Ethnography of Religion, Ethnicity and Reflexivity. Evangelical Gitanos in Southern Spain

© 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978 90 04 25523 4

Sites and Politics of Religious Diversity in Southern Europe

The Best of All Gods

Edited by

José MaprilRuy Llera Blanes

LEIDEN • BOSTON2013


<UN>

CONTENTS

List of Tables and Figures .........................................................................................ix

Introduction: Sites and Politics of Religious Diversity in Southern Europe .....................................................................................................1 José Mapril and Ruy Llera Blanes

PART 1

TRANSNATIONAL RELIGIOUS IMAGINARIES

Prophetic Visions of Europe: Rethinking Place and Belonging among Angolan Christians in Lisbon ............................................................. 19 Ruy Llera Blanes

Traditions of Disbelief Revisited: The Case of Afro-Dominican Religious Centres in Madrid ............................................................................. 37 Cristina Sánchez-Carretero

The Metamorphoses of Neopaganism in Traditionally Catholic Countries in Southern Europe ......................................................................... 51 Anna Fedele

The New Age of Greek Orthodoxy: Pluralizing Religiosity in Everyday Practice ................................................................................................ 73 Eugenia Roussou

Religious Belonging and New Ways of Being “Italian” in the Self-Perception of Second-Generation Immigrants in Italy ..................... 93 Barbara Bertolani and Fabio Perocco

Counterpublics and Transnational Religious Movements in a Lisbon Mosque ...................................................................................................115 José Mapril

Blood, Sacrifices and Religious Freedom: Afro-Brazilian Associations in Portugal ...........................................................................................................129 Clara Saraiva


<UN>

vi contents

PART 2

(RE)CLAIMING SPACE

Mosque Controversy, Local Responses and the Religious Life of Pakistani Immigrants in Athens .......................................................157 Inam Leghari

Multiplicity of Women’s Religious Expression: Albanian Muslim Women in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia .......................177 Nora Repo

Allah’s Places in Madrid: From Spanish Transition to Recent Days .........207 Virtudes Téllez Delgado

New Christian Geographies: Pentecostalism and Ethnic Minorities in Barcelona.........................................................................................................225 Mar Griera

Sikhs in Barcelona: Negotiation and Interstices in the Establishment of a Community..................................................................................................251 Sandra Santos Fraile

Should we Talk about Religion? Migrant Associations, Local Politics and Representations of Religious Diversity: The Case of

Sikh Communities in Central Italy ...............................................................279 Ester Gallo and Silvia Sai

Negotiating Religious Differences in the Cyclades: Discourses of Inclusion and Exclusion ...................................................................................309 Katerina Seraïdari

Religious, National, European or Inter-Cultural Awareness: Religious Education as Cultural Battlefield in Greece .............................331 Trine Stauning Willert

Ethnography of Religion, Ethnicity and Reflexivity. Evangelical Gitanos in Southern Spain ..............................................................................359 Manuela Cantón Delgado


<UN>

contents vii

PART 3

AN EPILOGUE

Map and Imagination: Towards a Phenomenology of Remote Places .....................................................................................................................383 Ramon Sarró

Notes on Contributors ...........................................................................................389Index...........................................................................................................................397


<UN>

ETHNOGRAPHY OF RELIGION, ETHNICITY AND REFLEXIVITY. EVANGELICAL GITANOS IN SOUTHERN SPAIN

Manuela Cantón Delgado

Introduction

This article aims to make a methodological contribution to the analysis of several problems related to the anthropological examination of religions. It reflects on the role of the social scientist in this kind of ethnography, recog-nising the need to produce critical knowledge regarding the practical con-ditions that demarcate, limit and thereby produce ethnographical research problems, including difficulties related to places of study and those who participate in fieldwork. It explores the role that reflexive anthropology can play in examining the position attained by non-hegemonic religious organ-isations within different contexts, in this case that of Spain. The inten sity of recent migratory flows into Spain is having a transformative effect on cultural diversity. At the same time, religious pluralism is opening up in a country where the majority of the population is nominally Catholic. I will focus here on a single case: the advent, establishment and impact of Gitano Evangelical communities in southern Spain. Gitano churches began in Andalusia in the 1960s, when French gypsy preachers arrived in a Seville slum. Congregation numbers have mushroomed since then throughout Andalusia. They have increased to the extent that the factor of religion is essential in order to understand key current issues. These include pro-cesses of mobility, lineage and ethno-religious belonging; ethnic and gender policies; dialogue between the ethnic minority and public adminis-tration; ethnogenesis and cultural reinvention; and the political role played by Gitano associations, whether these are non-confessional or (increas-ingly) confessional. I will focus on what Gitano Pentecostal Protestantism has come to represent since the start of the 1960s in Andalusia, on prob-lems of theoretical and ethnographic reflexivity, and the experiences of anthropologists in dealing with religious agencies. Such experiences range from sets of stratagems, negotiations and intersubjective games that shape interactive processes and influence (not always consciously) the underpin-ning of any suggestion to give a theoretical explanation of the processes in question.


360 manuela cantón delgado

<UN>

I will examine Gitano evangelism within the wider framework of grow-ing confessional plurality and try to explore the relations established in the field with religious agents and church members. These range from regimes of knowledge and discourses that traverse narratives of belonging and identity to the game of scales of action that challenges the often-reifying use of ethnonyms (Díaz de Rada 2008). It includes processes of ethnic self-description, circularity of meaning in fieldwork relations between investi-gators and ‘experts’, and even the contesting variety of ‘expert discourses’ concerning culture, tradition and ethnic identity. It is about elements of reflection that come from (and this is what they have in common) new epistemological and empirical conditions in which ethnographic work is carried out and that, as some other authors postulate, recommend a redefinition of the conventions of the classic Malinowskian model, which has been an inspiration to us since the mid-nineteenth century and so account ethnographically for the later modern intercrossing of the ‘tradi-tional’, the ‘urban’ and the ‘massive’ (García Canclini 1989: 232–235; Cruces 2003).

