ࡱ> 9 hbjbj`l L}} } } } } } }$~ >D}QD}|x}|x|x|x^}|x}|x|x}} CnquV}} }0}}/xd/}|x Gyrgy Csepeli - Dvid Simon: Becoming Gypsy I . Becoming a Member of a Group Group membership can be considered as a result of categorization of the person into one or another of the groups in the social environment. Group membership has endogeneous and exogeneous determinants. Both determinants should be taken into account. On the one hand, membership is a function of naming. The name is a linguistic tool for membership definiton based on processes of categorization (Foot, 1951, Smith, 1983). As a result of categorization, various people can be seen as belonging to different socially constructed units, each having a different name to be denoted by outsiders and themselves respectively. Names, however, are not necessarily value-free terms. According to the Self Categorization Theory developed by Tajfel and Turner (Tajfel,1981; Turner et al. 1987) names denoting the ingroup have positive emotional power, while names denoting outgroups may have negative emotional power. This is especially true in the case between groups which are to live together in ranked relationships (Horowitz, 1985) or compete with each other for scarce resources. On the other hand, membership can be considered as a psychological process resulting in self-identification (Verkuyten, 1998). Identification implies deep and intense psychological involvement rooted in the practices of socialization. Consequently, naming and self-identification are intertwined with each other and both contribute to the maintanaince of identity. Self-identification, however, as a development of a set of collectively elaborated and psychologically deeply embedded narratives might be more stable and more fixed constituent of identity while definition stemming from name is guided by socially constructed rules. Identification from the perspective of the outgroup poses less difficulty and is more in lack of ambiguity. Unless the person to be perceived does not resist his/her categorization his or her group membership will be function of the nature of the preestablished category of the perceiver. We would expect that compared to the sense of membership the mere definition of being a group member is more flexible and more dependent on social context. The sense of being member of a group, however, in the long run cannot remain detached from definition practices. Categorization into ethnic groups is a complex and flexible process full of negotiability. Quantitative differences and qualitative differences can equally serve as bases of categories. Results of the external and internal categorization processes ideally correspond with each other. Members of group A perceive themselves as A and they tend to be perceived also as A. In other cases there is an overlap between the results of categorization both from the ingroup and the outgroup perspectives but there is no consensus concerning the denotation and/or connotation of the common term. In this case the group will be in its entirety or partially product of outgroup pressure. Groups are forced to realize the power of external definition. Exit is blocked. In the ranked relationship between majority (with power) and minority (powerless) the latter has usually been deprived of political, cultural and economic resources. The negative connotations stemming from the categorization process are part of the deprivation. On the other hand, minorities striving for emancipation begin with renaming and reconceptualizing themselves. II.The problem of Gypsy categorization The case of the Gypsy people living in contemporary Hungary demostrates the lack of overlap between the population termed as Gypsy by the outgroup and the population resulted in the self-identification of persons calling themselves Gypsies. In 1989 2433 young respondents were questioned by personal interviews in Hungary (Csepeli, Bks, 1994). The sample represented those young people who were born between 1974-79 and did not finish the elementary school or after having graduated were forced to go to the labor market. After completing the questioning, the interviewers (who were not Gypsy) were asked to indicate whether they thought the respondent "looked like a