A Qualitative Approach Can Be RigorousLa rigueur du qualitatif: les contraintes empiriques de l’interprétation socio‐anthropologique. By Jean‐Pierre Olivier de Sardan. Louvain‐la‐Neuve: Academia Bruylant, 2008.

Abstract

view of their political status is of interest, as is her analysis of how Foucault and others may view the idea of sovereignty, but the bottom line is how Congress and the federal courts view it, and Seminole gaming has not changed that. Congressional plenary authority over Indian affairs remains, and it may alter or eliminate tribal powers of self-governance regardless of the tribes’ wealth or poverty. Cattelino’s final chapter is a summary but also focuses on the acquisition by the tribe in 2006 of Hard Rock International. Before this, despite efforts at diversification, virtually all tribal income was based on its casinos. With the worldwide chain of cafes and hotels, the tribe potentially frees itself from casino “monocultivation,” a bad idea in agriculture, as witness the Irish potato famine. It is a bad idea in Indian economics as well, no matter how productive, because of congressional plenary authority. In 1988, Congress limited Indian gaming; it could just as easily have prohibited it entirely and could do so in the future. Historically, the political tolerance for “sin,” including gambling, has been cyclical: lotteries were widespread in the original colonies and have only since the 1960s emerged from a long era of prohibition. Overall, this is a good book. It raises many questions of interest to students of the federal-Indian relation and offers considerable insight into the efforts of one people to come to terms with remarkable change.