In short, I propose a critical approach in relation to the conditions in which we produce our theoretical objects and even the ‘ethnographic encounter’ itself, the ways in which we orient experiences (in the field) and (textual) representations, the theoretical sensitivity with which we gener-ate scientific knowledge about observed and enacted socio-religious reali-ties. I am thinking of a framework of general reflection starting from an ethnographic exploration of Gitano Evangelical contexts in southern Spain, spaces influenced by the historical presence of anti-Gitano and anti- Protestant stereotypes and stigmas that are firmly entrenched in the domi-nant culture and history, representations of Gitano otherness that are charged with hostility and discrimination, and clichés that fuel the imagi-nary about what it means to be Gitano and what converting to a Protestant and sectarian religion represents. At the same time we encounter a way of dealing with the ethnic Gitano minority that is conditioned by primordial-ist ideas or dichotomies of ethnic identity, ideas to which investigators are analytically attached in a more or less refined manner. We should become increasingly aware of the problems that a hard definition of identities introduces to an understanding of the transactions of social life. The organ-isational experience of Andalusian Gitano churches and the confessional associativism connected to them shows that social life cannot be fixed by entrenching it in the existence of homogenous and stable cultural and ethnic groups with an internal logic – a logic that is often overestimated to the detriment of the flows of interaction between minorities and national


ethnography of religion, ethnicity and reflexivity 361

<UN>

1 This occurred in 2007. The more influential sections of the Catholic hierarchy have been calling it a step towards “estadolatría” or “state-idolatry”, in that it increases govern-ment interference in people’s private lives (El País, December 20th, 2008).

societies, or between the former and the transnational economic and sym-bolic market.

Overall, I suggest a form of reversed reading, a ‘reflexive’ turning back in order to examine the epistemological, theoretical and practical conditions in which we produce our ethnographic experiences and representations, the fetish-categories used by researchers of culture, ethnicity and religion as well as the generally controversial character of the relations that scien-tists maintain with religious agencies.

The Catholic Legacy, Religious Pluralism and the Secular State

The so-called ‘return of the religious’ in public debates throughout Europe has appeared in Spain in the form of three convergent phenomena. First, the determination of J. L. Rodríguez Zapatero’s socialist government to consolidate a secular state; second, the reaction of the Catholic hierarchy, which has shown unequivocal signs of its inclination to rearm with the essentialist demands of traditional Spanish Catholicism and its opposition to certain government measures (the legalisation of homosexual unions, the broadening of the abortion law and the introduction of Educación para la Ciudadanía1 as a school subject, for example) (Dietz 2007: 104 and follow-ing); and third, the gradual emergence of a confessional pluralism. The latter is thanks mostly to intense migratory flows from Islamic countries (Morocco, Algeria, and Pakistan to a lesser degree, although there are a sig-nificant number of Spanish converts to Islam as well as Christian immi-grants from other Islamic countries such as Egypt and Lebanon), Eastern Europe (mostly Orthodox Christians from Romania, Bulgaria and the Ukraine) and Latin-American countries (including Brazil) where Evangel-ical Protestantism has become the main challenger to hegemonic Cathol-icism in the last few decades. Similarly, many sub-Saharan immigrants are Evangelical Christians on arrival.

Any defence of ‘Catholic essentialism’ in the Spanish state tends to be exclusive by definition, and thereby politically designed to force emerging minorities to remain invisible. This is becoming increasingly untenable. In the last twenty years, minorities have greatly diversified the range of expres-sions, belongings, filiations, loyalties, cartographies and religious practices,



<UN>

2 These privileges derive from four accords signed with the Holy See in 1979 and include an advantageous agreement in economic, military and judicial matters, as well as religious education. Representatives of the Protestant, Jewish and Islamic faiths signed bilateral agree ments with the government, the first of which in 1992. Protestant entities signed the accord as the Federation of Evangelical Entities of Spain (FEREDE), Jewish entities signed as the Federation of Israelite Communities of Spain (FCIE), and Islamic entities signed as the Islamic Commission of Spain (CIE). Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons (Church of Jesus Christ of the Saints of the Last Days) and Buddhists have been recognised in the last few years as religions with notorio arraigo (well-known deeply-rooted beliefs), and have negotiated bilat-eral accords with the government. Muslim and Protestant leaders have demanded that the government provide more support for state religious education in their respective faiths. In cases in which the Ministry fails to consider the religious organization to be a religion (as in the very recent case of Scientology), it may be included on a Register of Associations main-tained by the Ministry of Interior, which gives them the legal right to be treated as a cultural association.

3 Including the large number of state-funded religious centres, consequently provided with by public funding, as well as religious classes given by teachers appointed by the Catholic Church (though paid by the government), and the financing of the Catholic Church through a detraction of state income in IRPF (Personal Income Tax) instead of a recharge (tax assignment). Together with other privileges, these are all issues that cause discontent among faiths that already enjoy official recognition by government authorities.

4 El Registro de Entidades Religiosas (Religious Entities Register) is the responsibility of the Dirección General de Relaciones con las Confesiones (General Direction of Relations with Religious Confessions) which is under the Justice Ministry. All religious entities wishing to obtain civil legal status must register according to article 6 in the Organic Law of Religious Freedom. The first paragraph of Article 7 in the said law says: “The state, taking into account

and these can no longer be undermined for the sake of maintaining the privileges demanded and received by the Catholic Church. This occurs within a formally secular framework, in which there is no state religion and the constitution in force since 1978 guarantees religious freedom. The privi-leges of the Catholic Church in Spain2 probably have no counterpart in the rest of Europe and a number of contradictions have emerged following recent government measures to render the state’s commitment to non- confessionalism more visible and effective. One example is the contrast between the wishes of the current socialist government, which are in line with respect for religious diversity as recognised in the Constitution, and the continuance of an agreement that favours the Catholic Church in fiscal and educational matters,3 as well as the contradictory, belligerent and openly confrontational position of the Catholic hierarchy in opposition to the secularism of the current government. The presence of Protestants of several denominations, ranging from those long-established to Evangelicals, along with Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Scientologists, Mormons, Orthodox Christians, Buddhists, Baha’i and Hare Krishna com-munities, to mention a few (most of them recognized as notorio arraigo in the Religious Entities Register at the Spanish Ministry of Justice),4 shows,



<UN>

religious beliefs in Spanish society, will establish, where applicable, accords or agreements of cooperation with churches, confessions and religious communities included in the Register which for their situation and number of believers have achieved the status of noto-rio arraigo (‘well-known deeply-rooted’ belief) in Spain.”

5 Ortiz mentions situation, thereby returning to the phenomenologists’ notion – although he refuses to share the concept in Garfinkel’s ethnomethodology that social relations derive solely from interaction between people without considering the objective definition that from the situation social forces are made bearers of unequal legitimacies that are constitu-tive of the framework in which people act (Ortiz 1996: 17).

among other things, that the internal dynamics and constant diversifica-tion within Christianity itself make it impossible to continue producing homogenous and schematic representations of religious traditions and dif-ferences in present-day Spain.

