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.
Introductionȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ TURNINGȱTHEȱTIDEȱFORȱTHEȱROMAȱOFȱEUROPEȱ ȱ OnȱseveralȱresearchȱtripsȱtoȱCentralȱandȱEasternȱEuropeȱcarriedȱoutȱtoȱgiveȱthisȱstudyȱitsȱ presentȱ shape,ȱ Iȱ metȱ Romaȱ andȱ discussedȱ theirȱ situation.ȱ Usually,ȱ Iȱ metȱ themȱ orȱ theirȱ advocatesȱ inȱ localȱ Romaniȱ communityȱ orȱ culturalȱ centers,ȱ atȱ NGOȱ offices,ȱ inȱ Romaniȱ neighborhoods,ȱorȱinȱgovernmentalȱofficesȱwhereȱsomeȱofȱthemȱwereȱworkingȱtoȱadviseȱ theirȱgovernment.ȱOnȱseveralȱofȱtheseȱoccasions,ȱIȱsawȱsignsȱwithȱtheȱsymbolsȱofȱdevelȬ opmentȱ agencies,ȱ nonȬgovernmentalȱ organizationsȱ (NGOs),ȱ Europeanȱ countries,ȱ andȱ internationalȱgoverningȱorganizationsȱ(IGOs).ȱAtȱtheȱwindowȱofȱtheȱGypsyȱShopȱRomenȱinȱ theȱoldȱcenterȱofȱPrague,ȱforȱinstance,ȱIȱnoticedȱtheȱwellȬknownȱblueȱlabelȱwithȱtheȱcircleȱ ofȱ twelveȱ yellowȱ stars,ȱ underȱ whichȱ wasȱ writtenȱ “Financedȱ byȱ theȱ Europeanȱ Union’sȱ PHAREȱ program.”ȱ Atȱ theȱ wallȱ ofȱ aȱ schoolȱ builtȱ forȱ Slovakȱ Romaȱ inȱ theȱ middleȱ ofȱ anȱ entirelyȱ segregatedȱ community,ȱ Iȱ alsoȱ sawȱ theȱ sameȱ symbolȱ ofȱ theȱ Europeanȱ Union,ȱ accompaniedȱbyȱtheȱtextȱEurópskyȱsociálnyȱfondȱ(EuropeanȱSocialȱFund).ȱOnȱtheȱdoorsȱofȱ RomaȬrelatedȱNGOsȱinȱvariousȱcountries,ȱIȱsawȱtheȱemblemsȱofȱtheȱInternationalȱOrganȬ izationȱforȱMigrationȱ(IOM),ȱtheȱUnitedȱNationsȱDevelopmentȱProgramȱ(UNDP),ȱandȱtheȱ WorldȱHealthȱOrganizationȱ(WHO).ȱNextȱtoȱtheȱentrancesȱofȱRomaniȱcommunity,ȱcultuȬ ral,ȱandȱpressȱcentersȱinȱCzech,ȱHungarian,ȱPolish,ȱSerbian,ȱandȱSlovakȱtowns,ȱIȱnoticedȱ theȱacronymsȱofȱtheirȱlocal,ȱnational,ȱandȱinternationalȱdonors.ȱFromȱtimeȱtoȱtime,ȱIȱevenȱ sawȱimpressiveȱbillboardsȱthatȱlistedȱmanyȱagenciesȱinvolvedȱinȱaȱspecificȱproject.ȱInȱtheȱ caseȱ ofȱ theȱ “Returnȱ toȱ Romaȱ Mahala”ȱ projectȱ inȱ Kosovo,ȱ forȱ instance,ȱ aȱ hugeȱ billboardȱ wasȱputȱdownȱinȱfrontȱofȱnewlyȱbuiltȱhousesȱmeantȱforȱRomaȱwhoȱfledȱandȱwereȱchasedȱ awayȱ duringȱ theȱ warȱ inȱ 1999ȱ (figureȱ 0.1).ȱTheȱ boardȱ includedȱ numerousȱ signs:ȱ flagsȱ ofȱ differentȱEuropeanȱcountries,ȱtheȱRomaniȱflag,ȱandȱtheȱemblemsȱofȱseveralȱNGOs,ȱIGOs,ȱ andȱdevelopmentȱagencies.ȱȱ Theȱplenitudeȱofȱorganizations,ȱinstitutions,ȱandȱagenciesȱinvolvedȱinȱcurrentȱRomaȬ relatedȱprojectsȱallȱoverȱEuropeȱexpressȱtheȱwillȱtoȱturnȱtheȱtideȱforȱtheȱRomaȱinȱEurope.ȱ Thisȱ studyȱ examinesȱ howȱ weȱ areȱ toȱ assessȱ thisȱ willȱ byȱ analyzingȱ theȱ currentȱ andȱ pastȱ situationȱ ofȱ theȱ Romaniȱ minoritiesȱ inȱ Europe.ȱ Theȱ Europeanȱ Romaȱ representȱ aȱ caseȱ inȱ point,ȱforȱnoȱotherȱpopulationȱgroupȱinȱEuropeȱhasȱrecentlyȱbecomeȱtheȱfocusȱofȱsoȱmanyȱ differentȱ inclusion,ȱ empowerment,ȱ andȱ developmentȱ programsȱ thanȱ theȱ Romani.ȱ Theyȱ haveȱ becomeȱ theȱ targetȱ groupȱ of,ȱ forȱ instance,ȱ socialȱ inclusionȱ programsȱ developedȱ byȱ
theȱEU,ȱDecadeȱActionȱPlansȱinitiatedȱbyȱtheȱOpenȱSocietyȱInstituteȱandȱtheȱWorldȱBank,ȱ communityȱ policingȱ projectsȱ ofȱ theȱ OSCE,ȱ communityȱ empowermentȱ initiativesȱ ofȱ NGOs,ȱ andȱ nationalȱ actionȱ plansȱ devisedȱ byȱ governmentsȱ inȱ andȱ beyondȱ Centralȱ andȱ EasternȱEurope.1ȱAsȱtheȱhugeȱvarietyȱofȱtheseȱprogramsȱindicates,ȱtheȱwillȱtoȱturnȱtheȱtideȱ isȱaboutȱtheȱwillȱtoȱempowerȱandȱcreateȱopportunitiesȱforȱpolitical,ȱsocioȬeconomic,ȱandȱ culturalȱselfȬarticulationȱandȱparticipation,ȱasȱmuchȱasȱitȱisȱaboutȱtheȱwillȱtoȱimproveȱandȱ includeȱmarginalized,ȱdisplaced,ȱorȱendangeredȱpopulationsȱinȱcultureȱandȱsocietyȱinȱorȬ derȱtoȱenhanceȱwellȬbeing,ȱcommunityȱcohesion,ȱsecurity,ȱstandardsȱofȱliving,ȱandȱjusticeȱ (Cruikshankȱ1999;ȱLiȱ2007b).ȱOnȱtheȱbillboardȱinȱKosovo,ȱtheȱblueȱandȱgreenȱflagȱwithȱtheȱ redȱwheel,ȱwhichȱisȱtheȱflagȱofȱtheȱRomaniȱnation,ȱisȱalsoȱpresent.2ȱThisȱinsertionȱandȱtheȱ
explicitȱ callȱ ofȱ IGOsȱ andȱ NGOsȱ toȱ includeȱ Romaniȱ actorsȱ inȱ theȱ attemptȱ toȱ empowerȱ Romaniȱ minorities,ȱ developȱ theirȱ communities,ȱ andȱ improveȱ theirȱ livingȱ conditionsȱ pointȱtoȱtheȱfactȱthatȱtheȱentireȱenterpriseȱhasȱtoȱbeȱaȱcommonȱEuropeanȱeffortȱinȱwhichȱ theȱ Romaȱ areȱ coȬauthorsȱ ofȱ theȱ newȱ Europeanȱ narrativesȱ ofȱ inclusion,ȱ integration,ȱ andȱ communityȱcohesion.ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ FIGUREȱ0.1ȱȱTheȱ“ReturnȱtoȱRomaȱMahala”ȱprojectȱinȱMitrovica,ȱKosovo,ȱ2007.ȱ Photo:ȱTaraȱBedard,ȱEuropeanȱRomaȱRightsȱCentreȱ(ERRCȱ2007d).ȱ 1ȱSee,ȱforȱinstance,ȱvariousȱEU’sȱsocialȱinclusionȱprogramsȱforȱtheȱRomaȱ(ECȱ2004b;ȱ2004a;ȱ2008c;ȱ2010b),ȱtheȱ
DecadeȱofȱRomaȱInclusionȱ 2005Ȭ15ȱprogramȱlaunchedȱ byȱOSIȱandȱtheȱWorldȱBankȱinȱ2003,ȱseveralȱWorldȱ Bankȱreportsȱ(2005b;ȱ2005a;ȱ2008),ȱvariousȱinitiativesȱcarriedȱoutȱbyȱUNȱagenciesȱ(UNDPȱ2002;ȱ2003;ȱ2005;ȱ 2006;ȱUNICEFȱ2007),ȱaȱnumberȱofȱOSCEȱprojectsȱ(2003;ȱ2006b;ȱ2007b;ȱ2007a;ȱ2008;ȱ2010),ȱandȱempowermentȱ initiativesȱundertakenȱbyȱNGOsȱ(ERRCȱ2004d;ȱERGOȱ2009;ȱ2010).ȱ
2ȱ Sinceȱ theȱ 1970s,ȱ theȱ Internationalȱ Romaniȱ Unionȱ (IRU)ȱ hasȱ developedȱ variousȱ symbolsȱ toȱ representȱ theȱ
Romaniȱnation,ȱsuchȱasȱanȱownȱflagȱandȱanthem.ȱInȱ2001,ȱtheȱIRUȱofficiallyȱdeclaredȱtheȱRomaniȱnation.ȱForȱ theȱtextȱofȱtheȱdeclarationȱandȱotherȱinformationȱonȱtheȱIRU,ȱseeȱActonȱandȱKlímováȱ(2001).ȱTheȱIRUȱhasȱnoȱ clearȱstatusȱamongȱtheȱRomaȱ(KlímováȬAlexanderȱ2005;ȱNirenbergȱ2009).ȱ
ȱ Theȱ latterȱ element—theȱ activeȱ inclusionȱ ofȱ theȱ Romaȱ themselvesȱ inȱ theȱ programsȱ devisedȱforȱthem—isȱaȱnoveltyȱinȱEurope.ȱYet,ȱprogramsȱmeantȱforȱtheirȱ‘improvement’ȱ areȱnot.ȱToȱaȱlargeȱextent,ȱearlierȱprogramsȱmeantȱtoȱimproveȱthem,ȱinȱinterrelationsȱwithȱ otherȱsocioȬeconomicȱandȱpoliticalȱprocesses,ȱhaveȱambiguouslyȱlaidȱtheȱfoundationsȱforȱ severalȱ ofȱ theȱ problemsȱ theȱ contemporaryȱ programsȱ intendȱ toȱ solve.ȱ Atȱ leastȱ sinceȱ theȱ seventeenthȱcentury,ȱprogramsȱdealingȱwithȱRomaniȱorȱGypsyȱgroupsȱcollectivelyȱhaveȱ becomeȱaȱpartȱofȱtheȱEuropeanȱscenery.ȱInȱseventeenthȱandȱeighteenthȬcenturyȱSpainȱandȱ inȱ theȱ eighteenthȬcenturyȱ Habsburgȱ Empire,ȱ theȱ Gypsies—orȱ Gitanosȱ andȱ Zigeunerȱ asȱ theyȱwereȱcalledȱinȱtheseȱpartsȱofȱEurope—becameȱtheȱtargetȱofȱassimilationȱprograms.ȱ Theyȱaimedȱatȱturningȱsupposedlyȱwild,ȱlawless,ȱandȱuncivilizedȱpagansȱintoȱtheȱdesiredȱ good,ȱproductive,ȱobedient,ȱandȱcivilizedȱChristians.ȱTheyȱhadȱtoȱgiveȱupȱ‘their’ȱculture,ȱ tradition,ȱhabits,ȱandȱlanguageȱandȱconformȱtoȱtheȱcustomsȱandȱrulesȱofȱEurope’sȱmajorȬ ities.ȱYet,ȱdespiteȱaspirationsȱtoȱentirelyȱincorporateȱtheȱRomaȱandȱtheirȱculturesȱintoȱmaȬ joritarianȱsocieties,ȱtheyȱandȱtheirȱculturesȱdidȱnotȱdisappear.ȱ Moreȱthanȱ170ȱyearsȱafterȱtheȱHabsburgsȱlaunchedȱtheirȱassimilationȱprograms,ȱinȱtheȱ 1930sȱandȱ1940s,ȱRomaniȱgroupsȱinȱNaziȱdominatedȱEuropeȱwouldȱbecomeȱtheȱtargetȱofȱ aȱ kindȱ ofȱ invertedȱ improvementȱ project.ȱ Inȱ theȱ nameȱ ofȱ programsȱ thatȱ hadȱ toȱ allowȱ othersȱ toȱ improveȱ theirȱ allegedȱ racialȱ purity,ȱ theȱ supposedȱ raciallyȱ impure,ȱ antiȬsocial,ȱ andȱworkȬshyȱRomaniȱpopulationsȱinȱEuropeȱhadȱtoȱdisappearȱfromȱtheȱfaceȱofȱtheȱearth.ȱ Theȱ localȱ articulationsȱ ofȱ nationalȬsocialistȱ andȱ fascistȱ formsȱ ofȱ racismȱ ledȱ toȱ theȱ massȱ murderȱ ofȱ theȱ Europeanȱ Roma,ȱ inȱ which,ȱ alongsideȱ theȱ Nazis,ȱ collaborativeȱ forcesȱ inȱ countriesȱsuchȱasȱAustria,ȱCroatia,ȱHungary,ȱandȱRomaniaȱplayedȱaȱcrucialȱrole.ȱYet,ȱasȱ theȱsingersȱofȱtheȱCzechȱRomaniȱbandȱGipsy.czȱrap,ȱ“they’veȱbeenȱtryingȱtoȱkillȱus,ȱbutȱweȱ areȱstillȱalive”ȱ(fromȱtheȱsongȱAmenca,ȱGipsy.czȱ2008).ȱ TheȱinstallationȱofȱvariousȱkindsȱofȱcommunistȱregimesȱinȱpostwarȱCentralȱandȱEastȬ ernȱEuropeȱinauguratedȱyetȱotherȱprogramsȱtoȱdealȱwithȱtheȱRomaȱ(Guyȱ2001a;ȱBaranyȱ 2002).ȱDuringȱaȱnewȱwaveȱofȱattemptsȱatȱassimilatingȱthem,ȱRomaniȱpopulationsȱbecameȱ theȱ targetȱ ofȱ ‘resettlement’ȱ andȱ ‘antiȬnomadism’ȱ programsȱ inȱ Czechoslovakia,ȱ Bulgaria,ȱ Poland,ȱ andȱ Romania,3ȱ ofȱ educationalȱ programsȱ throughoutȱ theȱ region,ȱ andȱ ofȱ specificȱ
