all 6 comments

[–]denidzo 1 point2 points ago


Wow, this is poorly written and poorly researched. I didn't make it past the third page.

[–]Times_New_Viking 1 point2 points ago


I'm going to call shenanigans on this fucking weird paper; its pretty poorly written and I don't regard it to be anthropological at all. But it is an interesting example of bad social science and here are my reasons why:

The 'Gypsy' in this case is a convenient straw man 'Other' by which the author can project various neoliberal economic models onto. This isn't research done firsthand via participant observation or interviews, the sources it uses for its descriptions of 'Gypsies' are suspiciously old (the most recent being from 1993). It doesn't use any anthropological methodology or theory even though it discusses things traditionally in the anthropological domain like social order and pollution. The theory is weak because the assumptions it makes regarding its subject are quite frankly laughable. For instance:

"Menstruation makes the polluted state of women’s lower bodies more potent than men’s. Even women’s skirts are marime: they contact their lower bodies directly. Thus women mustn’t allow their skirts to have contact with men. Brushing a man when passing him may be enough to make him marime. If a Gypsy woman wants to assault a Gypsy man, she does so not with a weapon or her fists. She “tosses” her skirt at him. Walking in front of a seated man, such that a woman’s genital area passes in front of his head, will pollute him too. Walking over a man on the floor above the room in which he’s present has the same effect. Women mustn’t do it. When preparing food, women must wear aprons. This blocks their skirts from polluting the food. When menstruating, women must refrain from meal preparation altogether: an apron can’t block such a strong polluting power. Food that comes into contact with a menstruating woman becomes marime. Gypsies must destroy it. Women must also eat alone when menstruating. The risk of polluting others in such a defiled state is too high..[....] Naturally, sex is a delicate affair. It involves physical contact between bodies’ lower halves. Oral and anal sex are marime. So is sex when a woman is menstruating. Nudity itself is problematic. Since women’s genitals are exposed, they’re liable to pollute the men they’re facing unless they take appropriate precautions. Thus women mustn’t undress in front of men without their backs to them. They must also awake in the morning before their husbands do to avoid exposing the men to frontal nudity." p8

These blanket assertions not only seem crass and out of place but they are not accurately or credibly referenced, meaning I would have to read through all 11 sources to find out how this information was gathered. And the sources are all so OLD! I mean quoting a bit of rhetoric about being outcast from 1963(pg 21 Clebert) is very colourful but I don't think its a valid argument about the realities of why 'Gypsies' would adhere so strongly to their 'laws'. He wants the reader to happily accept that culture for Gypsies is bounded, stuck in time, unchanging, but really all he is offering is just taken-for-granted, cross-my-palm with silver bullshit. I was pleased that I only had to get a quarter way through it before the first mention of 'fortune-tellers', [p10,11]. He also confuses institution with custom several times [p12]. His main argument about the creation of social order via strict adherence to social rules and codes is unconvincing (I know it should be a easy link to make even with only third hand sources right?) partly because his referencing is so poor but mainly because it presumes 'Gypsies' have no agency in the face of their own moral taboo system.

Comparative modeling can be an illuminating exercise when done with respect consideration, style and and panache. But this paper does none of that, its disrespectful, unscientific and so very, very badly written.
If it was a MA student or an Undergrad I wouldn't give two shits but as its an economics Professor writing as though he were an armchair anthropologist at the turn of the 20th century, then its worth pointing out the flaws. T

I have no idea why this is so popular (55 upvotes WTF are you so starved for papers you'll happily accept any old dreck?) but if this is an indication of what people consider anthropology to be than I have a bridge you might like to buy.

[–]eliiisaaaa 0 points1 point ago


Am I missing some context here? Why have you posted this?

[–]Sashalexandra 4 points5 points ago


Gypsies where? The abstract needs some work I think.

[–]LtFlimFlam 2 points3 points ago


What is this Gypsy? Why no Romany?

[–]SirDucky 5 points6 points ago


holy typography batman!