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 mak