Ethnic belonging, kinship, and wealth: local politics of descent and group formation in a Roma community

References

• Bauman, Z. 2000. Liquid Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Beissinger, M. H. 2001. “Occupation and Ethnicity: Constructing Identity Among Professional Romani (Gypsy) Musicians in Romania.” Slavic Review 60 (1): 24–49. https://doi.org/10.2307/2697642.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berta, P. 2019. Materializing Difference: Consumer Culture, Politics, and Ethnicity Among Romanian Roma. Toronto – Buffalo – London: University of Toronto Press.
   Google Scholar
• Biró, A. Z., and S. Oláh. 2002. “Roma népesség a székelyföldi településeken [Roma Population in Szekler Settlements.” In Helykeresők. Roma lakosság a Székelyföldön, edited by J. Bodó, 13–47. Csíkszereda: Pro-Print Könyvkiadó.
   Google Scholar
• Blackshaw, T. 2010. Key Concepts in Community Studies. Los Angeles: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Blasco, P. G. 2001. ““We Don’t Know Our descent”: How the Gitanos of Jarana Manage the Past.” Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 7 (4): 631–647. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9655.00081.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bódi, Z., edited by 1997. Tanulmányok a magyarországi beás cigányokról. [Studies about Boyash Gypsies in Hungary.] Cigány néprajzi tanulmányok 6. Budapest: Magyar Néprajzi Társaság.
   Google Scholar
• Bourdieu, P. 1986. “The Forms of Capital.” In Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education, edited by J. G. Richardson, 241–258. New York: Greenwood Press.
   Google Scholar
• Coleman, J. S. 1988. “Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital.” The American Journal of Sociology. 94:S95–S120. (Supplement: Organizations and Institutions: Sociological and Economic Approaches to the Analysis of Social Structure S95–S120) https://doi.org/10.1086/228943.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Durst, J. 2016. “New Redistributors in Times of Insecurity: Different Types of Informal Lending in Hungary.” In Gypsy Economy: Romani Livelihoods and Notions of Worth in the 21st Century, edited by M. Brazzabeni, M. I. Cunha, and M. Fotta, 49–67. New York: Berghahn Books.
   Google Scholar
• Eidheim, H. 1969. “When Ethnic Identity is a Social Stigma.” In Ethnic Groups and Boundaries. The Social Organization of Culture Difference, edited by F. Barth, 9–38. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
   Google Scholar
• Emirbayer, M., and A. Mische. 1998. “What is Agency?” American Journal of Sociology 103 (4): 962–1023. https://doi.org/10.1086/231294.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Engebrigtsen, A. 2007. Exploring Gypsiness. Power, Exchange and Interdependence in a Transylvanian Village. New York and London: Berghahn.
   Google Scholar
• Fosztó, L. 2003. “Szorongás és megbélyegzés: a cigány–magyar kapcsolat gazdasági, demográfiai és szociokulturális dimenziói [Anxiety and Stigmatization: The Economic, Demographic and Socio-cultural Dimensions of the Gypsy–Hungarian Relationships.” In Lokális világok. Együttélés a Kárpát-medencében, edited by B. Bakó, 83–107. Budapest: MTA Társadalomkutató Központ.
   Google Scholar
• Fosztó, L. 2009. Ritual Revitalisation After Socialism. Community, Personhood, and Conversion Among Roma in a Transylvanian Village. Halle Studies in the Anthropology of Eurasia. Berlin: LIT.
   Google Scholar
• Fosztó, L., and S. Toma, edited by 2007. Spectrum. Cercetări sociale despre romi [Spectrum. Social Research on Roma]. Cluj-Napoca: Editura Institutului pentru Studierea Problemelor Minorităţilor Naţionale.
   Google Scholar
• Giesen, B. 2015. “Inbetweenness and Ambivalence.” In Breaking Boundaries: Varieties of Liminality, edited by A. Horvath, B. Thomassen, and H. Wydra, 61–71. New York and Oxford: Berghahn Books.
   Google Scholar
• Giordano, C., and A. Boscoboinik. 2011. “The Roma “Problem”: Ethnicisation or Social Marginalisation? Social Inclusion and Cultural Identity of Roma Communities in South-Eastern Europe.” Swisspeace 11–18.
