UvA-DARE is a service provided by the library of the University of Amsterdam (https://dare.uva.nl)
The European Roma: minority representation, memory, and the limits of
transnational governmentality
van Baar, H.J.M.
Publication date
2011
Link to publication
Citation for published version (APA):
van Baar, H. J. M. (2011). The European Roma: minority representation, memory, and the
limits of transnational governmentality.
General rights
It is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s)
and/or copyright holder(s), other than for strictly personal, individual use, unless the work is under an open
content license (like Creative Commons).
Disclaimer/Complaints regulations
If you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests, please
let the Library know, stating your reasons. In case of a legitimate complaint, the Library will make the material
inaccessible and/or remove it from the website. Please Ask the Library: https://uba.uva.nl/en/contact, or a letter
to: Library of the University of Amsterdam, Secretariat, Singel 425, 1012 WP Amsterdam, The Netherlands. You
will be contacted as soon as possible.
Chapterȱ4ȱ
DiggingȱtheȱPitȱofȱBabel:ȱ
TheȱAmbiguityȱofȱRomaniȱMinorityȱFormationȱ
ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ INTRODUCTIONȱ ȱ WeȱareȱdiggingȱtheȱpitȱofȱBabel.ȱ(Kafkaȱ1994:ȱ95)ȱ ȱ Itȱisȱnoȱlongerȱoriginȱthatȱgivesȱriseȱtoȱhistoricity;ȱitȱisȱhistoricityȱthat,ȱinȱitsȱveryȱfabric,ȱ makesȱpossibleȱtheȱnecessityȱofȱanȱoriginȱwhichȱmustȱbeȱbothȱinternalȱandȱforeignȱtoȱ it.ȱ(Foucaultȱ2005b:ȱ359)ȱ ȱThisȱ chapterȱ contributesȱ toȱ debatesȱ inȱ governmentalityȱ studiesȱ aboutȱ howȱ weȱ needȱ toȱ assessȱ theȱ influentialȱ changesȱ inȱ patternsȱ andȱ structuresȱ ofȱ Europeanȱ governanceȱ thatȱ appearedȱinȱtheȱlateȱeighteenthȱcentury.ȱInȱchapterȱ2,ȱIȱpositionedȱtheȱcurrentȱstudyȱandȱ myȱ focusȱ onȱ theȱ bioȬpoliticalȱ regulationȱ ofȱ Europe’sȱ bordersȱ inȱ theȱ largelyȱ unexploredȱ domainȱ whereȱ governmentalityȱ studies,ȱ criticalȱ studiesȱ ofȱ Europeanȱ governance,ȱ andȱ postcolonialȱ studiesȱ intersect.ȱ Inȱ chapterȱ 3,ȱIȱdiscussedȱ theȱ prospectsȱ andȱ limitsȱ ofȱhowȱ twoȱ leadingȱ positionsȱ inȱ presentȬdayȱ scholarshipȱ onȱ theȱ Romaȱ haveȱ analyzedȱ theȱ lateȬ eighteenthȬcenturyȱemergenceȱofȱGypsyȱstudiesȱandȱtheirȱlegacies.ȱInȱthisȱchapter,ȱIȱbringȱ theseȱ twoȱ domainsȱ togetherȱ byȱ analyzingȱ theȱ parallelȱ lateȬeighteenthȬcenturyȱ Eastȱ CentralȱEuropeanȱtransformationsȱofȱpopulationȱpolicy,ȱadministrativeȱpracticesȱandȱdisȬ courses,ȱandȱscholarlyȱapproachesȱtoȱtheȱGypsies.ȱIȱtryȱtoȱcontributeȱtoȱcurrentȱscholarȬ shipȱonȱtheȱRomaȱbyȱlookingȱatȱoneȱofȱtheȱfirstȱmomentsȱofȱtheirȱminorityȱformationȱinȱ Europeȱfromȱtheȱangleȱofȱgovernmentality,ȱandȱtheȱlateȬeighteenthȬcenturyȱtransformaȬ tionȱofȱtheȱsoȬcalledȱ‘policeȱandȱCameralisticȱsciences’ȱ(PolizeiȬȱundȱKameralwissenschaften)ȱ inȱparticular.ȱ Inȱtheȱnextȱsection,ȱIȱwillȱexplainȱthatȱCameralismȱ(Kameralistik)ȱisȱtheȱnameȱgivenȱtoȱaȱ Germanȱ andȱ Habsburgȱ scientificȱ traditionȱ ofȱ publicȱ administrationȱ andȱ politicalȱ reflecȬ tionsȱ onȱ howȱ statesȱ shouldȱ beȱ governed.ȱ Cameralismȱ representsȱ theȱ specificȱ Centralȱ EuropeanȱarticulationȱofȱformsȱofȱpoliceȱandȱreasonȱofȱstateȱgovernmentalityȱthatȱIȱdisȬ cussedȱ moreȱ generallyȱ inȱ chapterȱ 2.ȱ Asȱ Iȱ willȱ showȱ inȱ theȱ thirdȱ section,ȱ anȱ analysisȱ ofȱ CameralismȱandȱhowȱitȱwasȱintimatelyȱrelatedȱtoȱHabsburgȱdiscoursesȱandȱpracticesȱofȱ rule,ȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ toȱ theirȱ transformations,ȱ willȱ shedȱ newȱ lightȱ onȱ theȱ assimilationistȱ approachesȱadoptedȱbyȱtheȱenlightenedȱabsolutistȱHabsburgȱempressȱMariaȱTheresaȱandȱ herȱsonȱandȱsuccessorȱJosephȱII.ȱAsȱIȱwillȱargue,ȱtoȱadequatelyȱunderstandȱtheȱrelationȬ
shipȱ betweenȱ theȱ newlyȱ emergingȱ scientificȱ methodsȱ ofȱ comparisonȱ inȱ theȱ lateȬeighȬ teenthȱcenturyȱandȱtheȱsimultaneousȱemergenceȱofȱGypsyȱstudiesȱdiscussedȱinȱchapterȱ3,ȱ weȱneedȱtoȱreflectȱonȱtheȱimpactȱofȱCameralisticȱandȱpoliceȱsciencesȱonȱtheȱscholarlyȱandȱ governmentalȱapproachesȱtoȱtheȱGypsies.ȱ
Yet,ȱnoneȱofȱtheȱauthorsȱwhoseȱworksȱIȱdiscussedȱinȱchapterȱ3,ȱnorȱanyoneȱelseȱwhoȱ discussesȱ theȱ Europeanȱ historyȱ ofȱ Romaniȱ groups,ȱ hasȱ hithertoȱ adequatelyȱ takenȱ intoȱ accountȱ theȱ importanceȱ ofȱ Cameralismȱ andȱ itsȱ relevanceȱ forȱ theȱ emergenceȱ ofȱ Gypsyȱ studies.1ȱItȱisȱremarkableȱthatȱLeoȱLucassen—whoȱhasȱdedicatedȱanȱimportantȱandȱrichȱ
studyȱtoȱtheȱhistoryȱofȱhowȱGermanȱpoliceȱinstitutionsȱdevelopedȱspecificȱGypsyȱlabelsȱ toȱ regulateȱ alienȱ andȱ itinerantȱ groupsȱ betweenȱ 1700ȱ andȱ 1945—doesȱ notȱ discussȱ theȱ eighteenthȬcenturyȱ traditionȱ ofȱ Cameralismȱ andȱ theȱ policeȱ sciences.ȱ Heȱ onlyȱ remarksȱ thatȱtheȱconceptȱofȱpoliceȱhadȱoriginallyȱhadȱaȱmuchȱwiderȱmeaning.ȱAtȱtheȱsameȱtime,ȱ however,ȱheȱconsidersȱthisȱwiderȱmeaningȱofȱminorȱimportanceȱforȱanȱanalysisȱofȱGypsyȱ groupsȱandȱstudies,ȱbecauseȱofȱaȱsupposedȱemergentȱrestrictionȱofȱtheȱactualȱpracticesȱofȱ policeȱinȱtheȱdiscussedȱperiodȱofȱtimeȱ(Lucassenȱ1996:ȱ17).ȱInȱthisȱchapter,ȱIȱwillȱexplainȱ thatȱ thisȱ viewȱ isȱ onlyȱ partlyȱ tenableȱ andȱ resultsȱ inȱ understatingȱ theȱ importanceȱ ofȱ theȱ developmentȱofȱpoliceȱsciencesȱforȱscrutinizingȱtheȱemergenceȱofȱGypsyȱstudiesȱandȱtheȱ minorityȱformationȱofȱGypsyȱgroups.ȱ Inȱhisȱturn,ȱWimȱWillemsȱ(1997)ȱdiscussesȱtheȱfunctionȱthatȱstatisticsȱhadȱinȱGermanȱ academicȱcircles.ȱHowever,ȱheȱdoesȱnotȱembedȱthisȱroleȱwithinȱtheȱmoreȱgeneralȱcontextȱ ofȱtheȱpoliceȱsciences,ȱnorȱdoesȱheȱclarifyȱhowȱstatisticsȱexactlyȱrelatesȱtoȱtheȱemergenceȱ ofȱGypsyȱstudies.ȱThisȱbecomesȱparticularlyȱclearȱwhenȱheȱisolatesȱHeinrichȱGrellmann’sȱ andȱ Johannȱ Rüdiger’sȱ writingsȱ onȱ Gypsiesȱ fromȱ theirȱ otherȱ work.ȱ Willemsȱ remarksȱ onȱ Grellmann’sȱwork:ȱ
ȱ
Perusalȱ ofȱ theȱ tablesȱ ofȱ contentȱ ofȱ [Grellmann’s]ȱ otherȱ writingsȱ disclosesȱ thatȱ heȱ primarilyȱ broughtȱ intoȱ printȱ descriptiveȱ surveysȱ ofȱ politicalȬscientificȱ topics.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ respect,ȱhisȱbookȱonȱtheȱGypsiesȱisȱuniqueȱwithinȱhisȱtotalȱproductionȱ…ȱAȱpredilectionȱ forȱ ethnologicalȱ subjectsȱ alsoȱ appearsȱ inȱ laterȱ publications,ȱ itȱ isȱ true,ȱ butȱ theseȱ wereȱ consistentlyȱ minor,ȱ selfȬcontainedȱcontributions.ȱ Theȱ greatestȱ partȱ ofȱhisȱ work,ȱ however,ȱ
hadȱtoȱdoȱwithȱaffairsȱofȱtheȱstate.ȱ(Willemsȱ1997:ȱ45Ȭ46,ȱmyȱemphasis)ȱ ȱ 1ȱAsȱfarȱasȱIȱknowȱonlyȱKarlȱHärterȱ(2003)ȱrefersȱtoȱtheȱroleȱofȱpoliceȱsciencesȱforȱstudyingȱRomaniȱgroups.ȱ Yet,ȱheȱdoesȱnotȱsubstantiallyȱreflectȱonȱtheȱimpactȱofȱshiftingȱCameralisticȱdiscoursesȱandȱpracticesȱonȱtheȱ emergenceȱofȱtheȱeighteenthȬcenturyȱGypsyȱstudiesȱandȱonȱtheȱparallelȱproblematizationȱofȱGypsyȱgroupsȱ asȱminorityȱpartsȱofȱtheȱpopulation.ȱWhileȱHärter,ȱforȱinstance,ȱdiscussesȱtheȱdisappearanceȱofȱdeathȱpenalȬ tiesȱandȱotherȱsevereȱmeasuresȱagainstȱGypsyȱgroupsȱinȱtheȱsecondȱhalfȱofȱtheȱeighteenthȱcentury,ȱheȱdoesȱ notȱ relateȱ thisȱ shiftȱ toȱ theȱ moreȱ generalȱ transformationȱ ofȱ administrativeȱ practicesȱ andȱ discoursesȱ inȱ theȱ GermanȱandȱHabsburgȱlandsȱ(2003:ȱ54Ȭ55,ȱ75,ȱ80).ȱYet,ȱheȱalsoȱarguesȱagainstȱtheȱDutchȱSchool’sȱthesisȱthatȱ theȱGypsiesȱdoȱnotȱformȱanȱethnicȱgroup,ȱbutȱneedȱtoȱbeȱseenȱasȱanȱeighteenthȬcenturyȱconstructionȱdevelȬ opedȱonȱtheȱbasisȱofȱcategorizationȱandȱstigmatizationȱ(ibidȱ43,ȱ66,ȱ81).ȱSimilarȱtoȱmyȱview,ȱHärterȱsuggestsȱ thatȱ theȱ referenceȱ toȱ Gypsiesȱ inȱ ethnicȱ termsȱ “wasȱ and,ȱ consequently,ȱ remainsȱ ambivalent”ȱ (ibidȱ 66,ȱ myȱ translation).ȱIȱlargelyȱagreeȱwithȱHärter’sȱviewȱthatȱthisȱambivalenceȱisȱfundamentallyȱunsolvableȱ(ibidȱ81)ȱ andȱthatȱweȱneedȱtoȱconsiderȱethnicȱminoritizationȱandȱGypsyȱlabelingȱandȱstigmatizingȱasȱprocessesȱthatȱ haveȱ beenȱ mutuallyȱ developedȱ inȱ theȱ courseȱ ofȱ modernȱ Europeanȱ history.ȱ Yet,ȱ inȱ theȱ presentȱ chapter,ȱ Iȱ argueȱforȱthisȱambivalenceȱandȱinteractionȱalongȱdifferentȱlinesȱthanȱheȱdoes.ȱ