‘healthȱcare’ȱpoliciesȱinȱHungary,ȱCzechoslovakia,ȱandȱRomania.4ȱInȱspiteȱofȱtheȱfactȱthatȱ manyȱofȱtheseȱprogramsȱwereȱofficiallyȱintroducedȱtoȱimproveȱtheȱRoma’sȱsocioeconomȬ icȱparticipation,ȱinȱpracticeȱmanyȱofȱthemȱimpactedȱgrimlyȱandȱdramaticallyȱonȱtheirȱsitȬ uation.ȱRomaniȱchildrenȱwereȱsegregatedȱinȱseveralȱofȱtheȱregion’sȱeducationalȱsystemsȱ and,ȱconsequently,ȱturnedȱoutȱtoȱbeȱlowȱskilled.ȱRomaȱwereȱfrequentlyȱtreatedȱinȱsepaȬ ratedȱpartsȱofȱhospitals.ȱRomaniȱfamiliesȱcontinuedȱorȱstartedȱtoȱliveȱinȱsegregatedȱurbanȱ orȱruralȱareas.ȱTheirȱfellowȱcitizensȱoftenȱsawȱtheȱRomaȱasȱsecondȬclassȱcitizens.ȱLargelyȱ asȱaȱconsequenceȱofȱtheȱRoma’sȱambiguousȱtreatmentȱduringȱcommunism,ȱtheirȱsituationȱ rapidlyȱworsenedȱafterȱ1989.ȱManyȱofȱthemȱbecameȱunemployed,ȱunableȱtoȱcompeteȱonȱ
3ȱ Inȱ practiceȱ theseȱ communistȱ ‘resettlement’ȱ andȱ ‘antiȬnomadism’ȱ measuresȱ impliedȱ bothȱ forcedȱ andȱ enȬ
couragedȱmigrationȱorȱsettlementȱ(chapterȱ6,ȱGuyȱ2001b;ȱSokolovaȱ2008;ȱvanȱBaarȱ2011b).ȱ
4ȱTheȱmostȱnotoriousȱofȱtheseȱprogramsȱwereȱtheȱCzechoslovakianȱsterilizationȱpoliciesȱ(chapterȱ6,ȱSokolovaȱ
2008).ȱMuchȱlessȱknownȱandȱresearched,ȱhowever,ȱareȱtheȱeffectsȱofȱtheȱRomanianȱproȬnatalistȱpoliciesȱandȱ theirȱ laterȱ abolitionȱ (Kligmanȱ 1998)ȱ onȱ Romania’sȱ Romaȱ andȱ theȱ consequencesȱ ofȱ theȱ forcedȱ bathingȱ ofȱ manyȱofȱHungary’sȱRomaȱ(chapterȱ6,ȱBernáthȱ2002).ȱ
theȱconditionsȱsetȱbyȱtheȱnewlyȱemergingȱmarketȱeconomies,ȱandȱinvolvedȱinȱviciousȱcirȬ clesȱofȱpoverty,ȱsegregation,ȱandȱdiscrimination.ȱ
Lastȱ butȱ notȱ least,ȱ duringȱ theȱ postwarȱ decadesȱ Westernȱ Europeanȱ governmentsȱ alsoȱ developedȱ educational,ȱ employment,ȱ healthȱ care,ȱ andȱ otherȱ programsȱ forȱ theirȱ Gypsyȱ andȱTravelerȱminorities.5ȱOften,ȱtheseȱpoliciesȱfocusedȱonȱtheȱissueȱofȱmobilityȱandȱconȬ tradictorilyȱaimedȱatȱtheȱsimultaneousȱimprovement,ȱdiminishing,ȱandȱcontrollingȱofȱsiteȱ provision.6ȱWesternȱEurope,ȱwhereȱtheȱforerunnersȱofȱtheȱEUȱwereȱestablished,ȱalsoȱbeȬ cameȱtheȱsiteȱwhereȱtheȱfirstȱEuropeȬwideȱprogramsȱforȱGypsies,ȱnomads,ȱcaravanȱdwelȬ lers,ȱandȱTravelers—asȱtheyȱwereȱusuallyȱcalledȱinȱtheȱEuropeanȱpolicyȱdocumentsȱofȱtheȱ 1970sȱandȱ1980s—wouldȱbeȱintroducedȱ(Danbakliȱ2001;ȱSimhandlȱ2007).ȱYet,ȱtheseȱproȬ gramsȱ remainedȱ limitedȱ inȱ scopeȱ andȱ wereȱ primarilyȱ developedȱ onȱ paper,ȱ ratherȱ thanȱ implementedȱonȱtheȱground.ȱ
ȱ Thisȱ shortȱ historicalȱ overviewȱ ofȱ variousȱ interventionsȱ inȱ Romaniȱ livesȱ throughoutȱ Europeȱ raisesȱ severalȱ questionsȱ regardingȱ theȱ currentȱ attemptsȱ toȱ turnȱ theȱ tide.ȱ Apartȱ fromȱtheȱobviouslyȱbadȱintentionsȱofȱsomeȱhistoricallyȱearlierȱimprovementȱschemes,ȱitȱ seemsȱ thatȱ evenȱ thoseȱ thatȱ lookedȱ notȱ veryȱ badȱ onȱ paperȱ turnedȱ outȱ toȱ haveȱ severalȱ ambiguousȱ orȱ simplyȱ badȱ implications.ȱ Isȱ itȱ possibleȱ toȱ avoidȱ suchȱ effectsȱ andȱ doȱ theȱ contemporaryȱ programsȱ takeȱ theseȱ effects,ȱ whichȱ areȱ maybeȱ evenȱ notȱ sideȱ effects,ȱ intoȱ account?ȱApparently,ȱweȱdealȱwithȱdifferent,ȱheterogeneousȱRomaniȱgroupsȱandȱdiverseȱ circumstancesȱacrossȱEurope.ȱIsȱitȱpossibleȱandȱdesirable,ȱasȱtheȱcurrentȱprogramsȱseemȱ toȱ do,ȱ toȱ bringȱ theseȱ diversitiesȱ intoȱ alignmentȱ withȱ eachȱ other?ȱ Whatȱ doesȱ theȱ multiȬ vocalityȱofȱtheȱinvolvedȱactors,ȱinstitutions,ȱandȱorganizationsȱimplyȱforȱtheȱresultsȱtheyȱ tendȱtoȱachieve?ȱCouldȱtheseȱeffortsȱresultȱinȱsomeȱkindȱofȱTowerȱofȱBabelȱeffect?ȱDoȱtheȱ currentȱprogramsȱreflectȱonȱwhatȱapparentlyȱwentȱwrongȱinȱtheȱpast?ȱDoȱtheȱpresentȬdayȱ programsȱaimedȱatȱ‘reȬmembering’ȱtheȱRomaȱandȱguaranteeingȱEuropeanȱcitizenshipȱforȱ themȱactuallyȱrememberȱwhatȱhappenedȱinȱtheȱpastȱandȱwhatȱwasȱostensiblyȱmoreȱtheȱ ruleȱthanȱtheȱexception?ȱLastȱbutȱnotȱleast,ȱwhatȱisȱnovelȱinȱtheȱcurrentȱapproachesȱthatȱ wouldȱguaranteeȱthatȱtheȱmistakesȱofȱtheȱpastȱwouldȱnotȱbeȱrepeated?ȱIsȱitȱtheȱcommonȱ Europeanȱeffort?ȱIsȱitȱtheȱdesiredȱorȱmaterializedȱinclusionȱofȱtheȱRomaȱthemselvesȱinȱtheȱ developmentȱofȱtheseȱnew,ȱambitiousȱprograms?ȱWhatȱdoesȱthisȱparticipatoryȱmoveȱimȬ plyȱandȱwhatȱdoesȱitȱlookȱlikeȱinȱpractice?ȱTheȱearlierȱexpressionsȱofȱtheȱwillȱtoȱimproveȱ showȱthatȱthereȱhasȱalwaysȱbeenȱaȱgapȱbetweenȱwhatȱwasȱdesigned,ȱdevised,ȱorȱintendedȱ andȱwhatȱwasȱimplementedȱorȱrealizedȱonȱtheȱground.ȱThisȱgapȱunavoidablyȱseemsȱtoȱbeȱ partȱofȱtheȱgame.ȱTheȱfailureȱtoȱachieveȱwhatȱisȱplannedȱdoesȱnotȱnecessarilyȱmeanȱthatȱ theȱ resultsȱ haveȱ alwaysȱ beenȱ dubiousȱ andȱ unproductive.ȱ Undoubtedly,ȱ weȱ canȱ findȱ
5ȱ Forȱ anȱ overviewȱ ofȱ postwarȱ policiesȱ inȱ Westernȱ Europe,ȱ see,ȱ forȱ instance,ȱ Liégeoisȱ (1987;ȱ 1994),ȱ Fraserȱ
(1995),ȱandȱZimmermannȱ(2007d).ȱForȱFrance,ȱseeȱPeschanskiȱ(2007),ȱforȱGermany,ȱseeȱMargalitȱ(2002),ȱforȱ Italy,ȱ seeȱ Piasereȱ (1991),ȱ forȱ theȱ Netherlands,ȱ seeȱ Willemsȱ andȱ Lucassenȱ (1990),ȱ forȱ Spain,ȱ seeȱ Berneckerȱ (2007),ȱforȱSwitzerland,ȱseeȱMeierȱ(2007),ȱandȱforȱtheȱUK,ȱseeȱActonȱ(1997),ȱBancroftȱ(2005),ȱandȱClarkȱandȱ Greenfieldsȱ(2006).ȱȱ
6ȱ Unlikeȱ Romaniȱ populationsȱ inȱ Centralȱ andȱ Easternȱ Europe,ȱ aȱ partȱ ofȱ theȱ Westernȱ Europeanȱ Romaȱ andȱ
Travelersȱliveȱinȱtrailerȱcamps.ȱYet,ȱinȱspiteȱofȱtheȱpublicȱopinionȱinȱmanyȱEuropeanȱcountries,ȱmostȱofȱthemȱ haveȱnationalȱcitizenshipȱandȱdoȱnoȱlongerȱtravel.ȱForȱtheȱhistoricalȱbackgroundȱofȱtheȱprofoundȱdifferencesȱ betweenȱ Westernȱ andȱ Easternȱ Europeanȱ Roma,ȱ andȱ howȱ theseȱ differencesȱ emergedȱ inȱ modernȱ Europeanȱ history,ȱsee,ȱforȱinstance,ȱMirgaȱandȱGheorgheȱ(1997),ȱLucassenȱetȱalȱ(1998a),ȱandȱGuyȱ(2001c).ȱȱ
examplesȱofȱprogramsȱthatȱhaveȱledȱtoȱrelativelyȱgoodȱoutcomes,ȱevenȱthoughȱtheyȱwereȱ notȱscheduled.ȱ
Despiteȱallȱtheseȱquestionsȱandȱremarks,ȱtheȱcurrentȱempowerment,ȱdevelopment,ȱandȱ inclusionȱprogramsȱclearlyȱillustrateȱthatȱtheȱwillȱtoȱchangeȱtheȱRoma’sȱsituationȱhasȱnotȱ disappeared.ȱ Inȱ contrast,ȱ novelȱ forms,ȱ practices,ȱ andȱ centersȱ ofȱ expertiseȱ haveȱ beenȱ developed.ȱDiverseȱkindsȱofȱexperts,ȱincludingȱRomani,ȱhaveȱdevisedȱnewȱprogramsȱthatȱ clearlyȱandȱjustifiablyȱwantȱtoȱbreakȱwithȱtheȱunsuccessfulȱattemptsȱandȱtheȱambiguousȱ orȱ obviouslyȱ badȱ intentionsȱ ofȱ someȱ ofȱ theirȱ forerunners.ȱ Theȱ currentȱ programsȱ alsoȱ stronglyȱsuggestȱthat,ȱdueȱtoȱwellȬmeantȱintentionsȱandȱtheȱinclusionȱofȱtheȱRomaȱinȱtheȱ devising,ȱdeveloping,ȱandȱimplementingȱofȱtheseȱprograms,ȱtheyȱwillȱmakeȱaȱdifference.ȱ TheȱsloganȱofȱtheȱdifferentȱactorsȱinvolvedȱinȱEurope’sȱcurrentȱRomaniȱprogramsȱseemsȱ toȱ be:ȱ “Fromȱ nowȱ on,ȱ everythingȱ willȱ beȱ different.”ȱ And:ȱ “Weȱ willȱ doȱ itȱ betterȱ andȱ decisivelyȱbreakȱwithȱtheȱpastȱand,ȱinȱanyȱcase,ȱwithȱtheȱauthoritarianȱpastsȱofȱNazismȱ andȱ communism.”ȱ Iȱ amȱ notȱ skepticalȱ aboutȱ theseȱ attempts.ȱ Forȱ sure,ȱ weȱ cannotȱ easilyȱ andȱ uncriticallyȱ compareȱ formerȱ communistȱ Romaȱ approachesȱ withȱ currentȱ Europeanȱ ones,ȱletȱaloneȱsuggestȱthatȱthereȱareȱstraightforwardȱcontinuitiesȱbetweenȱtheȱNaziȱpastȱ andȱ theȱ presentȬdayȱ circumstancesȱ ofȱ Romaniȱ minoritiesȱ inȱ Europe.ȱ Ifȱ weȱ tryȱ toȱ avoidȱ beingȱskepticalȱandȱsuspectingȱconspiraciesȱbehindȱwhatȱisȱsaid,ȱwritten,ȱandȱdoneȱhow,ȱ then,ȱareȱweȱtoȱassessȱtheȱconditionsȱunderȱwhichȱtheȱwillȱtoȱturnȱtheȱtideȱisȱmanifestingȱ itselfȱvisȬàȬvisȱtheȱEuropeanȱRoma?ȱ ȱ ȱ TOWARDȱANȱANALYTICSȱOFȱEUROPEANȱGOVERNMENTȱ ȱ Inȱthisȱstudy,ȱIȱwillȱanalyzeȱtheȱconditionsȱunderȱwhichȱtheȱnewȱattemptsȱatȱimprovingȱ theȱsituationȱofȱtheȱRomaȱinȱEuropeȱhaveȱbeenȱdeveloped,ȱlegitimized,ȱandȱarticulated.ȱIȱ amȱ notȱ inȱ theȱ firstȱ placeȱ interestedȱ inȱ theȱ gapȱ betweenȱ programsȱ andȱ theirȱ impleȬ mentation.ȱ Rather,ȱ oneȱ ofȱ myȱ centralȱ aimsȱ isȱ toȱ investigateȱ theȱ complexȱ mixtureȱ ofȱ theȱ willȱtoȱturnȱtheȱtide,ȱitsȱunforeseenȱeffects,ȱandȱitsȱfrequentȱfailuresȱtoȱrealizeȱwhatȱwasȱ attempted.ȱInspiredȱbyȱMichelȱFoucault’sȱ(1995)ȱanalysisȱofȱtheȱrelationshipȱbetweenȱtheȱ developmentȱofȱtheȱmodernȱapparatusȱofȱincarceration,ȱitsȱ‘failure’ȱtoȱreduceȱcrime,ȱandȱ itsȱ simultaneous,ȱ largelyȱ unforeseenȱ capacityȱ toȱ regulateȱ andȱ differentiateȱ theȱ kindsȱ ofȱ illegalitiesȱitȱpartlyȱcreatedȱitself,ȱJamesȱFergusonȱremarks:ȱ
ȱ