Ethnographic research is a good tool with which to discuss the automatic correspondence between place and culture, and to assign to this old rela-tionship a situated character which is in constant construction and change as a result of the shifts, intersections and intermeshing of meaning trig-gered by globalization processes. Recent concepts such as transnational-ism, deterritorialisation and dislocalisation have appeared in response to the radical transformation that modernity has produced in social relations and the “centrality” and “arraigo” (rootedness) of a culture to a territory. The “place” will then no longer be the morphological substratum on which cultures rest, but the crossover or transversality of different lines of strength in the context of a determined situation (Ortiz 1996: 17).5

This book seeks to highlight how all of these processes are unfolding in southern Europe; in places where, as the editors of this volume have pointed out, it is urgent to show the setting of a transformation to which new forms of religious belonging and the present diversity and intertwining of unex-pected religious filiations, loyalties and itineraries are also making a contri-bution. We must go beyond outdated historical associations formulated in the old Mediterranean anthropology which argued that there was a Mediterranean cultural complex, and that the Catholic hierarchy was one of its principal pillars of support.

Gitano Evangelism in Southern Spain

How can we approach, analytically, identity when your data ask you to renounce that category? (Díaz de Rada 2008: 193)

In this increasingly plural setting, we have seen the emergence and consoli-dation of an organizational, religious and ethnic movement, which until a



<UN>

6 The population of Spanish Gitanos is over 5000,000. Nearly all live in Andalusia, dis-persed among provinces – much as described in accounts from the 18th century – with most living in Seville and followed by Granada and Cadiz (Gamella 1996; Cantón et al. 2004).

7 In November 2009 Södertörn University (Stockholm, Sweden) held a workshop on Romani Pentecostalism in Europe. Historians, sociologists and anthropologists took part and the discussion will lead to the first collective book on Christian revivalism among gyp-sies throughout the world and in Europe in particular. Some of the guest investigators were specialists with extensive experience in this field, such as Patrick Williams, Thomas Acton, Elena Marushia-Kova and Veselin Popov, Tomas Hrustic, Ian Hancock, Jorge Bernal, M. Slavkova, Tatiana Podolinska, Gaëlla Loiseau, and David Thurfjell, as well as the author of this chapter. They presented the state of Gypsy Pentecostalism in Sweden, Romania, Turkey, Russia, the United States, Argentina, Bulgaria, Spain, Slovakia, France, Finland and Hungary.

8 The first congregations were formed in Balaguer (Lerida). They then spread to Catalonia and Castille and reached Andalusia at the end of the 1960s (Cantón et al. 2004: 71 and following). They proposed the name Movimiento Evangélico Gitano Español (Spanish Gypsy Evangelical Movement) and later Misión Gitana (Gitano Mission – the name of the movement in France), but these names were rejected by the Spanish authorities because “in Spain, Gitanos are considered Spanish” (Jiménez 1981: 91).

few years ago was scarcely more visible than Spanish Gitanos themselves.6 We have depended on systematic studies carried out in Catalonia (Méndez 2005; San Román 1997; Ramírez Hita 2007) and Andalusia only (Gamella 1996; Cantón et al. 2004), as well as an interesting approach in the case of Portuguese gypsies (Llera Blanes 2008). In contrast, Gypsy evangelism out-side the Iberian Peninsula has received the attention of several European scientists (Williams 1991, 1993; Glize 1989),7 who have thoroughly examined the scope of a transnational movement that cannot be considered ‘new’, but that nonetheless still shows itself to be a little known, paradoxical and polysemous phenomenon, as well as a surprising example of contemporary processes of religious innovation and creativity (Nelson 1987; Beckford 1986). Despite this, an analysis of the different facts that intervene in the processes of the expansion of Pentecostal evangelism, the creation of trans-national communities of believers, and its cultural impact on European gypsies, is still to a great extent absent from the large academic forums of debate on the growth of religious pluralism in Europe.

The new religion was formally established in Spain in the 1960s as the Iglesia Filadelfia (Philadelphia Church), an umbrella name for different religious groups8 with Protestant affiliations that were led by gypsy preach-ers and doctrinally connected with groups that had emerged with the devel-opment of reformed Christianity during the 20th century in the United States. One of the most successful outcomes of this historical development was Pentecostal Evangelism, a clear example of cultural and religious glo-balization (Martin 1990; Cantón 2003). However, what is now transnational



<UN>

Pentecostalism actually began over a century ago and sprang from Meth-odism, a pietistic movement that broke away from Anglicanism and was established in the 18th century by John Wesley in the United States. The most relevant characteristic of Methodism, apart from the attractive ritual and cohesive strength of the various contemporary forms of Pentecostalism, is the connection between the model of ascetic Protestant life and the sen-timentalism of some Methodist groups, which Max Weber himself identi-fied (Weber 1998: 186 and following).

Methodist sentimentalism becomes evident in the abundance of ecstatic manifestations experienced by those who open themselves up to Pentecos-tal practices and ritual by means of dance, trancelike states, faith healing, laying on of hands, prophecy, speaking in tongues, possession, liberation and in a wider sense, the charismatic experience through the so-called ‘gifts of the Spirit’. These are religious practices in which the body plays a leading role in the activity and in mystic communication. In the case of Gypsy Pentecostal Evangelism, we easily recognize the importance of this charismatic tradition and its relevance in religious spaces and understand it to be the result of practical, ritualistic and political appropriations that must in turn be understood through relations situated between religion and ‘ethnicity’. ‘Ethnicity’ is considered here to be an epiphenomenon of the intercultural contact, capable of structuring the interaction of this con-tact by the selection of certain emblems of contrast and in this way defin-ing ‘identity politics’. Understood as ‘politics of recognition’, identity politics mediate the relations between what is intra-cultural and what is intercultural (Dietz 2003: 105).

The conversion of gypsies throughout Europe to Pentecostal Christianity has produced one of the most extraordinary contemporary organizational experiences of this ethinic minority. Moreover, their places of worship con-stitute unique loci in which to test the most schematic views of ethnic identity itself, because they reveal that there are completely different ways of being a Gitano, of conveying multi-belonging and creating intertwining ways of interacting. The rapid formation of formal groups that have grown increasingly powerful and gained greater organizational capacities as they become more institutionalised, together with the global reach of Gypsy Evangelism, has made Pentecostalism the catalyst of the most original eth-nic and religious moment in all Gypsy history.

To a great extent, the speed with which it has developed among Spanish Gitanos is due to the fact that it mobilises ethnicity and promotes self- management of the processes of change. The movement consists mostly of Gitanos and has been almost exclusively run and organised by them from



<UN>

the start. However, another factor has been the decline in a relevant sector of the Gitano associative movement, which emerged in the 1960s with increasing numbers of Gitanos becoming sedentary and urbanised in tan-dem with the appearance of the evangelical churches. Both associativism and Pentecostalism represented new forms of ‘empowerment’, opening unexpected pathways for political mobilisation and answering a demand made by the gypsies themselves: that of setting up “new intertwined structures different from kinship groups (…) capable of mobilising public resources and awareness” (San Román 1999: 38–39). Pentecostalism has grown independently among Gitanos with a leadership springing from within the Gitano group itself, most of who keep themselves aloof from the non-Gitano world, non-Gitano Pentecostalism and the administrative apparatus. On the other hand, Gitano non-confessional associativism has tried to use ethnicity as a resource and political tool that depends heavily on the public administration. This has created dangerous internal divisions and revealed the contradictions inherent to Gitano participation in non-Gitano (democratic) structures (Fresno 1991; San Román 1997).

