The European Roma: minority representation, memory, and the limits of transnational governmentality - 5: The Europeanization of the Roma and neo-liberal governmentality

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.

Chapterȱ5ȱ

TheȱEuropeanizationȱofȱtheȱRomaȱandȱ

NeoȬliberalȱGovernmentalityȱafterȱ1989ȱȱ

ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ INTRODUCTIONȱ ȱ Lackingȱaȱterritoryȱorȱgovernmentȱofȱtheirȱownȱ…ȱtheȱRomaȱtodayȱareȱinȱmanyȱwaysȱ Europe’sȱquintessentialȱminority.ȱ(Goldstonȱ2002:ȱ147)ȱ ȱ InȱtheȱaftermathȱofȱtheȱfallȱofȱcommunismȱinȱCentralȱandȱEasternȱEurope,ȱweȱhaveȱbeenȱ ableȱtoȱnoticeȱtheȱemergenceȱofȱaȱprofoundlyȱnewȱwayȱtoȱproblematizeȱGypsyȱorȱRomaniȱ groups:ȱasȱaȱEuropeanȱminority.ȱInȱtheȱsecondȱpartȱofȱthisȱstudy,ȱIȱanalyzedȱhow,ȱinȱtheȱ eighteenthȱcentury,ȱforȱtheȱfirstȱtimeȱinȱEurope’sȱhistoryȱGypsyȱorȱRomaniȱgroupsȱwereȱ explicitlyȱproblematizedȱinȱminorityȱterms.ȱIȱshowedȱthatȱthisȱproblematizationȱemergedȱ alongsideȱnewȱformsȱofȱgovernmentalityȱandȱknowledgeȱformation.ȱInȱtheȱpresent,ȱthirdȱ partȱ ofȱ thisȱ study,ȱ Iȱ willȱ argueȱ thatȱ theȱ currentȱ Romaȱ problematizationȱ asȱ aȱ Europeanȱ minorityȱ hasȱ goneȱ togetherȱ withȱ theȱ emergenceȱ ofȱ newȱ kindsȱ ofȱ governmentalityȱ andȱ withȱnewȱmodesȱandȱsitesȱofȱknowledgeȱformation.ȱIȱwillȱanalyzeȱtheȱcomplexȱnexusȱofȱ theseȱthreeȱphenomenaȱandȱtheirȱrelationsȱtoȱtheȱwillȱtoȱchangeȱtheȱsituationȱofȱEurope’sȱ Roma.ȱInȱchaptersȱ7ȱandȱ8,ȱIȱwillȱfocusȱonȱtheȱlinkȱbetweenȱthisȱthreefoldȱnexusȱandȱtheȱ emergenceȱ ofȱ aȱ heterogeneous,ȱ EuropeȬwideȱ Romaniȱ socialȱ andȱ civilȱ movement.ȱ Theȱ presentȱchapterȱhasȱthreeȱaims.ȱFirst,ȱitȱclarifiesȱhowȱweȱareȱtoȱunderstandȱtheȱEuropeanȬ izationȱofȱRomaniȱminorityȱrepresentation.ȱSecond,ȱthisȱchapterȱelucidatesȱwhyȱandȱhowȱ weȱ canȱ understandȱ theȱ newlyȱ emergedȱ formsȱ ofȱ governmentalityȱ asȱ neoȬliberal.ȱ Third,ȱ thisȱ chapterȱ delineatesȱ howȱ theȱ Romaȱ haveȱ emergedȱ atȱ Europe’sȱ institutionalȱ horizonȱ andȱhaveȱbecomeȱtheȱtargetȱofȱaȱhugeȱvarietyȱofȱdevelopmentȱprograms.ȱ

ȱ Inȱthisȱchapter,ȱIȱwillȱexplainȱthatȱtheȱnewlyȱemergedȱformsȱofȱgovernmentalityȱcanȱbeȱ regardedȱasȱneoȬliberal.ȱIȱunderstandȱneoȬliberalismȱprimarilyȱasȱaȱconstructivistȱprojectȱ thatȱ aimsȱ atȱ extendingȱ marketȱ relationshipsȱ andȱ enterpriseȱ modelsȱ toȱ theȱ entireȱ socialȱ domain,ȱincludingȱthatȱofȱtheȱstate,ȱcivilȱsociety,ȱandȱtheȱself.ȱMyȱanalysisȱofȱneoȬliberalȬ ismȱasȱaȱspecificȱformȱofȱgovernmentalityȱdiffersȱfromȱtwoȱofȱtheȱmostȱprevailingȱinterȬ pretationsȱofȱneoȬliberalism.ȱFirst,ȱitȱdiffersȱfromȱthoseȱwhoȱinterpretȱneoȬliberalismȱasȱaȱ setȱ ofȱ policiesȱ thatȱ aimȱ atȱ theȱ ‘rollingȱ back’ȱ ofȱ theȱ stateȱ fromȱ traditionalȱ areasȱ ofȱ interȬ ventionȱthroughȱmeasuresȱofȱderegulation,ȱprivatization,ȱandȱ‘marketization.’ȱThoseȱwhoȱ viewȱneoȬliberalismȱasȱaȱpolicyȱframeworkȱusuallyȱconsiderȱneoȬliberalismȱasȱanȱimperaȬ tiveȱ ofȱ representativesȱ ofȱ theȱ Newȱ Right.ȱ Theyȱ wouldȱ haveȱ effectivelyȱ mobilizedȱ theirȱ

politicalȱideasȱofȱlaissezȱfaire,ȱaȱreduced,ȱminimalȱgovernment,ȱandȱfreedomȱofȱchoiceȱtoȱ transformȱsocieties,ȱdevelopȱnewȱwaysȱandȱinstrumentsȱofȱcapitalȱaccumulation,ȱand,ȱbyȱ soȱdoing,ȱreinforceȱtheirȱownȱpowerȱpositionȱ(eg,ȱHarveyȱ2005).ȱThisȱviewȱofȱneoȬliberalȬ ismȱoftenȱrelatesȱtheȱemergenceȱofȱaȱ‘neoȬliberalȱworldȱorder’ȱtoȱtheȱideasȱofȱneoȬclassicalȱ schoolsȱofȱeconomics,ȱrepresentedȱbyȱtheoreticiansȱsuchȱasȱFriedrichȱvonȱHayek,ȱMiltonȱ Friedman,ȱ Theodoreȱ Schultz,ȱ andȱ Garyȱ Becker.ȱ Thisȱ viewȱ ofȱ neoȬliberalismȱ identifiesȱ itȱ withȱ theȱ namesȱ ofȱ thoseȱ worldȱ leadersȱ whoȱ areȱ consideredȱ asȱ responsibleȱ forȱtheȱ ‘neoȬ liberalȱturn’ȱ(Thatcher,ȱReagan,ȱetc.)ȱasȱwellȱasȱwithȱtheȱnamesȱofȱrelatedȱreformȱmoveȬ mentsȱ andȱ keyȱ economicȱ institutions,ȱ suchȱ asȱ theȱ Washingtonȱ andȱ postȬWashingtonȱ Consensus,ȱandȱtheȱWorldȱBankȱandȱtheȱIMFȱ(Fineȱ2001).ȱ

Myȱ analysisȱ ofȱ neoȬliberalismȱ asȱ aȱ formȱ ofȱ governmentalityȱ alsoȱ differsȱ fromȱ thoseȱ whoȱunderstandȱneoȬliberalismȱasȱanȱideology.ȱProponentsȱofȱthisȱviewȱusuallyȱconsiderȱ neoȬliberalismȱ notȱ simplyȱ asȱ aȱ setȱ ofȱ ideasȱ ofȱ theȱ Newȱ Right,ȱ broughtȱ successfullyȱ intoȱ practiceȱ andȱ imposedȱ onȱ ‘theȱ powerless’ȱ toȱ maintainȱ orȱ augmentȱ theȱ classȱ positionsȱ ofȱ ‘theȱpowerful.’ȱRather,ȱtheseȱproponentsȱconceiveȱofȱneoȬliberalismȱasȱaȱsetȱofȱdiscoursesȱ andȱ practicesȱ thatȱ areȱ disseminatedȱ throughȱ theȱ entireȱ socialȱ bodyȱ toȱ produceȱ andȱ reproduceȱsubjectȱpositionsȱthatȱareȱsupportiveȱofȱtheȱextensionȱofȱmarketȱrelationshipsȱ toȱvariousȱsocialȱdomains.ȱNeoȬliberalismȱasȱideology,ȱthus,ȱdoesȱnotȱdismissȱtheȱattracȬ tivenessȱofȱneoȬliberalȱideasȱandȱpracticesȱfor,ȱforȱinstance,ȱworkingȱandȱmiddleȱclasses.ȱ Rather,ȱthisȱviewȱofȱneoȬliberalismȱtriesȱtoȱexplainȱitȱinȱtermsȱofȱprocessesȱthroughȱwhichȱ individualȱandȱgroupȱidentitiesȱareȱtransformedȱinȱsuchȱaȱwayȱthatȱpeopleȱ(tendȱto)ȱconȬ sentȱwithȱtheȱneoȬliberalȱideology.ȱGramscianȱideasȱofȱhegemonyȱmightȱalsoȱbeȱincludedȱ intoȱthisȱviewȱofȱneoȬliberalismȱtoȱexplainȱthatȱcomplexȱprocessesȱofȱstruggleȱandȱcontesȬ tationȱ areȱ involvedȱ inȱ theȱ waysȱ inȱ whichȱ theȱ new,ȱ neoȬliberalȱ ideologyȱ hasȱ nowȱ beenȱ consolidatedȱinȱvariousȱpartsȱofȱtheȱworld,ȱifȱnotȱgloballyȱ(eg,ȱHallȱ1988).ȱ

ȱ MyȱemphasisȱonȱneoȬliberalismȱasȱaȱconstructivistȱprojectȱandȱonȱtheȱsignificanceȱofȱaȱ topologicalȱreadingȱofȱpowerȱrelationsȱ(chapterȱ1)ȱhasȱtwoȱimportantȱimplicationsȱforȱanȱ analysisȱ ofȱ neoȬliberalism.ȱ Firstly,ȱ theȱ viewȱ ofȱ neoȬliberalismȱ asȱ governmentalityȱ callsȱ intoȱquestionȱtheȱwayȱinȱwhichȱtheȱotherȱtwoȱinterpretationsȱconsiderȱneoȬliberalismȱasȱ somethingȱthatȱhasȱbeenȱdevolvedȱdownwardȱandȱoutwardȱfromȱtheȱ‘neoȬliberalȱheartȬ lands’ȱ(theȱUS,ȱtheȱUK)ȱorȱfromȱglobalȱIGOsȱ(theȱEU,ȱtheȱWorldȱBank,ȱtheȱIMF,ȱetc.)ȱtoȱ otherȱplacesȱinȱtheȱworldȱorȱtoȱspecificȱregionsȱinȱtheȱglobalȱsouthȱorȱCentralȱandȱEasternȱ Europeȱ (Larnerȱ 2003;ȱ Castreeȱ 2006).ȱ NeoȬliberalismȱ asȱ policyȱ frameworkȱ orȱ ideologyȱ doesȱnotȱadequatelyȱaddressȱtheȱunevenȱwaysȱinȱwhichȱneoȬliberalismȱhasȱbeenȱarticuȬ latedȱaroundȱtheȱglobe.ȱTheseȱtwoȱviewsȱtendȱtoȱoverlookȱhowȱprocessesȱofȱneoliberalȬ izationȱ areȱ alwaysȱ crossȬfertilizedȱ andȱ assembledȱ withȱ otherȱ thanȱ neoȬliberalȱ relations,ȱ cultures,ȱinstruments,ȱandȱdiscoursesȱ(Ongȱ2006;ȱLiȱ2007a).ȱFurthermore,ȱotherȱactorsȱinȱ diverseȱpartsȱaroundȱtheȱglobe,ȱincludingȱCentralȱandȱEasternȱEurope,ȱhaveȱdevelopedȱ theirȱ ownȱ neoȬliberalȱ projectsȱ visȬàȬvisȱ theirȱ economies,ȱ bureaucracies,ȱ andȱ populationsȱ (Stenningȱetȱalȱ2010).ȱThus,ȱviewsȱthatȱputȱneoȬliberalismȱdownȱtoȱWesternȱpowersȱandȱ influentialȱIGOsȱorȱINGOsȱtooȱeasilyȱassumeȱaȱdivisionȱbetweenȱactive,ȱinitiatingȱWestȬ ernȱauthorsȱofȱneoȬliberalȱdiscourses,ȱdoctrines,ȱorȱpolicies,ȱandȱpassive,ȱnonȬWesternȱreȬ cipients,ȱ whoȱ wouldȱ merelyȱ reproduceȱ orȱ imitateȱ whatȱ hasȱ beenȱ developedȱ elsewhereȱ (BockmanȱandȱEyalȱ2002).ȱIȱwillȱshowȱthatȱaȱconsiderationȱofȱneoȬliberalismȱasȱgovernȬ mentalityȱhelpsȱtoȱshedȱlightȱonȱsuchȱunevenȱandȱ‘indigenous’ȱarticulationsȱoverȱspaceȱ

andȱ onȱ transformationsȱ inȱ governanceȱ thatȱ theȱ viewsȱ asȱ policyȱ frameworkȱ orȱ ideologyȱ tendȱ toȱ failȱ toȱ notice.ȱ While,ȱ inȱ thisȱ chapter,ȱ Iȱ willȱ discussȱ howȱ weȱ canȱ theoreticallyȱ understandȱ neoȬliberalismȱ asȱ governmentality,ȱ inȱ theȱ chaptersȱ 6ȱ andȱ 7ȱ Iȱ willȱ focusȱ onȱ howȱ neoȬliberalism’sȱ unevennessȱ andȱ indigenousnessȱ lookȱ likeȱ whenȱ weȱ confrontȱ myȱ alternativeȱ readingȱ withȱ theȱ presentȬdayȱ situationȱ ofȱ theȱ Romaȱ inȱ Centralȱ andȱ Easternȱ Europe.ȱ