Ifȱ unintendedȱ effectsȱ ofȱ aȱ [development]ȱ projectȱ endȱ upȱ havingȱ politicalȱ uses,ȱ evenȱ seemingȱtoȱbeȱ‘instruments’ȱofȱsomeȱlargerȱpoliticalȱdeployment,ȱthisȱisȱnotȱanyȱkindȱ ofȱconspiracy;ȱitȱreallyȱdoesȱjustȱhappenȱtoȱbeȱtheȱwayȱthingsȱworkȱout.ȱButȱbecauseȱ thingsȱ doȱ workȱ outȱ thisȱ way,ȱ andȱ becauseȱ ‘failed’ȱ developmentȱ projectsȱ canȱ soȱ successfullyȱhelpȱtoȱaccomplishȱimportantȱstrategicȱtasksȱbehindȱtheȱbacksȱofȱtheȱmostȱ sincereȱparticipants,ȱitȱdoesȱbecomeȱlessȱmysteriousȱwhyȱ‘failed’ȱdevelopmentȱprojectsȱ shouldȱ endȱ upȱ beingȱ replicatedȱ againȱ andȱ again.ȱ Itȱ isȱ perhapsȱ reasonableȱ toȱ suggestȱ thatȱitȱmayȱevenȱbeȱbecauseȱdevelopmentȱprojectsȱturnȱoutȱtoȱhaveȱsuchȱuses,ȱevenȱifȱ theyȱareȱinȱsomeȱsenseȱunforeseen,ȱthatȱtheyȱcontinueȱtoȱattractȱsoȱmuchȱinterestȱandȱ support.ȱ(Fergusonȱ1994:ȱ256)ȱ
FollowingȱFerguson’sȱreflection,ȱinȱthisȱstudyȱIȱanalyzeȱRomaȬrelatedȱprogramsȱbeyondȱ wellȬestablishedȱbinariesȱofȱdevisedȱplanȱvs.ȱimplementation,ȱintentionȱvs.ȱachievement,ȱ politicsȱvs.ȱinstruments,ȱandȱsuccessȱvs.ȱfailure.ȱIȱexamineȱhowȱsuchȱprogramsȱhaveȱbeenȱ madeȱpossibleȱatȱall,ȱhowȱtheyȱhaveȱturnedȱoutȱtoȱhaveȱparticular,ȱoftenȱunforeseenȱusesȱ onȱ theȱ ground,ȱ andȱ howȱ theyȱ relateȱ toȱ new,ȱ postȬ1989ȱ Europeanȱ conditions.ȱ Theȱ mostȱ importantȱ amongȱ theseȱ conditionsȱ are,ȱ Iȱ explainȱ inȱ theȱ courseȱ ofȱ thisȱ study,ȱ theȱ fallȱ ofȱ communism,ȱ theȱ emergenceȱ ofȱ newȱ formsȱ ofȱ Europeanȱ governance,ȱ theȱ neoȬliberalȱ restructuringȱofȱstates,ȱeconomies,ȱandȱcivilȱsocieties,ȱandȱtheȱresurgenceȱandȱreshapingȱ ofȱformsȱofȱnationalismȱandȱRomaphobia.ȱ
Myȱcentralȱmethodologicalȱapproachȱisȱtoȱunderstandȱknowledge,ȱexpertise,ȱandȱtoolsȱ ofȱdevelopment,ȱimprovement,ȱandȱempowermentȱasȱspecificȱdimensionsȱofȱintersectingȱ andȱ overlappingȱ formsȱ ofȱ government.ȱ Iȱ conceiveȱ governmentȱ inȱ theȱ generalȱ meaningȱ givenȱtoȱitȱinȱFoucault’sȱlateȱworkȱonȱgovernmentalityȱandȱbioȬpowerȱ(2007b;ȱ2008a).ȱAcȬ cordingȱtoȱFoucault’sȱunderstanding,ȱgovernmentȱdoesȱnotȱreferȱtoȱtheȱlimitedȱmeaningȱ ofȱ ourȱ dailyȱ useȱ ofȱ theȱ notionȱ inȱtermsȱ ofȱ politicalȱ governmentȱ andȱinstitutionsȱofȱrule.ȱ Rather,ȱgovernmentȱrelatesȱtoȱtheȱfieldsȱofȱpossibilitiesȱandȱpowerȱrelationsȱinstigatedȱbyȱ theȱmultipleȱintersectionsȱofȱselfȬgovernment,ȱtheȱgovernmentȱofȱothers,ȱandȱtheȱgovernȬ mentȱofȱtheȱbodyȱpolitic.ȱFromȱthisȱviewpoint,ȱnotionsȱsuchȱasȱtheȱsubject,ȱtheȱfamily,ȱtheȱ community,ȱ andȱ theȱ stateȱ areȱ understoodȱ asȱ theȱ effects,ȱ ratherȱ thanȱ theȱ unproblematicȱ startingȱpoints,ȱofȱspecificȱregimesȱofȱgovernment.ȱHere,ȱgovernmentȱisȱinȱtheȱfirstȱplaceȱ understoodȱ asȱ theȱ ‘conductȱ ofȱ conduct,’ȱ aȱ philosophicalȱ expressionȱ inȱ whichȱ Foucaultȱ combinesȱtwoȱmeaningsȱofȱtheȱFrenchȱconduire:ȱ“Toȱ‘conduct’ȱisȱatȱtheȱsameȱtimeȱtoȱ‘lead’ȱ othersȱ …ȱ andȱ aȱ wayȱ ofȱ behavingȱ withinȱ aȱ moreȱ orȱ lessȱ openȱ fieldȱ ofȱ possibilities.ȱ Theȱ exerciseȱofȱpowerȱisȱaȱ‘conductȱofȱconducts’ȱandȱaȱmanagementȱofȱpossibilities”ȱ(2000e:ȱ 341).ȱ
Theȱ Foucauldianȱ extensionȱ ofȱ theȱ meaningȱ ofȱ governmentȱ canȱ beȱ regardedȱ asȱ anȱ integralȱpartȱofȱaȱcontestationȱofȱandȱreflectionȱonȱourȱprevailingȱnotionȱofȱpoliticalȱgovȬ ernmentȱ andȱ ofȱ theȱ recentlyȱ emergedȱ termȱ governance.ȱ Inȱ Foucault’sȱ genealogyȱ ofȱ theȱ stateȱandȱtheȱmodernȱstateȱproject,ȱheȱshowsȱthat,ȱinȱvariousȱearlyȱmodernȱEuropeanȱdisȬ courses,ȱ theȱ notionȱ ofȱ governmentȱ didȱ notȱ inȱ theȱ firstȱ placeȱ referȱ toȱ theȱ governingȱ andȱ managingȱofȱaȱstate:ȱ
ȱ
[R]ather,ȱitȱdesignatedȱtheȱwayȱinȱwhichȱtheȱconductȱofȱindividualsȱorȱofȱgroupsȱmightȱ beȱdirected—theȱgovernmentȱofȱchildren,ȱofȱsouls,ȱofȱcommunities,ȱofȱfamilies,ȱofȱtheȱ sick.ȱ Itȱ coveredȱ notȱ onlyȱ theȱ legitimatelyȱ constitutedȱ formsȱ ofȱ politicalȱ ofȱ economicȱ subjectionȱbutȱalsoȱmodesȱofȱaction,ȱmoreȱorȱlessȱconsideredȱandȱcalculated,ȱthatȱwereȱ destinedȱ toȱ actȱ uponȱ theȱ possibilitiesȱ ofȱ actionȱ ofȱ otherȱ people.ȱ Toȱ govern,ȱ inȱ thisȱ sense,ȱisȱtoȱstructureȱtheȱpossibleȱfieldȱofȱactionȱofȱothers.ȱTheȱrelationshipȱproperȱtoȱ powerȱ wouldȱ thereforeȱ beȱ soughtȱ notȱ onȱ theȱ sideȱ ofȱ violenceȱ orȱ ofȱ struggle,ȱ norȱ onȱ thatȱofȱvoluntaryȱcontractsȱ…ȱbut,ȱrather,ȱinȱtheȱareaȱofȱthatȱsingularȱmodeȱofȱaction,ȱ neitherȱwarlikeȱnorȱjuridical,ȱwhichȱisȱgovernment.ȱ(Foucaultȱ2000e:ȱ341)ȱ
ȱ
Foucaultȱ explainsȱ thatȱ theȱ earlyȱ modernȱ notionȱ ofȱ governmentȱ encompassesȱ “menȱ inȱ theirȱrelationships,ȱbonds,ȱandȱcomplexȱinvolvementsȱwithȱthingsȱlikeȱwealth,ȱresources,ȱ meansȱ ofȱ subsistence,ȱ …ȱ theȱ territoryȱ withȱ itsȱ borders,ȱ qualities,ȱ climate,ȱ dryness,ȱ
fertility,ȱ [and]ȱ …ȱ thingsȱ likeȱ accidents,ȱ misfortunes,ȱ famine,ȱ epidemics,ȱ andȱ death”ȱ (2007b:ȱ96).ȱInȱorderȱtoȱcontributeȱtoȱtheȱwellȬbeingȱofȱaȱpopulation,ȱgovernmentȱisȱconȬ ceivedȱ asȱ theȱ endeavorȱ toȱ shape,ȱ regulate,ȱ andȱ directȱ humanȱ conductȱ byȱ “moreȱ orȱ lessȱ consideredȱ andȱ calculatedȱ modesȱ ofȱ action”ȱ (Foucaultȱ 2000e:ȱ 341).ȱ Inȱ theȱ courseȱ ofȱ modernȱ Europeanȱ history,ȱ Foucaultȱ argues,ȱ governmentȱ hasȱ particularlyȱ beenȱ articuȬ latedȱ asȱ theȱ governmentȱ ofȱ populations,ȱ aimedȱ atȱ improvingȱ theirȱ wellȬbeing,ȱ thatȱ is,ȱ theirȱ welfare,ȱ health,ȱ fertility,ȱ wealth,ȱ productivity,ȱ security,ȱ longevity,ȱ happiness,ȱ andȱ theȱlike.ȱ
Foucault’sȱ tracingȱ ofȱ theȱ earlyȱ modernȱ Europeanȱ meaningsȱ ofȱ governmentȱ isȱ notȱ meantȱ toȱ developȱ aȱ new,ȱ better,ȱ orȱ moreȱ comprehensiveȱ definitionȱ ofȱ government.ȱ Rather,ȱ thisȱ endeavorȱ isȱ partȱ ofȱ writingȱ theȱ historyȱ ofȱ theȱ presentȱ byȱ wayȱ ofȱ aȱ genealȬ ogicalȱinquiryȱintoȱsomeȱofȱtheȱfoundingȱconceptsȱofȱmodernȱpoliticalȱthinking,ȱsuchȱasȱ theȱstate,ȱtheȱsubject,ȱtheȱfamily,ȱtheȱnation,ȱculture,ȱliberalism,ȱcitizenship,ȱrace,ȱand,ȱbyȱ extension,ȱtheȱcategoryȱofȱ‘Europeanness’ȱitselfȱ(Stolerȱ1995).ȱByȱmeansȱofȱaȱgenealogicalȱ investigationȱofȱtheȱnotionȱofȱgovernment,ȱFoucaultȱshowsȱthatȱweȱcannotȱlimitȱourȱunȬ derstandingȱofȱgovernmentȱtoȱtheȱprevailingȱnotionsȱofȱpoliticalȱgovernmentȱandȱinstituȬ tionsȱofȱrule.ȱTheȱstateȱisȱnotȱaȱkindȱofȱuniversalȱorȱautonomousȱsourceȱofȱpower,ȱbutȱaȱ productȱ ofȱ intersectingȱ andȱ overlappingȱ practicesȱ ofȱ government—aȱ conceptionȱ thatȱ complicatesȱnarrativesȱthatȱreadȱpowerȱprimarilyȱalongȱtheȱlinesȱofȱstateȱsovereigntyȱandȱ itsȱ discipliningȱ practices.ȱ Asȱ Iȱ willȱ explainȱ inȱ thisȱ study,ȱ onȱ theȱ basisȱ ofȱ aȱ Foucauldianȱ analyticsȱofȱgovernmentȱweȱareȱableȱtoȱunderstandȱinstitutions,ȱsuchȱasȱtheȱstateȱandȱtheȱ EU,ȱasȱtheȱhistoricallyȱspecific,ȱcontestableȱoutcomesȱofȱvariousȱpracticesȱofȱgoverningȱor,ȱ asȱ Foucaultȱ namedȱ it,ȱ asȱ theȱ “mobileȱ effectȱ ofȱ aȱ regimeȱ ofȱ multipleȱ governmentalities”ȱ (2008a:ȱ77).ȱ
ȱ Theȱ neologismȱ ‘governmentality’ȱ literallyȱ linksȱ theȱ actȱ ofȱ governingȱ withȱ specificȱ modesȱ ofȱ thought—mentalities—toȱ expressȱ thatȱ theȱ empirical,ȱ technicalȱ activityȱ ofȱ governingȱ isȱ alwaysȱ intrinsicallyȱ relatedȱ toȱ certainȱ rationalities.ȱ Governmentalityȱ asȱ aȱ philosophicalȱ term,ȱ thus,ȱ pointsȱ toȱ theȱ inherentȱrelationshipȱ between,ȱ onȱ theȱoneȱhand,ȱ particularȱ tools,ȱ instruments,ȱ andȱ formsȱ ofȱ expertiseȱ impliedȱ inȱ governingȱ and,ȱ onȱ theȱ other,ȱ theȱ specificȱ wayȱ inȱ whichȱ weȱ thinkȱ aboutȱ thisȱ governingȱ activity.ȱ Inȱ Foucault’sȱ work,ȱ governmentalityȱ refersȱ bothȱ toȱ thisȱ intrinsicȱ relationȱ betweenȱ whatȱ canȱ beȱ calledȱ theȱ technicalȱ andȱ rationalȱ dimensionsȱ ofȱ government,ȱ andȱ toȱ theȱ specificȱ formȱ thisȱ relationshipȱ hasȱ assumedȱ atȱ aȱ particularȱ momentȱ inȱ historyȱ (Deanȱ 1999).ȱ Thisȱ twofoldȱ meaningȱandȱitsȱextensionȱtoȱtheȱsphereȱofȱEuropeȱmakesȱitȱpossible,ȱIȱwillȱillustrate,ȱtoȱ analyzeȱEuropeȱinȱtermsȱofȱitsȱgovernmentalization,ȱthatȱis,ȱofȱconstitutingȱEuropeȱitselfȱ asȱaȱsiteȱofȱvariousȱintersectingȱandȱoverlappingȱgovernmentalities.ȱTheȱwillȱtoȱimproveȱ theȱ conditionȱ ofȱ Europeanȱ populationsȱ hasȱ becomeȱ aȱ crucialȱ elementȱ ofȱ historicallyȱ diverseȱEuropeanȱartsȱofȱgovernmentȱandȱisȱkeyȱtoȱbothȱtheȱideaȱofȱEuropeȱandȱcontemȬ poraryȱmodesȱofȱEuropeanȱminorityȱgovernanceȱ(chaptersȱ1ȱandȱ2).ȱ