   Google Scholar
• Granovetter, M. 1985. “Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness.” The American Journal of Sociology 91 (3): 481–510. https://doi.org/10.1086/228311.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hann, C., edited by 1993. Socialism: Ideals, Ideologies, and Local Practice. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Hann, C., edited by 2002. Postsocialism: Ideals, Ideologies and Practices in Eurasia. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Hannerz, U. 1997. “Flows, Boundaries and Hybrids: Keywords in Transnational Anthropology. Published in Portuguese as “Fluxos, fronteiras, híbridos: palavras-chave da antropologia transnacional”.” Mana (Rio de Janeiro) 3 (1): 7–39. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0104-93131997000100001.
   Google Scholar
• Horváth, I., and L. Nastasă, edited by. 2012. Rom sau ţigan. Dilemele unui etnonim în spaţiul românesc [Roma or Gypsy. Dilemmas of an Ethnonym in Romanian Context]. Cluj-Napoca: Editura Institutului pentru Studierea Problemelor Minorităţilor Naţionale and Fundația Soros România.
   Google Scholar
• Kovai, C. 2017. A cigány–magyar különbségtétel és a rokonság [The Gypsy–Hungarian Difference and Kinship]. Budapest: L’Harmattan.
   Google Scholar
• Matei, P. 2012. “Romi sau ţigani? Etnonimele – istoria unei neînţelegeri [Roma or Gypsys. Ethnonyms – The History of a Misunderstanding.” In Rom sau ţigan. Dilemele unui etnonim în spaţiul românesc, edited by I. Horváth and L. Nastasă, 13–73. Cluj-Napoca: Editura Institutului pentru Studierea Problemelor Minorităţilor Naţionale and Fundația Soros România.
   Google Scholar
• Mészáros, C. 2022a. “Mi a rokonság? Antropológiai nézőpontok I. Leszármazás és házasság – vagy mégsem? [What is Kinship? Anthropological Perspectives, Part 1.” Ethnographia 133 (3): 397–418.
   Google Scholar
• Mészáros, C. 2022b. “Mi a rokonság? Antropológiai nézőpontok II. A családi hasonlóság [What is Kinship? Anthropological Perspectives, Part 2.].” Ethnographia 133 (3): 575–596.
   Google Scholar
• Oláh, S. 1996. “Gazdasági kapcsolatok cigányok és magyarok között egy székely faluban [Economic Relations between Gypsies and Hungarians in a Szekler Village.” In Egy más mellett élés. A magyar–román, magyar–cigány kapcsolatokról, edited by J. Gagyi, 225–246. Csíkszereda: Pro-Print Könyvkiadó.
   Google Scholar
• Olivera, M. 2012. Romanes. Tradiţia Integrării la Romii Gabori Din Transilvania [Romanes. The Tradition of Integration Among Gabor Roma from Transylvania]. Cluj-Napoca: Editura Institutului pentru Studierea Problemelor Minorităţilor Naţionale.
   Google Scholar
• Olivera, M. 2016. “The Mechanisms of Independence: Economic Ethics and the Domestic Mode of Production Among Gabori Roma in Transylvania.” In Gypsy Economy: Romani Livelihoods and Notions of Worth in the 21st Century, edited by M. Brazzabeni, M. I. Cunha, and M. Fotta, 145–162. New York: Berghahn Books.
   Google Scholar
• Peti, L. 2007. “Adaptálódás és szegregáció. A kulturális különbségek kommunikálása a cigány–magyar együttélésben egy Kis-Küküllő menti településen [Adaptation and Segregation. The Communication of Cultural Differences in Gypsy–Hungarian Coexistence in a Village along Târnava Mică River.” In Lokalitások, határok, találkozások. Tanulmányok erdélyi cigány közösségekről, edited by S. Ilyés and F. Pozsony, 27–49. Kolozsvár: Kriza János Néprajzi Társaság.
   Google Scholar
• Portes, A. 1998. “Social Capital: Its Origins and Applications in Modern Sociology.” Annual Review of Sociology 24 (1): 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.24.1.1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prónai, C. 2000. “A cigány közösségek gazdasági tevékenységeinek kulturális antropológiai megközelítései [Cultural Anthropological Approaches of Economic Activities of Gypsy Communities.” In A romák/cigányok és a láthatatlan gazdaság, edited by I. Kemény, 176–198. Budapest: Osiris Kiadó – MTA Kisebbségkutató Műhely.