Gypsy" or not. Results of this external categorization have shown that 32 % of the respondents "looked like a Gypsy". The majority (61 %) of the respondents "looked not like a Gypsy". Because of uncertainty 7 % of the respondents were not categorized neither as Gypsy nor as non-Gypsy. Self-identification was not asked, but a set of questions concerning the nationality or ethnic origin of the grandparents was posed. It turned out that 22 % of the respondents counted four Gypsy grandparents and 6 % mentioned less than four Gypsy grandparents. Altogether 28 % of the respondents mentioned Gypsy ancestry. This is less than the proportion of those respondents who were categorized as Gypsy by the interviewers. This discrepancy raises the question: How can one become a Gypsy who has no Gypsy ancestors? III. Patterns of Gypsy categorization In order to explore the varieties of Gypsy categorization among non Gypsy and Gypsy populations in Hungary a series of focus groups were organized in a village near to Budapest in the fall of 1998. Non Gypsy participants of the focus group have been selected on the basis of their professional role which enabled them to encounter members of the local Gypsy population on a regular basis (mayor, priest, physician, health care assistant, primary school teacher, policeman, kindergarten teacher). The aim of the focus group research was to explore the set of criteria used by non-Roma persons in categorizing other persons as Roma in the society. The same research aim was set in focus groups consisting of persons who were identifiing themselves as Roma being recruited by the leaders of of the local Roma of the local Roma self-government. External categorization Due to the stable social composition of the local community, no doubts were revealed concerning the question "Who is Gypsy?". The stock of beliefs concerning the answer, however, varied immensely. According to the results there seem to be many ways of becoming Roma from the perspective of persons who are not Roma. Physical, sociological and social psychological traits were mentioned by the non Roma people which can serve as a basis of Gypsy categorization . Physical traits dark skin color dark color of the eye dark color of the hair smell of sweat white teeth Sociological traits living in segregated space reserved for Gypsies poverty family names Social psychological traits communication-social comparison begging behavior playing Gypsy music clothing style of behavior life style speech (vocabulary, intonation) clannishness arrogance bragging The non Gypsy respondents never admitted the role of discrimination in the profile which has emerged from the focus group interview. While the respondents sincerely believed that on the basis of the aspects enlisted fast and accurate definiton is possible, a mere glance at the list is enough to conclude that there are many situational circumstances which have been implied. There is no trait in the list which could not have had a different meaning depending on the situation of the encounter with the person. Sources of Gypsy self-identification On the basis of the responses of the persons who identified themselves as Gypsy two sorts of sources have emerged. The first source stemmed from exogenous effects. Exogeneous effects dichotomization ("we the Gypsies vs. they the Magyars" negative identification ( "You are not Magyar, "I am not a peasant"" perceived direct discrimination in childhood avoidance on behalf of the outgroup suspicion on the behalf of the outgroup negligence on behalf of the teacher labelling (prejudice, hostility, degradation) social discrimination perceived indirect discrimination in childhood (How clever you are despite your being Gypsy) Endogeneous effects In contrast with the motives of self-identification stemming from external sources the members of the Gypsy focus groups in defining themselves from the ingroup perspective were much less definite. The list of motives for endogeneous Gypsy self-definition was rather short: sense of self-identification temperament emotionality proneness to superstition In 1999 Mria Nemnyi (2000) carried out an investigation among mothers living in poverty in Hungary. There were Gypsies and non-Gypsies among the respondents. Some of them identified themselves as Gypsies, some of them were identifiing themsleves as non-Gypsies, and there was a mixed group. Members of this group denied the Gypsy self-identification while they were categorized as Gypsies by the nurse of the local public child care agency. The mothers were asked about their identity. The answers have shown again a variety of identity patterns ranging from acceptance to rejection of the category of Gypsy. 