Most Gitano religious congregations clearly intermingle with the social fabric of marginalised neighbourhoods and become visible in towns and cities where Gitanos are concentrated. They flourish in urban areas of social exclusion where conditions often deteriorate into situations of extreme poverty, unemployment and absence of social expectations. These slum areas are the products of ‘development’ and urban planning in the 1960s, which were responsible for forcing Gitano families to move into new housing and to settle in certain areas with the result that their lineages became mixed while their organisational frameworks were dismantled (San Román 1999). Along with the concentration of Gitanos in urban areas, their segregation and sense of uprootedness, the gradual emergence of new spaces for self-recognition was encouraged by religious congregations, agencies and places of worship. Important work began to provide assis-tance in cases of social exclusion and to define new, different and inter-linked methods of solidarity, going beyond the limits of kinship to create unexpected strategies for ethnic mobilisation. These privileged new emerg-ing structures of authority, leadership and power groups as well as the sym-bolic reconstruction of ‘us’ and the resignification of ‘Gitano traditions’ themselves.

Renewed self-perception among Gitano religious believers has produced ‘narratives of coherence’ in which Evangelism is defined as a ‘new way of being a Gitano’, renewing the sense of belonging to an ethnic group that acknowledges and self-proclaims its difference. Many members have



<UN>

9 This follows a familiar route from the arrival of intravenous drugs in Gitano neighbour-hoods in the 1980s to the current situation of poly-substance abuse.

discovered in religion a novel means of regaining their cohesion after the dismantling of traditional structures, promoting their cultural specificity in renewed ‘politics of recognition’ and legitimating new ways to fight for equal opportunities (San Román 1999; Cantón et al. 2004). Spaces pertain-ing to the religious have once again emerged as social, political, symbolic and even therapeutic, as well as places for economic exchange. They show all their relational richness in opposition to the trend that explains conver-sions reductively by arguing that they are benefitting from the erosion of traditional structures and effectively fighting the damage caused by drug use and trafficking.9 We should no longer resort to saying that Evangelism prevents Gitanos from achieving new forms of consensus, or that it triggers divisions which will preclude a united political response to segregation and xenophobia. Neither can it be said, however, that the religious has with-drawn into private, personal sphere as a result of secularisation. It is imme-diately apparent that there are complex connections between religious representations and practices with other spheres of social and economic life, as well as between representations of the body, dialogue with adminis-trations and ethnic or supposedly associative policies.

As previous research into these groups has shown, an understanding can be achieved that counterbalances the reductionist trend. For instance, the first central authority to be recognised and respected by a large number of Gitanos is the Iglesia Filadelfia National Council. This is based in Madrid and consists of a president, elected every year by direct vote, a secretary and several members responsible for zones throughout the whole of Spain. Belonging to the Iglesia Filadelfia ideally extends the duty of helping all Gitano Evangelists, irrespective of their lineage, while prior to the introduc-tion of Evangelism obligations of solidarity remained confined to members of the patrilineal group, holding back the promotion of joint initiatives or a consensus on demands to public administrative bodies (Glize 1989).

An extensive description of the historical and anthropological context of Pentecostalism among Gitanos from southern Andalusia, and an examina-tion of the social, political, economic, therapeutic and symbolic uses of the ways Andalusian Gitanos adhere locally to a religious system that is nowa-days globalized, has already been presented elsewhere (Cantón et al. 2004). One of the most interesting aspects of this examination involved the man-ner in which tradition is redefined (the diaspora of gypsies like that of the



<UN>

10 In any case, the more closed the representations, coherence reports and diagnostics we offer from the social sciences, the more open to discussion they appear. Distance is needed for production and, as usual, the further we are when we look at a field of social rela-tions, “the less local and more closed is its panopsis” and the sharper its (ethnic, religious) borders appear defined. These same borders become blurred as we get closer to concrete practices: “In their biographical and subsequently lived connection with certain expert sys-tems, in particular educational and political institutions, and their training within the spheres of intimate belonging, such as family or friendship, agents can construct their spe-cial coherence reports and in accordance with these reports, they possible appeal to their identity rights.” Our task as anthropologists is “to understand analytically how these coher-ence reports are produced on the different scales connected with the action and what differ-ent forms of being they illuminate” (Díaz de Rada 2008: 230).

11 For instance, the emergence in 2001 of the Federación de Asociaciones Cristianas de Andalucía (FACCA) [Federation of Christian Associations of Andalusia], the social arm of the Iglesia Filadelfia. It proposes a gradual formal constitution of Evangelical churches in Christian associations in order to gain recognition and access public resources, with the vast support of the almost 10,000 Gitano members of the Iglesia Filadelfia in Andalusia. The his-torical moment in which FACCA emerged is decisive for several reasons. One is the possibil-ity of counteracting the effects of mass immigration on public opinion with regard to problems that affect the Gitanos. Immigration, with an increase that coincided with one of the lowest points in the trajectory of Gitano associative movements, has heightened the risk of social attention moving definitively to other ethnic minorities (Cantón et al. 2004: 253–255).

Jews, the Bible as the Promised Land in contrast with the lack of a State) and the consensus that is reached on giving up social and economic prac-tices that Gitanos see as linked with their culture but which new religious ethics have persuaded them to consider unacceptable. These include the controversial cases of their refusing to use any form of physical violence to solve family offences, an inclination (still undeniably faint) to reconsider the issue of the subordination of Gitano women, and the rejection of thiev-ery or trickery as acceptable strategies for survival in a society that is con-sidered xenophobic and non-inclusive.10

Gitano Pentecostal Evangelism is today an organised and complex social movement undergoing rapid processes of transformation.11 It continues to contribute towards the construction of a pan-Gypsy identity project with Christian affiliations, an ethnic foundation and a transnational scale. Although it is no longer a new phenomenon it retains strong potential for creativity and identity renewal. This is despite having been rejected or ignored in the past by Gitanos and non-Gitanos who believed that conver-sion to the new religion, and the appearance of alternative leaderships and their associated organisations, would separate Gitanos from their ‘culture’ and ‘traditions’. These considerations have been invariably based on the idea that culture and tradition possess some ‘essential’ and stable element, which has perhaps enabled them to be used as a legitimising stratagem for



<UN>

the unilateral construction of nosotros (a sense of “us”). This has not pre-vented suspicions from arising even now in some Catholic quarters which probably still have a paternalistic attitude towards Gitanos, as well as the more politically active Gitano organisations, which we usually find taking part in the management of administrative bodies and non-confessional associations.

