Cockfight

Este artigo pretende apresen-tar alguns aspectos historiográficos da espécie gallus gallus, sua provável origem na  Ásia, onde, desde muito cedo, a antropização possibilitou sua domesticação e posteriormente sua difusão pelo mundo. Procurar-se-á, em seguida, fazer uma análise com base em pressupostos da história ambiental no que tange à prática das brigas de galos, seus aspectos legais e morais. Para isso, são trazidos depoimentos com vistas a um olhar mais relativista e menos dualista entre natureza e cultura, observando, assim, como se deu e se dá a interação entre os homens e os galos.

Before the mid-nineteenth century, pigeon flying, cockfighting, and dogfighting were predominantly elite pursuits in India, a part of court recreation, and favoured pastimes of local rulers and early colonial officials. For the Indian elite and the British, these sports served as symbols of power and displayed different forms of overlapping and contesting masculinities. Later, in the late colonial era, the elites withdrew their support from these activities and adopted “gentlemanly” sports like cricket, tennis and hunting. The common people, whose limited contact with the British meant that they could practise many “banned” activities with few repercussions, enthusiastically adopted pigeon flying, cockfighting, and dogfighting. This paper examines the socio-historical transformation of these three pursuits and explains how they canvas a plurality of masculinities that evolved since the sixteenth century. Till present times, many rural people continue to practise these animal related sports in ways similar to those of the Mughal elites as a means of fulfilling their enthusiasm, demonstrating their domination over others, achieving status among peers, and reproducing masculinities.

This dissertation aims at dealing with a polemic issue: cockfighting. The text tries to create a historical narrative for cockfighting in Brazil during the years of 1960 and 2017 with the main goal of analyzing some social and cultural conflicts derived from opposite stances. Concerning this aspect, it is noticed through this activity power dispute and Constant transformation of sensibilities towards animals, which lead to the consolidation of its forbiddance. In order to support this point of view we consider the production of scientific knowledge, literature produced by people involved with the practice, news, social media, videos, law texts and also the author’s experience about the subject and field activities. Therefore, the text starts with questioning the current discussion about the status of animals in the West culture, that is, how the changes in the relations between man and animals have contributed to the erosion of the anthropocentrism and the objectification of beings classified as sentient. Thus, we propose to compare the experiences of cockfighting and bullfighting, in France and Spain, and the disputes around these practices. Later on, we analyze the vast bibliography on the different kinds of cockfighting throughout history and how the rooster has been seen in different cultures and times, until we reach the Brazilian case. After that, we analyze cockfighting from its peak until the conflicts that led to the attempts of prohibition and, at last, some situations that led to the shutdown of many places where the practice used to take place. Nevertheless, in spite of that, the practice continues in a clandestine way and by the persistence of the people involved with the practice who struggle for its legalization and, also, the constitution of groups of lobbyists, as well as the resistance of some NGOs in the defense of animals.

In 2014 in Guasipati, an agricultural and cattle town in Southeastern Venezuela, I witnessed a group of men of all generations who staged themselves through the orgasmic rite of cockfights. In Geertz's famous ethnography of cockfighting in Bali, the 'irrationality' of betting appears at first as surprising. But cockfighting is a game that dramatizes status and tests group solidarity, it is a measure of moral import and of meaning. This photographic record of masculinities at play in cockfighting builds on Geertz' interpretation. The images were taken in the gallera (cockpit) of Guasipati during a clandestine night. It is here that the participating men engage in a form of capitalist communication that directly questions the Bolivarian Revolution. Many are workers within socialist enterprises, and they tremendously enjoy this illegal and transgressive activity. Within this space, the patterns of exchange become competitive and inscribed in subterranean capitalist circuits, evoking a symbolism of masculine power disputes (who is a man and who not) vis-à-vis the prohibitions of socialism. It is here that illegal enrichment that serves as a source and mark of status within the state controlled economy is effectively played out. Behind the individual and collective euphoria seen in the photographs, there are even more euphoric social tensions of betting and status at work.

Le combat de coqs polynésien prend fréquemment le caractère d’un affrontement interethnique lorsque des coqueleurs chinois se rendent de Tahiti à Raiatea pour s’y mesurer aux coqueleurs tahitiens. L’analyse de ces duels interethniques est guidée par la question interactionniste par excellence : qu’est-ce qui assure le maintien de l’interaction entre joueurs inégaux ? En effet, l’asymétrie entre ces deux groupes de joueurs est structurelle, étant due notamment à la meilleure qualité des coqs “chinois”. A première vue, il semble que l’interaction soit maintenue grâce au mécanisme du handicap. Les paris inégaux, ou « contre », proposés par les joueurs chinois doivent en théorie assurer l’égalisation des espérances de gain, condition postulée par la Théorie des jeux pour rendre compte du comportement des joueurs. Pourtant les coqueleurs chinois, même en tenant compte du handicap, gagnent au détriment de leurs adversaires. Dès lors, pour comprendre la perpétuation du jeu, il est nécessaire d’admettre que les rationalités diffèrent. L’explication de la persistance de l’interaction sera à rechercher dans les manières différentes qu’ont les joueurs de sauver la face en fonction de l’enjeu conféré au jeu.