ȱ Inȱ thisȱ chapter,ȱ Iȱ mobilizeȱ theȱ interpretationȱ ofȱ neoȬliberalismȱ asȱ governmentalityȱ toȱ shedȱanotherȱlightȱonȱtheȱemergenceȱofȱEuropeȬwideȱprogramsȱaimedȱatȱdevelopingȱtheȱ situationȱ ofȱ Romaniȱ minorities.ȱ Usually,ȱ theȱwillȱtoȱ developȱ theȱ Roma’sȱ situationȱ isȱexȬ plainedȱinȱtermsȱofȱhow,ȱsinceȱtheȱfallȱofȱcommunism,ȱtheyȱhaveȱbecomeȱaȱhumanȱrightsȱ andȱaȱsecurityȱissue.ȱTheȱRoma’sȱrightsȱhaveȱbeenȱviolatedȱandȱtheyȱhaveȱbeenȱdiscrimiȬ nated.ȱ Hence,ȱ asȱ theȱ argumentȱ usuallyȱ goes,ȱ sinceȱ theȱ earlyȱ 1990sȱ theyȱ haveȱ becomeȱ aȱ humanȱandȱminorityȱrightsȱissue.ȱTheȱRomaȱhaveȱalsoȱbecomeȱtheȱ‘greatestȱlosers’ȱofȱtheȱ transition.ȱ Theyȱ haveȱ massivelyȱ becomeȱ unemployed.ȱ Theyȱ haveȱ beenȱ displacedȱ andȱ forcedȱ toȱ lookȱ forȱ otherȱ meansȱ ofȱ supportȱ atȱ homeȱ orȱ elsewhere.ȱ Hence,ȱ theyȱ haveȱ becomeȱaȱsocial,ȱhuman,ȱorȱpublicȱsecurityȱissue.ȱIndeed,ȱasȱtheȱargumentȱgoes,ȱafterȱtheȱ fallȱofȱcommunismȱmanyȱRomaȱhaveȱstartedȱtoȱliveȱonȱstateȱbenefits.ȱSomeȱhaveȱenteredȱ aȱsituationȱofȱfrequentȱorȱevenȱconstantȱstarvationȱandȱhave,ȱtherefore,ȱbecomeȱtheȱtargetȱ ofȱbioȬpoliticalȱprogramsȱfocusingȱonȱguaranteeingȱhumanȱsecurity.ȱYetȱothers—suchȱasȱ thoseȱwhoȱhaveȱmigratedȱorȱaskedȱforȱasylumȱelsewhere—haveȱ(increasingly)ȱbecomeȱaȱ centralȱ topicȱ ofȱ publicȱ orderȱ inȱ theȱ politicalȱ debateȱ aboutȱ postȬ1989ȱ migration.ȱ Startingȱ fromȱsuchȱanalyses,ȱtheȱwillȱtoȱturningȱtheȱtideȱforȱEurope’sȱRomaȱisȱexplainedȱinȱtermsȱ ofȱtheȱaimȱtoȱimproveȱtheirȱrightsȱposition,ȱtoȱreduceȱtheirȱrelianceȱonȱsystemsȱofȱsocialȱ security,ȱtoȱcombatȱtheirȱpoverty,ȱtoȱimproveȱtheirȱselfȬsustainability,ȱandȱtoȱavoidȱthatȱ theyȱneedȱtoȱtravelȱelsewhereȱtoȱlookȱforȱaȱbetterȱlife.ȱThisȱisȱallȱtrueȱandȱIȱconfirmȱthatȱ theseȱ transformationsȱ haveȱ takenȱ placeȱ inȱ postȬ1989ȱ Europe,ȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ thatȱ theȱ Romaȱ haveȱbecomeȱhumanȱrightsȱandȱsecurityȱissues.ȱ

WhatȱmyȱviewȱofȱEuropeȱinȱtermsȱofȱshiftingȱandȱintersectingȱgovernmentalitiesȱhelpsȱ toȱexplain,ȱthough,ȱisȱthatȱtheȱ‘humanȱrights’ȱandȱ‘security’ȱdimensionsȱofȱtheȱcurrentȱapȬ proachesȱhaveȱalsoȱchangedȱasȱaȱresultȱofȱnewlyȱemergedȱtools,ȱdiscourses,ȱandȱpatternsȱ ofȱ Europeanȱ governance.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ chapter,ȱ Iȱ willȱ mapȱ howȱ theȱ emergenceȱ ofȱ neoȬliberalȱ formsȱofȱgovernmentalityȱhasȱgoneȱtogetherȱwithȱsignificantȱconfigurationsȱofȱEuropeanȱ governance.ȱ Iȱ willȱ focusȱ onȱ theȱ questionȱ ofȱ howȱ theȱ changesȱ withinȱ theȱ structures,ȱ approaches,ȱandȱpracticesȱofȱgovernanceȱofȱinfluentialȱIGOsȱandȱNGOsȱdidȱallowȱthemȱ toȱincorporateȱ‘theȱRoma’ȱinȱtheirȱpolicies,ȱmandates,ȱandȱvisionsȱinȱtheȱwayȱtheyȱdid.ȱIȱ willȱ suggestȱ thatȱ theȱ recentlyȱ emergedȱ policyȱ approachesȱ ofȱ theseȱ organizations—fromȱ socialȱinclusionȱandȱgoodȱgovernanceȱtoȱhumanȱsecurityȱandȱhumanȱdevelopment—canȱ beȱseenȱinȱlightȱofȱemergentȱneoȬliberalȱgovernmentalȱtechnologies.ȱThisȱdoesȱnotȱimplyȱ thatȱ theseȱ policiesȱ orȱ theȱ governanceȱ agendasȱ inȱ whichȱ theyȱ areȱ incorporatedȱ areȱ fullyȱ ‘neoȬliberal,’ȱ butȱ thatȱtheyȱhaveȱ influentiallyȱbeenȱ assembledȱ withȱ neoȬliberalȱtechnoloȬ giesȱofȱgoverningȱandȱresultedȱintoȱanotherȱviewȱofȱissuesȱofȱsecurity,ȱdevelopment,ȱandȱ humanȱrights.ȱ

ȱ ȱ

PROBLEMATIZINGȱTHEȱROMAȱASȱAȱEUROPEANȱMINORITYȱ ȱ Inȱtheȱearlyȱ1990s,ȱshortlyȱafterȱtheȱfallȱofȱtheȱBerlinȱWall,ȱtheȱCouncilȱofȱEuropeȱwasȱoneȱ ofȱtheȱfirstȱinstitutionsȱthatȱstartedȱtoȱdiscussȱtheȱRomaȱinȱtermsȱofȱaȱEuropeanȱminority.ȱ Inȱaȱpolicyȱdocumentȱonȱtheȱsupposedȱ‘Europeanness’ȱofȱtheȱRoma,ȱtheȱCouncilȱclaims:ȱ ȱ Aȱspecialȱplaceȱamongȱtheȱminoritiesȱ[ofȱEurope]ȱisȱreservedȱforȱtheȱGypsies.ȱLivingȱ scatteredȱallȱoverȱEurope,ȱnotȱhavingȱaȱcountryȱtoȱcallȱtheirȱown,ȱtheyȱareȱaȱtrueȱEuroȬ peanȱ minority,ȱ butȱ oneȱ thatȱ doesȱ notȱ fitȱ intoȱ theȱ definitionsȱ ofȱ nationalȱ orȱ linguisticȱ minorities.ȱAsȱaȱnonȬterritorialȱminority,ȱtheȱGypsiesȱgreatlyȱcontributeȱtoȱtheȱculturalȱ diversityȱofȱEurope.ȱInȱdifferentȱpartsȱofȱEuropeȱtheyȱcontributeȱinȱdifferentȱways,ȱbeȱ itȱbyȱlanguageȱandȱmusicȱorȱbyȱtheirȱtradesȱandȱcrafts.ȱWithȱcentralȱandȱeastȱEuropeanȱ countriesȱnowȱmemberȱstatesȱ[ofȱtheȱCouncilȱofȱEurope],ȱtheȱnumberȱofȱGypsiesȱlivingȱ inȱ theȱ areaȱ ofȱ theȱ Councilȱ ofȱ Europeȱ hasȱ increasedȱ drastically.ȱ (CoEȱ 1993:ȱ §2Ȭ4ȱ citedȱ Danbakliȱ2001:ȱ146)ȱ

ȱ

Theȱ Councilȱ ofȱ Europeȱ includedȱ Gypsyȱ orȱ RomaȬrelatedȱ issuesȱ inȱ itsȱ policyȱ agendasȱ muchȱ earlierȱ thanȱ 1993.ȱ Theȱ Council’sȱ firstȱ discussionsȱ ofȱ theȱ situationȱ ofȱ ‘nomads,’ȱ ‘populationsȱofȱnomadicȱorigin,’ȱandȱ‘GypsiesȱandȱotherȱtravelersȱinȱEurope’ȱgoesȱbackȱ toȱtheȱlateȱ1960sȱ(CoEȱ1969;ȱ1975;ȱ1981).ȱTheȱfirstȱproposalsȱtoȱrecognizeȱtheȱRomaȱasȱanȱ ethnicȱ minorityȱ groupȱ inȱ Europeȱ alsoȱ dateȱ fromȱ beforeȱ theȱ fallȱ ofȱ communismȱ (CoEȱ 1983).ȱ Yet,ȱ discussingȱ themȱ explicitlyȱ inȱ termsȱ ofȱ aȱ Europeanȱ minorityȱ andȱ developingȱ largeȬscaleȱEuropeanȱprogramsȱandȱmonitorȱmechanismsȱtoȱdealȱwithȱRomaniȱminoritiesȱ happenedȱforȱtheȱfirstȱtimeȱinȱtheȱearlyȱ1990s.ȱSimilarly,ȱtheȱRoma’sȱrepresentationȱasȱaȱ Europeanȱ minorityȱ hasȱ increasinglyȱ appearedȱ inȱ theȱ discoursesȱ ofȱ EUȱ institutionsȱ andȱ theȱOrganizationȱforȱSecurityȱandȱCooperationȱinȱEuropeȱ(OSCE).ȱInȱ1996,ȱforȱinstance,ȱ theȱEuropeanȱCommissionȱcalledȱaȱroundtableȱmeetingȱunderȱtheȱtitleȱ“theȱRoma:ȱaȱtrulyȱ Europeanȱ people”ȱ (ECȱ 1996a).ȱ Inȱ 1993,ȱ theȱ EUȱ declaredȱ thatȱ theȱ protectionȱ ofȱ minorityȱ culturesȱ andȱ respectȱ forȱ theirȱ rightsȱ wasȱ oneȱ ofȱ theȱ accessionȱ criteriaȱ thatȱ countriesȱ neededȱtoȱmeetȱifȱtheyȱwantedȱtoȱjoinȱtheȱUnion.ȱSinceȱtheȱpublicationȱofȱitsȱfirstȱreportsȱ onȱ progressȱ towardsȱ EUȱ accessionȱ inȱ 1998,ȱ theȱ Europeanȱ Commissionȱ hasȱ explicitlyȱ discussedȱandȱmonitoredȱtheȱprotectionȱofȱminorities,ȱandȱofȱtheȱRomaniȱinȱparticular,ȱinȱ EUȱcandidateȱmemberȱstatesȱinȱEasternȱandȱCentralȱEurope.ȱInȱaddition,ȱsinceȱ2005,ȱtheȱ Europeanȱ Parliamentȱ hasȱ explicitlyȱ calledȱ onȱ theȱ Europeanȱ Commissionȱ andȱ theȱ EUȱ memberȱ statesȱ toȱ considerȱ recognizingȱ theȱ Romaȱ asȱ aȱ Europeanȱ minorityȱ (EPȱ 2005b;ȱ 2006;ȱ2008;ȱseeȱalsoȱECȱ2008c;ȱECȱ2010b).ȱ

Inȱ theȱ earlyȱ 1990s,ȱ bothȱ theȱ Councilȱ ofȱ Europeȱ andȱ theȱ OSCEȱ (thenȱ stillȱ theȱ CSCE)ȱ publishedȱoverviewȱreportsȱonȱtheȱsituationȱofȱtheȱRomaȱinȱEuropeȱ(vanȱderȱStoelȱ1993;ȱ 2000;ȱVerspagetȱ1995)ȱandȱdevelopedȱspecialȱbodiesȱwithinȱtheirȱinstitutionsȱtoȱdealȱwithȱ Romaniȱissues.ȱTheȱOSCE,ȱforȱinstance,ȱestablishedȱtheȱContactȱPointȱforȱRomaȱandȱSintiȱ Issuesȱ(CPRSI)ȱwithinȱitsȱOfficeȱforȱDemocraticȱInstitutionsȱandȱHumanȱRightsȱ(ODIHR)ȱ inȱ 1994.ȱ Theȱ OSCEȱ alsoȱ createdȱ theȱ positionȱ ofȱ Adviserȱ onȱ Romaȱ andȱ Sintiȱ Issuesȱ andȱ adoptedȱtheȱsoȬcalledȱActionȱPlanȱonȱImprovingȱtheȱSituationȱofȱRomaȱandȱSintiȱwithinȱ theȱOSCEȱAreaȱ(OSCEȱ2003;ȱ2008).ȱTheȱCouncilȱofȱEuropeȱappointedȱaȱCoordinatorȱforȱ RomaȱIssuesȱinȱ1994,ȱestablishedȱtheȱSpecialistȱGroupȱonȱRoma,ȱGypsiesȱandȱTravellersȱ

inȱ 1995,1_{ȱ andȱ initiatedȱ theȱ Europeanȱ Romaȱ andȱ Travellersȱ Forumȱ (ERTF)ȱ inȱ 2004.ȱ Sinceȱ}

theȱ beginningȱ ofȱ theȱ newȱ millennium,ȱ theȱ Romaȱ inȱ Europeȱ haveȱ alsoȱ comeȱ underȱ theȱ attentionȱofȱotherȱIGOs,ȱtheȱWorldȱBankȱandȱtheȱUnitedȱNationsȱDevelopmentȱProgramȱ (UNDP)ȱinȱparticular.2_ȱ