WhereasȱWillemsȱisȱrightȱinȱhisȱsuggestionȱthatȱGrellmann’sȱbookȱonȱtheȱGypsiesȱformsȱ anȱexceptionȱtoȱhisȱoeuvre,ȱitȱisȱnonethelessȱimportantȱtoȱremarkȱthat,ȱfromȱtheȱangleȱofȱ policeȱsciences,ȱtheȱmainȱtopicȱofȱhisȱGypsyȱbookȱhasȱasȱmuchȱtoȱdoȱwithȱ‘affairsȱofȱtheȱ state’ȱ asȱ hisȱ otherȱ writings.ȱ Indeed,ȱ inȱ itsȱ earlyȱ modernȱ Europeanȱ conception,ȱ ‘police’ȱ encompassedȱ regulationsȱ withȱ respectȱ toȱ aȱ wideȱ varietyȱ ofȱ thingsȱ andȱ matters,ȱ suchȱ asȱ religion,ȱmorality,ȱhealth,ȱsupplies,ȱfunerals,ȱpublicȱsafety,ȱmines,ȱclothing,ȱtheȱarts,ȱpoorȱ relief,ȱ theȱ sciences,ȱ trade,ȱ betrothals,ȱ factories,ȱ andȱ menservantsȱ (Tribeȱ 1988;ȱ Pasquinoȱ 1991,ȱseeȱalsoȱchapterȱ2ȱandȱbelow).ȱThus,ȱfromȱaȱconceptualȱpointȱofȱview,ȱCameralisticȱ andȱpoliceȱscientistsȱdidȱnotȱdistinguishȱbetweenȱtheȱregulationȱofȱaȱminorityȱgroupȱandȱ thatȱofȱbridgesȱorȱbetweenȱtheȱmanagementȱofȱhealthȱcareȱandȱthatȱofȱminesȱorȱforests.ȱ Grellmannȱ extensivelyȱ wroteȱ onȱ issuesȱ thatȱ belongedȱ toȱ theȱ mostȱ importantȱ fieldsȱ ofȱ policeȱsciencesȱand,2ȱtherefore,ȱweȱcouldȱalsoȱinterrogateȱhisȱworkȱonȱtheȱGypsiesȱinȱtheȱ
contextȱofȱthisȱeighteenthȬcenturyȱEuropeanȱtradition.ȱ
Thatȱ Willemsȱ isȱ notȱ awareȱ ofȱ thisȱ specificȱ governmentalȱ backgroundȱ alsoȱ becomesȱ clearȱwhenȱheȱremarksȱthatȱRüdiger,ȱwhoȱ“wasȱprofessorȱofȱpoliticalȱeconomyȱinȱHalleȱandȱ anȱauthorityȱinȱtheȱfieldȱofȱcomparativeȱlinguistics,”ȱhadȱprobablyȱ“cutȱhisȱacademicȱcareerȱ prematurelyȱ short”ȱ because,ȱ “inȱ theȱ lastȱ 26ȱ yearsȱ ofȱ hisȱ lifeȱ …ȱ [he]ȱ didn’tȱ publishȱ anythingȱmore”ȱandȱ“aȱreferenceȱworkȱinformsȱusȱthatȱheȱwasȱaȱmineȱinspector”ȱ(1997:ȱ80,ȱ 81,ȱmyȱemphasis).ȱWillemsȱpresentsȱtheseȱbiographicalȱdetailsȱasȱifȱRüdiger’sȱacademicȱ careerȱinȱHalleȱwasȱincompatibleȱwithȱhisȱprofessionȱasȱaȱmineȱinspector.ȱInȱactualȱfact,ȱ miningȱwasȱconsideredȱasȱoneȱofȱtheȱmostȱimportantȱfieldsȱofȱtheȱpoliceȱsciencesȱandȱtheȱ mine,ȱandȱparticularlyȱhowȱitȱwasȱdugȱandȱadministered,ȱwasȱconsideredȱasȱaȱmodelȱforȱ howȱtheȱstateȱshouldȱbeȱgovernedȱ(Smallȱ2001;ȱWakefieldȱ2009).ȱCameralisticȱandȱpoliceȱ scientistsȱwereȱpreferablyȱcombiningȱaȱpositionȱatȱaȱuniversityȱwithȱaȱjobȱinȱoneȱofȱtheȱsoȬ calledȱ bureausȱ ofȱ theȱ imperialȱ chamber.ȱ Evenȱ moreȱ importantȱ inȱ theȱ currentȱ contextȱ isȱ thatȱRüdigerȱhimselfȱwroteȱextensivelyȱonȱCameralismȱandȱtaughtȱanȱalmostȱunchangedȱ courseȱ onȱ Cameralismȱ andȱ policeȱ sciencesȱ atȱ theȱ universityȱ ofȱ Halleȱ untilȱ threeȱ yearsȱ beforeȱ hisȱ death.ȱ Thisȱ courseȱ wasȱ predominantlyȱ basedȱ onȱ theȱ seminalȱ worksȱ ofȱ theȱ VienneseȱCameralists,ȱbutȱwasȱalsoȱanȱintegralȱpartȱofȱaȱspecificȱCameralisticȱtraditionȱatȱ theȱUniversityȱofȱHalle.3ȱ
Cameralismȱ andȱ policeȱ sciencesȱ hadȱ theirȱ individualȱ traditionȱ atȱ someȱ ofȱ theȱ mostȱ importantȱandȱinnovativeȱPrussianȱuniversities,ȱsuchȱasȱthoseȱofȱHalleȱandȱGöttingen.ȱAtȱ theȱendȱofȱtheȱeighteenthȱcentury,ȱtheseȱacademicȱcirclesȱwereȱhighlyȱinfluencedȱbyȱtheȱ VienneseȱCameralisticȱandȱpoliceȱscientificȱ‘school’ȱofȱJohannȱvonȱJustiȱandȱJosephȱvonȱ Sonnenfelsȱ (Siegȱ 2003).4ȱ Theirȱ mainȱ worksȱ “rapidlyȱ gainedȱ canonicalȱ statusȱ inȱ theȱ
2ȱSeeȱGrellmannȱ(1792;ȱ1795Ȭ1802;ȱ1801Ȭ1804),ȱOsterlohȱ(1970),ȱandȱDicksonȱ(1987;ȱ1991).ȱ 3ȱSeeȱRüdigerȱ(1777;ȱ1781;ȱ1786;ȱ1792;ȱ1795a;ȱ1795b;ȱ1798),ȱRiedelȱ(1839),ȱKählerȱ(1898),ȱandȱTribeȱ(1988).ȱInȱ hisȱworkȱonȱCameralism,ȱRüdigerȱexplainsȱwhyȱanȱacademicȱcareerȱneedsȱtoȱbeȱbasedȱonȱaȱthoroughȱstudyȱ andȱtheȱwidestȱpossibleȱpedagogicȱdisseminationȱofȱCameralisticȱandȱpoliceȱscientificȱliteratureȱasȱwellȱasȱofȱ itsȱbasicȱprinciplesȱ(Fischerȱ1982:ȱ414Ȭ15).ȱRüdiger’sȱworkȱonȱCameralismȱcanȱbeȱconsideredȱasȱtheȱendȱofȱaȱ longȱacademicȱtraditionȱatȱtheȱuniversityȱofȱHalleȱthatȱstartedȱwithȱtheȱappointmentȱofȱSimonȱPeterȱGasserȱ toȱaȱChairȱinȱ‘Oeconomie,ȱPolizeyȱundȱCameralsachen’ȱinȱ1727ȱ(seeȱnoteȱ10ȱbelow).ȱ
4ȱ Inȱ 1755,ȱ vonȱ Justiȱ movedȱ fromȱ Viennaȱ toȱ Göttingen,ȱ whereȱ heȱ becameȱ Councilorȱ forȱ Minesȱ andȱ Policeȱ
DirectorȱandȱwhereȱheȱsimultaneouslyȱstartedȱtoȱteachȱCameralismȱatȱtheȱuniversity.ȱInȱtheȱtwoȱfollowingȱ years,ȱ andȱ beforeȱ hisȱ departureȱ toȱ Berlin,ȱ heȱ lecturedȱ onȱ severalȱ subjectsȱ thatȱ wereȱ directlyȱ orȱ indirectlyȱ relatedȱtoȱCameralism.ȱHeȱalsoȱtaughtȱonȱtheȱ‘cultureȱofȱcountries’ȱandȱonȱ‘theȱnewȱhistoryȱofȱcommerce,ȱ
subsequentȱexpansionȱofȱCameralisticȱteachingȱ[atȱHabsburgȱandȱinȱparticularȱAustrianȱ andȱ Prussianȱ universities]ȱ …ȱ Theȱ mannerȱ inȱ whichȱ theseȱ twoȱ writersȱ setȱ upȱ theȱ basicȱ
termsȱandȱcategoriesȱofȱCameralismȱwasȱfundamentalȱtoȱtheȱliteratureȱofȱthisȱperiod”ȱ(Tribeȱ
1988:ȱ 90,ȱ 117Ȭ18,ȱ myȱ emphasis).ȱ Whileȱ vonȱ Justiȱ andȱ vonȱ Sonnenfelsȱ wereȱ pioneeringȱ authorsȱ inȱ Cameralism,ȱ Grellmannȱ andȱ Rüdigerȱ wereȱ notȱ reallyȱ innovativeȱ writersȱ inȱ thisȱ scholarlyȱ field.ȱ Nevertheless,ȱ theirȱ works,ȱ includingȱ thoseȱ onȱ theȱ Gypsies,ȱ wereȱ shapedȱ inȱ anȱ academicȱ environmentȱ thatȱ wasȱ notȱ separableȱ fromȱ theȱ Cameralisticȱ andȱ policeȱscientificȱtradition.ȱMoreover,ȱsinceȱbothȱGrellmannȱandȱRüdigerȱcommentedȱonȱ theȱHabsburgȱassimilationistȱGypsyȱpolicies—theȱformerȱenthusiasticallyȱassentingȱandȱ theȱlatterȱcriticalȱandȱcondemnatory—theirȱcommentsȱandȱtheȱconclusionsȱofȱtheirȱworksȱ couldȱ beȱ readȱ asȱ articulationsȱ ofȱ theirȱ viewpointsȱ visȬàȬvisȱ theȱ policeȱ scientificȱ governmentalityȱ andȱ theȱ correlatedȱ ‘populationistȱ turn’ȱ thatȱ areȱ typicalȱ ofȱ eighteenthȬ centuryȱenlightenedȱHabsburgȱabsolutism.ȱ
Thisȱthemeȱbringsȱmeȱtoȱtheȱsecondȱaimȱofȱthisȱchapter.ȱIȱwantȱtoȱcontributeȱtoȱdebatesȱ inȱ governmentalityȱ studiesȱ aboutȱ howȱ weȱ needȱ toȱ perceiveȱ theȱ changesȱ inȱ patternsȱ ofȱ Europeanȱgovernanceȱthatȱemergedȱinȱtheȱeighteenthȱcentury.ȱGovernmentalityȱstudies,ȱ followingȱ Foucault’sȱ ownȱ work,ȱ haveȱ focusedȱ onȱ distinguishingȱ policeȱ andȱ reasonȱ ofȱ stateȱ rationalitiesȱ andȱ technologiesȱ fromȱ modern,ȱ liberalȱ onesȱ (Lemkeȱ 1997;ȱ Nȱ Roseȱ 1999b;ȱDeanȱ1999).ȱFoucaultȱhasȱcarefullyȱdescribedȱtheȱgradualȱinternalȱtransformationȱ ofȱ formsȱ ofȱ policeȱ governmentalityȱ (2007b).ȱ Excellentȱ genealogicalȱ caseȱ studiesȱ (Deanȱ 1991)ȱ haveȱ beenȱ publishedȱ onȱ theȱ transformationȱ fromȱ policeȱ toȱ liberalȱ governance.ȱ Moreover,ȱaȱvaluable,ȱongoingȱdebateȱdiscussesȱhowȱexactlyȱweȱneedȱtoȱunderstandȱtheȱ relationshipȱbetweenȱpoliceȱandȱliberalȱgovernmentalityȱinȱpostȬeighteenthȬcenturyȱandȱ contemporaryȱcontextsȱofȱgovernance.5ȱ
Yet,ȱ oneȱ orȱ moreȱ ofȱ theȱ threeȱ followingȱ trendsȱ characterizeȱ manyȱ contemporaryȱ governmentalityȱ studies.ȱ Firstly,ȱ policeȱ andȱ liberalȱ governmentalityȱ areȱ sometimesȱ notȱ onlyȱ distinguished,ȱ butȱ alsoȱ separated.ȱ Aȱ tooȱ strictȱ separationȱ ofȱ theseȱ formsȱ ofȱ rule,ȱ however,ȱleadsȱtoȱaȱquestionableȱperiodizationȱofȱformsȱofȱgovernmentalityȱ(chapterȱ1)ȱ orȱ toȱ aȱ disputableȱ demarcationȱ ofȱ illiberalȱ andȱ liberalȱ formsȱ ofȱ conductȱ (chapterȱ 2).ȱ Secondly,ȱ manyȱ ofȱ theȱ studiesȱ thatȱ discussȱ policeȱ scientificȱ traditionsȱ inȱ earlyȱ modernȱ Europeȱ areȱ characterizedȱ byȱ aȱ stateȬcentricȱ focus,ȱ ratherȱ thanȱ byȱ aȱ discussionȱ ofȱ theirȱ transnationalȱconsequences.6ȱThirdly,ȱgovernmentalityȱstudiesȱoftenȱfocusȱonȱtheȱimpactȱ ofȱtheȱpoliceȱscientificȱtraditionȱonȱtheȱbioȬpoliticalȱregulation,ȱstratification,ȱandȱnormalȬ izationȱofȱsocialȱgroupsȱinȱWesternȱEuropeanȱcountries.ȱLittleȱattentionȱhasȱhithertoȱbeenȱ police,ȱandȱfinance,’ȱwhichȱincludedȱtheȱdiscoveryȱofȱtheȱtradeȱroutesȱtoȱIndiaȱ(vonȱJustiȱ1755).ȱInȱ1757,ȱtheȱ linguistȱChristianȱWilhelmȱBüttner,ȱwhoȱinȱ1771ȱhadȱsuggestedȱforȱtheȱfirstȱtimeȱthatȱtheȱGypsiesȱcameȱfromȱ IndiaȱandȱwhoȱgreatlyȱinfluencedȱGrellmannȱ(Ruchȱ1986;ȱWillemsȱ1997),ȱsucceededȱvonȱJustiȱasȱprofessorȱatȱ Göttingenȱ(Frensdorffȱ1901;ȱ1903;ȱTribeȱ1988).ȱDespiteȱvonȱJusti’sȱquickȱdeparture,ȱhisȱworkȱinfluencedȱtheȱ reformȱ ofȱ teachingȱ atȱ theȱ universityȱ ofȱ Göttingen,ȱ mostȱ notablyȱ inȱ theȱ fieldsȱ ofȱ theȱ ‘sciencesȱ ofȱ theȱ state’ȱ (Staatswissenschaft,ȱ Statistik)ȱ andȱ technologyȱ (Technologie).ȱ Ofȱ theȱ professorsȱ Achenwall,ȱ vonȱ Schlözer,ȱ andȱ Beckmann—theȱ mainȱ proponentsȱ ofȱ Cameralismȱ inȱ Göttingen—inȱ particularȱ theȱ statisticianȱ vonȱ Schlözerȱ profoundlyȱinfluencedȱGrellmann’sȱworkȱ(Frensdorffȱ1909;ȱTribeȱ1988;ȱWillemsȱ1997).ȱ