However, the problem of schematisation and reification is also present in the analytical work of academics. It is still difficult to produce represen-tations that do not view Gitano ethnicity as a boundary, instead of under-standing it as a product of intersections and flows. Ever since the late 1960s, when Barth distinguished between ‘culture’ and ‘ethnic group’ and intro-duced his definition of ‘ethnic boundary’, the primordialist concept of culture has suffered. Barth held that group identity can persist despite undergoing profound inner transformations, because at the basis of the continuation of a group in terms of ethnic identity is not the cultural con-tent as a given but rather the continual reinvention of intergroup delimita-tions. It therefore became decisive to have a definition of ‘ethnic boundary’ with an operational character and a definition of ‘ethnic group’ with organ-isational rather than primordialist criteria, as well as necessary to under-stand the identity of a group as a contrastive phenomenon that emerges from contacts and develops through interactions (Barth 1976).

As recently as the 1980s, the trend in anthropological constructions was to treat cultures as stable objects enclosed within themselves. The idea of an insular identity is to a large extent responsible for the structural- functional orientation and a consideration of ethnic constructions that does not recognise the heuristic relevance of the concrete everyday practices of social actors (Harold Garfinkel’s ‘practical activities’). The result was the reification of communities, peoples and cultures. Clear-cut restrictions were invented to demarcate a primordial, intrinsic identity, in contrast to Barth’s arguments that cultures were open entities and were constructed only through interactions. This problem persists. As Ángel Díaz showed after reviewing most of the scientific literature on the subject, we still oper-ate ‘in the field’ with a sense directed at “understanding ethnicity as a rela-tion between dichotomous and reified social subjects” (Díaz de Rada 2008: 193 et al). It is very possible that all of this orthodox sociology, which has tried to fix the category of ethnicity in the intersection between culture and identity, has taken a wrong turn. This is indicated by emerging and unex-pected forms of contemporary ethnicity as well as by what Comaroff and Comaroff have called the “global business of ethnicity”: a ‘taken-for-granted’ category which has always been ambiguous as a sociological concept, given



<UN>

12 In their latest book, John and Jean Comaroff put forward a transcultural exploration of the changing relationship between culture and markets, as well as the future of ethnicity and its global business (from casinos run by Native North Americans to ethno-businesses run by traditional chiefs in South Africa). Ethnic populations are re-thinking themselves as corporations while corporations are appropriating ethnic practices in order to open up new markets and inaugurate new types of consumption. The authors posit that the ethnicity cat-egory, always a porous and equivocal sociological concept, is morphing into exactly the oppo-site of what orthodox social sciences once pointed to. Ethno-politics, ethno-consciousness, and ethno-practice are changing, as well as our way of apprehending them (Comaroff and Comaroff 2009). I am indebted to Ruy Llera and José Mapril for recommending this book to me.

that it emerges in such different phenomena and expressions that it becomes empirically impossible to speak of one Theory of Ethnicity. The authors state that we can no longer accept oscillating accounts of ethnicity as a monolithic and reified ‘thing’, nor simply as an analytical construction – after all, people kill in its name. Nor can we accept a half-hearted com-promise between primordialism and instrumentalism, which will only postpone discussion (Comaroff and Comaroff 2009).12 This extensive epis-temological and theoretical discussion is present and must be taken into account when we undertake an analytical approach to Gitano communi-ties, which are chiefly seen as forming part of an ‘ethnic minority’ with a certain degree of homogeneity and whose members have more in common with one another than they will ever have with those outside the group.

As Ángel Díaz explains, even if Barth placed more emphasis on the for-mation of borders than on their intercrossing, his “dynamic and transac-tional reformulation in the original text struggles with a deeply-rooted belief in anthropological tradition: the belief in the existence of different cultures in structurally different groups. Barth showed that the ethnic bor-der could not be simplified to the extreme point of being a territorial bor-der, but allowed us to continue to believe in the virtual existence of borders that are actuated and represented in the contact between ethnic groups” (Díaz de Rada 2008: 195).

Religion, Ethnography, Reflexivity

Contrary to those who believe that sociology involves some prophetic task, Bourdieu suggests it has a far more clinical and even therapeutic function. Sociology is an instrument for self-analysis that allows everyone to better understand their own social conditions of production and the position they occupy in the social and academic world. It also allows a critical x-ray



<UN>

13 “If subjectivity is inevitable, at least it must reveal itself openly, which means that the underlying reasoning behind observation and description should be clearly formulated, its premises displayed explicitly and its operations revealed step by step (…) I have it suggested that all future anthropologists should undergo psychoanalysis (…) This way the anthropolo-gist will be more easily warned of his unconscious tendency and will be enabled to defend himself from the influence of force that he has learnt to evaluate (Nadel: 1974 [1951]: 61–62).

to be taken of certain unchallenged ideals (positive objectivity itself, hyper-empiricism and the language of neutral observation) as well as the set of scientific practices directed (not always consciously) at achieving those ideals (Bourdieu 1988a: 101).

Without leaving the field, we will now move from theoretical sensibility directed at looking for reified social subjects which, on relating with each other, create ‘ethnicity’, to the (false) problem of the ‘subjectivity’ of the anthropologist when producing relations and data during field-work. Some authors have suggested that the impact of the idiosyncratic factor on the ideal of objectivity could be avoided by using techniques of confession and self-control. Aside from the dubious efficiency of such measures, this means acknowledging objectivity as the ultimate aim of anthropology. Basing ourselves on Pierre Bourdieu’s reflexive proposal, the recognition of subjectivity must be seen as part of the pursuit of the old ideal of scientific asepsis. The endeavour consists of ‘cleaning up’ the means of ethnographic knowledge, highlighting the objective and seeking the sur-render of subjectivist excesses through the naïve method of unmasking them.

It seems obvious that we cannot avoid being influenced by our person-alities, but it is also questionable that we should, as S.F. Nadel13 has sug-gested, scrutinise the biases produced by our subjectivity so as to be able to bypass, overcome, negotiate and eradicate them. If Bourdieu’s proposed reflexivity goes beyond this, it is precisely because it surpasses the idea of ‘subjectivity’ and is not directed at creating some grand fiction about ‘coherence’ (which, understood this way, would be put at risk by our condi-tion of ‘authors’ with ‘subjectivity’): an idea of coherence once again gov-erned by a structural and dualist perspective, and directed at the quest for opposites, essentials and compartments which do not usually correspond with the everyday practices, experiences and perceptions of the people we study. The coherence inscribed in the objectifying discourses of our inter-locutors in the field usually appears when identity is the theme (that is to say, when agents act from a determined scale of practices to speak to us or speak about who they are).



