Romaphobia

The Last Acceptable Form of Racism

Dr Aidan McGarry

• Editorial: Zed Books
• Año: 2017
• ISBN:
  9781783604029
• Edición: 1
• Categoría: Sciences sociales
• Categoría: Études des minorités

Based on first-hand accounts from Roma communities, Romaphobia is an examination of the discrimination faced by one of the most persecuted groups in Europe. Well-researched and informative, it shows that this discrimination has its roots in the early history of the European nation-state, and the ways in which the landless Roma have been excluded from national communities founded upon a notion of belonging to a particular territory. Romaphobia allows us to unpick this relationship between identity and belonging, and shows the way towards the inclusion of Roma in society, providing vital insights for other marginalized communities.

CHAPTER 1

ROMAPHOBIA: MARGINALIZATION AND STIGMATIZATION IN EUROPE

Today, Roma are one of the most marginalized groups in Europe, with anti-Roma attitudes on the rise. In many societies it is perfectly acceptable to denigrate Roma by invoking so-called traits and characteristics that all Roma supposedly possess. These qualities are invariably negative: Roma, as a group, are accused of criminality, deviancy, and living parasitic lifestyles. Romaphobia is the hatred or fear of those individuals perceived as being Roma, Gypsy or Traveller; it involves the negative ascription of group identity and can result in marginalization, persecution and violence. Romaphobia is a manifestation of racism: it is cut from the same cloth. Romaphobia is no different in form and content to Islamophobia or anti-Semitism, both of which are on the rise in Europe, but its causes can be particularized. There is something specific about Romaphobia, even if its racist core is familiar. I intend to explore the specifics. Instead of detailing manifestations of Romaphobia, this book uncovers the causes of racism towards Roma communities and points to constructive ways to combat Romaphobia.

While defining Roma is challenging due to the prevalence of multiple societal and political-legal representations (McGarry 2014), I follow the Council of Europe’s (2012) definition: ‘Roma’ includes ‘Roma, Sinti, Kale, and related groups in Europe, including Travellers and the Eastern groups (Dom and Lom) and covers the wide diversity of the groups concerned including persons who identify themselves as Gypsies’. Roma number between 10 million and 12 million people and are present in every state in Europe. Let me start with a simple but illuminating fact: legally sanctioned forms of discrimination against Roma have receded but anti-Roma prejudice persists – indeed, Roma are more segregated and unequal than ever before. This requires investigation. The extensive list of negative stereotypes of Roma, Gypsies and Travellers is instructive and depressing: Roma are regarded as a menace, a scourge and a disease, as secretive, unadaptable and ungovernable. But why? Why are Roma so vilified in every society and in every state in which they reside? Why is it somehow acceptable to discuss Roma in terms we would not apply to other communities? I want to know why this is the case for several reasons. First, like homophobia and Islamophobia, Romaphobia is an irrational fear that serves political ends: it is man-made and thus can be confronted and ultimately changed. In order to do this we need to understand why Romaphobia exists. Second, any attempt to improve the social, economic and political position of Roma must grapple with the root causes of anti-Roma prejudice. Policy interventions in education, employment, housing and health are doomed to failure unless they meet the challenge of Romaphobia head on. Only by understanding the causes of Romaphobia can meaningful solutions be found. Third, the issue of responsibility is oft discussed but a common solution has found little traction. Who is responsible for the integration of Roma communities (if we agree that integration is the goal anyway)? International organizations, national governments and civil society have failed to address the most pressing socio-economic concerns of this group, and the socio-economic position of Roma has actually deteriorated in the last thirty years across Europe. So, whose fault is that? Many Roma have been unable to mobilize politically in a significant manner to articulate their needs and interests because of structural disadvantages, yet failure to improve their condition is met with accusations from the majority that Roma are helpless and hopeless. It is commonly believed that Roma do not want to integrate so should be left alone to inhabit a parallel society. However, I intend to show that Roma have never lived separate from the majority; indeed, their perceived difference has been harnessed by the state and by other actors to foster national unity, with disastrous results for Roma, who in the process have been constructed as the perennial outsider community that does not belong.