TheȱdiscussionȱofȱtheȱRomaȱinȱtermsȱofȱaȱEuropeanȱminorityȱhasȱnotȱbeenȱlimitedȱtoȱ theȱdomainȱofȱIGOs.ȱToȱvariousȱdegrees,ȱdiverseȱNGOs,ȱsuchȱasȱtheȱOpenȱSocietyȱInstiȬ tute,ȱ theȱ Europeanȱ Romaȱ Rightsȱ Centre,ȱ Minorityȱ Rightsȱ Groupȱ International,ȱ Humanȱ RightsȱWatch,ȱAmnestyȱInternational,ȱandȱtheȱEuropeanȱCentreȱforȱMinorityȱIssuesȱhaveȱ alsoȱcontributedȱtoȱthisȱtendency.ȱTheseȱNGOsȱhaveȱalsoȱformedȱalliancesȱwithȱRomaniȱ associations,ȱ suchȱ asȱ theȱ Europeanȱ Romaȱ Informationȱ Officeȱ (ERIO)ȱ andȱ theȱ Europeanȱ Romaȱ Grassrootsȱ Organizationsȱ networkȱ (ERGO).ȱ Moreȱ recently,ȱ theyȱ haveȱ jointlyȱ mobilizedȱ themselvesȱ inȱ theȱ contextȱ ofȱ transnationalȱ activistȱ andȱ advocacyȱ networks,ȱ mostȱnotablyȱ theȱ EUȱ Romaȱ Policyȱ Coalition.3_{ȱ Thisȱ coalition,ȱ forȱ instance,ȱ hasȱ calledȱ forȱ}

theȱdevelopmentȱofȱaȱcoherentȱEUȱRomaȱpolicyȱwithinȱEUȱinstitutionsȱandȱcontinuedȱtoȱ lobbyȱ atȱ theȱ Europeanȱ institutionalȱ levelȱ toȱ achieveȱ thisȱ aim.ȱ Theirȱ attemptsȱ couldȱ beȱ consideredȱ asȱ yetȱ anotherȱ exampleȱ ofȱ howȱ agenciesȱ haveȱ increasinglyȱ discussedȱ theȱ RomaȱinȱtheȱEuropeanȱcontext.ȱ

Lastȱbutȱnotȱleast,ȱweȱhaveȱbeenȱableȱtoȱnoticeȱsimilarȱtrendsȱtoȱdiscussȱtheȱRomaȱinȱ termsȱ ofȱ aȱ Europeanȱ minorityȱ inȱ theȱ mediaȱ andȱ academia.ȱ Theȱ numberȱ ofȱ newspaperȱ articles,ȱdifferentȱkindsȱofȱdocumentaries,ȱandȱwebȱpagesȱthatȱhaveȱstartedȱtoȱdiscussȱtheȱ Romaȱ inȱ theȱ Europeanȱ contextȱ hasȱ increasedȱ exponentially.ȱ Inȱ theȱ studyȱ ofȱ Romaniȱ groups,ȱ weȱ haveȱ alsoȱ beenȱ ableȱ toȱ noticeȱ aȱ tendencyȱ toȱ breakȱ withȱ theȱ stateȬcentricȱ orȱ areaȱstudiesȱfocusȱthatȱdominatedȱuntilȱtheȱlateȱ1990sȱand,ȱinstead,ȱdiscussȱRomaȬrelatedȱ issuesȱinȱtheȱcontextȱofȱtheirȱ(contested)ȱrelationshipȱtoȱ‘Europe.’4_ȱ

ȱ Toȱcutȱaȱlongȱstoryȱshort,ȱsinceȱtheȱearlyȱ1990sȱinternationalȱgoverningȱorganizations,ȱ alongsideȱ Romaniȱ groupsȱ inȱ manyȱ countries,ȱ governmentalȱ andȱ nonȬgovernmentalȱ organizations,ȱscholars,ȱandȱvariousȱmediaȱhaveȱincreasinglyȱrepresentedȱtheȱRomaȱasȱaȱ Europeanȱminority.ȱThisȱisȱaȱuniqueȱcase,ȱasȱnoȱotherȱminorityȱhasȱrecentlyȱbecomeȱtheȱ explicitȱtargetȱofȱsuchȱprocessesȱofȱEuropeanization.ȱAtȱtheȱsameȱtime,ȱtheȱRoma’sȱEuroȬ peanizationȱmarksȱaȱnewȱphaseȱinȱtheȱhistoryȱofȱtheirȱrepresentation.5_{ȱIndeed,ȱduringȱtheȱ} Enlightenment,ȱnineteenthȱandȱearlyȱtwentiethȱcenturyȱprocessesȱofȱnationȱstateȱformaȬ tion,ȱandȱunderȱNazismȱandȱcommunism,ȱtheȱRomaȱandȱtheirȱculturesȱwereȱoftenȱconȬ 1_{ȱTheȱspecialistȱgroupȱwasȱlaterȱrenamedȱMSȬGȬROM.ȱ}

2_{ȱ See,ȱ forȱ instance,ȱ theȱ numerousȱ RomaȬrelatedȱ publicationsȱ ofȱ theȱ Worldȱ Bankȱ (Worldȱ Bankȱ 2000;ȱ 2002a;ȱ}

2005b;ȱ2005a;ȱ2008;ȱWorldȱBankȱetȱalȱ2002)ȱandȱUNȱagenciesȱ(UNDPȱ2002;ȱ2003;ȱ2005;ȱ2006;ȱ2007;ȱUNDPȱandȱ Ernst&Youngȱ2005;ȱUNICEFȱ2007).ȱ

3_{ȱ Seeȱ ERPCȱ (2008a;ȱ 2008b;ȱ 2008c).ȱ Iȱ willȱ discussȱ theȱ significanceȱ ofȱ theȱ transnationalȱ Romaniȱ activistȱ andȱ}

Romaȱadvocacyȱnetworksȱinȱchapterȱ7.ȱ

4_{ȱ See,ȱ forȱ instance,ȱ Guyȱ (2001a),ȱ Rookerȱ (2002),ȱ KlímováȬAlexanderȱ (2005),ȱ Vermeerschȱ (2006),ȱ O’Nionsȱ}

(2007),ȱGlajarȱandȱRadulescuȱ(2008),ȱJacobsȱandȱRiesȱ(2008),ȱSigonaȱandȱTrehanȱ(2009c),ȱMcGarryȱ(2010),ȱandȱ StewartȱandȱRövidȱ(2010).ȱ

5_{ȱTheȱRomaȱhadȱgraduallyȱbecomeȱanȱobjectȱofȱColdȱWarȱEuropeanȱpolicyȱformations.ȱYet,ȱinȱthatȱperiodȱ}

Europeanȱ institutionsȱ consideredȱ theȱ challengeȱ ofȱ ‘RomaȬrelatedȱ problems’ȱ primarilyȱ aȱ responsibilityȱ ofȱ theirȱmemberȱstatesȱandȱdidȱnotȱdevelopȱlargeȬscaleȱsupranationalȱprogramsȱthatȱspecificallyȱaddressedȱtheȱ Romaȱ(Simhandlȱ2006).ȱ

sideredȱ asȱ nonȬEuropean,ȱ alien,ȱ andȱ barriersȱ toȱ ‘progress’ȱ andȱ ‘civilization’ȱ inȱ Europeȱ (chaptersȱ3,ȱ4).ȱHowȱareȱweȱtoȱunderstandȱtheȱcurrentȱEuropeanization?ȱȱ

ȱ

ConceptsȱandȱpracticesȱofȱEuropeanizationȱ

Thereȱ circulateȱ manyȱ differentȱ understandingsȱ ofȱ Europeanizationȱ inȱ theȱ literatureȱ onȱ Europeanization.6_{ȱAȱdominantȱapproachȱcharacterizesȱitȱasȱ“howȱnationalȱpoliticalȱstrucȬ}

tures,ȱ politicalȱ actors,ȱ policyȱ processesȱ andȱ policiesȱ areȱ increasinglyȱ orientating,ȱ orȱ areȱ beingȱoriented,ȱinȱaȱEuropeanȱdirection”ȱ(Nugentȱ2003:ȱ442).ȱSimilarly,ȱEuropeanizationȱ hasȱbeenȱconceptualizedȱasȱcomprisingȱ“aȱredirectionȱofȱpoliciesȱand/orȱpracticesȱand/orȱ preferencesȱinȱtheȱdomesticȱarenaȱtowardsȱthoseȱadvancedȱbyȱdominantȱEUȱlevelȱactors/ȱ institutions”ȱ(Bacheȱ2003:ȱ2).ȱAccordingȱtoȱthisȱwidelyȱacceptedȱconceptualization,ȱEuroȬ peanizationȱ isȱ primarilyȱ understoodȱ asȱ theȱ impactȱ ofȱ supranational,ȱ Europeanȱ instituȬ tions—oftenȱ equatedȱ withȱ theȱ EU—onȱ nationalȱ social,ȱ economic,ȱ political,ȱ andȱ culturalȱ lifeȱandȱitsȱconsequentȱtransformation.ȱ

However,ȱ asȱ particularlyȱ politicalȱ geographersȱ haveȱ emphasized,ȱ thisȱ conceptȱ ofȱ Europeanizationȱtendsȱtoȱreifyȱpoliticalȱorȱinstitutionalȱscaleȱ(eg,ȱEUȱvs.ȱmemberȱstates)ȱ andȱtoȱneglectȱtheȱwaysȱinȱwhichȱdifferentȱ‘politicsȱofȱscaling’ȱcontributeȱtoȱreinforcingȱorȱ diminishingȱ theȱ authorityȱ ofȱ theȱ involvedȱ governingȱ agencies.ȱ Here,ȱ politicsȱ ofȱ scalingȱ refersȱ toȱ variousȱ strategiesȱ andȱ relatedȱ instrumentsȱ thatȱ areȱ mobilizedȱ toȱ attemptȱ toȱ governȱ andȱ addressȱ somethingȱ atȱ aȱ particularȱ (contestedȱ andȱ contestable)ȱ levelȱ andȱ toȱ produceȱandȱreproduceȱcertainȱterritoriesȱ(regions,ȱstates,ȱcities,ȱcommunities)ȱasȱgovernȬ ableȱspacesȱ(Brennerȱ2001;ȱGualiniȱ2006).ȱReflectingȱuponȱtheȱtrendȱtoȱassume,ȱonȱtheȱoneȱ hand,ȱaȱpoliticalȱsiteȱwhereȱEuropeanizationȱhasȱbeenȱproducedȱ(EUȱinstitutions)ȱand,ȱonȱ theȱother,ȱdomesticȱpoliticalȱsitesȱthat,ȱasȱaȱresultȱofȱEuropeanization,ȱhaveȱbeenȱradicallyȱ transformed,ȱClarkȱandȱJonesȱputȱforward:ȱ ȱ TheȱEU’sȱdepictionȱasȱtheȱsuiȱgenerisȱoriginatorȱofȱEuropeanizationȱtendsȱtoȱoverlookȱ theȱ centralityȱ ofȱ territorialȱ sitesȱ ofȱ authorityȱ andȱ powerȱ (thatȱ is,ȱ nationȬstateȱ soveȬ reignties)ȱ inȱ theȱ Union’sȱ establishmentȱ …ȱ Europeanizationȱ doesȱ notȱ justȱ takeȱ place,ȱ butȱalsoȱoriginatesȱwithinȱmemberȬstates.ȱ(ClarkȱandȱJonesȱ2009:ȱ195)ȱ

ȱ

Anȱ exampleȱ fromȱ theȱ Czechȱ Republicȱ concerningȱ theȱ Europeanizationȱ ofȱ Romaȱ representationȱ substantiatesȱ Clarkȱ andȱ Jones’sȱ argument.ȱ Inȱ theȱ lateȱ 1990s,ȱ theȱ Czechȱ Ministryȱ ofȱ Foreignȱ Affairsȱ financedȱ aȱ conferenceȱ organizedȱ byȱ theȱ Czechȱ Instituteȱ forȱ InternationalȱRelationsȱunderȱtheȱtitleȱ‘TheȱRomaȱCommunityȱandȱMultiȬEthnicityȱinȱtheȱ Countriesȱ ofȱ Centralȱ Europe—Aȱ Europeanȱ Problem?’ȱ (seeȱ Vermeerschȱ 2003:ȱ 894Ȭ95)ȱ Inȱ hisȱ contributionȱ toȱ theȱ conference,ȱ Martinȱ Palouš,ȱ theȱ thenȱ Czechȱ deputyȱ ministerȱ ofȱ foreignȱaffairs,ȱputȱforward:ȱ

ȱ

Asȱtheȱtitleȱofȱtheȱconferenceȱreveals,ȱitȱ[theȱRomaȱissue]ȱisȱanȱallȬEuropeanȱproblemȱ …ȱ Weȱ mustȱ alwaysȱ bearȱ inȱ mindȱ thatȱ theȱ successfulȱ solutionȱ ofȱ ourȱ domesticȱ

6_{ȱSee,ȱforȱinstance,ȱRisseȬKappenȱetȱalȱ(2001),ȱOlsenȱ(2002),ȱFeatherstoneȱandȱRadaelliȱ(2003),ȱSchimmelfennigȱ}

difficultiesȱasȱregardsȱtheȱintegrationȱofȱtheȱRomaniȱethnicȱgroupȱwillȱtoȱaȱlargeȱextentȱ beȱinseparableȱfromȱtheseȱbroaderȱlinks.ȱ(Paloušȱ1998:ȱ11Ȭ12)ȱ

ȱ

AccordingȱtoȱPalouš,ȱitȱisȱparticularlyȱtheȱEuropeanȱcharacterȱofȱtheȱRoma’sȱidentityȱthatȱ necessitatesȱ addressingȱ theȱ ‘Romaȱ problem’ȱ primarilyȱ atȱ theȱ Europeanȱ levelȱ andȱ inȱ theȱ Europeanȱcontext:ȱ