5ȱSeeȱLemkeȱ(1997),ȱHindessȱ(2001),ȱDeanȱ(2007),ȱandȱCollierȱ(2009).ȱ
6ȱTheseȱstudiesȱshareȱthisȱstateȬcentricȱcharacteristicȱwithȱsomeȱseminalȱhistoricalȱstudiesȱofȱearlyȱ modernȱ
administrativeȱ practices,ȱ includingȱ theȱ codificationȱ ofȱ criminal,ȱ administrative,ȱ andȱ civilȱ lawȱ (Maierȱ 1980;ȱ Oestreichȱ1982;ȱRaeffȱ1983;ȱStolleisȱ1988;ȱ1996;ȱTribeȱ1988;ȱ1995;ȱHärterȱ2000;ȱSmallȱ2001).ȱ
paidȱ toȱ howȱ policeȱ scientificȱ discoursesȱ andȱ practicesȱ haveȱ influencedȱ minorityȱ formaȬ tionȱ andȱ correspondingȱ formsȱ ofȱ populationȱ regulationȱ onȱ aȱ EuropeȬwideȱ levelȱ and,ȱ thus,ȱdemarcatedȱEurope’sȱownȱinternalȱandȱexternalȱbordersȱbioȬpolitically.ȱ
Inȱ thisȱ chapter,ȱ Iȱ showȱ howȱ anȱ analysisȱ ofȱ theȱ Romaniȱ caseȱ shedsȱ newȱ lightȱ onȱ theȱ impactȱ ofȱ transformingȱ lateȬeighteenthȬcenturyȱ policeȱ andȱ Cameralisticȱ discoursesȱ andȱ practicesȱonȱmodernȱprocessesȱofȱminorityȱformationȱandȱonȱtheȱregulationȱofȱEurope’sȱ bioȬpoliticalȱborders.ȱInȱorderȱtoȱexplainȱthatȱminoritizationȱhasȱnotȱonlyȱledȱtoȱmarginalȬ izationȱandȱstigmatization,ȱbutȱalsoȱtoȱopportunitiesȱforȱminorityȱselfȬarticulation,ȱIȱfocusȱ onȱ Josephȱ vonȱ Sonnenfels’sȱ workȱ andȱ itsȱ widerȱ social,ȱ political,ȱ andȱ culturalȱ context.ȱ Largelyȱ followingȱ Foucault’sȱ workȱ (2000b;ȱ 2000c;ȱ 2007b),ȱ manyȱ contributorsȱ toȱ governȬ mentalityȱ studiesȱ considerȱ theȱ workȱ ofȱ theȱ Vienneseȱ Cameralistȱ vonȱ Justiȱ asȱ theȱ mostȱ exemplaryȱillustrationȱofȱhowȱtechnologiesȱandȱrationalitiesȱofȱpoliceȱbecameȱtheȱfocusȱofȱ anȱ independentȱ academicȱ disciplineȱ andȱ howȱ theȱ conceptȱ ofȱ populationȱ wasȱ finallyȱ turnedȱintoȱtheȱcentralȱconceptȱofȱtheȱpoliceȱsciencesȱ(Pasquinoȱ1991;ȱLemkeȱ1997;ȱDeanȱ 1999).7ȱIfȱvonȱSonnenfelsȱisȱmentionedȱatȱall,ȱitȱisȱonlyȱinȱpassing.ȱ However,ȱasȱsomeȱprominentȱhistoriansȱofȱpoliceȱsciencesȱandȱCameralismȱhaveȱemȬ phasized,8ȱinȱpassingȱfromȱvonȱJustiȱtoȱvonȱSonnenfels,ȱtheȱpoliceȱscientificȱtraditionȱunȬ dergoesȱoneȱofȱitsȱimportantȱlastȱrenewals.ȱVonȱSonnenfels’sȱworkȱreflects,ȱsoȱtoȱspeak,ȱ “aȱfinȱdeȱsiècleȱphaseȱofȱCameralism”ȱ(Smallȱ2001:ȱ410).ȱWhile,ȱinȱtheȱnextȱsection,ȱIȱwillȱ explainȱhowȱ weȱ couldȱ understandȱ theȱ shiftȱ fromȱ vonȱ Justiȱtoȱ vonȱSonnenfelsȱasȱ inȱlineȱ withȱtheȱgeneralȱcharacteristicsȱofȱtheȱpoliceȱandȱCameralisticȱscientificȱtradition,ȱinȱtheȱ fourthȱ section,ȱ Iȱ willȱ particularlyȱ focusȱ onȱ howȱ vonȱ Sonnenfels’sȱ workȱ announcesȱ theȱ slowȱ butȱ sureȱ breakdownȱ ofȱ thisȱ tradition.ȱ Moreȱ thanȱ anyȱ otherȱ representativeȱ ofȱ thisȱ tradition,ȱ hisȱ workȱ prefiguresȱ theȱ emergenceȱ ofȱ liberalȱ formsȱ ofȱ governmentalityȱ andȱ represents—toȱ putȱ itȱ inȱ theȱ contextȱ ofȱ theȱ politicalȱ changesȱ ofȱ theȱ lateȬeighteenthȱ century—theȱcracksȱinȱtheȱpavementsȱofȱenlightenedȱabsolutism.ȱYet,ȱIȱamȱnotȱgoingȱtoȱ readȱhisȱworkȱasȱanȱunproblematicȱbasisȱofȱchangingȱgovernmentalȱdiscoursesȱandȱpracȬ ticesȱinȱtheȱHabsburgȱEmpire.ȱHisȱworkȱshowsȱmanyȱinternalȱcontradictionsȱand—evenȱ thoughȱvonȱSonnenfelsȱwasȱaȱprominentȱadvisorȱofȱaȱseriesȱofȱHabsburgȱemperorsȱandȱ evenȱthoughȱhisȱworkȱfunctionedȱasȱtheȱintellectualȱbackboneȱofȱadministrativeȱpracticesȱ inȱtheȱEmpire—weȱneedȱtoȱavoidȱovervaluingȱhisȱinfluence.ȱ Alternatively,ȱinȱthisȱchapter,ȱIȱreadȱvonȱSonnenfels’sȱworkȱgenealogicallyȱtoȱexplainȱ thatȱheȱisȱanȱimportant,ȱoftenȱoverlooked,ȱandȱambivalentȱfigureȱofȱtransition.ȱIȱwillȱdiȬ scussȱhisȱwork,ȱandȱtheȱfinȱdeȱsiècleȱofȱCameralismȱmoreȱgenerally,ȱalongsideȱtheȱHabsȬ burgs’ȱassimilationistȱGypsyȱpoliciesȱandȱtheȱparallelȱemergentȱGypsyȱproblematizationȱ inȱminorityȱterms.ȱThisȱreadingȱallowsȱmeȱtoȱunravelȱtheȱambivalent—ratherȱthanȱonlyȱ negative—effectsȱofȱtheȱbioȬpoliticalȱpreoccupationȱwithȱGypsyȱgroups.ȱInȱtheȱfourthȱandȱ 7ȱThomasȱLemkeȱ(1997:ȱ165n36)ȱhasȱsuggestedȱthatȱFoucault’sȱselectionȱofȱoriginalȱpoliceȱscientificȱsourcesȱ
couldȱ alsoȱ beȱ consideredȱ asȱ aȱ basisȱ forȱ periodizingȱ theȱ historyȱ ofȱ policeȱ technologiesȱ fromȱ anȱ utopiaȱ (TurquetȱdeȱMayerne’sȱworkȱofȱtheȱearlyȱseventeenthȱcentury)ȱandȱanȱappliedȱpraxisȱ(deȱLamare’sȱworkȱofȱ theȱ earlyȱ eighteenthȱ century),ȱ toȱ anȱ independentȱ academicȱ disciplineȱ (vonȱ Justi’sȱ workȱ ofȱ theȱ midȱ eighteenthȱ century).ȱ Yet,ȱ thoughȱ weȱ couldȱ interpretȱ Foucault’sȱ interrogationȱ ofȱ policeȱ andȱ reasonȱ ofȱ stateȱ governmentalityȱ inȱ thisȱ way,ȱ weȱ needȱ toȱ avoidȱ toȱ understandȱ theȱ historyȱ ofȱ governmentalityȱ andȱ powerȱ technologiesȱasȱaȱlinearȱoneȱ(chapterȱ1,ȱCollierȱ2009).ȱ
fifthȱsection,ȱIȱwillȱshowȱhowȱtheȱgradualȱdeclineȱofȱproblematizingȱaȱstate’sȱgovernmentȱ inȱmechanisticȱandȱpoliceȱscientificȱtermsȱandȱtheȱparallelȱincreaseȱofȱproblematizingȱitȱinȱ organismicȱ termsȱ hasȱ importantlyȱ shapedȱ theȱ conditionsȱ ofȱ possibilityȱ forȱ formsȱ ofȱ minorityȱselfȬarticulation.ȱInȱtheȱsixthȱsection,ȱfinally,ȱIȱwillȱbringȱtheȱresultsȱofȱmyȱanalȬ ysesȱinȱchaptersȱ3ȱandȱ4ȱtogetherȱtoȱreviseȱtheȱwayȱinȱwhichȱtheȱemergenceȱandȱdevelopȬ mentȱofȱGypsyȱstudiesȱhaveȱusuallyȱbeenȱdiscussed.ȱ ȱ ȱ CAMERALISMȱANDȱPOLICEȱSCIENCESȱINȱTHEȱEIGHTEENTHȬCENTURYȱHABSBURGȱEMPIREȱ ȱ
Cameralismȱ andȱ policeȱ sciencesȱrepresentȱ anȱ oddȱ yetȱ influentialȱ episodeȱ inȱtheȱ Centralȱ Europeanȱ historyȱ ofȱ governmentalȱ approachesȱ toȱ theȱ state.ȱ Inȱ general,ȱ Cameralismȱ hasȱ beenȱexplainedȱasȱfollows:ȱ
ȱ
TheȱtermȱCameralismȱhasȱtwoȱconnotations.ȱOnȱtheȱoneȱhand,ȱitȱdesignatesȱtheȱideasȱ thatȱappearedȱtoȱexplain,ȱjustify,ȱandȱguideȱtheȱcentralizingȱtendenciesȱandȱpracticesȱ inȱadministrationȱandȱeconomicȱpolicyȱofȱtheȱabsoluteȱmonarchyȱinȱtheȱGermanȱstatesȱ duringȱ theȱ lateȱ seventeenthȱ andȱ eighteenthȱ centuries.ȱ Onȱ theȱ otherȱ hand,ȱ itȱ refersȱ toȱ theȱ variousȱ attemptsȱ ofȱ theȱ sameȱ periodȱ toȱ workȱ outȱ inȱ termsȱ ofȱ emergingȱ contemȬ poraryȱ politicalȱ andȱ socialȱ scienceȱ aȱ systematicȱ accountȱ ofȱ theȱ functioningȱ ofȱ theȱ variousȱ administrativeȱ servicesȱ asȱ aȱ basisȱ forȱ theȱ trainingȱ ofȱ publicȱ officials.ȱ (Rosenȱ 1953:ȱ24)ȱ
ȱ
WhereasȱCameralismȱhasȱhadȱanȱimpactȱonȱaȱnumberȱofȱearlyȱmodernȱEuropeanȱscholarȬ ly,ȱscientific,ȱandȱpoliticalȱtraditionsȱin,ȱforȱinstance,ȱItaly,ȱFrance,ȱandȱRussia,ȱitȱreachedȱ itsȱ widestȱ disseminationȱ inȱ theȱ Germanȱ andȱ Habsburgȱ lands,ȱ especiallyȱ inȱ theȱ secondȱ halfȱofȱtheȱeighteenthȱcentury.ȱInȱthoseȱdays,ȱtheȱpracticesȱofȱCameralismȱwereȱgoingȱtoȱ getȱtheirȱfirmȱscientificȱfoundationȱatȱPrussianȱandȱAustrianȱuniversities,ȱmostȱnotablyȱatȱ theȱ onesȱ ofȱ Halle,ȱ Frankfurtȱ onȱ Oder,ȱ Göttingen,ȱ andȱ Vienna.9ȱ Inȱ theȱ practicalȱ andȱ
pragmaticȱ senseȱ ofȱtheȱword,ȱ Cameralistsȱ wereȱ administrativeȱ practitionersȱ orȱ servantsȱ ofȱ theȱ Kammer,ȱ theȱ imperialȱ chamberȱ ofȱ theȱ Habsburgȱ Empire.ȱ Theyȱ couldȱ beȱ commisȬ sars,ȱ miningȱ officials,ȱ taxȱ councilors,ȱ privyȱ councilors,ȱ forestryȱ inspectors,ȱ orȱ otherȱ professionalsȱwhoȱworkedȱatȱtheȱimperialȱbureaus.ȱInȱmuchȱofȱtheȱliteratureȱonȱCameralȬ ismȱandȱpoliceȱsciences,ȱhowever,ȱCameralistsȱhaveȱincreasinglyȱbeenȱidentifiedȱasȱthoseȱ scholarsȱandȱscientistsȱwhoȱreflectedȱonȱtheȱactivitiesȱofȱtheseȱadministrativeȱpractitionȬ ers,ȱ onȱ theȱ wayȱ inȱ whichȱ theyȱ embodiedȱ aȱ specificȱ formȱ ofȱ bureaucracy,ȱ and,ȱ mostȱ importantly,ȱ onȱ howȱ thisȱ developingȱ bureaucraticȱ systemȱ wasȱ relatedȱ toȱ theȱ arts,ȱ pracȬ tices,ȱ objects,ȱ andȱ aimsȱ ofȱ theȱ governmentȱ ofȱaȱ state.ȱWhileȱ Cameralismȱ inȱtheȱGermanȱ landsȱhasȱhadȱaȱlongȱtraditionȱthatȱgoesȱbackȱtoȱtheȱearlyȬsixteenthȱcentury,ȱtheȱexplicitȱ problematizationȱ ofȱ Cameralisticȱ practicesȱ andȱ theȱ institutionalizationȱ ofȱ Cameralismȱ
9ȱ Byȱ 1798ȱ thirtyȬsixȱ universitiesȱ hadȱ postsȱ inȱ theȱ Cameralisticȱ sciences,ȱ occupiedȱ byȱ thirtyȬtwoȱ professorsȱ
(Tribeȱ 1988:ȱ 116).ȱ Moreover,ȱ onlyȱ inȱ theȱ GermanȬspeakingȱ areas,ȱ betweenȱ 1600ȱ andȱ 1800ȱ moreȱ thanȱ 3,200ȱ articlesȱ andȱ booksȱ onȱ Cameralisticȱ andȱ policeȱ sciencesȱ wereȱ published.ȱ Aȱ bibliographyȱ ofȱ Europeanȱ Cameralisticȱandȱpoliceȱsciencesȱofȱ1937ȱincludesȱoverȱ14,000ȱtitlesȱ(Humpertȱ1937).ȱ