1. Gypsy identity This identity reflected an unambigous self-identifaction leaving no maneuvering for negotiation or doubt for the observer. 2. Gypsy identity through subgroup identification This identity reflected the inner division of the group which seems homogenous only for the non-Gypsy observer. In fact, there are severaly subgroups within the Gypsy group. One can be "olhcigny", "zenszcigny", "kolompr", "bes", or other. 3.Double identity Respondents of this response pattern referred to themselves as being "half Gypsy and half Magyar." It has been an open question how they would manage this duality of identity in everyday life. 4. Taking the external categorization Mothers of this response pattern have taken the external perspective without admitting whom they really consider themselves. "Other claim that I am Gypsy" -they stated. Or: "I look like a Gypsy". 5. Magyar identity As a result of the assimilation process these respondents identified themselves with the Magyar category stating that "we already are Magyars" or simply referred themselves as "Magyar citizens". 6. Negative identity There were respondents who were reluctant to identify themselves as Gypsy but simultaneously they were also unable to identify themselves with the Magyar category. This marginal status elicited the "neither-nor" type of response which can be considered as the tragic consequence of a failed attempt to assimilate on the other hand and self-hate of the other. IV. Identity by default Gypsy self-identification in contemporary Hungary clearly depends on discrimination. The role of discrimination, however, has not been seen by the non Gipsy respondents. Being Gypsy in Hungary is mainly an externally constructed social psychological cage from which there is no easy escape. In lack of this social psychological cage one is wondering what would remain from the Gypsy identity which is tormented by duality, negativity, and at the best is hardly more than a mood or personality pattern. Central Europe has frequently been cited as a nest of ethnic hatred where small nations such as Czechs, Slovaks, Magyars, Romanians, Croats, Serbs continously were involved in hopeless historical zero sum games. I contemporary Central Europe the otherwise bellicose small nations seem to be united in their hatred toward the Gypsy people. Table 1. Social distance in the Carpathian Basin HH H-SL SL-SL H-TS R-TS from Slovaks 2.29 1.44 1.11 x x from Romanians x x x 1.86 1.07 from Hungarians 1.09 1.13 1.56 1.05 2.12 from Czechs 2.32 2.03 1.41 x x from Gypsies 4.36 5.91 5.73 3.86 4.39 form Jews 2.31 3.36 2.77 2.35 2.49 Source: Csepeli, rkny, Szkelyi, 2000. Table 1 demonstrates that compared to the average level of interethnic social distance Hungarians living in Hungary (HH), South-Slovakia (HS) or Transylvaia (H-TS), Slovaks living in South Slovakia (SL-SL) and Romanians living in Transylvania (R-TS) feel far most distant from the Gypsy people. In order to investigate in a comparative perspective the situation of the Gypsy people in Central and Eastern Europe in 1999 a series of sociological surveys were carried out in Slovakia, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria. The research was directed by Ivn Szelnyi. One of the research aims was to reveal how the Gypsy categorization was brought about in the individual countries. In this paper results of the Hungarian survey will be presented briefly. The sample of respondents consisted of three parts. The first part of the sample was formed of a national representative sample (n=936). The second part consisted of 424 poor people who were selected after sreening a representative sample of 19000. Criteria of the screening are shown in Table 2. Table 2. Poverty characteristics unstable building unhealthy housing