Negara: The Theatre State in Nineteenth-Century Bali

by Clifford Geertz

Combining great learning, interpretative originality, analytical sensitivity, and a charismatic prose style, Clifford Geertz has produced a lasting body of work with influence throughout the humanities and social sciences, and remains the foremost anthropologist in America.

His 1980 book Negara analyzed the social organization of Bali before it was colonized by the Dutch in 1906. Here Geertz applied his widely influential method of cultural interpretation to the myths, ceremonies, rituals, and symbols of a precolonial state. He found that the nineteenth-century Balinese state defied easy conceptualization by the familiar models of political theory and the standard Western approaches to understanding politics.

Negara means "country" or "seat of political authority" in Indonesian. In Bali Geertz found negara to be a "theatre state," governed by rituals and symbols rather than by force. The Balinese state did not specialize in tyranny, conquest, or effective administration. Instead, it emphasized spectacle. The elaborate ceremonies and productions the state created were "not means to political ends: they were the ends themselves, they were what the state was for.... Power served pomp, not pomp power." Geertz argued more forcefully in Negara than in any of his other books for the fundamental importance of the culture of politics to a society.

Much of Geertz's previous work--including his world-famous essay on the Balinese cockfight--can be seen as leading up to the full portrait of the "poetics of power" that Negara so vividly depicts.

Genres: Anthropology, Nonfiction, History, Sociology, Politics, Ethnography, Academic

312 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1980

About the author

Clifford James Geertz was an American anthropologist and served until his death as professor emeritus at the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, New Jersey.

Reviews

[Bob Newman · Rating 5 out of 5]

"Tis nothing but a Magic Shadow-show"

Bali flits in and out of the Western imagination: Conradian tropic kingdoms, National Geographic star attraction, Mead-Covarrubias-Belo-Geertz himself, tourist paradise (ever-fading). What is Bali all about besides emerald rice terraces, bare breasted beauties, cheap surfing holidays, and tremendously elaborate ceremonies featuring gamelan orchestras and graceful dancers ? Bali is indeed a mystery. If you approach NEGARA with the desire to learn more about this marvelous Indonesian island, you may go away disappointed. There are no Balinese voices in the book; modern Bali is hardly discussed.

NEGARA is an important book, but for those who specialize in the study of Southeast Asian kingdoms, for those who would like to question the standard Western method of studying political power, and for those interested in 19th century Balinese history as interpreted by America's foremost anthropologist, who is rather more known for creative (I'm with him) interpretations than for intensive field work. Geertz' work is going to last a very long time---something that can hardly be said about most anthropological writing. The reason is that he constantly sees things in a different way and can express his vision very clearly. His other books on Indonesia, for example "The Religion of Java", "Islam Observed", "Pedlars and Princes" and "Agricultural Involution" have all been classics for years. His article on the Balinese cockfight is one of the most seminal anthropological pieces ever written.

The Balinese state did not specialize in tyranny, conquest or effective administration. Its emphasis was on "spectacle, toward ceremony, toward the public dramatization of the ruling obsessions of Balinese culture: social inequality and status pride. It was a theatre state..." All the elaborate productions created were "not means to political ends: they were the ends themselves, they were what the state was for......Power served pomp, not pomp power." (p.13) Geertz spends most of the 136 page book proving this point. [There are also 120 pages of notes.] There are detailed discussions of descent groups, client relationships, three major varieties of village organization aimed at administration, irrigation, and worship, and the connection between court and village. Then follows the scrutiny of ritual, ceremony, and symbols in Geertz' inimitable style. The point must be taken: Balinese society was one of unending rivalry for prestige among very-established levels of hierarchy which were, nonetheless, extremely fluid. The endless reiteration in symbolic, ceremonial terms of a fixed set of relations made up the Balinese theater state.

NEGARA, not a new book, is by now established as a classic text in Anthropology courses, in Religious Studies, Political Science, and Southeast Asian Studies in universities around the world. It portrays a political system that did not conform to the usual Western idea of what political power is all about. Geertz writes that he wanted to write a poetics of power, not a mechanics. He was successful. Readers may wonder if the ability to command and use resources like land, water, timber, or the sea, if the ability to control labor, even if indirectly, if the ability to control power, even if sporadic, do not underlie theater productions in a more definite way. But I think they will have to admit that NEGARA is a powerful politico-historical description that, for once, does not try to twist and mold the data to fit a traditional Western description of a political system. Symbolic action is not at all limited to Indonesian islands. Somebody may yet write a description of the USA as a "Theater State" albeit a very different one from old Bali. NEGARA contains many challenges. It is a great book.