andȱ policeȱ sciencesȱ asȱ individualȱ academicȱ disciplinesȱ andȱ orthodoxiesȱ emergedȱ inȱ theȱ eighteenthȱcentury,ȱwhenȱCameralismȱandȱpoliceȱsciencesȱwereȱusedȱasȱlargelyȱcomparaȬ bleȱtermsȱ(Johnsonȱ1964;ȱTribeȱ1988;ȱ1995).ȱ ȱ Fromȱaȱhistoricalȱpointȱofȱview,ȱtheȱeighteenthȬcenturyȱinstitutionalizationȱofȱCamerȬ alisticȱandȱpoliceȱsciencesȱisȱrelatedȱtoȱtheȱPrussianȱkingȱFriedrichȱWilhelmȱI’sȱdissatisfacȬ tionȱwithȱhowȱhisȱCameralȱofficialsȱwereȱeducated.ȱTooȱoften,ȱheȱbelieved,ȱtheyȱbehavedȱ likeȱ ‘ABCȬschoolboys’ȱ whenȱ confrontedȱ withȱ importantȱ administrativeȱ matters;ȱ someȬ thingȱthatȱresultedȱinȱtheirȱincompetenceȱtoȱfunctionȱwell,ȱinȱtheȱlackȱofȱefficientȱknowlȬ edgeȱ ofȱ theȱ wealthȱ ofȱ theȱ empire,ȱ andȱ inȱ theȱ lossȱ ofȱ potentialȱ incomeȱ forȱ theȱ imperialȱ chamberȱ(Wakefieldȱ2005).ȱThereȱwasȱaȱshortageȱofȱcompetent,ȱwellȬtrainedȱstateȱadminȬ istrators,ȱ whoȱ couldȱ makeȱ anȱ inventoryȱ ofȱ theȱ empire’sȱ wealth,ȱ contributeȱ toȱ itsȱ mainȬ tenanceȱ andȱ furtherȱ developmentȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ toȱ theȱ effectiveȱ centralizationȱ ofȱ control,ȱ order,ȱ andȱ security.10ȱ Theȱ notionsȱ ofȱ ‘goodȱ government’ȱ andȱ ‘goodȱ police’ȱ (guteȱ Polizei)ȱ
emergedȱ asȱ equivalentsȱ andȱ meantȱ theȱ promotionȱ andȱ maintenanceȱ ofȱ goodȱ order.ȱ Anȱ eighteenthȬcenturyȱtextȱonȱtheȱtaskȱofȱtheȱpoliceȱsciencesȱdescribesȱtheȱrangeȱofȱactivitiesȱ comprehendedȱbyȱgoodȱpoliceȱasȱfollows:ȱ
ȱ
TheȱfirstȱcareȱofȱaȱcompleteȱPolizeiȱisȱthatȱitȱcreatesȱaroundȱusȱaȱconditionȱofȱsecurity,ȱ suchȱ thatȱ weȱ inȱ noȱ wayȱ mightȱ fearȱ aȱ transgression.ȱ Itsȱ primeȱ intentionȱ isȱ solelyȱ directedȱtoȱopeningȱtheȱwayȱtoȱwelfareȱandȱhappiness,ȱandȱrenderingȱitȱaccessible.ȱItȱ thusȱ clearsȱ awayȱ thatȱ whichȱ couldȱ hinderȱ usȱ fromȱ enteringȱ uponȱ it,ȱ andȱ thatȱ whichȱ mightȱ disturbȱ ourȱ freeȱ passage.ȱ (Langemackȱ 1747:ȱ 52,ȱ §17,ȱ Englishȱ translationȱ citedȱ Tribeȱ1988:ȱ32Ȭ33)ȱȱ
ȱ
Thisȱ descriptionȱ pointsȱ toȱ oneȱ ofȱ theȱ mostȱ importantȱ elementsȱ thatȱ isȱ typicalȱ ofȱ theȱ eighteenthȬcenturyȱpoliceȱsciences,ȱnamelyȱtheȱconstantȱencouragementȱofȱtheȱhappinessȱ ofȱ theȱ state’sȱ subjectsȱ inȱ orderȱ toȱ strengthenȱ theȱ welfareȱ ofȱ theȱ stateȱ (chapterȱ 2).ȱ Thisȱ elementȱisȱbestȱillustratedȱbyȱtheȱworksȱofȱJohannȱvonȱJustiȱ(1720Ȭ71)ȱwho,ȱalongȱwithȱhisȱ contemporaryȱJosephȱvonȱSonnenfels,ȱwasȱtoȱbecomeȱtheȱmostȱimportantȱandȱinfluentialȱ policeȱscientistȱandȱtheȱfounderȱofȱwhatȱKeithȱTribeȱ(1988)ȱhasȱcalledȱtheȱVienneseȱorthoȬ doxyȱ inȱ Cameralisticȱ andȱ policeȱ sciences.ȱ Inȱ oneȱ ofȱ hisȱ mainȱ works,ȱ theȱ Grundsätzeȱ derȱ
PoliceyȬWissenschaftȱ (Theȱ Foundationsȱ ofȱ Policeȱ Sciences),ȱ vonȱ Justiȱ describesȱ policeȱ asȱ
follows:ȱ ȱ
Inȱtheȱbroadestȱsense,ȱunderȱtheȱnameȱpoliceȱweȱincludeȱallȱtheȱlawsȱandȱregulationsȱ thatȱconcernȱtheȱinternalȱaffairsȱofȱaȱstate,ȱwhichȱendeavorȱtoȱpermanentlyȱstrengthenȱ
10ȱ Onȱ theȱ instigationȱ ofȱ kingȱ Friedrichȱ Wilhelmȱ Iȱ Cameralisticȱ teachingȱ wasȱ establishedȱ inȱ 1727ȱ atȱ theȱ
PrussianȱuniversitiesȱofȱHalleȱandȱFrankfurtȱonȱOderȱ(Smallȱ2001:ȱ207Ȭ10,ȱ222).ȱHeȱintendedȱtoȱincorporateȱ academicsȱ andȱ universitiesȱ moreȱ generallyȱ intoȱ theȱ extensiveȱ networkȱ ofȱ theȱ Kammerȱ (Stolleisȱ 1988;ȱ Wakefieldȱ2005).ȱInȱparticularȱinȱHalle,ȱtheȱteachingȱofȱCameralisticȱandȱpoliceȱsciencesȱwasȱgoingȱtoȱgetȱaȱ longȱandȱsteadyȱtraditionȱthatȱhadȱbegunȱwithȱtheȱappointmentȱofȱSimonȱPeterȱGasserȱtoȱaȱChairȱinȱ‘OecoȬ nomie,ȱPolizeyȱundȱCameralsachen’ȱinȱ1727ȱandȱthatȱendedȱmoreȱthanȱaȱcenturyȱlaterȱwithȱtheȱteachingȱby,ȱ mostȱ notably,ȱ Fischer,ȱ Lamprecht,ȱ and,ȱ lastȱ butȱ notȱ least,ȱ theȱ earlyȱ Gypsyȱ scholarȱ Rüdiger,ȱ whoȱ becameȱ professorȱinȱHalleȱinȱ1791.ȱTheȱlatterȱthreeȱprofessorsȱwereȱhighlyȱinfluencedȱbyȱtheȱworksȱofȱtheȱVienneseȱ Cameralisticȱschoolȱ(Tribeȱ1988,ȱseeȱalsoȱbelow).ȱ
andȱincreaseȱitsȱpower,ȱtoȱmakeȱbetterȱuseȱofȱitsȱforces,ȱandȱtoȱencourageȱtheȱhappiȬ nessȱofȱallȱitsȱsubjects;ȱinȱaȱword,ȱcommerce,ȱtheȱsciences,ȱurbanȱandȱruralȱeconomies,ȱ andȱtheȱadministrationȱofȱagriculture,ȱmining,ȱforestry,ȱandȱtheȱlike,ȱinȱviewȱofȱtheȱfactȱ thatȱtheȱwelfareȱofȱtheȱstateȱdependsȱonȱtheȱwisdomȱwithȱwhichȱallȱtheseȱthingsȱareȱ governed.ȱ(vonȱJustiȱ1756:ȱ4;ȱmyȱtranslation,ȱpartlyȱbasedȱonȱFoucaultȱ2007b:ȱ330ȱn8)ȱ ȱ Theȱhappinessȱofȱtheȱstate’sȱsubjectsȱonȱwhichȱtheȱhappinessȱandȱwelfareȱofȱtheȱstateȱareȱ simultaneouslyȱ basedȱ isȱ aȱ ratherȱ technical,ȱ analytic,ȱ andȱ encompassingȱ termȱ inȱ vonȱ Justi’sȱworkȱ(vonȱJustiȱ1760Ȭ61).ȱTheȱconceptȱofȱpoliceȱcircumscribesȱtheȱentireȱscopeȱofȱ happiness—fromȱwelfareȱtoȱwellȬbeing—andȱmarksȱwhatȱcanȱbeȱcalledȱtheȱpopulationistȱ turnȱinȱlateȱCameralism.ȱAȱnumberȱofȱfeaturesȱcharacterizeȱtheȱspecificȱCameralisticȱarȬ ticulationȱofȱpolice.ȱPoliceȱrefersȱtoȱbeingȱasȱliving.ȱPoliceȱneedsȱtoȱguaranteeȱlivingȱinȱtheȱ senseȱthatȱitȱneeds,ȱforȱinstance,ȱtoȱavoidȱwar,ȱtoȱencourageȱfertility,ȱtoȱpreventȱsuicideȱorȱ earlyȱ death,ȱ andȱ toȱ attractȱ foreignersȱ whoȱ couldȱ contributeȱ toȱ theȱ state’sȱ welfare.ȱ Inȱ general,ȱ thisȱ firstȱ aimȱ ofȱ policeȱ isȱ toȱ promoteȱ theȱ state’sȱ happinessȱ atȱ theȱ levelȱ ofȱ theȱ abundance,ȱtheȱnumberȱofȱcitizens.ȱTheȱideaȱbehindȱaȱlargeȱquantityȱofȱaȱstate’sȱinhabȬ itantsȱisȱthatȱtheȱmoreȱpeopleȱthereȱare,ȱtheȱmoreȱneedsȱtheyȱembodyȱandȱtheȱgreaterȱtheȱ growthȱ ofȱ theȱ meansȱ ofȱ subsistence.ȱ Therefore,ȱ theȱ quantitativeȱ argumentȱ forȱ aȱ largeȱ populationȱisȱnotȱexclusivelyȱrelatedȱtoȱitsȱnumber,ȱbutȱisȱalsoȱaȱmatterȱofȱtheȱexactȱsizeȱ ofȱ theȱ state’sȱ territory,ȱ itsȱ wealth,ȱ commercialȱ activities,ȱ andȱ theȱ availabilityȱ ofȱ variousȱ resources.ȱȱ
Atȱtheȱsameȱtime,ȱtheȱnumberȱofȱinhabitantsȱisȱintrinsicallyȱrelatedȱtoȱtheȱaimȱofȱpoliceȱ toȱguaranteeȱhappinessȱatȱaȱqualitativeȱlevel.ȱThisȱimplies,ȱfirstly,ȱtheȱaccommodationȱofȱ theȱ mostȱ basicȱ needs,ȱ suchȱ asȱ theȱ provisionȱ ofȱ food,ȱ clothes,ȱ heating,ȱ housing,ȱ andȱ theȱ like.ȱTheȱprovisionȱofȱtheȱbasicȱneedsȱincludesȱnotȱonlyȱitsȱmaterialȱaspects,ȱbutȱalsoȱwhatȱ weȱcouldȱcallȱitsȱgovernmentalȱones:ȱensuringȱthatȱtheseȱmaterialȱneedsȱareȱnotȱspoiledȱatȱ theȱ timeȱ ofȱ transferȱ andȱ sale.ȱ Secondly,ȱ theȱ qualitativeȱ levelȱ ofȱ happinessȱ enclosesȱ theȱ securingȱ andȱ maintenanceȱ ofȱ healthȱ inȱ theȱ mostȱ generalȱ senseȱ ofȱ theȱ word.ȱ Policeȱ isȱ dedicatedȱ toȱ ensuringȱ theȱ everydayȱ healthȱ ofȱ everyoneȱ and,ȱ whereȱ necessary,ȱ toȱ interȬ veningȱ inȱ everythingȱ thatȱ couldȱ endangerȱ aȱ properȱ healthȱ situation.ȱ Therefore,ȱ policeȱ performȱnotȱonlyȱtheȱtakingȱofȱadequateȱmeasuresȱinȱcaseȱofȱillness,ȱstarvation,ȱepidemȬ icsȱorȱplagues,ȱbutȱalsoȱtheȱregulationȱandȱsupervisionȱofȱurbanȱandȱruralȱspacesȱsuchȱasȱ cemeteries,ȱwaterȱsupplies,ȱabattoirs,ȱsewerages,ȱroads,ȱbridges,ȱhospitals,ȱstreetȱlighting,ȱ schools,ȱ inns,ȱ coffeeȬhouses,ȱ andȱ soȱ on.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ context,ȱ vonȱ Justiȱ alsoȱ promotedȱ insurȬ ancesȱagainstȱstorm,ȱfire,ȱandȱflood,ȱandȱmeasuresȱforȱtheȱmeliorationȱofȱnaturalȱinfertileȬ ityȱ(Tribeȱ1988).ȱ ȱ InȱvonȱJusti’sȱeyes,ȱhowever,ȱtheȱquantityȱandȱqualityȱofȱtheȱlivesȱofȱaȱstate’sȱsubjectsȱ areȱnotȱyetȱenoughȱtoȱensureȱtheȱwelfareȱandȱhappinessȱofȱtheȱstate.ȱInȱorderȱtoȱachieveȱ theseȱaimsȱtheȱactivitiesȱofȱtheȱpopulationȱitselfȱneedȱtoȱbeȱknownȱandȱregulated,ȱfromȱ theirȱhabitsȱandȱmobilityȱtoȱtheirȱprofessions,ȱfromȱtheirȱabilitiesȱtoȱtheirȱdisabilities,ȱandȱ fromȱ theirȱ customsȱ toȱ theirȱ religious,ȱ heathen,ȱ andȱ leisureȱ practices.ȱ Thisȱ objectiveȱ ofȱ policeȱ isȱ closelyȱ relatedȱ toȱ itsȱ aimȱ toȱ promoteȱ theȱ goodȱ ‘circulation’ȱ ofȱ bothȱ goodsȱ andȱ humanȱbeings.ȱHence,ȱpoliceȱalsoȱencompassesȱtheȱdevelopmentȱofȱinfrastructureȱ(roads,ȱ rivers,ȱ canals,ȱ bridges,ȱ tollhouses,ȱ publicȱ spaces,ȱ signposts,ȱ etc.),ȱ theȱ supervisionȱ ofȱ theȱ distributionȱandȱcirculationȱofȱgoods,ȱtheȱadministrationȱofȱtheȱstate’sȱresourcesȱ(mines,ȱ