undernourishment inadequate clothig absence of basic furnishing crowdedness If any of the criteria was experienced by the interviewr the respondent was assigned into the "poor" sample. The third part of the sample was selected after screening the sample of 19000 too. Perceived attributes of Gypsy identity formed the basis of screening. After completing the screening interview the interviwers were asked to categorize the respondent whether he/she "looked like a Roma" or not. Criteria of the external categorization were taken from the focus group research which was mentioned above. Family name, way of life, speech characteristics, color of skin, self-identification of the respondent were taken into account as a basis of categorization. (Self-identification was not detected in the screening). Moreover, if the interviewer categorized the respondent into the Gypsy group he/she had to indicate the level of certainty of the judgment (from being certain to being undecided). Cosequently, respondents could be faced more than once with the categorizaton. Categorization could have been the result of the first encounter with the interviwer (screening) or result of the second encounter (international comparative survey). There were respondents who were categorized two times as Gypsies, there were ones who were categorized once (in the first encounter), and finally, there were respondents who were not categorized as Gypsies at all. External categorization and self-identification sometimes overlapped, sometimes not. As far as the nature of external categorization on behalf of the interviewers concerns further sociological and social psychological studies should be carried out. For the moment, it seems to be clear that the interviewers do not represent the non-Gypsy environment. The interviewers tend to be younger, more educated than the population. Women were overrepresented among them. It can be safely assumed that inteviewers on the whole probably would be more tolerant and open minded than the population which is especiall prone to hostility and intolerance against the Gypsies (Postma, 1996.) The number of respondents involved in any of the categorization procedures was 514. Taking into account all categorization varieties experienced in the research, four roads to Gypsy existence were distinguished. 1. External categorization, once (28 %) 2. External categorization, twice (27 %) 3. Overlapping categorization (45 %) Level of certainty of the external categorization was clearly influenced by the presence or absence of self-identification. Persons who identified themselves as Gypsies were identified by the interviewers as Gypsies too. Certainty of the categorization, however, was much less when the respondents gave no encouragement concerning their Gypsy identity. Poverty and being Gypsy is one of the cornerstones of the stereotypes attributed to the Gypsy people. Consequently, in the first part of the analysis we tried to find those sociological variables which made possible the differentiation of Gypsies from non-Gypsies on the grounds of common poverty characteristics. From the six poverty characteristics which were earlier mentioned in Table 1 three characteristics had an effect of discrimination. Surprisingly, results of discrimination analysis have shown that persons who were affected by any variety of the Gypsy categorization proved less poor than poor persons without Gypsy categorization. Whatever is the meaning of Gypsy, being Gypsy per se does not increase the level of poverty compared to the level of poverty of the poor people without Gypsy categorization. Non-Gypsy poor people were more prone to live in dangerous or unhealty houses than the Gypsies. Moreover, the Gypsies were seen less undernourished that the non Gypsy poor respondents and inadequate clothing was also more characteristic to the non-Gypsy poor than to the Gypsy ones. Absence of furnishment, overcrowding and living in an unstable building were playing much less role in disriminating the poor non Gypsies and the Gypsies on the level of perception of the interviewers. In order to explore more differences other variables were included in the analysis. It turned out that the non Gypsy poor people compared to the Gypsies were