Sep 28 2006
Saving Face, Image of the State, Geertz’s Power Theatrics
Just read Migdal’s “State in Society” book, in which he mentioned Marc Ross’ article in “Comparative Politics“. I read the same article, that is where I first encountered Geertz’s work. When reading about Geertz’s theory, I had the same feeling of reading Huntington’s Political Order for the first time: shock and awe.
Anyway, both Ross and Migdal portrayed Geertz’s contribution as repositioning power and ritual (aka: image, symbol): instead of ritual serving power, in Bali, it is the other way around.
Since I have not read the book, I don’t have a clear idea what Geertz really meant. However, it is hard to imagine that relationship between power and ritual is one-way under any circumstance. Could it be that the Baliness use ritual to reenforce the power hierarchy or tribal fidelity? If so, are parliamentl and courts (and their relationship with the rest of state institutions) in the West not playing a similar role?
Nevertheless, Geertz’s observation may have a wider application in societies that are nominally modern. There are cultures that are obsessed with “lossing face”. “Lossing face” matters if politics is expressed through theatrical performances of power relations.
Just read a NYT article today. The article relates Paulson’s visit to Beijing late last week and China’s revaluation of yuan. Here is a quote:
“Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr., who gained decades of experience in dealing with China while at Goldman Sachs, has pursued a much more low-key approach to the currency issue this summer than his predecessors or American lawmakers, preferring to raise the issue in private with Chinese leaders.”
But has anyone explored why rituals are used in a polity? Is it because it has to be interpreted? And the interpretation can remain vague and impercise as a shock absorber?