[Patrick Stuart · Rating 3 out of 5]

INTRODUCTION AND SUMMATION

'Negara, the Theatre-State in Nineteenth Century Bali, by Clifford Geertz'

A book I read without much knowledge of the deeper context from which it sprang, and which I did not enjoy at all. It may have been worthwhile, but I did not enjoy it.

I got though this book partly on resentment, partly due to interest in the subject and partly on inertia. By the end I was reasonably sure that that Geertz was awful, that Bali was wonderful, that Geertzs' argument was correct and that he had totally failed to prove that. I will never read anything by Clifford Geertz again.

In 'the Theatre State' Geertz argues that in Bali ritual itself was the primary point, purpose and axis of the culture, that power, economic and spiritual, largely served ritual and not the other way aroud. In a sense its something of an anti-materialistic argument. While other writers peel back the skin of culture to show the 'real' power dynamics that drive it, Geertz tries to pull back the skin of power to show it driven itself by ritual.

He is probably right but he doesn't prove it here. Perhaps no-one could have but he definitely doesn't.






MY HATRED OF CLIFFORD GEERTZ

It’s rare that I have hated a writer so much based merely on the *tenor of their thought*. I agree with the general drift of Geertzs' argument, I find Bali itself fascinating and am genuinely thankful for this introduction to an incredible subject, I just *really hate this fucking guy*.

He is a pompous sneak.

Reading Geertz gives one the impression of encountering a confidence trickster who tries to overwhelm you with volume of obscure detail, tendentious shifts in abstract analysis, vaguely made points in overcomplex form, regular dispellment of poor and shifting failings, before engaging in exactly those failings, (Geertz would lecture you intensely on the non-existence of feet before gaily dancing away), the avoidance and happenstance mention of actually-massively-important points, airy arguments from authority, (check the notes), and carefully not mentioning that his wife did a lot of the work.

My seething rage and frustration at this behaviour is not helped when, on assuming I am being Barnumed, I carefully read and re-read Geertzs' goat-footed prose and find, most times, that I cannot actually prove him wrong. Or at least I cannot prove him inconsistent.

Feeling like you are being scammed, not being able to find the scam, then having to reluctantly spit out that actually you agree, is a mentally distressing process.

A few things Geertz does, to give you a flavour;

- Goes on a long blather in the intro about this not being a book about kings and drama, then opens the actual book with a direct quote description of the extremely dramatic ritual suicide of the last Balinese king.

- Gets most of the way through the book before offhandedly mentioning that the chief Balinese import was opium. In the *notes* he confirms that most of Balis' economic surplus went on getting everyone high as shit, that everyone was baked throughout much of the book, that in the Royal palace the Opium smoke was so thick that the lizards were falling off the walls.

- "This too is probably the appropriate place to acknowledge that a good deal of the material upon which this study is based was gathered by my wife and coworker, Hildred Geertz, and some by an Indonesian assistant, E. Rukasah." (this hidden in the notes at the back of the book, though he does thank his wife in the intro.

- Doesn't really mention war or violence much as an axis of power in this book about power and ritual, until the notes where he allows that there was quite a lot of irregular violence and large ritualistic battles.

- Oh yeah there was slavery at some point, quite a lot of it. Oh and there were illegal wife burnings up to the 1920s. (again, hidden in the notes).

- "By means of a series of inferences, assumptions and outright guesses, which I will not relate for the simple reason that they cannot bear too much inspection, my own estimate of...." So basically "I made it up"

- "The second approach, however, presents historical change as a relatively continuous social and cultural process, a process which shows few if any sharp breaks, but rather displays a slow but patterned alteration in which, though developmental phases may be discerned when the entire course of the process is viewed as a whole, it is nearly always very difficult, if not impossible, to put ones finger exactly on the point at which things stopped being what they were and became instead something else. This view of change or process, stresses not so much the annalistic chronicle of what people did, but rather the formal, or structural, patterns of cumulative activity. The period approach distributes clusters of concrete events along a time continuum in which the major distinction is earlier or later; the developmental approach distributes forms of organisation and patterns of culture along a time continuum in which the major distinction is perquisite and outcome. Time is a crucial element in both. In the first it is the thread along which specific happenings are strung; in the second it is a medium through which certain abstract processes move."