differentiated by abstaining from agricultural activity, and their place of residence. People categorized as Gypsies tend to live in greater settlements than the poor non-Gypsies. Other models of discrimination analysis have shown that Gypsy categorization depends on the age of the respondent. The younger were the respondents the higher was the chance of becomiong Gypsy. Years of education have shown a reverse effect. The less was the years spent in education the higher was the chance to become Gypsy. Finally, the number of living young children had an effect too. More children - greater likelihood of becoming Gypsy. Summarizing the results of the first step of our analysis we can state that on the background of perceived poverty characteristics external Gypsy categorization tends to be elicited by persons who seem relatively young, less poor in terms of dangereous and unhealty housing, undernourishment, have less education (unfinished elemantary school, no attendance in vocational or secondary school), and have a greater number of children. In the next step of the analysis we tried to look for the variables which account in discrimination between the two groups of persons of Gypsy appearance (categorized as Gypsies in the first encounter but were not categorized as Gypsies in the second encounter). The same set of variables were selected. Poverty characteristics did not play any role in discrimination. Years in education, number of children and age continued to play a role in discrimination. The chance of Gypsy categorization was much higher in the case of the younger, the less educated, and those who had more children. New variables were introduced. We looked for the the role of the criteria of external Gypsy categorization. The number of children ceased to play a role in the discrimination. Instead, family name and self-identification each emereged as a variable determining the result of external catgorization. In the third step of the analysis we tried to identify variables which account for the discrmination between persons of Gypsy appearance without Gypsy self-identification and persons of Gypsy appearance with Gypsy self-identification. In order to find the most adequate explanation three models were created. Each model had common and different elements. The first model showed that compared to persons categorized as Gypsies without self-identification persons identifying themselves as Gypsies (and also identified as such) tend to have parents who have extremely low education, who are less prone to self-sustaining agricultural production, and tend to live in segregated neighbourhoods. The second model showed that there is an impact of the characteristics of poverty taken them together in one principal component. Persons appearing as Gypsies and identifying themselves as Gypsies seem much poorer than Gypsies who are not sharing the external catgorization. According to this model the perceived income level also had an effect. The greater the felt discrepancy beween the own income and the perceived average income in the society, the higher was the tendency to end up in the group of persons categorized as Gypsies by the interviewers and simultaneously categorizing themselves as Gypsies. The third model substantiated the results of the second and the first models. All models, however, had relatively little explanatory power. As we have approached the group of unambigous Gypsy identity the explanatory power of the models have decreased. Taking into account the complexity of the cognitive processes involved this tendency gives no reason to surprise. Concluson In contemporary Hungarian society poverty per se does not seem to be the necessary condition of setting in operation the Gypsy categorization procedure. Persons, however, can be defined as Gypsy without their consent. External categorization practices seem to be determined by preestablished patterns of perception such as family name, abstaining from agricultural acitivity judged as habitual, low education, greater than the average number of children. External categorization does not necessarlily correspond to internal acceptance of the categorization. The overlap of the two categorizations seems to be resulting in