ȱ

Ifȱ theȱ Romaȱ areȱ theȱ mostȱ Europeanȱ nation,ȱ thenȱ theȱ reasonȱ couldȱ wellȱ beȱ thatȱ theyȱ holdȱupȱaȱkindȱofȱspecificȱmirrorȱtoȱEuropeȱinȱwhichȱEuropeȱcanȱseeȱitself,ȱandȱwhereȱ theyȱ canȱ expectȱ fromȱ Europeanȱ institutionsȱ aȱ littleȱ bitȱ moreȱ thanȱ otherȱ Europeanȱ nationsȱwhichȱhaveȱtheirȱownȱEuropeanȱstatesȱandȱenterȱtheȱprocessȱofȱEuropeanȱinteȬ grationȱpreciselyȱinȱtheȱlightȱofȱtheirȱexperience.ȱ(Paloušȱ1998:ȱ16)ȱ

ȱ

Aȱfewȱyearsȱlater,ȱtheȱCzechȱMinistryȱofȱForeignȱAffairsȱexplicitlyȱmobilizedȱtheȱconceptȱ ofȱ Europeanizationȱ toȱ challengeȱ recurrentȱ accusationsȱ atȱ theȱ addressȱ ofȱ theȱ Czechȱ RepublicȱregardingȱracismȱagainstȱitsȱnationalȱRomaniȱminorityȱandȱtoȱshiftȱtheȱprimaryȱ responsibilityȱtoȱimproveȱtheirȱsituationȱtoȱinternationalȱandȱEuropeanȱagencies:ȱ

ȱ

[Theȱ firstȱ aimȱ ofȱ theȱ Ministryȱ ofȱ Foreignȱ Affairsȱ shouldȱ beȱ the]ȱ promotionȱ ofȱ theȱ conceptȱofȱtheȱEuropeanizationȱofȱtheȱRomaniȱproblematicȱonȱallȱlevelsȱofȱCzechȱforeignȱ policy.ȱWeȱunderstandȱEuropeanizationȱhere,ȱasȱtoȱgraspȱtheȱRomaniȱissueȱasȱanȱaffairȱ whichȱconcernsȱeveryȱEuropeanȱstateȱwhereȱaȱRomaniȱminorityȱlivesȱtoday.ȱFromȱthisȱ followsȱ alsoȱ theȱ willȱ toȱ seekȱ aȱ solutionȱ forȱ theȱ Romaniȱ issueȱ atȱ theȱ international/ȱ Europeanȱlevel,ȱandȱthisȱincludesȱaȱfinancialȱsafeguardȱforȱsuchȱaȱsolution.ȱ(GCRȱ2000:ȱ 15,ȱEnglishȱtranslationȱcitedȱVermeerschȱ2003:ȱ895,ȱmyȱitalics)ȱ

ȱ

Asȱ thisȱ Czechȱ caseȱ illustrates,ȱ Europeanizationȱ alsoȱ takesȱ placeȱ atȱ theȱ levelȱ ofȱ stateȬ relatedȱinstitutionsȱandȱhasȱbeenȱmobilizedȱtoȱreinforceȱorȱrenewȱstateȬrelatedȱstrategiesȱ toȱdiscuss,ȱrescale,ȱorȱevenȱdisplaceȱRomaȬrelatedȱissues.7_{ȱThus,ȱapproachesȱthatȱconcepȬ}

tualizeȱ Europeanizationȱ primarilyȱ inȱ termsȱ ofȱ theȱ impactȱ ofȱ theȱ EUȱ onȱ domesticȱ issuesȱ structurallyȱ overlookȱ theȱ strategicȱ capacityȱ ofȱ stateȬrelatedȱ agenciesȱ toȱ developȱ andȱ articulateȱconstructionsȱofȱEuropeanizationȱsupportiveȱofȱtheirȱownȱaims.ȱMoreover,ȱtheȱ Europeanizationȱ ofȱ Romaȱ representationȱ hasȱ notȱ beenȱreservedȱ toȱEUȱ andȱ stateȬrelatedȱ institutions,ȱ butȱ hasȱ beenȱ articulatedȱ atȱ variousȱ sitesȱ andȱ byȱ diverseȱ socialȱ agentsȱ toȱ achieveȱ differentȱ overlapping,ȱ mutuallyȱ strengthening,ȱ orȱ evenȱ contradictoryȱ aims.ȱ Putȱ differentlyȱandȱmoreȱgenerally,ȱweȱneedȱtoȱacknowledgeȱtheȱ‘situatedȬness’ȱofȱEuropeanȬ ization,ȱ recognizeȱ thatȱ itȱ isȱ anȱ effectȱ ofȱ practicesȱ locatedȱ inȱ placeȱ andȱ timeȱ and,ȱ thus,ȱ

7_{ȱ Statesȱ areȱ oftenȱ involvedȱ inȱ differentȱ politicsȱ ofȱ scalingȱ atȱ theȱ sameȱ time.ȱ Whereasȱ Czechȱ governmentalȱ}

officials,ȱforȱinstance,ȱhaveȱcalledȱforȱtheȱEuropeanizationȱofȱtheȱRomaȱissueȱtoȱtransferȱstateȱresponsibilitiesȱ toȱ Europeanȱ authorities,ȱ theyȱ haveȱ alsoȱ suggestedȱ thatȱ theȱ EUȱ isȱ notȱ allowedȱ toȱ interfereȱ inȱ whatȱ theyȱ considerȱ ‘theirȱ ownȱ internalȱ affairs.’ȱ Theȱ latterȱ happened,ȱ forȱ instance,ȱ whenȱ theȱ EUȱ criticizedȱ theȱ 1993ȱ CzechȱcitizenshipȱlawȱandȱitsȱnegativeȱeffectsȱonȱCzechȱRomaȱ(Nedelskyȱ2003).ȱItȱalsoȱhappenedȱwhenȱtheȱ EUȱcalledȱonȱtheȱCzechȱauthoritiesȱtoȱrecognizeȱmoreȱadequatelyȱtheȱRomaȱHolocaustȱbyȱremovingȱaȱpigȱ farmȱsituatedȱonȱtheȱsiteȱofȱaȱformerȱNaziȱconcentrationȱcampȱforȱtheȱRomaȱ(seeȱchapterȱ8).ȱ

avoidȱassumingȱ“anȱunderlyingȱcommonȱprocessȱthatȱ[only]ȱmanifestsȱitselfȱdifferentlyȱ inȱdifferentȱcontexts”ȱ(LarnerȱandȱWaltersȱ2004:ȱ506).ȱ

AsȱtheȱCzechȱexampleȱalsoȱillustrates,ȱtheȱEuropeanizationȱofȱRomaȱrepresentationȱisȱ relatedȱtoȱstrategiesȱtoȱgovernȱRomaȬrelatedȱissuesȱinȱspecificȱwaysȱandȱdirectionsȱand,ȱ thus,ȱ toȱ theȱ developmentȱ ofȱ newȱ discoursesȱ andȱ techniquesȱ toȱ governȱ theȱ Romaȱ andȱ rearticulateȱ theirȱ identities.ȱ Developingȱ andȱ (re)assemblingȱ particularȱ discursiveȱ andȱ technicalȱ instrumentsȱ makeȱ theȱ Romaȱ governableȱ andȱ identifiableȱ inȱ certainȱ ways.ȱ Accordingly,ȱIȱunderstandȱEuropeanizationȱasȱaȱformȱofȱgovernmentality.ȱApproachingȱ Europeanizationȱfromȱthisȱangleȱcanȱclarifyȱhowȱ‘Europe’—asȱanȱemergentȱglobalȱregionȱ withȱ contestedȱ andȱ contestableȱ territorial,ȱ political,ȱ cultural,ȱ economic,ȱ andȱ socialȱ boundaries—hasȱ beenȱ madeȱ ‘real.’ȱ Thisȱ understandingȱ ofȱ Europeanizationȱ helpsȱ toȱ illuminateȱhowȱinstitutionsȱsuchȱasȱtheȱEUȱhaveȱbeenȱnaturalizedȱasȱauthoritativeȱcentersȱ ofȱ globalȱ governance,ȱ whereȱ endeavorsȱ toȱ guaranteeȱ theȱ securityȱ andȱ welfareȱ ofȱ itsȱ heterogeneousȱpopulationȱareȱincreasinglyȱaddressedȱatȱtheȱEuropeanȱlevel.ȱ

Whenȱ Iȱ discussedȱ theȱ state’sȱ governmentalization,ȱ Iȱ explainedȱ thatȱ theȱ stateȱ canȱ beȱ understoodȱneitherȱasȱaȱuniversalȱorȱmasterȱcategoryȱofȱpoliticalȱorganization,ȱnorȱasȱanȱ autonomousȱsourceȱorȱcenterȱofȱpowerȱ(chapterȱ1).ȱRather,ȱtheȱhistoricallyȱvariableȱwaysȱ inȱ whichȱ statesȱ haveȱ graduallyȱ beenȱ governmentalizedȱ showȱ howȱ theyȱ haveȱ beenȱ theȱ mobileȱeffectsȱofȱaȱvarietyȱofȱdispersedȱtechnologiesȱofȱpower,ȱenactedȱbyȱvariousȱkindsȱ ofȱagencies.ȱAtȱtheȱsameȱtime,ȱitȱhasȱbeenȱtheȱstate’sȱgovernmentalizationȱthatȱhasȱcontriȬ butedȱtoȱitsȱauthorizationȱasȱaȱcrucialȱcenterȱofȱpower.ȱSeenȱfromȱthisȱangle,ȱitȱhasȱbeenȱ theȱstate’sȱgovernmentalizationȱthatȱ“hasȱallowedȱtheȱstateȱtoȱsurvive”ȱ(Foucaultȱ2007b:ȱ 109)ȱasȱsuchȱanȱauthoritativeȱcenter.ȱSimilarly,ȱtheȱfocusȱonȱEuropeȱfromȱtheȱangleȱofȱitsȱ governmentalizationȱdeȬnaturalizesȱ‘Europe’ȱasȱaȱpreȬexistingȱcategory—aȱculture,ȱaȱciviȬ lization,ȱ aȱ geographicalȱ location,ȱ anȱ economicȱ region,ȱ aȱ supranationalȱ institution—andȱ understandsȱitȱasȱaȱhistoricallyȱandȱspatiallyȱspecificȱartifactȱofȱrepresentations,ȱhistories,ȱ memories,ȱ andȱ geographies.ȱ Policyȱ makers,ȱ bureaucrats,ȱ academics,ȱ andȱ activistsȱ haveȱ allȱcontributedȱtoȱproducingȱknowledgeȱaboutȱEuropeȱandȱitsȱallegedȱpopulations.ȱTheȱ diverseȱdiscoursesȱandȱtoolsȱthatȱtheyȱhaveȱdevelopedȱhaveȱturnedȱ‘Europe’ȱintoȱsomeȬ thingȱ‘real.’ȱTheȱanalysisȱofȱtheseȱprocessesȱhelpsȱtoȱunravelȱtheȱnewȱformsȱofȱEuropeanȱ governmentȱthatȱhaveȱrecentlyȱemergedȱ(seeȱalsoȱLarnerȱandȱWaltersȱ2002;ȱWaltersȱandȱ Haahrȱ 2005).ȱ Letȱ meȱ nowȱ turnȱ toȱ howȱ suchȱ discoursesȱ andȱ toolsȱ haveȱ recentlyȱ beenȱ developedȱwithȱregardȱtoȱtheȱRoma.ȱ

ȱ

Newȱcentersȱofȱexpertiseȱandȱknowledgeȱformationȱ

Oneȱ ofȱ theȱ mostȱ remarkableȱ thingsȱ ofȱ postȬ1989ȱ involvementsȱ withȱ theȱ Romaȱ isȱ thatȱ knowledgeȱ andȱ expertiseȱ aboutȱ them,ȱ theirȱ status,ȱ andȱ theirȱ situationȱ hasȱ increasinglyȱ beenȱ producedȱ atȱ newlyȱ createdȱ bodiesȱ andȱ withinȱ newȱ andȱ reshapedȱ organizationalȱ andȱinstitutionalȱformsȱandȱstructures.ȱReportsȱonȱtheȱsituationȱofȱtheȱRoma,ȱforȱinstance,ȱ wereȱalsoȱwrittenȱbeforeȱ1989ȱ(Liégeoisȱ1987),ȱbutȱbothȱtheirȱnumberȱandȱtheȱdiversityȱofȱ agenciesȱwhoȱproduceȱsuchȱreportsȱhaveȱrapidlyȱincreasedȱsinceȱtheȱmidȱ1990s.ȱHumanȱ rightsȱ organizations,ȱ NGOs,ȱ Europeanȱ institutions,ȱ internationalȱ organizations,ȱ Romaniȱ selfȬorganizations,ȱ privateȱ foundations,ȱ andȱ stateȬrelatedȱ bodiesȱ haveȱ allȱ producedȱ reȬ portsȱandȱotherȱdocumentsȱaboutȱtheȱRoma’sȱsituation.ȱSomeȱofȱtheseȱcentersȱofȱexpertiseȱ andȱknowledgeȱproductionȱareȱentirelyȱnew,ȱsuchȱasȱtheȱOSCE’sȱContactȱPointȱforȱRomaȱ

andȱSintiȱIssuesȱ(1994),ȱtheȱCouncilȱofȱEurope’sȱSpecialistȱGroupȱonȱRoma,ȱGypsiesȱandȱ Travellersȱ (1995),ȱ theȱ Europeanȱ Romaȱ andȱ Travellersȱ Forumȱ (2004),ȱ theȱ EURomaȱ netȬ workȱ(2007),ȱandȱtheȱEuropeanȱPlatformȱforȱRomaȱInclusion,ȱlaunchedȱbyȱtheȱEuropeanȱ Commissionȱinȱ2009.8_{ȱOthers,ȱsuchȱasȱdiverseȱkindsȱofȱRomaniȱcommunityȱandȱculturalȱ}

centersȱ and,ȱ moreȱ generally,ȱ theȱ entireȱ RomaȬrelatedȱ NGOȱ sectorȱ didȱ onlyȱ existȱ rudiȬ mentarilyȱbeforeȱ1989—ifȱtheyȱdidȱatȱall—andȱhaveȱmushroomedȱsinceȱthen.ȱ