Roma have never been so high up the political agenda of national governments and the European Union, with significant media interest in Roma communities (on television and film and in books). However, despite this spike in interest, there is no clear understanding of why Roma are so vilified and so excluded in every state in which they reside. Romaphobia diverts attention from the current academic and policy trends of documenting the regrettable situation of Roma across Europe and argues that it is crucial to understand the causes of Romaphobia and not just its consequences. It challenges some of the dominant trends in academic literature on Roma and seeks to explain who Roma are. Many academics who work on Roma start by asking why Roma are the poorest, most vilified minority group in Europe, but somehow we lose our way as we evidence instances of anti-Roma prejudice and draw attention to the discrimination and persecution of Roma communities and individuals across Europe. Of course, it is imperative that we spotlight violence against Roma, the destruction of housing by authorities, the targeting and expulsion of Roma communities, ethnic profiling by the police, school segregation of Romani children, coercive sterilization of Roma women, intimidation, hate speech by elected representatives from across the political spectrum, and accusations of child abduction. However, we lack any clear comprehension of where this prejudice comes from or how it is sustained. Romaphobia therefore seeks to uncover distinct processes of exclusion and persecution by exploring the relationship between identity, territory and belonging.

I use ‘Romaphobia’ in preference to other similar terms such as anti-Tsiganism or anti-Gypsyism partly because ‘Gypsy’ and ‘Tsigan’ are considered offensive and many prefer the endonym ‘Roma’. Romaphobia does have a number of drawbacks because it does not refer to those who do not consider themselves ‘Roma’ or who are not identified by others as such. Anti-Tsiganism/anti-Ziganism and anti-Gypsyism help capture the negative attitudes and legacies of stigmatization regarding those whom others consider to be ‘Gypsies’, ‘Tsigan’ or ‘Zigans’. I prefer the term Romaphobia because it captures the fear that motivates negative attitudes towards Roma communities. While there are certain benefits of fear, such as foresight and caution, it can also lead to factionalism. In History, Thucydides argues that fear is necessary and beneficial, acting as an important incentive to the formation of states, that it can be found everywhere, and that therefore fear is fundamental to the human condition. The collective fear of Roma communities is created and maintained by physical and symbolic segregation between Roma and non-Roma, and it is sustained by suspicion and distrust. Over time, conjecture replaces fact, with the majority regarding Roma as secretive, untrustworthy, and distinct from the rest of society. As Roma are seen as being different, they do not belong to mainstream society and, importantly, they do not have the same investment in the collective community, such as the nation. Even as Roma communities seek to integrate and assimilate, through the adoption of religion or language, their presence is seen as hostile and threatening, inducing fear of the ‘other’. But fear alone is not enough to explain anti-Roma prejudice and attitudes; this is why it is important to focus on diverse causes of Romaphobia. I argue that Roma communities have been used by nation-builders and state-builders to furnish material power and to generate ideas of solidarity, belonging and identity that have served to exclude Roma from mainstream society. The main questions guiding the book are as follows: why is Romaphobia so prevalent in European societies and how is it manifest? What impact does Romaphobia have on understandings of Roma identity, territoriality and belonging? How can Roma communities address negative associations of group identity and participate in the economic, cultural and political life of mainstream societies?

I am aware that I run the risk of painting Roma as a hopeless community beset by stigma and persecution, a picture that disregards the wonderfully mundane and ordinary lives of many Roma. Not all Roma experience their lives as targets of oppression. Our eyes may search for the sensationalistic or dramatic images of Roma persecution but this reveals more about us than anything else. We must be careful not to mask the joy and hope in the lives of Roma individuals by reducing Roma people to oppressed caricatures drudging through their lives on the margins of society. Furthermore, Romaphobia can inspire positive reactions, such as the celebration of Roma history and identity. Indeed, recent years have seen a reawakening of Roma pride – a direct challenge to narratives of stigma and persecution – as well as ownership over these narratives and discourses through the emergence of the European Roma Institute to promote Romani culture, arts and heritage.