However,ȱ inȱ orderȱ toȱ developȱ programsȱ andȱ policiesȱ aimedȱ atȱ improvingȱ theȱ conditionsȱofȱpopulations,ȱphenomenaȱneedȱtoȱbeȱ‘problematized’ȱasȱimprovableȱatȱall.ȱ Theȱinterrogationȱofȱtheȱhistoryȱofȱregimesȱofȱgovernmentalityȱandȱtheȱtruthȱclaimsȱtheyȱ make,ȱ isȱ “aȱ matterȱ ofȱ analyzing,ȱ notȱ behaviors,ȱ orȱ ideas,ȱ norȱ societiesȱ andȱ theirȱ ‘ideologies,’ȱbutȱtheȱproblematizationsȱthroughȱwhichȱbeingȱoffersȱitselfȱtoȱbe,ȱnecessarily,ȱ thought—andȱ theȱ practicesȱ onȱ theȱ basisȱ ofȱ whichȱ theseȱ problematizationsȱ areȱ formed”ȱ
(Foucaultȱ 1990b:ȱ 11,ȱ hisȱ italics).ȱ Problematizationsȱ doȱ notȱ primarilyȱ focusȱ onȱ solutionsȱ andȱanswersȱtoȱspecifiedȱproblems,ȱbutȱratherȱonȱwhyȱandȱhowȱthings,ȱsuchȱasȱbehavior,ȱ accessibility,ȱ orȱ socialȱ processesȱ areȱ becomingȱ aȱ problemȱ toȱ beȱ solvedȱ orȱ managedȱ inȱ specificȱ ways.ȱ Analyzingȱ practicesȱ ofȱ problematizationȱ meansȱ interrogatingȱ “whyȱ aȱ problemȱandȱwhyȱsuchȱaȱkindȱofȱproblem,ȱwhyȱaȱcertainȱwayȱofȱproblematizingȱappearsȱ atȱ aȱ givenȱ pointȱ inȱ time”ȱ (Foucaultȱ 2007a:ȱ 141).ȱ Lookingȱ atȱ theȱ currentȱ situationȱ inȱ Europe,ȱweȱcan,ȱforȱexample,ȱproblematizeȱtheȱwayȱinȱwhichȱtheȱEUȱisȱconstructedȱasȱanȱ ‘areaȱofȱfreedom,ȱsecurity,ȱandȱjustice’ȱ(Waltersȱ2002).ȱAccordingly,ȱweȱcanȱconcentrateȱ onȱ howȱ suchȱ aȱ problematizationȱ relatesȱ to,ȱ forȱ instance,ȱ consideringȱ Europeȱ asȱ aȱ siteȱ whereȱ theȱ humanȱ securityȱ ofȱ someȱ needsȱ toȱ beȱ improvedȱ (Glasiusȱ andȱ Kaldorȱ 2005),ȱ whereȱtheȱwarȱonȱterrorȱisȱbeingȱarticulatedȱ(deȱGoedeȱ2008),ȱandȱwhereȱmigrationȱandȱ relatedȱphenomenaȱareȱtoȱbeȱmanagedȱ(Huysmansȱ2006;ȱVerstraeteȱ2010).ȱSimilarly,ȱweȱ canȱaskȱhowȱcontemporaryȱformationsȱofȱEuropeȱasȱaȱsiteȱwhereȱminoritiesȱsuchȱasȱtheȱ Romaniȱareȱ(toȱbe)ȱguaranteedȱfullȱEuropeanȱmembershipȱrelateȱtoȱtheȱwaysȱinȱwhichȱtheȱ conditionsȱofȱminoritiesȱareȱproblematizedȱasȱimprovable.ȱToȱexplainȱhowȱIȱunderstandȱ practicesȱ ofȱ minorityȱ problematization,ȱ Iȱ willȱ compareȱ theȱ currentlyȱ mostȱ dominantȱ approachȱ toȱ minorities—thatȱ ofȱ Europeanȱ governanceȱ studies—toȱ myȱ governmentalityȱ approach.ȱThisȱwillȱshedȱlightȱonȱtheȱmeaningȱofȱtheȱpracticeȱofȱproblematizationȱandȱonȱ theȱwayȱinȱwhichȱaȱgovernmentalityȱapproachȱenablesȱtheȱinterrogationȱofȱtheȱphenomȬ enonȱofȱminorityȱformationȱitself.ȱ ȱ ȱ EUROPEANȱMINORITYȱGOVERNANCEȱWITHINȱTHEȱPROBLEMATICSȱOFȱGOVERNMENTALITYȱ ȱ
Sinceȱ theȱ midȱ 1990s,ȱ Europeanȱ studiesȱ haveȱ increasinglyȱ beenȱ dominatedȱ byȱ whatȱ hasȱ beenȱcalledȱ‘theȱgovernanceȱturn’ȱ(KohlerȬKochȱandȱRittbergerȱ2006).ȱThisȱturnȱhasȱalsoȱ stronglyȱaffectedȱresearchȱandȱpolicyȱformationȱonȱminoritiesȱinȱEurope.ȱWeȱhaveȱbeenȱ ableȱtoȱnoticeȱaȱtrendȱtoȱpayȱspecificȱattentionȱtoȱtheȱsituationȱofȱminoritiesȱinȱEurope,ȱtoȱ ethnicȱ conflictsȱ andȱ theirȱ preventionȱ andȱ resolutionȱ inȱ Centralȱ andȱ Easternȱ Europeȱ inȱ particular.ȱMinorityȱgovernanceȱisȱusuallyȱunderstoodȱasȱaȱsetȱofȱtoolsȱandȱmethods—orȱ theȱ overarchingȱ analysisȱ thereof—toȱ enhanceȱ allȱ formsȱ ofȱ minorityȱ participationȱ inȱ societyȱatȱlarge,ȱtoȱprevent,ȱsolve,ȱorȱreduceȱconflictsȱbetweenȱminoritiesȱandȱmajorities,ȱ andȱtoȱinstitutionalizeȱminorityȱprotectionȱinȱsuchȱaȱwayȱthatȱminoritiesȱthemselvesȱareȱ becomingȱtheȱvitalȱagentsȱandȱrepresentativesȱinȱvariousȱdecisionȬmakingȱprocessesȱthatȱ dealȱwithȱminorityȱaffairs.ȱMinorityȱgovernanceȱisȱconsideredȱasȱaȱwayȱtoȱprotectȱminorȬ ities,ȱtheirȱrights,ȱcultures,ȱlanguages,ȱandȱtheȱlike,ȱtoȱmanageȱlatentȱorȱmanifestȱtensionsȱ withȱotherȱsocialȱgroups,ȱandȱtoȱimproveȱtheirȱparticipationȱbyȱmeansȱofȱtheirȱempowȬ erment.ȱ Minorityȱ governanceȱ isȱ notȱ necessarilyȱ external;ȱ itȱ canȱ alsoȱ involveȱ internalȱ governanceȱ orȱ minorityȱ selfȬgovernance.ȱ Minorityȱ governanceȱ mayȱ rangeȱ fromȱ accomȬ modatingȱhumanȱorȱminorityȱrightsȱandȱestablishingȱminorityȱmediaȱtoȱrealizingȱdiverseȱ modesȱofȱautonomy.ȱItȱmayȱinvolveȱvariousȱagentsȱfromȱlocalȱtoȱregionalȱandȱEuropeanȱ agenciesȱandȱorganizations.ȱEuropeȱisȱinvolvedȱtoȱtheȱextentȱthatȱEuropeanȱinstitutionsȱ andȱ organizationsȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ severalȱ NGOsȱ mayȱ helpȱ facilitateȱ theȱ improvementȱ ofȱ theȱ positionȱofȱminoritiesȱvisȬàȬvisȱmajoritiesȱandȱtheirȱinstitutions,ȱasȱwellȱasȱtheȱintegrationȱ ofȱminoritiesȱinȱmainstreamȱEuropeanȱsocieties.ȱ
Thisȱ conceptualizationȱ ofȱ minorityȱ governanceȱ primarilyȱ startsȱ fromȱ twoȱ generalȱ obȬ servationsȱ orȱ assumptions,ȱ oneȱ descriptiveȱ andȱ theȱ otherȱ prescriptive.ȱ Firstȱ ofȱ all,ȱ thisȱ approachȱfollowsȱaȱbroadȱtendencyȱtoȱunderstandȱgovernanceȱinȱtheȱcontextȱofȱaȱrecentȱ shiftȱfromȱpolitical,ȱstateȬdominatedȱgovernmentȱtoȱgovernanceȱ(RosenauȱandȱCzempielȱ 1992;ȱ Rhodesȱ 1996).ȱ Inȱ thisȱ conceptȱ ofȱ governanceȱ theȱ traditionalȱ nationȱ stateȱ andȱ itsȱ apparatusesȱareȱnoȱlongerȱseenȱasȱtheȱprimaryȱorȱonlyȱauthoritiesȱinȱtheȱgovernmentȱofȱ socialȱ relationshipsȱ andȱ structures.ȱ Instead,ȱ otherȱ agentsȱ atȱ variousȱ levelsȱ areȱ increasȬ inglyȱinvolvedȱinȱtheȱsteeringȱofȱsocialȱprocessesȱ(Kooimanȱ1993;ȱKohlerȬKochȱandȱEisingȱ 1999).ȱAdvocatesȱofȱgovernanceȱstudiesȱhaveȱfrequentlyȱarguedȱthat;ȱ ȱ [Governingȱwithinȱstatesȱisȱmoreȱandȱmore]ȱconductedȱbyȱpublic/privateȱpartnershipsȱ andȱbyȱformalȱandȱinformalȱnetworksȱinvolvingȱstateȱandȱnonȬstateȱagencies,ȱwhile,ȱinȱ theȱinternationalȱsphere,ȱstatesȱandȱotherȱactorsȱareȱregulatedȱbyȱanȱexpandingȱwebȱofȱ conventions,ȱ treaties,ȱ andȱ internationalȱ agencies,ȱ allȱ ofȱ whichȱ operateȱ withoutȱ theȱ backingȱofȱanȱoverarchingȱHobbesianȱpower.ȱ(Hindessȱ2005:ȱ405Ȭ06)ȱ
ȱ
Inȱ thisȱ lineȱ ofȱ reasoning,ȱ governanceȱ isȱ primarilyȱ conceptualizedȱ asȱ bothȱ aȱ newlyȱ emergingȱ structureȱ orȱ patternȱ ofȱ governingȱ andȱ asȱ anȱ ongoingȱ processȱ ofȱ steeringȱ andȱ coordination,ȱmainlyȱthroughȱselfȬorganizingȱnetworksȱandȱpartnershipsȱat,ȱbutȱincreaseȬ inglyȱ alsoȱ beyondȱ andȱ ‘below’ȱ theȱ stateȱ level.ȱ Followingȱ thisȱ understandingȱ ofȱ governȬ ance,ȱstudiesȱthereofȱtryȱtoȱdescribeȱandȱanalyzeȱtheȱsteeringȱandȱcoordinationȱpatterns,ȱ processes,ȱandȱstructuresȱthatȱhaveȱemergedȱinȱtheȱtransformationȱfromȱgovernmentȱtoȱ governance.ȱ Translatedȱ toȱ theȱ contextȱ ofȱ Europe,ȱ Europeanȱ governanceȱ isȱ oftenȱ perȬ ceivedȱasȱaȱformȱofȱmultiȬlevelȱgovernance,ȱwhereȱagentsȱrangingȱfromȱEUȱinstitutions,ȱ theȱ OSCE,ȱ andȱ theȱ Councilȱ ofȱ Europeȱ (CoE)ȱ toȱ nationalȱ governments,ȱ municipalities,ȱ enterprises,ȱ NGOs,ȱ andȱ activistȱ orȱ advocacyȱ networksȱ haveȱ operatedȱ andȱ developedȱ politicalȱ andȱ policyȱnetworksȱ onȱandȱ throughȱ numerousȱ planes,ȱ suchȱ asȱ local,ȱcommuȬ nity,ȱurban,ȱregional,ȱnational,ȱandȱEuropeanȱlevelsȱ(Marksȱetȱalȱ1996;ȱHoogheȱandȱMarksȱ 2001;ȱ Bacheȱ andȱ Flindersȱ 2004).ȱ Seenȱ fromȱ theȱ perspectiveȱ ofȱ multiȬlevelȱ governance,ȱ minorityȱ governanceȱ inȱ Europeȱ dealsȱ predominantlyȱ withȱ theȱ questionȱ ofȱ howȱ andȱ atȱ whichȱlevelȱtheȱmostȱadequateȱtoolsȱandȱinstrumentsȱneedȱtoȱbeȱtoȱsituatedȱandȱdevelȬ opedȱtoȱenhanceȱtheȱparticipation,ȱselfȬarticulation,ȱandȱselfȬdeterminationȱofȱminoritiesȱ andȱ toȱ preventȱ orȱ reduceȱ minorityȬmajorityȱ conflicts.ȱ Thisȱ conceptionȱ ofȱ governanceȱ followsȱ anotherȱ trendȱ inȱ governanceȱ studiesȱ toȱ intimatelyȱ linkȱ governanceȱ withȱ aȱ normativeȱ frameworkȱ inȱ whichȱ weȱ canȱ distinguishȱ betweenȱ ‘bad’ȱ andȱ ‘good’ȱmodesȱ ofȱ governance.ȱ
ȱ Theȱ emergenceȱ ofȱ theȱ notionȱ ofȱ ‘goodȱ governance’—introducedȱ byȱ theȱ Worldȱ Bankȱ (1997b)ȱ inȱ theȱ 1990s—illustratesȱ theȱ prescriptiveȱ characterȱ thatȱ hasȱ beenȱ attachedȱ toȱ aȱ numberȱ ofȱ prevailingȱ conceptualizationsȱ ofȱ governance.ȱ ‘Goodȱ governance’ȱ wouldȱ encourageȱpracticesȱthatȱcontributeȱtoȱtheȱshiftȱfromȱgovernmentȱtoȱgovernanceȱandȱthatȱ enhanceȱtheȱdispersionȱorȱ‘horizontalization’ȱofȱpowerȱrelationsȱamongstȱvariousȱagentsȱ andȱ agenciesȱ inȱ favorȱ ofȱ culturalȱ andȱ socialȱ diversityȱ andȱ ofȱ democratic,ȱ open,ȱ andȱ sustainableȱformsȱofȱdecisionȬmaking.ȱTheȱnotionȱofȱgoodȱgovernanceȱhasȱalsoȱaffectedȱ theȱ politicsȱ ofȱ integrationȱ inȱ theȱ EUȱ andȱ hasȱ beenȱ implementedȱ inȱ manyȱ EUȱ policyȱ strategiesȱ andȱ networks,ȱ includingȱ thoseȱ thatȱ focusȱ directlyȱ orȱ indirectlyȱ onȱ minorityȱ