Consequently,ȱweȱneedȱtoȱreflectȱuponȱwhatȱitȱmeansȱthatȱtheȱRomaȱhaveȱcomeȱtoȱbeȱaȱ concernȱofȱsoȱmanyȱNGOsȱandȱIGOs.ȱStateȬrelatedȱinstitutions—suchȱasȱministries,ȱplanȬ ningȱ offices,ȱ municipalities,ȱ universities,ȱ andȱ policeȱ authorities—haveȱ continuedȱ toȱ beȱ sitesȱ ofȱ RomaȬrelatedȱ knowledgeȱ andȱ dataȱ production.ȱ Yet,ȱ thisȱ productionȱ hasȱ beenȱ multipliedȱsinceȱtheȱmidȱ1990sȱandȱsignificantlyȱbeenȱextendedȱintoȱtheȱdirectionȱofȱIGOsȱ andȱ NGOs,ȱ includingȱ Romaniȱ selfȬorganizationsȱ andȱ networks.ȱ Theseȱ changesȱ haveȱ resultedȱ inȱtheȱ radicalȱincreaseȱofȱtheȱnumberȱ ofȱ actorsȱ whoȱ dealȱwithȱtheȱ Roma.ȱTheyȱ haveȱ also,ȱ andȱ moreȱ importantly,ȱ resultedȱ inȱ newȱ formsȱ ofȱ knowledgeȱ andȱ inȱ theȱ reȬ articulationȱ ofȱ Romaniȱ identitiesȱ (seeȱ alsoȱ chaptersȱ 6,ȱ 7,ȱ 8).ȱ Indeed,ȱ informationȱ “isȱ notȱ theȱoutcomeȱofȱaȱneutralȱrecordingȱfunction.ȱItȱisȱitselfȱaȱwayȱofȱactingȱuponȱtheȱreal,ȱaȱ wayȱofȱdevisingȱtechniquesȱforȱinscriptionȱinȱsuchȱaȱwayȱasȱtoȱmakeȱtheȱdomainȱinȱquesȬ tionȱsusceptibleȱtoȱevaluation,ȱcalculation,ȱandȱintervention”ȱ(MillerȱandȱRoseȱ2008:ȱ66).ȱ RomaȬrelatedȱissues—theirȱhealth,ȱeducation,ȱhousing,ȱintegration,ȱsegregation,ȱdiscrimiȬ nation,ȱ rights,ȱ cultures,ȱ lifeȱ expectancies,ȱ etc.—areȱ increasinglyȱ discussedȱ inȱ aȱ Europeanȱ context.ȱ Theseȱ debatesȱ areȱ inherentlyȱ relatedȱ toȱ howȱ theȱ Romaȱ areȱ targetedȱ for,ȱ forȱ inȬ stance,ȱ ‘socialȱ inclusion’ȱ inȱ EUȱ policies,ȱ ‘humanȱ development’ȱ inȱ UNȱ programs,ȱ ‘activȬ ation’ȱ policiesȱ inȱ Worldȱ Bankȱ approaches,ȱ ‘grassrootsȱ empowerment’ȱ inȱ NGOȱ projects,ȱ andȱ‘communityȱpolicing’ȱinȱOSCEȱpolicies.9_ȱ

When,ȱinȱtheȱeighteenthȱcentury,ȱstatisticsȱemergedȱasȱaȱscientificȱdiscipline—initiallyȱ asȱ‘theȱscienceȱofȱtheȱstate’—thisȱappearanceȱwentȱtogetherȱwithȱtheȱfirstȱmodern,ȱlargeȬ scaleȱ mappingȱ ofȱ allegedlyȱ ‘nonȬfitting’ȱ Romaniȱ andȱ Jewishȱ minorities.ȱ Theȱ Habsburgȱ censusesȱonȱtheȱRoma,ȱforȱinstance,ȱwereȱnoȱpassive,ȱneutralȱformsȱofȱdataȱcollection,ȱbutȱ activeȱcontributionsȱtoȱnewȱwaysȱtoȱapproachȱtheȱRoma,ȱidentifyȱthem,ȱandȱmakeȱminorȬ ityȱselfȬarticulationsȱasȱwellȱasȱinterventionsȱinȱtheirȱlivesȱpossibleȱatȱallȱ(chapterȱ4).ȱAkinȱ toȱ howȱ theseȱ informationȱ technologiesȱ andȱ bodiesȱ ofȱ knowledgeȱ andȱ expertiseȱ haveȱ renderedȱ minoritiesȱ classifiableȱ andȱ manageableȱ atȱ stateȱ levelsȱ andȱ contributedȱ toȱ theȱ state’sȱgovernmentalization,ȱemergentȱtransnationalȱtoolsȱrenderȱtheȱRomaȱmanageableȱatȱ theȱtransnational,ȱEuropeanȱlevelȱandȱcontributeȱtoȱEurope’sȱgovernmentalization.ȱToolsȱ suchȱasȱtheȱEU’sȱEuroȬbarometersȱ(ECȱ2008a)ȱorȱtheȱUNDP’sȱRomaȱhumanȱdevelopmentȱ

8_{ȱTheȱEuropeanȱCommissionȱemphasizesȱthatȱthisȱPlatformȱisȱnotȱaȱnewȱbody:ȱ“TheȱPlatformȱisȱ…ȱaȱprocessȱ}

andȱ notȱ aȱ newȱ bodyȱ whichȱ couldȱ replaceȱ Europeanȱ Unionȱ orȱ internationalȱ decisionȱ makingȱ bodiesȱ …ȱ Rationaleȱ ofȱ theȱ Platformȱ isȱ toȱ makeȱ theȱ existingȱ parallelȱ policyȱ processesȱ atȱ Europeanȱ andȱ internationalȱ levelȱmoreȱcoherent”ȱ(ECȱ2010b:ȱ5)ȱandȱ“toȱcreateȱsynergies”ȱ(ibidȱ28).ȱ“TheȱPlatformȱisȱnotȱonlyȱaȱplaceȱforȱ interȬgovernmentalȱandȱinternationalȱcooperation,ȱbutȱregardsȱcivilȱsocietyȱasȱaȱconstitutiveȱelement”ȱ(ibidȱ 28).ȱ Atȱ theȱ sameȱ time,ȱ “theȱ Platformȱ isȱ notȱ aȱ placeȱ forȱ decisionȬmaking,ȱ butȱ itȱ canȱ helpȱ toȱ identifyȱ theȱ bestȱ solutionsȱforȱproblems.ȱItȱcan,ȱthus,ȱprepareȱtheȱgroundȱthatȱtheȱdecisionȱmakingȱbodiesȱatȱEU,ȱnationalȱandȱ internationalȱlevelsȱmakeȱtheirȱchoices”ȱ(ibidȱ29,ȱmyȱitalics).ȱ

9_{ȱ See,ȱ forȱ instance,ȱ Europeanȱ Commissionȱ (2008c;ȱ 2010b),ȱ UNDPȱ (2002),ȱ Worldȱ Bankȱ (2005a;ȱ 2008),ȱ}

indicesȱ(2002)ȱareȱnoȱnonȬpolitical,ȱneutralȱtoolsȱtoȱmeasureȱspecificȱstatesȱofȱaffairs,ȱbutȱ activeȱ contributionsȱ toȱ theȱ Roma’sȱ Europeanization.ȱ Theȱ UNDP,ȱ forȱ instance,ȱ hasȱ beenȱ veryȱclearȱaboutȱhowȱitȱperceivesȱtheȱrelationshipȱbetweenȱwhatȱitȱconsidersȱasȱassistanceȱ toȱtheȱRomaȱinȱEuropeȱandȱtheȱdevelopmentȱofȱnewȱdata:ȱ

ȱ

Developingȱ policiesȱ toȱ assistȱ theȱ Romaȱ requiresȱ accessȱ toȱ reliableȱ data.ȱ Butȱ comparativeȱ statisticalȱinformationȱonȱtheȱRomaȱinȱCentralȱandȱEasternȱEuropeȱhasȱbeenȱlacking.ȱ Consequently,ȱ policymakersȱ soȱ farȱ haveȱ reliedȱ primarilyȱ onȱ qualitativeȱ ratherȱ thanȱ quantitativeȱ information.ȱ Inȱ someȱ cases,ȱ statisticsȱ wereȱ availableȱ forȱ someȱ countries,ȱ butȱtheȱdataȱsetsȱdidȱnotȱcoverȱallȱcountriesȱinȱtheȱregionȱandȱwereȱthereforeȱnotȱcomparableȱ orȱ standardizedȱ …ȱ Thisȱ studyȱ seeksȱ toȱ provideȱ nationalȱ andȱ internationalȱ policyȱ makers,ȱacademicsȱandȱrepresentativesȱofȱcivilȱsocietyȱwithȱaccurate,ȱreliable,ȱandȱcomȬ parativeȱdata,ȱwhichȱareȱnecessaryȱtoȱdesignȱandȱimplementȱsoundȱpolicy.ȱ(UNDPȱ2002:ȱ1,ȱ myȱitalics)ȱ

ȱ

Inȱ itsȱ longȱ listȱ ofȱ recommendations,ȱ thisȱ UNDPȱ reportȱ concludesȱ thatȱ “donorsȱ shouldȱ investȱinȱextensiveȱcollectionȱandȱdevelopmentȱofȱcomparableȱsocioeconomicȱdataȱsetsȱinȱorderȱtoȱ avoidȱ ungroundedȱ interpretationsȱ andȱ speculationsȱ onȱ minorityȱ issues”ȱ (ibidȱ 6,ȱ myȱ italics).ȱ Myȱmainȱissueȱhereȱisȱnotȱwhetherȱweȱshouldȱcollectȱsuchȱdata,ȱbutȱhow—ifȱtheȱRomaȱ areȱ targetedȱ forȱ theseȱ formsȱ ofȱ knowledgeȱ production—suchȱ approachesȱ areȱ relatedȱ toȱ questionsȱofȱlegitimacy,ȱpower,ȱtheȱdeȬpoliticizationȱorȱreȬpoliticizationȱofȱdelicateȱissues,ȱ andȱ theȱ reshapingȱ ofȱ Romaniȱ minorityȱ governanceȱ inȱ Europe.10_{ȱ Expertiseȱ isȱ aȱ formȱ ofȱ}

authorityȱthatȱemergesȱasȱaȱcorrelateȱofȱpoliticalȱauthorityȱandȱthatȱarisesȱoutȱofȱaȱclaimȱ toȱneutral,ȱefficient,ȱandȱeffectiveȱknowledgeȱ(chapterȱ2).ȱTheȱaccumulationȱofȱexpertiseȱ andȱknowledgeȱinȱspecificȱlocales,ȱ“byȱcertainȱpersonsȱandȱgroups,ȱmakesȱthemȱpowerfulȱ inȱtheȱsenseȱthatȱitȱconfersȱuponȱthemȱtheȱcapacityȱtoȱengageȱinȱcertainȱcalculationsȱandȱ toȱlayȱaȱclaimȱtoȱlegitimacyȱforȱtheirȱplansȱandȱstrategiesȱbecauseȱtheyȱare,ȱinȱaȱrealȱsense,ȱ inȱtheȱknowȱaboutȱthatȱwhichȱtheyȱseekȱtoȱgovern”ȱ(MillerȱandȱRoseȱ2008:ȱ66,ȱtheirȱitalics).ȱ Accordingȱ toȱ theȱ UNDP’sȱ moreȱ generalȱ approachȱ toȱ expertise,ȱ ‘theȱ Roma’ȱ canȱ onlyȱ beȱ dealtȱ withȱ adequatelyȱ atȱ localȱ levelsȱ ifȱ we,ȱ firstȱ andȱ foremost,ȱ problematizeȱ themȱ asȱ aȱ Europeanȱ issueȱ andȱ asȱ subjectsȱ ofȱ whatȱ theȱ UNȱ frameȱ asȱ ‘humanȱ development’.11_{ȱ Theȱ}

UNDPȱ presentsȱ itsȱ developmentȱ instrumentsȱ andȱ mechanisms,ȱ suchȱ asȱ transnationallyȱ comparableȱ dataȱ onȱ theȱ Romaȱ andȱ variousȱ kindsȱ ofȱ riskȱ analysesȱ regardingȱ them,ȱ asȱ neutral,ȱnonȬpolitical,ȱandȱtechnicalȱtools.ȱTheyȱcouldȱhelpȱvariousȱagents,ȱfromȱdifferentȱ kindsȱofȱpolicyȱmakersȱtoȱacademicsȱandȱNGOs,ȱtoȱimproveȱtheirȱRomaȱapproachesȱand,ȱ ultimately,ȱtheȱRoma’sȱsituationȱonȱtheȱground.12_ȱ 10_{ȱAtȱtheȱsameȱtime,ȱIȱacknowledgeȱtheȱquestionȱofȱbothȱtheȱdelicacyȱandȱimportanceȱofȱdataȱcollectionȱonȱ} Romaniȱissuesȱ(PERȱ2000a;ȱERRCȱ2004e;ȱOSIȱ2010).ȱ 11_{ȱTheȱUNȱunderstandsȱitsȱ‘humanȱdevelopment’ȱapproachȱasȱaȱcombinationȱofȱhumanȱsecurityȱandȱsustainȬ} ableȱdevelopmentȱapproachesȱ(UNDPȱ1998;ȱ2000).ȱ 12_{ȱTheȱOpenȱSocietyȱInstituteȱ(OSI),ȱanȱinternational,ȱSorosȬfundedȱNGOȱthat,ȱtogetherȱwithȱtheȱWorldȱBank,ȱ} launchedȱtheȱDecadeȱofȱRomaȱInclusionȱ2005Ȭ2015ȱhasȱsuggestedȱsomethingȱsimilarȱwhenȱit,ȱinȱaȱreportȱthatȱ evaluatesȱtheȱDecadeȱproject,ȱclaimsȱthatȱ“withoutȱcomprehensiveȱdataȱtoȱevaluateȱgovernmentȱeffortsȱandȱ guideȱ policies,ȱ theȱ situationȱ ofȱ theȱ Roma—aȱ groupȱ alreadyȱ onȱ theȱ marginsȱ ofȱ Europe—isȱ likeȱ toȱ remainȱ dire”ȱ (OSIȱ 2010:ȱ 10).ȱ Inȱ chapterȱ 7,ȱ Iȱ willȱdiscussȱ howȱ weȱ canȱ understandȱ theȱ waysȱ inȱ whichȱ transnationalȱ