<UN>

Moreover, these fictive coherences are constructed from the experience of ethnography (an intense, absorbing scientific practice that is not free of ambiguity), with all the contradictions and tensions generated by this particular knowledge process. One such contradiction is the con-version of an experience that we have always defined as re-socialisation-immersion, which occurs either through dialogue or not at all, marked by interactions, mutual expectations, negotiations and complex intersub-jective games (fieldwork) into an eminently monologic and objectifying product (the scientific text). It must be remembered that postmodern anthropology has already made these tensions apparent (Marcus and Fischer 2000).

However, Bourdieu has been concerned with moving beyond the naïve recognition of the role played by subjectivity and what S. F. Nadel called ‘personal equation’. ‘Epistemological vigilance’ plays with the idea that the ‘fact’ will triumph over the illusion of ‘immediate knowledge’ and the ‘prenotions’ that ‘spontaneous’ sociology leads to. It is interesting to see that Bourdieu unmasks Garfinkel’s ethnomethodological project despite recognising that the constructivist and microsociological perspective plays an indispensable part in the construction of his sociology of practice (Bourdieu 2003: 156–157). This ‘vigilance’ is crucial in the case of sociology and anthropology because we know (and have known at least since Weber) that the border that separates ‘common opinion’ and ‘scientific discourse’ in the social sciences is more porous than in other fields of knowledge. But if Bourdieu’s proposal is that the production of scientific knowledge must go ‘against commonsense’, it seems clear that we are facing a petitio princi-pii that could set up a meta-theoretical referent capable of invigilating those who invigilate. We would then have to ask who in turn legitimises the validity of theories that have been empirically contrasted, if we decide to entrust them with above-mentioned task, or, if we entrust the task of vali-dation to anthropologists themselves, to discuss what role is reflexively played by social factors that mediate the cognitive action (Bourdieu et al. 1991; Sánchez Pérez 2001).

If subjectivity is only a (false) part of the problem, this is also because it is not so much ‘subjectivities’ but ‘traditions’ that come into contact during fieldwork. In other words, it is not about getting facts into dialogue with a subjectivist personal history, but rather with the cultural and historical roots of the society that investigators belong to (Ulin 1990: 41–42). There is no other way to understand the role played by prejudiced ideas about the ‘gypsy’, ‘protestant gypsy’, ‘protestant’ and ‘sectarian’ when the loaded ques-tion operates on the investigator as a socialised subject in the prejudice



<UN>

against the Gitano way of life, in Catholic hegemony and the prevention of other religious options; or else understand them to be ‘the investigated’ which observe and question the investigator from a legitimately defensive, historically constructed position. At least the practice of ‘reflexivity’ enables us to move beyond a naïve trust in the mere recognition of the role of the investigator’s subjectivity in the production of knowledge. Of course, it also helps to bypass the inductivist route, which out of either positivist or natu-ralist methodology ends up promoting a model of a hyper-empirical social investigator whose relationship with the object is not at all ‘problematized’ (Hammersley and Atkinson 1994).

Bourdieu’s reflexivity, called ‘reformist’ or ‘practical’, is presented as a quest for and recognition of the social conditions of the production of social science and the knowledge that it may produce in turn. This is done by analysing the ‘hidden’ assumptions in the usual operations of sci-entific practice. Consequently, it extends into a real critique of the unknown practical activity, one that finally replaces the investigator in carrying out such vital scientific operations as the actual ‘construction of the object’. This reformist reflexivity does not entail revealing the individual/ subjective history of the investigator. It is, instead, a collective task in that it can only be fully carried out if it is taken up by the team of agents involved in the academic field. In the face of this, the reflexivity that Bourdieu terms ‘narcissistic’ would not be anything other than that which we usually identify with the recognition of subjectivity, and which he identifies with a modality of confession limited to the complacent return of the investigator to his or her own experiences. It thus becomes its own end (Bourdieu 2003: 155–157). Conversely, we never think that those who speak to us during fieldwork are individual agents driven by their own idiosyn-cratic and singular viewpoints. Rather, on one hand they are interlocutors that are produced by the same expert in their investigatory practice, and on the other, actors who embody social positions that are historically consti-tuted and socially inserted in a complex network of relationships and processes, so that the ethnographer’s task is mainly an analytical one situ-ated in the social conditions of discursive production. Reflexivity also implies this.

In fact, as Bourdieu once asked:

What is an informant and what exactly is he doing when he elaborates for the anthropologist a representation of his own world, a representation about which he can never clearly know whether its informing and forming schemas are borrowed from the system of characteristic cognitive structures of his own tradition, from the system of the ethnologist, or from an unconsciously



<UN>

14 Bourdieu continues: “Couldn’t it be that the inquiring relationship in itself, by creating a situation of theoretical interrogation in which the interrogated interrogates himself about what has been until then unproblematic and self-evident, creates a vital alteration capable of introducing a significant bias in all other collected observations, a great deal more crucial than all distortions of ethnocentrism?” (Bourdieu 1992: 152–153).

15 Both interest and the “loss” of interest are of equal importance because the institution organises belief that conceals belief in the institution and all the interests linked with the reproduction of the institution, which has been complicated by the dissolution of the religious – in other words, by the increasing blurring of the former borders of the religious field. In addition, “reversals in the religious field can survive the loss of faith and even a more or less declared rupture with the Church” (Bourdieu 1988b: 93–94).

16 Of course, in a setting marked by religious plurality and competition we find scientolo-gists asserting that Scientology is a religion, Evangelical Christians that they are not a

negotiated mixture of the two collective classification codes confronted with one another?14

Who is an informant in the case of an ethnology of religion in which suspi-cion is bi-directional and easily settles into the cracks of interaction between investigators and those who are investigated, and between inves-tigators and their colleagues who fill with uncertainty the relations between religion and those who think about it? There is a striking absence of reflec-tion on both the determining factors that ethnographic investigation into religious practices identifies in social sciences and the presence and impact of the commonsensical representations (as well as those due to the scien-tific ideal itself), according to which emerging and established religions embody the return of the irrational and pose a threat to the idea of secular-ism and to the bases of democratic freedom.