Now, once decoded, I don't necessarily disagree with this, but I'm not sure how useful it is and I find the manner in which it is said mindbreakingly discursive and suspicious.

This is a Geertzian argument. If you think you can handle it or, god fucking help you, that you might actually enjoy it, then dive in bro.









BALI

Bali is an island you have probably already heard of as a holiday destination. On the Westward edge of Indonesia it has a balmy climate, fruitful wet rice cultivation and a large population for its size.

Bali has a lot of culture. Its large, dense population is very highly organised and it is on the boundary of several big culture zones; the Indonesian Archipelago, the great sweep eastward of Indian-continent, Hindu or 'Indic' culture in the historical past, influences from Oceana, western colonisation at the hands of the Dutch in quite recent history.

The West crashing into Bali relatively recently means that Western ethnography has 'access' via many travellers and scholars who just had to spend some in the wonderful climate and surrounded by the beautiful people of Balie for research and colonisation purposes, we must know more about this tropical island of hot babes and cheap opium. That is was recent means Bali is still weird as shit and there is a lot lot lot to go on about.

There is more. In fact with Balinese culture there is "always more". It is a gumbo of multitudinous cultural, ritual, organisation, religious and governmental forms. Added to this its neatly If ethnologists and anthropologists had a PornHub it would be Bali 24/7. It might be the most interesting place ever.

(There may be a pleasingly sinister Aryan connection. Bali was 'Indicised' by cultural outflow from India, absorbing a lot of Hindu/Indian culture. I did wonder if the ritual wife-burnings described were a distant echo of an origin culture that also lead to the slave burning witnessed by Ibn Fadlan when he encountered the Rus in the European dark age. I don't know if there is any confirmation of the Indo-Europeans spreading wife/servant/dependant ritual burnings at funerals, but it does seem like the kind of thing they would be into. It would be nuts if the Vikings and Balinese were culturally related.)

Is Bali really that much more complex than an equivalent Western/European polity? Its hard for me to tell. Some of the overwhelming nature of the discussion of political groups, ritual groups, rice growing hydraulic groups, family/houseyard groups, temples, rituals, conflicts, layer upon layer of organisation, obligation, lords here, priests there, pass the Opium, is simply because the terms and concepts are unfamiliar. Bali has a lot of things that are a bit like the western version but none of them are actually like that, so a discussion of *anything* Balinese starts with; "this is a bit like a lord/peasant relationship, so we use those words, except not really, and actually totally different, but we don't really have words for exactly what it was....."

But this isn't actually more-dense complexity but only perceived complexity.

Bali has a large and *dense* population by western norms, due to having a really nice climate and wet rice cultivation. (Like java the volcanoes probably mean very continuously fertile fields). So there are a lot of people in very close communication, dealing and interacting with each other in a huge variety of ways. (But no cities as we would understand them).

But this may not be any more complex proportionate to population than the western version, with the same total of people more widely spread.

(Of course many close dense interconnections and relationships can increase complexity purely due to that density.)

Bali is also a hyper-studied place for all the reasons given above, so the simple weight of scholarship, reportage and analysis almost feeds upon itself, producing more analysis and thus more perceived complexity.

Bali is represented here as a very deeply contextual society where the folkways/religion/government/rituals/society are all very deeply interrelated almost all of the time. As Geertz would put it, the culture is woven into every fabric, object, design element, artwork, ritual, temple, house, clothing item, Kriss, rice paddy.. it’s everywhere and everything. Because everything feels so deeply integrated into the directly experienced human lifeworld, it might be actually impossible to understand Bali. To understand it you would need to actually live in it, to breath it, be absorbed by it, in order to drink in the deep context. If you are absorbed in it you cannot truly observe it from outside. So the only person who could really understand Bali is someone born there, growing up and living in the centre of its culture as a natural intuitive insider, AND, who was also born far away and had an entirely different set of values and came to Bali from the outside, learning everything about it from there and carefully observing.

This person cannot exist so perhaps Bali cannot be studied.

One idea that kept coming to mind as I read was the concept of Bali as a living antifossil. (Of course we are not meant to treat Bali as a living fossil of an 'Indic' culture as it would have been before the modern age all over Indonesia, as Geertz argues quite a bit, before typically tacitly doing exactly that).

