influenced by Levi-Strauss’s French structuralism. His excerpt from his book Islands of History, published in 1985, show transformations to its base of structuralism, one such influence being that of Marxism and another being Saussure’s linguistic work involving signs. Like Levi-Strauss, Sahlins was concerned with structuralism, but also with history. In this reading, he argues that structure as “the symbolic relations of cultural order” is in fact something rooted in history (Sahlins 170). Culture is in fact shaped by history, and any new experiences had by those people are filtered through this culture in which history has had a significant impact.

Sahlins was also influenced by Saussure, who described how the meaning of a sign is determined by its relationships to other signs in a system. The system is essential, because the signs only make sense when they are a part of this whole. Sahlins uses this idea to postulate that when a person uses a sign, they can only engage a part of its meaning and sense. He uses the example that a “fluttering bird” to him is a “diseased sparrow hawk” to an ornithologist (Sahlins 171). These differences in what people say about a subject shows that they only make sense of it in terms of what they know. Sahlins goes on to say that Captain James Cook, who was murdered upon encountering the Native Hawaiians, was interpreted differently based on different people of that Hawaiian community. He was an incarnation of an ancient god to the priests, a divine warrior to the chiefs, and something else to the common people. This difference in interpretation and meaning shows that societies form different conclusions based on what they know. Ultimately, “social communication is as much an empirical risk as worldly reference” (Sahlins 172).

Taking the Saussurean idea of signs into account, Sahlins incorporates history and culture. He notes that different cultures have different histories, which implies that their histories shape how they read signs and how their culture is shaped. In fact, Sahlins continues to say that, when events occur that have not been experienced before, the Native Hawaiians project their existing order and rules onto this new event, and try to change the circumstances to themselves and their ideas. This way of dealing with events is identified with the prescriptive order. In contrast, a performative order that would do the opposite, and instead change themselves to the circumstances (Sahlins 173).

One of the key ideas presented in this reading was the “structure of conjuncture” which is the space of interaction and intersection between different cultures which results in cultural change. Here, the Marxist idea of praxis comes into play, as two cultures come together in actions and change to both is a result. This phenomenon unfortunately resulted in the death of Captain Cook, who was thought by the priests to be an ancient god reincarnated, while to the king this return of a god was a threat. The clash of these two cultures and their own separate interpretations of the world based on their different histories makes sense of Captain Cook's death. Without taking these separate histories as well as the structure of conjuncture into account, it is hard to understand how the event occurred. Ultimately, Sahlins argues that the binary contrast between culture and history must be broken down, and both must be considered as one in order to fully understand the actions of different societies (Sahlins 175).

In my opinion, the strength of Sahlins’ work is that he is able to incorporate different ideas into that of structuralism. Islands of History, having been written twenty years after the inception of structuralism, is able to incorporate and transform Levi-Strauss’ ideas into something more of a synthesis between Levi-Strauss, Saussure, and Marx. Also, Sahlins’ concern with specific histories of cultures reflects Boasian ideals of historical particularism as well as a more diachronic perspective. Another strength is that in his final paragraphs of the reading, Sahlins notes that history should not be ignored because a culture has no written or recorded one, and that histories of distant civilizations are just as rich and deserve equal attention as that of western cultures (Sahlins 176). Overall, I think these ideas of combining and synthesizing different theories is especially important today, as we have plentiful theories from which to choose and to analyze. 

Sahlins, Marshall. "Islands of History [1985]." Readings for A History of Anthropological Theory. By Paul A. Erickson and Liam D. Murphy. Toronto: University of Toronto, 2013. 170-176. Print.

Levi – Strauss: So good he got two names

In order to found an entire field of thought, one must have a certain je ne sais quoi, and Claude Levi – Strauss certainly had it. He is responsible for the formation of the French Structural branch of anthropology which operates on the foundation that all of our concepts of culture are based on fundamental binary oppositions.

In many ways the term binary opposition seems far too hostile for the type of work Levi-Strauss engaged himself in. He was a man who liked to spend the majority of his days in nature. It was, in fact, upon looking at a dandelion that he founded the Structuralist theory. Opposition does not always have to mean disagreement. In Structuralist thought, at least the way Levi-Strauss wanted it to be understood, oppositions are necessary to the functioning of the whole. His binary oppositions can be looked at as almost a balance between two logical counterparts that, together, make up a natural whole within a culture.

