CSS Rom 2008 - Osservatorio sull`immigrazione in Piemonte

Transcription

The Ethnobarometer Working Paper Series
Roma’s Identities
in Southeast Europe: Romania
November 2008
by Christian Giordano, Andrea Boscoboinik, Mihai Curelaru,
Sorin Gog, Adrian Neculau, Teodor Nitu, François Ruegg,
Daniela Tarnovschi e Daniela Zaharia
ETHNOBAROMETER
© CSS for The Ethnobarometer Programme 2008.
All rights reserved
ISBN 978-88-88235-08-0
Keywords: Roma, Rroma, Romania, minorities, identities,
religious conversions, gypsyhood
Ethnobarometer
Via Ovidio 20
00193 Rome
Italy
[email protected]
[email protected]
www.ethnobarometer.org
Contents
Roles, Statuses, Positions Social Categories and Multiple Identities
of Roma in Romania
Andrea Boscoboinik, Christian Giordano (University of Fribourg)
7
Roma from Romania
Daniela Tarnovschi (Babes-Bolyai University, Cluj, Romania)
24
Psychosocial perspectives on Roma communities in Northeast Romania
Adrian Neculau, Mihai Curelaru, Daniela Zaharia
(University „Al.I. Cuza”, Iasi, Romania)
38
Aspects of Religious Conversion among Rroma in post-socialist Romania
Sorin Gog (Babes-Bolyai University, Cluj, Romania)
56
Acta est fabula. A Rome, histoire marginale d’un Rrom appelé Romulus
Teodor Nitu (Université de Fribourg)
72
Postface
François Ruegg (University of Fribourg,
Switzerland - Institute of Social Anthropology)
87
Roles, Statuses, Positions
Social Categories and Multiple Identities of Roma in Romania
Andrea Boscoboinik, Christian Giordano
University of Fribourg
Introduction
This is our third report on the research on Roma’s identities and the situation of
Roma in Central and Eastern Europe. The research is organized geographically: the
first report concerned Bulgaria (Ethnobarometer, working paper N° 8, 2003), and
the second one, Macedonia (Ethnobarometer, working paper N° 8, 2005). The ideas
and conclusions that will be presented in the following pages are the result of the
research conducted in Romania, organized both by Ethnobarometer and a Swiss
National Science Foundation Project (Scopes)1, during the period 2006 - 2007.
As in the previous studies, the research followed a qualitative method based on interviews with people that consider themselves Roma, as well as with people that do not
acknowledge being Roma but are regarded as such by their neighbors. In total, 60
interviews were carried out in Transylvania and the Moldovan region (in Coltau,
Ticau, Sibiu, Chelinta, Ardusat, Somcuta-Mare, Remeti, Hadareni, Targu Mures,
Gilau, Gherla, Cluj, Slobozia, Trusesti, Iasi, and Bucharest) by eight local social
researchers. Besides this wide representation of towns and villages, the informants’
characteristics cover a broad range of portrayals, which include men and women,
both rural and urban, different religious affiliations, different levels of wealth, an age
range from 22 to 67, from almost no education to university studies, from nonactivists to political or religious activists.
This diversity has not only provided us with a rich and varied material to expand
our knowledge, draw comparisons with the precedent case studies, and propose new
ideas and conclusions. It also shows that numerous social categories and multiple
identities, reflecting a remarkable range of empirically discoverable individual roles,
status, and positions, can be observed in the different Roma communities.
Following the lines set up in the previous Ethnobarometer studies, the present
reports on Romania focus on the ethnicization process, on the current overall situation of Roma in Romania and the influence of religious conversion on identity and
8
ROMA’S IDENTITIES IN SOUTHEAST EUROPE: ROMANIA
self-perception given its incidence among Roma in Romania. Indeed, as Sorin Gog’s
report points out, the massive conversion of Roma to new religious movements, by
restructuring identity and their self-perception has given rise to a new kind of group
and a new self-understanding of Gypsyhood.
Roma in Europe at present
Roma and Roma-related groups in Europe began to gain prominence about twenty
years ago when the media, Internet and various political and cultural institutions
turned their attention on these communities, focusing either on their discrimination
or romanticized existence. The complex features of these groups, along with the
recent political transformations in Eastern Europe, would also explain academic and
political attention. Yet, despite several researches and discussions on issues and problems concerning the Roma, the topic continued to be elusive and ideologically
embedded.
With the East European countries’ integration into the European Union, Roma and
Roma-related group minorities are no longer an Eastern European peculiarity but have
become a collective and general European concern. Specifically, owing to the integration of Romania into the EU, the Roma represent the largest minority in Europe.
Thus, they can no longer be taken only marginally into account, as until recently.
There has been much discussion on the recent concern regarding immigrants in general and a specific fear of a ‘Gypsy invasion from the East’. The subject has moved
to the top of the international political agenda, mainly due to the sudden increased
visibility of Roma migrating from specific East European countries, namely
Romania, Bulgaria and the states of former Yugoslavia.
At present, mobility is becoming a European value, suggesting the qualities of flexibility, multiculturalism, democracy and tolerance. However, this positively connoted social and cultural mobility is limited to an elite of European citizens engaged in
highly prestigious professional roles, thus occupying positions that determine their
high social status and distinctly remunerative economic resources. These would
mainly be the winners in the current phase of globalization, i.e., industrial entrepreneurs, financial managers, new technologies specialists, consultants and experts in
the field of communication, etc. In line with specific sociological and anthropological reflections on post-modernity, the gilded legend of the current transnational cosmopolitism would have developed around these roles, status, and positions.
ROLES, STATUSES, POSITIONS
9
On the other hand, the mobility of nomads or less resourceful migrants is still
branded with the negative connotations of profiteers, crooks and vagabonds. For
most Roma populations, i.e., the impoverished and marginalized ones, such a connotation leads to their even greater exclusion or marginalization. Thus, Roma
mobility is considered a “problem” that could cause various complications and that
has an international dimension.
Roma in Romania
In most Central and East European countries, there is a gap between the official census results of the Roma population and the informal estimates, indicating that many
‘so-called’ Roma do not publicly acknowledge their ethnic belonging. According to
the 2002 Census2, 535,140 Romanian citizens declared themselves Roma, which
represents 2.5% of the population. According to official census data, in percentage
they thus constitute the second largest ethnic minority in Romania, after
Hungarians (6.6%). However, researchers and social organizations unofficially estimated the Roma population to be between 1,500,000 and 2,000,000, which may
represent around at least 8 to 9 % of the total Romanian population.
Despite statistical inaccuracies, of the former communist-bloc States Romania has
the largest Roma population in terms of absolute numbers. However, Roma are not
exclusively Romanian, as many may think, nor do they represent the largest minority in Romania in terms of percentage of the whole population. For instance, in
Bulgaria Roma represent 4.6% (officially) and between 9 and 10% (unofficially) of
the total population, in Hungary 1.7% (officially) and 5.6% (unofficially) and in
Slovakia 1.7% (officially) and 8.4% (unofficially)3.
The disparity between official figures and unofficial estimates does not mean that
Roma people always want to hide or deny their identity, but that some might do so
in formal contexts (especially the Census), depending on their perception of what is
at stake, on the formulation of questions and the actor/s involved. Identity is known
to be contextual, thus different affiliations are summoned for different purposes and
on different occasions.
Unofficial estimates are provided by different sources and the defining criteria of
who is Roma are not always clear. Roma organizations may legitimately seek to compensate for the evident failings of the census data for the purpose of policy and
resource allocation, and in some cases they may possibly illegitimately exaggerate
10
data in order to heighten their prestige, or leverage or for other unspecified reasons.
On the other hand, the results of a sociological survey mentioned in Cahn (2003),
and published in the Hungarian daily Magyar Hirlap on March 28, 1998, showed
that police officers tend to drastically overestimate the size of Hungary’s Roma population. Apparently, for a certain segment of the Hungarian police, all criminals are
Roma, thus the number of “Gypsies” would represent up to a third of Hungary’s
total population. Therefore, though census figures do not reflect reality, neither do
unofficial estimates. Fear, identity strategies, interests and migration complicate the
arithmetic. The ‘real’ number would be in between.
There may be various reasons why some people who are considered Roma by their
neighbors and who have self-declared themselves as such in other researches or interviews do not publicly affirm their identity. Among others, we suggest the negative
stereotypes and stigmatization implied by such a denomination. No one wants to be
labeled with what is regarded as a pejorative name. Besides, there could be the fear
of unknown consequences or further implications.
The fact that the lives of Roma in Romania as well as in other post-communist East
European countries have worsened in many ways over the last twenty years is no
longer news. Discrimination against the Roma minority continues to be widespread
in practice and the Roma community is still exposed to considerable social inequalities. Living conditions are poor and access to social services is limited. Lack of access
to adequate housing remains a major problem for the Roma population. At present,
they are the most disadvantaged population in Europe in terms of employment,
income, education and opportunities. Besides their marginal economic status, they
face violence and are often the scapegoat for society’s ills: Roma are blamed for
almost all of society’s problems and crimes. Moreover, their art of fortune-telling is
viewed with a mixture of fascination and fear.
The problems of most Roma communities in different countries are linked to social
and economic conditions: low level of education, low incomes, social vulnerability,
social exclusion, precariousness, spatial segregation, discrimination in society, and
enduring negative stereotypes.
Common knowledge about Roma reflects the image conveyed by press and media.
Particularly in Central and Eastern Europe, most papers have a standard attitude
towards Roma: they are all dangerous, criminal, evil, and dishonest. During the 1990s,
in the Romanian press, these representations were invariably sketchy and constructed
11
around common stereotypes of Tsigani as grubby thieves and disastrous ambassadors
for the image of Romania abroad. Nowadays, some journalists are trying to avoid
statements that could be discriminating, but some pejorative images are still employed.
Moreover, Romanian nationals are very concerned about the misleading name similarity, especially abroad. In November 2007, after the “Italian event”, 76% of the
Romanians declared that foreigners were mistaking “Romanian” for “Roma”. In
Romanian official documents there was the tendency to modify the spelling with a
double letter r (Rroma) to indicate Roma people, in order to distinguish them from
Romanian nationals. However, this local distinction does not avoid confusions in
foreign countries.
The media’s approach reinforces the general public stereotypes and exacerbates antiRoma feelings. In Western Europe, the press (but not only) tends to present Roma
as if it were a homogeneous group. “Roma” then becomes a blanket term for different groups that supposedly share similar origins, cultural traits and social conditions.
Indeed, very often the different Roma groups and Roma-related groups such as
Sinti, Travelers, Kale, Ashkali, Beas, and Yenisches, are considered as belonging to a
same ethnic group with similar characteristics4. However, one should avoid falling
into this trap.
The heterogeneity of Roma groups
As the research in Bulgaria and Macedonia had already indicated, there is no homogeneity among the Roma populations in Romania either. The community that from
the exterior is called “Roma” in fact consists of large heterogeneous groups that may
have very little in common. Our research leads us to conclude that there is not a single Roma identity but many Roma identities, and thus it is difficult to gather them
all under a one label recognized by all groups. The groups’ heterogeneity explains
why many members from the different groups do not recognize themselves under
the general designation Roma. As a Sinti from Switzerland said during a Roma
meeting organized by the Council of Europe in 2003: “We cannot give the name of a
single tree to a whole forest”.
The heterogeneity is given by the different traditional groups, but not only. As
Daniela Tarnovschi points out in her report, in Romania there are more than 23 different groups traditionally divided by occupation, including Căldărari (tinsmiths
and coppersmiths, from the Romanian caldera, meaning cauldron), Fierari (black-
12
smiths), Ursari (bear trainers), Grăstari-Geambaşi (horse dealers), Lăutari (musicians), Argintari (silversmiths), Cărămidar (brick makers), Ciubotari (shoemakers),
Nomazi (nomads), Rudari (woodcraftsmans), etc. Jean-Pierre Liégeois notes that the
connection between name and reality (filial, occupational or geographical) is often
remote, but this definitely does not lessen the name’s social relevance (Liégeois 2007:
52). What matters is the fact that a particular group exists here and now, and is connected to a specific origin.
Each subgroup is divided in groups, defined by history or geography, which in turn
consist of a large number of extended families. This complexity is summarized by
the interviewed people who affirm, “there are different sorts of Gypsy”.
There is no single definition of what a “Roma” is. Because of the diversity of Roma
people, what might constitute a Romani identity is uncertain. There are nomads
and sedentary, those who speak Romani language and those who don’t, those who
follow Romani traditions and those who don’t. They do not share a same religion
or country of residence. Elements that one group could accept as intrinsically
Roma, could be considered non-Roma (Gadje) by another. A kind of hierarchy
emerges, each interviewed person having a different one; for some those who are
closer to Romanians are better, while for others those who keep traditions are the
purest.
Us and Them
The different components of identity allow people to establish a clear distinction
between Us and Them. We were able to observe that interviewees expressed a stark
distinction between ‘Us’ and ‘the Others’. This aspect was already present in our previous research results on Roma communities in Bulgaria and the Republic of
Macedonia, but was more marked in the Romanian interviews. We then explored
who were represented by Us and who by Them in order to understand which identity elements are most important in establishing the demarcation.
Contrary to what could be expected, Them are not only the Gadje (the non-Roma)
but rather a multitude of Others. Very often Them are the ‘other Roma’ (or the
‘other Gypsies’), particularly the stereotyped image of the thief, swindler, liar and
idler. It is always ‘the Other Roma’ who deserve all prejudices and negative stereotypes: those who steal, who are lazy and grubby, who bring the entire Roma community’s name into bad repute. The ‘other Roma’ may also include the traditional-
13
ist Roma in contrast with the ‘modern’ Roma, the poor Roma in contrast with the
wealthy Roma, the Orthodox Roma in contrast with the converted Pentecostal
Roma, the average Roma in contrast with those holding positions and resources or
actively engaged in NGOs or political parties.
Through the interviews carried out in Romania we were able to realize that talking
about Us and Them involves value judgments, contempt, stereotypes, a determination to distinguish and differentiate one’s self, etc. Thus, stereotypes and prejudices
about other Roma people occur also in Roma individuals and communities: “They
are not proper, they didn’t study, they are not intelligent”.
Roma activists themselves have stereotypes concerning traditional Gypsies. In the
interviews, we noticed that at times ‘Us’ stood for Roma and ‘Them’ for Gypsy or
vice versa. Therefore, the We/They dichotomy may indicate either Roma/Gypsy or
Gypsy/Roma.
Indigent and uneducated Gypsies usually reserve the term Roma, which has a strong
political connotation, for the educated ones. They absolutely do not want to be
called Roma, a name by which they do not feel identified, but Gypsy. Some of them
truly mistrust the name Roma and criticize Roma political leaders for being corrupt
and taking advantage of projects aimed at the improvement of Gypsies’ situation.
Some interviews with wealthy and educated Roma show that, even if they are
engaged activists for the Roma unity, when they speak of the indigent ones they use
Gypsy, even in a pejorative and despising way. However, in political discourses, when
seeking to convey the Roma ethnic unifying dimension, they switch to ‘Us’, embracing all categories. Of course, such statements are strongly dependant on the personality of those who express them and any generalizations could be risky.
Clearly however, whatever the reason may be, for each group that endorses one or the
other name what is implied by Gypsy is very different from what is implied by Roma.
Thus, both ‘identities’ related to both names seem to be very different for the people
concerned. The reasons appear to be mainly related to the symbolical dimension
attached to each designation. Roma is considered the self-given name, thus politically correct. It is the term mostly used by the promoters of a common ethnicity and has
a positive connotation. On the other hand, Gypsy is considered the pejorative name
given from the exterior, but to which some people seem to be used to or somehow
attached. Besides, it could represent a way of resisting what could be considered a new
imposition. “I have always been a Gypsy. Why should I be a Roma now?”
14
Ethnogenesis: identitary illusion or emancipatory alternative?
Despite the groups’ heterogeneity, some Roma activists and Roma politically
engaged seek to develop a sort of ethnic solidarity that should express the feeling that
all Roma belong to the same and distinct people who share common cultural traits
and common problems resulting from widespread injustice and prejudice, ethnic
hostility, and violence.
At the risk of incurring the harsh criticism of some Roma (and not only) identity
managers, the data gathered in our three researches substantiates the fact that Roma
identity is extremely diversified; therefore, using the plural form and referring to
multiple, flexible and situational identities would probably be more accurate and
proper. Yet, this statement brings into question the relevance of discourses, still very
popular amongst influential members of the Roma political and cultural elite, which
aim at the emergence of a Roma ethnic nation born of an ethnogenesis process more
or less driven from above, if not indeed managed by transnational and/or supranational institutions and organizations.
At this point, we need to distinguish between what we call an ethnicization process
and an ethnogenesis process. In previous reports and publications (see Giordano and
Boscoboinik 2003, 2005; Boscoboinik 2006 a, b), we have concluded that at present there is a process of ethnicization, i.e., the willingness for the emergence of a collective ethnic identity among the disparate Roma groups, mainly led by educated
Roma elite. Indeed, we suggest that members of the elite are endeavoring to develop a shared ethnic consciousness across national borders in order to politically unify
and mobilize the Roma in the struggle for human rights, socio-economic justice and
recognition as a nation without territory. As such, this term has an instrumental
connotation and implies the creation of an ethnic category with specific purposes.
Roma elite members, on the other hand, prefer to point to an ethnogenesis process.
This term holds a positive connotation suggestive of something already existent that
should develop. Thus, the idea of manipulation implicit in the ethnicization process
is overshadowed in the ethnogenesis process. Accordingly, the elite is not breaking new
ground, but rather recapturing and raising the consciousness of a preexisting ethnic
category.
As a social process of mobilization, ethnogenesis would therefore be a feasible instrument by which the Roma can express a stronger feeling of cohesion and consequently a stronger political commitment (Barany 2002: 70).
15
According to these concepts and projects, ethnogenesis, which by now is quite an
unfashionable neologism in addition to being a legacy of an essentialist anthropology, and the subsequent emergence of an ethnic-based collective conscience, thus one
grounded in the sharing of common origin and culture, should induce Roma populations to develop a necessary communitarian spirit. In turn, this would have an
emancipating function and would help abate the prejudices and discriminations of
the dominant ethno-national collectivities. Ethnogenesis would thus put an end to
the Roma’s serious social deficit compared to other communities. Paradoxically, they
would become less different, thus more equal in relation to others since they, too,
would attain a higher level of social organization, comparable to the others’ one.
From a strictly ethical point of view, the goal of the ethnogenesis process, as conceived
by its various advocates, is undoubtedly commendable. Yet, the point at issue is not
so much the project’s moral validity as its practicability in this 21st century characterized by a phase of accelerated globalization. Actually, at least two major aspects
are grounds for some degree of skepticism in those involved in social sciences.
Clearly, the model based on the idea of ethnogenesis is implicitly modeled on, or, as one
of its masterminds -sociologist of Roma origin Nicolae Gheorghe- highlights, is explicitly reminiscent of 19th-century nation-building. In fact, the planned processes of present-day ethnogenesis for the Roma communities are somewhat along the same lines of
the formation of the Kulturnationen in general and those of eastern-central and southeast Europe in particular between the late 18th century and early 20th century.
To elite leaders the nation, as a social formation, seems a viable solution to fight
against the stigmatization and marginalization of their people on the one hand, and,
on the other, a way to handle the social and cultural problems they face (Fosztó
2003: 102).
Still, we need to distinguish between two schools of thought. More traditional and
simplistic, the first scheme abides by the classic models of ethnic nationalism by
which, owing to ethnogenesis, the Roma culture and identity within each national
and territorial context would be revitalized. Consequently, single Roma ethnic communities, not transnationally linked to each other, would emerge. Thus, ethnogenesis would simply be a resurgence of processes that led to the formation over the past
centuries of present-day European nations.
The second scheme is far more ingenious and sophisticated since it is based on a
declaredly transnational and deterritorialized vision of the Roma ethnic identity.
16
Ethnogenesis would be the means to attain a Roma feeling of belonging, which would
be far more consequential and on a European scale. In more institutional parlance,
it would involve the emergence of a Roma ethnic nation transcending the narrow
national States’ borders and which would be constituted as a stateless political community. Yet, this case as well clearly refers to the Kulturnation idea, though this concept is skillfully adapted to a spatially extensive reality, more socially disjointed and
less culturally coherent.
At this point, however, we can legitimately wonder whether an obsolete model is
being put forward on the one hand and whether on the other hand lies an enticing
but rather unrealistic vision. As regards to the first project, suggesting that Roma
populations, nearly one hundred and fifty years later and under such dissimilar global socioeconomic conditions, ought to follow the same route which led to the creation of European nations seems rather anachronistic and, to some extent, antihistorical as well. Actually, it would be like suggesting a simplistic theory of the sociocultural gap that would be redressed by replicating tout court a model successfully
employed by other groups in a too distant past.
The second project, regarding the emergence of a transnational and deterritorialized
Roma community, though likewise harking back to 19th century models, cannot be
criticized on grounds of anachronism since it takes into due consideration the current socio-political trends linked to the globalization process. Moreover, it seems
more enticing precisely because it employs a postmodern parlance, which transnational and supranational organizations (such as the UE or some NGOs) hold in high
regard. Yet, the wide variety of roles, statuses and social positions, striking cultural
differences and territorial dispersion of Roma populations could become a virtually
insurmountable barrier on the road to this specific vision of ethnogenesis, turning it
into a hardly tenable if not an unworkable project, i.e., into an unlikely emancipatory alternative.
As with any form of ethnicization, the concept of ethnogenesis is intrinsically based
on the fact of creating boundaries between us and the others, which are not perforce
territorial. From a theoretical point of view, Fredrik Barth has highlighted that ethnic belongings are the outcome of a process, better yet of a social strategy through
which, by more or less intentionally employing single markers or highly varying
combinations thereof, social groups mark out each others’ territorial and cultural
boundaries (Barth 1969). This clearly involves a system of self- and hetero-attribu-
17
tions based on the representation of one’s self and of the others. That being the case,
one may legitimately wonder whether ethnogenesis in general and the one concerning Roma in particular might not intensify the others’ old stereotypes and prejudices
about Roma populations, thus increasing discriminations in social practices as well.
Consequently, ethnogenesis might even worsen the exclusion processes.
The New Elite
Yet, despite all efforts, one can hardly declare that this goal of ethnogenesis and Roma
unity has succeeded so far for the average Roma. The discourse concerning the ethnicization process has been more successful among young, educated, and well-integrated Roma. Interviews with university students reveal the valorization of a largely
stigmatized identity. There is also the discovery of an identity not wholly transmitted by the parents. Therefore, they declare their willingness to learn the language
and to begin to openly acknowledge the fact of being Roma, for instance. They
express the importance of assuming the responsibility of being Roma. However,
whereas they defend their Roma identity, they concurrently deny their ‘Gypsyhood’,
an attitude that illustrates the previously-mentioned distinction between ‘Us’
(Roma) and ‘Them’ (Gypsy).
The valorization of learning the Romani language is explained as a means to be better integrated in the Roma community. Knowing the language allows contacts and
would foster a better status in the community, not only at a national but also at an
international level. In an interview, someone mentioned having lost many possibilities by not speaking the Romani language. For instance, knowing the language
would allow these young students to join the new Roma elite. It is very often
thought that Roma who do not speak Romani are not entirely ‘fulfilled’.