But Bali as an example of what a post-singularity or post-scarcity human future might look like after mass genetic engineering and the creation of 'human optimal' biomes and plant and animal forms; dense, warm, full of insanely complex groupings and stratification, deeply absorbed in rituals, with some passing trade, not that much interest in things outside the culture, no deep sense of mission but one of continuity, some semi-regular violence. Is this what the 'human optimum' might look like? A dense, warm, relatively static culture where most human basic needs are met?

Of course Bali has scarcity. My observation comes from seeing it from European eyes where, to us, it has everything Europe doesn't, and everything we might wish for in terms of climate, manageable size, a ridiculously productive agricultural system, relative peace and human flourishing in the way that most psychologically average humans would probably conceive it.

If you went back in time, put a European peasant in coma, took them to Bali & woke them up, they might actually think they were in heaven. It has everything a peasant wants from heaven.

I do not really believe in a 'final', optimum, or zero-scarcity human culture as humans create scarcity through their desires regardless of what is or isn’t materially available. But its interesting to try to imagine 'plateau' cultures or 'optimal' cultures we might inhabit on our journey.









GEERTZS ARGUMENT - WHAT WOULD IT TAKE TO PROVE IT?
Ritual and power interweave at every juncture, so like any complex argument from the human lifeworld where behaviours interweave and support each other and where each is to some extent an expression of the other, the question is less 'which of these things is this behaviour *really* about? But more; in this web of feedback, which of these elements is *more* dominant, and *which* times and under what conditions?

Can we find times in Bali where power and ritual were in conflict and Ritual clearly won? (this would be hard because by definition, whichever aspect of society was behind the Ritual answer, turned out to be more "powerful" because they "won". You can’t disprove the rule of power since whatever does rule, is power.



THE DANCE METAPHOR

Something familiar to most of us from Television; experienced Judges witnessing a dance and offering opinions on which of the dancers is really leading at which times.

The dancers in this case are Power and Ritual in Bali.

How useful is this metaphor? The more into the weeds of actual dancing the less useful
but some concepts to consider might be;

- The *complexity* of the *whole* situation with the judges watching the dance and the dancers responding to each other. Multiple observers observing elements that are mutually-observing.

- How genuinely hard it is to judge matters of dominance in complex feedback behaviours. The dynamics existed in-the-moment, between two maximally-engaged and highly responsive sophonts in a flow state. What happened between them might not be 'knowable' by an observer.

- the complexity of the judges *response* to the dance and how they might argue with each other afterwards, each basing their points on what they saw (all slightly different), what they themselves know of dancing (all slightly different) and any contextual knowledge they might have of these dancers in particular.

If you imagine the depth of this imagined situation, the differences of opinion, limits of evidence and some things that maybe even maximal evidence and knowledge can't reveal, then that is perhaps a rough guide to the level of difficulty, complexity of witnessing, evidence and judgement we engage in when we try to untangle these relationships like for instance Geertz's argument that in Bali Ritual was (more) dominant over Power (most of the time).

In Geertzs' defence the thing he is trying to prove is immeasurably complex ad subtle and about an immeasurably complex society, so proving, or even arguing it properly would be a staggering synthesis of rigour, subtlety and vast arcologies of detail. It would be an absolutely peak academic argument, if it could be done.

Few could do it and Geertz is not among them. He writes the wrap-up synthesis at the end but that belongs at the end of a much longer, much better, and paradoxically, much easier to read book.


Geertz is probably right in that in Bali, ritual was a power of its own, its own centre of 'not-power' to which what we commonly think of as 'real power'; guns, money, sex and taxes, was subservient.

But he doesn't prove it. He puts a lot of arguments in the air, considers a lot of things, gestures towards his final summation and then runs for it, like a magician fleeing the stage while the plates are spinning.