The book is guided by the conviction that we cannot hope to understand the causes of Romaphobia by focusing on purported characteristics of Roma. In order to understand where Romaphobia comes from it is necessary to widen our analytical lens to capture the relationships and processes that have created Romaphobia historically and fuel it today. For this reason, I look beyond ethnicity and race as causes of marginalization and examine how they have been used to create difference, fear and hatred. One of the arguments of the book is that Romaphobia is a legacy of nation-building and state-building exercises in Europe. The key to understanding why Roma are marginalized across Europe lies in our conception of territory and space as well as in processes of identity construction and maintenance. This ‘identity work’ includes European state nationalism as well as articulations of Roma identity and, importantly, the negative ascription of Roma identity by the majority. One example of the latter is the stereotype of Roma as itinerant ‘nomads’ who have no home or fixed roots, which serves to justify their exclusion today as Roma are not regarded as ‘one of us’. As a nation without a territory, Roma do not fit the model of Westphalian nationalism that equates one nation with one sovereign territory. As a result, Roma are excluded from public life and serve as a foil for the interests of the political elite; Roma are seen as a problem community that does not ‘fit’ the projection of the nation. Due to the heterogeneity of Roma communities across Europe, which are unique in that they lack any claims to territory, do not share a common religion, do not all speak the same language (although a common language exists) and are geographically dispersed, efforts to mobilize politically have foundered (McGarry 2010). Moreover, attempts to forge a collective identity are further impeded by the myriad sub-groups and cultures that are housed under the endonym ‘Roma’. Indeed, it is more accurate to conceive of Roma as a political project or phenomenon (Vermeersch 2006) rather than as a bounded cohesive group, and this has implications for Romaphobia.

Romaphobia has clear links to other major racisms in Europe’s history, notably anti-Semitism and Islamophobia. It is beyond the scope of the book to outline the similarities and differences between Romaphobia, anti-Semitism and Islamophobia, but European state nationalism was – and continues to be – underpinned by principles of racism as it facilitated the inclusion of some at the expense of others. This delineation acts as a source of strength for the nation but requires active policing of symbolic identity boundaries, inevitably leading to marginalization. Romaphobia, anti-Semitism and Islamophobia are realized through othering and sustained resistance to integration efforts by the minority, often by discrimination and persecution. These different forms of racism continue to play a key role in the history of Europe, as can be seen in rising fascism and xenophobia across the continent. This book focuses on Romaphobia in Europe because of the significant number of Roma living in Europe, the historical and contemporary persecution that Roma communities in diverse states experience, and the acutely hostile attitudes of societies towards Roma in their midst – but this is not to say that Romaphobia does not exist elsewhere.

The continued pursuit of the European project and the recent institutional commitment to Roma from the European Union (EU) through the elaboration of the EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies offer some hope for the future in terms of promoting Roma agency and empowerment, both of which are vital weapons in combating Romaphobia. But even as the EU offers a framework for integration, there is a danger that Roma are increasingly regarded as a ‘European problem’: that is, a problem to be dealt with by the institutions of the EU, thereby absolving states of their responsibilities vis-à-vis Roma people living on their territory. It is clear that efforts to integrate Roma and attempts to fight manifestations of Romaphobia cannot be addressed through the EU alone; local and national commitment and political will are required too. While the EU offers resources, both symbolic and material, to combat Romaphobia, it also maintains Romaphobia through its commitment to neoliberalism, which creates social inequalities and economic marginalization. The EU is reluctant to interfere in the affairs of member states on the issue of minorities, meaning that the European state retains primary sovereignty over its people.