   Google Scholar
• Rughiniş, C. 2010a. “The Forest Behind the Bar Charts: Bridging Quantitative and Qualitative Research on Roma/Ţigani in Contemporary Romania.” Patterns of Prejudice 44 (4): 337–367. https://doi.org/10.1080/0031322X.2010.510716.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rughiniş, C. 2010b. “Quantitative Tales of Ethnic Differentiation: Measuring and Using Roma/Gypsy Ethnicity in Statistical Analyses.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 34 (4): 594–619. https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2010.514055.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sahlins, M. 2013. What Kinship is – and is Not. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sewell, W. H., Jr. 1992. “A Theory of Structure: Duality, Agency, and Transformation.” American Journal of Sociology 98 (1): 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1086/229967.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stewart, M. 1993. “Gypsies, the Work Ethic, and Hungarian Socialism.” In Socialism: Ideals, Ideologies, and Local Practice, edited by C. Hann, 186–204. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Stewart, M. 1997. Time of the Gypsies. Boulder: Westview Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stewart, M. 2002. “Deprivation, the Roma and ‘The Underclass.” In Postsocialism: Ideals, Ideologies and Practices in Eurasia, edited by C. Hann, 133–155. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Stewart, M. 2013. “Roma and Gypsy “Ethnicity” as a Subject of Anthropological Inquiry.” Annual Review of Anthropology 42 (1): 415–432. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-anthro-092010-153348.
   Google Scholar
• Szabó, Á. T. 2019. “Managers, Workers and Day Labourers: Mobility Patterns, Migration and Renegotiated Social Positions in a Roma Community.” In Departure and Arrival. Migratory Processes and Local Responses from Ethnographic and Anthropological Perspective, edited by T. Bata and Z. Jakab, 161–178. Budapest and Cluj-Napoca: L’Harmattan, Hungarian Ethnographic Society, Kriza János Ethnographic Society, and Museum of Ethnography.
   Google Scholar
• Szuhay, P. 2005. “Utó)parasztosodó törekvések a szendrőládi romák körében [Post-peasantisation among Roma from Szendrőlád.” In Utóparaszti hagyományok és modernizációs törekvések a magyar vidéken, edited by G. Schwarz, Z. Szarvas, and M. Szilágyi, 59–74. Budapest: MTA Néprajzi Kutatóintézet – MTA Társadalomkutató Központ.
   Google Scholar
• Szuhay, P. 2008. “Magyar nyelvű cigányok a Kárpát-medencében. [Hungarian-speaking Gypsies in Carpathian-basin.” In Kisebbségi magyar közösségek a 20. században, edited by N. Bárdi, C. Fedinec, and L. Szarka, 426–435. Budapest: Gondolat Kiadó – MTA Kisebbségkutató Intézet.
   Google Scholar
• Tesăr, C. 2018. “Marriages, Wealth, and Generations Among Romanian Cortorari Roma: Notes on a Future-Oriented Kinship.” Ethnologie française 48 (4): 613–622. https://doi.org/10.3917/ethn.184.0613.
   Google Scholar
• Tesfay, S. 2005. “A kalap, az ezüstgombos lájbi és az ezüst zsebóra. A marosvásárhelyi gáborcigány viselet az identitás tükrében [The Hat, the Vest with Silver Buttons and the Silver Pocket Watch. The Costume of Gabor Roma from Marosvásárhely in the Light of identity].” Világosság 7–8:181–193.
   Google Scholar
• Voiculescu, C. 2007. “Egy cigány–paraszt társadalmi és gazdasági rendszer: reciprocitás és túlélési viszonyok egy erdélyi faluban [A Gypsy–Peasant Social and Economic System: Reciprocity and Relations of Survival in a Transylvanian Village.” In Lokalitások, határok, találkozások. Tanulmányok erdélyi cigány közösségekről, edited by S. Ilyés and F. Pozsony, 67–79. Kolozsvár: Kriza János Néprajzi Társaság.
   Google Scholar