MyȱmainȱinterestȱinȱcurrentȱIGOȱandȱNGOȱproblematizationsȱofȱtheȱRomaȱisȱhowȱtheseȱ agenciesȱ contributeȱ toȱ authorizingȱ themselvesȱ toȱ speakȱ inȱ theȱ nameȱ ofȱ theȱ Roma,ȱ toȱ makingȱRomaȬrelatedȱinterventionsȱpossibleȱatȱall,ȱandȱtoȱrearticulatingȱformsȱofȱRomaniȱ minorityȱ governanceȱ andȱ selfȬgovernanceȱ inȱ Europe.ȱ Whatȱ doesȱ itȱ mean,ȱ forȱ instance,ȱ thatȱtheȱOSCE—anȱinstitutionalȱbodyȱthat,ȱaccordingȱtoȱitsȱ‘original’ȱmandate,ȱfocusesȱonȱ securityȱ inȱ Europe—hasȱ incorporatedȱ RomaȬrelatedȱ issuesȱ inȱ itsȱ executiveȱ bodiesȱ andȱ policyȱmandates?ȱWhatȱdoesȱitȱmeanȱthatȱIGOsȱsuchȱasȱtheȱUNDPȱandȱtheȱWorldȱBankȱ that,ȱuntilȱrecently,ȱfocusedȱonȱdevelopmentȱissuesȱinȱtheȱglobalȱsouthȱand,ȱthus,ȱoutsideȱ Europe,ȱ haveȱ extendedȱ theirȱ mandatesȱ toȱ Europe’sȱ Romaniȱ minorities?ȱ Whatȱ isȱ theȱ relevanceȱ ofȱ theȱ variousȱ waysȱ inȱ whichȱ NGOs—butȱ alsoȱ EU,ȱ OSCE,ȱ andȱ stateȬrelatedȱ bodies—approachȱtheȱRomaȱinȱtermsȱofȱ‘community’ȱgovernance,ȱsuchȱasȱinȱcommunityȱ development,ȱ communityȱ policing,ȱ communityȱ empowerment,ȱ andȱ minorityȱ selfȬ governmentȱprojects?ȱ

Someȱ recentȱ valuableȱ studiesȱ haveȱ dealtȱ withȱ similarȱ kindsȱ ofȱ questions.ȱ Martinȱ Kovats,ȱforȱinstance,ȱputsȱforwardȱthatȱtheȱOSCEȱdidȱnotȱengageȱwithȱtheȱRomaȱpriorȱtoȱ theȱ1990sȱ“asȱtheyȱwereȱnotȱperceivedȱasȱrepresentingȱaȱsecurityȱissue”ȱ(2001a:ȱ95).ȱHe,ȱasȱ wellȱasȱPeterȱVermeerschȱ(2006)ȱandȱRachelȱGuglielmoȱandȱTimothyȱWatersȱ(2005),ȱhasȱ focusedȱ onȱ howȱ theȱ Romaȱ approachesȱ ofȱ internationalȱ organizationsȱ haveȱ developedȱ sinceȱ theyȱ beganȱ toȱ deviseȱ RomaȬrelatedȱ programsȱ inȱ theȱ earlyȱ 1990s.ȱ Others,ȱ suchȱ asȱ KatrinȱSimhandlȱ(2007;ȱ2009),ȱhaveȱanalyzedȱlongerȱperiodsȱofȱtimeȱandȱstudiedȱhow,ȱforȱ instance,ȱtheȱRomaȱdiscoursesȱofȱtheȱEUȱandȱitsȱinstitutionalȱforerunnersȱhaveȱchangedȱ sinceȱtheȱ1970s.ȱTheseȱstudiesȱprimarilyȱfocusȱonȱhowȱvariousȱIGOsȱhaveȱdealtȱwithȱtheȱ RomaȱandȱhowȱtheirȱRomaȱapproachesȱhaveȱchangedȱinȱtheȱcourseȱofȱtheȱyearsȱ(Kovats,ȱ Guglielmoȱ andȱ Waters,ȱ Vermeersch)ȱ orȱ decadesȱ (Simhandl).ȱ Toȱ aȱ muchȱ lesserȱ degree,ȱ theseȱ studiesȱ payȱ attentionȱ toȱ howȱ andȱ underȱ whatȱ kindsȱ ofȱ conditionsȱ theȱ changesȱ withinȱ theseȱ IGOsȱ haveȱ enabledȱ themȱ toȱ incorporateȱ RomaȬrelatedȱ issuesȱ intoȱ theirȱ executiveȱ bodiesȱ andȱ policyȱ mandatesȱ inȱ theȱ wayȱ theyȱ did.ȱ Anȱ interrogationȱ ofȱ theseȱ changesȱand,ȱmoreȱimportantly,ȱofȱtheȱnewȱgovernanceȱagendasȱwithȱwhichȱtheyȱcanȱbeȱ connectedȱwillȱelucidateȱhowȱpostȬ1989ȱRomaȱproblematizationsȱhaveȱengenderedȱnewȱ formsȱofȱRomaniȱminorityȱgovernance.ȱInȱtheȱnextȱbutȱoneȱsection,ȱIȱwillȱshowȱthatȱweȱ canȱshedȱanotherȱlightȱonȱtheȱnewȱgovernanceȱagendasȱofȱinstitutionsȱsuchȱasȱtheȱEU,ȱtheȱ OSCE,ȱ andȱ theȱ Worldȱ Bank,ȱ whenȱ weȱ approachȱ theseȱ agendasȱ fromȱ theȱ angleȱ ofȱ theirȱ articulationȱ withȱ neoȬliberalȱ formsȱ ofȱ governmentality.ȱ Butȱ howȱ areȱ weȱ toȱ understandȱ neoȬliberalismȱasȱgovernmentality?ȱ ȱ ȱ NEOȬLIBERALISMȱASȱGOVERNMENTALITYȱ ȱ Thereȱisȱaȱbizarre,ȱsomewhatȱparadoxicalȱcontemporaryȱphenomenonȱthatȱisȱcalledȱneoȬ liberalism.ȱWhenȱweȱtryȱtoȱgetȱanȱoverviewȱofȱhowȱscholarsȱhaveȱrecentlyȱanalyzedȱit,ȱweȱ canȱ easilyȱ getȱ lostȱ inȱ variousȱ kindsȱ ofȱ claimsȱ andȱ argumentsȱ aboutȱ itsȱ possibilitiesȱ andȱ impossibilities.ȱ Inȱ anȱ intriguingȱ article,ȱ entitledȱ “Livingȱ with/inȱ andȱ withoutȱ neoȬ advocacyȱandȱactivistȱnetworks,ȱsuchȱasȱERGOȱandȱERPC,ȱhaveȱbecomeȱinvolvedȱinȱtheȱproductionȱofȱnewȱ formsȱofȱknowledgeȱandȱexpertise.ȱ

liberalism,”ȱJohnȱClarkeȱ(2008)ȱputsȱforwardȱthatȱtheȱnotionȱofȱ‘neoȬliberalism’ȱseemsȱtoȱ sufferȱ fromȱ promiscuity,ȱ omnipresence,ȱ andȱ omnipotenceȱ atȱ theȱ sameȱ time.ȱ Itsȱ promisȬ cuityȱ comesȱ fromȱ hangingȱ outȱ withȱ variousȱ kindsȱ ofȱ theoreticalȱ perspectives,ȱ rangingȱ fromȱclassicȱorȱneoȬMarxistȱpreoccupationsȱwithȱclass,ȱpoliticalȱeconomy,ȱandȱcapitalismȱ toȱvariousȱpostȬconstructivistȱapproachesȱtoȱideology,ȱhegemony,ȱandȱgovernmentality.ȱ Diverseȱ kindsȱ ofȱ scholarsȱ andȱ disciplinesȱ haveȱ focusedȱ onȱ theȱ phenomenonȱ ofȱ neoȬ liberalismȱinȱanȱattemptȱtoȱrevealȱwhatȱisȱgoingȱonȱinȱtheȱworldȱand,ȱmostȱusually,ȱgoingȱ wrong.ȱ Atȱtheȱ sameȱ time,ȱ “neoȬliberalismȱ seemsȱtoȱ meanȱmanyȱ differentȱthingsȱ depenȬ dingȱonȱone’sȱvantageȱpoint”ȱ(Ongȱ2006:ȱ1).ȱ

NeoȬliberalism’sȱ supposedȱ omnipresenceȱ hasȱ ledȱ someȱ toȱ characterizeȱ ourȱ presentȬ dayȱtimeȱasȱaȱneoȬliberalȱorder,ȱage,ȱorȱeraȱ(eg,ȱFergusonȱ2005a;ȱCooperȱ2008;ȱSigonaȱandȱ Trehanȱ 2009c).ȱ Someȱ scholarsȱ disagreeȱ aboutȱ itsȱ origins—theȱ US,ȱ theȱ UK,ȱ theȱ IMF,ȱ theȱ WorldȱBank,ȱetc.—but,ȱnevertheless,ȱbelieveȱthatȱitȱhasȱstartedȱsomewhereȱandȱhasȱbeenȱ disseminatedȱfromȱthereȱtoȱotherȱplacesȱonȱearth.ȱOthersȱscholarsȱrejectȱanyȱdiscussionȱofȱ neoȬliberalismȱ inȱ termsȱ ofȱ origins:ȱ “whenȱ weȱ identifyȱ specificȱ variantsȱ ofȱ neoȬliberalismȱ weȱareȱnotȱexaminingȱvarietiesȱofȱaȱreallyȱexisting,ȱhomogenousȱgenus”ȱ(Castreeȱ2006:ȱ4,ȱ hisȱ italics).ȱ Nonetheless,ȱ neoȬliberalismȱ seemsȱ toȱ haveȱ spreadȱ allȱ overȱ theȱ globeȱ toȱ becomeȱeitherȱaȱdominant,ȱifȱnotȱtheȱmostȱdominantȱfeatureȱofȱcontemporaryȱsocietiesȱorȱ anȱ uncontrollable,ȱ mobileȱ virusȱ thatȱ infectsȱ everythingȱ andȱ everybodyȱ onȱ itsȱ ongoingȱ journeyȱ (orȱ both).ȱ Evenȱ thoughȱ neoȬliberalism’sȱ intellectualȱ projectȱ hasȱ beenȱ declaredȱ virtuallyȱdead,ȱitȱhasȱbeenȱarguedȱthatȱneoȬliberalismȱcontinuesȱtoȱhauntȱusȱnowȱthatȱitȱ hasȱenteredȱitsȱ‘zombie’ȱphaseȱ(Smithȱ2008;ȱPeckȱ2010).ȱ

NeoȬliberalism’sȱ highȱ mobilityȱ andȱ abilityȱ toȱ changeȱ thingsȱ drasticallyȱ relateȱ toȱ neoȬ liberalism’sȱallegedȱomnipresence:ȱwhereverȱitȱendsȱup,ȱitȱseemsȱtoȱchangeȱthingsȱpermaȬ nentlyȱ andȱ usuallyȱ notȱ forȱ theȱ good.ȱ “Muchȱ likeȱ ‘globalization’ȱ inȱ theȱ previousȱ decadeȱ andȱ‘capitalism’ȱbeforeȱthat,”ȱ‘neoȬliberalism’ȱhasȱbecomeȱ“aȱkindȱofȱdustbinȱintoȱwhichȱ weȱpourȱourȱinterpretationsȱofȱbadȱthings”ȱ(Newmanȱ2010:ȱ7Ȭ8).ȱInȱparticularȱwhenȱtheȱ poorȱareȱspotted,ȱneoȬliberalismȱhasȱbecomeȱanȱanalyticalȱweaponȱtoȱrevealȱtheȱcontinuaȬ tionȱ ofȱ theirȱ marginalizationȱ andȱ exclusionȱ withȱ new,ȱ powerfulȱ meansȱ (eg,ȱ Wacquantȱ 2009).ȱCliveȱBarnettȱstatesȱthatȱneoȬliberalismȱhasȱalsoȱinfectedȱourȱacademicȱworkȱor,ȱatȱ least,ȱ specific,ȱ ‘leftist’ȱ partsȱ ofȱ it.ȱ Heȱ claimsȱ thatȱ theȱ scholarlyȱ projectionȱ ofȱ hegemonicȱ qualitiesȱontoȱneoȬliberalismȱconsolesȱsomeȱofȱusȱandȱhelpsȱtoȱlegitimizeȱtheirȱscholarlyȱ work:ȱ