segregation and exclusion such as assignment into the poorest echelons of the society, and the experience of deprivation. Gypsy identity at the moment seems to be the identity of those in society who have nothing to lose. Passing of the category of Roma seems possible. It remains to be seen how it would be possible to preserve Roma identity without derogatory meaning perpetuated by the non Roma majority. Literature Csepeli, G,. Bks, Z. 1994. The Impact of Class, Ethnicity, and Nationality on the Identity of Disadvantaged Young Hungarians. In Farnen, R. (ed.) Nationalism, Ethnicity, and identity. Cross National and Comparative Pe5rspectives. New Bruswick:Transactions. 357-369. Csepeli, Gy., rkny, A. Szkelyi, M. 1998. Hogyan lesz egy ember cigny? (How one becomes a Gypsy?) Kritika, 3. 30-31. Csepeli, Gy., rkny, A., Szkelyi, M. 2000. Grappling with national identity. How nations see each other in Central Europe. Budapest: Akadmiai Hann, E. Tomka, M. Prtos, F. 1979. A kzvlemny a cignyokrl. (Public Opinion on the Gypsies). Budapest: Tmegkommunikcis Kutatkzpont. Tanulmnyok, beszmolk, jelentsek, Havas, G. Kemny, I. Kertesi, G. 1998. A relatv cignyok a klasszifikcis kzdQtren (The relativization of Gypsies). Kritika, 3.331-33. Horowitz, D. 1985. Ethnic Groups in Conflict. Berkeley, Los Angeles, London:University of California Press Foot, N.N. 1951. Identification as the basis for a theory of motivation. American Sociological Review. 26.14-21. Kertesi, G. 1998. Az empirikus cignykutats lehetQsgeirQl (Is it poosible to investigate empirically the Gypsies?)Replika. 3. Kertesi, G., Kzdi, G. 1998. A cigny npessg Magyarorszgon (The Gypsy population in Hungary) Budapest: Socio-typo. Ladnyi, J., Szelnyi, I. 1997. Ki a cigny? (Who is Gypsy) Kritika.12,3-5. Ladnyi, J. Szelnyi I. Mg egyszer az etnikai besorols objektivitsrl. (Once again on the objectivity of ethnic categorization) Replika. 6. Nemnyi, M. 2000. Identits vagy stigma? let s irodalom. X.20. 8-9. Postma, K. 1996. Changing prejudice in Hungary:A study on the collapse of state socialism and its impact on prejudice against Gypsies and Jews. Groningen:Thesis Publication Pepels, J. 1998. The myth of the positive crossed categorization effects. The University of Utrecht.ERCOMER Monographs. Stewart, M. 1997. The time of the Gypsies. Boulder, Co.:Westview Szuhay, P. 1997. Akiket cignynak neveznek-akik magukat romnak, muzsikusnak vagy besnak mondjk.(Those who are called Gypsies and but identify themselveds as Roma, muzsikus or bes) Magyar Tudomny. 6. 656-675. Tajfel, H. 1981. Human groups and social categories. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press Trzsk, J. 1998. Kik az "igazi" cignyok (Who are the "real" Gipsies?) In Kovalcsik, K. (szerk.) Tanulmnyok a cignysg trsadalmi helyzete s kulrja krbQl. Budapest:BTF-IFA-MKM. 29-52. Turner, J.C., Hogg, M.A., Oakes, J.C., Reicher, S.D., Wetherell, M.S. 1987. Rediscovering the social group:A self-categorization theory. Oxford: Blackwell. Verkuyten, M. 1998. Ethnic Minority Identification. (manuscript) Utrecht University. Faculty of Social Sciences. h CJOJQJ57VWST+ , $a$h  "#`a,CR^_st%7B$a$Bboy R!S!f!g!!!!"4"\""""""###7#8#M$N$$a$N$k$w$$$$Z&[&''''''''(((())))P*****X+$a$X+Y+n+o+,,,,..<0=0n0o000001k11122$2E2F2m3n31525$a$25[6\6e6f6~66666666688|:}:I<<<>>???!@F@G@A$a$AABBhCiCDDEEFFHH!HIIKKLLMMOOPPQQzT$a$zT{TUUUUYYYZZ[J[[[] ]6^8^____``aa>b?b$a$?bbbccccc=d>dddUeVeeeeffhh$a$. A!"#$% i0@0 Norml_HmHsHtH@A@@ Bekezds alap-betqtpusa2Z@2 Csak szvegOJQJ`57VWST+,   "#`a,CR^_st%7BboyRSfg4\"#78M N k w Z"["########$$$$%%%%P&&&&&X'Y'n'o'((((**<,=,n,o,,,,0-k---..$.E.F.m/n/1121[2\2e2f2~22222222244|6}6I888::;;;!<F<G<==>>h?i?@@AABBDD!DEEGGHHIIKKLLMMzP{PQQQQUUUVVWIWJWWWXXYYYYYYzZ{ZZZ>[?[[[\\\\\=]>]]]U^V^^^^q_r_``000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000h7BN$X+25AzT?bh8:;<=>?@Ah9#+,19ADJKMPUW\]ghkoyz|  "&'34:>CDHIPTVWZ[^_ceou}~   '(./26:;=>GHJKTU]^ijoquv|  "#)*3467=>ABHW]^`ackpqyz}~   #$&'+,4578>?LNV^`ahimostyz}~&'+,/078EFQRXY[\_`ijlmz}"-.03679:FGQRUVeflmuv !"-.0145=>CISTW`bcghjktv|} ),./45;<@AIJLMPQVWYZdehimnxy{          # $ . / 8 : H I M N T U [ a h i l m u v } ~       ( ) 2 3 : ; E F J K O P U W ^ _ a b g j r s } ~          * + . / 4 ; D E O P S T ^ _ e f q r t u x y         $ ( / 1 3 4 7 8 > ? K L S T \ ^ b c h j m n v x        # % & ) * 5 7 9 : = > C D H J T U ] ^ a b n o t u y z   !