THE STATE AND THE NATION

The state is a sovereign institution of governance to control a population within a given territory. The state is not a unitary, amorphous actor. It is constituted by myriad institutions (legislatures, police forces, local authorities, etc.) underpinned by norms, rules and laws that attempt to govern relationships within the state. It might appear that the state carries out any number of formal and legal functions (as well as informal and illegal ones), such as collecting taxes, patrolling borders, and suppressing minorities or protest movements, but in reality the state does none of these activities: these are carried out by ‘sub-players’ of the state, such as tax agencies, which collect tax, and the police, which monitors protestors (Jasper 2015). Thus when I refer to the state throughout this book, I refer to multiple agencies and institutions that may or may not act in a coherent and rational manner.

In early modern Europe, a patchwork of sovereignties including empires, kingdoms and city states traded with one another and went to war intermittently to accrue more power and, by extension, more security. The Westphalian sovereign state that emerged from the seventeenth century onwards has become the one enduring polity of the modern age. The state cultivates a relationship with its subjects, who later became citizens, through a contract to guarantee protection from their fellow subjects, societal progress and eventually rights. Loyalty was given if the state met these conditions, while failure to do so could result in rebellion. To fulfil its duties, the state established taxation and conscription and sought to supress dissent. But the early modern state was relatively ignorant about its subjects, including about their wealth, their landholdings, their crop yields and their identity. The state had to find ways of handling its subjects in order to get the most out of them (particularly their labour, but also their freedom); this resulted in the creation of surnames, the standardization of weights and measures, the standardization of language, population registers, the design of cities and the organization of transportation across the defined territory (Scott 1998: 2). States organize and calibrate in such a way as to make their subjects more legible, which means that they are more understandable and by extension easier to appropriate, manipulate and control, as well as to provide services to.

An illegible society is an obstacle to any intervention by the state; this includes those interventions that are welcomed (such as universal vaccinations) and those that are not (such as income taxes) (Scott 1998). On the one hand, legibility can be seen today in universal school attendance of children to provide an educational baseline standard in numeracy and literacy. On the other, it can result in the extreme abuse of state power: prior to and during World War Two the distribution of Jews across Nazi Germany, its allies and the annexed territories was documented by the state and subsequently used to identify, round up, deport and ultimately kill Jews and Roma. Legibility is one thing; how states use it is something else entirely.

The working, taxpaying, educated citizen is the easiest to monitor, assess and manage. But Roma historically have not been so easy to control for various reasons, one of which is their pursuit of employment and livelihoods that provide more independence from the state, such as self-employed trading. Tilly argues that ‘states generally worked to homogenise their populations and break down their segmentation’ (1990: 100). But segmentation can never be fully eradicated. If states are concerned with legibility and control, then how have states made Roma more legible? Scott (1998: 220) draws an explicit link between illegibility and Roma (‘gypsies’) because of their temporary encampments. After 1945, socialist regimes initiated a programme of sedentarization, meaning that citizens, including Roma, could be identified, observed, counted and monitored. As a further step, authorities attempted to homogenize populations through the assimilation of cultural specificity, particularly language, with the result that most Roma in Hungary speak Hungarian rather than Romanes (the language of Roma). The state is not an abstract concept but a self-realized actor that encompasses a broad range of services and responsibilities and relies on diverse agencies to control Roma populations; these agencies include border police, local governments, municipalities, mayors, interior ministries and the police.

One could argue that today the state has abandoned any hope of making Roma legible: the persistent stereotypes of Roma as nomadic, unadaptable and unteachable suggest some truth in this claim. Equally, one could say that states willingly affirm Roma’s illegibility for ulterior motives, such as fostering nationalism by claiming an adversarial narrative of ‘them and us’ that goes something like this: ‘We are civilized, retain common values and characteristics and share the same history while Roma are not like us, and do not share our principles and aspirations.’ Roma, while not immune to processes of legibility, are seen as a necessary aberration in the homogenizing forces of nationalism that aim to foster a common identity built on a shared understanding of the nation. Successive governments have given up on perfecting legibility with less pliant Roma individuals and communities and have instead pursued containment: in designated schools as well as in camps, villages, ghettos or settlements. For state agencies, Roma communities are difficult to count owing to an absence of objective criteria to determine Roma identity as well as a widespread distrust of data collection on ethnicity. This results in under-representation in census figures...