How Does Mock Sheep Raid Encourage Skepticism?

Skepticism

The narrative of the Mock Sheep Raid, while an exceptionally well-rounded story does not acknowledge, in the text itself, Geertz’s role in the situation - thus giving an incomplete account of the events. To not be reminded of the author's role, allows the reader to view the narrative as fact when in actuality the author’s observation and interpretation separate the reader from the truth. Observation is often taken for granted as an ethnographer's view and understanding is changed depending on the perspective he uses. Had he placed himself in the story, as he did in Deep Play: Notes on the Balinese Cockfight, the reader would have a clearer understanding of what information to believe or to question - as they would have insight

Any bias embedded in the text skews the reader’s interpretation of events, however, if the bias is evident, the reader will lose trust in the narrator, consequently, becoming more skeptical. It may be fair to assume neither Geertz nor Cohen recounted the events without their own input. Though in the passage Geertz avoids revealing his sources or placing himself in the story, it may be a ploy to trick the reader into believing the story. Would it work in his favor, as a poet or historian, to discourage skepticism? As a poet, he would want people to ignore the facts and focus on the metaphor, whereas, as an anthropologist conveying the truth about this particular culture would be more important. Additionally, as an anthropologist, Geertz should not want people to just accept the information they are given as he would take it all with a grain of salt. Would encouraging skepticism possibly cause Geertz to be discredited for his observational and interpretive work? Observation, though it would ideally be factual, is subject to bias in much the same way as interpretation. Had Geertz presented Mock Sheep Raid as interpretive rather than observational, readers would be more skeptical. However, because no contradicting opinions are mentioned, it is easy to accept the story as is. Without contradiction, readers are likely to accept one-sided accounts of events. If Geertz were to clarify the danger in not being suspicious of

He claims this excerpt to be “Quoted raw,” from his field notes, nevertheless, he should be continuously questioning his sources. Though Geertz does acknowledge the possible frames of interpretation, in the narrative, he sticks closely to the story of Cohen; had he provided clarification as to where he got his information for this piece, the reader would more readily understand the perspective he is coming from and be skeptical of it. The one line offering commentary from 1912 to 1968, in parenthesis states, “‘Ba, ba, ba’ said Cohen, happily, recalling the image” may be Geertz’s way of telling the reader the story came from Cohen himself. Though the story is told following Cohen, it would have been too much to assume it was his recounting it to Geertz without the input of any other characters. The biased one-sided approach to understanding a situation aides Geertz, however, in conveying a universal human event. People, most circumstances, view events one-sidedly it would be easier for readers to see the narrative as metaphorical. If Geertz was directly involved in the story (perhaps as a confidant of Cohen) then the retelling of it would be different (and less questioned) than if someone else recited the story to Geertz. If he gathered many different accounts and each community had a