For Roma elite, the spread of a common Romani language is a key issue in defending and supporting the unity and cohesion of the ethnic group, the central element
allowing them an identification as a Nation. In the absence of geographical borders,
language takes on great importance as an element of one’s own identity and as a factor that will be recognized by others. In this sense, there are current efforts to standardize the many Romani dialects.
Roma elite members are not the only ones who sustain the powerful element of a
Romani standardized language. A standardized language is important to define the
group, but also represents the practical aspect, allowing communication with other
18
Roma from different countries. Thus, those who have managed to travel abroad consider it a way to understand all gypsies: “with that language, you are fine even in Italy
or Spain”. Another one explained: “I speak the language. I’m on good terms with gypsies in the Netherlands, Germany or Serbia and Slovakia, Russia or Hungary. This language is a sort of English in Europe”.
Roma elite members mostly follow a constructivist approach of identity rather than
a primordialist one. The primordialist perspective considers ethnic identity as an
essentialist pre-existing given that defines belonging and social existence. The constructivist approach, instead, argues that ethnic identity is situationalist, not essentialized but contingent. Consequently, according to a constructivist discourse you
could become Roma if you learn the language, if you feel part of this community or
if you marry a Roma. On the other hand, the primordialist point of view, embedded in the discourse of most average Roma, considers Gypsyness as something innate:
you cannot choose it and you cannot leave it. Discourses upholding one or the other
position are so fervent that researchers now and then may fall in the discourse trap.
According to interviewees who support essentialist considerations, if you are not
born a Gypsy you cannot become one, but you can loose your Gypsyhood. Even if
you learn the Romani language, you will still be considered a Gadjo. You could be
closer to the Roma community but never one of them because “Roma think and feel
in a certain way” and “because it is in your blood”.
The development of this new Roma elite increasingly deepens the gap between educated and engaged Roma on the one hand and the poor, average Roma on the other.
The interviews clearly indicate that poor Roma strongly mistrust Roma political
leaders and NGOs whose sole aim is thought to be enriching themselves. Besides,
many wealthy Roma publicly scorn the particularly impoverished quasi-majority by
parading their affluence, thus inciting resentment in poor Roma and majority alike.
The religious dimension of identity
Given the importance gained by the religious dimension over the last years and the
massive conversion of Roma to different new protestant movements, particularly the
Pentecostal one, we decided to explore how it influences identity.
The reasons for conversion might be varied, but what is easily perceived in the interviews is that religion, through a distinct worldview and strict behavioral rules,
together with the regular meetings of religious groups, offers a clear and strong sense
19
of belonging to those who participate. Interviews show that people feel definitely
more united by religion than by ethnic belonging.
Feeling part of a community, be it religious or other, ensures an important psychological benefit: being recognized by the other members of the community is a
way of affirming one’s self. Besides, religious groups constitute a retaining and
supporting group. As someone stated in an interview, now they (the converted
Roma) have the feeling of being more united. They feel they are “a united family
with new origins”.
However, one should not think that religious conversion has achieved the union of
all Roma communities as it actually divided the Roma communities even more,
opposing converted Roma to non-converted Roma. Indeed, as Sorin Gog points out
in his report, the new rules and faith brought about by religious conversion, as well
as the fact that everything gets filtered through the Bible, leads converted Roma to
question Gypsy traditional knowledge, life-style, behavior, holidays and values,
clearly resulting in conflicts with non-converted Roma. Moreover, religious fragmentation occurs among the converted Roma as well: for instance, there are Baptist
Roma, Pentecostal Roma, Pentecostal dissident Roma, Adventist Roma, etc.
Religion, in particular the new religious movements such as the Pentecostal Church,
provides a clear moral to follow, offers a concrete code of action and influences the
acceptance of social norms, moral as well as legal ones. Roma Pentecostalists, owing
to their religion, began to respect the laws and the State authorities since such behavior conforms to a biblical precept. This new attitude towards law and society, as well
as the puritan behavior, improves their image among the Romanian majority.
Consequently, religious conversion may lead, if not to integration, at least to a better acceptance in society.
On the other hand, those who decide not to convert and remain Orthodox feel that
their religious belonging conveys a better image thanks to a religion shared with the
Romanian majority.
Conclusion
It would be possible to establish a typology of Roma people that would illustrate the
heterogeneity of its members. From nomads to parliamentarians, Roma comprises
almost all social categories. This means that besides the poor and discriminated
Roma, we find a Roma elite that includes Roma with a higher education, the
20
wealthy, the activists and the socially and politically engaged. There are also socially
integrated Roma who have achieved social integration through mixed marriages,
economic success or even skin color5. Another category would be the religious convert Roma.
Each category is not exclusive and presents members that stand up for their ethnic
belonging and others that seek assimilation or integration into the majority. Despite
this social heterogeneity that goes beyond the multiple clans and groups, there is the
tendency “to put all Roma in the same bag”, making it easier to designate them as
scapegoats.
Besides, Roma elite members also seek the ethnic unity of all Roma through what
we have called the process of ethnicization. However, we suggest that the ethnicization process has not been highly successful until now.
The failure of the ethnicization process could be due to the fact that its promoters
consider the undeniably difficult situation of Roma communities only in terms of
ethnicity rather than taking account of other identity dimensions, such as the social,
economic and religious ones. However, the conditions of the poor Roma are comparable to those of the poorest Romanian nationals. Roma people are dissatisfied
and pessimistic about their life and the course of events and Roma’s opinions on the
subject are similar to those of the poorest Romanian nationals, regardless of their
ethnic belonging. Nevertheless, the material factor is overlapped by other elements
which help shape the Roma people’s mainly negative perceptions, among which the
lack of confidence in institutions and the feeling that they are discriminated (Fosztó
and Anăstăsoaie 2001).
In our opinion, religion conversion has succeeded where ethnic promoters have
mostly failed. Religion offers a symbolic dimension of truly being part of a group.
They have regular meetings, they attend at rites, at prayer gatherings to study and
read the Bible. The new churches grant a true sense of belonging, and that is what
most Roma, especially the discriminated and excluded ones, are looking for. The
ethnic unity of all Roma does not achieve this goal as it is perceived as something
imposed from outside, whereas the decision to become Pentecostal is personal, based
generally on a personal mystical experience. By calling themselves “sisters” and
“brothers”, they feel they are part of a new, large family. Moreover, the group based
on religious faith is perceived as having clear borders, which is not so with the indefinite limits of Roma identity.
21
One of the goals of the ethnicization process promoters is to fight against discrimination. However, one can hardly claim that the discrimination that Roma/Gypsies
suffer is always and unconditionally based on ethnic criteria. On the contrary, the
discrimination they have to endure is often established on a socio-economic basis.
Therefore, they are mostly discriminated because they are poor and not because they
are Roma. Wealthy or well-integrated Roma, as we gathered from the interviews, feel
they are not discriminated at all. Moreover, since they do not feel discriminated they
assume there is not discrimination. Pentecostal Roma, though under some aspects
they are better accepted by the majority as being more reliable, could be discriminated as well on a religious basis. For instance, they are spatially discriminated in
cemeteries. Therefore, they are discriminated for being Pentecostal and not (or not
only) for being Roma.
Even if differences based on religion and on economic and social levels are more significant than the ethnic division, very little attention has been paid to viewing Roma
as belonging to different social groups. Besides, the religious belonging is sometimes
more significant than the ethnic one. Thus, there are Roma converts whose most
important identity element is religion. One clear example is that for many interviewees inter-ethnic marriage between Roma and non-Roma is permitted, whereas
inter-religious marriage between Pentecostal and non-Pentecostal is utterly forbidden. Accordingly, conflicts are more liable to be based on religious belonging than
on an ethnic one.
Identities are not always primarily associated with ethnicity. Ethnicity is part of a
total identity, but not necessarily the central element. A key argument of our position is that identity categories are not fixed; they may shift from one dimension such
as ethnicity, to another such as religion or social level. It is then imperative to examine how identity becomes a political resource used by Roma leaders and elites on the
one hand, and from outside the Roma on the other. Some Roma leaders do not deny
taking advantage of other Roma, specifying however, “positively, for their own good”.
Nevertheless, when the ethnic identity is recalled from outside, it could have a stigmatizing goal and scapegoating intentions.
These reflections, however, confirm that the basic issue in all ethnogenesis projects
remains the following: must the ethnic aspect of Roma identity be so predominant
to the point of overshadowing the social problems that have always beset Roma populations? Definite misgivings persist as to whether ethnogenesis would be the suitable
22
course of action by which Roma populations, in particular those of Eastern Europe
and Romania, could take charge of their own collective destiny, thus alleviating their
overly precarious socio-economic situation and breaking free from a long history of
exclusion and discrimination based on cultural and racial prejudices and stereotypes.
References
Barany, Zoltan. 2002. The East European Gypsies. Regime Change, Marginality and
Ethnopolitics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Barth, Fredrik (ed). 1969. Ethnic Groups and Boundaries. London: George Allen &
Unwin.
Boscoboinik, Andrea. 2006a. Becoming Rom: Ethnic Development among Roma
Communities in Bulgaria and Macedonia. In: Ethnic Identity. Problems and Prospects
for the Twenty-First Century. Fourth Edition. Edited by Lola Romanucci-Ross,
George de Vos and Takeyuki Tsuda. Lanham, New York, Toronto, Oxford: Altamira
Press, 295-310.
Boscoboinik, Andrea. 2006b. Ethnicization Process among the Roma communities
in Bulgaria. In: Interculturalism and Discrimination in Romania. Policies, Practices,
Identities and Representations. Edited by François Ruegg, Rudolf Poledna and Calin
Rus. Münster: Lit Verlag, 95-103.
Cahn, Claude. 2003. The Unseen Powers: Perception, Stigma and Roma Rights. In:
www.errc.org/cikk.php?cikk=2870.
Fosztó, László and Marian-Viorel Anăstăsoaie. 2001. Romania: Representations,
Public Policies and Political Projects. In: Between past and future. the Roma of Central
and Eastern Europe. Edited by Will Guy. University of Hertfordshire Press, p. 351-369.
Fosztó, László. 2003. Diaspora and Nationalism: an Anthropological Approach to
the International Romani Movement. In: Regio, p. 102-120.
Giordano, Christian and Andrea Boscoboinik. 2003. Introduction. In: Roma’s
Identities in Southeast Europe: Bulgaria. Ethnobarometer. Working Paper N° 8, 14-29.
Giordano, Christian and Andrea Boscoboinik. 2005. Roma’s Identity and the
Political Arena. In: Roma’s Identities in Southeast Europe: Macedonia.
Ethnobarometer. Working Paper N° 9, 7-17.
Liégeois, Jean-Pierre. 2007. Roma in Europe. Strasbourg: Council of Europe
Publishing.
23
1 “Nomads and Parliamentarians. The influence of mobility and religious affiliation on identity building and on the
development of integration social policies. Roma people in Northern, Eastern Romania and the Republic of Moldova”
2 Website of the National Institute for Statistics http://www.insse.ro
3 Unofficial estimates are provided in Liégeois 2007: 31. Official figures are the result of Census, available on
national statistics websites.
4 It should be noticed that in Romania most groups are Roma, and not Roma-related.
5 It was often stated in interviews that, “you can never say by his/her appearance that he/she is Roma”. These are the
ones who have better chances of finding a job or being less discriminated.
Roma from Romania
Daniela Tarnovschi
Babes-Bolyai University, Cluj, Romania
Introduction – the general context
In Europe, which is expanding its borders to include tens of millions of new citizens,
Roma remain among marginal groups. With a population scattered across most of
Eastern Europe they constitute the largest ethnic minority in Europe. The expansion
of the European Union has brought attention to the plight of Roma and highlighted the challenges they pose in the old continent as a whole.
In 2005, eight countries from Central and Southeast Europe adopted an initiative,
supported by the international community, entitled “The Decade of Roma Inclusion,
2005-2015”. It is intended as a cooperative effort to change the lives of Roma in
Europe. The goal is to guide progress in accelerating social inclusion and improving
the economic and social status of Roma across the region. The Decade aims to overcome centuries of marginalization and to change attitudes and behaviors toward the
Roma minority. Each country has prepared an action plan with measurable goals to
be achieved in four priority areas - education, employment, health and housing.
Recently, Roma leaders (intelligentsia) have agreed to advance a new, restructured,
ideology of ethnic identity, to overcome a historically negative traditional Roma ethnic identity (Gypsyhood). Especially in Central and Eastern Europe, in a part of
Europe affected by poverty, the social perception of Roma is negative and manifest
racism is socially acceptable. The Roma are associated with larceny, verbal and physical abuse, filth, looting, poverty, fraud, begging, etc.
Roma today in Romania
In Romania, 20 ethnic/national minorities have been officially recognized by the
state. The 2002 Census1 shows that ethnic/national minorities represent 10.5% of the
total population. The Romanian Constitution grants each ethnic/national minority a
guaranteed seat in Parliament, public funding for one of its organizations, and native
language instruction in school for their children, as well as other rights.
Roma constitute one of the major ethnic groups in Romania. According to the 2002
ROMA FROM ROMANIA
25
Census2, there are 535,250 Romanian citizens who declared themselves as Roma (or
Gipsy), 2.5 % of the total population. This means that Roma are the second largest
ethnic minority in Romania, after Hungarians (6.6%). Roma are, however, also
Romania’s most socially and economically disadvantaged ethnic minority. Unofficial
sources claim that the Census figures do not reflect reality and that in fact there are
approximately 2 million Roma in the country, or roughly 8% of the total population. The discrepancy may be due to the fact that many Roma did not declare ethnicity at the census, or they have no identity card or birth certificate, meaning they
are not present in any official documents.
Roma of Romania face specific problems, some of which are derived from the historical context. One should not forget their status as serfs up to the middle of the 19th
century3 and their exclusion from land reform in 18644, 1923, 1946 and 1991, as
well as the position of marginalization and discrimination maintained by the different regimes that governed Romania. We can not forget the deportations, the
Porrajmos (as Roma call the Holocaust) during which 36,000 Romanian Roma died
during the Second World War, the highest number of any European country, and an
event still very much present in Roma collective memory (Helsinki Watch, 1991: 13).
During the communist regime, Roma were subject to a nationalist policy of assimilation and denial of their existence during the Census, official documents and speeches.
Roma were considered to be foreign elements that had to become Romanian, their culture being considered one of poverty and underdevelopment (Pons 1999: 29). Roma
were forcibly settled, and had no right to ethnic representation or to promote their cultural traditions, as Hungarians and Saxons did. Police raids against Roma, during
which jewelry and other possessions were confiscated on the grounds that they were
the proceeds of black-market dealing, were allegedly a common occurrence (Kenrick
1998: 140). After the December 1989 Revolution, the Roma minority was officially
recognized in the Romanian Constitution as an ethnic group and encouraged to freely
develop its identity as a people and affirm itself. Some of the Roma associations and
organizations went into politics taking advantage of the 68/1992 Law5.
Democracy brought some advantages for Roma but also disadvantages, one of which
is the community violence against Roma, a widespread phenomenon, which was tolerated by the authorities even at the beginning of 1990’s. The 1998 report “Roma
Rights: Summer 1998” by the European Roma Rights Center revealed that a pattern of community violence was changing and that police raids on Roma commu-
26
nities were gradually replacing community violence against Roma (European Roma
Rights Center 1998).
The Romani culture is varied, but there are attributes common to all Roma: loyalty
to the family (extended, the clan); faith – belief in God and the Devil; faith - belief
in predestination; varying standards and norms according to the tribe; and adaptability to changing conditions. The integration of a significant number of Roma to
the gadje (non-Roma) culture due to sedentarization diluted many cultural values
and Romani beliefs. Not all tribes have the same definition of what a “Roma” is.
What can be accepted as a “true Roma” by one group may be considered gadje by
another. The Romani culture is varied, with many traditions and customs, and each
Roma tribe and group has its own individual beliefs and principles. Applying strict
rules and definitions would generalize and oversimplify.
In Romania, there are more than 23 different groups including Căldărari (tinsmiths
and coppersmiths), Fierari (blacksmiths), Ursari (bear trainers), Grăstari-Geambaşi
(horse dealers), Lăutari (musicians), Argintari (silversmiths), Cărămidar (brick makers), Ciubotari (shoemakers), Nomazi (nomads), Gabor (gabor), Rudari (woodcraftsman), etc. Many have foregone the more traditional nomadic lifestyle under
duress rather than by choice.
At the 1992 Census6 166,635 persons declared they speak Romani, which represents
40.67% of the declared Roma. Ten years later, at the 2002 Census7 the number of
Romani speakers reached 241,617 (45.14%), meaning a rise of 5 percent in spite of
all projects and programs deployed during that time aimed at raising awareness and
promoting ethnic minority languages.
In the same year as the 2002 Census, the survey Barometer on Ethnic Relations8
(2002) (which had a Roma sample statistically representative for all Roma from
Romania) found that 48.1% of Roma declare Romani as a mother tongue, 4.2%
know it very well even if it is not their mother tongue and 3.7% have some difficulties in using it. This means that 60% of Roma population knows and uses
Romani. The language is used mainly in informal situations: 50% use it at home
and with friends; and only 14% at the work place.
Religious affiliation
In most cases, Roma tend to follow the beliefs of the majority population, but we
can not say that they have a religious tradition, which is important for ethnic iden-
ROMA FROM ROMANIA
27
tification in Eastern Europe. Because the majority of Romanians are Orthodox,
Roma follow the trend. The next important religious confessions are the NeoProtestant ones, but only in fourth place for the entire Romanian population (Table
no. 1). In the third place for Roma are the Protestant confessions followed by the
Roman Catholic and Greek Catholic. More and more Neo-Protestant confessions
are embraced by Roma. If in general Roma are not very involved in the religious life
- 29.4%9 declared attending church or a house of prayer at least 2-3 times a month
- the situation is changing with Neo-Protestant confessions. For the first time in
Romania, Roma have Roma pastors and preachers in charge of Roma churches,
autonomous missionary organizations and religious sermons in Romani. All of these
represent an important step in the construction of Roma ethnic identity.
Religious confession
TABLE NO. 1
All Romanians citizens10
Orthodox
Roman Catholic and Greek Catholic
Reformed, Unitarian, Lutheran, Augustan Evangelic
Pentecostal, Baptist, Seventh Day Adventist,
Christian by the Gospel, Evangelical
Roma11
86.79%
5.61%
3.69%
79.8%
3.3%
6.5%
2.78%
9.2%
Ethnic belonging
As regards their name – one of the important elements of ethnic belonging – we can
see that during history Roma were named “Ţigani”, “Tsiganes”, “Gypsies”,
“Zigeuner”, “Gitanos”, “Cigany” etc. by the people they have lived near. Some of
these names have become pejorative. After the changes that took place in Eastern
Europe in 1989, some Roma leaders, NGO representatives (mostly non-Roma) and
human rights activists drew attention to the negative stereotypes and the negative
connotation of the term “Gypsy”. Roma representatives and elites then decided to
affirm a new identity started/developed/represented and defined from inside Roma
community. In response to the recommendations advanced by Roma associations,
the Council of Europe approved the use of “Rroma or Roma” in its official documents (CLRAE Recommendation June, 11, 1995).
The clear response to stigmas, negative stereotypes and discrimination has consisted
in hiding and contesting ethnic belonging (or group belonging), accompanied by
28
the desire to assimilate into the majority culture (see Zamfir and Zamfir classification 1993: 5712). This is suggested by the low number of Roma who declared their
ethnic background (Roma) during the two censuses that took place in Romania after
the 1989 regime change, resulting in figures contested by Roma leaders and NGO
representatives (both Roma and non-Roma).
In the course of research conducted under the project “Nomads and
Parliamentarians”13 both terms, “Roma” and “Gypsy”, were found to be used as synonyms by our interviewees (Roma) in self presentation; “Gypsy” was even used with
pride, but only by them and in certain circumstances. All of our subjects were very
much aware of the negative connotation the term “Gypsy” has and some of them
made the distinction between the meaning of a “good Gypsy,” a “bad Gypsy” or simply “a Gypsy”; the latter expression can also be applied to other non-Roma people,
as a slur or insult.
The Barometer on Ethnic Relations14 survey (2002) revealed that 60.3% of Roma
call themselves “Gypsy” and 39.7% “Roma” in situations defined as formal. Several
years later, in 2007, the situation started to change and the Roma Inclusion
Barometer15 (2007) found that 55% used “Gypsy” to talk about their ethnic background. The “activist” term “Roma” is used more frequently by the Roma and nonRoma, without any connotation but considered a euphemism, in areas where projects aimed at Roma had been conducted by NGOs as well as where people have
access to mass media. According to context and the person speaking, therefore, both
terms can change their meaning (positive or negative).
How Roma conceive their identity
The Barometer on Ethnic Relations16 (2002) (see Table no. 2), revealed how Roma
conceive their ethnic identity compared to two other samples of ethnic Romanians
and ethnic Hungarians from Romania. For Roma, the feeling of being Roma
(Gypsy), the Romani language and parentage are the most important elements,
which are almost identical to those mentioned by the Hungarians (the main ethnic
minority, politically active in Romania). But for Roma the scores were very close for
these three elements, which were followed closely by other three elements, considered not so important by Romanians and Hungarians: Roma customs, using the
Romani language in the family and the feeling of belonging to Romani culture. The
difference from Hungarians and their way of defining their ethnic identity lies in the
ROMA FROM ROMANIA
29
religious heterogeneity which characterize Roma, compared with the perceived religious homogeneity reported by the Hungarians.
TABLE NO. 2
“In your opinion, what are the
three most important things for
someone to be considered
Romanian?”
someone to be considered
Hungarian?”
someone to be considered Roma
(Gypsy)?”
to have been born in Romania
his/her mother tongue should be
Hungarian
to feel Roma (Gypsy)
Romanian
to feel Hungarian
Romani
to be a citizen of Romania
his/her parents to be Hungarians
his/her parents to be Roma
(Gypsy)
to feel Romanian
to be baptized in a Hungarian
church
to respect the Romani (Gypsy)
customs
to be baptized in a Romanian
church
to speak Hungarian in the family
to feel the Hungarian culture
his/her own
to speak Romani in the family
to feel the Romani culture
his/her own
The data came from Barometer on Ethnic Relations (2002).
Five years later, in Roma Inclusion Barometer17 (2007), the ethnic criteria declared
remain the same (language, way of being, dress) but non-Roma interviewees also
mention the “skin color”, “physiognomy, the way they look”, “behavior, customs,
personality type”, physical and behavioral traits which have their origin in the
stereotypical image that the majority has of Roma.
State of the art: Different aspects concerning Roma in Romania
- Roma in public discourse
The phrase “the problems of Romanian Roma” is quite frequently used in the public discourse, even at the governmental level: in the city halls, to designate certain
30
officials (“Councilor for Roma problems”); the name of the program “Improving
Situation of Roma”; the renaming of the “Department for Roma Problems” as the
“National Agency for Roma”, etc. As O. Voicu (Roma Inclusion Barometer, 2007)
points out, the phrase does not have negative connotations, but reflects the status of
Roma as a marginalized ethnic minority and that there is a project to address the
problem.
- State of mind
As the Roma Inclusion Barometer (2007) shows, Roma are not optimistic about the
future. They are “dissatisfied and pessimistic about their own life” (O. Voicu, Roma
Inclusion Barometer, 2007: 17): 87% are dissatisfied with the way they live (compared with 63% for Romanians); 42% state that life is getting worse (only 15% for
Romanians); only 26% have hope for improvement (32% for Romanians). O. Voicu
(Roma Inclusion Barometer, 2007: 21) found that Roma’s opinions regarding the
future are similar to those of the poorest Romanian citizens.