groups.ȱ Inȱ itsȱ whiteȱ paperȱ onȱ Europeanȱ governance,ȱ forȱ instance,ȱ theȱ EUȱ relatesȱ goodȱ governanceȱ toȱ practicesȱ thatȱ activelyȱ increaseȱ openness,ȱ participation,ȱ accountability,ȱ effectiveness,ȱandȱcoherence.ȱTheseȱfiveȱsoȬcalledȱkeyȱprinciplesȱareȱconsideredȱasȱvitallyȱ importantȱ“forȱestablishingȱmoreȱdemocraticȱgovernance”ȱ(ECȱ2001:ȱ10).ȱInȱtheȱexamplesȱ ofȱ theȱ Worldȱ Bankȱ andȱ theȱ EU,ȱ ‘governance’ȱ hasȱ beenȱ turnedȱ intoȱ aȱ benchmarkȱ orȱ normativeȱprinciple,ȱonȱtheȱbasisȱofȱwhichȱweȱcanȱprincipallyȱevaluateȱandȱevenȱquantifyȱ theȱ performanceȱ ofȱ aȱ varietyȱ ofȱ agenciesȱ andȱ organizations.ȱ Inȱ theȱ caseȱ ofȱ minorityȱ governanceȱ inȱ Europe,ȱ theȱ useȱ ofȱ benchmarkingȱ asȱ anȱ evaluationȱ toolȱ hasȱ becomeȱ aȱ widespreadȱ practice.ȱ Minorityȱ governanceȱ isȱ qualifiedȱ asȱ ‘good’ȱ whenȱ particularȱ rulesȱ andȱ toolsȱ haveȱ beenȱ implementedȱ correctlyȱ andȱ effectively,ȱ thatȱ is,ȱ inȱ favorȱ ofȱ theȱ participationȱandȱselfȬdeterminationȱofȱminoritiesȱandȱinȱfavorȱalsoȱofȱtheȱdiminishingȱofȱ (potential)ȱconflictsȱbetweenȱgroups.ȱ
ȱ Theȱ prevailingȱ approachȱ ofȱ governanceȱ studiesȱ toȱ Europeanȱ minoritiesȱ posesȱ aȱ numberȱofȱproblems.ȱFirstly,ȱtheȱsuggestionȱthatȱweȱhaveȱrecentlyȱdealtȱwithȱaȱsignificantȱ transformationȱ fromȱ governmentȱ toȱ governanceȱ doesȱ notȱ recognizeȱ thatȱ governanceȱ isȱ “asȱ oldȱ asȱ government”ȱ (Pierreȱ andȱ Petersȱ 2000:ȱ 18).ȱ Indeed,ȱ governingȱ andȱ steeringȱ withoutȱtheȱdirectȱinvolvementȱofȱtheȱstateȱandȱonȱtheȱbasisȱofȱintensiveȱcollaborationsȱ withȱ nonȬstateȱ agentsȱ areȱ noȱ newȱ phenomenaȱ inȱ Europe.ȱ Postwarȱ Westernȱ Europeanȱ welfareȱ states,ȱ forȱ instance,ȱ wereȱ alreadyȱ largelyȱ basedȱ onȱ selfȬregulatoryȱ principlesȱ ofȱ capitalȱ andȱ stockȱ markets.ȱ Itȱ couldȱ evenȱ beȱ arguedȱ that,ȱ sinceȱ theȱ riseȱ ofȱ classicalȱ liberalismȱ inȱ theȱ lateȱ eighteenthȱ century,ȱ aȱ critiqueȱ ofȱ tooȱ muchȱ governmentalȱ involveȬ mentȱinȱsocietalȱaffairsȱhasȱbecomeȱaȱcentralȱcharacteristicȱofȱmodernȱEuropeanȱsocieties.ȱ Indeed,ȱfromȱtheȱFrenchȱPhysiocraticȱcritiqueȱofȱraisonȱd’étatȱtoȱAdamȱSmith’sȱtheoryȱofȱaȱ selfȬregulatingȱ marketȱ andȱ Adamȱ Ferguson’sȱ notionȱ ofȱ anȱ autonomousȱ civilȱ society,ȱ liberalismȱ hasȱ beenȱ conceivedȱ asȱ aȱ wayȱ toȱ limit,ȱ ratherȱ thanȱ extend,ȱ theȱ governmentalȱ influenceȱofȱtheȱstateȱ(chaptersȱ1,ȱ2,ȱandȱ4).ȱ
Inȱ otherȱ words,ȱ ifȱ thereȱ isȱ anythingȱ uniqueȱ orȱ newȱ aboutȱ recentȱ developmentsȱ inȱ Europeȱ(andȱbeyond),ȱitȱisȱrelatedȱlessȱtoȱaȱshiftȱfromȱgovernmentȱtoȱgovernanceȱthanȱtoȱ theȱinnovationȱorȱrenewalȱofȱparticularȱmodesȱandȱtoolsȱofȱgoverning.ȱSomeȱadvocatesȱofȱ governanceȱ studiesȱ (Pierreȱ andȱ Petersȱ 2000;ȱ Zielonkaȱ 2007)ȱ haveȱ triedȱ toȱ challengeȱ theȱ critiqueȱofȱtheȱsupposedȱnewnessȱofȱtheȱgovernanceȱperspective.ȱTheyȱhaveȱframedȱtheȱ recentȱ shiftȱ asȱ oneȱ fromȱ verticalȱ typesȱ ofȱ governanceȱ toȱ largelyȱ horizontalȱ ones,ȱ butȱ withoutȱ suggestingȱ thatȱ hierarchicalȱ formsȱ ofȱ governance—ofȱ whichȱ theȱ traditionalȱ nationȱ stateȱ wasȱ theȱ classicalȱ expression—areȱ disappearingȱ orȱ profoundlyȱ weakening.ȱ Theȱ propagatorsȱ ofȱ thisȱ viewȱ questionȱ theȱ suggestionȱ thatȱ theȱ stateȱ hasȱ reallyȱ beenȱ “hollowedȱout”ȱ(Rhodesȱ1994).ȱTheyȱhaveȱputȱforwardȱthatȱtheȱstateȱisȱstillȱaȱdominant,ȱifȱ notȱ theȱ mostȱ dominant,ȱ agentȱ inȱ processesȱ ofȱ governing,ȱ steering,ȱ andȱ coordinating.ȱ Therefore,ȱtheyȱargueȱthatȱhorizontalȱandȱverticalȱasȱwellȱasȱexternalȱandȱinternalȱmodesȱ ofȱgovernanceȱusuallyȱcoexist.7ȱ
7ȱ Theȱ positionȱ ofȱ soȬcalledȱ ‘metaȬgovernance’ȱ (Jessopȱ 2002)ȱ isȱ differentȱ forȱ itsȱ propagatorsȱ argueȱ thatȱ theȱ
stateȱnotȱonlyȱremainsȱaȱcentralȱorganizingȱforceȱinȱgovernanceȱrelations,ȱprocesses,ȱandȱpatterns,ȱbutȱalsoȱ thatȱ itȱ keepsȱ theȱ positionȱ ofȱ aȱ legitimizingȱ agencyȱ “throughȱ whichȱ mostȱ governmentalȱ strategiesȱ haveȱ toȱ passȱtoȱbecomeȱauthorized”ȱ(Clarkeȱ2004:ȱ115).ȱ
However,ȱ evenȱ suchȱ advancedȱ conceptualizationsȱ ofȱ governanceȱ confrontȱ usȱ withȱ aȱ numberȱofȱproblems,ȱofȱwhichȱsomeȱbecomeȱmoreȱvisibleȱwhenȱweȱreturnȱtoȱtheȱcaseȱofȱ Romaniȱminorityȱgovernance.ȱBeforeȱ1989,ȱtheȱRomaȱwereȱneitherȱapproachedȱinȱtermsȱ ofȱ theȱ autonymȱ ‘Roma’ȱ norȱ partȱ ofȱ anȱ extensive,ȱ broadlyȱ institutionalizedȱ Europeanȱ attentionȱ toȱ minorityȱ issues.ȱ Thoughȱ severalȱ smallȬscaleȱ Europeanȱ programsȱ dealingȱ withȱ ‘Gypsies’ȱ orȱ ‘nomads’ȱ existedȱ alreadyȱ priorȱ toȱ theȱ fallȱ ofȱ theȱ Berlinȱ wall,ȱ theseȱ minoritiesȱwereȱrarelyȱanȱexplicitȱfocalȱpointȱofȱEuropeȬwideȱpolicies,ȱevenȱlessȱofȱwhatȱisȱ nowȱ viewedȱ asȱ aȱ politicsȱ ofȱ Europeanȱ integrationȱ andȱ socialȱ inclusion.ȱ Europeanȱ approachesȱandȱpoliciesȱtowardȱtheȱRomaȱhaveȱonlyȱgraduallyȱandȱrecentlyȱdevelopedȱ towardȱaȱminorityȱstatusȱandȱaȱconcernȱwithȱissuesȱsuchȱasȱhumanȱandȱminorityȱrights,ȱ activeȱcitizenship,ȱandȱhumanȱdevelopmentȱ(chaptersȱ5,ȱ6,ȱandȱ7,ȱGuglielmoȱandȱWatersȱ 2005).ȱInȱpostȬwarȱEuropeȱandȱuntilȱtheȱearlyȱ1990s,ȱRomaniȱgroupsȱwereȱpredominantlyȱ problematizedȱinȱtermsȱofȱassimilation,ȱnomadism,ȱorȱmigration,ȱratherȱthanȱinȱthoseȱofȱ Europeanȱminorityȱintegration.ȱInȱotherȱwords,ȱnotȱonlyȱhasȱtheȱEuropeanȱfocusȱonȱtheȱ Romaȱ significantlyȱ changed,ȱ Romaniȱ groupsȱ inȱ Europeȱ haveȱ alsoȱ beenȱ identifiedȱ andȱ ‘minoritized’ȱdifferentlyȱthanȱinȱtheȱpast.ȱ
Butȱ thereȱ isȱ moreȱ atȱ stake.ȱ Whenȱ Europeanȱ institutionsȱ startedȱ toȱ dealȱ muchȱ moreȱ explicitlyȱ withȱ theȱ situationȱ ofȱ minoritiesȱ inȱ EUȱ candidateȱ membersȱ inȱ Centralȱ andȱ Easternȱ Europe,ȱ theȱ EUȱ hadȱ notȱ yetȱ developed,ȱ forȱ instance,ȱ manyȱ bindingȱ legalȱ andȱ extraȬlegalȱ toolsȱ toȱ encourageȱ theseȱ candidateȱ memberȱ statesȱ toȱ developȱ andȱ improveȱ theirȱminorityȱpolicies.ȱOnlyȱinȱtheȱsecondȱhalfȱofȱtheȱ1990sȱdidȱEUȱinstitutionsȱstartȱtoȱ developȱminorityȬrelatedȱtools,ȱsuchȱasȱtheȱEUȱraceȱequalityȱdirectiveȱ(ECȱ2000b).ȱWithȬ outȱgoingȱintoȱdetailȱhere,ȱweȱcanȱprovisionallyȱstateȱthatȱEuropeȱandȱitsȱinstitutions,ȱasȱ wellȱ asȱ Romaniȱ minoritiesȱ andȱ howȱ theyȱ areȱ perceivedȱ (alsoȱ byȱ themselves)ȱ haveȱ significantlyȱchangedȱinȱtheȱcourseȱofȱtheȱlastȱtwoȱdecades,ȱatȱleastȱinȱcomparisonȱtoȱtheȱ Coldȱ Warȱ times.ȱ ‘Europe’ȱ andȱ ‘theȱ Roma’ȱ haveȱ interactedȱ toȱ aȱ greatȱ extentȱ andȱ newȱ formsȱ ofȱ theirȱ mutualȱ perceptionȱ andȱ conceptionȱ haveȱ beenȱ initiated.ȱ Howȱ doesȱ thisȱ observationȱrelateȱtoȱtheȱgovernanceȱdebate?ȱ
ȱ Whenȱ seenȱ throughȱ theȱ lensȱ ofȱ governanceȱ studies,ȱ minorityȱ governanceȱ primarilyȱ tendsȱtoȱfocusȱonȱtheȱtoolsȱtoȱenhanceȱminorityȱrepresentationȱandȱselfȬdetermination,ȱonȱ howȱ theseȱ techniquesȱ haveȱ been,ȱ could,ȱ orȱ needȱ toȱ beȱ renewedȱ toȱ achieveȱ theȱ desiredȱ results,ȱ andȱ onȱ theȱ patternsȱ andȱ processesȱ ofȱ governanceȱ inȱ whichȱ theseȱ toolsȱ areȱ embeddedȱandȱcouldȱmakeȱaȱdifference.ȱYet,ȱgovernanceȱstudiesȱdoȱnotȱsoȱmuchȱtryȱtoȱ unravelȱtheȱconditionsȱofȱpossibilityȱforȱtheseȱtechniquesȱandȱhowȱtheyȱactuallyȱchangeȱ theȱ objectsȱandȱ subjects,ȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ theirȱ reciprocalȱ relationsȱ inȱtheȱfieldsȱ inȱ whichȱ theyȱ operate.ȱMoreover,ȱgovernanceȱstudies,ȱinȱparticularȱwhenȱtheyȱfocusȱonȱtheȱdiscursiveȱ characterȱofȱgovernance,ȱdoȱnotȱpayȱmuchȱattentionȱtoȱtheȱcrucialȱroleȱthatȱgovernanceȱ toolsȱ andȱ technologiesȱ playȱ inȱ theȱ emergenceȱ andȱ demarcationȱ ofȱ newȱ governableȱ objects,ȱsubjects,ȱscales,ȱandȱspaces.ȱThus,ȱtheȱperspectiveȱofȱminorityȱgovernanceȱtellsȱusȱ littleȱaboutȱtheȱreasonsȱforȱtheȱemergenceȱofȱtheȱrepresentationȱofȱtheȱRomaȱasȱaȱEuropeanȱ minorityȱ andȱ forȱ theȱ developmentȱ ofȱ Europeanȱ RomaȬrelatedȱ policies.ȱ Likewise,ȱ theȱ reasonsȱbehindȱtheȱadventȱofȱaȱEuropeanȱpoliticsȱofȱminorityȱintegrationȱremainȱunclear.ȱ Aȱ governanceȱ approachȱ doesȱ notȱ tellȱ usȱ muchȱ about,ȱ forȱ instance,ȱ theȱ changeȱ ofȱ theȱ problematizationȱ ofȱ theȱ Romaȱ inȱ termsȱ ofȱ assimilationȱ andȱ nomadismȱ intoȱ theirȱ moreȱ recentȱ problematizationȱ inȱ termsȱ ofȱ humanȱ andȱ minorityȱ rights,ȱ humanȱ securityȱ andȱ