forests,ȱfarmingȱland,ȱetc.),ȱtheȱregulationȱofȱmarketsȱandȱlaborȱforcesȱmoreȱgenerally,ȱtheȱ protectionȱofȱgoodȱorderȱatȱChurchȱservices,ȱtheȱcontrolȱandȱpreventionȱofȱidlenessȱandȱ beggary,ȱ theȱ suppressionȱ ofȱ vagrancy,ȱ vagabondism,ȱ andȱ crime,ȱ andȱ theȱ regulationȱ ofȱ borders.ȱCirculationȱisȱalsoȱtoȱbeȱtakenȱintoȱaccountȱatȱaȱsecondȱorderȱlevel,ȱinȱtheȱsenseȱ thatȱ itȱ includesȱ itsȱ ownȱ conditions,ȱ suchȱ asȱ theȱ lawsȱ andȱregulationsȱ thatȱ dealȱwithȱtheȱ improvementȱ ofȱ profitableȱ formsȱ ofȱ mobilityȱ andȱ circulation,ȱ theȱ standardizationȱ ofȱ weightsȱ andȱ measures,ȱ andȱ theȱ establishmentȱ ofȱ guidelinesȱ forȱ cultivation.ȱ Toȱ sumȱ up,ȱ weȱ couldȱ sayȱ thatȱ theȱ tasksȱ ofȱ policeȱ areȱ infiniteȱ andȱ thatȱ itsȱ centralȱ objectiveȱ encomȬ passesȱ“everythingȱfromȱbeingȱtoȱwellȬbeing”ȱ(Foucaultȱ2007b:ȱ328)ȱandȱ“fromȱwombȱtoȱ tomb”ȱ(Carrollȱ2002:ȱ473).ȱ
ȱ AsȱsomeȱcommentariesȱofȱvonȱJusti’sȱworkȱhaveȱremarkedȱ(Osterlohȱ1970;ȱTribeȱ1988)ȱ hisȱconceptionȱofȱaȱstate’sȱhappinessȱseemsȱtoȱbeȱcircularȱorȱevenȱcontradictory.ȱIndeed,ȱ itȱisȱbasedȱonȱtheȱhappinessȱofȱtheȱstate’sȱsubjects,ȱbutȱthey,ȱtoȱbeȱandȱbecomeȱhappy,ȱareȱ dependentȱ onȱ theȱ state’sȱ calculatedȱ interventionsȱ inȱ theirȱ livesȱ andȱ circumstances.ȱ FollowingȱFoucault,ȱThomasȱLemkeȱ(1997)ȱconsidersȱthisȱseeminglyȱcontradictoryȱaspectȱ ofȱtheȱpoliticalȱrationalityȱofȱpoliceȱasȱoneȱofȱitsȱnovelties:ȱtheȱhappinessȱandȱwelfareȱofȱ individualsȱ areȱ noȱ longerȱ justȱ theȱ resultȱ andȱ aimȱ ofȱ goodȱ government,ȱ butȱ alsoȱ theȱ necessaryȱ conditionȱ forȱ theȱ survivalȱ andȱ strengthȱ ofȱ aȱ state.ȱ Thus,ȱ weȱ canȱ considerȱ theȱ incessantȱCameralisticȱinvolvementȱwithȱenhancingȱindividualȱhappinessȱasȱaȱprocessȱofȱ individualizationȱ andȱ “aȱ governmentȱ ofȱ individualsȱ inȱ termsȱ ofȱ whatȱ couldȱ beȱ calledȱ theirȱmarginalȱutilityȱvisȬàȬvisȱtheȱobjectiveȱofȱstrengtheningȱtheȱstateȱbyȱmaximizingȱtheȱ appropriateȱandȱparticularȱcontributionsȱofȱeachȱandȱall”ȱ(Burchellȱ1991:ȱ124).ȱ
Theȱ emergenceȱ ofȱ governmentalȱ rationalitiesȱ andȱ technologiesȱ characteristicȱ ofȱ CameralismȱandȱtheȱpoliceȱsciencesȱmarkȱtheȱdisplacementȱofȱclassicalȱjuridicoȬpoliticalȱ thoughtȱ or,ȱ atȱ anyȱ rate,ȱ aȱ differentiationȱ betweenȱ sovereigntyȱ andȱ governmentality.ȱ Theoriesȱandȱpracticesȱofȱstateȱsovereigntyȱthatȱwereȱinȱfashionȱbeforeȱtheȱemergenceȱofȱ theȱpoliceȱscientificȱgovernmentality,ȱsuchȱasȱthoseȱrelatedȱtoȱNiccolòȱMachiavelli’sȱTheȱ
Prince,ȱprimarilyȱfocusedȱonȱtheȱmaintenanceȱofȱtheȱrelationȱbetweenȱtheȱsovereignȱandȱ
theȱterritoryȱoverȱwhichȱheȱruled.ȱTheȱpeopleȱorȱtheȱpopulationȱdidȱnotȱreallyȱmatterȱorȱ onlyȱdidȱinȱasȱfarȱasȱtheyȱcouldȱformȱaȱshieldȱtoȱprotectȱtheȱrulerȱandȱhisȱtreasury.ȱHowȬ ever,ȱ theȱ problemȱ posedȱ byȱ policeȱ andȱ reasonȱ ofȱ stateȱ isȱ thatȱ ofȱ theȱ veryȱ existence,ȱ theȱ strength,ȱandȱnatureȱofȱtheȱstateȱitselfȱ(chapterȱ2).ȱInȱorderȱtoȱgovernȱaȱstateȱadequately,ȱ thoroughȱknowledgeȱofȱtheȱstate’sȱstrength—henceȱofȱeverythingȱthatȱisȱcoveredȱbyȱtheȱ police’sȱ centralȱ objectives—isȱ indispensable.ȱInȱ otherȱ words,ȱ policeȱbecomesȱ theȱ crucialȱ mediatorȱinȱ“linkingȱtogetherȱtheȱstate’sȱstrengthȱandȱindividualȱfelicity”ȱandȱembodiesȱ theȱ infiniteȱ attemptȱ toȱ governȱ allȱ andȱ each—omnesȱ etȱ singulatimȱ (Foucaultȱ 2007b:ȱ 327).ȱ Thoughȱ theȱ governmentalȱ positionȱ ofȱ theȱ sovereignȱ isȱ notȱ yetȱ disputed—Cameralismȱ andȱ theȱ policeȱ sciencesȱ stillȱ assumeȱ thatȱ theȱ sovereignȱ canȱ knowȱ herȱ orȱ hisȱ objectȱ ofȱ governmentȱentirely—atȱtheȱsameȱtimeȱtheȱtargets,ȱinstruments,ȱandȱendsȱofȱgovernmentȱ canȱnoȱlongerȱbeȱcodifiedȱandȱframedȱinȱtheȱjuridicoȬpoliticalȱtermsȱinȱwhichȱproblemsȱofȱ sovereigntyȱareȱprevailinglyȱconceptualizedȱ(Burchellȱ1991).ȱ
VonȱJusti’sȱcontemporaryȱvonȱSonnenfelsȱ(1732Ȭ1817)ȱisȱtheȱfirstȱtoȱconceiveȱofȱpoliceȱ asȱ theȱ crucialȱ intermediaryȱ betweenȱ aȱ stateȱ andȱ itsȱ population,ȱ whileȱ simultaneouslyȱ
avoidingȱvonȱJusti’sȱquasiȬcircularȱformulationȱinȱtermsȱofȱhappiness.11ȱVonȱSonnenfelsȱ
chieflyȱagreesȱwithȱvonȱJustiȱthatȱtheȱpromotionȱofȱgeneralȱhappinessȱhasȱtoȱbeȱaȱleadingȱ principleȱ ofȱ theȱ scienceȱ ofȱ theȱ state.ȱ Toȱ avoidȱ theȱ problemȱ ofȱ circularity,ȱ however,ȱ vonȱ Sonnenfelsȱ developsȱ another,ȱ yetȱ closelyȱ relatedȱ ideaȱ ofȱ howȱ happinessȱ hasȱ toȱ beȱ reached.ȱRatherȱthanȱhappinessȱasȱsuch,ȱvonȱSonnenfelsȱconsidersȱtheȱconceptȱofȱpopuȬ lationȱasȱtheȱhighestȱandȱsoleȱprincipleȱofȱtheȱCameralisticȱdoctrine:ȱ
ȱ
Theȱonlyȱone,ȱwhoȱhasȱfoundedȱtheȱscienceȱofȱtheȱstateȱincludingȱallȱitsȱsubdivisionsȱ onȱ aȱ generalȱ principle,ȱ wasȱ …ȱ [von]ȱ Justi:ȱ withȱ thisȱ aim,ȱ heȱ assumedȱ theȱ promotionȱ ofȱ
generalȱhappiness.ȱThisȱisȱaȱtrue,ȱyetȱnotȱsufficientȱprinciple.ȱAdmittedly,ȱtheȱpromotionȱofȱ generalȱ happinessȱ isȱ theȱaimȱofȱemergingȱ statesȱandȱ theirȱeverlastingȱ finalȱ object.ȱ Yet,ȱ inȱ
particularȱ becauseȱ ofȱ theȱ factȱ thatȱ theȱ appropriatenessȱ ofȱ measuresȱ needsȱ toȱ beȱ demonstratedȱ byȱ theirȱ correspondenceȱ toȱ theȱ finalȱ objectiveȱ [ofȱ aȱ state],ȱ itȱ cannotȱ beȱ acceptedȱasȱtheȱproofȱorȱtheȱgeneralȱprincipleȱ…ȱTherefore,ȱIȱconsiderȱtheȱextensionȱofȱ
civilȱ societyȱ byȱ theȱ increaseȱ ofȱ theȱ populationȱ asȱ theȱ commonȱ generalȱ principleȱ ofȱ theȱ
scienceȱofȱtheȱstateȱ[Staatswissenschaft]ȱandȱitsȱsubdivisions;ȱtheȱdemonstrationȱofȱanyȱ measure,ȱwhichȱneedsȱtoȱleadȱtoȱtheȱpromotionȱofȱgeneralȱwelfare,ȱis:ȱDoesȱitȱcontributeȱ
advantageouslyȱ toȱ theȱ population?ȱ Doesȱ itȱ contributeȱ disadvantageouslyȱ toȱ theȱ population?ȱ
(vonȱSonnenfelsȱ2003ȱ[1765]:ȱ22Ȭ23,ȱ§24,ȱ§25,ȱemphasisȱinȱoriginal,ȱmyȱtranslation)ȱ ȱ
VonȱSonnenfels’sȱreferenceȱtoȱcivilȱsocietyȱ(bürgerlicheȱGesellschaft)ȱcanȱeasilyȱmisleadȱone.ȱ Seenȱfromȱaȱliberalȱpointȱofȱview—liberalȱinȱtheȱFoucauldianȱsenseȱ(chapterȱ2)—neitherȱ vonȱ Justi’sȱ considerationȱ ofȱ generalȱ happinessȱ (Glückseligkeit)ȱ norȱ vonȱ Sonnenfels’sȱ relianceȱ onȱ theȱ principleȱ ofȱ populationȱ (Bevölkerung)ȱ startȱ fromȱ aȱ distinctionȱ betweenȱ stateȱandȱsociety.ȱAccordingȱtoȱtheȱrationaleȱbehindȱpoliceȱsciences,ȱtheȱstateȱisȱnotȱdisȬ tinguishedȱ fromȱ theȱ spheresȱ thatȱ weȱ generallyȱ considerȱ asȱ partȱ ofȱ society,ȱ suchȱ asȱ theȱ economy,ȱ civilȱ society,ȱ andȱ theȱ privateȱ sphere.ȱ Accordingly,ȱ humanȱ beingsȱ areȱ notȱ yetȱ consideredȱonȱtheȱbasisȱofȱtheirȱfreeȱinteractionsȱandȱinterests,ȱbutȱonȱtheȱbasisȱofȱtheirȱ spontaneousȱ andȱ collectiveȱ inclinationȱ toȱ interactȱ inȱ aȱ disorderlyȱ fashion.ȱ Theȱ aimȱ ofȱ goodȱ governmentȱ orȱ goodȱ policeȱ isȱ toȱ identifyȱ aȱ desirableȱ stateȱ ofȱ orderȱ andȱ directȱ asȱ manyȱhumanȱresourcesȱasȱpossibleȱtowardȱsuchȱanȱorder:ȱ
ȱ
Humanityȱ confrontsȱ theȱ stateȱ asȱ ‘population,’ȱ aȱ subjectȱ massȱ toȱ beȱ regulated,ȱ enhanced,ȱandȱsupervised.ȱThusȱ‘society’ȱandȱ‘polity’ȱareȱgenuinelyȱsynonymous,ȱforȱ withoutȱ theȱ latterȱ theȱ formerȱ cannotȱ exist;ȱ andȱ sinceȱ theyȱ doȱ coexist,ȱ noȱ conceptualȱ distinctionȱisȱmadeȱbetweenȱthem.ȱ(Tribeȱ1988:ȱ29)ȱ
ȱ
Forȱ similarȱ reasons,ȱ weȱ cannotȱ clearlyȱ distinguishȱ betweenȱ theȱ politicalȱ andȱ economicȱ objectivesȱ ofȱ policeȱ either.ȱ Theȱ economyȱ cannotȱ yetȱ beȱ perceivedȱ asȱ somethingȱ thatȱ isȱ
11ȱ Vonȱ Sonnenfelsȱ wasȱ oneȱ ofȱ theȱ mostȱ remarkableȱ andȱ importantȱ intellectualsȱ ofȱ theȱ Habsburgȱ reformistȱ
era.ȱ Whileȱ hisȱ grandfatherȱ hadȱ stillȱ beenȱ chiefȱ rabbiȱ ofȱ Brandenburgȱ inȱ Berlin,ȱ andȱ hisȱ ownȱ fatherȱ hadȱ emigratedȱ toȱ theȱ Habsburgȱ realmsȱ andȱ convertedȱ toȱ Catholicismȱ inȱ theȱ 1730s,ȱ theȱ convertedȱ Jewȱ vonȱ Sonnenfelsȱ wasȱ toȱ becomeȱ oneȱ ofȱ theȱ keyȱ figuresȱ behindȱ theȱ reformsȱ ofȱ theȱ Habsburgȱ emperorsȱ Mariaȱ Theresaȱ(1740Ȭ80),ȱJosephȱIIȱ(1780Ȭ90),ȱLeopoldȱIIȱ(1790Ȭ92),ȱandȱFranzȱIIȱ(1792Ȭ1835).ȱBelowȱIȱwillȱreturnȱtoȱ hisȱinfluence.ȱ