The problem logically appears before such processes take place. In fact, the construction of religion as a scientific domain has been a highly ambig-uous process. Symbolic systems, festive processes, the sphere of representa-tions or the field of ideology have dominated the configuration of ‘religion’ throughout history. It thus becomes an awkward label on a box filled with leftovers: beliefs, rituals, symbols, totemism, fetishism, animism and a great many others whose unity is claimed almost as an act of faith. It is also an awkward label for investigators of religion themselves, those who are sup-posed to have no hidden ties with religion and who must prove that they are not concealing any personal interest in relation to the field of religion or loyalty to any system of religious belief.15 As a believer in any religion, it is highly likely that the investigator’s work will be seen as a mystifying and not as a disinterested exercise. At the same time, this label has often proved awkward and uncomfortable for the groups under study themselves: those organisations that refuse to be considered ‘sectarian’ but also refuse to be known as ‘religions’.16 In the case of Gitano agencies, they do not accept



<UN>

religion, and Jehovah’s Witnesses seeking to be recognized as Christians instead of margin-alized as a sect within Christianity. However, these all become, without exception, sects in the common sense discourse. This reminds us of the heuristic possibilities of exploring the internal uses of the term ‘sect’ in processes that mark the limits of the religious field, and with it, in the struggle for a definition of religious competition and of the same legitimate production of salvific belongings, of ultimate meanings. In turn this means getting propos-als put forward by Bourdieu (2006) and Goffman (1989) into dialogue. I have endeavoured to express and find applications for this dialogue in previous work (Cantón 1999).

being defined as ‘religious’ or as Gitano (churches). They demand to be rec-ognised merely as Christians, and try to detach themselves from the spiri-tual stagnation that Pentecostals associate with religions, among which they primarily include historical Protestantisms and the Catholic Church. They also openly reject the quick and easy identification of the ethnic char-acter of churches (those they refer to as the culto, “worship”) as well as the simple ‘assistentialism’ that results from the poverty and marginalisation of those who congregate there.

The investigators’ obvious lack of interest in personal conversion makes them suspect in the field and in the eyes of religious agents themselves. At least in the case of movements such as Pentecostalism, in which millenni-alism, proselytism and conversions are of such importance, it is difficult to understand people in places of worship who show no interest whatso-ever in converting and devote themselves instead to a task as indecipher-able to the ordinary person as anthropology. What is more, most leaders and believers in Pentecostalism have fully internalised the “bad press” that Pentecostalism receives. They are thus ‘informed informants’ who never lower their guard due to a constant expectation of attack for being either Gitanos or Pentecostals. They hope for (and possibly demand) ‘devo-lution’ because often it is about empowered actors (at least in the case of some pastors, association leaders and regional representatives), for whom the sometime ventriloquist’s task of classic ethnography becomes rather problematic. The role of media-produced representations, images and discourse that anathematise emerging religions must be examined so that we may deepen our knowledge of the contemporary contexts in which ethnography of religions is carried out. This is vital because of the informa-tion that is conveyed through the mass media – the Manichean and schematic representation that it transmits of what for believers is a uni-verse logically full of feeling, its valuation and representations of what remains outside this universe. This makes them suspicious of what people who approach churches without necessarily looking for repentance or conversion really want. One of the results of this is that the ‘native point of



<UN>

17 In a suggestive passage in his article “Understanding a primitive society”, first pub-lished in 1964, Winch reflects on the way in which we should understand beliefs and magic practices like that of the Azande. These form essential foundations of the social like of the Azande, in contrast to beliefs that can be sustained or magic rites that can be practiced by

view’ can no longer be collected without contradictions – if indeed it ever could have been.

Our descriptions therefore become heteroglossic. Numerous marks of ‘reflexive’ effort are left on them to negotiate the blurriness of the borders between multiple clashing languages, the confrontation between catego-ries of different levels of abstraction, explicative circularity itself, the entry into the text of discourses informed by objectifying categories, the compe-tition with other mediators, cultural and political agents and ‘expert sys-tems’ such as the mass media itself – that equally seek to produce whole images of the situation (Cruces 2003: 174).

Suspicion moves and grows strong in the cracks and fissures in anthro-pological work with religions. With ‘other’ religions, mainly ‘sectarian’ minorities closer to us, our sensitivity to difference operates under pressure and ethnographic ‘alienation’ undergoes tensions that deserve attention (Cantón 2008). Proof of this lies in the many biased opinions in the litera-ture about these groups, which are observed for the following reasons: because of their rarity, extravagance and their standing out suspiciously in a time of desacrilization, secularisation, and the undeniable supremacy of science; because of their nostalgia for structure and certainties in a world of axiological and moral relativity; because they are organised groups that manipulate, divide, deconstruct and threaten ‘identities’ and trample on ‘traditions’. Alternatively they are viewed as conflictive sectors of societ-ies, already seen by the majority as problematic, pre-constructed as ‘social acts’ that are demarcated, understood and qualified by ‘spontaneous soci-ology’. These are circumstances that oblige us as anthropologists to keep a close watch on our own possible complicity with marking and controlling practices.

Gitano Pentecostalism is a truly interpretative challenge because in the social imaginary of most people it is associated with religious fanaticism, poverty, illiteracy, drugs and deprivation, in fact the social fabric of extreme marginalisation. There may be a greater likelihood that my categories of interpretation as a socialised individual will govern my analytical disposi-tion where it becomes more evident that porosity exists in the cultural bor-ders that bring me closer to the studied groups, or the closer they are to my everyday experiences.17 It then becomes more likely that I will stop seeing



<UN>

members of our own culture: “… The difference is not merely one of degree of familiarity, although this may be more important that in seems at first. Concepts of witchcraft and magic in our culture, at least since the advent of Christianity, have been parasitic on, and a perversion of other orthodox concepts, both religious and, increasingly, scientific. To take an obvious example, you could not understand what was involved in conducting a Black Mass unless you were familiar with the concept of a proper Mass and, therefore, with the whole complex of religious ideas from which the Mass draws its sense. Neither would you under-stand the relations between these without taking into account of the fact that Black prac-tices are rejected as irrational (in the sense proper to religion) in the system of beliefs on which these practices are thus parasitic” (Winch 1994: 40–41).

Pentecostal Gitanos as they really are: as cultural and socially heteroge-neous groups with conventions, negotiations and conflicts, organised groups who move about along the intersections, who interact constantly with the non-Gitano world and cross borders which we often imagine to be fixed, and who most probably are neither Gitanos nor Pentecostals all of the time. In the long run, it could turn out to be less costly to see this all, and to give a far off example, as among the Mayan-Quiché Indians who worship the mysterious stone carving of Pascual Abaj on a remote hill in the moun-tainous north of Guatemala.