- Trust in state institutions
Several studies confirmed a characteristic of Romanian society: a lack of trust in
public institutions. Among Roma, mistrust is higher for most of the institutions
and organizations mentioned in the survey (O. Voicu, Roma Inclusion Barometer,
2007: 22). Like Romanians, Roma trust the Church, the army and the mass media,
but with scores lower than those for the Romanian sample (see Table no. 3). The
second group of institutions trusted by Roma are the European Union, the
Municipal Government, the President and the Police, but as in the previous case
with lower scores than those for Romanians. Their confidence is lower in the very
institutions they are in direct contact and which can help them to solve their problems: Municipal Government, Police and NGOs are considered not very trustworthy compared with the answers given by the Romanian sample. Very few Roma
even know of the existence of the National Agency for Roma (NAR) and the
National Council for Combating Discrimination (NCCD), two major state institutions meant to protect and guarantee their support and protection. Only 10% of
the respondents knew of the National Agency for Roma and 15% of National
Council for Combating Discrimination (O. Voicu, Roma Inclusion Barometer,
2007: 24-25).
ROMA FROM ROMANIA
Sample
European Union
President
Government
Parliament
Justice
Army
Police
Town Hall
Political parties
Banks
Media (television,
radio, press)
Non-governmental
organisations
Church
31
TABLE NO. 3: LEVEL OF TRUST IN DIFFERENT INSTITUTIONS
National
Roma
little + very little much + very much
little + very little
much + very much
47
53
73
75
64
39
53
47
77
53
44
43
23
20
31
57
44
50
17
39
50
59
71
73
67
50
62
59
75
63
39
36
24
22
28
44
34
38
16
24
42
53
49
43
55
18
27
78
59
28
20
68
Differences to 100% are NA/NR. Source: Roma Inclusion Barometer – Open Society Foundation, December 2006
- Political life
Roma have many political parties: in 2001, 13 Roma political parties were identified by the Ethnocultural Diversity Resource Center and by Mede European
Consultancy18 project. But all of them “have awareness problems even among their
own public” (O. Voicu, Roma Inclusion Barometer 2007: 27) Even the Roma Party,
the oldest and best known Roma party is chosen only by 29% of Roma, their votes
usually going to other non-Roma political parties. Other Roma political parties
(Roma Civil Alliance, the Alliance for Roma Unity and Roma Christian Centre) are
less known by their intended base.
- Material situation
The precarious material conditions of Roma are very much present in the mass
media, discussed by different social actors from the public space. Most Roma - 60%
- are living in rural areas (compared with 46% of Romanians), at the outskirts of
towns and villages where the roads are in bad shape and where public transportation
is lacking. As a result they have less access to all kinds of services (shops, schools,
kindergartens, etc.). Roma dwellings are built of poor materials, are overcrowded
32
(the number of persons per room is twice that of other ethnic groups) and an overwhelming percentage of Roma have no access to basic utilities (sewage, gas, water,
power supply) and no durable goods (color TV, telephone, refrigerator, etc.). All of
these are signs of persistent poverty in a population with little or no constant income
source (V. Grigoraş Roma Inclusion Barometer, 2007).
- Incomes
In a poor country, incomes are a source of discontent. 90% of Roma (compared
with 71% of Romanians) consider their incomes insufficient, even for “daily needs”;
73% are less than subsistence level (30% for Romanians). Social welfare is an important income for Roma: 38% state that someone in his/her family is receiving it.
Almost half of the Roma respondents declared that they had no income source the
previous month and one tenth of the households received no income, which means
indebtedness is widespread (O. Voicu, Roma Inclusion Barometer 2007: 21).
- Formal exclusion
The Roma Inclusion Barometer 2007, as mentioned by C. Rughiniş (Roma
Inclusion Barometer, 2007: 44), found that around 3% of Roma never registered in
the National Persons’ Register, and as a result have never had birth certificates, so
they do not legally exist for the Romanian state. The same percentage has never had
an identity card. These data indicate formal exclusion, including a lack of civil status, identity or dwelling documents.
- Level of education
According to Roma Inclusion Barometer 2007 data, 23% of Roma have never
attended school (2% for Romanian sample), 27% finished primary school (11% for
Romanian sample), 33% had at least eight years instruction (24% for Romanian
sample), and 95% never finished secondary school (60% for Romanian sample).
28% of children between 7-14 have never attended school, 50% have gone only to
primary school, and only 1% are attending post-secondary school or university level
education. As C. Rughiniş (Roma Inclusion Barometer 2007: 66-68) noted, there is
an association between lack of formal education, poverty and living in a big city.
10% of the Roma with no school do not have a birth certificate and many do not
have an identity card, compared with 3% of those who finish school and are in the
ROMA FROM ROMANIA
33
same situation regarding the official documents. Half of those who do not have a
birth certificate/identity card are not registered with any family physician, so they
do not get medical assistance, except in case of emergency. Poor education and
poverty go hand in hand, in the case of Roma, with a low level of human and social
capital for this ethnic group.
- Spatial/residential segregation
C. Rughiniş (Roma Inclusion Barometer 2007: 49-51) applies two subjective indicators of Roma residential segregation. According to these indicators, the researcher
found that Roma are living mostly in aggregated spaces at the outskirts of villages
and towns, but also in the centre of big cities where there are abandoned buildings.
- Early marriage and number of children
Roma finish their formal education early and also start a family early. 51% of the
Roma women have conceived their first child before the age of 18 (16% for
Romanian sample), very similar to their parents’ model marked by an early maturity (compared to prevailing contemporary patterns). As C. Rughiniş (2007: 69)
points out from the research, Roma people, regardless of their educational level,
“think that the maturity age should be younger”. The marriage age is different
among Roma and non-Roma: two-thirds of non-Roma people between (19-29) are
unmarried, while only one third of the Roma young people are single. Because they
start their family earlier in life “Roma women are more likely to be found in the category of mothers having four, five, six and more children” (C. Rughiniş, Roma
Inclusion Barometer 2007: 71).
- Discrimination
Apart from violence, discrimination is another problem that Roma have to confront
in everyday life. According to the research “Intolerance, discrimination and authoritarianism in the public opinion” (Institutul pentru Politici Publice, 2003), Roma
are the group with the highest rejection rate: 44% of the respondents don’t want
them in the city they are living in, 36% consider that Roma should be forced to live
outside society and 48.5% claim that the state should take measures in order to stop
the increase of the number of Roma people. M. Voicu (Roma Inclusion Barometer
2007: 57) points out that the intolerance level of the majority population towards
34
Roma people decreased very much after 1990, as Romanians learnt tolerance and
respect for the Other. While more then 70% refused to have Roma as neighbors in
1993, in 2006 (when the Roma Inclusion Barometer survey was made) that figure
had declined to 50%. Possible causes of this improvement (M. Voicu, Roma
Inclusion Barometer 2007: 57) could be the better economic situation, acquisition
of democratic principles of interethnic tolerance and respect, new laws, and programs and projects aimed at encouraging social inclusion of Roma. Still, the level of
intolerance toward Roma is higher than that toward Germans or Hungarians; and
interaction between the majority and Roma is accepted by Romanians only in public spaces. While the level of prejudice toward Roma has decreased over time, this
ethnic group still feels discrimination in day to day life, in interactions with public
institutions, and considers that ethnic background is important for success.
- Stereotypes
The Barometer on Ethnic Relations (2002) provides data on the perceptions of
Roma by Romanians and Hungarians from Romania. In the survey, all three samples (Romanians, Hungarians and Roma) were asked to choose from a series of features those which define the other two ethnic groups. Roma showed that they have
a positive image about Romanians (decent, hard-working, hospitable, intelligent
and honest) and Hungarians (hard-working, decent, civilized, egoistic, hospitable,
intelligent, vain) and about themselves, in spite of the hardships, discriminations
and violence they were subject to. Romanians perceive Roma as thieves, dirty and
lazy, backwards, united, divided and superficial. In the case of Hungarians the picture does not change so much: Roma are perceived as thieves, dirty and lazy, backwards and superficial, superstitious, divided and united.
TABLE NO. 4 FEATURES THAT BEST DESCRIBE THE ROMA IN ROMANIA
Romanians about Roma
Hungarians about Roma
thieves, dirty and lazy
backwards, united
divided and superficial
The data comes from BER 2002.
thieves, dirty and lazy
backwards and superficial
superstitious, divided and united
ROMA FROM ROMANIA
35
TABLE NO. 5 FEATURES THAT BEST DESCRIBE THE ROMANIANS/HUNGARIANS/ROMA
Roma about Romanians
Roma about Hungarians
Roma about themselves
Decent
Hard-working, hospitable
Intelligent, honest
Hard-working
Decent, egoistic, civilized
hospitable, intelligent, vain
hospitable
Decent, Hard-working, united
honest, divided
The data comes from Barometer on Ethnic Relations 2002.
Today in Romania, Roma communities are taking important steps to be and become
respected as an ethnic minority in the modern sense of the term, as members of
Romanian society and not as a tolerated group. But integration is close to assimilation,
the loss of ethnic and cultural identity. Many of the Roma non-governmental organizations are beginning to promote Romani culture and language as much as programs
intended to improve the social and economica conditions of Roma in Romania.
Bibliography
1998 Census. www.edrc.ro
2002 Census. www.edrc.ro
Barometer on Ethnic Relations 2002. www.edrc.ro
Anăstăsoaie V., Tarnovschi D. (ed.) (2001). “Disseminating experiences of Roma
projects, 1990-2000”. (Cluj: Ethnocultural Diversity Resource Centre).
www.edrc.ro
European Roma Rights Center (ERRC) (1998). “Roma Rights: Summer 1998”.
(Budapest: ERRC).
Grigoraş Vlad (2007). “Dwelling conditions and financial problems of the Roma
population” (31-43). “Roma Inclusion Barometer”. (Bucharest: Open Society
Foundation)
Helsinki Watch (1991). “Destroying Ethnic Identity: The Persecution of Gypsies in
Romania”. (New York: Human Rights Watch).
Institutul pentru Politici Publice (2003). “Intolerance, discrimination and authoritarism in the public opinion”. (Bucharest: Institutul pentru Politici Publice).
Kenrick, Donald (1998), “How Many Roads?” in “Index on Censorship - Gypsies:
Life on the Edge”. (Index on Censorship, 4/1998).
Pons, Emmanuelle (1999). “Ţiganii din România – o minoritate în tranziţie”.
(Bucharest: Compania).
36
Roma Inclusion Barometer (RIB, 2007). (Bucharest: Open Society Foundation)
www.osf.ro
Rughiniş Cosima (2007). “Formal exclusion of Roma origin citizens” in “Roma
Inclusion Barometer” (44-48). (Bucharest: Open Society Foundation)
Rughiniş Cosima (2007). “Residential segregation” (49-55) in “Roma Inclusion
Barometer. Roma Inclusion Barometer”. (Bucharest: Open Society Foundation)
Voicu Mălina (2007). “Tolerance and perceived discrimination” (56-65) in “Roma
Inclusion Barometer”. (Bucharest: Open Society Foundation)
Voicu Ovidiu (2007). “State of mind, institutions, political options of the Roma in
Romania” (17-30) in “Roma Inclusion Barometer”. (Bucharest: Open Society
Foundation)
World Bank website, www.web.worldbank.org
Zamfir, Elena and Zamfir, Catalin (coordinators) (1993). “The Roma Population:
Socio-economic situation and coordinates of a support program”. (Bucharest:
Universitatea Bucureşti).
1 2002 Census. Ethno-demographic Structure of Romania. www.edrc.ro
2 Ibid. 1
3 The Roma were completely freed from serfdom in the two Romanian principalities (Moldova and Walachia) only
in 1864.
4 The land reform from 1864 aimed at liberating peasants from the last corvées, freeing their movements and redistributing some land. The others had property redistribution as a main objective.
5 Law no. 68 from 1992 stipulates that organizations belonging to national minorities can participate in elections
and can have a representative in the House of Representatives.
8 Barometer on Ethnic Relations, a program of EDRC (a Romanian Ngo, www.edrc.ro) is a sociological survey
regarding ethnic identities and intercultural relations in Romania. The survey is representative for Romanian population. In 2002 the survey was focused mainly on Hungarians and Roma, having representative samples for
Romanian, Hungarian and Roma ethnic groups. www.edrc.ro
9 Barometer on Ethnic Relations 2002. www.edrc.ro
10 2002 Census. www.edrc.ro
11 Barometer on Ethnic Relations 2002. www.edrc.ro
12 Zamfir and Zamfir (1993: 57) made a classification of types of Roma ethnic identity:
a) Roma who show all traditional ethnic characteristics and who self-identified as Roma under any circumstances
(officially – administrative and informal);
ROMA FROM ROMANIA
37
b) Roma who show all traditional ethnic characteristics, who are also identified as Roma by others who see their
lifestyle, but who do not self-identify as Roma in official-administrative circumstances;
c) “modernized” Roma who change their lifestyle, acquiring modern behavior, and who don’t show any visible marks
of their traditional lifestyle, but who self-identify as Roma in both circumstances (ethnic militants, businessmen);
d) “modernized” Roma who tend not to identify as Roma anymore or to do it only from time to time, and whom
the others can or cannot identify as Roma;
e) “former Roma” who have integrated into the majority population and don’t have any traditional features left, and
who have quit self–identifying as Roma even to themselves.
13 “Nomads and Parliamentarians. The influence of mobility and religious affiliation on identity building and on
the development of integration social policies” was financed by the Swiss National Fund. It is a project between
Fribourg University, Switzerland, “Babes-Bolyai” University, Cluj, Romania, “Al. I. Cuza”, Iasi, Romania and “Ion
Creanga” State Pedagogical University at Chisinau, Republic of Moldova.
14 Ibid. 10
15 Roma Inclusion Barometer (RIB, 2007) is a social research program organized by the Soros Foundation meant
to measure the perception of the population towards Roma and understand and measure the main problems of the
Roma communities in Romania. It is a quantitative sociological survey using two samples: a nationally representative one, and another which is representative for the Roma population in Romania. www.osf.ro
16 Ibid. 11
17 Roma Inclusion Barometer (RIB, 2007). www.osf.ro
18 Anăstăsoaie V., Tarnovschi D. (ed.) (2001). “Disseminating experiences of Roma projects, 1990-2000”.
Ethnocultural Diversity Resource Center and of Mede European Consultancy. Disseminating experiences of Roma
projects, 1990-2000. www.edrc.ro
Psychosocial perspectives on Roma
communities in Northeast Romania1
Adrian Neculau, Mihai Curelaru, Daniela Zaharia
University „Al.I. Cuza”, Iasi, Romania
ABSTRACT: The current study explores the psychosocial features of Roma communities in Northeast
Romania. Using the method of semi-directive interview, we investigated the following aspects: acknowledgment of national, ethnic, and religious identity; the Roma relation with the majority population and their
mutual perceptions (stereotypes, prejudices, discrimination, segregation, etc); social and geographic mobility; religion; participation in socio-political life; knowledge of minority rights legislation. The paper analyzes
the reluctance of Roma subjects to openly acknowledge their ethnicity and the connection between strategies
of identity management and the social context within which they are used. The study also discusses the
impact of social, political and economic transformations in Romania on Roma communities as well as the
evolution of the majority population’s attitude toward the Roma during the same period.
1. Introduction
This study is part of a more complex research regarding the ethnic and religious identity of the Roma population in two Romanian provinces (Moldova and Transylvania)
and in the Republic of Moldova. The main objective of this study is to analyze the
idea of identity progress in Eastern Europe, which is socially and economically influenced by increased social and geographic mobility after the fall of Communism.
The social context of our research of the Roma communities from this geographic
area is a particular one. The transformations that followed in the wake of the fall of
Romanian Communism impacted the Roma population on both economic and
social levels. Freedom of speech allowed the political and social organizations of the
Roma (the Roma Party, the National Agency for the Roma, various NGOs) to raise
public awareness of the problems of this community. This in turn allowed for educational programs to be set in place that enabled the social and professional integration of the Roma. New economic freedoms, Romania’s integration in the European
community, and the removal of borders have led to greater mobility, vertical as well
as horizontal, within the Roma community. New business possibilities arose, both
legal and illegal. Some Roma seem to have profited from them, based on our observation of the great differences among the various strata of this community.
Migration trends toward Western European countries confirm this newly acquired
PSYCHOSOCIAL PERSPECTIVES ON ROMA COMMUNITIES IN NORTHEAST ROMANIA
39
mobility. Nevertheless, these new opportunities have led to divisions within the
communities; they corroded ethnic solidarity and created social frustrations. This
situation has not occurred in the Roma communities of Western Europe
(Deschamps, Mamontoff, Neculau, 2001).
At the same time, and despite integration efforts by government authorities and
Roma leaders, the ethnic image of the Roma community has worsened. Studies
show that the negative prejudices and stereotypes of the majority population did not
lessen, even though many measures were taken against discrimination and segregation. Even the intellectual elite perpetrates the negative stereotypes about Roma ethnics, which further influences the perception of this group by the majority population as well as hinders any constructive approach to solving their problems
(Neculau, 1996). Meanwhile, the Roma developed deflective strategies for identity
management and adopted peripheral lifestyles, which usually involves accepting an
inferior status, marginalization, and exclusion. (Neculau, 2002)
Despite the methodological limitations of this study, we tried to observe as many
aspects as possible of the evolution of the Roma communities over the past years.
We also wanted to analyze the results within both the Romanian context as well as
the narrower, regional context.
2. Methodology
The study is based on the analysis of 15 interviews with Roma ethnic informants,
which were conducted in several communities from Northeast Romania, in the districts of Iasi, Botosani, and Vaslui. We had 8 male informants and 7 female informants, with an average age of 34.4 years (66 years for the oldest and 21 years for the
youngest). Seven of these came from rural areas and 8 from urban areas. With regard
to religion, 10 were Orthodox Christians and 5 were Pentecostal.
The interview guide contained questions that explored some of the following
aspects: national, ethnic, and religious identification (defining and adopting an
identity, etc.); relations with the majority and the mutual perception of the Roma
and the majority (stereotypes, prejudices, discrimination, segregation etc.); social
and geographic mobility; religion; social and political participation; knowledge of
minority rights legislation.
The informants largely cooperated with the interviewers. We only encountered a few
rejections; our strategy was to reach out to potential informants either through other
40
contact persons (community leaders, pastors, NGO activists, etc.), or based on recommendations from persons we had already interviewed. This approach worked
well with the spoon makers, the laiesi, and with the bear handlers or ursari. In these
groups, social hierarchy is less rigorous and families tend to be dispersed. The informants are not part of a compact community. We were unable to contact persons
from the caldarari (pot makers) community who are more faithful stewards of the
Roma identity and maintain a specific social organization (with chieftain, community laws, many taboos, etc).
We encountered the following difficulties with the persons we talked to: general reticence toward members of other ethnic groups (the interviewers were Romanian);
lack of trust in the classified character of the data and the person’s anonymity would
be maintained, reticence toward the scientific activity of the NGOs and toward government institutions in general; poor education, which accounts for the low introspective and reflective quality of some of the interviewees. Nevertheless, we believe
we were able to overcome these obstacles by reaching out to contact persons who are
respected within the community; by doing everything possible to gain the interviewees’ trust; and, finally, by paying the informants for the interview. We took these
precautions in order to make sure we have valid and correct data for our research.
Based on the interviews, we present in our report four different aspects of the Roma
condition: the self-perception of Roma ethnics; the Roma’s perception of how others relate to them; the economic situation and income of the Roma family; religious
conversions of the Roma.
3. How the Roma perceive themselves: ethnic,
national, and religious self-perception
Based on the interviews, we identified three main forms of self-relation that define
Roma identity. These identity management strategies are not elaborated in relation
to a certain sociological variable, such as profession or religion (even though these
are also involved), but mainly in relation to positive identity valorization.
We clearly see from the interviews that the informants disagree with the way they
are stereotyped by the majority population. The stereotype is loaded with negative
features, most of which are related to Roma criminality. This seems to be the most
frequently mentioned feature of the Roma-Romanian relationship, which is why the
informants tried in the interviews to reject the label of “criminals” that is usually
41
attached to them by the Romanian majority. Of course, other stereotypes enhance
different negative features, but the informants do not mention these with the same
frequency or emotional intensity.
One of the objectives of our research was to identify the strategies Roma use to manage their identity when they feel overwhelmed by labels that bear negative connotations. The latter are elaborated by the majority population and then internalized in
some degree by the subjects. Based on the expressed views of the informants, we
identified three mechanisms through which the Roma manage their identity: the
rejection of the Roma identity (through denial or avoidance); the substitution of this
identity for another one (by devaluing it); and the acceptance of one’s belonging to
the Roma community.
As far as the first strategy is concerned, the subjects deny their belonging to the
Roma community. Here is the statement of an informant who defines his identity
primarily as a human being and a simple folk. In order to project a positive selfimage, he rejects the negative features that are typically attributed to the Roma: “I
am a simple individual, I mind my own business and have no quarrel with anyone”
(DMG, male, 38). Those who adopt this strategy are poorly educated, have a weak
religious and professional identification, and a lower capacity for introspection.
A Roma public functionary, who deals with community problems within the Iasi
Prefecture2, explains the motive behind this behavior as she understands it: “The
Roma have always been seen as the less accepted ethnic community or the one with the
worst features, which is even worse, and this is why many Roma deny their origins in
order to escape the label of criminals or avoid exclusion from certain groups. There have
been centuries of slavery and, after being freed from serfdom, after 1859, the Romanian
government did not start programs aimed at the social and professional integration of the
Roma.3 The Roma were just left out there, on their own, with no jobs, no land, no home,
no protection. They had to survive in one way or another and so they had to find the best
way to succeed. Even though there were Roma NGOs in the prewar period that were set
in place and run by the Roma intellectual elite, these organizations were banned at the
end of the war” (M.H., female, 35).
The second general way of shaping a Roma identity is in terms of a type of identity
that is affirmed more powerfully: a professional or religious identity. The informants
do not deny their Roma origin, but believe it to be of secondary importance. For
them, this is a way of escaping the negative stereotype, a tactic through which they
42
try to make themselves valuable in other ways. This mechanism is very obvious for
the converted Roma who joined the Pentecostal Church. Thus, they define themselves first as Pentecostals and only second as being part of the Roma community.
This is one way of “distancing” oneself from, while still being a part of, the Roma
community (Cristea, Latea, Chelcea, 1996).
In relation to this point, an informant (T.I., male, 28) presents his religious identity as the most important. He says, “I am a Pentecostal above all.” Next in the order
of importance he lists his family and the fact that he has a job. He refuses to assume
his Roma identity. When the interviewer asks him about it more directly, he partially
assumes this identity, while also trying to distance himself from the negative image
of the Roma community: “I am also part of the Roma community, but, you see, there
are different kinds of people, you know, and some are worse than others, I mean, they are
not all alike. Even though I am a Roma, and I am not ashamed to say it, I am also a
Pentecostal”.
We do not see much pride in one’s religious identity among the Roma of Orthodox
faith. We did however find an informant who emphasized his Orthodoxy and the
importance of the practices and traditions within his religion. We see here an identity management strategy that sets out to improve the image of the Roma by relating it to that of the majority population. Still, and in contrast to the Pentecostals,
the Orthodox Roma do not prioritize faith and ethnicity: “Of course we believe in
God, we are Orthodox. The priest comes for Christmas and he goes to everybody, so he
also comes to us, we are Orthodox, too, we have no other religion”.