()0145?GIJOPRSVW_`cdghrs{|~-34?@EFKLRSVW[\`ahqtuxy|} !#'(-.019:ABFGNORS]_efjmrtvwz|  "%,-/0;@BCFGRSWX[\ghoprsxy|}  #)+,/0;<CDHINO[\_dmswx|}  !"$%()57;<GHNORS[]`adehiorwx{    "-3467<=CDHIRSUX_`degqstwx|}   %&0136=>CEJLRT]_efjktv}~ %&-.0689<=DJNOWX[\_`cdfglmst~ !#&')*-.45;<GHJKNOTU^cijnowx  '-1256ABDELMPQTUXaikwx{|   "#&'*,01679:=>BCHIKLQRWX]_klrtz{}~$%*+-.67;<ABHJTV`bnoxy '(015689<=BCEFIJQRZ[_`cdlmvz  $%()-5>?FGPQSTWXabdehirswx{|"'(./67;<EFMS]^egvy{|#$&'*+34=>@ADEKLNORS[\fgijpqstwx #./68:;CDHILMTUWXkltuyz       ! " ' ( 7 8 ; < B C H N S T V W j w ! ! !!!!!!!'!(!-!.!1!2!=!?!C!D!F!G!K!L!V!W!a!b!d!e!l!n!r!s!u!v!z!{!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"" " """""""%"&"(")","-"2"3"5"6"9":"?"@"F"G"L"M"Q"R"X"_"f"g"k"l"q"r"w"x"}"~"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""## ######%#&#/#0#2#3#=#>#P#Q#X#\#g#h#k#l#w#x#z#{####################################$$$ $ $$$$$$ $#$$$-$.$6$8$:$;$?$A$F$G$J$K$S$T$]$^$d$e$h$i$n$o$t$v$y$z$}$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$%%%%%%%%%%#%$%'%(%,%6%8%=%A%B%D%E%I%J%R%S%V%W%[%\%a%b%h%i%m%n%u%v%x%y%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%&&& &&&&&&&#&$&,&-&7&:&?&@&E&F&J&M&O&P&U&X&\&]&c&e&g&l&p&q&u&x&}&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&'' ' '''''''"'$'&'''-'.'6'7'A'B'D'M'U'\'d'e'm'o't'u'y'z'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''( ((((( (((0(1(4(6(A(C(G(H(J(K(S(T(Y(Z(](a(k(l(n(o(r(s(y(z((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( ) ) ) ))")))*)1)2)4)5)C)I)M)N)P)Q)_)a)h)n)q)r)v)w){)|)~))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))** * *********#*$***+*8*9*=*>*A*E*N*O*S*T*Y*Z*`*a*e*f*i*j*o*p*x*z*********************************++ + +++++++++%+&+,+-+2+3+8+9+@+A+E+F+H+I+O+Q+X+Z+a+c+l+n+t+v+{+|+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++,,,,, ,,,,,,,",#,),*,-,.,3,4,:,=,B,F,L,M,U,V,X,Y,\,],g,h,m,,,,,,,,,,-----0-4-5-?-k-o-p-v-----------.".F.K.N.Z.[._.`.h.i.k.l.o.p.w.x.}.~...........................// ////!/"/(/)/+/,/8/@/D/N/U/V/Z/[/^/_/d/e/k/n/p/q/v/w/y/z/////////////////////////////////////00 0 000000 0(030:0;0>0?0G0M0U0V0Y0Z0b0c0e0k0s0u0x0y0{0|00000000000000000000000000000000000000000001111111111'1(1/161<1=1?1@1K1L1U1V1X1Y1^1_1d1j1o1u1w1x1{1|1111111111111111111111111111111122 222 2!2#2+232426272:2;2D2E2H2I2N2O2Q2R2W2\2a2f2m2n2}2222222222222222222222222222222233 3 3333333)3*3-3.38393<3=3E3F3J3K3N3P3T3V3\3b3g3m3o3p3s3t3z3{3~3333333333333333333333333333333333333344 4 4444 4#4$4/4044454:4;4=4>4H4I4L4M4W4X4_4`4f4h4n4o4s4|4~44444444444444444444444444444444444444445555 5 555"5$5)5*5,5-51535F5G5I5J5M5N5X5Y5]5^5c55555555R6T6X6^6_6f6g6i6p6y666 7"7+7-7/7s7x77777*8586888y8888888888D9G999999 :c:h:p:q:t::::::::;7;A;B;E;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;<<$</<0<><G<L<<<<<<<E=L=N=Q==================================>>>> >>>>> >#>$>)>/>1>O>P>U>>>>>>>>>>>)?.?1?6?J?K?M?N?T?U?W?????@@@ @b@e@i@@@@@@@@@A&A}AAAAAAAAAAA>BGBKBLBSBTBXB^BbBcBeBfBsBtBwBxB|BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBCCCiCwCCCCDDDD D DD!D&D'D-D.D0D1D?D@DHDIDMDNDSDTDXDYD^D_DmDnDuDvDxDyD|D}DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDEE E EEEE E#E$E)E*E/E0E2E3E]P]``"``RP7C:\WIN95\Profiles\Dvid\Asztal\Gypsy categorization.docRP7C:\WIN95\Profiles\Dvid\Asztal\Gypsy categorization.docRP<C:\WIN95\TEMP\Automatikusan mentett Gypsy categorization.asdRP<C:\WIN95\TEMP\Automatikusan mentett Gypsy categorization.asdRP7C:\WIN95\Profiles\Dvid\Asztal\Gypsy categorization.docRP<C:\WIN95\TEMP\Automatikusan mentett Gypsy categorization.asdRP7C:\WIN95\Profiles\Dvid\Asztal\Gypsy categorization.docRP7C:\WIN95\Profiles\Dvid\Asztal\Gypsy categorization.docIgazgat(C:\Dokumentumok\Gypsy categorization.doc Csillei Bla!C:\angol\Gypsy categorization.doc`@`` d``LXY[_``P@P\P^P@PfP@UnknownG:Times New Roman5Symbol3& :Arial?5 :Courier New"1 VMK[F O(Y20aRPIgazgat Oh+'0P    $08@HssRPPNormal Igazgat 11zMicrosoft Word 9.0@4@$ٶJ@Zq O ՜.+,0 hp  The Cat Company(a  Cm  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~Root Entry Fjnq1TableC/WordDocumentSummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8CompObjlObjectPooljnqjnq  FMicrosoft Word dokumentum MSWordDocWord.Document.89q