Geertz Quote

“But, aside from a few passing remarks, the cockfight has barely been noticed, although as a popular obsession of consuming power it is at least as important a revelation of what being a Balinese “is really like” as these more celebrated phenomena. As much of America surfaces in a ballpark, on a golf links, at a race track, or around a poker table, much of Bali surfaces in a cock ring. For it is only apparently cocks that are fighting there. Actually, it is men.”

Pg.59-60.

The reason why I find this paragraph interesting is because Geertz compares the importance of cockfighting in Balinese culture to American sports that we find to be part of what it means to be an a American. But as Geertz point out cockfighting has a deeper meaning in what it means to be a Balinese’s man because in Balinese culture a cock represents a “hero,” “warrior,” or “ tough guy.”  So a cock signifies a man’s manhood, which explains the phenomena of cockfighting in Bali. 

OWS

OWS Summary

In the article, “Ask Not What Occupy Wall Street will do next; Ask How We Will Change The Status Quo.” It begins with the indication that the Occupy Wall Street movement has lost its momentum and is falling short in recapturing the energy it once possessed. But he points out that the Occupy Wall Street movement has remained relevant because of the identity it has created from its phrases and iconic images.

The author states that the Occupy Wall Street movement is a movement fighting for the interests of the 99%, and is challenging the enemy known as the 1%. Fitzgerald feels that in order for the Occupy Wall Street movement to reach its potential it has to resist reification. He defines reification as, “The transformation from an abstract and indefinable collection of facts and interpretation’s into a concrete and not-up-for-debate “thing”. What he means is that the Occupy Wall Street movement could evolve into something that doesn’t advocate the core belief “That private interest is a public problem.”

He indicates that Wall Street tries to put an image of inclusiveness, but instead it’s only controlled by a select few who have extensive amounts of wealth that have the power to sway the markets. Occupy Wall Street is a movement that sheds light into the private sectors lack of care for the public’s interests. He sees this movement as a way to reclaim the power held by a select few and establish into something that allows everybody to participate and make decisions that benefit the majority. In conclusion, Fitzgerald believes that OWS can be used as a tool to further the cause by challenging the status quo and developing into something that involves everyone.

"strong reading" "with the grain" "against the grain"

“Strong reading”

“Strong reading” is defined as an ability to read in both, “With the grain” and “Against the grain.” This basically means as a reader we have to use a combination of both to fully understand what the text might be stating, which is supposed to be used as a tool for finding knowledge and creating arguments.

“With the grain”

Reading with the grain means that as a reader you see everything from the author’s perspective by supporting their main viewpoint’s and arguments.

I read “with the grain” when it comes to articles that talk about politics. Since I find myself to be biased on some issues I usually go for articles that reinforce my reasoning.  I connect the author’s ideas through my own argument and by doing so I usually find myself listening to the authors reasoning without identifying anything he/she may say that maybe inaccurate. I guess I just go along reading and accept what the authors have to say because I’ve done this for so long.  It’s very difficult to change when I have certain biases that cause me to be somewhat blinded, but I’m gradually trying to develop into a good reader that reads “with the grain” and “against the grain”.

“Against the grain”

Reading “against the grain” is the total opposite from reading “with the grain” because it entails questioning the author’s ideas. Instead of withholding judgment, reading against the grain means the reader is more critical towards the author by pointing out what is wrong with the authors reasoning.

An example of a time when I read “against the grain” was when I read the autobiography of Malcolm X. Since I read this book in middle school I forgot many aspect of the book but still remember Malcolm’s X justification of violence during the civil rights movement.  I found his arguments for violence to be ludicrous and close-minded. His argument for keeping African Americans excluded from American society was so that they could develop their own society and achieve things that wouldn’t have been possible with the integration of everybody. He didn’t have a good argument, but based his reasoning from his own experiences. Throughout this book I often paused and challenged his way of reasoning and identified main points that were unsupported. I think the reason why I read this way was because his arguments didn’t make any sense and it also went against my own person beliefs.