ȱ

[TheȱvocabularyȱofȱneoȬliberalism]ȱsuppliesȱ[leftistȱacademics]ȱwithȱplentifulȱopportuȬ nitiesȱ forȱ unveilingȱ theȱ realȱ workingsȱ ofȱ hegemonicȱ ideologiesȱ inȱ aȱ characteristicȱ gestureȱofȱrevelation;ȱandȱinȱsoȱdoing,ȱitȱinvitesȱusȱtoȱalignȱourȱownȱprofessionalȱrolesȱ withȱtheȱactivitiesȱofȱvariousȱactorsȱ‘outȱthere,’ȱwhoȱareȱalwaysȱframedȱasȱengagingȱinȱ resistanceȱorȱcontestation.ȱ(Barnettȱ2005:ȱ10)ȱ ȱ BarnettȱfindsȱtheȱgeographerȱNoelȱCastreeȱonȱhisȱside,ȱwhoȱsuspectsȱthatȱ“‘neoliberalism’ȱ willȱremainȱaȱnecessaryȱillusionȱforȱthoseȱonȱtheȱgeographicalȱleft:ȱsomethingȱweȱknowȱ doesȱnotȱexistȱasȱsuch,ȱbutȱtheȱideaȱofȱwhoseȱexistenceȱallowsȱourȱ‘local’ȱresearchȱfindingȱ toȱconnectȱtoȱaȱmuchȱbiggerȱandȱapparentlyȱimportantȱconversation”ȱ(2006:ȱ6).ȱ

Asȱ withȱ mostȱ newlyȱ emergingȱ orȱ fashionableȱ scholarlyȱ concepts,ȱ andȱ particularlyȱ withȱ thoseȱwithȱlargeȱpretensions,ȱneoȬliberalismȱhadȱalsoȱtoȱbeȱhazedȱandȱdeconstructed:ȱitȱisȱ notȱasȱ‘new’ȱasȱhasȱfrequentlyȱbeenȱsuggested,ȱitȱhasȱitsȱownȱpeculiarȱhistories,ȱitȱhasȱnoȱ clearȱ ifȱ anyȱ origins,ȱ itȱ cannotȱ beȱ heldȱ responsibleȱ forȱ everything,ȱ itȱ hasȱ itsȱ ownȱ spatioȬ temporalȱspecificities,ȱandȱsoȱon,ȱandȱsoȱforth.ȱYet,ȱafterȱhavingȱstartedȱmyȱownȱdiscusȬ sionȱofȱneoȬliberalismȱwithȱsomeȱofȱtheȱmostȱcriticalȱcommentsȱinȱtheȱongoingȱneoȬlibeȬ ralismȱdebate,ȱitȱseemsȱalmostȱimpossibleȱtoȱuseȱtheȱconceptȱwithoutȱfallingȱinȱoneȱofȱtheȱ trapsȱthatȱhasȱalreadyȱbeenȱorȱwillȱsoonȱbeȱrevealedȱinȱtheȱdebate.ȱInȱthisȱandȱtheȱnextȱ chapters,ȱ Iȱ willȱ neverthelessȱ tryȱ toȱ useȱ ‘neoȬliberalism’ȱ asȱ anȱ analyticalȱ toolȱ toȱ examineȱ theȱ currentȱ situationȱ ofȱ Romaniȱ minoritiesȱ inȱ Europe.ȱ Iȱ willȱ startȱ fromȱ someȱ ofȱ theȱ insightsȱ thatȱ theȱ neoȬliberalismȱ debateȱ offersȱ usȱ forȱ mobilizingȱ thisȱ conceptȱ critically.ȱ ManyȱcriticalȱreflectionsȱonȱneoȬliberalismȱandȱhowȱitȱhasȱbeenȱusedȱcritiqueȱtheȱwaysȱinȱ whichȱitȱhasȱbeenȱinterpretedȱasȱaȱprimarilyȱ‘bad’ȱphenomenonȱthatȱhasȱevenȱbeenȱableȱ toȱincorporateȱandȱcoȬoptȱitsȱ‘enemies.’ȱInȱorderȱtoȱuseȱneoȬliberalismȱinȱaȱmoreȱmoderateȱ yetȱstillȱproductiveȱway,ȱmanyȱparticipantsȱinȱtheȱdebateȱsuggest,ȱweȱneedȱtoȱacknowlȬ edgeȱthatȱitȱ“doesȱnotȱexistȱasȱsuch”ȱandȱrequiresȱinquiriesȱintoȱitsȱ‘local’ȱmanifestations.ȱ Theseȱtwoȱpointsȱareȱamongȱtheȱstartingȱpointsȱofȱmyȱownȱinterrogationȱofȱtheȱrelationsȱ betweenȱ neoȬliberalȱ formsȱ ofȱ governmentality,ȱ Romaȱ problematizations,ȱ andȱ newȱ andȱ reshapedȱformsȱofȱknowledgeȱformation.ȱ

ȱ Myȱ standpointȱ inȱ theȱ debateȱ onȱ neoȬliberalismȱ certainlyȱ bearsȱ resemblanceȱ withȱ theȱ positionsȱdiscussedȱinȱtheȱintroduction.ȱLikeȱthoseȱwhoȱinterpretȱneoȬliberalismȱasȱpolicyȱ orȱ ideology,ȱ forȱ instance,ȱ Iȱ alsoȱ considerȱ itȱ asȱ aȱ politicalȬculturalȱ projectȱ thatȱ aspiresȱ toȱ transnationalȱhegemony.ȱYet,ȱIȱconsiderȱthisȱaȱconstructivistȱprojectȱandȱdoubtȱwhetherȱ neoȬliberalismȱ reallyȱ succeedsȱ inȱ establishingȱ theȱ proposedȱ hegemony.ȱ Andȱ likeȱ thoseȱ whoȱunderstandȱneoȬliberalismȱasȱideology,ȱIȱalsoȱtakeȱitȱasȱaȱcomplexȱprocessȱofȱstrugȬ gleȱ andȱ contestation,ȱ inȱ whichȱ newȱ identitiesȱ andȱ newȱ ethnic,ȱ class,ȱ gender,ȱ andȱ otherȱ kindsȱofȱboundariesȱareȱproducedȱandȱreshaped.ȱYet,ȱIȱdoubtȱwhetherȱneoȬliberalismȱhasȱ primarilyȱ ledȱ toȱ ‘bad’ȱ outcomesȱ andȱ hasȱ beenȱ spreadȱ asȱ evenlyȱ andȱ unambiguouslyȱ asȱ hasȱoftenȱbeenȱclaimed.ȱIȱanalyzeȱneoȬliberalismȱbeyondȱassessingȱitȱinȱtermsȱofȱeitherȱitsȱ ‘bad’ȱorȱitsȱ‘good’ȱeffectsȱandȱlook,ȱinstead,ȱatȱitsȱambivalentȱandȱhybridȱnature.ȱInȱorderȱ toȱdoingȱso,ȱsurely,ȱweȱalsoȱneedȱtoȱblurȱtheȱboundariesȱbetweenȱtheȱdifferent,ȱcurrentlyȱ circulatingȱ interpretationsȱ ofȱ neoȬliberalism,ȱ suchȱ asȱ thoseȱ thatȱ considerȱ itȱ asȱ policy,ȱ ideology,ȱorȱgovernmentalityȱ(Larnerȱ2000;ȱClarkeȱ2008).ȱNevertheless,ȱIȱwillȱexplainȱthatȱ theȱperspectiveȱofȱgovernmentalityȱbringsȱintoȱviewȱsomeȱaspectsȱofȱneoȬliberalismȱthatȱ theȱ otherȱ twoȱ standpointsȱ doȱ notȱ sufficientlyȱ addressȱ andȱ thatȱ canȱ productivelyȱ beȱ relatedȱtoȱhowȱitȱhasȱbeenȱarticulatedȱinȱpostȬcommunistȱEurope.ȱ

MyȱemphasisȱonȱneoȬliberalismȱasȱaȱconstructivistȱprojectȱandȱonȱtheȱsignificanceȱofȱaȱ topologicalȱ readingȱ ofȱ powerȱ relationsȱ (chapterȱ 1)ȱ hasȱ twoȱ importantȱ implications.ȱ Weȱ cannotȱ assumeȱ thatȱ neoȬliberalȱ governmentalȱ technologiesȱ areȱ smoothlyȱ broughtȱ intoȱ practiceȱ andȱ inȱ alignmentȱ withȱ localȱ circumstances.ȱ Weȱ needȱ toȱ examineȱ howȱ theȱ localȱ translationsȱofȱtheseȱtoolsȱandȱpracticesȱhaveȱunforeseeablyȱandȱoftenȱuncomfortablyȱimȬ pactedȱonȱtheȱground.ȱMoreover,ȱweȱalwaysȱdealȱwithȱspecificȱconfigurationsȱofȱpowerȱ inȱ whichȱ different—and,ȱ thus,ȱ notȱ necessarilyȱ onlyȱ neoȬliberal—technologiesȱ ofȱ powerȱ areȱ combinedȱ andȱ assembled.ȱ Aȱ topologicalȱ analysisȱ ofȱ powerȱ “examinesȱ howȱ existingȱ techniquesȱ andȱ technologiesȱ ofȱ powerȱ areȱ reȬdeployedȱ andȱ recombinedȱ inȱ diverseȱ

assembliesȱofȱbioȬpoliticalȱgovernment”ȱ(Collierȱ2009:ȱ79).ȱInȱotherȱwords,ȱifȱweȱreadȱneoȬ liberalismȱasȱaȱformȱofȱgovernmentality,ȱweȱstartȱfromȱanalyzingȱhowȱmobile,ȱconnectiveȱ neoȬliberalȱtechnologies,ȱtechniques,ȱandȱpracticesȱhaveȱbeenȱselectivelyȱassembledȱwithȱ ‘local’ȱcultures,ȱpoliticalȱconditions,ȱandȱtraditionsȱofȱgovernance.ȱTheseȱneoȬliberalȱtechȬ nologies,ȱtechniques,ȱandȱpracticesȱareȱthenȱnotȱ‘global’ȱinȱnature,ȱbutȱcanȱonlyȱgetȱtheirȱ specificȱform,ȱcontent,ȱandȱmanifestationȱthroughȱhowȱtheyȱareȱassembledȱandȱappropriȬ atedȱ inȱ aȱ specificȱ context.ȱ Thisȱ approachȱ encouragesȱ ethnographicȱ accountsȱ ofȱ neoȬ liberalismȱinȱwhichȱtheȱspecificȱ‘local’ȱconditionsȱareȱanalyzedȱbeyondȱhowȱtheyȱwouldȱ haveȱbeenȱcolonizedȱfromȱoutsideȱandȱincorporatedȱintoȱanȱallȬencompassingȱandȱoverȬ shadowingȱneoȬliberalȱstructureȱorȱorder:ȱ

ȱȱ

Asȱ anȱ arrayȱ ofȱ [bioȬpolitical]ȱ techniquesȱ centeredȱ onȱ theȱ optimizationȱ ofȱ life,ȱ neoȬ liberalismȱmigratesȱfromȱsiteȱtoȱsite,ȱinteractingȱwithȱvariousȱassemblagesȱthatȱcannotȱ beȱanalyticallyȱreducedȱtoȱcasesȱofȱaȱuniformȱglobalȱconditionȱofȱ‘NeoȬliberalism’ȱwritȱ largeȱ …ȱ Itȱ thereforeȱ seemsȱ appropriateȱ toȱ studyȱ neoȬliberalismȱ notȱ asȱ ‘culture’ȱ orȱ aȱ ‘structure’ȱ butȱ asȱ mobileȱ calculativeȱ techniquesȱ ofȱ governingȱ thatȱ canȱ beȱ decontextȬ ualizedȱfromȱtheirȱoriginalȱsourcesȱandȱrecontextualizedȱinȱconstellationsȱofȱmutuallyȱ constitutiveȱandȱcontingentȱrelationships.ȱ(Ongȱ2006:ȱ14,ȱ13)ȱ

ȱ

ThisȱapproachȱofȱneoȬliberalismȱasȱgovernmentalityȱhasȱthreeȱconsequencesȱforȱhowȱweȱ analyzeȱ contemporaryȱ manifestationsȱ ofȱ neoȬliberalism.ȱ Firstly,ȱ weȱ needȱ toȱ avoidȱ “toȱ identifyȱanyȱprogramȱwithȱneoȬliberalȱelementsȱasȱessentiallyȱneoȬliberal,ȱandȱtoȱproceedȱ asȱifȱthisȱsubsumptionȱofȱtheȱparticularȱunderȱaȱmoreȱgeneralȱcategoryȱprovidesȱaȱsuffiȬ cientȱ accountȱ ofȱ itsȱ natureȱ orȱ explanationȱ ofȱ itsȱ existence”ȱ (Roseȱ etȱ alȱ 2006:ȱ 97Ȭ98).ȱ Accordingly,ȱweȱneedȱtoȱchallengeȱtheȱassumptionȱthatȱthereȱis,ȱorȱhasȱtoȱbe,ȱanȱefficient,ȱ oneȬtoȬoneȱcorrespondenceȱbetweenȱaȱsupposedlyȱhegemonic,ȱglobalȱpoliticalȬeconomicȱ neoȬliberalȱprojectȱandȱspecificȱneoȬliberalȱtechnologiesȱofȱpower.ȱ