[Nick · Rating 3 out of 5]

In an essay, Clifford Geertz wrote of the challenge of writing on the anthropology of religion as in danger convincing "a great many people, both inside the profession and out, that anthropologists are ... firmly dedicated to proving the indubitable". His examples were studies that linked initiation rites have to do with sexual identity and adulthood, or that myths provided justification for social institutions and class structures. In "Negara" (the word means "state", "realm", "capital", and "town" in Balinese), Geertz set out to meet that challenge. There is a fair amount of discussion of the interrelationship of various types of Balinese institutions that provided the guidelines for kingship, caste (Bali being an Indic culture), religion, and the all-important question of who receives irrigation water. The moments that stand out here are the spectacular end of the Balinese kingships and the royal funeral. The first was the virtual suicide of the last kings of Bali. The king of Mengwi, old, unable to walk and in utter defeat, insisted upon being carried toward mercenary riflemen in the service of his enemies (indigenous kings, not the Dutch) until they were forced to kill him. Within a week, one of the victor kings and his wife were captured by the Dutch and committed suicide. Two years later, the ruler of the most powerful of the traditional seven kingdoms of Bali led his court to death at the hands of Dutch gunners. At a different king's funeral, as recounted by a Western merchant, the body was cremated within the wooden lion. Into the fire jumped three women--according to the witness, only the third hesitated, and she did so only briefly. These are truly arresting moments, but are other issues of interest: the central role of women in trade; the not unusual tension between royal authority and strictly religious, aggravated by the divinity of the kings. This was a regime falling apart not just because of political conquest but because of widening trade. Weaving, which had been a specialty, grew in demand, which resulted in the planting of cotton. Power had traditionally resided in the highlands, which controlled the flow of fresh water, a scheme that was upended by the development of trading enclaves (which failed to keep merchants from traveling all over the island to sell. among much else, opium). Balinese women lost much of their role in the economy to outsiders from elsewhere in the archipelago, and eventually to Chinese, Arabs and Muslims from the subcontinent. Geertz's essential argument is that spectacle--as with the blazing funeral--enhanced the divine aura of kingship. (It is harder to see how the suicidal last kings fit that pattern, since they were essentially marking the end of the dynastic line). So when Westerners are entranced by the exquisite dancing and gamelan music that now entertains tourists and educates musicians, they are witnessing the modern curation of arts created to intensify the sense of the divinity of long-gone kings. Whether Geertz' insight, for all the close reading of traditional Balinese irrigation, caste, and dynastic systems, meets the test he set out in the essay quoted above is debatable. Certainly, the death of a traditional society is always of interest (at least to me). Yet can one be truly surprised of the notion that spectacle is designed to legitimate authority--on today of all days, which marks the much-anticipated meeting of the tenant of the Kremlin, the bare-chested hunter, and the tenant of the White House, the man who retweeted a clip in which he threw himself at a man in a suit outside a wrestling ring?

[Kahfi · Rating 5 out of 5]

Sama seperti bukunya yang lain dengan judul Involusi Pertanian, membaca buku Geertz tuh harus bener-bener seksama. Tidak bisa sembarang baca saja kalau ingin memahami betul maksud sebenernya.

Geertz dalam buku ini menelaah tentang definisi negara pada masa Bali Klasik, bagaimana negara tersebut dijalankan, dan seperti apa bentuk-bentuk yang membentuk berbagai simpul bersilang sengkarut dalam merangkai sebuah negara.

Negara Teater akan terasa sangat relevan karena tak ubahnya seperti personifikasi dari sistem demokrasi yang masih dibalut dengan rasa feodalisme dalam praktik-praktiknya.

[Edwin Pietersma · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting work that has changed the field of anthropology. It has always been a dream to read it and I do understand why it has the impact that it does: it is witty, it clearly shows how the concept of Negara shows how political entity can differ and can be a theatre state. However, the author could benefit from a more close reading of the Balinese state, interact with sources and existing literature, as well as use more time and space to explain certain ideas properly.

[Vivienne Kruger · Rating 5 out of 5]

Geertz, a social anthropologist at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton University, is a prolific scholar on Balinese and Indonesian political and state organization. "Negara" is a Sanskrit word which originally meant "town"; in Bahasa Indonesia it now signifies nation or realm--the seat of political authority. Its opposite is "desa," the village, place, region, or governed area. Between these two contrasting poles-negara and desa-the classical polity developed. In his search for the "negara," the traditional state of pre-colonial Bali, he casts a wide analytical net over the cultural streams that flowed unchecked in to the archipelago for over 3,000 years from India, China, the Middle East, and Europe. Foreign contact/intervention left a permanent stamp on the island chain in the form of a Hindu civilization on Bali, Chinatowns in Jakarta, and a multiplicity of social structures, economic forms and kinship organizations. Geertz traces the sociological and historical interplay of state formation and dissolution and power and status distribution in 14th to 19th century Bali-an island symbolically caught in a parallel tug of nature between the tranquil Java sea to the north and the treacherous Indian Ocean to the south. Heavy on political theory, this book is more suitable for academicians, history buffs, and college students than for the general reader or the package holiday tourist. Substantiated by critical reviews of the scholarly literature, 130 pages of explanatory footnotes, and a lengthy bibliography, Negara puts forth a persuasive final model of the Balinese state as a distinctive political order. To understand Bali's past, is to understand Bali's present and future.
Review written by Dr. Vivienne Kruger, Ph.D., author of Balinese Food: The Traditional Cuisine and Food Culture of Bali (Tuttle Publishing, 2014).