The Polynesian cockfight often takes on an interethnic aspect, when Chinese players travel from Tahiti to Raiatea to fight against the Tahitians. The analysis of these interethnic duels starts with interactionism’s main question and “raison d’être“ : what allows the persistence of social interaction between uneven players ? The fights usually oppose a Chinese player, almost assured of victory, to a Tahitian contestant, whose chances of winning are minimal. It seems, at first sight, that the maintenance of interaction is ensured by the practice of handicapping. Chinese players systematically propose uneven bets to their opponents, thereby equalizing chances of winning : the fundamental condition, according to Game Theory, to explain why players engage in the game. However, the Raiatean players claim to lose money, in the long run, to their Chinese adversaries. We must then admit that rationalities differ. The explanation for the persistence of interaction will be found in the different ways in which the players avoid losing face, according to what is at stake for them in the game.

During archaeological research in the central part of the Roman Oescus (modern day Gigen), in the province of Moesia Inferior (Late Roman province Dacia Ripensis), a structure (3rd-4th century A.D.) was discovered with a room decorated with a mosaic floor with figural scenes. Mosaics’ panels depicted scenes from the Menander’s piece “The Achaeans”, cockfights, world of fishes and animals – symbols of seasons. Special attention is dedicated to a partially preserved depiction of a cockfight (ludi gallinarii), which was one of the favorite sports and gambling events in Roman times.

In 2013, the Canadian Museum of History made an unusual acquisition: a stuffed fighting cock that once belonged to Toronto tavern owner William Vine. This research note suggests that a close examination of the rooster and his accoutrement reveal clues about the shady world of nineteenth-century Canadian cockfighting.

Aux Antilles, les espaces abritant les combats de coqs s’appellent des « pitts ». Le « pitt » désigne à la fois l’arène dans laquelle vont s’affronter les animaux et, plus généralement, l’espace dédié à cette activité. La présence féminine dans les pitts interpelle par sa singularité, voire son caractère paradoxal. Dans cet espace majoritairement fréquenté par des hommes, les femmes sont à la fois omniprésentes et singulièrement absentes de l’environnement des oiseaux combattants. Dans une activité extra-professionnelle issue de la tradition mais « travaillée » par la modernité (Tondellier, à paraître), on observe une régulation spatiale et symbolique de la place des hommes et des femmes.
Ce récit photographique est le fruit de la collaboration d’un sociologue et d’un photographe qui ont suivi en 2011-2012 deux saisons de combats de coqs dans différentes communes de la Martinique (French West Indies).

When we began our fieldwork we had no idea that our field site was also spread beyond the boundaries of the village and very near to our camp.

On a Saturday we came to know from the local people that there will be a cockfight just in front of our lodge in a small ground. People were already gathering in a circle
to watch the cockfight. It was also the day for local weekly market at Sardarpara.

Within moments, the birds that were quite large were left by the men who were holding them right on the ground and the fight began. Both the cocks jumped in the
air and tried to strike each other by swinging their legs carrying the knife. At that time people were shouting and enjoyed the fight a lot. It seemed to us that the people were
in their height of excitement, as if they were fully drunk. Some of them might have taken a few doses of the local rice-beer which were being sold by women within the
premises of the weekly market. We have not seen any women during the cockfight.
We asked a number of men about the absence of women. All of them replied: ‘This is the affair of men only.’

In this particular fight, which we watched the cocks were willing and the fight began.Several attacks were made by both birds to each other and both got injuries. Finally,
one cock hit the other severely in the neck of its opponent and the strike was lethal.
While we were interviewing the participants on the different aspects of the cockfight, one man told us: ‘People also bet on the cockfight and the stakes are as high as
Rs.500-1000 or more per fight’. We immediately got interested and began to enquireabout betting but the other men instantaneously stopped him by saying: ‘No..no..
bettings do not take place ..... this man does not know about our place.... he has comefrom outside....’ The man who talked about betting stopped and did not say anything
more on betting and almost disappeared in the crowd of the weekly market.

After watching the fight, we asked a number of men: ‘Why the knife is tied with the left leg of the cock?’ Everyone answered: ‘During fights, the cocks move their left legfaster and has a greater chance to win!