{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03272727272727273, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01890909090909091, 'mean_word_length': 5.170403587443946, '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': 1, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Gender Performance, Greek Style

The anthropology of Greece, in its first incarnation, was dominated by a concern with the ‘Honour/Shame complex’. This was a set of values that putatively was shared across the Mediterranean culture area, and was parsed out differently according to gender, with men representing honour and women shame (see Peristiany (ed.) 1966; Campbell 1964; du Boulay 1974). This early formulation was criticized on a number of counts— that it missed the complex, negotiated aspect of gender identities, assumed a direct relation between sex and gender, and was based on a functionalist anthropological approach that denied history or change and treated cultures as isolated wholes. Thus, a new wave of anthropological studies drew on metaphors of ‘poetics’ and ‘performance’ to capture the more fluid and flexible nature of gender relations, the ways that local values related to national ideologies of Greekness, and how they might shift contextually based on situations of intimacy or public display (Herzfeld 1985; Dubisch 1995). Herzfeld, for example, by and large avoids the terms honour and shame, preferring to use the local gloss eghoismos, which he translates as ‘self regard on behalf of a collectivity’ (1985, p. 11). He sees eghoismos as constantly performed and judged by the community, the forum in which identity is manifested among Cretan