Social Justice and Adequate Housing

Rights, Roma Inclusion and the Feeling of Home

Silvia Cittadini

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2021
• ISBN:
  9781000405088
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Diritto
• Subtopic: Teoria e pratica del diritto

This book presents a critical analysis of the concept of 'adequate housing'.

While the concept of adequate housing is used largely as a normative standard in the protection of housing rights and in the implementation of housing policies, its apparent objectivity and universality have never been questioned by political and legal theory. This book analyses and challenges the understanding of this term in law and politics by investigating its relationship with the idea of 'home'. 'It is necessary to provide them with adequate housing!' It is very common to hear this phrase when dealing with housing poverty, especially in relation to migrants, minorities, indigenous and other subaltern groups are concerned. But what does "adequate housing" mean? This book tackles this issue by proposing a critical analysis of this concept and of its use in the development of housing policies addressing the subaltern group par excellence in Europe, Roma. In so doing, it focuses on the lives of Roma and Sinti in Italy who have been the target of inclusion policies. Highlighting the emotional connection to housing, and dismantling some of the most 'common sense' ideas about Roma, it offers a radical revision of how social justice in the housing sector might be refigured.

This book will be invaluable for scholars and students working on relevant themes in socio and critical legal studies, sociology, human rights, urban studies, human geography and Romani studies

1 “Adequate housing” in policy and law

limits and ways forward

DOI: 10.4324/9781003184539-2

A path towards housing inclusion? The EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies

One of the main criticisms moved to the EU action for the inclusion of Roma concerns its incapacity to fully recognise and tackle the roots of the marginalisation of Roma in Europe: Anti-Gypsyims. As mentioned, this term does not refer exclusively to act of direct discrimination but to a whole series of structures and practices that keep Roma in a subjugated position. In this context, a major role is played by the construction and representation of this group in public discourse, which can be critically analysed through the concept of symbolic violence. This form of oppression is based on the construction of a reality that defines the position and the role of each element composing the social picture and that is perceived as natural and objective. Here, classification and dichotomies are crucial as they divide society in sections, forming a hierarchy that de facto neglects the principle of “equality” – individuals are divided between those “belonging” and “non-belonging”, “civilised” and “uncivilised”, “deserving” and “undeserving”, and this divisions define the position and the rights of each person. The construction and representation of Roma in public discourses reflects this model: they have always been presented as something “other” from the rest of European society, and, therefore, “non-belonging”; their agency and subjectivity was hidden by a series of stereotypes that depicted them as “exotic” and “dangerous”, attached to a backward culture that prevented them to adapt to contemporary society. As a consequence, they have been excluded from knowledge production and decision-making as they have been considered not ready to be treated as peers in the modern world, and this prevented the eradication of the prejudices that maintained their subordinate position.

According to some of the main scholars who analysed the implementation of the EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies 2011–2020, the EU institutions did not only fail to tackle this issue, but also reproduced some of the most common stereotypes that informed this model (Fekete, 2014; Iusmen, 2018; Kavrakova,According to some of the main scholars who analysed the implementation of the EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies 2011–2020, the EU institutions did not only fail to tackle this issue, but also reproduced some of the most common stereotypes that informed this model (Fekete, 2014; Iusmen, 2018; Kavrakova, 2013; Matache, 2017; Rostas, 2019). Great hopes were place on the new phase of the EU engagement for the inclusion of Roma, whose start can be found in the Roma Summit held in 2008 in Brussels, when the first guidelines of the new approach were established. Before that, the EU action in this field was limited to Eastern European countries, which were required to enforce anti-discriminatory legislation before being accepted as Member States. Nevertheless, the failure of such measures in improving the conditions of Roma within these areas, the growth of Romani migrants towards West and the rise of anti-Roma policies moved EU institutions to strengthen their engagement in this field and to change the approach. This led to the adoption of the EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies in 2011, a document requiring all Member States to adopt and implement National Strategies for the integration of Roma in four sectors: education, employment, health and housing. Along with the establishment of the Framework, EU institutions and agencies commissioned a series of studies in this field and regularly published recommendations on the measures to be taken and monitoring reports. For this reason, the authority and influence of EU Institutions in directing strategies for the inclusion of Roma in Member States increased significantly, attracting the attention of social scientists.

The poor outcomes of the Strategy and the persistent rise of anti-Roma sentiments all over Europe sparked a debate on the reasons of such failure, which surely lie also in the lack of engagement by Member States that have implemented local policies discontinuously. Nevertheless, the socio-economic approach adopted by EU institutions for tackling the issue has been criticised for overlooking the structural barriers to inclusion based on anti-gypsyism and for promoting a narrative that reinforces stereotypes and informs a paternalistic approach, which, in turn, feeds anti-Roma sentiments. In this context, the narrative on the inclusion of Roma plays a primary role because it naturalises a certain construction of Roma that, as above explained, prevents their emersion and empowerment. This is especially true when such narrative is reproduced by public institutions perceived as authoritative and objective (Kóczé, 2017; Kostka, 2015; Marushiakova & Popov, 2015; Richardson, 2006). For this reason, a critical discourse analysis of the EU documents investigating the presence of narrative constructions based on anti-gypsyism can reveal some of the aspects behind the failure of the EU action in this sector and inform a change of approach.