autonomouslyȱ ruledȱ byȱ ‘anȱ invisibleȱ hand’ȱ (Smithȱ 1976),ȱ thatȱ is,ȱ byȱ principlesȱ thatȱ areȱ inherentȱ toȱ aȱ marketȱ logicȱ andȱ individualȱ interestsȱ andȱ actions.ȱ Underȱ Cameralisticȱ conditions,ȱ theȱ attemptȱ toȱ secureȱ andȱ increaseȱ theȱ welfareȱ ofȱ theȱ stateȱ beginsȱ withȱ theȱ assumptionȱofȱtheȱimmanenceȱofȱtheȱstateȱand,ȱtherefore,ȱstartsȱwithȱtheȱpresuppositionȱ thatȱ theȱ state’sȱ instrumentsȱ andȱ objectivesȱ areȱ bothȱ entirelyȱ internalȱ toȱ theȱ state’sȱ ownȱ mechanisms:ȱ
ȱ
[T]heȱpoliticsȱandȱeconomicsȱofȱtheȱterritorialȱstateȱturnȱoutȱtoȱinvolveȱaȱconstantȱworkȱ ofȱ regulationȱ inȱ whichȱ noȱ sharpȱ distinctionȱ canȱ beȱ madeȱ betweenȱ ‘political’ȱ andȱ ‘economic’ȱtasks.ȱTheȱ[eighteenthȬcentury]ȱPolizeistaatȱisȱaȱstateȱinȱwhichȱtheȱgoodȱofȱ theȱ rulerȱ isȱ indistinguishableȱ fromȱ theȱ goodȱ ofȱ theȱ populace;ȱ theȱ administrativeȱ apparatusȱisȱdevotedȱtoȱtheȱincreaseȱofȱtheȱruler’sȱwealthȱthroughȱtheȱoptimizationȱofȱ theȱhappinessȱofȱhisȱsubjects.ȱ(Tribeȱ1988:ȱ34)ȱ ȱ Theȱstateȱhasȱtoȱconditionȱitsȱsubjectsȱinȱsuchȱaȱwayȱthatȱnotȱonlyȱtheirȱpossessions,ȱbutȱ alsoȱtheirȱskills,ȱstrength,ȱendurance,ȱandȱknowledgeȱconstituteȱtheȱstate’sȱwealth.ȱHence,ȱ inȱtheȱCameralisticȱapproachȱtoȱindividuals,ȱtheirȱhappinessȱdoesȱnotȱyetȱhaveȱaȱliberalȱ component;ȱ instead,ȱ theirȱ behaviorsȱ andȱ talentsȱ haveȱ toȱ beȱ mobilizedȱ maximallyȱ toȱ usefulȱeffect.ȱTheȱproperȱconductȱofȱhouseholdsȱandȱofȱtheȱpopulationȱmoreȱgenerallyȱisȱ notȱ basedȱ onȱ aȱ subject’sȱ freedomȱ fromȱ constraints—inȱ contrast,ȱ everyȱ subjectȱ isȱ conȬ strainedȱbyȱregulationsȱthatȱlimitȱandȱdirectȱherȱactionȱ(Tribeȱ1988;ȱSmallȱ2001).ȱTheȱroleȱ ofȱPolizeiȱisȱtoȱorganizeȱtheȱstateȱaccordingȱtoȱthisȱprincipleȱofȱeffectiveness:ȱ ȱ Theȱleastȱoffenceȱandȱdeviation,ȱifȱtheyȱbecomeȱgeneral,ȱcanȱgiveȱriseȱtoȱgreatȱdisorderȱ andȱhaveȱveryȱdamagingȱconsequencesȱforȱtheȱwelfareȱofȱtheȱstate.ȱThusȱPolizeiȱhasȱtoȱ demonstrateȱitsȱwakefulnessȱinȱallȱchangesȱinȱtheȱconditionȱofȱtheȱcommonȱweal.ȱ(vonȱ Justiȱ1756:ȱ208,ȱEnglishȱtranslationȱcitedȱTribeȱ1988:ȱ77)ȱ ȱ
Theȱ policeȱ scientificȱ conceptionȱ ofȱ theȱ commonȱ wealȱ clearlyȱ legitimizesȱ practicesȱ ofȱ punishment.ȱYet,ȱweȱcannotȱunderstandȱtheȱeighteenthȬcenturyȱpoliceȱstateȱasȱaȱsystemȱ thatȱ isȱ entirelyȱ basedȱ onȱ theȱ specificationȱ ofȱ offencesȱ andȱ theirȱ punishment,ȱ asȱ inȱ theȱ mostȱ usualȱ contemporaryȱ understandingȱ ofȱ theȱ policeȱ state.ȱ Inȱ particularȱ becauseȱ ofȱ police’sȱ continuousȱ obsessionȱ withȱ disorderȱ andȱ withȱ itsȱ governingȱ tooȱ little,ȱ policeȱ involvesȱ aȱ systemȱ thatȱ permanentlyȱ triesȱ toȱ identifyȱ newȱ areasȱ ofȱ disorder,ȱ whichȱ itȱ attemptsȱtoȱregulateȱandȱmonitorȱthroughȱpositive,ȱproactive,ȱandȱpreventiveȱmeasures.ȱ Seenȱfromȱthisȱangle,ȱweȱcanȱonlyȱfullyȱgraspȱtheȱeighteenthȬcenturyȱinstitutionalizationȱ ofȱ divisionsȱ ofȱ theȱ policeȱ apparatusesȱ thatȱ areȱ specificallyȱ dedicatedȱ to,ȱ forȱ instance,ȱ crimeȱpreventionȱandȱtheȱrepressionȱofȱidleness,ȱbeggary,ȱandȱvagrancyȱinȱtheȱcontextȱofȱ theȱmoreȱgeneralȱobjectiveȱofȱpoliceȱrationalitiesȱandȱtheirȱgradualȱtransformation.ȱ
Inȱ theȱ contextȱ ofȱ Prussiaȱ andȱ theȱ historyȱ ofȱ Gypsyȱ approachesȱ inȱ Germanyȱ moreȱ generally,ȱLucassenȱremarksȱthatȱtheȱlateȬeighteenthȱandȱearlyȬnineteenthȬcenturyȱpoliceȱ systemȱwasȱalreadyȱreducingȱitsȱgeneralȱscopeȱtoȱcrimeȱprevention.ȱHeȱhasȱframedȱthisȱ transformationȱ inȱ termsȱ ofȱ aȱ parallelȱ shiftȱ fromȱ aȱ reactiveȱ toȱ aȱ proactiveȱ approachȱ toȱ crimeȱ (Lucassenȱ 1996:ȱ 17,ȱ 115,ȱ 225).ȱ Suchȱ aȱ shiftȱ undoubtedlyȱ tookȱ place,ȱ butȱ certainlyȱ notȱonlyȱinȱtheȱfieldȱthatȱweȱcurrentlyȱunderstandȱasȱpolice.ȱItȱalsoȱtookȱplaceȱinȱmanyȱ
otherȱ fieldsȱ thatȱ wereȱ consideredȱ asȱ anȱ integralȱ partȱ ofȱ theȱ tasksȱ ofȱ policeȱ inȱ theȱ eighteenthȬcenturyȱ sense,ȱ suchȱ asȱ inȱ theȱ fieldȱ ofȱ medicineȱ orȱ whatȱ wasȱ atȱ thatȱ momentȱ calledȱmedicalȱpoliceȱ(medicinischeȱPolicey)ȱ(Rauȱ1764;ȱFrankȱ1779Ȭ1827).12ȱThus,ȱwhileȱweȱ
canȱspeakȱofȱaȱpreliminaryȱturnȱfromȱaȱreactiveȱtoȱaȱproactiveȱapproachȱtoȱcrimeȱinȱtheȱ lateȱ eighteenthȱ century,ȱ weȱ cannotȱ identifyȱ thisȱ shift—as,ȱ forȱ instance,ȱ Lucassenȱ (1996)ȱ andȱHärterȱ(2003)ȱtendȱ toȱ do—withȱ theȱlimitationȱ ofȱ theȱoverallȱ policeȱ systemȱtoȱ crimeȱ prevention.ȱ Consequently,ȱ weȱ canȱ onlyȱ adequatelyȱ understandȱ thisȱ transitionȱ fromȱ aȱ reactiveȱtoȱaȱproactiveȱapproachȱwithinȱtheȱcontextȱofȱaȱmuchȱmoreȱgeneralȱshiftȱthatȱalsoȱ includedȱ aȱ newȱ approachȱ toȱ marginalizedȱ groupsȱ inȱ termsȱ ofȱ populationȱ regulation,ȱ ratherȱ thanȱ onlyȱ inȱ thoseȱ ofȱ sovereigntyȱ andȱ disciplineȱ (chapterȱ 1).ȱ Thisȱ gradualȱ shiftȱ towardȱ newȱ formsȱ ofȱ governmentalityȱ becameȱ manifestȱ inȱ bothȱ theȱ internalȱ transforȬ mationȱ ofȱ Cameralisticȱ theoriesȱ andȱ theȱ transformationȱ ofȱ Habsburgȱ policiesȱ underȱ enlightenedȱabsolutistȱrule.ȱAsȱIȱwillȱexplainȱinȱtheȱsecondȱhalfȱofȱthisȱchapter,ȱanȱanalȬ ysisȱofȱthisȱtransitionȱmakesȱitȱpossibleȱtoȱunderstandȱtheseȱtransformationsȱbeyondȱtheȱ mereȱcentralizationȱofȱ(crime)ȱcontrol,ȱandȱstateȱinstitutionsȱmoreȱgenerally.ȱ ȱ ȱ HABSBURGȱGYPSYȱASSIMILATIONISTȱPOLICIESȱINȱLIGHTȱOFȱGOVERNMENTALITYȱ ȱ
Bothȱ theȱ internalȱ transformationȱ ofȱ Cameralisticȱ theoriesȱ andȱ theȱ profoundȱ changeȱ ofȱ Habsburgȱabsolutistȱpoliciesȱinȱtheȱeighteenthȱcenturyȱoccurredȱatȱtheȱsameȱtimeȱasȱtheȱ emergenceȱ ofȱ aȱ newȱ approachȱ toȱ theȱ Habsburgȱ Empire’sȱ Gypsies.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ section,ȱ Iȱ interrogateȱ theȱ variousȱ ‘GypsyȬrelated’ȱ measuresȱ thatȱ wereȱ takenȱ inȱ theȱ eighteenthȬ centuryȱHabsburgȱEmpire.ȱIȱlookȱatȱtheseȱmeasuresȱthroughȱtheȱanalyticȱlensȱofȱgovernȬ mentalityȱ andȱ analyzeȱ theirȱ relationshipȱ withȱ theȱ doctrinesȱ andȱ practicesȱ ofȱ policeȱ andȱ theirȱtransformations.ȱInȱtheȱRomaȬrelatedȱhistoriography,ȱthereȱisȱaȱtrendȱtoȱunderstandȱ theseȱ GypsyȬrelatedȱ measuresȱ eitherȱ asȱ aȱ dramaticȱ culminationȱ ofȱ historicallyȱ earlierȱ approachesȱ toȱ Gypsyȱ groupsȱ orȱ asȱ aȱ moreȱ orȱ lessȱ clearȱ ruptureȱ withȱ previousȱ actionsȱ againstȱ them.ȱ Ianȱ Hancockȱ (2002),ȱ forȱ instance,ȱ considersȱ theȱ Habsburgȱ enlightenedȱ absolutistȱapproachȱtoȱRomaniȱgroupsȱasȱaȱradicalȱoutcomeȱofȱaȱEuropeȬwideȱhistoryȱofȱ persecutionȱandȱviolentȱexpulsionȱofȱthem.ȱInȱoneȱofȱhisȱearlyȱworksȱ(Hancockȱ1987),ȱheȱ evenȱ understandsȱ theȱ Habsburgȱ approachȱ asȱ theȱ firstȱ seriousȱ largeȬscaleȱ effortȱ inȱ EuropeanȱhistoryȱtoȱexterminateȱtheȱRoma.ȱHowever,ȱinȱtheȱmajorityȱofȱacademicȱworksȱ thatȱhaveȱanalyzedȱorȱcommentedȱonȱHabsburgȱenlightenedȱabsolutism,ȱtheseȱmeasuresȱ areȱunderstoodȱasȱtheȱfirstȱlargeȬscaleȱattemptȱinȱEuropeȱatȱfullyȱassimilatingȱandȱsettlingȱ Romaniȱgroups.13ȱTheȱworksȱofȱWillems,ȱLucassen,ȱandȱMatrasȱdiscussedȱinȱtheȱpreviousȱ chapterȱdirectlyȱorȱindirectlyȱfollowȱthisȱlatterȱinterpretation.ȱ Whatȱtheȱrepresentativesȱofȱbothȱacademicȱtraditionsȱshare,ȱthough,ȱisȱtoȱconsiderȱtheȱ Habsburgȱ measuresȱ takenȱ inȱ theȱ secondȱ halfȱ ofȱ theȱ eighteenthȱ centuryȱ asȱ internallyȱ coherentȱ andȱ uniformȱ andȱ asȱ predominantlyȱ antiȬGypsy.ȱ Theȱ fourȱ soȬcalledȱ Gypsyȱ
12ȱVariousȱauthorsȱhaveȱreflectedȱonȱtheȱconceptȱofȱmedicalȱpoliceȱandȱitsȱtransformationȱatȱtheȱendȱofȱtheȱ
eighteenthȱcenturyȱ(Rosenȱ1953;ȱ1957;ȱLeskyȱ1976;ȱFoucaultȱ2000d;ȱ2000a;ȱ2007b;ȱCarrollȱ2002).ȱ
13ȱThisȱhasȱbeenȱputȱforwardȱbyȱaȱgreatȱnumberȱofȱauthorsȱ(Liégeoisȱ1986;ȱMayerhoferȱ1988;ȱKalvodaȱ1991;ȱ
Croweȱ1991;ȱFraserȱ1995;ȱFrickeȱ1996b;ȱStewartȱ1997;ȱGuyȱ2001b;ȱKovatsȱ2001b;ȱBaranyȱ2002;ȱAchimȱ2004;ȱ Actonȱ2004;ȱKlímováȬAlexanderȱ2004;ȱBancroftȱ2005;ȱLadányiȱandȱSzelényiȱ2006;ȱZimmermannȱ2007c).ȱ