[Nanto]

Dapatnya malah di Karisma Batam. Sempat tidak yakin mengenai cerita tentang buku ini. Akhirnya setelah konsultasi dengan seorang teman, benar buku ini yang salah satu ceritanya adalah tertangkapnya Geerzt saat nonton sabung ayam di Bali.

Bayangkan, untuk menghasilkan buku ini penulisnya harus layak diuber-uber polisi dan mendekam di sel barang sebentar. Kalau saja Geertz menulis buku ini di tahun belakangan ini, tentunya dia sudah jadi bahan buat Bang Joe di acaranya yang mengupas kriminalitas dari sisi komedi itu. hehehe

*Update 10 Agustus

Pernah membaca buku teknik membaca cepat? Didalamnya antara lain ada tips tentang perluasan pandangan melalui sudut mata peripheral (lebar sudut pandang), pencarian makna sehingga alih-alih membaca kata-per-kata kita dianjurkan membaca phrase yang mengandung makna. Selain sebuah upaya "strukturasi" buku yang menjadi bangunan bagi pemasukan keping makna yang kita pungut dari tiap lembar halaman. Yang terakhir ini penting bagi kita untuk membuat pemahaman kita menjadi utuh. Proses reinterpretasi yang membedakan kita dari sekedar menghapal.

Namun semua tips itu sebenarnya melupakan sebuah dasar tentang membaca: kognisi kita akan topik yang dikandung dalam sebuah bacaan.

Benar, membaca adalah proses mengunyah makna melalui pemasukan informasi dan interpretasi yang kecepatannya sebanding dengan keakraban kita dengan topik yang sedang dibaca.

Begitulah saya mencoba beralasan mengapa buku ini sedemikian lambat saya baca. Utamanya adalah karena hal di atas. Saya awam tentang Bali, apalagi Bali yang coba dicerna dalam sebuah negara teatrikal, negara sarat simbol seperti yang diobservasi oleh Geertz.

Masih Niat untuk membacanya, khususnya mengenai metode penelitian dan teknik interpretasinya.

[Sani Akbar · Rating 4 out of 5]

Aku baca ini dalam terjemahan bahasa Indonesia terbitan Basabasi. Bukunya sangat menarik membahas seluk beluk kerajaan-kerajaan Bali abad ke-19, bagaimana negara mementaskan teater politik yang mengagumkan kepada struktur sosial masyarakat Bali, yang secara mengejutkan, cukup otonomis. Selain itu, dijelaskan pula perihal pola kekerabatan para bangsawan istana Bali, dan intrik-intrik di baliknya.

Buku ini sangat padat dan penuh istilah-istilah ilmiah. Jujur, penjelasan dalam buku ini "belibet", jadi aku kadang perlu baca beberapa kali buat paham. Namun, hal itu mungkin yang dapat memicu perenungan mendalam untuk tiap bahasan-bahasan yang telah dibaca.

Geertz menyebutkan bahwa kerajaan-kerajaan Bali di abad ke-19 paling tidak dapat memberikan gambaran sangat kasar bagaimana politik Indonesia masa Klasik, terkhususnya Jawa dan Bali. Meski tentunya Bali bukanlah sekadar "museum hidup" dan laboratorium "Jawa Kuno yang membeku" sebagaimana yang dipaparkan dalam buku "The History of Java". Bali tetaplah organisme yang hidup dan bertumbuh dengan caranya sendiri. Tapi, memang ada sistem dasar budayanya yang tetap hidup. Membaca buku yang sangat antropologis ini paling tidak memberikan gambaran kasar dan sekilas yang mencerahkan perihal kehidupan masyarakat Jawa Kuno buatku yang berlatarbelakangkan pendidikan arkeologi. Buku yang berat, tapi cukup menyenangkan.