Finally, the third kind of identity management, which is characteristic of the Roma
who climbed the social ladder, does not involve any kind of manipulation or identity perversion. The informants state, without reservations, that they are Roma and
refuse to hide this fact. As M. H. (female, 35) says, “We always have to affirm our
ethnic identity. I am a Roma and I cannot deny it. On the contrary, I feel that I have to
defend my [Roma] identity”.
The better educated among the Roma (students or university graduates) more readily assume their ethnic identity. However, they reject certain practices that the
majority population disapproves of, such as the specific Roma clothing, or what the
majority perceives as antisocial behavior (such as loud speech and aggressive conversation), etc. They wish to preserve their ethnic identity through language and traditions, but they also strive to achieve social integration, substantive legal rights, and
43
equal status. D.E. (male, 48, Iasi) informs us: “The Roma in my family all entered
mixed marriages, and this integration process that we can see now existed many generations before… I belong in a category of Roma who wanted to integrate…while preserving their traditions and traditional occupations”.
Integration is facilitated not only by mixed marriages, but also by access to higher
education. The university students among the informants feel more accepted by the
majority than those without a degree. Professional success and working with
Romanian colleagues favorably influence inter-ethnic tolerance. M.H. (female, 35)
is married to a Romanian and considers herself an ethnic Roma who learned how to
live among Romanians: “I see myself as a Roma who always seeks her rightful place; I
work with Romanians; I did not acquire my professional skills among the Roma. I still
am one of them, of course, and I need them, but I cannot go back there anymore and I
would never feel at home there”. Her relationships with Romanians are good, mostly
because of her university degree and because she works at the Iasi Prefecture. On this
point she says, “I always socialized with Romanians, I studied with them, I can say that
I managed to become a part of the majority community. I have good professional relationships, but I also have very good friends who belong to the majority”.
There is no consistency in following one strategy or another. As we discovered from
the interviews, the context plays an important role. The Roma identity is assumed
only when it brings with it some kind of advantage, as in cases of positive discrimination. But, when the informants perceive that a situation is not in their advantage, they try to hide their ethnic identity. This attitude is more frequently encountered if the Roma are physically indistinguishable from the majority population.
One’s identity therefore depends on the social context within which the individual
finds himself.
The leaders of the Roma communities, who often have to mediate between their
population and the Romanian majority, frequently adopt such “diplomatic” strategies. V.B. (male, 42) says that, whenever he interacts with people from his religious
group, he introduces himself as a Pentecostal; in other words, he activates the religious component of his identity. When he interacts with people from his ethnic
group or with the authorities, he introduces himself as community leader. When
asked how he defines himself when he is by himself, he says he assumes his Roma
identity and that he wishes to change something in the mentality of his own community, so that it may be perceived in a more positive way. We witness in this
44
instance the effort of building a positive self-identity and the attempt to distance
oneself from anything that is bad within the community, or what the majority calls
the “Gypsy way”, that is, living like the Gypsies, or doing what Gypsies do: “Of
course I care about my image. I am a Roma, I always introduce myself as a Roma, and
I like the Roma very much. But I do not like the “Gypsy way.” And if I don’t, you must
not despise me. I am the equal of any other person”.
As a general rule, the Roma do not openly declare their ethnic identity, which
explains the low percentage of Roma ethnics in the national census (Merfea, 1991;
Zamfir and Zamfir, 1993).
4. How others perceive the Roma. Stereotypes,
prejudices, discrimination, and ethnic segregation.
As far as discrimination is concerned, our informants stated that they encountered
many discriminating situations. The most frequently mentioned cases involved
Roma children being taunted by other children at school. The informants also mentioned being discriminated against when applying for jobs, or when dealing with the
authorities (usually city hall clerks or police officers). They felt mistreated by sales
people or when using public transportation. A.D. (female, 28) mentions being
exposed to negative attitudes when using public transportations, but she attributes
these to the lack of education: “Yes, they do try to step away [in the bus], but what can
we do? But they are not all like that, these are only a few and generally they are not educated people, because someone with education cannot behave like that”.
M.H. (female, 35) believes that sometimes Romanians discriminate against Roma in
public places such as department stores or restaurants: “…I have in mind certain
restaurants, certain public places where Roma have no access”. But these situations
occur mostly when Roma ethnics apply for jobs in institutions or companies:
“Studies revealed that discrimination and the racial problem is mostly institutional. The
fact that a person has a Roma neighbor is not a problem; but it does become a problem
when the Roma want to work in a State institution, when they want to have an education. […] This is very well hidden. When it comes to job meetings in institutions, the
Rom is not invited; or he gets a less pleasant office, etc.” (MH fem 35 years)
One of the female informants stated that discrimination also occurs in schools; but
she got used to it. Referring to her school-aged son: “There are problems, they call
him Gypsy, they don’t want to play with him. But we encourage and help him, we tell
45
him not to mind them calling him names and everything” (A.D., female, 28).
Discrimination is enhanced by the fact that there are schools with special classes for
Roma children, where they do not get the same conditions for a proper education.
One of the persons we interviewed said: “At school, their classroom was the worst, it
wasn’t even painted, and the chairs were not good, either” (M.H, fem., 35).
Job discrimination was revealed to us by one of the interviewees; he believes that this
practice is determined by the mentality of the Romanians, which is anti-Roma:
“There is no longer explicit discrimination, but if a manager has to choose between a
Romanian and a Roma, of course he prefers the Romanian. I hope this will change in
time”. (D.E., male, 48).
As well, another informant told us that she thought the authorities discriminate
against Roma when they mediate conflicts between Romanians and Roma, or when
they distribute social allowances. She nevertheless admitted that it is not necessarily
the ethnic criterion which causes discrimination; instead, she blames the authorities’
own financial interests, which makes them favor the people they know. This woman
said there were small chances that the Roma would win in a conflict with the majority, especially when the local authorities are involved: “There have been many conflicts, but we slowly managed to overcome them. Many people discriminate against us,
but we have to let it go; we cannot fight the powerful. We are lowly and they are high
above us” (A.D., fem., 28).
The content analysis of the interviews reveals certain trends. First, discrimination
occurs more frequently and has a greater impact at an early age. Romanian children,
not their teachers, discriminate against Roma children. The cases mentioned by the
informants refer to their children’s experience or even their own past experiences.
Advanced education gradually reduces discrimination. For example, a student informant (C.A., male, 22) said that he never tried to hide his identity in university and
never faced discrimination from either professors or colleagues. In general, adult discrimination has a weaker affective impact; it is less frequent, easier to manage, and
allows one to react to it and defend oneself against it.
Discrimination is also related to geography, it decreases when moving from rural to
urban areas, or from Romania to Western Europe. An informant who worked
abroad for several years said the following: “A Roma has better chances of integration
in a society that is more civilized, more intellectual”. The same person also believes that
the rural areas of Romania do not facilitate Roma integration: “There are also intel-
46
lectual and civilized people in Romania, but not in the countryside” (A.D., male, 36).
The passing of time also has a positive impact on discrimination. Thus, under the
influence of Western European values, of the changes that were generated by the fall
of Communism and Romania’s membership in the EU, the attitudes of both authorities and the majority population have changed. An informant recounted life before
1989: the police used to unlawfully break into the houses of the Roma and punished
everybody for the crime of one. However, things improved somewhat in the last ten
years. The authorities show more respect for the rights of the Roma: “Before the [antiCommunist] Revolution, the police always used to break into our houses, with or without
reason. We were sitting at the table with mom and they would surround the house and then
just barge in. They were looking for criminals, and so they looked in every house. Things
are different now, they have more respect for our freedom, for the law” (C.I. fem. 29).
The fourth trend refers to visual and/or auditory features that reveal one’s ethnic
belonging. Discrimination is related to skin color, different kinds of clothing, or particular accents. T.C. (fem., 48) states that it sometimes happened that her little girl
was discriminated against because of her darker complexion. However, “they only
rarely call her Gypsy”. The same applies to her husband: “He also had problems... This
happened mostly in jail, where he was held for several years”. Other interviewees
informed us that most discriminatory acts occur in department stores because it is
in such contexts that the Roma interact with the Romanian majority.
M.H. (fem., 35) believes that the authorities’ attitudes changed soon after 1989,
after the National Council against Discrimination and other NGOs that fight for
the rights of the Roma were founded. MH also says that there are government projects on a national scale that were set in place to fight minority discrimination,
which led to the relative improvement in the Romanians’ attitude toward Roma
ethnics.
“After 1989, the Roma NGOs were resurrected and we can say that they have been working hard to change mentalities: the majority’s attitudes, making them accept a different
person, and accept that they have a different tradition and culture; it is important to
eliminate Roma stereotypes. On the other hand, they are also working to change the
minority’s attitudes, to help them overcome their reservations in relation to the majority
population”. (M.H., fem., 35).
Even though discrimination has decreased over time, the Roma are still facing negative attitudes toward them that are based on stereotypes and prejudices. M.E. (fem.,
47
22) believes that the Roma feel excluded by the majority: “When people hear you are
Gypsy or Roma, the social distance grows and you can see specific behavioral reactions.
Romanians want to keep their distance from the Gypsies. They become apprehensive, they
start checking their pockets, or end the conversation abruptly.”
The negative stereotypes and prejudices that were mentioned most frequently during the interviews refer to two main elements: Gypsies are thieves and they are violent people. An informant in the rural area recounted: “We had conflicts in the past,
as I am Roma. And people know that Gypsies steal. But do they have any proof for this?
Did they catch me in the act? If they did not, why do they still believe I am a thief?
Should they blame me for everything bad that happens just because I am Roma? Many
times, Romanians steal and the Gypsies have to pay for it” (A. D. fem., 28).
As mentioned above, the Roma usually rejects these negative features. There are
however subjects who internalize the negative stereotypes while trying to minimize
their intensity in order to protect their positive self-identity. In our research, we
identified several such strategies. The first strategy is to concede the criminal nature
of certain Roma actions but relegate these to the past. The second strategy is to show
that the majority population is equally responsible for these. A woman we interviewed summarizes both strategies in a single sentence: “Before, in Slobozia (her
native town), things were really bad, there were many violent, aggressive people, but now,
thank God, it is different. As far as stealing is concerned, well…, Romanians do that,
too, every once in a while” (B. E. fem., 66).
As far as segregation is concerned, some progress was made, but the situation
remains unchanged, especially when Roma property is located within Romanian villages. For example, in Slobozia (Iasi), which boasts a large Roma community, there
is ethnic and religious segregation. Thus, the Romanian Catholics, the Romanian
Orthodox, and the Pentecostal Roma live in separate areas. One of the persons interviewed admitted that there are only few cases of integration within and understanding with the majority population: “For example, I went to visit some famous
Roma musicians in Cozmesti (another community with Roma population)… I asked
some Romanians were I could find them and the Romanians said: in the Gypsy part of
the village. So they live separately there, too” (D.E., male, 48).
Segregation is also present in schools. M.E. (fem., 22) believes there is segregation in
public institutions: “The Roma children sit in the last row of desks because of the stereotype
that they cannot learn, that they are not interested in school, that they are not clean enough.
48
This creates a kind of feeling of inferiority…that you will never be more than that…you are
not motivated to overcome your condition. Teachers don’t spend the same amount of time
with the Roma children, and they don’t believe that these children deserve more”.
5. Geographic mobility, income, and the underground economy
A set of questions in the interviews addressed the economic problems of the Roma
community, how they manage to support their families. We must say that we did
not have among our informants people employed in traditional Roma occupations,
such as blacksmiths or pot makers. For this reason we only refer to this type of activity in passing.
The interview analysis shows a close connection between income and geographic
mobility, both within and without the country. Of the three kinds of income generation within households, two (number two and three below) are related to geographic mobility.
First, some Roma are employed in traditional jobs. There are those who work with
metals or wood (blacksmiths, silver workers, spoon makers, etc), but also masons,
stove makers, and musicians. They tend to work in and around their village. They
occasionally venture outside it, but this is not a common practice. Recently, however, geographic mobility is on the increase due to improved access to public transportation and superior information circulation (mobile telephony).
One should add that these Roma enjoy a certain local reputation, which is essential
to finding customers. This is especially true for musicians. The musicians are much
respected, at least locally, and they are generally not engaged in any local conflicts or
brawls, as their fame is mostly associated to their talent and occupation. In most of
the cases, this is a family tradition based on skills and “trade secrets” that are transmitted from one generation to another.
In our study, we had two informants who were musicians, one of whom is a violinist who graduated from the music Conservatory. D.E. (male, 48) is a professional
musician who highly respects the family tradition: “On my father’s line, I am a seventh generation violin player. They were all very good and studied Romanian folklore all
their lives (he emphasizes “Romanian”), they sang at many Romanian weddings. This
has been the main occupation in the family. I can say that we reached a certain professional excellence”. D.E. knows several communities of Roma musicians. He talked
about the tradition that existed in his family and how it was passed down to him:
49
“My father’s native village is called Zmeu, Lungani (in the district of Iasi). It is regarded as the “Conservatory of Gypsy musicians”. They had this profession for generations.
They each play a different instrument, not necessarily the violin. By playing the violin, I
wanted to keep alive my father’s tradition”. There are differences according to local traditions in the choice of playing instruments: “The people from Cozmesti were very
good with blowing instruments, they had a great tradition in this”.
There have also been changes. These groups of musicians expanded the geographic
area of their performances from neighboring villages to entire districts or even
regions. Some of the wedding orchestras became internationally famous. As D.E.
recounts, “In the fifties, the orchestra in the village of Zmeu was awarded the gold medal
at a national competition. Oh, yes, at the time it was considered the best band in
Romania. In the same year, the Cozmesti orchestra also received a gold medal. After these
two successes, the two bands joined forces and together created the famous “Doina
Moldovei” orchestra. [T]hey had no musical training, but, as their musicianship reached
a certain level, they realized they had to play in a different way, so they became an organized orchestra, they started playing in a uniform way, winning even more awards
because they were united in a single team…there was a certain discipline, a certain style
to this orchestra”. As we see from this quotation, a social shift has occurred toward
professional music and musical education.
The second type of employment entails mobility within the country borders. Many
Roma practice some kind of unauthorized commodity exchange, which consists in
buying cheap and selling at a small profit. One person has a car and the business initiative to go with it. With help from two or three acquaintances, they buy wholesale
from remote locations at great distances (400 km. or so), usually cheap household
objects such as curtains, kitchen items, electronic devices, carpets, bed linen, etc,
which they sell in villages as they make their way back home. This type of illegal
trade is gradually disappearing because of increased police control. To compensate
for this, the traders now go abroad. One informant tells us, “There was much business like this in the past, we would buy and sell things, but this isn’t working anymore.
Now we have small registered businesses. We import cars and sell them locally. Most of
the people around here made their fortune by importing jeans […]. Nowadays, several
family members go abroad and send money home” (M.R.I., fem., 21).
The Roma know this trade is against the law, and so opinions about it vary. One
female informant has a low opinion of the “business people” in her village. Her fam-
50
ily managed to survive on whatever they produced in the household: “My family and
I, we never sold stuff at a profit. We never did that. We ate what we produced” (B.E.,
fem., 66). But others justify this petty trade by pointing out to the lack of jobs that
are available for the Roma.
The third kind of mobility involves Roma who travel abroad. Some of them continue to practice the same kind of illegal trade, now under the cover of legally registered businesses. But most of them follow the example of the Romanians and go
abroad in search of work for determined periods of time, usually between 3 and 12
months. Their favorite destinations are the Czech Republic, Spain, and Italy. They
usually work on construction sites in Central European countries or on farms in
Spain. The jobs pay poorly and they rarely send money home. They often overstay
their work visas, which brings them to the attention of the police authorities from
the host countries. This life of hardship and the constant stress caused by the lack of
legal status create tensions that often degenerate into violent conflicts. In many
cases, the hardship starts even before they leave for work. Some find it hard to gather the money needed for the trip. They cannot trust the middlemen who carry them
to their destination and they have no relatives who could offer them shelter abroad.
The Roma who cannot afford to leave for work are among the poorest. A.D. (male,
44) says: “There are some from our community, those who can work, who have gone
abroad, but those left at home are very poor. They are all poor. Before going abroad, they
lived on social allowances and some petty trade, but it was hard. Those who stayed at
home are happy for the ones who managed to leave and can send them some money. But
in some cases those left behind are helpless, they live in hardship, they suffer, and we suffer with them”.
The dark, criminal side of Roma life in Western Europe is rarely mentioned. This may
be explained by the activation of “defense-mechanisms” aimed at protecting one’s ethnic identity or by lack of trust in the interviewers. Nevertheless, S.C. (fem, 21) comments: “The sources of income for the rich are inheritances. However, they also go abroad
and steal, and then they send money back home. They also traffic in human beings. They
recruit naïve girls from the countryside. The rich gained respect by using force”.
6. Religious conversions
In one of the villages in which we carried out interviews, we met Roma converts to
Pentecostalism. In Slobozia (Iasi) we identified a community of converted Roma of
51
roughly 250 people, which represents almost half of its population. Our questions
sought to uncover the reasons for conversion, the economic and social changes after
conversion, social relationships within the community, and inter-confessional perceptions.
When asked to define their identity, the converted Roma generally ranked their religious identity first and the ethnic identity second. We also noticed that the discussion generally focused on the event of conversion itself, whether in relation to oneself or to the life of the community.
Two main explanations were given for the reasons for conversion. The first was theological, the call of God and His love for the downtrodden. On the other hand, conversion came as a solution to the severe problems of the Roma community: alcoholism, violence, and criminality. As a result of these personal and community problems, changes in one’s lifestyle and values were needed, which only the church could
provide.
Conversion, the Roma argued, improved their personal life: lower levels of illiteracy, a
decrease in alcohol consumption, less domestic violence, finding honest work, etc.
One of the converted Roma gave us a comparative presentation of his new life: “My
neighbors see me now and say: ‘Look at you, now, Catalin! Before, you were a real bastard.
And now we cannot believe that you changed so much.’ Before, I could not refrain from
doing certain things and could not stick to any resolution I would make” (DMG, male,
38). Reflecting on his life before conversion: “I worked hard chopping wood and spent
all the money on booze. I could not manage my money properly and always had to ask my
father for more. There were always conflicts in the family because of this. Sometimes, when
I was out of money, I would pick up cigarette butts and smoke them. Then my sister converted and I saw how much her life had improved. I decided I wanted that, too. Then my
wife saw the changes in my life and she also converted. Then my parents.” (DMG, male,
38) Talking about other converted Roma, he said: “Their lives changed for the better.
Before they would drink, smoke, and fight. Now it happens very rarely.”
We also perceived a reduction in inter-confessional conflicts as well as improvements
in community relations. As the number of converts grew, Roma leaders focused on
improving the social life of their community: they tried to raise the educational level
in the village by building a school for Roma children, they initiated new socio-economic projects such as a small textile factory, and they began collaborating with various NGOs.
52
The illiterate Roma, even the oldest ones, learned how to read, starting with the
Bible, as each family owns a Bible now. They learned how to cherish sedentary
lifestyle and started to look after their property; they built houses, fences, and started raising animals. They changed their attitudes towards hygiene and health, and
started to care about their children’s education.
The Neo-Protestant Roma is instantly recognized. These Roma have their specific
language, the women are required to wear headscarves, and they no longer wear any
kind of jewelry (earrings, chains, rings, etc.). This causes no problems for the majority population. When it comes to their own people, the informants said they were
faced with various attitudes: some regarded their conversion as a good thing, while
others (especially those who belong to the Orthodox Church and therefore are more
integrated in the majority population) condemned this transformation. The interviews reveal that in business and interpersonal relationships the Neo-Protestant Roma
are regarded as more trustworthy by both their own and the majority population.
We also explored the issue of the relationship between minority and majority within the Neo-Protestant Church. The converted informants still notice an ethnic distinction. Romanians keep their distance but make efforts to close the ethnic gap in
order to fulfill the Biblical command of loving one’s fellow. The leaders of the converted Roma explain this through reference to general negative stereotypes.
There are liturgical differences between the two ethnic groups. During prayer, Roma
worshipers are more vocal, which brings them closer to the charismatic movement.
Their musical sensibility is also different; their chants are warmer and more exuberant. However, the people we interviewed believe that beyond these irrelevant differences, there is a religious proximity, a form of Christian solidarity that trumps ethnicity.
The phenomenon of New-Protestant conversion is not unique to Romania. We
encounter it in the majority of Western European countries with Roma populations.
Experts regard it as a strong engine of social transformation (Liegeois, 2007).
7. Conclusion
We identified certain trends in our research regarding the evolution of Roma communities in Northeast Romania. We emphasized two aspects in our approach: the
construction of social identity in relation to the attitudes of the majority population
and the economic condition of the Roma.
53
With regard to the first aspect, one notices the striving of the Roma to openly
assume their ethnic identity, which becomes increasingly visible as they gain access
to education. From the interviews, we learned that many Roma tend not to reveal
their ethnic origin, especially if they are physically indistinguishable from the majority population. They openly assume it only if they feel completely safe in their community or if they feel unthreatened by potential prejudices (stereotypes, discrimination, etc). One can say that they developed a certain versatility regarding their identity. Depending on the context, they often espouse another dimension of their identity – either professional, or religious – at the expense of the ethnic one.
The changes in the global – social, political, and economic – context, as well as an
increased geographic mobility also determine the change of attitudes on education.
Almost all the parents we interviewed wished for their children to have access to
school, which in their opinion warrants professional success and social integration.
Without exception, Roma parents do not regard social integration as cultural assimilation, as they insist that their children study the Romani language in school and
keep their ancient traditions.
At the same time, the tolerance level of the majority population has gradually
increased after the fall of Communism. However, some of the informants believe it
still lags behind Western Europe. This growing openness is also visible in the authorities, which are now more guarded in their actions and show more respect for minority rights when trying to solve inter-ethnic conflicts. Needless to say, this attitude
change is also the result of increased EU pressure.
Although important steps were taken in the fight against discrimination, segregation
practices, some of which are rooted in history, still persist. Regardless of education
or social status, Roma ethnics must often confront the stereotypes and prejudices of
the Romanian population. The media could be decisive in changing the attitudes of
the majority population toward the ethnic Roma (Constantin, 1996). This is no
easy task, as the Roma minority is burdened with the most unfavorable ethnic image
of all other ethnic minorities in Romania, whether Hungarian, Germans, or Jewish.
(Turliuc, 1999),
Second, the economic condition of the Roma communities is rather precarious. The
informants have no regular income; they sometimes engage in economic practices
that border the criminal; they live in underserved areas and have no prospects.
Based on these, we believe that there is need for urgent social intervention through
54
programs, whether national or European, that should operate at the level of intercultural education (Cozma, Cucos, Momanu, 1996) and economic development.
With respect to the latter, local production capacities using local labor could be
developed that would provide minimal living conditions and incomes for the Roma
families.
References
Constantin, T. (1996). Minoritatea romilor – de la investigatii constative la interventie sociala. In A. Neculau si G. Ferreol, Minoritari, marginali, exclusi. Iasi:
Polirom.
Cozma, T., Cucos, C., Momanu, M. (1996). Educatia copiilor de tigani: reprezentari, ipoteze, dificultati. In A. Neculau si G. Ferreol, Minoritari, marginali, exclusi.
Iasi: Polirom.
Cristea, O., Latea, P., Chelcea, L. (1996). Vinituri si Tigani: Identitati stigmatizate
intr-o comunitate multiculturala. In A. Neculau si G. Ferreol, Minoritari, marginali, exclusi. Iasi: Polirom.
