{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.018047882136279926, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.9431072210065645, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Neoliberalism’s Fractured Showcase: Another Chile is Possible

wait, producing inferiority, arbitrariness, and uncertainty. There are of course disadvantages to the book’s writing cum analytical strategy—at times the text feels rushed. Some passages needed more explicit and precise conceptual and theoretical connections between what is being shown in the vignettes and what we are to make of them. The book could have also signaled more that some of the paperwork issues were tied to the path to citizenship, something that is trying and tiresome in most contexts for people of different class origins. A second dimension that could have used more reflection is that of the microdynamics of power; a lot of the vignettes are familiar to everyone who, for example, ever had to confront an officer at an airport: the humbling experience of being unable to reply in situations that are absolutely arbitrary. Nevertheless, these criticisms should not detract from our valuation of a very fine and original piece of ethnographic work. This book should be of great interest to qualitative scholars teaching graduate courses. Since parts of the book are the revisions of fieldnotes produced for previous research under different conceptual lenses, Patients of the State can be a great starting point for discussions on the role of the theoretical revisit in sociological ethnography. It is also a collaborative ethnography in which the data were produced by Auyero, his team, and Auyero in collaboration with other researchers. In this regard, it will certainly contribute to the status of collaboration in qualitative work, as the book has an unusual display of high quality field notes as if they were produced for the reader. It is, to a certain extent, a great exemplar for graduate students when they ask: what are field notes? Because they had to be communicated to a researcher who more often than not was not physically there, the notes are clear and well organized, while shedding light on the tedium of the situation. This is also a reflection of the author’s interest in the material speaking for itself in a (paradoxically) momentaneous way, aiming to awaken the interest and emotion of the reader to the plight of the patients. Auyero’s work stands in the ethnographic world as a hinge in a conversation between what are otherwise two disciplines isolated from one another: sociology and anthropology. In this particular text he adds the immediacy of report that is usually reserved for journalists and court investigators. His work so far has functioned as a tide, picking up where it left off; I can imagine a future book in which this combination is less experimental but equally (or even more) fruitful.