The beauty of his theory, which can also be the limitation to it, is that no one before or after him has exemplified originality as he did with Structuralism. Levi-Strauss was the first theorist to come up with this unique perspective on how we perceive the world and in turn affect it because of our perceptions. In his paper, Structuralism and Ecology, he wrote, “this organic environment is so closely tied to the physical environment that man apprehends the second only through the mediation of the first.” As opposed to his predecessors who were focused on blueprinting how anthropology could record and make use of the withering world around it; Levi-Strauss was intent on acknowledging that there were patterns in place in the form of binary oppositions that depended on our inactive cooperation. By inactive I mean Levi-Strauss believed that these oppositions were already present and wholly necessary before anyone could intervene. Humans create these oppositions as the basis to culture and they are, in many ways, pan-cultural. Levi-Strauss was the first of his kind to give nature almost all the credit in determining the cultural patterns that man has adopted. To his credit however, Levi-Strauss has had a profound effect and following in fields like cultural anthropology, most notably the study of myths and in linguistics his work has been proliferated and heralded. Binary oppositions are incredibly present in myths and Levi-Strauss’ theory has become the staple to categorizing myths and noticing many pan-cultural commonalities. In the same sense, the study of linguistics has been improved because of Structuralism and its ability to make people aware of the “interplay of binary oppositions and transformation rules” which Levi-Strauss denotes are inevitably present in all languages.

No one before him thought like him and no one after him was immune to the brevity and reach of his ideas. Levi-Strauss brought Structuralism to the forefront of how anthropology today views other cultures. Are we all different or do we just frame our concept of culture around different pairs of opposition? The idea that the necessity of balance is inevitable as well as something all cultures share is groundbreaking and we have Levi-Strauss and a dandelion to thank. 

Hannah double dipped the chip

When studying the Structuralist, Levi-Strauss emphasizes the arbitrariness of the individual tale at face value and discouraged studying a tale based only off the surface reading.  Instead, he is fascinated by the deeper meanings that a culture’s myths unveil about their beliefs.  I had always considered the parallels of popular today shows and Levi-Strauss solidified the notion.  After spending quite some time watching two of my favorite shows Seinfeld and GIRLS, I recognized that they have much more in common than their surface descriptions. 

The show aired at different times with Seinfeld running for nearly a decade, from 1989 to 1998, while GIRLS premiered two years ago and is still producing new episodes.  Seinfeld consists of thirty-something year olds who have stable jobs living in Manhattan.  In contrast, GIRLS focuses on mid-twenty year olds attempting to navigate their lives while residing in Brooklyn. The main character’s sex obviously differs, with Hannah and Jerry being the central focus of their respective shows.  They do share a commonality with both having a career in art and performance, with Jerry being a stand up comedian and Hannah working on becoming a successful author.  Both Jerry and Hannah have a central friend group that is rather eccentric with each friend having a specific label.  There is the best friend who is rather self-centered and has a failed relationship with their ex significant other.  In Seinfeld it’s George and his dead fiancé Susan and in GIRLS Marni is the best friend who can never decide if she wants to be with Charlie (who inevitably leaves her for good).  Then there is the crazy, free-spirited friend who you’re never quite sure what they are up to.  The shows peg these archetypes pretty well with Kramer in Seinfeld and Jessa in GIRLS.  Finally there is the ex who are they are still good friends with exhibited by Elaine and Hannah’s ex who is now gay, Andrew.  The shows delve into all aspects of character’s lives, also focusing on the relationships that Jerry and Hannah share with each of their parents.  Both of the shows have the common backdrop of hanging out in New York, the workforce, and the process of dating. 

With surface differences the shows appear to have much more in common than most would guess.  Though different in tone (Seinfeld is comedic while GIRLS is slightly more serious) they both follow the trials and tribulations of these groups of friends in the city.  If having to boil it down, the shows are simply about a group of white people (living in one of the most diverse cities in the world) and confronting petty problems throughout their lives (or rather episodes).  George’s statement: “it’s a show about nothing” (un)intentionally summarizes the overall happenings of the shows.  But this does not stop them from being popular.  Moreover, Lena Dunham (the creator, writer, and actor of Hannah in GIRLS) has been dubbed “the voice of our generation”.  A critical look at the shows unveils that the shows are premised around character who are acting in an haphazard manner while attempting to construct their lives.  I think that’s what makes these shows so successful, how viewers easily associate with the characters on the screen.  The deeper understanding could be that we view day to day activities as rather trivial, often questioning their impact in the grand scheme of things yet are continually fascinated in knowing what everyone is doing.  Levi-Strauss would use these shows to looks the underlying structure of our society and realize that we put a very large emphasis on the journey to the lives and careers we build. These two shows unconsciously highlight the importance of where you work and if you enjoy it, the people you associate with, and the emotional decisions in regards to personal relationships.