Deschamps, J-C., Mamontoff, A-N, Neculau, A. (2001). Evolution des valeurs tziganes. Etude comparée des Tziganes roumains et des Tziganes français, Psihologia
sociala, 7, 2001.
Liegeois, J-P. (2007). Roms en Europe, Strasbourg: Editions du Conseil de l’Europe.
Merfea, M. (1991). Tiganii. Integrarea sociala a romilor, Brasov: Ed. „Barsa”.
Neculau, A. (1996). Tiganii: personalitatea modala si caracteristicile grupului. In A.
Neculau si G. Ferreol, Minoritari, marginali, exclusi. Iasi: Polirom.
Neculau, A. (2002). Les Tsiganes de Roumanie. Lecture psychosociologique, Psihologia
sociala, 9, 2002.
Turliuc, N. (1999). Atitudini etnice la studentii ieseni, Psihologia sociala, 4, 1999.
Zamfir, Elena; Zamfir, C. (1993). Tiganii intre ignorare si ingrijorare, Bucuresti: Ed.
Alternative.
1 Project SCOPES/ESTROM JRP, NOMAPARLIA: Nomads and Parlamentarians. The influence of mobility and
religious affiliation on integration policies and the development of identities. Roma people in Northern Romania
(Transylvania), Eastern Romania (Moldova) and the Republic of Moldova, Fonds National Suisse, 2005-2008.
55
2 The informant is 35 years old. She was born in a small town, about 45 km from Iasi, and now lives in this city.
She has a degree in psychology and social work from a local university and is currently pursuing an MA degree. She
is married to a Romanian citizen who is also a Romanian ethnic and with whom she has a son.
3 The first document that mentions a Roma population in Romania dates back to 1385. The Roma were serfs who
belonged to monasteries and the landed aristocracy. The leaders of the 1848 revolution in the Romanian principalities started a movement that led to the abolition of serfdom in 1859.
Aspects of Religious Conversion among Rroma
in post-socialist Romania
Sorin Gog
Babes-Bolyai University, Cluj, Romania
1. Introduction
After the fall of communism, Romania experienced at a general level what some
sociologists and anthropologists have called a religious revival. This issue is strongly
debatable and can be criticized from different perspectives (Gog 2006), but what is
certain is that the atheization of the Romanian society through ideological means
empowered by the Communist Party was a failure.
This attempt, carried out through an elaborate program imposed on all levels of
society, church persecution, imprisonment of religious leaders and the marginalization of those that hung to “obsolete” religious thinking, left apparently only a limited mark on the Romanian population, so that in spite of all this, social scientists
are able to speak now about Romania as one of the most religious societies in both
Eastern and Western Europe. (Müller 2004; Tomka 2004; Pollack 2002, 2004)
The same failure can be noticed in most of the ex-communist countries (Froese
2003, 2004: 35, Bourdeaux 2000: 10) where similar intensive religiosity can be
found after decades of a strong policy towards scientific atheism imposed by the
communist leaders.
After the fall of communism, an important actor on the religious market were the
neo-protestant churches. They had been for quite a long time in Romania, but the
strong regulation imposed by the communist regimes and the state led persecution
of the “sectarian” activity made the neo-protestant churches not that visible on the
public sphere.
The communist authorities tolerated these religious cults, but imposed strong regulations regarding their activity and practiced a policy of marginalization of those belonging to such sects. Party memberships, good working positions, access to high education
were things that were un-officially forbidden to the members of these religious communities. This led to the formation of a religious culture of resistance and martyrdom,
with strong integrated communities that developed a genuine rejection of the world.
ASPECTS OF RELIGIOUS CONVERSION AMONG RROMA IN POST-SOCIALIST ROMANIA
57
After the fall of communism, the different persecuted religious movements saw in
the new era of post-socialism the chance not only to assume openly their religious
identity but to start sharing their faith with others and preach the Gospel. Public
evangelization meetings, radio stations, newspapers, the proliferation of religious literature, neo-protestant music and later on TV shows were used to achieve a more
intense presence on the public sphere. Although according to the latest National
Census there are only 2.5 % Pentecostal, Baptists and Adventists altogether, a lot of
people perceived their presence as ubiquitous.
Gradually the martyrdom rhetoric and the rejection of the world were replaced by a
bold attempt to conquer modernity through the emerging of new elite: neo-protestant entrepreneurs, politicians, teachers, journalists, theologians, doctors were all
fighting for the institutionalization of a neo-protestant counter-culture. To this we
have to add as well the presence of foreign missionaries that offered their help and
experience in founding new religious communities and tried to spread their religious
message all over the country. It is in this context that the massive conversion of
Rroma to Pentecostalism, Baptism and Adventism emerged.
My paper focuses on the spreading of Neo-protestant cults among one of the most
social marginalized ethnic minority, namely the Roma or Gypsy. I am trying to analyze the way conversion to a new religion restructures their conception of self, lifestyle, world-view and ways of interaction (Rambo 1999; Snow 1983, 1984). By
doing this I argue that the strong intensification of the Neo-protestant movement
that took place after the fall of communism led to the emergence of a new selfunderstanding of Gypsyness (Gay y Blasco 2000, 2000b).
How does religious conversion changes the social and cultural identity of the Gypsy
/ Rroma community and what are the features of the Neo-Protestant model of
Gypsyness that emerges from such conversions? The restructuring of the identity
through the conversion to a Neo-Protestant church (Pentecostals, Baptists, and
Adventist) is always a very strong one. It operates a strong and violent separation
between the old sinful person and the new born again person and it leads always to
the filtering of all the traditions, rituals and local way of life through the Scriptures.
The resulting process is a new cultural code, a language code, a dressing code, a
restructuring of the time and local space and eventually of their own identity
(Slavkova 2003, 2005). They still regard themselves as Gypsy, but they attach to this
a whole new meaning.
58
My paper aims at analyzing the symbolic architecture of the discourse that surrounds the conversion and the model of Gypsyness that it institutionalizes. I try to
argue that this is due to the changes brought by post-socialism that structurally
allowed a free religious market and the pluralization of religious movements.
The data used in this paper is based on a research1 conducted in 2006 / 2007 that
used as a main instrument of research qualitative interviews and participatory
observation. The advantage of such qualitative data over the narrow quantitative
data in analyzing ethnic identity and the way religious conversion re-structures this
identity, is enormous. It allows us to see the diversity of images, arguments and narratives that the converts themselves employ in constructing an own identity based
on their religious experience and the specific social and cultural meanings they
attach to this.
2. Against the economic explanation of religious conversion
Religion always appealed to those that where socially marginalized and poor and, as
many anthropological and sociological studies have shown, the Rroma community
is the most poor and socially marginalized community in Romania. The unemployment rate is very high among them. Only in Bucharest there is an estimation of
almost 60 % of Rroma / Gypsy population that are unemployed. Of course some of
them are self-employed or are working on the black market. But still, the economical situation of the Gypsy / Roma community is extremely difficult.
Because of the very poor condition of Rroma many have tried to explain the conversion of Rroma to Neo-protestant Churches in economic terms. The prevalent
explanation of the non-converted Rroma and of most Rroma political leaders is that
the conversions are taking place because of the material aid that people receive from
foreign missionaries. The general perspective is that they are somehow tricked by the
food and clothes that the missionaries bring to attract many Rroma followers.
Our research revealed that the common assumption among the non-converted
Rroma is that you are asked to convert in exchange for different goods and material aid and that the conversion leads eventually to the change of lifestyle, the laws you
are living by and ultimately the social tradition that was handed down by the forefathers.
I think that this theory fails to explain some very basic social facts regarding conversion. It is indeed true that the Neo-protestant Churches engage in social welfare
59
and social assistance and that the various international religious organizations were
in the early 90’s involved in humanitarian relief to all Roma, regardless of their religion, and that the agent through which this happened was of course the local Neoprotestant church.2
But in spite of this, it is very difficult to conclude that the act of conversion is an
economic act: the adhesion to a new religion is not in exchange for intermittent
material aid. There are several reasons why we cannot stop at this economic explanation and have to go deeper:
a) A lot of the Neo-protestant religious leaders we have interviewed declared that
they have never received any material help from other people, foreign or local. They
proudly say that they managed themselves to build a church (House of Prayers)
through their own means and efforts. The cases of material aid delivered through
some of the neo-protestant communities are limited mostly to the early 90’s or to
the present-day communities that struggle for their daily existence. When present,
the foreign missionaries deliver material aid not only to members of the Church but
to all other people in need as well.
b) The involvement in delivering humanitarian aid is perceived by a great number
of the neo-protestant religious leaders as being a corrupt practice. There is an active
resentment regarding the collection of lists of names and signatures in order to
receive money or material aid, an activity in which were involved a lot of the NGO
representatives. Several people that where interviewed pointed out to community
leaders (most of them activating in the NGO sector) that where getting rich from
handling such material aid. They have a very bad reputation in the Rroma community and that’s the reason why mediating material aid is sometimes perceived by the
neo-protestant leaders as a questionable activity.
c) The religious conversion requires a very hard price to pay: there is a strong moral
and cultural code, and the requirements of a puritan life-style that one has to adopt.
It does not make much sense to allow the total institution of the church to control
so strongly your life in exchange for some clothes and food that you might receive.
Analyzed in strictly economic terms, the conversion leads to more costs than benefits. On a long term-perspective this explanation fails to account for why more and
more Rroma / Gypsy convert and re-structure their lives along the lines that we will
describe below.
d) The aspect of foreign religion that is brought inside Romania with foreign money
60
provides an easy explanation that non-converts can use to defend their local way of
life. There are a lot of struggles between Gypsy converts and non-converts and sometimes such theories are used for apologetic reasons.
I follow Clifford Geertz suggestion that in a traditional society, religion is strongly
fused with the ethos of a community because it needs to give the social values the
needed appearance of objectivity (Geertz 1973). If this is true, then forsaking your
religion means adopting a new identity and denying your old one, and together with
this denying the entire ethos of the community that is legitimized by the former religion. This restructuring of identity triggers sometimes violent consequences: a community may not accept this challenge by the new religious minority and hence a
symbolic violence is addressed at the converts (the separation of cemeteries is one
such example of symbolic violence, see below).
In what follows we will point out some very important ethnological data regarding
the socio and cultural implication of what religious conversion implies and the way
this leads to a restructuring of Rroma / Gypsy identity.
3. Rroma religious converts. Socio-cultural aspect of their conversion.
a) Miracles and healings
One of the findings we came across while doing the field research, was that a lot of
interviewed people placed the origin of their conversion in the claimed fact that they
have witnessed a miracle, or a super-natural healing that led them to believe in the
new religious way. They say that they have seen people being cured of cancer or
other life threatening diseases. This is much more often claimed by Pentecostal communities than by Baptist communities. Most of the people we have interviewed
affirmed they have had a strong mystical experience that opened their eyes to see the
spiritual realm.
Analyzing the type of rhetoric that they employ when they re-tell the mystical religious experience on which their new life is based, can easily lead to see that the miracles and healings act as a proof that God exists, that He is present among them; all
this has an enormous apologetic weight in the discourse about which religion is “the
true way” to Divinity and which life-style one has to adopt. This is a sample of a discourse that can be heard in most of the Pentecostal churches: “A lot of people in our
church were miraculously healed. A girl in the Church was deaf and mute. After a
61
prophecy, she was healed and now sings in the church”. (A.S. 50 years old, wealthy businessmen, converted in 2002).
These types of individual and social experiences lead to a strong mystical encounter
in which the complete transformation of self takes place: “Then (after the miraculous
healing of his father from cancer) I realized that God wants to talk to me and that I am
chosen by God. When I prayed to God that night I felt that I was lifted up from the earth
to the above. And then I said to myself: God, you really are a living God, a God that talks
to us, a God that is close to us.” (A.S. 50 years old, wealthy businessmen, converted
in 2002).
I leave it to professional theologians to debate whether or not they had a true spiritual experience or if they are just misleading themselves. It does not lay in the scope
of my anthropological analysis to debate whether there are such things as miracles
and supernatural healings. From a sociological and anthropological point of view it
does not actually matter whether or not a supra-mundane religious experience is
possible or not (for this anthropology lacks the required analytical tools to decide
whether there is or not a sacred realm). What anthropology can do is to show the
social and cultural implication of this belief in the spiritual realm and of the claimed
mystical experience that acts as the touchstone of their religious conversion.
And in the life of the converted Rroma / Gypsy, this belief has great and important
consequences. The religious experience that they claim they have splits their life into
two: a before and an after. Before (according to the testimonies of both converts and
non-converts, of Gypsies and non-Gypsies) they were sinful people that had no
moral standards and no God, after the conversion they changed completely. They
recall many such examples from their own life, how before they were cheating on
their wives, stealing, drinking and now gave all this up in order to do what the
Scriptures tell them to do. There is always a strong moralization of conduct implied
by the religious conversion which is as well one of the most important criteria that
both converts and non-converts use to distinguish between a “true” conversion and
“false” conversion (see below).
The mystical experience they claim they had is always employed as an apologetical
argument and proves in their opinion the truth of the new religious way they have
adopted. They always talk about this with great pleasure and point out that the
Orthodox Rroma / Gypsies lack a religious understanding of life. They criticize the
over-ritualized religion and the monopolization of the sacred realm by the priests:
62
“what type of faith do they have, if they do not believe that God is working through people?” (M.P. president of the Rroma Party, leader of a Pentecostal Church)
Each believer can, in their opinion, experience the sacred and each can become a
priest or a pastor without any formal training if he wishes to do this. We deal here
with a popularization of the sacred experience in which institutional hierarchies do
not play an important role anymore.
b) Religious socialization and the empowerment of local religious communities
In most of the villages the Gypsy community is spatially segregated from the
Romanian or Hungarian one. Generally, the Gypsy Quarter, as they call it, is located at the end of the village. The unspoken rule (of which all my interlocutors told
me very often about) is that the Gypsies are not allowed to buy land among the
majority (Romanians or Hungarians) and build a house next to them.
This social segregation is obvious as well when we look at how the cemetery space is
organized in a village. The ethnic and religious boundaries are prolonged in the afterlife and they are immortalized and portrayed as strong identity borders. This gives you
the feeling that the Neo-Protestant Rroma are twice marginalized: first as Rroma and
secondly as Neo-protestants. The graveyard of a Romanian village (the same applies to
the villages where the Hungarians are the majority) is segregated according to ethnic
criteria. Usually, the Gypsies are buried in their own section of the graveyard and exactly as they are not allowed to build a house next to the house of a Romanian but only
at the end of the village in a special section, so the dead Gypsies are not allowed to be
mixed with the dead Romanians and are buried in their own section.
The Rroma Neo-Protestants are buried as well in a special segregated sector within
the Roma section of the cemetery and are spatially segregated from the other
Orthodox Rroma. In one case, the Neo-protestant Rroma that I have interviewed,
told me that in the section they received a few years ago when the first of their
believers died, an un-baptized child has been previously buried. Usually when this
happens is a sign that that piece of land is symbolically polluted and lies outside the
blessed graveyard. Assigning such type of land to the Rroma is a social way of depicting religious conversion as a betrayal of the very ethos of the community. This is why
they have to be buried outside the cemetery: because they are de facto being perceived as outside the community. This exclusion is objectified in the after-life as well,
which enforces even more the current use of such identity-stereotypes.
63
Another important finding we came across is that the Gypsy communities are not
socially integrated in the Orthodox religious communities. They visit the Church
only on special occasions (Christmas or Eastern, weddings and funerals) and do not
take part in most of the religious celebrations the local church organizes. The several Romanian Orthodox priests that we have interviewed confirmed that almost none
of the Gypsies visit regularly the Church. The reason for this is that they fill themselves discriminated or treated badly by the Romanian believers. This leads to a
strong lack of religious socialization on the behalf of the Rroma / Gypsy Orthodox
believers. (The priests that I have interviewed think that this is the reason of their
conversion to Neo-Protestant Churches ). “I don’t understand why. This is how they
were accustomed. I tried to bring them [to Church]. But they don’t like it. They say that
the Romanians do not look nice to them.” (Father L., Romanian Orthodox Priest, 30
years old, rural area)
Whatever the reason of their exclusion from the religious local life is, this has a great
impact on the access of Gypsies to religious institutions or institutionalized religion.
They feel themselves excluded from the local church and claim that they are not religiously integrated into the wider community. (As we shall see this is the case sometimes among the Romanian Pentecostal Churches as well.)
In contrast to this social and religious exclusion the Neo-Protestant Gypsy community insists in building their House of Prayers in their own section (quarter) of their
village. This is a recurrent fact in almost all Gypsy quarters where there are NeoProtestants. The Church, or Praying House, is always a very simple building where
most of the religious activities take place. Not all of them, because an important
dimension of their religious life consists of home meetings for praying and studying
the Bible.
The House of Prayers is always open to all Gypsy and to the curious Romanians.
The religious leaders that lead the local church (pastors, elders, deacons, preachers)
are always recruited from the Gypsy community and allow them what the
Romanian community refuses them: an institution of their own that enables them
to institutionalize their culture and life-style. This leads of course to the empowerment of local (religious) Gypsies communities. A local church has a great deal of
autonomy in relation to the other Pentecostal (Gypsy and non-Gypsy) churches.
The members of a local Church become the agents of their own social and cultural
meanings in which their life is embedded.
64
The religious fellowship that they have leads to strong bonds between their members and so the feeling of a strong community in which all are equally part of. The
emergent community is an egalitarian one where all status and kinship differences
are leveled down. This provides the Gypsies the needed social integration that the
Romanian Orthodox believers refuse them.
This religious exclusion takes place not only in the Orthodox Church but, according to my interlocutors, in the Pentecostal Church as well. Although the Gypsy
Pentecostals feel themselves very close to the other Romanian Pentecostals, ethnic
frictions continue to exist in this religious community as well. As one of the Gypsy
Church elders expressed it: “There are brothers that, as the Word of God says, do not
make any distinction between Rroma or Gypsies and Romanians … we are brothers in
the Lord and they receive us exactly as they would receive a brother. But approximately
90 % of them make a racial discrimination. […] Only 10 % of them do not make a
distinction” (S.G., late 30’s, entrepreneur in the construction sector).
Having their own religious community, their own church, their own means to institutionalize their culture and all this in their own quarter of their village, permits them
to articulate an integrated community that overcomes the strong fragmentation of the traditional Gypsy /Rroma communities.
The ecclesial structure of the Neo-Protestant church allows them to become religious
leaders (pastors, deacons) without any formal training. In their perspective, preaching the gospel is something that one is able to do by the grace of God and that is the
reason why all male believers are encouraged to assume a religious leadership.
c) The importance of the Scripture and Education
Within most of the neo-protestant movements the Bible plays an important role.
This is the legacy of Luther’s Reform and his “Sola Scriptura” religious philosophy.
The Bible is the center of religious life, and the religious source for each member of
the church. “Only after I have studied, after I had a Bible, I understood what God’s mystery is, and what actually faith is.” (C.F. Rroma pastor and political leader, 55 years old,
has converted to Pentecostalism in the early 90’s)
The Bible is seen as “the Word of God” which offers the truth in each aspect of life.
Its interpretation becomes the instrument of settling all religious disputes (with people from another religious confession) and of defining what an authentic religious
life is.
65
Within the neo-protestant churches everything gets filtered through the Scriptures,
and they have a great apologetic weight in the Pentecostal discourse. Within this
community the Bible is seen as the cause that triggered the conversion of Rroma to
Pentecostalism. Several people that have converted talk about how important it was
for them to read the Bible.
They quote a lot from the Bible, they know a lot of the verses by heart and always
try to argue using the Scripture. For them, the Bible is the ultimate guidebook and
because of this everything gets filtered through the Bible. If a Gypsy custom or
holyday is not found in the Bible and it is not legitimized by it, they renounce it.
This has a strong potential for contesting the traditional establishment and determines them to question all Gypsy traditional knowledge, life-style, customs, habits,
holidays and values. This is amplified by the church community that regulates
strongly the life of their members. It leads to the formation of a Gypsy religious
counter-culture that questions the established Gypsy tradition and the status-quo
of the local Gypsy leaders. Of course this leads to a lot of struggles within the
Gypsy communities.
Because there is a great emphasis on reading and knowing the Bible, after the conversion a lot of Gypsies start to learn how to read and write. People with no or little education learn to read Romanian so that they can read the Bible. This is linked
with a strong emphasis on education that the Neo-Protestant make and the valorization of studying in order to obtain a degree that would allow their children to
obtain later on a good job.
d) The moralization of conduct and the puritan ideal
One thing that you can notice very easy when you talk to Neo-Protestant Rroma
converts is the puritan ideals that they live by. They cease drinking alcohol, smoking and everything that creates addiction. Sometimes they even stop drinking coffee. They operate a strong dichotomy between the spiritual realm and the world and
deny all worldly pleasures as bars, parties, dancing and sometimes even sports. When
I asked one of the Gypsy pastors how would I be able to make a difference between
a convert and non-convert Gypsy he said: “You don’t see him drinking alcohol, smoking, going to theater, to the cinema, to clubs. They have withdrawn themselves from
Babylon” (C.I. 63 years old, converted to Pentecostalism 30 years ago.)
Babylon is a biblical symbol of decadence and worldly pleasures. The Neo-
66
Protestant Gypsies invest a lot of energy in restructuring their moral life. There were
people that told me that before they had a mistress and were cheating on their wives
but now family life is very important to them. Some of them talk about the fact that
they were bandits and were imprisoned and that they were completely transformed
by their faith.
Because of this puritan ideal that they adopt, Gypsy Neo-Protestants are sometimes
very appreciated by the Romanian community. Some Romanians are very happy
because the Gypsies have started to assume a moral life. This gives them less trouble: no fights, no stealing and no social conflict. Assuming a strong work ethic they
start to be a very reliable cheap labor force and are often hired by the Romanians to
work their land (not all the Gypsy have this “privilege”).
Non-converted Rroma women appreciate very much this aspect of conversion
because it usually leads to very integrated families, where the husbands are very
supportive of their wives and cease spending money on drinking and other hedonic consumptions. Of course the non-converted Rroma men see this in a total different light.
The puritan ideal of life can be seen as well in the way they manage their appearance, in the dressing code for example. The dressing code applies especially to
women and is meant to implement decency as a rule of conduct. According to my
interlocutors it is very easy to notice which women are Neo-Protestants and which
are not. “The women have to cover their head all the time, they have to wear long skirts,
they are not allowed to be fancy, elegant, to wear earrings, bracelets, gold jewelry, necklaces, and rings: this is the rule in our community”. (S.F. 42 years old, deacon of
Rroma Pentecostal church).
“A sister that is baptized in Jesus Christ has to dress herself properly (sexually nonprovocative clothes)” (S.F. 42 years old, deacon of Rroma Pentecostal church).
The moralization of their sphere of life has important consequences on the way they
organize their life style. The religious conversion requires a very hard price to pay:
there is a strong moral and cultural code and the requirements of a puritan life-style
that one has to adopt.
e) Restructuring the self and the social networks
As a consequence of this moralization of conduct, there is a total restructuring of the
self. The converted Gypsy adopts a new sense of personhood that is expressed in a
67
new language code, a new dressing code and a new way of interaction. A NeoProtestant Gypsy is not allowed to swear or insult people, they are not allowed to
fight and argue with those that treat them bad.