decreesȱ thatȱ theȱ Habsburgȱ empressȱ Mariaȱ Theresaȱ introducedȱ betweenȱ 1758ȱ andȱ 1773,ȱ forȱinstance,ȱhaveȱusuallyȱbeenȱanalyzedȱasȱoneȱconsistentȱhomogeneousȱsetȱofȱassimilaȬ tionistȱ measures.ȱ Whatȱ isȱ more,ȱ manyȱ ofȱ theȱ scholarsȱ whoȱ haveȱ discussedȱ theseȱ andȱ otherȱHabsburgȱmeasuresȱsuggestȱthatȱtheyȱlargelyȱfailedȱtoȱachieveȱtheirȱaimȱofȱGypsyȱ assimilationȱ andȱ settlementȱ becauseȱ theȱ lawsȱ andȱ regulationsȱ wereȱ notȱ orȱ notȱ wellȱ implementedȱ atȱ localȱ levels.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ section,ȱ Iȱ contestȱ bothȱ theȱ assumptionȱ thatȱ theseȱ measuresȱ wereȱ internallyȱ coherentȱ orȱ uniform,ȱ andȱ thatȱ policyȱ failureȱ hadȱ primarilyȱ toȱ doȱwithȱresistanceȱagainstȱcentralȱruleȱatȱlocalȱlevels.ȱAnalyzingȱtheȱassimilationistȱmeaȬ suresȱfromȱtheȱangleȱofȱpoliceȱgovernmentalityȱandȱitsȱtransformation,ȱIȱwillȱshowȱthatȱ theseȱmeasuresȱrepresentȱsubstantiallyȱdifferentȱyetȱoverlappingȱstagesȱofȱtheȱHabsburgȱ populationȱ approach.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ chapter,ȱ Iȱ willȱ alsoȱ argueȱ thatȱ theyȱ graduallyȱ andȱ ambivȬ alentlyȱcontributedȱtoȱtheȱformationȱofȱtheȱGypsiesȱasȱaȱminority.ȱLookingȱatȱtheȱHabsȬ burgȱmeasuresȱthroughȱtheȱlensȱofȱgovernmentalityȱalsoȱenablesȱmeȱtoȱshowȱthatȱresisȬ tanceȱ isȱ atȱ workȱ withinȱ theȱ systemsȱ ofȱ powerȱ themselves,ȱ ratherȱ thanȱ outsideȱ policyȱ measuresȱandȱpowerȱmechanismsȱ(chapterȱ1).ȱTowardȱtheȱendȱofȱthisȱsection,ȱIȱwillȱinterȬ rogateȱ someȱ ofȱ theȱ Habsburgȱ technologiesȱ ofȱ populationȱ regulationȱ beyondȱ theȱ policyȬ implementationȱorȱpowerȬresistanceȱbinaries.ȱȱ
IfȱweȱlookȱmoreȱcloselyȱatȱtheȱdevelopmentȱofȱtheȱHabsburgȱpoliciesȱinȱtheȱsecondȱhalfȱ ofȱtheȱeighteenthȱcentury,ȱweȱnoticeȱmoreȱthanȱoneȱimportantȱchangeȱinȱtheȱapproachȱtoȱ Gypsyȱgroups.14ȱTherefore,ȱIȱargueȱforȱaȱmoreȱheterogeneousȱandȱambivalentȱanalysisȱofȱ
theseȱ Habsburgȱ policiesȱ thanȱ hasȱ usuallyȱ beenȱ madeȱ inȱ existingȱ scholarshipȱ onȱ thisȱ theme.ȱ Theȱ firstȱ ofȱ theȱ policyȱ shiftsȱ isȱ stillȱ inȱ accordanceȱ withȱ theȱ ruptureȱ thatȱ severalȱ scholarsȱ haveȱ observed:ȱ fromȱ expulsionȱ toȱ settlementȱ andȱ assimilation.15ȱ Whereas,ȱ inȱ
1749,ȱ empressȱ Mariaȱ Theresaȱ stillȱ orderedȱ thatȱ vagrants,ȱ beggarsȱ fromȱ abroad,ȱ andȱ GypsiesȱhadȱtoȱbeȱtotallyȱexpelledȱfromȱtheȱHabsburgȱterritories,ȱlessȱthanȱaȱdecadeȱlaterȱ sheȱchangedȱherȱmindȱandȱchoseȱaȱsubstantiallyȱdifferentȱstrategy.ȱInȱwhatȱwouldȱbeȱtheȱ firstȱ inȱ aȱ seriesȱ ofȱ fourȱ decrees,ȱ sheȱ ordainedȱ thatȱ theȱ Gypsiesȱ hadȱ toȱ beȱ settled,ȱ taxed,ȱ andȱ subjectedȱ toȱ theȱ servicesȱ ofȱ localȱ rulersȱ andȱ landlords.ȱ Thisȱ firstȱ edictȱ ofȱ 1758ȱ alsoȱ decreedȱthatȱtheȱGypsiesȱhadȱtoȱgiveȱupȱtheirȱhorsesȱandȱcarts,ȱandȱthatȱtheyȱcouldȱonlyȱ leaveȱtownsȱandȱvillagesȱwithȱpermissionȱfromȱtheȱlocalȱauthorities,ȱwhoȱhadȱtoȱregisterȱ theȱGypsies’ȱexactȱroutesȱinȱcaseȱofȱapprovalȱ(Fraserȱ1995).ȱInȱgeneral,ȱweȱcanȱconsiderȱ
14ȱ Moreȱ generally,ȱ particularlyȱ studiesȱ onȱ theȱ historyȱ ofȱ religiousȱ minoritiesȱ inȱ theȱ Habsburgȱ landsȱ haveȱ
convincinglyȱshownȱthatȱweȱneedȱtoȱdistinguish,ȱatȱleast,ȱbetweenȱtheȱreignsȱofȱMariaȱTheresaȱandȱJosephȱ II.ȱ Inȱ particularȱ duringȱ theȱ periodȱ ofȱ theirȱ coȬregencyȱ (1765Ȭ1780),ȱ motherȱ andȱ sonȱ hadȱ manyȱ disputesȱ onȱ howȱtoȱsolveȱsocialȱunrestȱamongȱtheȱpopulation.ȱInȱtheseȱconflicts,ȱMariaȱTheresaȱconsideredȱanyȱformȱofȱ toleranceȱtowardȱminorityȱgroupsȱasȱaȱwayȱtoȱencourageȱlawlessnessȱandȱanarchyȱand,ȱtherefore,ȱasȱaȱwayȱ toȱundermineȱherȱreign.ȱOnȱtheȱotherȱhand,ȱJosephȱII—partlyȱinfluencedȱbyȱhowȱtoleranceȱtowardȱreligiousȱ groupsȱ hadȱ ledȱ toȱ effectivelyȱ managingȱ socialȱ problemsȱ andȱ toȱ economicȱ profitsȱ inȱ otherȱ Europeanȱ countries—wasȱmuchȱinȱfavorȱofȱaȱpoliticsȱofȱrelativeȱtoleranceȱtowardȱminorityȱgroupsȱ(Katzȱ1973;ȱKannȱ 1974;ȱKarnielȱ1986;ȱMcCaggȱ1989,ȱseeȱalsoȱbelow).ȱ
15ȱ Theȱ eighteenthȬcenturyȱ Habsburgȱ Gypsyȱ settlementȱ policiesȱ wereȱ certainlyȱ notȱ theȱ firstȱ inȱ Europeanȱ
history,ȱforȱsettlementȱwasȱoneȱofȱtheȱcentralȱstrategiesȱtoȱgovernȱitinerantȱgroups,ȱincludingȱGypsyȱones,ȱinȱ theȱOttomanȱEmpire.ȱTheseȱsettlementȱpoliciesȱstartedȱafterȱtheȱOttomanȱoccupationȱofȱtheȱBalkans,ȱandȱnoȱ laterȱthanȱtheȱsixteenthȱcenturyȱ(MarushiakovaȱandȱPopovȱ2001b).ȱTheȱeighteenthȬcenturyȱSpanishȱGypsyȱ approachȱbearsȱresemblanceȱtoȱtheȱHabsburgȱone,ȱthoughȱtheȱdecisiveȱshiftȱfromȱanȱapproachȱdominatedȱ byȱexpulsionȱtoȱoneȱcharacterizedȱbyȱassimilationȱtookȱonlyȱplaceȱafterȱ1783ȱ(Berneckerȱ2007).ȱ
thisȱedictȱasȱaȱwayȱtoȱachieveȱsettlementȱthroughȱcoerciveȱyetȱprimarilyȱexternalȱmeasures.ȱ ThoughȱtheseȱmeasuresȱaffectedȱtheȱdailyȱlivesȱofȱtravelingȱGypsyȱgroups,ȱtheseȱactionsȱ didȱ notȱ aimȱ atȱ directȱ andȱ internalȱ interferenceȱ withȱ theirȱ livesȱ butȱ primarilyȱ atȱ imȬ mobilizingȱandȱfixingȱthem.ȱByȱmeansȱofȱexternalȱtools—thatȱtheyȱhadȱtoȱgiveȱupȱtheirȱ horsesȱ andȱ cartsȱ expressesȱ thisȱ externalityȱ best—theirȱ ‘nomadicȱ wayȱ ofȱ life’ȱ hadȱ toȱ changeȱ intoȱ aȱ settledȱ one.ȱ Weȱ canȱ understandȱ theseȱ measuresȱ asȱ compliantȱ withȱ merȬ cantilism:ȱtheȱmainȱaimȱofȱtheȱpolicyȱwasȱtoȱenrichȱtheȱimperialȱtreasury,ȱnoȱmatterȱwhatȱ wouldȱbeȱtheȱ(internal)ȱconsequencesȱforȱthoseȱwhoȱwereȱtargeted.ȱIndeed,ȱrestrictingȱtheȱ Gypsies’ȱ movement,ȱ takingȱ awayȱ theirȱ meansȱ toȱ move,ȱ andȱ enforcingȱ settlementȱ wereȱ ‘necessaryȱmeans’ȱtoȱadequatelyȱtaxȱthemȱandȱturnȱthemȱintoȱproductiveȱworkersȱunderȱ theȱ supervisionȱ ofȱ localȱ landlords—henceȱ toȱ makeȱ financialȱ profitȱ fromȱ themȱ atȱ theȱ imperialȱlevel.ȱ
Theȱ radicalȱ andȱ suddenȱ changeȱ inȱ theȱ approachȱ towardȱ Gypsyȱ groupsȱ underȱ Mariaȱ Theresa’sȱreignȱneedsȱtoȱbeȱseen,ȱatȱleastȱpartly,ȱinȱlightȱofȱtheȱfirstȱdecisiveȱstepsȱtowardȱ aȱ moreȱ comprehensiveȱ populationȱ policyȱ inȱ theȱ Habsburgȱ Empireȱ andȱ aȱ structuralȱ reȬ formȱandȱcentralizationȱofȱtheȱAustrianȬHabsburgȱgovernment.ȱDueȱtoȱsevereȱpopulationȱ lossesȱasȱtheȱconsequenceȱofȱviolentȱconflictsȱwithȱtheȱOttomanȱEmpire,ȱtheȱHabsburgsȱ wantedȱtoȱrepopulateȱtheirȱterritoriesȱandȱfocusȱonȱstrengtheningȱtheirȱEmpireȱinternally.ȱ Asȱ someȱ authorsȱ haveȱ observedȱ (Fraserȱ 1995;ȱ Ladányiȱ andȱ Szelényiȱ 2006)ȱ theȱ needȱ toȱ increaseȱtheȱpopulationȱalsoȱincreasedȱtheȱeconomicȱandȱsocialȱincorporationȱofȱGypsiesȱ inȱ theȱ Habsburgȱ Empireȱ inȱ theȱ latterȱ halfȱ ofȱ theȱ eighteenthȱ century.ȱ Fromȱ thenȱ on,ȱ theȱ Habsburgsȱ triedȱ toȱ attractȱ foreigners.ȱ Thoughȱ theyȱ preferredȱ Germanȱ settlers,ȱ Serbian,ȱ Bulgarian,ȱJewish,ȱandȱGypsyȱmigrantsȱalsoȱenteredȱtheȱEmpireȱ(Karnielȱ1986;ȱLadányiȱ andȱSzelényiȱ2006).ȱYet,ȱweȱcannotȱfullyȱunderstandȱtheȱsuddenȱshiftȱinȱMariaȱTheresa’sȱ Gypsyȱpolicyȱwithoutȱanalyzingȱtheȱchangeȱofȱtheȱpoliticalȱandȱscientificȱapproachȱtoȱtheȱ roleȱofȱstateȱsovereignty.ȱ Inȱ1746,ȱMariaȱTheresaȱestablishedȱtheȱprestigiousȱTheresianum,ȱanȱinstitutionȱthatȱwasȱ foundedȱtoȱeducateȱtheȱyoungȱnobilityȱforȱstateȱserviceȱandȱtoȱsailȱroundȱtheȱconservaȬ tiveȱ influencesȱ ofȱ theȱ Jesuitsȱ inȱ theȱ Empire’sȱ educationalȱ systemȱ (Tribeȱ 1988).ȱ Moreȱ generally,ȱtheȱfoundingȱofȱtheȱTheresianumȱandȱtheȱrecalibratingȱofȱotherȱimperialȱinstituȬ tionsȱhadȱtoȱstrengthenȱtheȱEmpireȱinternally,ȱratherȱthanȱextendȱitȱterritorially.ȱInȱ1750,ȱ vonȱJustiȱbecameȱoneȱofȱtheȱleadingȱintellectualsȱatȱtheȱTheresianumȱandȱalsoȱoneȱofȱtheȱ firstȱwhoȱwasȱgoingȱtoȱcontributeȱtoȱaȱgeneralȱreconsiderationȱofȱtheȱimperialȱpopulationȱ policyȱ andȱ administrativeȱ practices.ȱ Then,ȱ inȱ 1763,ȱ eightȱ yearsȱ afterȱ vonȱ Justiȱ hadȱ leftȱ Viennaȱ forȱ theȱ Universityȱ ofȱ Göttingen,ȱ vonȱ Sonnenfelsȱ becameȱ theȱ firstȱ Vienneseȱ professorȱofȱCameralisticȱandȱpoliceȱsciencesȱandȱoneȱofȱtheȱmostȱinfluentialȱinstructorsȱ atȱ theȱ Theresianum.ȱ Heȱ isȱ usuallyȱ consideredȱ asȱ oneȱ ofȱ theȱ mostȱ importantȱ advisorsȱ toȱ MariaȱTheresaȱandȱJosephȱII,ȱandȱtheȱleadingȱpersonȱbehindȱtheȱcodificationȱofȱAustrianȱ criminal,ȱ administrative,ȱ andȱ civilȱ law.ȱ Vonȱ Sonnenfelsȱ substantiallyȱ contributedȱ toȱ Joseph’sȱToleranzpolitik—hisȱpoliticsȱofȱtoleranceȱtowardȱreligiousȱminorities—andȱtoȱtheȱ reformȱ ofȱ theȱ Habsburgȱ policeȱ system,ȱ includingȱ stateȬchurchȱ relationships,ȱ education,ȱ poorȱrelief,ȱandȱtheȱabolitionȱofȱtortureȱ(vonȱSonnenfelsȱ1775;ȱKannȱ1960;ȱKarnielȱ1986).ȱ HisȱinfluenceȱwithinȱtheȱHabsburgȱeducationalȱsystemȱwasȱsignificant.ȱHisȱmainȱscholarȬ lyȱwork,ȱtheȱthreeȬvolumeȱGrundsätzeȱderȱPolizey,ȱHandlungȱundȱFinanzwissenschaft,ȱwentȱ throughȱeightȱeditionsȱbetweenȱ1765ȱandȱ1822ȱandȱwasȱrequiredȱreadingȱatȱallȱAustrianȱ