development,ȱ andȱ minorityȱ integration.ȱ Aȱ governanceȱ approachȱ alsoȱ doesȱ notȱ clarifyȱ howȱ identityȱ constructionsȱ ofȱ Europeȱ andȱ Romaniȱ groupsȱ haveȱ simultaneouslyȱ andȱ reciprocallyȱchanged.ȱMoreȱgenerally,ȱgovernanceȱstudiesȱoftenȱconsiderȱtheȱproblemsȱofȱ (minority)ȱgovernanceȱasȱexternalȱtoȱtheȱgovernanceȱdiscourse.ȱHowever,ȱtheȱemergenceȱ ofȱdiscoursesȱandȱstudiesȱofȱgovernanceȱneedsȱnotȱbeȱperceivedȱasȱaȱresult,ȱbut,ȱrather,ȱasȱ aȱ symptomȱ ofȱ changingȱ governmentalȱ patternsȱ andȱ processes.ȱ Whatȱ kindsȱ ofȱ practices,ȱ knowledge,ȱ andȱ expertise,ȱ forȱ instance,ȱ enableȱ usȱ toȱ constituteȱ andȱ perceiveȱ Romaniȱ minorityȱ governanceȱ differentlyȱ thanȱ beforeȱ theȱ endȱ ofȱ theȱ Coldȱ War?ȱ Howȱ couldȱ theȱ existenceȱ ofȱ Romaniȱ groupsȱ inȱ variousȱ countriesȱ inȱ Europeȱ actuallyȱ developȱ intoȱ aȱ questionȱandȱtransformȱintoȱaȱspecificȱEuropeanȱ‘problem’ȱorȱsetȱofȱ‘problems’ȱtoȱwhichȱ variousȱprograms,ȱinterventions,ȱpractices,ȱandȱprocessesȱattemptȱtoȱgiveȱanȱanswer?ȱInȱ whatȱ waysȱ doȱ governmentalȱ techniquesȱ andȱ rationalesȱ themselvesȱ contributeȱ toȱ newȱ formsȱofȱRomaȱproblematization?ȱHowȱdoȱtheseȱtransformationsȱrelateȱtoȱnewȱwaysȱofȱ thinkingȱEuropeȱandȱdefiningȱitȱasȱopen,ȱdemocratic,ȱmultiform,ȱandȱawareȱofȱitsȱpast?ȱ ȱȱ Toȱ shedȱ lightȱ onȱ theseȱ issues,ȱ Iȱ lookȱ atȱ minorityȱ governanceȱ inȱ Europeȱ throughȱ theȱ lensȱofȱgovernmentality.ȱThisȱalternativeȱfocusȱhelpsȱtoȱaskȱhowȱRomaniȱminoritiesȱhaveȱ recentlyȱ beenȱ introducedȱ asȱ problemsȱ of,ȱ forȱ instance,ȱ Europeanȱ integration,ȱ socialȱ inclusion,ȱhumanȱdevelopment,ȱcommunityȱbuilding,ȱandȱminorityȱempowerment.ȱHowȱ andȱ whyȱ hasȱ suchȱ aȱ transformationȱ actuallyȱ takenȱ place?ȱ Seenȱ throughȱ theȱ lensȱ ofȱ governmentality,ȱquestionsȱofȱhowȱweȱcouldȱsuccessfullyȱincorporateȱRomaniȱminoritiesȱ inȱ Europeanȱ societiesȱ andȱ improveȱ minorityȱ policiesȱ turnȱ intoȱ theȱ problematizationȱ ofȱ specificȱ contemporaryȱ governmentalȱ practices,ȱ techniques,ȱ andȱ rationalesȱ inȱ Europe.ȱ Suchȱ aȱ perspectiveȱ allowsȱ forȱ analyzing,ȱ forȱ instance,ȱ theȱ relationshipȱ betweenȱ theȱ politicsȱ ofȱ Europeanȱ Romaniȱ minorityȱ integrationȱ andȱ theȱ Europeanizationȱ ofȱ Romaȱ minorityȱ representation.ȱ Partly,ȱ theȱ differenceȱ betweenȱ theȱ notionsȱ ofȱ ‘problem’ȱ andȱ ‘problematization’ȱ coversȱ theȱ differenceȱ betweenȱ theȱ conceptualȱ lensesȱ ofȱ governanceȱ andȱ governmentality.ȱ Problematizationȱ canȱ beȱ described,ȱ moreȱ explicitly,ȱ asȱ theȱ setȱ ofȱ discursiveȱ andȱ nonȬdiscursiveȱ toolsȱ andȱ practicesȱ throughȱ whichȱ somethingȱ hasȱ beenȱ shapedȱinȱaȱthinkableȱandȱpliableȱformȱandȱactivelyȱconstitutedȱasȱanȱobjectȱofȱexpertiseȱ orȱknowledge.ȱAȱgovernmentalityȱapproachȱshedsȱlightȱonȱthisȱprocess.ȱAȱproblem,ȱonȱ theȱ otherȱ hand,ȱ tendsȱ toȱ reduceȱ theȱ problematicȱ characterȱ ofȱ things,ȱ practices,ȱ andȱ phenomenaȱ toȱ somethingȱ thatȱ hasȱ aȱ clearȱ solution.ȱ Theȱ differenceȱ betweenȱ theȱ twoȱ methodologicalȱ approachesȱ is,ȱ ofȱ course,ȱ notȱ absoluteȱ butȱ helpsȱ toȱ revealȱ twoȱ cruciallyȱ interconnectedȱ dimensionsȱ ofȱ practicesȱ ofȱ problematization:ȱ deȬpoliticizationȱ andȱ reȬ politicization.8ȱ Letȱ meȱ explainȱ theseȱ twoȱ dimensionsȱ andȱ linkȱ themȱ toȱ theȱ issueȱ ofȱ
minorityȱformation.ȱ ȱ
ȱ
8ȱ Theȱ boundariesȱ betweenȱ governanceȱ andȱ governmentalityȱ studiesȱ canȱ beȱ andȱ haveȱ beenȱ blurredȱ byȱ
scholarlyȱ interventions.ȱ Iȱ wantȱ toȱ stressȱ thatȱ criticalȱ variantsȱ ofȱ governanceȱ studiesȱ canȱ alsoȱ shedȱ lightȱ onȱ someȱ ofȱ theȱ mentionedȱ issues.ȱ Yet,ȱ theȱ lensȱ ofȱ governanceȱ studiesȱ isȱ oftenȱ trainedȱ onȱ anȱ analysisȱ ofȱ problems,ȱ ratherȱ thanȱ ofȱ problematizations.ȱ Theȱ minorityȱ governanceȱ approachȱ prevailsȱ particularlyȱ inȱ scholarlyȱ fields,ȱ suchȱ asȱ diversityȱ managementȱ andȱ postȬconflictȱ andȱ reconciliationȱ studies,ȱ andȱ atȱ newȱ centersȱ ofȱ expertise,ȱ suchȱ asȱ theȱ Europeanȱ Centreȱ forȱ Minorityȱ Issuesȱ (ECMI).ȱ Aȱ goodȱ exampleȱ isȱ aȱ bookȱ seriesȱjointlyȱpublishedȱbyȱOSIȱandȱECMIȱonȱethnopoliticsȱandȱminorityȱissuesȱ(seeȱGálȱ2002).ȱ
POLITICIZINGȱMINORITYȱFORMATION:ȱGOVERNMENTALITYȱANDȱCOUNTERȬCONDUCTȱ ȱ
Problematizationsȱ andȱ howȱ theyȱ constituteȱ somethingȱ asȱ anȱ objectȱ ofȱ knowledgeȱ areȱ renderingȱ theȱ improvableȱ subjectȱ orȱ objectȱ technical.ȱ Thisȱ isȱ relatedȱ toȱ aȱ processȱ ofȱ deȬ politicization:ȱ itȱ tendsȱ toȱ transformȱ difficult,ȱ complex,ȱ andȱ politicalȬeconomicȱ problemsȱ intoȱ nonȬpolitical,ȱ natural,ȱ andȱ neutralȱ issues.9ȱ Primarilyȱ politicalȱ problemsȱ tendȱ toȱ beȱ
removedȱfromȱtheȱdomainȱofȱpoliticalȱdiscourseȱandȱreformulatedȱinȱtheȱ‘objective’ȱandȱ ‘neutral’ȱlanguageȱofȱexpertise,ȱpolicyȬmaking,ȱandȱscience.ȱThroughȱsuchȱdeȬpoliticizingȱ dynamicsȱgovernmentalities,ȱunderstoodȱasȱspecificȱformsȱofȱpowerȱbasedȱonȱregulatingȱ populations,ȱ achieveȱ theirȱ relativeȱ stability.ȱ Someȱ scholarsȱ suggestȱ thatȱ theseȱ dynamicsȱ leadȱtoȱaȱsituationȱofȱclosureȱinȱwhichȱfailureȱtoȱachieveȱtheȱplannedȱandȱdesiredȱgoalsȱofȱ governmentalȱprogramsȱfirstȱandȱforemostȱleadsȱtoȱtheȱconsolidationȱofȱexpertȱregimesȱ andȱ toȱ theȱ legitimatizationȱ ofȱ cyclesȱ ofȱ reformȱ (eg,ȱ Dreyfusȱ andȱ Rabinowȱ 1983).ȱ Thisȱ mechanismȱisȱalsoȱtheȱ‘antiȬpolitical’ȱdynamicȱthatȱFergusonȱdescribesȱwhenȱheȱpointsȱtoȱ theȱ unintendedȱ effectsȱ ofȱ governmentalȱ projectsȱ andȱ howȱ theyȱ relateȱ toȱ theȱ ambiguousȱ replicationȱofȱsuchȱprogramsȱ(seeȱabove).ȱClosureȱisȱindeedȱanȱimportantȱcharacteristicȱofȱ expertȱ discourses:ȱ “Suchȱ discoursesȱ areȱ devoidȱ ofȱ referenceȱ toȱ questionsȱ theyȱ cannotȱ address,ȱorȱthatȱmightȱcastȱdoubtȱuponȱtheȱcompletenessȱofȱtheirȱdiagnosesȱorȱtheȱfeasiȬ bilityȱ ofȱtheirȱ solutions”ȱ (Liȱ 2007b:ȱ 11).ȱ Closure,ȱ Iȱ willȱ argue,ȱ hasȱ alsoȱ beenȱ aȱ dominantȱ andȱ persistentȱ featureȱ ofȱ pastȱ andȱ contemporaryȱ expertiseȱ discoursesȱ onȱ Romaniȱ minorities.ȱAnȱanalysisȱofȱtheȱinvolvedȱpracticesȱofȱproblematization,ȱseenȱasȱaȱprocessȱofȱ deȬpoliticization,ȱ shedsȱ lightȱ onȱ theȱ waysȱ inȱ whichȱ politicalȱ issuesȱ tendȱ toȱ beȱ removedȱ fromȱtheȱpoliticalȱdomainȱandȱpublicȱdebate,ȱandȱhowȱtheyȱareȱturnedȱintoȱquantifiableȱ problemsȱtoȱbeȱsolvedȱbyȱpolicyȬmakersȱandȱotherȱkindsȱofȱexperts.ȱTheȱanalysisȱthatȱIȱ undertakeȱinȱthisȱstudyȱinterrogatesȱtheseȱpracticesȱofȱproblematizationȱandȱhowȱtheyȱtryȱ toȱstabilizeȱgovernmentalȱformsȱofȱpower.ȱMyȱanalysisȱaimsȱatȱmakingȱtheȱproblemsȱofȱ minorityȱ governanceȱ andȱ minorityȱ policyȱ discoursesȱ unfamiliarȱ againȱ byȱ revealingȱ theȱ wayȱinȱwhichȱtheyȱareȱconnectedȱtoȱprocessesȱofȱrenderingȱtechnical,ȱnatural,ȱorȱprivate.ȱ
Yet,ȱtheȱRoma’sȱproblematizationȱasȱaȱEuropeanȱminorityȱhasȱgoneȱtogetherȱnotȱonlyȱ withȱ newȱ waysȱ toȱ regulateȱ differentȱ kindsȱ ofȱ Romaniȱ minorityȱ populationsȱ inȱ Europeȱ and,ȱthus,ȱwithȱdeȬpoliticization.ȱPracticesȱofȱproblematization,ȱIȱwillȱargue,ȱalwaysȱalsoȱ goȱtogetherȱwithȱthoseȱofȱreȬpoliticizationȱand,ȱinȱtheȱcaseȱofȱtheȱRoma,ȱwithȱquestioningȱ howȱtheyȱhaveȱbecomeȱtheȱtargetsȱofȱnovelȱandȱreshapedȱformsȱofȱpopulationȱregulation.ȱ IȱcontestȱtheȱviewsȱofȱscholarsȱwhoȱsuggestȱthatȱtheseȱprocessesȱofȱreȬpoliticizationȱrepȬ resentȱ practicesȱ ofȱ resistanceȱ thatȱ areȱ largelyȱ externalȱ toȱ howȱ deȬpoliticizingȱ expertiseȱ discoursesȱtendȱtoȱadvanceȱtoȱclosure.ȱIndeed,ȱ“enclosuresȱareȱonlyȱprovisional,ȱandȱtheȱ claimsȱ ofȱ anyȱ particularȱ expertiseȱ areȱ alwaysȱ subjectȱ toȱ contestation”ȱ (Millerȱ andȱ Roseȱ 2008:ȱ 69).ȱ Practicesȱ ofȱ reȬpoliticizationȱ canȱ takeȱ placeȱ atȱ variousȱ sites,ȱ rangingȱ fromȱ theȱ officesȱ ofȱ internationalȱ organizationsȱ orȱ NGOsȱ toȱ thoseȱ ofȱ socialȱ orȱ ‘frontline’ȱ workers,ȱ andȱ fromȱ theȱ placesȱ whereȱ specificȱ projectsȱ areȱ ‘carriedȱ out’ȱ toȱ politicalȱ protestȱ actionsȱ againstȱ socioȬeconomicȱ reformȱ orȱ exclusionaryȱ practices.ȱ Thus,ȱ reȬpoliticizationȱ also,ȱ orȱ maybeȱ evenȱ particularly,ȱ occursȱ atȱ momentsȱ whenȱ governmentalȱ programsȱ areȱ articuȬ