[Nita Valentin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Clifford Geertz in this books did two important things on the scholarship of non-Western societies. Firstly, he provided an alternative example of an analysis of state organization differed from the classical European model. For Geertz, Balinese state, negara, was essentially constructed and supported through ceremonials and rituals, as theatrical state. It was through cultural practices that the central power of the state was expressed. Power was to be collected at the center from its dispersal via ceremonials from various independent and semi-independent groups and peoples of Bali. It was the ceremonies, cultural practices, who was essential in giving the impression of state power toward the populace. This conception of power and state differed from those on the West, who often conceptualized power as flowing from the center, kings (and its divinity) as the most important source of authority.

Second, by analyzing cultural practices, Geertz moved analysis of social and history away from particularistic content toward an analysis of form. It is the form (of culture and society) who is important in determining organization of state. For Geertz, the quiessential form of Balinese state, negara, was formed simultaneously by image-form of the divine and the form of balinese society. Balinese negara was structured in a certain hierarchy modeled on the image of divine and positions which were for the most part, relatively static (dadias). Two important structure was present, one was the radical distinction between "inside" and "outside" and the other was the existence of negara as above and over the autonomous independent villages

[Patrick · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very fun to read, even 37 years later!

[Walkerlsts · Rating 4 out of 5]

一个剧场国家的概念实体:文化是人们借以将其经验调理化的意义结构，政治是一个使这一意义结构得以公开展现的主要舞台，而人则悬挂于这一意义之网上

[Gede Suprayoga · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is an interesting interpretation of a society cultural life, Balinese, before the Dutch invasion. I really admire Prof. Geertz's knowledge and his intellectual work in capturing and articulating every aspect of the society.

This book is full with description and facts that support the thesis. The Theatre State depicts the mental structure of Balinese expressed in social and religious ceremony and their devotion to their King. A complex social structure is also designed to maintain society' belief about sacred interaction with God and environment. In the State, the society culminates their social stability concern and cultural expression with lots of drama, up and down emotional feelings and unreturned material/immaterial sacrifice.

[Kwan Qi Xiang · Rating 2 out of 5]

First three chapters, which were mind-numbingly boring, were too long. The interesting last two chapters (Chapter 4 and Conclusion) were too short. The boring parts perhaps could not have been written in any other way. How exciting can describing social, political and economic structures be? So, I don't blame Geertz. It's just the ethnographic/anthropological field at work. The second portion which examines and reads rituals, is interesting, though too coherent to be true. I don't know enough about Bali to comment on how good his reading is, but my instincts rankle at the coherence with which Geertz infuses Balinese history.

[Anjanette Mapp · Rating 2 out of 5]

The review states that the title, "Negara," is in Indonesian. I have never heard of such a language. However, the appellation "negara" is eerily similar to an expression in quite a few Indo-Aryan and Sino-Tibetan languages that instructs the recipient to "leave off of such misbehavior." Perhaps Geertz' idealization and perpetuation of the so-called "theatre-state" garnered this title from a colleague or offended associate. Assigned this book in a sociolinguistic course at the university level, I found it to be verbose and not sufficiently prosaic to make it readable.

[Erik Wirfs-Brock · Rating 4 out of 5]

A description of society stranger than most science fiction or fantasy novels, endlessly repeating and overlapping hierarchies meant to represent the underlying cosmic order, forever quarreling kings without the possibility of ever achieving permanent power, elaborate treaties really written to give an excuse to break them.

[Paula]

I remember very little about this -- I read it for school. because I was just burning through it at the time, I can't give it a fair rating. I should read it again. But it does contain one of my favorite quotes: "One of the most significant facts about us may finally be that we all begin with the natural equipment to live a thousand kinds of lives, but end in the end having lived only one."

[Narvendina · Rating 2 out of 5]

Negara dalam konteks Bali menurut Geertz, penulis yang merupakan ahli antropologi, adalah "negara teater" yang diperintah melalui ritual dan simbol-simbol. Sangat sulit bagi saya untuk membaca dan menyerap buku ini dengan cepat, dengan banyaknya kerangka studi sejarah, etnografis, sosiologis yang dipaparkan...

[Yokonita · Rating 5 out of 5]

fantastic narrative of cremation ritual

[Eli Jacobs · Rating 3 out of 5]

this book is great, but i found it fairly boring. i probably need to go back and look at it again.