Appendix 1
196
time and again, however, that the intersection of forces pertinent to a particular research
issue actually affects a large cross-section of the local population and that it is possible to
consider larger aggregates, such as population collectivities, when gathering data or later
for analytical purposes.
For example, looking at issues of access to healthcare services and specifically,
issues related to access to official structures, it has become evident that Athenian Roma
are subject to the same modes of exclusion that affect certain other minority groups living
in Athens. This has become an important issue as my research continues, one that was
not apparent at first but made evident through a number of MERIA activities. As this
large group continues to experience resistance in medical settings they have developed
ways of circumnavigating obstacles to healthcare in order to access what they need.
Interestingly, the strategies these groups employ, while differing in manner of execution,
all target a particular cross-section of dominant narratives to do with Greek
understandings of health-making, the body, and civil liberty.
Now, in terms of the latter observation, beyond research strategy and advantages
during analysis, MERIA has offered one perhaps unexpected bonus that should be
mentioned. The organization has been invited to partake in provision of policy
recommendations for a certain branch of the federal government concerned with the
welfare of (unofficial) minorities and other internal subaltern populations. Policy is of
course not necessarily a new area for anthropologists, yet MERIA has made the task of
effectively translating anthropological thought for use outside of our discipline easier and
so this advantage should be noted. MERIA makes larger structuring forces plain leading
to more holistic and sustainable solutions; it provides the analytical scope to know when