9ȱAnotherȱstrategyȱofȱdeȬpoliticizationȱthatȱIȱwillȱdiscussȱinȱthisȱstudyȱisȱthatȱofȱrenderingȱissuesȱprimarilyȱaȱ
latedȱ onȱ theȱ ground,ȱ forȱ instance,ȱ atȱ “momentsȱ whenȱ theȱ targetsȱ ofȱ expertȱ schemesȱ reveal,ȱinȱwordȱandȱdeed,ȱtheirȱownȱcriticalȱanalysisȱofȱtheȱproblemsȱthatȱconfrontȱthem”ȱ (Liȱ 2007b:ȱ 11).ȱ Atȱ suchȱ momentsȱ ofȱ articulation,ȱ Iȱ willȱ clarify,ȱ itȱ becomesȱ clearȱ thatȱ theȱ Romaȱminorityȱproblematizationȱasȱ‘European’ȱhasȱnotȱsimplyȱbeenȱset,ȱbutȱhasȱbecomeȱ partȱ ofȱ variousȱ kindsȱ ofȱ disputesȱ thatȱ areȱ ultimatelyȱ aboutȱ theȱ contestabilityȱ ofȱ theȱ notionsȱ ofȱ ‘Europeanness’ȱ andȱ Europeanȱ andȱ nationalȱ citizenship.ȱ Theȱ narrativeȱ ofȱ theȱ Romaȱ asȱ aȱ Europeanȱ minorityȱ suggestsȱ thatȱ theyȱ areȱ partȱ ofȱ Europeȱ andȱ canȱ beȱ coȬ authorsȱofȱtheȱheterogeneousȱdiscoursesȱofȱEuropeanȱintegrationȱandȱidentity.ȱThroughȱ mobilizingȱ bothȱ theirȱ Europeanizationȱ andȱ theȱ ideaȱ ofȱ Europeȱ asȱ aȱ democraticȱ space,ȱ RomaniȱactorsȱandȱtheirȱadvocatesȱareȱclaimingȱtheȱrightȱtoȱparticipateȱinȱEurope.ȱInȱthisȱ way,ȱbyȱbeingȱcriticalȱaboutȱtheȱwaysȱinȱwhichȱexpertȱnarrativesȱtendȱtoȱexcludeȱdelicateȱ politicalȬeconomicȱ issues,ȱ Romaniȱ actorsȱ contestȱ existingȱ narrativesȱ ofȱ Europeȱ andȱ produceȱnewȱones.ȱIȱwillȱreturnȱtoȱtheseȱissuesȱbelow.ȱLetȱmeȱfirstȱexplainȱtheȱtheoreticalȱ impactȱofȱhowȱdeȬpoliticizationȱandȱreȬpoliticizationȱareȱconnected.ȱ
Inȱ thisȱ study,ȱ Iȱ willȱ explainȱ thatȱ processesȱ ofȱ reȬpoliticization,ȱ consideredȱ asȱ actsȱ ofȱ resistanceȱandȱexpressionsȱofȱformsȱofȱagency,ȱareȱnotȱexternalȱtoȱhowȱpowerȱoperates.ȱIȱ opposeȱreadingsȱofȱgovernmentalityȱthatȱregardȱitȱasȱtheȱinaugurationȱofȱformsȱofȱpowerȱ thatȱareȱsuccessfullyȱestablishingȱmodesȱofȱpopulationȱcontrolȱ(eg,ȱDuffieldȱ2007;ȱHynekȱ 2010).ȱIȱwillȱclarifyȱthatȱissuesȱofȱreȬpoliticizationȱandȱcontestationȱareȱnotȱgoingȱtoȱplayȱaȱ roleȱonlyȱafterȱspecificȱformsȱofȱpopulationȱregulationȱareȱestablished.ȱDuringȱprocessesȱ ofȱ governmentalizationȱ andȱ atȱ theȱ momentsȱ whenȱ governmentalȱ programsȱ areȱ articuȬ lated,ȱcontestationȱalreadyȱbecomesȱmanifest:ȱ“relationsȱofȱcontestȱorȱstruggleȱ…ȱareȱconȬ stitutiveȱofȱgovernment,ȱratherȱthanȱsimplyȱaȱsourceȱofȱprogrammaticȱfailureȱandȱ(later)ȱ redesign”ȱ (OȇMalleyȱ etȱ alȱ 1997:ȱ 505).ȱ Contraryȱ toȱ whatȱ someȱ criticsȱ haveȱ suggested,ȱ aȱ parallelȱinvestigationȱofȱdeȬpoliticizationȱandȱreȬpoliticization,ȱstructureȱandȱagency,ȱruleȱ andȱcontestation,ȱandȱprogrammaticȱdesignȱandȱmessyȱenactmentȱisȱintegralȱpartȱofȱanȱ analyticsȱofȱgovernmentality.ȱVariousȱscholars,ȱwhoȱemployȱaȱFoucauldianȱ‘framework’ȱ ofȱ governmentalityȱ toȱ bringȱ toȱ lightȱ formsȱ ofȱ populationȱ regulation,ȱ mobilizeȱ itȱ toȱ analyzeȱtheȱspecificȱformsȱofȱpowerȱtoȱwhichȱitȱhasȱgivenȱrise.ȱYet,ȱonceȱtheyȱdiscussȱhowȱ theseȱformsȱofȱpowerȱhaveȱbeenȱchallengedȱorȱcontested,ȱtheyȱoftenȱresortȱtoȱnotionsȱofȱ politicsȱ thatȱ haveȱ beenȱ developedȱ byȱ otherȱ thinkersȱ orȱ inȱ otherȱ theoreticalȱ contexts.ȱ Ofȱ course,ȱ thisȱ isȱ aȱ legitimateȱ move.ȱ Theȱ worldȱ andȱ theȱ academyȱ haveȱ movedȱ onȱ sinceȱ Foucaultȱwroteȱonȱgovernmentality.ȱBothȱnew,ȱvaluableȱcritiquesȱofȱhisȱworkȱandȱnovelȱ conceptualȱandȱempiricalȱwaysȱtoȱanalyzeȱpracticesȱofȱcontestationȱhaveȱbeenȱdeveloped.ȱ However,ȱ Iȱ doȱ notȱ supportȱ theȱ implicitȱ orȱ explicitȱ suggestionȱ thatȱ aȱ Foucauldianȱ analȬ yticsȱ ofȱ governmentalityȱ doesȱ notȱ orȱ cannotȱ addressȱ theȱ theoreticalȱ questionȱ ofȱ politicsȱ andȱcontestation.ȱIȱwillȱshowȱthatȱtheseȱquestionsȱareȱatȱtheȱheartȱofȱFoucault’sȱworkȱandȱ keyȱ toȱ howȱ heȱ analyzesȱ relationsȱ betweenȱ governmentalityȱ andȱ agencyȱ orȱ betweenȱ powerȱandȱresistance.10ȱAȱgovernmentalityȱapproachȱisȱalwaysȱaboutȱtheȱ“rationalȱforms,ȱ
technicalȱprocedures,ȱinstrumentationsȱthroughȱwhichȱtoȱoperate”ȱand,ȱatȱtheȱsameȱtime,ȱ
10ȱ Iȱ willȱ distinguishȱ theȱ strictȱ andȱ limitedȱ waysȱ inȱ whichȱ someȱ haveȱ discussedȱ governmentalityȱ inȱ theȱ
contextȱ ofȱ relativelyȱ reifiedȱ formsȱ ofȱ powerȱ fromȱ aȱ moreȱ generalȱ analyticsȱ ofȱ artsȱ ofȱ governmentȱ thatȱ isȱ attentiveȱtoȱtheȱcoȬconstitutionȱofȱgovernmentalityȱandȱformsȱofȱcounterȬconductȱ(chapterȱ1).ȱ
aboutȱtheȱprocessesȱandȱstrategiesȱ“thatȱsubjectȱtheȱpowerȱrelationsȱtheyȱareȱsupposedȱtoȱ guaranteeȱtoȱinstabilityȱandȱreversal”ȱ(Foucaultȱ1997c:ȱ203).ȱ
Foucaultȱ callsȱ theȱ processesȱ thatȱ contributeȱ toȱ strategicȱ reversibilityȱ andȱ formsȱ ofȱ contestationȱ ‘counterȬconducts’ȱ (2007b).ȱ CounterȬconductsȱ alsoȱ pointȱ toȱ theȱ limitsȱ ofȱ governmentality,ȱ understoodȱ asȱ aȱ specific,ȱ relativelyȱ stableȱ formȱ ofȱ power.ȱ Formsȱ ofȱ counterȬconductsȱenableȱtheȱstrategicȱreversibilityȱofȱtheȱpowerȱrelationsȱinauguratedȱbyȱ particularȱ formsȱ ofȱ populationȱ regulation.ȱ Thoughȱ particularȱ governmentalitiesȱ andȱ counterȬconductsȱ canȱ beȱ analyticallyȱ distinguished,ȱ inȱ practiceȱ theyȱ appearȱ inȱ conjuncȬ tionȱ withȱ eachȱ other.ȱ Oneȱ ofȱ theȱ consequencesȱ ofȱ theȱ parallelȱ emergenceȱ ofȱ particularȱ governmentalitiesȱandȱcounterȬconductsȱisȱthatȱweȱneedȱtoȱinvestigateȱtheȱeffectsȱofȱtheirȱ simultaneousȱ occurrence.ȱ Foucaultȱ clearlyȱ makesȱ thisȱ point,ȱ whenȱ heȱ statesȱ thatȱ “theȱ historyȱofȱtheȱgovernmentalȱratio,ȱandȱtheȱhistoryȱofȱtheȱcounterȬconductsȱopposedȱtoȱit,ȱ areȱinseparableȱfromȱeachȱother”ȱ(ibidȱ357,ȱmyȱemphasis).ȱInȱthisȱstudy,ȱIȱwillȱshowȱhowȱtheȱ inseparabilityȱofȱtheseȱtwoȱhistoriesȱimpactsȱonȱtheȱwayȱinȱwhichȱweȱareȱtoȱunderstandȱ RomaniȱminorityȱformationȱinȱmodernȱEuropeanȱhistory.ȱ Iȱwillȱshow,ȱfirstly,ȱhowȱthisȱinseparabilityȱimpactsȱonȱtheȱwayȱinȱwhichȱweȱreadȱtheȱ positionȱandȱconstructionȱofȱRomaniȱminoritiesȱinȱmodernȱEuropeanȱhistoryȱ(partȱtwo).ȱ IfȱweȱcombineȱtheȱperspectivesȱofȱgovernmentalityȱandȱcounterȬconduct,ȱandȱhowȱtheyȱ relateȱ toȱ parallelȱ processesȱ ofȱ deȬpoliticizationȱ andȱ reȬpoliticization,ȱ weȱ canȱ shedȱ newȱ lightȱonȱhow,ȱinȱtheȱeighteenthȱcentury,ȱRomaniȱorȱGypsyȱgroupsȱwere,ȱforȱtheȱfirstȱtimeȱ inȱEuropeanȱhistory,ȱexplicitlyȱproblematizedȱinȱminorityȱtermsȱandȱasȱaȱpeopleȱwithȱitsȱ own,ȱsupposedlyȱnonȬEuropeanȱculture,ȱorigin,ȱandȱlanguage.ȱScholarshipȱonȱtheȱRomaȱ hasȱ hithertoȱ primarilyȱ producedȱ twoȱ largelyȱ opposedȱ historiographiesȱ onȱ howȱ weȱ shouldȱ readȱ thisȱ Romaȱ problematization.ȱ Onȱ theȱ oneȱ hand,ȱ someȱ scholarsȱ readȱ thisȱ Romaniȱethnicȱminorityȱrepresentationȱalongȱtheȱlinesȱofȱtheȱpoliticsȱofȱhistoricism:ȱsinceȱ theȱeighteenthȱcentury,ȱ‘theȱGypsies’ȱhaveȱtimeȱandȱagainȱbeenȱseenȱasȱthoseȱwhoȱdoȱnotȱ (yet)ȱbelongȱtoȱEuropeȱ(Willemsȱ1997;ȱLucassenȱetȱalȱ1998a).ȱTheȱsuggestionȱthatȱtheyȱareȱ nonȬEuropeansȱandȱareȱ‘laggingȱbehind’ȱwithȱregardȱtoȱtheȱ‘civilized,’ȱmodernȱpeoplesȱofȱ Europeȱhasȱmadeȱitȱpossibleȱtoȱsimultaneouslyȱsubjectȱthemȱtoȱgovernmentalȱprogramsȱ ofȱ improvementȱ andȱ relegateȱ themȱ toȱ “anȱ imaginaryȱ waitingȱ roomȱ ofȱ history”ȱ (Chakrabartyȱ 2000:ȱ 8).ȱ Theseȱ scholarsȱ considerȱ theȱ Romaȱ minorityȱ representationȱ inȱ termsȱofȱethnicityȱandȱdiasporaȱasȱlargelyȱresponsibleȱforȱhistoricallyȱrecurringȱformsȱofȱ theirȱ marginalizationȱ and,ȱ therefore,ȱ tendȱ toȱ rejectȱ it.ȱ Onȱ theȱ otherȱ hand,ȱ theȱ linguistȱ Yaronȱ Matrasȱ (1999)ȱ callsȱ forȱ aȱ moreȱ positiveȱ readingȱ ofȱ theȱ legacyȱ ofȱ theȱ eighteenthȱ centuryȱandȱsuggestsȱthatȱtheȱthenȱemergedȱRomaȱrepresentationȱhasȱindirectlyȱenabledȱ formsȱofȱRomaniȱagencyȱandȱselfȬarticulation.ȱ
However,ȱmobilizingȱaȱgovernmentalityȱapproach,ȱIȱwillȱargueȱthatȱnoneȱofȱtheseȱtwoȱ positionsȱcanȱbeȱmaintainedȱautonomously.ȱRather,ȱtheseȱviewsȱneedȱtoȱbeȱbroughtȱintoȱ dialogueȱ againȱ toȱ shedȱ lightȱ onȱ theirȱ crucialȱ interdependenceȱ andȱ toȱ articulateȱ aȱ moreȱ heterogeneousȱandȱambivalentȱreadingȱofȱmodernȱEuropeanȱhistory.ȱCombiningȱinsightsȱ fromȱ postcolonialȱ andȱ governmentalityȱ studies,ȱ Iȱ callȱ forȱ aȱ carefulȱ reȬnarratingȱ ofȱ theȱ historiesȱ ofȱ Europeȱ andȱ itsȱ minorities,ȱ theȱ Romaniȱ inȱ particularȱ (chaptersȱ 3,ȱ 4).ȱ Suchȱ aȱ rereadingȱ ofȱ Europe’sȱ historyȱ illuminatesȱ theȱ wayȱ inȱ whichȱ theȱ Roma’sȱ minorityȱ problematizationȱ hasȱ goneȱ togetherȱ notȱ onlyȱ withȱ influentialȱ formsȱ ofȱ theirȱ populationȱ regulation,ȱbutȱalsoȱwithȱnovelȱformsȱofȱtheirȱminorityȱselfȬarticulation.ȱ