andȱsomeȱforeignȱuniversitiesȱbetweenȱ1770ȱandȱ1845ȱ(Ogrisȱ2003).ȱMoreover,ȱforȱaȱlongȱ periodȱofȱtimeȱvonȱSonnenfels’sȱworkȱwasȱfullyȱintegratedȱintoȱtheȱdailyȱpracticeȱofȱtheȱ HabsburgȱCameralistsȱbecause,ȱbyȱimperialȱresolutionȱitȱfunctionedȱasȱaȱtestȱfromȱ1767.ȱ AdministrativeȱpracticesȱhadȱtoȱbeȱadjustedȱtoȱtheȱmainȱCameralisticȱandȱpoliceȱscientificȱ principles:ȱ ȱ
Followingȱ theȱ willȱ ofȱ theȱ empressȱ andȱ herȱ advisors,ȱ theȱ Cameralisticȱ scienceȱ hadȱ toȱ workȱ asȱ aȱ controlȱ mechanism.ȱ Byȱ continuouslyȱ comparingȱ theoryȱ andȱ praxis,ȱ Cameralismȱnotȱonlyȱhadȱtoȱrevealȱdevianciesȱinȱtheȱexistingȱconstitution,ȱbutȱalsoȱtoȱ initiateȱ directionsȱ andȱ guidelinesȱ forȱ futureȱ developments.ȱ (Osterlohȱ 1970:ȱ 133,ȱ myȱ translation)ȱ ȱ TheȱongoingȱdevelopmentȱofȱtheȱHabsburgs’ȱGypsyȬrelatedȱmeasuresȱandȱtheȱemerȬ genceȱofȱGypsyȱstudiesȱneedȱtoȱbeȱseenȱinȱviewȱofȱtheȱrapidlyȱincreasingȱinfluenceȱofȱtheȱ VienneseȱCameralisticȱorthodoxyȱonȱtheȱimperialȱpoliciesȱandȱonȱtheȱPrussianȱacademicȱ world,ȱinȱparticularȱafterȱtheȱ1750s.ȱ FollowingȱtheȱCameralists’ȱclaimȱonȱregulatingȱtheȱentireȱsocialȱbodyȱandȱtheȱwayȱinȱ whichȱtheirȱpretensionsȱandȱtheȱrulers’ȱinterestsȱhadȱbecomeȱradicallyȱintermingled,ȱtheȱ nextȱ threeȱ ofȱ Mariaȱ Theresa’sȱ ‘Gypsyȱ decrees’ȱ expressȱ aȱ clearȱ shiftȱ towardȱ theȱ internalȱ interferenceȱ withȱ ‘Gypsy’ȱ affairsȱ andȱ lives.16ȱ Theȱ secondȱ decreeȱ ofȱ 1761ȱ illustratesȱ thisȱ
turnȱtowardȱaȱmuchȱmoreȱdirectȱinvolvement.ȱItȱmandatesȱcompulsoryȱmilitaryȱserviceȱ forȱ ‘fit’ȱ Gypsyȱ menȱ olderȱ thanȱ sixteen.ȱ Theȱ decreeȱ alsoȱ ordainsȱ thatȱ theȱ lastȱ namesȱ ofȱ Gypsiesȱ haveȱ toȱ beȱ changedȱ intoȱ theȱ neologismsȱ ‘newȱ Hungarians’ȱ (újmagyarok),ȱ ‘newȱ peasants’ȱ (Neubauer,ȱ újparasztokȱ orȱ neoȬrustici),ȱ ‘newȱ citizens’ȱ (Neubürgerȱ orȱ újpolgár)ȱ orȱ ‘newȱ settlers’ȱ (Neusiedler,ȱ újlakosokȱ orȱ neocolonus).17ȱ Sixȱ yearsȱ later,ȱ inȱ 1767,ȱ theȱ thirdȱ
decreeȱ surpassesȱ theȱ secondȱ oneȱ whenȱ itȱ comesȱ toȱ internalȱ interference.ȱ Itȱ callsȱ forȱ theȱ entireȱabolitionȱofȱtheȱprevailingȱselfȬorganizationȱofȱtheȱRomaȱinȱtheȱformȱofȱchieftainsȱ andȱ localȱ taxȱ collectorsȱ (voivodes)ȱ inȱ orderȱ toȱ fullyȱ integrateȱ theȱ Romaȱ intoȱ theȱ newlyȱ developedȱcentralizedȱjudicialȱsystem.18ȱMoreover,ȱfromȱnowȱonȱtheȱuseȱofȱtheȱRomaniȱ
languageȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ theȱ wearingȱ ofȱ ‘GypsyȬspecific’ȱ dressesȱ andȱ theȱ occupationȱ ofȱ ‘GypsyȬspecific’ȱ professionsȱ isȱ forbidden.ȱ Inȱ addition,ȱ eachȱ villageȱ hasȱ toȱ organizeȱ aȱ censusȱ ofȱ itsȱ Gypsyȱ population.ȱ Theȱ fourthȱ andȱ finalȱ decreeȱ ofȱ 1773ȱ evenȱ interferesȱ internallyȱinȱRomaniȱfamilyȱaffairsȱbyȱforbiddingȱmarriagesȱbetweenȱRomaȱandȱorderingȱ thatȱ Romaniȱ childrenȱ olderȱ thanȱ fiveȱ haveȱ toȱ beȱ takenȱ awayȱ fromȱ theirȱ parentsȱ forȱ theȱ restȱofȱtheirȱchildhoodȱandȱeducatedȱbyȱnonȬRomaniȱfosterȱfamilies,ȱwhoȱhadȱtoȱbeȱpaidȱ
16ȱ Education,ȱ theȱ administrativeȱ practices,ȱ andȱ ruleȱ wereȱ strictlyȱ connectedȱ underȱ Habsburgȱ Enlightenedȱ
Absolutism.ȱMariaȱTheresaȱandȱJosephȱIIȱwereȱstronglyȱopposedȱtoȱscientificȱandȱeducationalȱdevelopmentsȱ “whichȱ inȱ pursuitȱ ofȱ uncontrolledȱ freeȱ researchȱ wouldȱ deviateȱ fromȱ utilitarianȱ vocationalȱ goalsȱ forȱ theȱ trainingȱ ofȱ administratorsȱ andȱ professionalȱ men”ȱ (Kannȱ 1974:ȱ 192).ȱ Asȱ Iȱ haveȱ outlinedȱ above,ȱ theseȱ ‘vocationalȱgoals’ȱwereȱmainlyȱrelatedȱtoȱtheȱCameralisticȱandȱpoliceȱscientificȱaims.ȱ
17ȱ Thisȱ elementȱ ofȱ theȱ Habsburgȱ policiesȱ alsoȱ resembledȱ theȱ Spanishȱ Gypsyȱ policy.ȱ Atȱ theȱ endȱ ofȱ theȱ
eighteenthȱcentury,ȱtheȱreferenceȱtoȱ‘Gitanos’ȱwasȱforbiddenȱinȱSpain;ȱasȱofȱ1783ȱtheȱRomaȱwereȱconsideredȱ toȱbeȱCastellanosȱNuevosȱorȱ‘newȱCastilians’ȱ(Fraserȱ1995:ȱ160Ȭ66;ȱBerneckerȱ2007).ȱ
18ȱInȱtermsȱofȱgovernmentality,ȱweȱcouldȱconsiderȱtheȱeffortsȱofȱtheȱHabsburgȱrulersȱtoȱdestroyȱtheȱvoivodesȱ
structuresȱasȱattemptsȱtoȱradicallyȱdisplaceȱaȱspecificȱformȱofȱRomaniȱpastoralȱpowerȱbasedȱonȱchieftainshipȱ andȱtoȱreplaceȱthemȱbyȱnewȱformsȱofȱgovernmentalityȱ(seeȱalsoȱbelow).ȱȱ
forȱ theirȱ adoptionȱ services.ȱ Fromȱ nowȱ on,ȱ intermarriagesȱ areȱ encouraged—evenȱ finanȬ cially—thoughȱtheyȱcanȱonlyȱtakeȱplaceȱifȱtheȱfutureȱhouseholdȱisȱconsideredȱsustainableȱ andȱcatholicȱ(Mayerhoferȱ1988).ȱ
Toȱanȱincreasingȱextent,ȱtheseȱedictsȱaimȱatȱtheȱfull,ȱdirectȱregulationȱofȱRomaniȱlives.ȱ Thisȱ tendencyȱ wouldȱ evenȱ goȱ furtherȱ underȱ theȱ ruleȱ ofȱ Mariaȱ Theresa’sȱ sonȱ Josephȱ II,ȱ whoȱwantedȱtoȱregulateȱtheȱstatusȱofȱRomaniȱgroupsȱinȱtheȱEmpireȱinȱaȱwayȱasȱdetailedȱ andȱ allȬencompassingȱ asȱ possible.ȱ Theȱ GypsyȬrelatedȱ measuresȱ thatȱ heȱ installedȱ repreȬ sentȱevenȱmoreȱclearlyȱtheȱHabsburgs’ȱassimilativeȱphilosophyȱandȱtheirȱcloselyȱrelatedȱ attemptsȱtoȱgovernȱthroughȱanȱexplicitȱconcernȱwithȱpopulation.ȱApartȱfromȱaȱnumberȱofȱ measuresȱthatȱwereȱcomparableȱtoȱthoseȱofȱhisȱmother,ȱinȱDeȱRegulationeȱZingarorumȱ(Onȱ
theȱ Regulationȱ ofȱ theȱ Gypsies)ȱ ofȱ 1782,ȱ Josephȱ decreedȱ thatȱ theȱ Romaȱ hadȱ toȱ followȱ theȱ
customs,ȱ eatingȱ habits,ȱ dressȱ codes,ȱ andȱ languageȱ ofȱ theȱ villageȱ whereȱ theyȱ lived;ȱ thatȱ theyȱ hadȱ toȱ attendȱ Romanȱ Catholicȱ churchȱ servicesȱ weekly,ȱ followȱtheȱ priest’sȱadvices,ȱ workȱ inȱ agriculture,ȱ andȱ giveȱ upȱ horseȱ trading;ȱ thatȱ theyȱ couldȱ onlyȱ performȱ musicȱ whenȱtheȱworkȱwasȱdone;ȱandȱthatȱRomaniȱgirlsȱandȱboysȱhadȱtoȱbeȱdressedȱandȱhadȱtoȱ sleepȱ separately.ȱ Inȱ 1783,ȱ Josephȱ synthesizedȱ mostȱ ofȱ theȱ measuresȱ thatȱ heȱ andȱ hisȱ motherȱhadȱtakenȱbeforeȱinȱaȱnewȱdecree,ȱtheȱsoȬcalledȱHauptregulatio,ȱwhichȱconsistedȱofȱ almostȱhundredȱregulations.19ȱAȱnumberȱofȱimportantȱnewȱonesȱwereȱadded,ȱsuchȱasȱtheȱ
restrictionȱofȱtheȱRoma’sȱmarketȱattendanceȱandȱaccessȱtoȱforges,ȱtheȱprohibitionȱofȱnameȱ changesȱandȱtheȱreturnȱtoȱaȱ‘Gypsyȱwayȱofȱlife,’ȱobligatoryȱcountingȱofȱRomaniȱhouses,ȱ andȱobligatoryȱmonthlyȱvillageȱreportsȱonȱtheȱRomaȱ(Achimȱ2004).ȱ
Thoughȱ theseȱ measuresȱ excelȱ inȱ attemptsȱtoȱregulateȱnotȱ onlyȱ Romaniȱ livesȱ butȱ alsoȱ theirȱ‘souls,’ȱitȱisȱimportantȱtoȱnoteȱthatȱJoseph’sȱmeasuresȱdifferȱatȱleastȱinȱoneȱimportantȱ respectȱfromȱMariaȱTheresa’s.ȱHisȱmeasuresȱalsoȱincludeȱsomeȱrightsȱforȱtheȱRoma.ȱFromȱ thenȱ on,ȱ landownersȱ wereȱ chargedȱ withȱ providingȱ aȱ parcelȱ ofȱ landȱ toȱ theȱ Romaȱ whoȱ workedȱonȱit.ȱGypsiesȱwereȱalsoȱgivenȱpermissionȱtoȱbuildȱtheirȱownȱhousesȱandȱtoȱownȱ land.ȱInȱaȱseparateȱdecreeȱofȱ1783,ȱJosephȱIIȱalsoȱforbadeȱGypsyȱserfdomȱinȱtheȱcountyȱofȱ Bukovina,ȱ aȱ partȱ ofȱ theȱ Ottomanȱ Empireȱ thatȱ hadȱ beenȱ incorporatedȱ inȱ theȱ Habsburgȱ landsȱ inȱ 1775ȱ (Mayerhoferȱ 1988;ȱ Achimȱ 2004).ȱ Asȱ farȱ asȱ itȱ isȱ possibleȱ toȱ interpretȱ theseȱ kindsȱofȱmeasuresȱasȱaȱformȱofȱrelaxationȱtowardȱRomaniȱgroups,ȱweȱcouldȱunderstandȱ themȱinȱlightȱofȱJoseph’sȱpoliticsȱofȱtoleranceȱtowardȱminorities.ȱThoughȱthisȱpolitics—ofȱ whichȱ vonȱ Sonnenfelsȱ hasȱ oftenȱ beenȱ consideredȱ asȱ oneȱ ofȱ theȱ architects—inȱ principleȱ affectedȱ religiousȱ minoritiesȱ suchȱ asȱ theȱ Protestant,ȱ theȱ Jewish,ȱ andȱ theȱ Orthodox,ȱ itȱ isȱ hardlyȱpossibleȱthatȱtheȱpoliticsȱofȱtolerance,ȱalongsideȱtheȱgeneralȱtendencyȱtoȱhumanizeȱ theȱrelationshipsȱwithȱminorities,ȱdidȱnotȱalsoȱaffectȱtheȱGypsies.ȱ
TheȱradicalismȱofȱtheȱpopulationȱpoliciesȱofȱMariaȱTheresaȱandȱJosephȱIIȱwasȱnotȱatȱallȱ limitedȱ toȱ theȱ treatmentȱ ofȱ Gypsyȱ groups.ȱ Untilȱ theȱ codificationȱ ofȱ Joseph’sȱ politicsȱ ofȱ toleranceȱinȱtheȱfirstȱhalfȱofȱtheȱ1780s,ȱProtestantȱandȱJewishȱparents,ȱforȱinstance,ȱwereȱ alsoȱ confrontedȱ withȱ theȱ oftenȬviolentȱ removalȱ ofȱ theirȱ childrenȱ inȱ orderȱ toȱ reeducateȱ themȱinȱtheȱ‘goodȱCatholicȱway.’ȱJewsȱwereȱnotȱallowedȱtoȱtradeȱhorses,ȱtheirȱmarriagesȱ
19ȱWhereasȱMariaȱTheresa’sȱfourȱdecreesȱconcernedȱtheȱRomaȱinȱtheȱKingdomȱofȱHungaryȱ(thatȱis,ȱtoday’sȱ
Hungaryȱ includingȱ substantialȱ partsȱ ofȱ today’sȱ Slovakia,ȱ Austria,ȱ Croatia,ȱ Serbia,ȱ Slovenia,ȱ Ukraine,ȱ andȱ Romania),ȱ Joseph’sȱ measuresȱ ofȱ 1782ȱ involvedȱ Transylvaniaȱ exclusively.ȱ However,ȱ hisȱ regulationȱ ofȱ 1783ȱ involvedȱbothȱTransylvaniaȱandȱtheȱHungarianȱKingdom.ȱ