All the religious converts form a community and have to address to each other with
the appellative “brother” and “sister”. They have to do this not only inside the
church, but outside the church as well. The entire concept of kinship is redefined
and reconfigured according to the religious values they adopt. They form an extended family, a religious family that have the duty to care for each other, help each other
in times of need and sustain each other spiritually. As I pointed out earlier, this leads
to the emergence of a strong, integrating community that reduces the sorrows of life.
Being part of a community gives them the communal experience that makes them
feel part of wider family and reduces the social anomy they experience in contemporary society.
Although the Neo-Protestants agree to inter-ethnic marriages and are happy to
marry a Romanian spouse they strongly reject inter-confessional marriage. A
Pentecostal has to marry a Pentecostal and no one else. The future couple needs to
be “born again”; they have to share the ideals and values of the Neo-Protestant community. These rules are thought to be for the good sake of the young people and if
they do not conform to these rules they are in various way sanctioned by the religious community. Most pastors would refuse to religiously marry them and would
forbid the believer to take part at the Holy Communion or to be involved in certain
activities of the church. So not only their life is religiously restructured but their
social networks as well.
4. “The heavenly citizenship” and the restructuring of ethnic identity
As other researches in Eastern Europe have shown, the Gypsy rely mostly on kin
groups and form very fragmented communities. They lack a nation-wide unified
ethnic identity and the conscience of a common history and common language. The
problem of their political unity is continuously raised by the Rroma leaders and the
recent discussions regarding a Romanian national body of Rroma representatives has
to be linked with the struggles to overcome this fragmentation.
There is as well a strong traditional professional division (caldarari, ursari, gabori,
etc.) that builds up to rivalry and strong feeling of despise towards those that do not
belong to the kin or professional group. The “others” are perceived by their Rroma
68
fellows as being impure Rroma that mingled with Hungarians and Romanians and
that gave up the “true” traditions of the Rroma communities.
As Gay y Blasco has shown in her research among the Gitano in Spain the Neoprotestant movement can be read as a way to overcome these kin barriers by underling the unity of those that believe and follow Christ and the equality and brotherly love of all Gypsies regardless of their belonging to a professional or kin group (Gay
y Blasco 2000, 2000b).
As we have shown above, the religious conversion leads to a total restructure of identity and to the integration of the believer in strong social networks. The local religious community has a high degree of autonomy and this allows them to be their
own agents of institutionalizing their identity. On a local level the church as an
instrument of expressing a social and cultural narrative is a novel thing among a
community that was marginalized and socially excluded. This leads to the empowerment of local Rroma communities.
The Church becomes the center of not only the religious life but of the social and
cultural life as well. The spiritual kinship becomes more important than the actual
kinship which leads to moral duty to support your new brothers and sisters and so
to strong community ties. “The heavenly citizenship” (i.e. the status of saved people) replaces the earthly distinctions that humans make: between Gypsy and
Romanians, between the different traditional kin groups, etc. They are all one, all
the same, all have the same status because they are all part of Christ body.
This model of identity has the advantage of overcoming the stigmatization of Gypsy
/ Rroma to which they are subjected by the dominant majority. It provides the
required resources of a moral life that invests itself in the ethic of work and sober
social relations. This leads to a social mobility and a much better image among the
Romanians, but with the cost of a religious exclusion among their fellow Gypsy /
Rroma neighbours.
The Neo-Protestant model of Gypsyness on the other side competes with the model
of Gypsyness that has been supported for the last decades by the International Rroma
political activists and by literally thousand of NGO’s that are trying to unify all Gypsies
from Romania. To them the Neo-Protestant model of Gypsyness appears as being too
dogmatically, morally uncompromising and too strict. They emphasize the ethnic
unity of all Gypsy/Rroma, the common historical past, and different narratives aimed
at empowering the local, oppressed and discriminated groups of Rroma / Gypsies.
69
That this is a top to bottom approach can be seen from the fact that most of the
Gypsy communities do not think about themselves in this way, do not refer to themselves as Rroma that have India as a country of origin and do not share the political
ideals of these activists. This can be clearly seen in the way this community refers to
itself.
In Romania the word Gypsy has a pejorative meaning and usually refers to people
that are unclean, a bit savage and marginal. This is why the political activists are
pleading for the institutionalization of the word Rroma that denotes a distinct cultural heritage, a beautiful tradition and the belonging to an international ethnic
group that is spread all over the world.
The problem with this name is that most of the people I have interviewed refuse it,
and like to refer to themselves as Gypsy. Always when they do this they are very
proud of it and talk about the double meaning of the word Gypsy: 1) a moral Gypsy
category, i.e. people that steal, beg and are dirty and 2) an ethnic category which is
always very hard for them to define but which nonetheless they perceive it. What is
for sure is that they are not Gypsies in the first sense although some refer to them
this way.
Under the pressure of the NGO’s and the state funded aid projects the local authorities are involved in this naming policy as well. A Romanian school director from a
village where two large communities of Gypsies live told me in an interview that she
tried to co-opt the local Gypsies in a PHARE project for the learning of rromani language, but nobody wanted to take part in such a program. She tried as well to “educate” the Gypsy children and parents that the term Gypsy is very ugly, and that they
should refer to themselves as Rroma, but they replied: “Madame, since we know ourselves we were Gypsies and we will stay Gypsies”.
The term Rroma itself denotes an established political and social meaning that many
people that belong to this community do not approve. They continue to refer to
themselves as Gypsies and this usually indicates the self-non-inclusion in this political project. The term “Rroma” on the other side, refers to a very recent political perspective on Gypsyness, one that draws on the European model and concept of ethnicity and can be strongly linked to the expansion of the European Union and the
growth of Roma international political activism.
Both the Neo-Protestant model of Gypsyness and the international activist model of
Gypsyness represent attempts to overcome the extreme fragmentation of Rroma tra-
70
ditional kin-communities. They are two very different approaches that use different
means to achieve this goal: a new religious restructuring of identity, with the local
church as an instrument of achieving integrated communities on one side, and the
human rights campaign, with the NGO that try to improve the social condition of
Rroma and make them political aware of their rights on the other side.
I think that the most important social and cultural consequences of the massive religious conversion that take place among this ethnic minority is the emergence of a
new way of re-constructing Gypsyness. Whether this will be a successful attempt or
not only time will tell.
Bibliography
Berger, Peter (1990) The Sacred Canopy. Elements of a Sociological Theory of
Religion. New York: Anchor Books.
Bourdeaux, Michel (2000) – Religion Revives in all its variety: Russia’s Regions Today.
Religion, State and Society, Vol. 28 (1), 10-21
Froese, Paul (2003) After Atheism: An Analysis of Religious Monopolies in the PostCommunist World. Sociology of Religion, Vol. 65 (1), 57-75.
Froese, Paul (2004) Forced secularization in Soviet Russia: Why an Atheistic Monopoly
Failed. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Vol. 43 (1), 35-50.
Gay y Blasco P. (2000) The Politics of Evangelism: Hierarchy, Masculinity and
Religious Conversion Among Gitanos. Romani Studies, series 5, vol. 10, issue1, pp.
1-22.
Gay y Blasco P., (2000b) Gitano Evangelism: the Emergence of a Politico-Religious
Diaspora. - www.transcomm.ox.ac.uk.
Geertz, Clifford. (1973) The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books,
Inc.
Gog, Sorin (2006) The construction of the religious space in post-socialist Romania,
Journal for the Study of Religions and Ideologies, Vol. 15, Issue 3, pp. 37-53, 2006.
Horton, Robin (1975a) On the Rationality of Conversion, Part I, Africa, Vol. 45(3),
85-108
Horton, Robin (1975b) On the Rationality of Conversion, Part 2, Africa, Vol. 45(4),
373-399
Pollack D. (2004) Institutionalised and Subjective Religiosity in Former Communist
71
Countries of Central and Eastern Europe. in Jerolimov D. M., Zrinscak S., Borowik
I. (eds.) Religion and patterns of social transformation. Zagreb: Institute for Social
Research
Pollack, D. (2001) Modifications in the Religious Field of Central and Eastern Europe.
European Societies 3:135-165.
Rambo, L. R. (1999) Theories of Conversion: Understanding and Interpreting Religious
Change. Social Compass, Vol. 46, 259-71
Slavkova, M. (2003) Roma Pastors as Leaders Roma Protestant Communities. - In:
–Dord–ević, Dr. (ed.) Roma Religious Culture. - JUNIR (Ni?), 168-177.
Slavkova, M. (2005) Gypsies in Lom: the Case of Gypsies who Convert to Protestant
Christianity.” - Conference ‘Religious Conversion after Socialism’, Max Planck
Institute
for Social Anthropology, Halle, Germany, April 7-9
Snow David and Machalek Richard, (1983) The Convert as a Social Type,
Sociological Theory Vol.1, 259-289
Snow, David A. and Richard Machalek (1984) “The Sociology of Conversion” Annual
Review of Sociology Vol. 10, 167-90
1 Nomads and Parliamentarians. The influence of mobility and religious affiliation on identity building and on the
development of integration social policies Roma people in Northern, Eastern Romania, and the Republic of
Moldova. 1989-2005. (NOMAPARLIA)
2 It is exactly what Mr. Cioaba, one of the most important Rroma Pentecostal leaders, has told us in the interview
about how the Rroma have converted to Pentecostalism: “They [the missionaries] brought not only material aid, but
brought Bibles as well. The Bibles entered with this occasion the Rroma communities.” The humanitarian aid was present as well, but as we shall see this is often an exaggerated component.
Acta est fabula
A Rome, histoire marginale d’un Rrom1 appelé Romulus
Teodor Nitu
Université de Fribourg
«Fleur de géranium»
Pendant la dernière année de gymnase ma camarade de classe Muşcata («Fleur de
géranium») a quitté l’école pour se marier. J’ai été même invité au mariage, probablement parce que j’atténuais ma forcement repoussante image d’élève gadjo en participant avec égal enthousiasme dans les activités extrascolaires, tout aussi respectables aux yeux des collègues, surtout parmi les quelques roms qui fréquentaient tant
bien que mal l’école. Je ne me rappelle pas avoir donné suite à l’invitation. Il se peut
bien que mes parents me l’aient déconseillé, sous prétexte d’âge, je n’avais pas 14 ans,
plus probablement parce que, on se disait, il valait mieux éviter de trop se mêler avec
les tsiganes et leurs affaires. Les tsiganes étaient là, comme ça, depuis le temps, mais
différents, présents et réels, bien que souvent invisibles, Autres, étrangers.
La connaissance de par l’expérience et le vécu que l’anthropologue peut avoir d’une
société parce que c’est la sienne ne rend certes pas sa perspective plus légitime qu’une
autre. Elle permet toutefois d’avoir plusieurs portes d’accès à des connaissances
autrement diffuses, latérales, à l’observation des faits dans la longue durée. Il ne s’agit
pas, dans ce qui suit, de plaider pour une incertaine et peu probante «anthropologie
de soi», ni même pour une certes plus intéressante et surtout plus redoutable anthropologie de l’expérience, mais juste de voir si le rendu de tout vécu peut servir, dans
des circonstances particulières, comme source, comme ersatz d’observation participante. Sans pouvoir remplacer la recherche de terrain menée d’après les règles classiques de la discipline, les informations récupérées de nos mémoires peuvent nous
aider à situer dans un contexte et surtout placer dans l’histoire récente notre objet
d’étude2.
Si le destin des roms roumains intéresse aujourd’hui un public qui dépasse les cercles
professionnels - chercheurs en sciences sociales, des activistes roms, des élus, des
manageurs des politiques publiques -, cela est certainement dû à la visibilité européenne nouvellement acquise par les tsiganes3 après 1989. On redécouvre ainsi une
ACTA EST FABULA
73
communauté qui défie l’opinion commune de par le caractère «atypique» de son histoire, qui semble avoir maintenu une existence communautaire sans territoire de
référence, sans élites, sans l’appui d’une forme d’organisation particulière. On
découvre une culture qui se nourrit en se délimitant de la culture des autres au
milieu desquels les roms vivent. On enregistre ensuite à quel point ils incarnent
socialement la marginalité, une vie en marge dont l’effet négatif en termes d’exclusion et d’ostracisme est déconcertant, bien que c’est cette même expérience qui,
paradoxalement, contribue le plus à leur maintien et à leur reproduction en tant que
groupe (Okely 1994; Barany 1994, 2002; Asséo 2003).
La marginalité reste encore le point nodal de l’expérience romani (Barany 2002),
mais la chute du communisme, l’ouverture et l’accommodation des pays de l’Est à
la libre circulation, l’apparition des élites romani et surtout une mobilité sociale
inconnue jusqu’alors ont permis de relever à la fois l’hétérogénéité du peuple rom
(multiplicité des groupes, clans, professions, statuts), les enjeux de l’identité et les
difficultés d’intégration dans la société environnante, et somme toute le futur incertain d’un projet de l’élite rom qui imagine la communauté sur le modèle (ancien) de
la nation ( Giordano & Boscoboinik 2003).
Parmi les défis que l’intégration européenne pose aux certaines groupes de roms roumains, le traitement du binôme marginalité – libre circulation confronté à des normativités sociales locales ou nationales n’est pas des moindres. Un fait divers tragique
qui a eu lieu récemment en Italie, dont le protagoniste est un rom de Roumanie, le
nouveau Marginal man4 de notre siècle, pourrait bien s’avérer un point de départ
«exemplaire» non seulement pour comprendre l’avenir des roms mais aussi celui d’une
société européenne mise à l’épreuve par une mobilité spatiale et sociale nouvelle.
Pour comprendre comment les roms de mon historie auraient pu devenir les roms
roumains qui campent à présent aux alentours de Rome et autres grandes villes italiennes ou espagnoles nous devons nous pencher sur l’histoire contemporaine et
tâcher de décrire la place que les roms occupent dans la société roumaine. La migration ne produit pas qu’un simple changement de place dans l’espace, elle peut aussi
amener un changement de position dans le social et remettre en cause la formation
et la reproduction d’un groupe. Les relations spatiales sont une des conditions premières de la constitution et du changement social. L’expression de la différence et le
positionnement dans le social s’articulent différemment par rapport à la marge, celle
de Rome d’un coté, celle de Vurpar5 de l’autre.
74
La suite de l’historie de vie de Fleur de géranium6 m’est inconnue à ce jour. Il se peut
bien qu’en ce moment même elle soit en voyage pour l’Italie ou l’Espagne, de retour
de France après un circuit saisonnier de mangel, ou peut-être qu’elle travaille dans la
fonderie de métaux gérée par son mari; ou dans le petit commerce détenu par la
famille; ou elle est employée à la voirie de la ville; ou tout simplement est-elle en
train de diriger ces autres maîtres maçons sur le chantier de sa nouvelle villa à plusieurs niveaux et aux nombreuses tours décoratives.
Le fait
Le 30 octobre 2007 a eu lieu à Rome un incident dont on ne pouvait prévoir le lendemain ni l’impacte médiatique et politique, ni l’impacte sur le débat concernant la
libre circulation et l’immigration à l’intérieur de l’Union européenne, un crime qui
braquait les projecteurs média sur une minorité encore mal connue, et, l’histoire va
souvent ainsi, mal comprise et mal aimé: les roms.
En rentrant chez elle, le soir, une italienne est violemment agressée et se fait dérober
son sac. La victime est grièvement blessée. Hospitalisée dans le coma, elle décède
malheureusement deux jours après. L’agresseur, un tsigane roumain est mis en examen après avoir été dénoncé à la police par une compatriote, voisine dans le camp
de fortune sis à la périphérie de Rome. Une ample enquête est lancée en Italie ainsi
qu’en Roumanie où, quelques jours à peine après l’incident, le téléphone mobile de
la victime a été retrouvé. Ce qui c’est réellement passé n’est que d’une importance
secondaire pour notre propos, car il s’agit tout simplement d’un crime odieux et il
est du ressort de la justice d’en faire le traitement approprié.
C’est la mise en récit et les conséquences autant de la communication du fait que de
l’acte lui-même sur la perception et la situation du groupe rom en rapport avec la
société d’accueil, et par rapport à sa société d’origine qui sont signifiantes. La presse
italienne présente le parcours d’un pauvre marginal qui a transgressé les limites de sa
marginalité vers l’acte criminel, un acte crapuleux et dont la violence inouïe choque
l’opinion. La diaspora roumaine se démarque de l’acte, et de l’auteur, introduisant
dans le récit une frontière nationale et l’assignation des caractéristiques négatives aux
«étrangers» roms. Dans la perception de la diaspora roumaine l’acte et la mise en
récit de ce crime ignoble ont jeté l’opprobre sur les roms et Roumains à la fois7.
Des mesures juridiques et politiques s’ensuivent, autant de prises de position et de
grands gestes que leur pendant en incidents et discours regrettables et entachés d’ex-
ACTA EST FABULA
75
clusivisme8. Des prises de positions collectivistes, où le peuple entier est coupable de
par son ignominie historique par rapport aux roms (Cărtărescu 2007) rivalisent avec
des approches individualistes où l’individu est responsable de ses actes (Manea
2007). Le gouvernement italien adopte une loi qui permet de renvoyer chez eux,
sous l’ordre du préfet, les citoyens européens qui portent atteinte à la sûreté
publique. La Roumanie dépêche des officiers de police pour assister leurs collègues
italiens dans l’effort de «contrôler la criminalité de l’immigration».
L’Italie, l’Espagne et dans une moindre mesure la France sont aujourd’hui les pays
de prédilection pour l’immigration économique roumaine. Les dernières données
connues font état de la présence de 556 0009 Roumains détenteurs d’un permis de
séjour en Italie, ce qui pourrait bien signifier que le nombre total des roumains
vivant en terre italienne dépasserait le million d’individus. D’après les informations
fournies par la police italienne, les ressortissants roumains détendraient aussi la première place dans une statistique des délits et autres actes illicites, un nombre important se trouvant actuellement incarcérés pour toutes sortes d’infractions. Le cas
«Romulus» nous semble donc être mis en récit comme le cas exemplaire. Les raisons
sont multiples: elle parlent de gestion de la libre circulation, de la mise à l’épreuve,
autant en Roumanie qu’en Italie, de la capacité de l’Etat à gérer son monopole non
autant de la violence que du contrôle des transgressions. Le drame relance le débat
autour du «problème rom», cette fois dans un contexte d’immigration et de contacte culturel, et pose des questions quant aux enjeux et processus sociaux à l’œuvre
dans l’Europe de la mobilité.
Courte histoire pratique des roms
Plusieurs moment importants marquent l’histoire du peuple rom10 de Roumanie:
l’esclavage, son abolition, les vagues de migrations successives, la déportation tragique vers la Transnistrie d’un certain nombre pendant la deuxième guerre, le communisme et le changement global, social et économique d’après 1989 (Achim 1998;
Asséo 2003). Pour le besoin de la démarche présente seule la période communiste et
post communiste sera traitée, car, sans nier aucunement la nécessité d’étudier l’histoire des peuples rom en entier, ce sont les temps modernes qui ont les plus marqué
les communautés tsiganes actuelles.
L’historien cherchant à connaître la vie des roms pendant le communisme en sera
certainement déçu, car les roms, très présents au quotidien, sont absents des docu-
76
ments de l’époque. Les tsiganes ne sont pas reconnus comme minorité ethnique, ils
ne bénéficient pas du statut que le régime définit comme «minorités co-habitante»,
à l’exemple des minorités hongroise et allemande. Les roms, pratiquement jamais
mentionnées, sont peut-être enregistrés avec «autres minorités» (Achim 1998). Il
nous sera donc plus profitable d’utiliser un artifice de composition et de compiler
dans un portrait d’individu rom protéiforme les hypothétiques, mais autant possibles que plausibles, trajectoires de vie rom. Cela nous permettra de situer les roms
roumains arrivés ces dernières années à Rome dans un schéma temporel et social qui
puisse rendre compte de leur place et changement.
Leur idéal typique naît dans une famille nombreuse, habitant le plus souvent à la
périphérie d’un village ou d’une ville, parfois dans ce qu’on appelle quartier défavorisé, rarement dans une famille dont le métier du père bénéficie d’un certain prestige social, tel les musiciens (Beisinger 2001). L’imaginaire social des gadjé dépeint
souvent le rom comme nomade, fausse mais tenace croyance entretenue par la circulation saisonnière des groupes tels les chaudronniers ou les rétameurs (Grigore
2005) et dont l’entreprise économique est au service de l’économie paysanne (cf.
Stewart 1991). L’espace réservé aux habitations tsiganes prend des formes et organisations aussi diverses que les groupes roms: quartier des pavillons, amas de baraques,
HLM délabrés, plus rarement agglomération de huttes ou tentes, sises souvent dans
des courts sans clôtures ou il n’y a pas de jardin, ou l’on ne cultive ni fleurs ni
légumes comme pour marquer la différence avec leur voisins gadjé.
A la campagne, le rom travaille comme journalier dans une des coopératives agricoles de productions (kolkhoze). Ou peut-être pratique-t-il un des métiers appréciés
jusqu’à récemment dans les villages, maréchal-ferrant ou forgeron, parfois officiellement pour la coopérative et dans l’économie parallèle à son compte. Certains roms
pratiquent le glanage dans les champs collectifs, bien que souvent comme prétexte
pour puiser dans la récolte commune, aussi larcins et arnaques ne manquent pas. La
période de disette des années 80 et le durcissement des peines concernant les délits
de vol agricole – c’est l’époque ou l’on risque 5 années de prison ferme pour le vol
d’un sac de mais – les expose plus souvent aux raids de la police et aux sanctions disproportionnées.
Ceux qui y travaillent comme saisonniers dans l’agriculture reçoivent une partie du
payement en nature ce qui revient à faciliter l’élevage des animaux, surtout des chevaux et donc aussi à reproduire une logique économique traditionnelle. Ce rapport
ACTA EST FABULA
77
avec les chevaux, moyen de transport et symbole à la fois de la liberté de mouvement, occupation prestigieuse et signe de richesses, fait que même des roms depuis
longtemps sédentarisés dans des villes vont travailler à la campagne (cf. Stewart
1997). Ce sont eux les ouvriers agricoles du communisme dans son expression la
plus épurée, étant donné que les paysans gèrent leur petite ferme / maisnie à coté de
leur emploi dans la coopérative.
D’autres rom s’occupent du ramassage des métaux, quand ils ne les dérobent pas,
avec le ramassage des bouteilles à consigne abandonnées, du papier et restes de bois,
etc. L’industrie socialiste est une économie de la déperdition et de la dispersion, elle
concentre dans un point des quantités énormes de matières et force de travail dans
un but politique et non économique (Verdery 1991). Cette tradition de ramassage
des «déchets» des années 70 et 80 fera ses millionnaires après les 1989, certains devenant des patrons des véritables entreprises de ramassage de métaux, fonte et exportation de lingots. Il faut aussi rappeler ceux qui font le commerce des habits usagés
et ceux qui, en fonction du point de vue adopté, font soit du trafic et du marché noir
soit pallient les manques chroniques dans la distributions communiste des biens en
fournissant des produits de consommation introuvables dans le commerce d’état
(jeans, bijoux, cigarettes etc.).
Le marchand de glace, le vendeur de graines de tournesol grillés, le «commerçant»
des bonbons et autres petits fours maison est souvent un rom, tout comme roms
sont les prestataires des certaines services, comme les vidangeurs, les éboueurs, les
ramasseurs des déchets, nettoyeurs et autres travailleurs à l’heure employés par les
municipalités. Certains font le tour de villages en proposant leurs services, en vendant de babioles, en réparant des bijoux ou des seaux, tout en déchargeant les maisonnées paysannes de leurs bouteilles vides, des leurs habits anciens ou, le cas
échéant, de leurs poules.