Theȱ otherȱ wayȱ inȱ whichȱ Iȱ willȱ mobilizeȱ theȱ inseparabilityȱ ofȱ governmentalityȱ andȱ counterȬconductsȱtoȱdiscussȱtheȱRomaȱrelatesȱtoȱhow,ȱsinceȱtheȱfallȱofȱcommunism,ȱtheyȱ haveȱincreasinglyȱbeenȱproblematizedȱasȱaȱEuropeanȱminorityȱ(partȱthree).ȱIȱhaveȱalreadyȱ putȱ forwardȱ thatȱ aȱ governmentalityȱ approachȱ isȱ attentiveȱ toȱ theȱ deȬpoliticizingȱ andȱ reȬ politicizingȱdimensionsȱofȱcontemporaryȱEuropeanȱRomaniȱminorityȱgovernance.ȱNow,ȱIȱ wantȱ toȱ explicitlyȱ connectȱ theseȱ twoȱ dimensionsȱ toȱ theȱ promiseȱ ofȱ participationȱ andȱ toȱ theȱwillȱtoȱturningȱtheȱtideȱforȱEurope’sȱRomaȱexpressedȱinȱtheȱnumerousȱgovernmentalȱ programsȱmentionedȱatȱtheȱbeginningȱofȱthisȱintroduction.ȱ ȱ ȱ THEȱPOLITICSȱOFȱCITIZENSHIPȱASȱPARTICIPATION:ȱTRAVELINGȱACTIVISMȱANDȱMEMORYȱ ȱ Iȱhaveȱclarifiedȱthatȱtheȱtitleȱofȱthisȱbook,ȱTheȱEuropeanȱRoma,ȱisȱnotȱmeantȱtoȱdescribeȱaȱ neutral,ȱobjectiveȱconditionȱorȱstatus.ȱRather,ȱitȱneedsȱtoȱbeȱreadȱinȱrelationȱtoȱtheȱnotionȱ ofȱhistoricallyȱchangingȱandȱchangeableȱRomaȱproblematizations,ȱincludingȱprocessesȱofȱ Romaȱ minoritizationȱ themselves.ȱ Theȱ questionȱ “whoȱ areȱ theȱ Gypsies?”ȱ hasȱ historicallyȱ beenȱ askedȱ severalȱ times,ȱ and—asȱ Davidȱ Mayallȱ (2004)ȱ hasȱ eloquentlyȱ illustrated—theȱ answersȱhaveȱdifferedȱfromȱtimeȱtoȱtime.ȱThisȱstudyȱwillȱnotȱanswerȱthisȱquestion,ȱbut,ȱ followingȱMayall’sȱcall,ȱturnȱthisȱsearchȱforȱtheȱRoma’sȱoriginsȱitselfȱintoȱaȱcoreȱproblemȱ ofȱscholarshipȱonȱRomaniȱminorities.ȱTheȱpostȬ1989ȱEuropeanizationȱofȱRomaȱminorityȱ representationȱmarksȱaȱnewȱphaseȱinȱEurope’sȱhistoryȱasȱwellȱasȱinȱthatȱofȱtheȱquestionȱofȱ whoȱ theȱ Romaȱ wouldȱ be.ȱ Shortlyȱ afterȱ theȱ collapseȱ ofȱ communism,ȱ theȱ Councilȱ ofȱ Europeȱstated:ȱ“LivingȱscatteredȱallȱoverȱEurope,ȱnotȱhavingȱaȱcountryȱtoȱcallȱtheirȱown,ȱ [theȱGypsies]ȱareȱaȱtrueȱEuropeanȱminority”ȱ(CoEȱ1993:ȱ§2).ȱSinceȱtheȱearlyȱ1990s,ȱitȱhasȱ increasinglyȱ becomeȱ commonȱ useȱ inȱ policyȱ documents,ȱ humanȱ rightsȱ reports,ȱ politicalȱ speeches,ȱtransnationalȱactivism,ȱmediaȱcoverage,ȱscholarlyȱstudies,ȱandȱtheȱlikeȱtoȱreferȱ toȱ theȱ Europeanȱ minorityȱ statusȱ ofȱ theȱ Roma,ȱ and,ȱ consequently,ȱ toȱ Europeanizeȱ theirȱ representation.ȱTheȱWorldȱBankȱanswersȱtheȱquestionȱ“whoȱareȱtheȱRoma?”ȱasȱfollows:ȱ “theyȱ areȱ Europe’sȱ largestȱ andȱ mostȱ vulnerableȱ minority”ȱ (2005b:ȱ 3).ȱ Thisȱ andȱ similarȱ kindsȱofȱanswersȱtoȱquestionsȱwhoȱtheȱRomaȱwouldȱbeȱhaveȱbecomeȱcommonȱinȱpolitȬ icallyȱcorrectȱlanguageȱinȱEurope.ȱHeterogeneousȱandȱgeographicallyȱdispersedȱRomani,ȱ Gypsy,ȱ andȱ Travelerȱ groupsȱ inȱ Europeȱ areȱ increasinglyȱ consideredȱ inȱ termsȱ ofȱ theirȱ Europeanȱ belongingȱ andȱ minorityȱ identity.ȱ Problematizingȱ Romaniȱ minorityȱ identitiesȱ asȱ ‘European’ȱ hasȱ becomeȱ aȱ catalyzingȱ toolȱ toȱ empowerȱ theȱ Roma,ȱ toȱ facilitateȱ theirȱ inclusion,ȱ toȱ guaranteeȱ theirȱ accessȱ toȱ justiceȱ andȱ publicȱ services,ȱ toȱ challengeȱ nationȬ alismȱ andȱ Romaphobia,ȱ andȱ toȱ renounceȱ theȱ authoritarianȱ Romaȱ approachesȱ ofȱ formerȱ communistȱregimesȱinȱCentralȱandȱEasternȱEurope.ȱ
ȱ Undeniably,ȱoneȱofȱtheȱmostȱremarkableȱpostȬ1989ȱdevelopmentsȱisȱtheȱwayȱinȱwhichȱ theȱRomaȱthemselvesȱhaveȱincreasinglyȱbecomeȱimportantȱactorsȱandȱparticipantsȱinȱtheȱ politicalȱ debateȱ aboutȱ theirȱ representation,ȱ theirȱ situationȱ inȱ Europe,ȱ andȱ theȱ waysȱ inȱ whichȱ theirȱ situationȱ shouldȱ beȱ improved.ȱ Romaniȱ activists,ȱ byȱ developingȱ theirȱ ownȱ socialȱ andȱ civilȱ movements,ȱ haveȱ increasinglyȱ enteredȱ theȱ postȬ1989ȱ politicalȱ sceneȱ asȱ activeȱ agents,ȱ ratherȱ thanȱ passiveȱ ‘victims’ȱ ofȱ howȱ othersȱ continueȱ toȱ representȱ themȱ (Vermeerschȱ2006).ȱIncreasingly,ȱthus,ȱtheyȱareȱnotȱmerelyȱtheȱobjectsȱorȱsubjectsȱofȱdisȬ coursesȱandȱprogramsȱofȱimprovementȱandȱparticipation.ȱRather,ȱtheyȱthemselvesȱhaveȱ
becomeȱ criticalȱ participantsȱ andȱ playersȱ inȱ bothȱ theȱ politicalȱ debatesȱ aboutȱ theirȱ Europeanȱminorityȱstatusȱandȱtheȱpolicyȱfabricȱthatȱhasȱbeenȱbuiltȱaroundȱit.ȱTheȱpoliticalȱ momentumȱ ofȱ ‘1989’ȱ andȱ theȱ dynamicȱ interactionsȱ between,ȱ mostȱ notably,ȱ Romaniȱ activism,ȱ advocacyȱ networks,ȱ NGOs,ȱ andȱ someȱ IGOsȱ haveȱ substantiallyȱ strengthened,ȱ widened,ȱ andȱ diversifiedȱ theȱ Romaniȱ movementȱ thatȱ hasȱ beenȱ developedȱ inȱ Europeȱ sinceȱtheȱ1960sȱ(chaptersȱ5,ȱ7,ȱ8).11ȱ
Theȱreinforcementȱofȱtheȱmovementȱhasȱtakenȱplaceȱatȱtheȱsameȱtimeȱasȱtheȱinfluentialȱ restructuringsȱofȱstates,ȱsocieties,ȱandȱmarketsȱduringȱwhatȱisȱoftenȱreferredȱtoȱasȱCentralȱ andȱEasternȱEurope’sȱ‘democraticȱtransition’ȱfromȱplannedȱtoȱmarketȱeconomies.ȱTheseȱ changes,ȱwhichȱhaveȱoftenȱbeenȱparticularlyȱattributedȱtoȱneoȬliberalism,ȱhaveȱalsoȱhadȱaȱ considerableȱ impactȱ onȱ theȱ situationȱ ofȱ theȱ region’sȱ Romaniȱ minorities.ȱ Accordingȱ toȱ someȱscholars,ȱforȱinstance,ȱtheȱintroductionȱofȱneoȬliberalȱregimesȱandȱwelfareȱreformsȱ toȱEastȱCentralȱEuropeanȱstates,ȱsuchȱasȱSlovakiaȱandȱHungary,ȱhasȱgoneȱtogetherȱwithȱ turningȱtheȱpoorestȱamongȱtheȱRomaȱintoȱanȱunderclass.ȱThisȱdevelopmentȱwouldȱhaveȱ drawnȱthemȱinȱaȱ‘cultureȱofȱpoverty,’ȱinȱwhichȱpovertyȱtendsȱtoȱbeȱreproducedȱalongȱtheȱ linesȱofȱanȱethnicizedȱRomaniȱcultureȱ(Ladányiȱ2001;ȱLadányiȱandȱSzelényiȱ2006).ȱOthersȱ haveȱparticularlyȱfocusedȱonȱtheȱimpactȱofȱneoȬliberalismȱonȱcivilȱsocietyȱandȱonȱsomeȱofȱ theȱ keyȱ actorsȱ andȱ parametersȱ ofȱ theȱ Romaniȱ socialȱ andȱ civilȱ movementȱ (Sigonaȱ andȱ Trehanȱ2009c).ȱSomeȱofȱtheseȱscholarsȱhaveȱdiscussedȱtheȱappearanceȱofȱ‘NGOization’ȱatȱ theȱcenterȱofȱtheȱRomaniȱmovement.ȱThisȱphenomenonȱrelatesȱtoȱhowȱparticularlyȱproȬ RomaȱadvocacyȱNGOs,ȱgraduallyȱdepartingȱfromȱaȱmovementȱagendaȱofȱsolidarityȱandȱ participatoryȱdemocracy,ȱhaveȱbecomeȱaȱkindȱofȱserviceȱdeliverersȱthatȱwouldȱcontributeȱ to,ȱ ratherȱ thanȱ challenge,ȱ theȱ successȱ ofȱ theȱ new,ȱ neoȬliberalȱ orthodoxiesȱ ofȱ stateȱ andȱ supraȬstateȱactors.12ȱNGOizationȱresults,ȱitȱisȱargued,ȱinȱaȱdivideȱwithinȱtheȱmovement,ȱ
accordingȱ toȱ whichȱ someȱ bureaucratic,ȱ professionalizedȱ NGOsȱ runȱ theȱ showȱ andȱ limitȱ “theȱdynamicsȱandȱflexibilityȱofȱcivilȱsociety”ȱ(Rostasȱ2009:ȱ170).ȱNGOizationȱwouldȱhaveȱ radicallyȱdisplacedȱsoȬcalledȱ‘Romaniȱgrassrootsȱcommunities’ȱandȱsubalternȱvoices.ȱ
Inȱthisȱstudy,ȱIȱdoȱnotȱdenyȱthatȱtheȱdevelopments,ȱwhichȱtheseȱscholarsȱattributeȱtoȱ neoȬliberalism,ȱ haveȱ takenȱ placeȱ (chapterȱ 6).ȱ However,ȱ Iȱ challengeȱ theȱ viewȱ thatȱ neoȬ liberalism,ȱasȱoneȱofȱtheȱlatestȱ‘grandȱnarratives’ȱofȱdeȬpoliticization,ȱisȱtheȱbig,ȱrampant,ȱ andȱ inȱ manyȱ waysȱ destructiveȱ forceȱ behindȱ allȱ theseȱ developmentsȱ (chapterȱ 5).ȱ UnȬ deniably,ȱ neoȬliberalȱ governmentalȱ technologiesȱ ofȱ participationȱ tendȱ toȱ departȱ fromȱ issuesȱofȱredistribution,ȱdemocraticȱparticipation,ȱandȱcollectiveȱsocialȱresponsibilityȱand,ȱ instead,ȱfocusȱonȱmarketȱinclusion,ȱconsumerism,ȱandȱindividualȱorȱcommunityȱresponȬ sibility.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ deȬpoliticizingȱ move,ȱ aȱ participatoryȱ democraticȱ agendaȱ tendsȱ toȱ beȱ reducedȱ toȱ aȱ ‘socialȱ inclusion’ȱ one,ȱ whichȱ oneȬsidedlyȱ focusesȱ onȱ theȱ integrationȱ ofȱ ‘problemȱgroups,’ȱsuchȱasȱRomani.ȱAsȱaȱresult,ȱthereȱisȱalsoȱaȱseriousȱriskȱthatȱcomplexȱ issuesȱ andȱ historiesȱ ofȱ Romaȱ marginalizationȱ areȱ reducedȱ toȱ problemsȱ ofȱ morality,ȱ decency,ȱ andȱ responsibility,ȱ whichȱ primarilyȱ needȱ toȱ beȱ solvedȱ byȱ theȱ marginalizedȱ Romaȱthemselvesȱ(chaptersȱ6,ȱ7).ȱ
11ȱSeeȱalsoȱActonȱandȱKlímováȱ(2001),ȱKlímováȬAlexanderȱ(2005),ȱVermeerschȱ(2006),ȱMcGarryȱ(2010),ȱandȱ
Ramȱ(2010a).ȱ
12ȱSee,ȱmostȱnotably,ȱNirenbergȱ(2009),ȱRostasȱ(2009),ȱSigonaȱandȱTrehanȱ(2009a;ȱ2009b),ȱandȱTrehanȱ(2009a;ȱ