References

Barth, F. 1976. Los grupos étnicos y sus fronteras. Mexico: Fondo de Cultura Económica.Beckford, J.A. 1986. New Religious Movements and Rapid Social Change. California: Sage.Bourdieu, P. 2006. ‘Génesis y estructura del campo religioso’, Relaciones 108 (XXVII).——. 2003. El oficio de científico. Ciencia de la ciencia y reflexividad. Madrid: Anagrama.——. 1992. ‘Postfacio’, in Rabinow, P., Reflexiones sobre un trabajo de campo en Marruecos.

Madrid: Júcar, 151–154.——. 1988a. ‘Objetivar el sujeto objetivante’, in Cosas dichas por Pierre Bourdieu. Barcelona:

Gedisa, 98–101.——. 988b. ‘Sociólogos de la creencia y la creencia de los sociólogos’, in Cosas dichas por

Pierre Bourdieu. Barcelona: Gedisa, 93–97.Bourdieu, P., J.C. Chamboredon and J.C. Passeron. 1991. El oficio de sociólogo. Mexico: Siglo

XXI.Cantón Delgado, M. 2009. La razón hechizada. Teorías antropológicas de la religión.

Barcelona: Ariel (2nd ed.).——. 2008. ‘Los confines de la impostura. Reflexiones sobre el trabajo de campo etnográfico

entre minorías religiosas’, Revista de Dialectología y Tradiciones Populares LXIII (1): 147–172.

Cantón Delgado, M. 2003. ‘Religiones Globales, Estrategias Locales. Usos políticos de las con-versiones en Guatemala’, in Pérez, B. and G. Dietz (eds), Globalización, resistencia y nego-ciación en América Latina. Madrid: Los Libros de la Catarata.

——. 1999. ‘El culto gitano y los procesos de deslegitimación: Definiciones y comptetencias’, in Rodrígeuz Becerra, S. (ed.), Religión y Cultura, Vol. 1. Sevilla: Consejería de Cultura y Fundación Machado, 165–180.

Cantón Delgado, M. et al. 2004. Gitanos pentecostales. Una mirada antropológica a la Iglesia Filadelfia en Andalucía. Sevilla: Signatura Eds.



<UN>

Comaroff, J. and J. Comaroff. 2009. Ethnicity, Inc. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Cruces, F. 2003. ‘Etnografías sin final feliz. Sobre las condiciones de posibilidad del trabajo

de campo urbano en contextos globalizados’ Revista de Dialectología y Tradiciones Populares LVIII (2): 161–178.

Díaz de Rada, A. 2008. ‘¿Dónde está la frontera? Prejuicios de campo y problemas de escala en la estructuración étnica en Sápmi’ Revista de Dialectología y Tradiciones Populares LXIII (1): 187–235.

Dietz, G. 2007. ‘Invisibilizing or Ethnicizing Religious Diversity? The Transition of Religious Education Towards Pluralism in Contemporary Spain’, in Jackson, R., S. Miedesma, W. Weisse and J.P. Willaime (eds), Religion and Education in Europe. Developments, Contexts and Debates. Germany: Waxmann, 103–132.

——. 2003. Multiculturalismo, interculturalidad y educación: Una aproximación antrop-ológica. Granada: CIESAS and Universidad de Granada.

Fresno García, J.M. 1991. ‘Dictamen sobre articulación de la participación social y mov-imiento asociativo’, in Estudio Sociológico sobre la Comunidad Gitana en España. Marco Teórico. Madrid: Asesoría de Programas de Servicios Sociales (P.A.S.S.) (Mimeo).

Gamella, J.F. 1996. La población gitana en Andalucía. Seville: Consejería de Trabajo y Asuntos Sociales de la Junta de Andalucía.

García Canclini, N. 1989. Culturas híbridas. Estrategias para entrar y salir de la modernidad. Mexico: Grijalbo.

Glize, R. 1989. ‘L’Église Évangélique Tsigane comme voie posible d’un engagement culturel nouveau’, in VV.AA., Actes du Cólloque pour le Trentiénne anniversaire des Etudes Tsiganes. Paris: Syros, 433–443.

Goffman, E. 1989. Estigma. La identidad deteriorada. Buenos Aires: Amorrortu.Hammersley, M. and P. Atkinson. 1994. Etnografía. Métodos de investigación. Barcelona:

Paidós.Jiménez Ramírez, A. 1981. Llamamiento de Dios al pueblo gitano. Jerez de la Frontera: Talleres

Gráficos de Anfra.Llera Blanes, R. 2008. Os Aleluias. Ciganos evangélicos e música. Lisbon: Imprensa de Ciências

Sociais.Marcus, G. and M. Fischer. 2000. La antropología como crítica cultural. Un momento experi-

mental en las ciencias humanas. Buenos Aires: Amorrortu.Martin, D. 1990. Tongues of Fire. The Explosion of Protestantism in Latin America. Oxford:

Blackwell.Méndez, C. 2005. Por el camino de la participación. Una aproximación contrastada a los pro-

cesos de integración social y política de los gitanos y las gitanas. Ph.D. Dissertation, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.

Nadel, S.F. 1974 (1951). Fundamentos de Antropología Social. México: Fondo de Cultura Económica.

Nelson, G. 1987. Cults, New Religions and Religious Creativity. London: Routledge & Kegan.

Ortiz, R. 1996. ‘Otro territorio’, Antropología. Revista de pensamiento antropológico y estudios etnográficos 12: 5–22.

Ramírez Hita, S. 2007. Entre calles estrechas. Gitanos: Prácticas y saberes médicos. Barcelona: Bellaterra.

Sánchez Pérez, F. 2001. ‘Antropología Social, ¿hacia una disciplina sin sujeto de cono-cimiento?’, in Cátedra, M. (ed.), La mirada cruzada en la Península Ibérica. Madrid: La Catarata, 107–120.

San Román, T. 1999. ‘El desarrollo de la conciencia política de los gitanos’, Gitanos, pensam-iento y cultura 0: 36–41.

——. 1997. La diferencia inquietante. Viejas y nuevas estrategias culturales de los gitanos. Madrid: Siglo XXI.

Ulin, R. 1990. Antropología y Teoría Social. Mexico: Siglo XXI.Weber, M. 1989. La ética protestante y el espíritu del capitalismo. Madrid: Alianza.



<UN>

Williams, P. 1993. ‘Questions pour l’étude du movement religieux pentecôtiste chez les Tsiganes’, in Belmont, N. and F. Lautman (eds), Ethnologie des faits religieux en Europa Paris: Editions du CTHS, 433–445.

——. 1991. ‘Le miracle et la nécessité: à propos du développement du Pentecôtisme chez les Tsiganes’ Extraits Archives de Sciences Sociales des Religions 73: 81–78.

Winch, P. 1994. Comprender una sociedad primitiva. Barcelona: Paidós.

Documents

Ethnography of Religion, Ethnicity and Reflexivity. Evangelical Gitanos in Southern Spain