Like Watson, I am convinced that Geertz has been able to accomplish a theoretical impossibility by systematically eradication his text of indications of the reflexivity he used in his description. Watson [26] criticized Geertz who is found to contradict himself with respect to reality. For example ‘’Sometimes he does this explicitly, and contrasts it with illusion, as in the observations that "no one's status really changes" in the gambling which accompanies cockfight, and that the sensation that it does is "concocted", an "aesthetic semblance . . . which has the look of mobility without its actuality". Sometimes he invokes it implicitly, as in the taken-for granted notions of discovery and revelation’ ’Watson [26]. I agree with Watson [28-27] when he points out that it was difficult to tell if what was read was is a summary of informants' statements, or the writers' analytical conclusions, or a combination of the …show more content…
on the line"). Another is the depersonalization of the reporter (as in, "to connect . . . the collision of roosters with the divisiveness of status is to invite a transfer of perceptions"). Another, in which depersonalization is taken to the extreme limit, is reification (as in, "What money causes to happen: the migration of the Balinese status hierarchy into the body of a cockfight")’’. Geertz distances himself from his interpretations by presenting them impersonally, in the manner of one faithfully reporting facts encountered; at the same time he depicts himself as being physically present in Bali, interacting with and reacting to Balinese villagers. For example Geertz at one breath noted that money was of less importance in gambling this point was made from the emic perspective and on the other hand, from the emic perspective and he explains that money was important for the gambling process. Unlike Watson, I find that the kind of thick description that Geertz did was the farthest