Les différents groupes sont connus aujourd’hui sous des dénominations au point de
revêtir un sens ethnique décrivant leur occupation actuelle ou passée: Căldărari
(chaudronniers), geambaşi (vendeurs de chevaux), zlătari (anciennement des ramasseurs de minerais), des rudari (travailleurs du bois), des spoitori (peintres en bâtiment
mais aussi rétameurs), cărămidari (briquetiers) etc.11
L’enfant rom doit aller à l’école publique gratuite et obligatoire. On le dénombre
souvent parmi les plus démunis des élèves, souffrant parfois du handicap de la
langue d’enseignement, quand la langue maternelle est le romani, et ne pouvant pas
78
recevoir d’aide à la maison du fait des parents eux même illettrés et dont les
croyances, les besoins de survie ou l’ignorance font que l’école n’est pas valorisée
comme chez les gadjé. L’absentéisme sera plutôt la règle que l’exception. A la fin de
la scolarité obligatoire12 un pourcentage important d’élèves d’origine rom ne comptera que parmi les partiellement lettrés. En outre, certains ont été déclarés, souvent
pour de raisons sociales, porteurs d’un handicap et envoyés dans de redoutées «écoles
de soutien». Larcins et «destruction de propriété du peuple» peuvent renvoyer des
adolescents dans des «écoles de correction» à la réputation effroyable. Les élèves roms
qui arrivent à la fin du gymnase ne sont pas rares, mais ceux qui continuent vers le
lycée sont des exceptions. L’absence de maturité ou baccalauréat condamne les
jeunes roms au travail le moins rémunéré, le moins valorisant. A cela s’ajoute la pratique sociale spécifique du mariage précoce qui fait qu à la fin du gymnase (à l’age
d’environ 14 ans) une majorité des roms a déjà fondée une famille.
Pendant le communisme l’armée participe plus à la construction du socialisme, dans
le sens littéral du terme, qu’à la défense de la patrie, car beaucoup de soldats font
leurs armes en travaillant dans l’agriculture, bâtiment, industrie. L’état socialiste
bénéficie de la force de travail presque gratuite, mais il arrive que des jeunes issus des
milieux défavorisés puissent profiter des cours du soir pour l’alphabétisation et surtout de l’apprentissage d’un métier, très envié étant le permis de conduire un
camion.
Certains peuvent avoir l’opportunité d’obtenir une qualification chez l’employeur,
mais les roms ont une réputation sociale de plus mauvaises, et l’employeur non-rom
ne leur accorde pas souvent le bénéfice du doute. L’exclusion, bien que moins agressive est, quelque soit les dénégations des administrations, à base raciste, les roms se
sont confrontés depuis toujours au rejet. C’est ce qui fait que ce «repêchage» social
est beaucoup moins souvent couronné de succès dans le cas des tsiganes que dans les
cas des membres de la majorité.
Il n’est pas donc surprenant que beaucoup sont amenés à reprendre le métier ou l’occupation des parents, restant ainsi dans le cadre traditionnel de la famille et reproduisant parfois contre leur volonté et malgré les promesses d’une société égalitaire la
logique sociale en place.
Dans ce tableau, il y a certes des exceptions, des enfants qui arrivent à la fin de la
scolarité obligatoire, qui font un apprentissage dans un métier industriel ou bâtiment et qui trouvent un poste dans une entreprise. Ce qui ne veux pas dire qu’ils ne
ACTA EST FABULA
79
seront pas confrontés à la discrimination du fait de leur appartenance. Malgré cela,
ces rom sont intégrés, certains ne parlent plus autre langue que celle de la majorité,
leur mode de vie a changé en s’approchant à celui de la société englobante.
Historiquement rom, il est socialement membre de la majorité avec laquelle il s’identifie pour cause de raison de vie en commun et idéaux partagés13.
Après 89, les roms ont subi aussi de plein fouet les changements14, une bonne partie
étant parmi le plus défavorisés: ceux liés à l’économie agricole n’ont pas reçu de terres
comme la plupart des paysans, car ils n’avaient tout simplement pas cédé lors de la
collectivisation. Le démantèlement des grandes usines et autres «combinats» staliniens a offert aux ramasseurs l’opportunité des s’emparer des grandes quantités de
métaux et de mettre ensuite sur pied de vrais circuits d’exportations. La discrimination, la marginalisation avait fait des victimes pendant le communisme, les nouvelles
opportunités en ont fait tout de suite après. La libéralisation post-communiste a
contribué largement à l’amplification du mouvement centrifuge qui caractérisait
depuis le temps les rapports des différentes branches de la communauté rom.
Nouvelles opportunités, mobilité sociale accrue, nouvelle visibilité: la distance n’a
jamais été aussi grande entre les élites et les marginaux. Le mouvement rassembleur
d’une fine couche des élites qui tentent a réunir les rom au nom d’un idéal de
«nation transfrontalière» (Mirga & Gheorghe 1997) se trouve contrecarré d’un côté
par les effets de la nouvelle et rapide stratification sociale et de l’autre côté par le processus d’intégration des nouvelles élites économiques et culturelles, et, sur un autre
registre, par l’émigration.
L’étranger et les étrangers
En Roumanie les roms continuent d’être perçus et représentés par la société comme
formant des groupes extérieurs à la communauté roumaine, et cela malgré des siècles
de présence, malgré la communication sociale et culturelle incessante, malgré leur
évidente ubiquité géographique et leur visibilité sociale en augmentation. Les
Tsiganes demeurent des «étrangers» dans le sens sociologique attribué au terme par
Simmel: membres d’un groupe dans un sens spatial, non membres dans un sens
social, ils se trouvent évidemment dans le groupe sans pouvoir s’y fondre, sans pouvoir voir leur appartenance sanctionnée, reconnue par la majorité (Simmel 1908).
Ce rapport natif (roumain) vs étranger (rom), ainsi que les frontières de groupe et
les enjeux communautaires changent le moment où membres en nombre important
80
de deux groupes émigrent. Dans un pays tiers les natifs roumains et les roms «étrangers» devraient abandonner leur frontière et établir la communauté roumaine, ellemême devenue étrangère par rapport à la société d’accueil, nouvelle société englobante. La nouvelle position «étranger» devrait, de par effet de conséquence logique
réunir les deux communautés. Minoritaires et héritant d’une position subalterne les
roms devraient chercher à s’accommoder non seulement aux pratiques supposées
définir l’appartenance à la nation roumaine mais aussi à partager une mythologie et
des «traditions».
C’est précisément ce qui ne s’est pas passé en Italie qui a connu une augmentation
importante de la migration roumaine ces dernières années, au point que les ressortissants roumains forment en 2008 la principale communauté étrangère du pays. La
migration n’a pas changé le rapport entre majorité roumaine et minorité rom. Les
roms n’ont pas pu devenir des «vrai étrangers», ils ont tout juste reproduit leur modèle social, leur économie basée sur la récupération, leur mouvement saisonnier et finalement leur marginalité autant spatiale que sociale. Certains comportements et codes
culturels de leur pays d’origine se sont avères source des conflits incessants avec le pays
d’accueil, d’autres disparaissent pour la simple raison qu’il ne peuvent pas être reproduits autrement qu’à la confluence des rapports avec les gadjé roumains.
Le groupe rom est autonome par rapport à sa société englobante mais jamais autosuffisant, le changement ou l’occultation de cette société ne peut avoir, dans un premier temps qu’un effet déstructurant. De l’autre côté, les natifs roumains15 devenus
étrangers de par leur nouvelle position réunis dans la même position que les roms
par les catégories locales, et se retrouvant dans une position subalterne, ont tout simplement essayé de rétablir le rapport de domination et de prestige, et insisté sur la
distinction rom – roumain en rejetant la «culture de la pauvreté» et de la criminalité définissant, d’après eux, seuls les roms. Les roumains, des étrangers en Italie vont,
pour des raisons d’identification mais surtout de prestige, de reconnaissance, de pouvoir et en vue d’accès aux ressources, essayer de minorer la composante rom de leur
communauté devenue étrangère. La propagation et l’adoption du terme rom dans
les médias italiens, montre que les roumains ont réussi à reléguer les roms dans leur
différence et, prenant appuis sur quelques exemples, dans leur marginalité. Dès lors,
même devant un Etat tiers leur citoyenneté se retrouvera mise en cause par la définition «ethnique». Le paradoxe de la migration rom est contenu dans l’inversion de
l’ordre d’importance entre rom et roumain, entre social et national.
ACTA EST FABULA
81
S’ils gardent la frontière communautaire héritée du pays d’origine, ils deviennent à
leur tour des étrangers en marquant leur distinction avec la communauté roumaine.
De ce fait les roms ne peuvent pas s’inscrire dans le même schéma de définition que
les roumains et seront amenés à construire leur «frontière ethnique» avec les italiens.
Il y aura certainement des rom qui vont s’inscrire dans la trajectoire générique des
roumains, tout comme des roumains peuvent se retrouver de par leurs actions
sociales dans la position étiquetée marginal.
En regardant le schéma simple qui articulent les paires d’opposition minorité –
majorité, rom – roumains, immigré roumains – italiens, immigré rom- immigrés
nous allons observer que la définition prochaine des roms comme des étrangers en
Italie (ou dans d’autre pays européens) se fondera sur le rapport entre les roms en
tant que rom et la société d’accueil, dans notre cas la société italienne.
Conclusion: le proche et le lointain
Lorsque deux activistes et chercheurs roms représentatifs avaient affirmé que «Il est
certain, que les roms se trouvent maintenant, au début du 21e siècle, dans la période de
plus grande incertitude de leur histoire Européenne» (Mirga & Gheorghe1997) ils ne
croyaient pas si bien dire. L’incertitude ne vient pas seulement des choix à faire, elle
est intrinsèque à la multiplicité des communautés roms et des interactions et transactions que celles-ci mènent constamment avec une culture autre, ici ou ailleurs.
Les roms roumains de l’émigration semblent se retrouver depuis un moment dans
une position particulière, dans un cadre de relations où, en changeant de société, ils
s’ouvrent vers la production d’une nouvelle altérité. Le peuple rom est né en Europe,
sans qu’on puisse lui attribuer d’endroit particulier. Mais la mobilité nouvellement
acquise, qui, surtout pour les roumains, suit une longue période d’enfermement,
loin de donner lieu à une réunion des groupes roms dans une «nation paneuropéenne» semble plutôt générer de nouvelles configurations, nouvelles interactions et,
peut-être, de nouveaux groupes.
Pendant très longtemps les roms de Roumanie n’ont pas eu, sauf rares cas, accès à la
communauté imaginée. Vivant en marge, sans pouvoir et parfois sans intérêt à
acquérir le capital social nécessaire, ils ont bâti leur niche, une alvéole sociale qui leur
permettait de perpétuer une culture et un mode de vie, de transformer leur étiquette «étranger» en atout pour la survie. Les groupes roms, historiquement marginalisés, n’ont pas connu l’effet de simultanéité que la modernité offre à une commu-
82
nauté, la possibilité de communier avec les autres à travers des média comme la presse, la littérature ou les musées (Anderson 1991).
Il n’est pas dans le pouvoir des anthropologues de prédire les développements futurs
des processus sociaux à l’œuvre dans les communautés et groupes tsiganes de
Roumanie. Il est néanmoins possible d’enregistrer des exemples suggestifs. Car, pendant que des tsiganes établissent leur quartier à Rome ou à Paris, certains roms de
Roumanie sont peut-être en train, eux aussi, de se forger une nouvelle identité.
L’ouverture du pays au capitalisme, la société de consommation, les manele16, la communion télévisuelle17 semble à la fois motiver et donner les moyens aux certains
groupes de roms à chercher définir leur place dans la nation.
A l’exemple de la chanson suivante, leur imaginaire semble être devenu local et
régional, être tsigane rime aujourd’hui avec oltean, moldovean, ardelean18:
«Même si tu es moldave, oltéan, transylvain ou tsigane
Nous sommes tous made-n Romenia19…
Peu importe où tu habites
Ou le dialecte que tu parles
Nous sommes tous made-n Romenia…
(Ionuţ Cercel – Made-n Romenia)20
Bibliographie
Achim, Viorel, 1998, Ţiganii în istoria României, Bucureşti: Editura Enciclopedică
Achim, Viorel, 1999, Cât de veche este “problema” ţiganilor (romilor) ?, Dilema,
314, 12-18 février
Anderson, Benedict, 1991, Imagined Communities. Reflections on the Origin and
Spread of Nationalism, London: Verso
Asséo, Henriette, 2003, Les Tsiganes dans les Balkans, dans Matériaux pour l’historie de notre temps, no. 71, juillet – septembre 2003, p. 30-39
Agenţia pentru strategii guvernamentale, 2007, Comunitatea românească în Italia:
condiţii sociale, valori, aşteptări - Studiu sociologic, http://www.publicinfo.ro/ library/sc/cri.pdf, consulté le 22.02.08
Caritas / Migrantes, 2007, Immigrazione, Dossier Statistico, XVII Rapporto sull’immigrazione, www.dossierimmigrazione.it/schede/pres2007.htm, consulté le 28.02.2008
ACTA EST FABULA
83
Barany, Zoltan, 1994, Living on the Edge: The East European Roma in
Postcommunist Politics and Society, Slavic Review, vol. 53. no 2, pp. 321344
Barany, Zoltan, 2002, The East European Gypsies, Regime Change, Marginality
and Ethnopolitics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Beissinger, Margaret H.,2001, Occupation and Ethnicity: Constructing Identity
among Profes- sional Romani (Gypsy) Musicians in Romania, Slavic Review, Vol.
60, 1 (Spring,), pp.24-49
Cărtărescu, Mircea, 2007, Falimentul nostru moral, Evenimentul zilei, Bucarest,
2.11.07
Giordano, Christian, Boscoboinik, Andrea (2003), Introduction, dans C. Giordano,
A. Boscoboinik, D. Kostova, M. Benovska-Sabkova, A. Chanteraud, Roma’s
Identities in Southeast Europe, Roma: Etnobarometer 8, Working Paper, June 2003,
15-29
Golescu, Dinicu, 1971 (1828), Însemnare a călătorii mele, Constantin Radovici din
Goleşti făcută în anul 1824, 1825, 1826, Bucureşti: Editura Eminescu
Grigore, Delia, 2005, Curs de antropologie şi folclor rrom: introducere în studiul
elementelor de cultură tradiţională ale identităţii rrome contemporane, Bucureşti:
Credis
Guy, Will, 2001, Romani Identity and post-Communist policy, dans Guy, Will (ed.)
Between Past and Future, The Roma of Central and Eastern Europe, Hatfield:
University of Hertfordshire Press, 3-32
Manea, Norman, 2007, “Crime et châtiment”, pour les réfugiés, http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/manea5/French, consulté 12.02 .2008
Marushiakova, E. Popov, V., 2004, The Roma – a Nation without a State? Historical
Background and Contemporary Tendencies, dans Streck, Bernhard (ed.),
Segmentation und Komplementarität, Halle, (Orientwissenschafliche Hefte 14
Mitteilungen des SFB 586 “Differenz und Integration” 6 ) , 71-100
Mirga, Andrzej, Gheorghe, Nicolae, 1997, The Roma in the Twenty First Century,
A Policy, PER, http://www.per-usa.org/21st_c.htm , consulté le 20.02.2008
Okely, Judith, 2003, Review: Deterritorialised and Spatially unbounded Cultures
within Other Regimes, Anthropological Quarterly. Vol. 76, no 1 (Hiver), 151-164
Park, Robert E., 1928, Human Migration and the Marginal Man, The American
Journal of Sociology, vol. 33 no. 6 , pp.881-893
84
Rădulescu, Speranţa, 2000, Musique de métissage pan-balkanique en Roumanie,
dans Métissages / Ateliers d’ethnomusicologie: Genève, p. 151-162
Sarău, Georghe, 1998, Rromii, India şi limba rromani, Bucureşti: Kriterion
Simmel, Georg, 1971 (1908), “The Stranger,” in Levine, D (ed.) Georg Simmel on
Individuality and Social Forms, The University of Chicago Press, pp. 143-9.
Simmel, Georg, 1979 (1908), Digressions sur l’etranger, dans L’Ecole de Chicago,
Paris: Aubier
Stewart, Michael, 1991, Un peuple sans patrie, Terrain no 17, octobre, p. 39-52
Stewart, Michael, 1997, The Time of the Gipsies, Boulder [Colorado.]: Westview
Press
Verdery, Katherine, 1991, National Ideology under Socialism: Identity and cultural
Politics in Ceausescu’s Romania, Berkeley: University of California Press
Verdery, Katherine, 1996, What was Socialism and What comes Next? Princeton
[NJ]: Princeton University Press
Zamfir, Elena, Zamfir, Cătălin (ed.), 1993, Ţiganii între ignorare şi îngrijorare,
Bucureşti: Alternative
1 La graphie rrom est utilisée en Roumanie dans le souci déclaré d’éviter la supposée confusion rom – roumain. La
Roumanie a changé d’appellation indicative dans des documents officiels en passant de ROM à ROU à la fois pour
permettre à l’ancien terme d’être employé par la communauté rom et pour éviter la confusion mentionnée. Le débat
sur les indicatifs et la dénomination des roms dans les documents officiels roumains a été très récemment repris au
Parlement de Bucarest par des sénateurs et députés d’orientation nationaliste qui, sous l’impression des récents événements en Italie, voudraient revenir sur ce point et officialiser l’appellation «tsigane». (Adevãrul, février 2008). Il
faut noter aussi qu’en Roumanie le redoublement de la consonne transmet un sens figuré, l’ironie: au 19e siècle le
patriote démagogue apparaît comme un «rroumain» dans la littérature.
2 Les roms ont attiré l’attention des historiens roumains et autres sociologues sporadiquement après 1989 et aujourd’hui encore. Malgré une certaine augmentation de l’intérêt, on ne peut pas véritablement parler d’un corpus de
recherches qui leur serait dédiées (Achim 1999). L’élite rom joue aujourd’hui un rôle important, et il n’est pas sans
intérêt de remarquer qu’elle a choisi de suivre un type de management culturel qui rappelle étrangement celui des
intellectuels roumains de 19e siècle, en combinant l’action sociale, management culturel (par le truchement des
ONG) avec les études d’histoire ancienne, langue, ethnographie et folklore rom (Sarãu 1997, Grigore 2005)
3 Nous suivons ici l’exemple de Zoltan Barany qui utilise en alternance, pour de raisons stylistiques, rom et tsigane
(Barany 2002)
4 “One of the consequences of migration is to create a situation in which the same individual-who may or may not
be a mixed blood-finds himself striving to live in two diverse cultural groups. The effect is to produce an unstable
ACTA EST FABULA
85
character-a personality type with characteristic forms of behavior. This is the “marginal man”. It is in the mind of
the marginal man that the conflicting cultures meet and fuse. It is, therefore, in the mind of the marginal man that
the process of civilization is visibly going on, and it is in the mind of the marginal man that the process of civilization may best be studied.” ( Park 1928: 881)
5 Nom du village dans le département de Sibiu d’où est originaire Nicolae Romulus Mailat.
6 Elle faisait partie du groupe appelé spoitori (rétameurs), probablement originaire du sud du Danube, si on note
leur nom de famille turque, qui étaient depuis un temps sédentaires mais qui faisaient un circuit saisonnier dans les
campagnes des départements au bord du Danube et autour de Bucarest (cf. aussi Grigore 2005) en offrant des services spécifiques à l’économie domestique paysanne (réparation, rétamage des chaudrons et autre cuivrerie, divers
trocs, etc.).
7 Notre démarche n’aspire nullement à traiter «le cas» comme une enquête ou reconstruction judiciaire. Il appartient aux juges et autres personnes habilitées d’établir la vérité, d’en tirer les conclusions juridiques, pratiques et de
faire subir les conséquences légales aux acteurs de ce drame malheureux.
8 Des roumains et leur logements de fortune ont été la cible des attaques d’extrémistes italiens; un conseiller municipal de Rome a dû démissionner après avoir proposé que les élèves roms ne se mélangent pas dans les bus avec leur
collègues italiens; le ministre des affaires étrangères roumain a publiquement «regretté de ne pas pouvoir acheter des
terres dans le dessert égyptien pour établir un camp et pouvoir enfermer ainsi tous les criminels» etc.
9 Dossier Immigrazione Caritas / Migrantes 2007.
10 La description qui suit utilise les quelques recherches roumaines sur les communautés roms (Zamfir & Zamfir
1993, Mirga & Gheorghe 1997, Achim 1998), mais se base surtout sur des observations directes des trajectoires
sociales des roms que j’ai intersecté ou seulement connu pendant les dernières décennies. L’espace ne permet pas
d’ouvrir un débat concernant le traitement de la période de l’esclavage de roms en tant que singularité. On notera
seulement que la Roumanie de l’époque (avant 1848) s’inscrit dans l’espace dit du «deuxième servage», qu’un
nombre important des paysans dans la partie est de l’empire austro-hongrois, dans les pays roumains et en Russie
mènent eux aussi une existence pour le moins misérable autant économiquement que socialement (Cf. Golescu
1828).
11 Si des dénomination tels kãldãrari (chaudronniers) sont en passe de devenir «ethniques», d’autres comme kopãnari (berceaux et seaux en bois), ţolari (marchands de vieux habits, couvertures), pletoşi (pletos - long cheveux, hirsute ), netoţi (netot – troglodyte) ou băieşi (travailleurs en mine) n’ont que le mérite de montrer la difficulté de fonder une classification des groupes roms sur de telles basses.
12 La durée de la scolarité obligatoire a connu des fluctuations pendant le XXe siècle: 7 années d’école dans les
années 20, 10 pendant le communisme, 9 années actuellement.
13 Il s’agit du rom «surnuméraire» qui n’apparaît pas dans les statistiques puisqu’il se déclare toujours comme faisant partie de la majorité avec laquelle il partage langue et moeurs. Le cas de musiciens roms est significatif
(Beisinger 2001)
14 Au début des années 90 les roms ont été la cible de quelques violences, surtout dans le milieu rural. Les anthropologues ont essayé d’expliquer ces explosions en parlant de vide après changement, de recherche de nouveau ennemi et service de bouc émissaire (Verdery 1996). Néanmoins les affrontements violents du début des années 90 semblent avoir pour cause plutôt la démission de l’état causée par la perte de légitimation des forces censés exercer la
violence légitime (police, administration locale etc.)
86
15 Il faut noter l’origine majoritairement rurale des immigrés roumains, et l’importance du rapport rural – urbain
à la fois dans la production des conflits et dans les processus de structuration d’identités.
16 Les manele sont des chansons d’inspiration pan balkanique (R?dulescu 2000), avec de vagues touches disco, très
prisées en Roumanie, bien que fortement critiquées et rejetées par la «haute culture». Les paroles parlent d’amour,
argent, pouvoir et même, comme c’est le cas ici, nation imaginée. Les interprètes, généralement de tsiganes, mais
pas exclusivement, portent des noms de scène comme Adrian L’Enfant Miracle, Florin Salami, Florin L’Enchanteur
ou la Princesse d’Or et sont connus dans tout le pays.
17 La communion des individus dans l’imaginaire national dont parle Anderson (Anderson 1991) se réalise aujourd’hui à travers de moyens de communication de masse et des rencontres à travers la «communion des objets», dont
les marques sont l’expression classique. La communion des membres d’une communauté se fait aujourd’hui à travers la télévision, la musique, Internet etc. et à travers le partage, pour utiliser une formule désuète, d’une même
culture matérielle.