This criticism of EU institutions has already been moved before the adoption of the EU Framework (McGarry & Drake, 2013; Rövid, 2011; Simhandl, 2009). As a consequence, the documents released after 2008 pay major attention to some issues that were raised on the representation of Roma. The first one regarded the construction of the subject “Roma”, which did not recognise diversity within the group, reifying the constructed division between “non-Roma” and “Roma” and supporting the “otherness” of the latter. This criticism moved the EU institutions to clarify that “Roma” is used as an umbrella term to refer to a series of different groups. Nevertheless, a critical discourse analysis of the documents released between 2008 and 2017 highlights how terms such as “Roma community”, “Roma minority” and “the Roma” remain largely used, alluding to the presence of a well-defined “Minority”. This narrative construction is also confirmed by the reference to Roma as “Europe’s largest ethnic minority”, present in many documents. Moreover, the use of “Roma” as umbrella term continues to be justified by the argument that Roma would share “similar cultural characteristics” (European Commission, 2008a, 2010a), overlooking the fact that most of the Romani groups have more characteristics in common with the fellow citizens than with other Romani groups.

Another narrative construction largely used and that irremediably reifies this group as a well-defined and distinct community is the use of “Roma” as an adjective in the identification of other terms, such as “Roma issues”, “Roma needs” and “Roma culture”. A significative example, in this sense, is the use of “Roma culture” in the EC’s document Vademecum – The 10 Common Basic Principles of Roma Inclusion. Within the section addressing intercultural approach, it states: “through this approach, the majority population is provided with tools and competencies to help them understand the Roma culture, and the Roma are provided with tools and competencies to understand mainstream culture” (European Commission, 2010c). The resulting narrative, instead of breaking the constructed boundaries, reinforces the idea of the existence of two identifiable and distinct groups with their own specific cultures.

This process of identification and division is then backed by the association between Roma and a series of social issues, such as poverty, unemployment, social exclusion, etc. The cultural homogenisation that presents Roma as a group distinguished by a series of cultural characteristics is, therefore, followed by a form of social homogenisation. Indeed, the documents here considered indiscriminately describe Roma as: “particularly exposed to high rates of poverty, unemployment”, “excluded”, “young population with disadvantages” (European Commission, 2008a), “particularly vulnerable to social exclusion, poverty and discrimination” (European Commission, 2008c). They are associated with “disadvantaged groups”, “vulnerable groups”, “socio-economic/social exclusion”, “marginalised communities” (European Commission, 2012a, 2012c, 2016). Furthermore, according to these documents, they would “lack the education needed to find a job” (European Commission, 2011a), “live in deep poverty lacking access to healthcare and decent housing” (European Commission, 2012a), and are “vulnerable to exploitation” (Council of the European Union, 2013).

Marushiakova and Popov (2015) rightly point out that the apparently contradictory representations of Roma as an ethnic group with specific cultural characteristics, on one hand, and as a social group marked by poverty and marginality, on the other, are actually two sides of the same coin. The resulting ethnicization of poverty blames the victims and their “culture” for the poor conditions in which they live and the role of racism and structural discrimination is completely neglected. In this picture, the agency of the Romani individual disappears – they are seen as trapped into a vicious circle made of poverty and backwardness, which prevents them to improve their conditions without the support of someone from the outside. This narrative, along with reproducing a series of dangerous stereotypes, informs a specific policy-making, raising two main issues.

The first one is the perception of “Roma” as something “Other”, feeding an approach that considers them as something that does not belong in European society. They are indeed treated like immigrants who need to be “integrated” into the host society, forgetting their presence since the Middle Ages and their role in the European history and society. Furthermore, the constructed “otherness” of Roma moves political institutions to develop “special policies” for their inclusion. This approach, as highlighted by Joanna Kostka (2015), leads to the realisation of policies detached from the broader social policies and that consequently fail to address the institutional barriers to inclusion. The resulting outcomes, other than missing the goal of improving their conditions, risk increasing anti-Roma sentiments as other disadvantaged groups see public funds spent on Roma in vain (Vermeersch, 2012). They also risk nourishing the idea that Roma are the problem and that they do not want to “integrate”, since investments in this sector did not bring change (Piasere et al., 2014)

The second issue concerns their representation as indiscriminately poor and marginal, because it leads to a paternalistic approach that treats them either as children, who need to be educated before becoming real citizens, or as objects that can be moved according to the will of the policy-maker (Boschetti & Vitale, 2011; Gay y Blasco, 2003; Marushiakova & Popov, 2017; Rodriguez Maeso, 2014; van Baar, 2017). In their analysis of the European approach to Roma, Angela Kóczé and Nidhi Trehan (2009) refers to the post-colonial term infantilization, coined by Frantz Fanon (1963) to identify the tendency to treat colonial subjects as immature beings. Exactly like in their case, policies towards Roma are designed around the idea that the members of this group have to go through a process of training and change before being able to exit the circle of poverty and backwardness that keeps them at the margins. In this context, Roma are kept out of decision-making, their participation remains tokenistic and often linked to a supposed process of “training”. They are simply supposed to follow the rules and accept what others decide for them. This typically colonial approach prevents Roma from emerging as equal peers in decision making, keeping them in a subordinate position.

“Roma integration” and “adequate housing”

What has “adequate housing” to do with this? As mentioned, housing is one of the main sectors addressed by the EU Framework and, for this reason, part of the analyses conducted by EU institutions and policy recommendations concern the housing situation of Roma. Here, the argument is largely constructed around two main divides which often go hand in hand: segregated vs. integrated housing and inadequate vs. adequate housing. The studies conducted in this field by EU Agencies generally present the housing conditions of Roma as inadequate and segregated and, therefore, call for policies aimed at tackling the issue, mostly with the relocation of Romani families living in such settings to integrated and adequate accommodation.

If we look at the documents supporting the EU Framework, it is possible to notice that the representation of the housing conditions of Roma is in line with, and contributes to, the depiction of Roma as intrinsically poor and disadvantaged. Indeed, in all the documents taken into consideration, the houses inhabited by Roma are described as “to be develo...