18 Dénomination des habitants des provinces historiques roumaines: Moldavie, Transylvanie, Olténie etc.
19 La transcription des lignes essaye de signaler aussi la prononciation „à l’anglaise”, car cela est utilisé à bon escient
pour montrer les compétences culturelles des roms interprètes.
20 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJpFV-dTtck, consulté 22.02.2008
Postface
François Ruegg
University of Fribourg, Switzerland
Institute of Social Anthropology
Following the completion of our research project Nomads and Parliamentarians. The
influence of mobility and religious affiliation on identity building and on the development of integration social policies. Roma people in Northern, Eastern Romania and the
Republic of Moldova (1989-2005)1, it seemed interesting to make a few general
remarks. These comments, of course, do not claim to summarise the effectuated
research throughout the project but rather to underline its main outcomes.
What has changed about the Roma in the last 20 years, since the end of Communist
regimes and more recently, with their migrations to the West? It seems Roma have
become a European cause, a visible, mostly disliked and discriminated minority and
therefore a centre of interest for politics, humanitarian concerns and social sciences,
without forgetting the media, of course.
From an international European political perspective, Roma have essentially been
considered an opportunity and tool for the EU administration to strongly bargain
the access of new comer Nations (Slovakia, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria) into
the EU (Schüler 2007: 90). This supposedly “Human Rights-oriented” pressure on
Eastern European Governments for a “proper” treatment of their minorities could
also be seen as a means to avoid their migrations to the West, an aim that has, once
again2, not been reached.
The results of these pressures and negotiations could be summarised as follows:
• the emergence of a new set of national laws concerning the Roma minority, including their right to education and access to Romani language and culture
• new opportunities for the Roma themselves to defend their cause as a recognised
minority in the political sphere, as well as access to social and cultural rights and the
means to implement them
• the opening of political institutions (the Parliament and Government, political
parties) to Roma representatives, and finally
• a variety of lobbies for Roma, as it was also conceded to other national minorities3
88
For humanitarian international organisations, Roma in Eastern Europe have been an
opportunity for a renewed engagement in the fight for human rights and equality as
well as against discrimination. The Roma campaign followed other similar actions
directed against the “barbaric” or “despotic” Eastern European Governments and
their inability to handle the disabled and other marginalised people, mainly street
and disabled children. The economic aspect of these political-humanitarian undertakings should not be undermined, since the funds they were able to raise are considerable and have contributed towards an “awareness” of the Roma, as well as in creating, or at least stimulating the formation of many local NGOs related to the
“Roma-question.” These NGOs, mostly run by Roma people, have therefore created a remarkable opportunity for new jobs to arise as well as for the development of
a Roma elite. As one may notice in other similar circumstances, this has nevertheless also given way for corruption to infiltrate the various projects put in place and
has increased mistrust among the Roma population itself.
Poverty and Culture
In reading the recent publications and research materials on the Roma (published
both in Romania and Western Europe), one soon realises that the majority of these
concentrate on two main aspects regarding their emergence on the European stage.
On the one hand, we find the “poverty aspect”, which is supposed to explain their
marginalisation. On the other, we see the emergence of an increasingly constructed
Roma culture. This in turn contributes in defending their social and cultural rights
as a newly acquired identity as national and transnational minority. The study of the
Roma’s history also bears witness to the trend of linking Roma with poverty, focussing
more particularly on the poor social status of the Tsiganis in Eastern and SouthEastern Europe (Crowe 1994; Achim 1998; Marushiakova 2001; Barany 2002).
Concerning Roma culture, one can still distinguish two major domains. A first one
is consecrated to its celebration – in all its guises – following the model of national
cultures (language, traditions, customs, folklore, arts). This also allows for the constitution of a common Roma cultural heritage. Nevertheless, this movement is not
particular to Romania, but originates in fact from Western Europe, where cultural
minority “causes” are better defended. The second deals with the study of identities,
such as the ones Roma ascribe to themselves and those which are ascribed to them
by non-Roma. Moreover, the intercultural relations which this “minority” entertains
POSTFACE
89
within the nation in which they live (in this case Romania) enter very much into
consideration (Ruegg, Poledna & Rus 2003) in the forming of these identities.
These aforementioned relations are for the most part, as we may already know, discriminatory and mutually exclusive, based on an ethnic hierarchy. This hierarchy has
been established and made resolute through many centuries of juridical and social
practices, clearly distinct from one another – depending on which Province is concerned. The “historical” minorities of today (German and Hungarian) once ruled
over Transylvania as “governing” minorities. Still to this day, these “historical”
minorities in Transylvania have apparent advantages over other “ethnic” minorities,
notably the Roma, who are sometimes not even mentioned as a recognised minority but feature in the “other” minority categories. In this context, it is important to
remember that Romanians have only been in power, as a majority, since the Treaty
of Trianon in 1920.
Poverty: from assimilation to ethnicisation
One might ask: why the concern with poverty? Indeed, various statistics inform us
that Roma populations live in precarious conditions, here as much as elsewhere
(Comparative Economic Studies 2006)4. Moreover, the States’ politics as well as
those of intergovernmental and non governmental organisations also base their
strategies on these very statistics, to “improve the fate of the Rom” (this expression
was adopted for a PHARE project title)5. These undertaken improvement measures
allow us to identify what poverty these politics and strategies are aiming to remedy.
Essentially, the “betterment measures” consist in the setting in place of governmental institutions which are to provide, hand in hand with non-governmental organisations, educational and health programmes, as well as take anti-discrimination
measures. However, if we lend our attention to the historical literature dedicated to
“Gypsies”, as they were called until the recent use of the ethnonym “Roma”, we soon
realise that this perception of them as a problem to solve has been long-lasting.
Moreover and most importantly, the undertaken efforts to resolve the problem of the
“Gypsies” have been recorded ever since the 18th Century; this then, is not a new
phenomena, both in the wider perception of the Roma population and in the strategies and measures taken to better their fate (Ruegg 2009). Without going into further detail about what each measure and strategy assumed by the various governments entailed, we realise that since the 18th Century and up until very recently, the
90
policies have generally been of the same ilk; in other words, they mostly fit into the
“assimilation agenda”. At that time in history, these measures already had for purpose the eradication of Roma differences, which were, according to the law makers,
at the source of their discrimination and intolerable marginality. With little variation, similar means were applied to other nomadic minority populations. As an
example of this we find the Indians in the Americas upon which was forced a sedentary lifestyle, the prohibition to speak their vernacular language, education (compulsory schooling), forced religious conversion, and at times separation of children
from their parents to avoid the generational reproduction of misery – if not physical
elimination of entire families: We know of the pogroms which were perpetrated
against Roma notably in Bessarabia where they had previously been deported to.
In considering Roma as being essentially or naturally poor, one believes to have
solved the question of their “ethnic difference”, which supposedly causes their marginalisation (Ruegg 2009). Thus, taking Sonja Schüler’s example in a volume entitled “Die ethnische dimension der Armut” (the ethnic dimension of poverty), published in 2007, one draws the conclusion that Roma are “naturally”, and thus by definition, “ethnically poor”. Today therefore, the preconised “solution” to this more or
less widely accepted “problem of Roma poverty” within the political and humanitarian milieus, is to resort to the classical measures of economical and social aid
and/or positive discrimination. Other authors dedicated to drawing up the history
of Roma populations in Central and Eastern Europe reach the same “doomed-topoverty” conclusions (see Crowe 1994). However, other data collected by Neculau
and Curelaru (2003) in a survey on poverty in Romania stands as a remarkably stark
contrast, as it reveals that poverty concerns the entire Romanian population and is
not particular to the Roma. The term “Gypsy” only appeared twice in the survey and
this, only when regarding questions about who, in the country, deserves financial
help. Additionally, in no instance was the ethnic origin of the poor mentioned, but
rather that of social class, unemployment and levels of education6.
Lastly, let us also stress that in emphasising poverty, national and international policies for Roma highlight their ethnic differences. This, in turn, inevitably promotes
and reinforces the Roma’s communitarian conscience of poverty (Schüler 2007: 94)
which helps them in their effort to fight for their social and cultural rights.
Furthermore, Roma adopt this poverty dimension into their self perception and in
so doing, become a “nation” of beggars to the point where they even present them-
POSTFACE
91
selves as such. We can nevertheless wonder whether this amalgamation of poverty
and ethnicity has not brought about a new and amplified source for discriminating
against them. Indeed since 1989, other poor, or the “new poor” in Romanian society have not benefited from such wide attention, or from the same positive discrimination measures. This, in turn, could cause these “others” to put the blame on
Roma populations for their anger and frustration, displayed through the awakening
of age-old prejudices and attitudes of rejection.
Culture: cultural rights and the construction of ethnicity
At the same time, various national and international authorities have introduced
cultural policies in favour of the Roma, inspired by multicultural practices applied
in other locations, and at other times. These are implemented in defence of their
cultural rights and aim to reinforce their collective ethnic identity through the creation of a common “national” Roma culture. Measures taken to facilitate their access
to education and “civilisation” are those that were applied through older assimilation-oriented policies. This time, however, they are axed towards the construction of
a Roma culture rather towards an access to the majority’s culture. In this instance we
witness a positive recognition of differences; a celebration of “National Roma” culture (in the old sense of the word; that is to say the “nationality” or ethnicity),
through the establishment of a common standardised language, common traditions
and folklore. Alongside this, international and national activists’ associations
encourage the production of Roma art and literature, which will build and constitute part of the “cultural Roma heritage”. The convening of World Romani
Congresses, for the first time in London in 1971 certainly was a milestone in the
process of the creation of a Roma nation, at least as it can be seen from the outside7.
These measures veering towards the celebration of “Roma national culture”, a trend
which, as previously mentioned, is already particularly well established in Western
Europe, is strongly supported at the European level by the Council of Europe. A veritable “national Roma movement” has thus emerged; only a territory would suffice
to compete with other European nation-states. The idea and solution of creating a
Romanestan was already envisaged as early as the 1930s, by Polish Roma (Barany
2002: 257) and has been many more times since8.
Through the mix of nativism and revivalism, a return to imagined roots and communities9, as B. Anderson phrases it so poetically, many cultural manifestations have
92
emerged. These, however, seem only to affect a minority of the concerned populations. The reasons for this are various, and sometimes as simple as that the majority
of Roma do not necessarily recognise themselves in this “national” construction.
There is no need to recall the different ways in which Roma identify themselves,
according to the time and place, nor is it opportune to reiterate here the ambiguity
of the censuses results. We shall, at this point, also look over the different aspects of
reciprocal social representations between the various national “ethnic” identities in
Romania (such as Nastasa & Salat 2000). What we do nevertheless wish to highlight, is that the communitarian-inspired policies of today have a high chance of
reinforcing the cleavages between Roma and non-Roma populations which continue to be firmly established throughout the centuries.
Our research
Faced with these two main tendencies, poverty and ethnicity constructs, it appeared
pertinent to apply the tools given to us through anthropology and social psychology and distance ourselves from these trends, as they essentialise, focus on the obvious and overlook the intricacies of Roma diversity. Indeed, the poverty-identity condemns Roma to be, as we see in certain “Third World” countries, eternally assisted
by outside agents. The other trend based on the ethnic identity tends to make an
ethnographic or “national” curiosity out of Roma.
This is why we chose the following two different directions to conduct our research:
social and geographical mobility, linked to the formation of elites on one part, and
religious conversion, which gives rise to new forms of identities, on the other. The
study of these two dimensions enabled us to disclose social integration strategies,
developed by Roma themselves, from opportunities that have been offered them,
thanks to the opening of borders and also to public or private socio-economical
positions which they have accessed for the first time. The break with ethnicity that
religious conversion represents was also a strong factor in the Roma developing these
strategies of social integration. From here onwards, we will focus on our two main
groups of interest: the elite, and the converted.
The study of the elites
By naming our project “Nomads and Parliamentarians”, we wanted to emphasise the
diversity of the Roma, their occupations and social status through which mobility
POSTFACE
93
has favoured diversity. We were not entirely sure with the results this study would
ensue. It is nevertheless absolutely remarkable that, as Professor Adrian Neculau disclosed, the Roma elites defend their cultural identity very well necessitating no exterior support. It is the elites that establish the credibility of Roma difference, since
this one is positive, contrary to the differences drawn up through marginalisation.
In considering the elites, one should not forget the economical Roma elite, i.e. successful “businessmen”. Even though they represent a minority of the Roma population and contradict the “doomed-to-poverty” theory, they can in no case be
ignored.10 Upon closer inspection, one would be able to identify the affiliation of
rich Roma with certain lineages (neamuri) only – an important criteria of self-identification.11 Furthermore, as the example of minorities in the United States portrays,
it takes a couple of generations before the new comers obtain public recognition on
the social, political, economical and intellectual scenes (Schnapper 1998). Elites
impose themselves as such firstly on the society and then indisputably contribute to
the approval and recognition of minorities from whence they originate.
Religious conversion
From our research work, religious conversion proved to be an important element
in the social integration of Roma into the Romanian global society. Nevertheless,
it can difficultly enter the sphere of social integration policies since this, of course,
would be perceived as interfering with the individual’s private life. Moreover, our
interest in Roma conversion does not suppose a belief on our part that this could
be an alternative solution to their integration. Indeed our only purpose was to
observe the identity strategies set in place by Roma themselves through these conversions. The religious conversion phenomenon and its social repercussions are well
known and have also been observed in colonial and post-colonial contexts. We are
not talking here of envisaging (forced) conversion as did the Austrian Emperors in
the 18th Century, or as did the 19th Century missionaries: a systematic policy which
would ensure the education and civilisation of a “savage” population in an effort to
assimilate it. Instead, we observed and took note of the effects of these willed conversions. Indeed in this case, though we could have guessed otherwise prior to our
research12, these conversions did not occur as a result of “foreign” missionary propaganda aided by material provision, but instead we observed a process which engenders differentiation and permits social integration. Interestingly, a large majority con-
94
vert into Pentecostalism (our research went to show this trend to be true as much
in Transylvania, Moldavia, the Republic of Moldova as well as in Bulgaria). This
could lead us to interpret this very phenomenon as dissident behaviour, rather than
integrative, vis-à-vis the national Orthodox Church which after all is the traditional Church to which Roma belong to. But what we must understand is that to be
able to socially integrate, one must first escape the marginalisation that occurs
within the dominant religion, as also takes place within the dominant society. This
is why many Roma find a new cultural identity through their conversion to
Pentecostalism, free of ethnic (Roma) stereotypes. But there is more: being
Pentecostal also means escaping the Roma destiny or “nature” – they now live
according to a puritan ethic, which strongly contrasts their old identity. The stereotypes concerning “Roma destiny” are no strangers to our Western societies: lowpaid despised jobs, never having any money – or spending it all on parties, a marginal lifestyle of financial inconsistency, and living the “Bohemian” lifestyle, as we
say with à propos. To be Pentecostal (according to an informant) means to be able
to lead a normal life, to stop drinking without limits, to send one’s children to
school and become a respected entrepreneur. Once the following generations are
established and socially recognised, they will be able to assert once again their
“Roma origins” – as have done so many immigrants in North America and elsewhere, be they Jewish, Irish or Italian.
Through these thoughts and reflections, we wish to convey that in observing the
margins, rather than the centre, we soon realise that, said clumsily: “things move”.
Indeed, these minority movements within Roma communities will sooner or later
affect the wider Roma majority. In so doing, new ways of social integration will
inevitably be brought to the surface, and alternative routes to their “destiny of misery”, revealed.
In our opinion, global studies that are based on the average financial income of
Roma without making the distinction between groups and communities nor the
local comparative context, and/or documentaries on Roma beggars in Western
Europe (when these are not voluntarily chocking documentaries on “forced weddings”), or inversely, the hailing of Roma’s cultural richness and particularities, will
not allow or help us in getting to grips with the mutations and subtleties which take
place behind the scenes. These global accounts will only reinforce and foster the
stereotypes that have been far too long-lasting.
POSTFACE
95
Bibliography
Achim, V. 1998: Tiganii in istoria Romaniei. Bucuresti: Editura Enciclopedica
Achim, V. 2004: The Roma in Romanian History. New York: Central European
University Press
Barany, Z. 2002: The East European Gypsies, Regime Change, Marginality and
Ethnopolitics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Comparative Economic Studies, 2006: Symposium on the Roma, Vol. 48, Number
1, March 2006; 1-49
Crowe, D. 1995: A History of the Gypsies of Eastern Europe and Russia. New York:
St. Martin’s Press.
Fonseca, I. 2003: Enterrez-moi debout: L’Odyssée des Tziganes. Paris: Albin Michel
Mariushiakova, E. & popov, V. 2001: Gypsies in the Ottoman Empire. University
of Hertfordshire Press
Martiniello, M. 1995: L’ethnicité dans les sciences sociales contemporaines. Paris:
PUF
Nastasa & salat 2000: Interethnic Relations in Post-Communist Romania. Cluj
Neculau A. & curelaru, M., 2003: La Rappresentazione sociale della poverta. Un
studio realizzato in Romania, in: Le Dimensioni psicosociali della Poverta.
Un’analisi cross-culturale, a cura di Ida Galli, Roma, 73-106
Okely, J. 1997: Some political consequences of theories of Gypsy ethnicity. The
place of the intellectual, in: After Writing Culture New York, 224-243
Polek, J. 1908: Die Zigeuner in der Bukowina, Czernowitz
Ruegg, F. (with Poledna, R. & Rus. C. eds) 2006: Interculturalism and
Discrimination in Romania: Policies, Practices, Identitites and Representations.
Berlin: LIT
(2009) Ethnicisation of poverty: Poverty of Ethnicisation. Roma in Eastern Europe.
In: “Trugschlüsse und Umdeutungen. Berlin: LIT
Schnapper, D. 1998: La relation à l’autre. Paris: Gallimard.
Schuler, S. 2007: Die ethnische Dimension der Armut. Stuttgart.
Toma, S. 2006: Ethnic relations and poverty in a multi-ethnic community in
Romania, in: Interculturalism and Discrimination in Romania: Policies, Practices,
Identities and Representations, Berlin, LIT, 155-172.
96
1 The current issue of Ethnobarometer covers the section concerning Northern and North-Eastern Romania.
2 It is worth mentioning that agreements between Western European and Eastern States on a forced repatriation
of Roma are not at all a new invention. On June 30, 1776, a Convention was signed between the Ottoman and the
Austrian Empires according to which any Gypsies trying to escape in one or another country would be repatriated
immediately and given back to his owner (Polek 1908: 4).
3 It is necessary to recall here the distinction made in Romania between historical and ethnic minorities, the latter
being of course of a lower status as the first which includes Germans and Hungarians. A similar distinction is made
in the USA between racial and ethnic minorities, the racial (African and Asian) taking the place of the ethnic one
in Eastern Europe.
4 It is important to note that as far as social anthropology is concerned, poverty, solely identified by one’s annual
income or a poverty line establishing that one’s expenses limit themselves to $4.3 a day (Michler) does not constitute a satisfying concept, nor is it considered functional, unless it is plunged back into its context, in terms of social,
cultural, historical and political background. Without these wider considerations, the monetary measurement of
poverty becomes a convenient means to resolve the “Rom issue”.
5 For details concerning the negotiations between the European Commission and Romania, see Schüler 2007: 90102.
6 Additionally, one can also find field analyses on inter-ethnic relations and poverty: see Toma (2006)
7 According to Barany (2002: 258) «These congresses have rarely been the serious affairs one might expect», see
similar considerations in Fonseca, passim.
8 For a detailed account of the emancipation of Roma in Romania, see Crowe 1994: 107-149.
9 Meanwhile, as Okely (1993) rightfully pointed out, the invented ideologies concerning Roma’s ethnicity, by both
non-Roma and Roma (especially that of their Indian origins) play a considerable role in influencing social representations of Roma.
10 Their seeming absence of solidarity with poor Roma does not highjack their Roma identity. Interestingly, there
is no more solidarity between the new Romanian rich and their poor “co-nationals” than between rich and poor
Roma.
11 See Boscoboinik & Giordano in this volume.
12 The prevalent explanations for their conversion (even among scholars) refer only to material and financial benefits
and are thought to occur strictly for opportunistic purposes.
The Authors
Andrea Boscoboinik is doctor lecturer at the Institute of Social Anthropology,
University of Fribourg, Switzerland.
Mihai Curelaru is doctor lecturer at the Laboratory of Social Psychology, at
“Alexandru Ioan Cuza” University, Iasi, Romania.
Christian Giordano is full Professor at the Institute of Social Anthropology,
University of Fribourg, Switzerland, Doctor honoris causa of the University of
Timisoara (Romania) and President of Ethnobarometer.
Sorin Gog is PhD student and assistant lecturer at the Faculty of Sociology and
Social Work, Babes-Bolyai University from Cluj-Napoca, Romania.
Adrian Neculau is full Professor at the Laboratory of Social Psychology, at
“Alexandru Ioan Cuza” University, Iasi, Romania.
Teodor Nitu is PhD student at the Institute of Social Anthropology, University of
Fribourg, Switzerland.
François Ruegg is associate Professor at the Institute of Social Anthropology,
University of Fribourg, Switzerland.
Daniela Tarnovschi is a PhD student at the Babes Bolyai University, Cluj,
Romania and program coordinator at Soros Foundation Romania.
Daniela Zaharia is PhD student and assistant lecturer at the Laboratory of Social
Psychology, at “Alexandru Ioan Cuza” University, Iasi, Romania.
Ethnobarometer Publications
The Working Paper Series
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Migration and Criminality: the Case of Albanians in Italy
by Alison Jamieson and Alessandro Silj (1998)
New Migration and Migration Politics in Post-Soviet Russia
by Cristiano Codagnone (1998)
Crisis in Kosovo: Reactions in Albania and in Macedonia at the Local Level
by Gilles de Rapper (1998)
The Kurdish Question and Migration in Turkey
by Mario Zucconi (1999)
Minority Politics in Southeast Europe: Bulgaria
by Dobrinka Kostova (2001)
Minority Politics in Southeast Europe: Crisis in Macedonia
by Kristina Balalovska, Alessandro Silj and Mario Zucconi (2002)
Turkey’s New Politics and the European Union
by Mario Zucconi (2003)
Roma’s Identities in Southeast Europe: Bulgaria
by Christian Giordano, Andrea Boscoboinik, Dobrinka Kostova,
Milena Bonoska- Sabkova, Annabel Chanteraud (2003)
Roma’s Identities in Southeast Europe: Macedonia
by Azbija Memedova, Shayna Plaut, Andrea Boscoboinik,
Christian Giordano (2005)
The Dual Revolution in Turkish Politics and the Role of the European Union
by Mario Zucconi
Macedonia 2006: Towards Stability?
By Kristina Balalovska
The Reports
-
Ethnic Conflict and Migration in Europe
First Report, 1998
Migrant Integration in European Cities
Second Report, 2003

CSS Rom 2008 - Osservatorio sull`immigrazione in Piemonte

Transcription

Documents pareils

Total NL - SnapPages

Printable version

Pendular Journeys The Roma in the Heart of Europe

Cold-store and deep-freeze construction

roma issue - Groupe de sociologie politique et morale

CONFERENCE FOOTBALL AND SOCIAL INTEGRATION IN EUROPE: WHICH

English - European Roma Rights Centre

en en working document - European Parliament

PDF version