ȱ Secondly,ȱneoȬliberalismȱasȱgovernmentalityȱleadsȱusȱbeyondȱtheȱsuggestionȱthatȱweȱ haveȱcurrentlyȱendedȱupȱinȱaȱneoȬliberalȱorder,ȱatȱleast,ȱifȱbyȱthatȱisȱmeantȱtheȱarrivalȱofȱaȱ new,ȱ ‘neoȬliberal’ȱ time,ȱ characterizedȱ byȱ clearȱ andȱ suddenȱ breaksȱ orȱ rupturesȱ withȱ theȱ past.ȱTheȱviewȱofȱneoȬliberalismȱasȱgovernmentality,ȱthus,ȱdoesȱalsoȱnotȱadhereȱtoȱaȱperiȬ odizedȱmodelȱofȱEurope’sȱhistoryȱinȱwhichȱitȱisȱclearlyȱdividedȱintoȱperiodsȱbeforeȱandȱ afterȱ1989ȱ(chapterȱ1).ȱAsȱIȱwillȱshowȱinȱchapterȱ6,ȱneoȬliberalismȱhasȱitsȱown,ȱCentralȱandȱ EasternȱEuropeanȱhistory.ȱMoreover,ȱtheȱeventȱofȱcommunism’sȱfallȱrequiresȱaȱreadingȱofȱ theȱ‘post’ȱofȱpostȬcommunismȱbeyondȱeasyȱperiodizationȱ(chapterȱ2,ȱHörschelmannȱandȱ Stenningȱ 2008;ȱ Collierȱ 2011).ȱ Thus,ȱ neoȬliberalismȱ asȱ governmentalityȱ cannotȱ beȱ underȬ stoodȱ asȱ aȱ newȱ grandȱ theoryȱ ofȱ societyȱ andȱ socioȬculturalȱ change,ȱ evenȱ thoughȱ someȱ scholarsȱofȱgovernmentalityȱhaveȱdiscussedȱourȱpresentȬdayȱtimeȱinȱtermsȱofȱtheȱ‘deathȱ ofȱtheȱsocial’ȱ(Roseȱ1996a)ȱandȱ‘postȬsocialȱgovernance’ȱ(Roseȱetȱalȱ2006:ȱ97).ȱForȱexample,ȱ qualificationsȱofȱourȱcurrentȱstatesȱorȱsocietiesȱasȱ‘postȬwelfarist’ȱorȱ‘neoȬliberal’ȱregimesȱ oftenȱ tendȱ toȱ overestimateȱ theȱ discontinuitiesȱ andȱ underestimateȱ theȱ continuitiesȱ withȱ pastȱ socioeconomicȱ andȱ culturalȱ formations.ȱ Weȱ needȱ toȱ acknowledgeȱ thatȱ differentȱ governmentalȱtechnologies,ȱwhichȱareȱsometimesȱpresentedȱasȱcorrespondingȱtoȱdistinctȱ historicalȱphases,ȱareȱoftenȱflexiblyȱcombined:ȱ

Atȱ theȱlevelȱ ofȱtechnicalȱ detail,ȱneoȬliberalismȱ doesȱnotȱ implyȱ theȱ wholesaleȱ replaceȬ mentȱ ofȱ oneȱ formȱ ofȱ socialȱ organizationȱ withȱ another.ȱ Indeed,ȱ theȱ diversityȱ ofȱ ‘variants’ȱofȱreformȱ…ȱunderscoresȱtheȱsubstantiveȱambiguityȱofȱneoȬliberalȱreformȱ…ȱ Atȱ theȱ levelȱ ofȱ socialȱ description,ȱ …ȱ theȱ processȱ ofȱ transformationȱ…ȱ doesȱ notȱ seemȱ usefullyȱdescribedȱasȱtheȱreplacementȱofȱ…ȱsocialȱmodernityȱwithȱaȱ‘marketȱsociety.’ȱ Rather,ȱwhatȱareȱtoȱbeȱtracedȱareȱtheȱnovelȱarticulationsȱbetweenȱmarketȬtypeȱmechȬ anisms,ȱ oldȱ bioȬpoliticalȱ forms,ȱ andȱ theȱ actualȱ substantiveȱ fabricȱ ofȱ existingȱ humanȱ communities.ȱ(Collierȱ2005:ȱ388,ȱhisȱemphasis)ȱ

ȱ

Here,ȱStephenȱCollierȱalsoȱpointsȱtoȱwhatȱIȱseeȱasȱtheȱthirdȱfeatureȱofȱapproachingȱneoȬ liberalismȱfromȱtheȱangleȱofȱgovernmentality:ȱitȱunderlinesȱtheȱcrucialȱimportanceȱofȱtheȱ issueȱ ofȱ articulation.ȱ Theȱ articulationȱ ofȱ technologiesȱ ofȱ powerȱ isȱ alwaysȱ dependentȱ onȱ complexȱ processesȱ ofȱ assemblingȱ andȱ reassemblingȱ severalȱ disparateȱ elementsȱ (chapterȱ 1,ȱLiȱ2007a).ȱArticulationȱcanȱbeȱunderstoodȱaȱkeyȱelementȱofȱallȱsortsȱofȱpoliticalȱwork:ȱ ȱ [Articulationȱembodies]ȱtheȱhardȱlaborȱofȱassemblingȱaȱpoliticalȱproject,ȱcreatingȱbothȱ itsȱdirections,ȱitsȱrelationshipȱtoȱtheȱfieldȱofȱdiscoursesȱandȱitsȱabilityȱtoȱmobilizeȱsocialȱ groupsȱinȱsupportȱofȱitȱ…ȱwhileȱmarginalizingȱorȱdeȬmobilizingȱotherȱdiscoursesȱandȱ otherȱgroups.ȱ(NewmanȱandȱClarkeȱ2009:ȱ18Ȭ19)ȱ ȱ TheȱpracticeȱofȱarticulationȱpointsȱtoȱtheȱnecessityȱtoȱinterrogateȱhowȱneoȬliberalȱtechnolȬ ogiesȱ ofȱ governmentȱ areȱ actuallyȱ assembledȱ withȱ other,ȱ disparateȱ elementsȱ andȱ howȱ theseȱhybridȱassemblagesȱcanȱalsoȱresultȱinȱpracticesȱthatȱmightȱbeȱatȱoddsȱwithȱwhatȱisȱ usuallyȱdescribedȱasȱneoȬliberalȱ(Liȱ2007a;ȱSharmaȱ2008;ȱStenningȱetȱalȱ2010).ȱ

ȱ Nowȱ Iȱ haveȱ delineatedȱ myȱ methodologicalȱ approachȱ ofȱ neoȬliberalism,ȱ Iȱ wantȱ toȱ moveȱonȱtoȱdescribeȱsomeȱofȱtheȱfeaturesȱofȱthisȱconstructivistȱprojectȱthatȱdeploysȱandȱ articulatesȱneoȬliberalȱtechnologiesȱofȱgovernment.ȱDespite—or,ȱmoreȱprobably,ȱbecauseȱ of—allȱwarningsȱthatȱweȱshouldȱavoidȱadoptingȱaȱ‘thick’ȱconceptȱofȱneoȬliberalism,ȱmostȱ scholarsȱ inȱ theȱ neoȬliberalismȱ debateȱ haveȱ difficultyȱ inȱ affirmativelyȱ describingȱ theȱ characterȱofȱneoȬliberalȱwaysȱofȱthinkingȱandȱdoing.ȱJamieȱPeck,ȱforȱinstance,ȱarguesȱthatȱ “neoȬliberalismȱdoesȱnot,ȱcannot,ȱexistȱinȱpureȱform,ȱbutȱonlyȱmanifestsȱitselfȱinȱhybridȱ formations”ȱ (2004:ȱ 403).ȱ Atȱ theȱ sameȱ time,ȱ heȱ remarksȱ thatȱ “theȱ factȱ thatȱ aȱ rangeȱ ofȱ criticalȱ analystsȱ …ȱ continueȱ toȱ drawȱ attentionȱ toȱ theȱ sharedȱ neoȬliberalȱ featuresȱ ofȱ theseȱ hybridsȱ pointsȱ toȱ theȱ importanceȱ ofȱ developingȱ adequateȱ accountsȱ ofȱ neoȬliberalismȬinȬgeneral,ȱ withoutȱ succumbingȱ toȱ theȱ fallaciesȱ ofȱ monolithism,ȱ functionalism,ȱ orȱ convergenceȱ thinking”ȱ(ibid,ȱmyȱitalics).ȱPeckȱacknowledgesȱthat,ȱfromȱtheȱoutset,ȱallȱvarietiesȱofȱneoȬ liberalismȱ areȱ hybrid—noȱ matterȱ whetherȱ weȱ startȱ ‘locally,’ȱ inȱ theȱ allegedȱ neoȬliberalȱ heartlandȱofȱtheȱUS,ȱorȱwithinȱtheȱinstitutionalȱsettingȱofȱtheȱWorldȱBankȱ(eachȱofȱtheseȱ ‘sites’ȱrepresentsȱaȱ‘local’ȱvariant).ȱAtȱtheȱsameȱtime,ȱheȱclaimsȱthatȱ“splittingȱdifferencesȱ overȱ varietiesȱ ofȱ neoȬliberalismȱ cannotȱ beȱ anȱ endȱ inȱ itself,ȱ notȱ leastȱ becauseȱ itȱ begsȱ questionsȱaboutȱtheȱcommonȱrootsȱandȱsharedȱfeaturesȱofȱtheȱunevenlyȱneoȬliberalizedȱlandscapeȱ thatȱ confrontsȱ us”ȱ (ibidȱ 403,ȱ myȱ italics).ȱ Similarly,ȱ Johnȱ Clarke,ȱ whenȱ heȱ raisesȱ theȱ questionȱ whatȱ mightȱ beȱ understoodȱ theȱ “neoȬliberalȱ characterȱ orȱ form”ȱ ofȱ thisȱ corelessȱ neoȬliberalism,ȱsuggestsȱthatȱ“theȱcoherenceȱisȱprovidedȱbyȱtheȱcombination”ȱofȱaȱcoupleȱ ofȱ elementsȱ (2008:ȱ 141).ȱ Heȱ describesȱ theseȱ elementsȱ and,ȱ then,ȱ statesȱ thatȱ “itȱ isȱ theirȱ

combinationȱandȱinterplayȱthatȱmarksȱtheȱdistinctivenessȱofȱneoȬliberalism,ȱandȱitȱisȱtheirȱ coȬexistenceȱ thatȱ enablesȱ neoȬliberalism’sȱ flexibilityȱ inȱ processesȱ ofȱ appropriationȱ andȱ articulation”ȱ(ibid).ȱTheȱdifficultyȱtoȱdepartȱfromȱaȱthickȱunderstandingȱofȱneoȬliberalismȱ onȱ theȱ oneȱ hand,ȱ andȱ toȱ describeȱ someȱ ofȱ itsȱ feature,ȱ onȱ theȱ other,ȱ seemsȱ toȱ beȱ partȱ ofȱ neoȬliberalism’sȱ slipperiness—and,ȱ probably,ȱ ofȱ anyȱ conceptȱ withȱ bigȱ pretensions.ȱ Iȱ doȱ notȱ thinkȱ thatȱ thereȱ isȱ necessarilyȱ aȱ problemȱ withȱ describingȱ someȱ sharedȱ neoȬliberalȱ elements.ȱWeȱonlyȱneedȱtoȱrecognizeȱthatȱtheseȱareȱnoȱ‘essential,’ȱuniversalȱfeaturesȱandȱ thatȱ theyȱ onlyȱ getȱ shapeȱ inȱ theȱ processesȱ inȱ whichȱ theyȱ areȱ articulatedȱ withȱ otherȱ meaningȱ andȱ valueȱ systemsȱ andȱ withȱ otherȱ tools,ȱ forms,ȱ andȱ traditionsȱ ofȱ governance.ȱ Theseȱelementsȱcanȱbeȱapproachedȱfromȱtheȱviewpointȱofȱrationalitiesȱofȱgovernment,ȱifȱ weȱrecognizeȱthatȱtheyȱareȱcontinuallyȱundergoingȱmodificationȱandȱcannotȱbeȱequatedȱ withȱknowledgeȱorȱthoughtȱinȱtheȱsenseȱofȱideasȱ(chapterȱ1).13_ȱ

So,ȱhowȱareȱweȱtoȱdescribeȱtheȱelementsȱthatȱmakeȱupȱthisȱ‘coreless’ȱneoȬliberalism?ȱ NeoȬliberalȱ formsȱ ofȱ governmentalityȱ areȱ ofȱ theȱ liberalȱ sort,ȱ forȱ theyȱ areȱ stillȱ basedȱ onȱ waysȱofȱgoverningȱthroughȱfreedomȱ(chapterȱ2).ȱLiberalismȱhasȱalwaysȱbeenȱaboutȱlookȬ ingȱ forȱ theȱ rightȱ governmentalȱ balanceȱ betweenȱ stateȱ andȱ economy,ȱ stateȱ andȱ society,ȱ andȱ theȱ publicȱ andȱ private,ȱ evenȱ thoughȱ ‘right’ȱ canȱ beȱ definedȱ differentlyȱ (chapterȱ 2).ȱ Whatȱ isȱ newȱ inȱ neoȬliberalismȱ isȱ thatȱ itȱ putsȱ governmentalȱ technologiesȱ developedȱ inȱ privateȱandȱbusinessȱspheresȱtoȱworkȱwithinȱtheȱdomainȱofȱtheȱstateȱitself,ȱsoȱthatȱevenȱ keyȱfunctionsȱofȱtheȱstateȱareȱdelegatedȱtoȱprivateȱprovidersȱandȱrunȱ‘likeȱaȱbusiness’:ȱ ȱ Theȱquestionȱofȱwhatȱshouldȱbeȱpublicȱandȱwhatȱprivateȱbecomesȱblurred,ȱasȱtheȱstateȱ itselfȱincreasinglyȱorganizesȱitselfȱaroundȱ‘profitȱcenters,’ȱ‘enterpriseȱmodels,’ȱandȱsoȱ on.ȱRatherȱthanȱshiftingȱtheȱlineȱbetweenȱstateȱandȱmarket,ȱthen,ȱneoȬliberalismȱinȱthisȱ accountȱ involvedȱ theȱ deploymentȱ ofȱ new,ȱ marketȬbasedȱ techniquesȱ ofȱ governmentȱ withinȱ theȱ terrainȱ ofȱ theȱ stateȱ itself.ȱ Atȱ theȱ sameȱ time,ȱ newȱ constructionsȱ ofȱ ‘active’ȱ andȱ ‘responsible’ȱ citizensȱ andȱ communitiesȱ areȱ deployedȱ toȱ produceȱ governmentalȱ resultsȱ thatȱ doȱ notȱ dependȱ onȱ directȱ stateȱ intervention.ȱ Theȱ ‘responsibilized’ȱ citizenȱ comesȱ toȱ operateȱ asȱ aȱ miniatureȱ firm,ȱ respondingȱ toȱ incentives,ȱ rationallyȱ assessingȱ risks,ȱandȱprudentlyȱchoosingȱfromȱamongȱdifferentȱcoursesȱofȱaction.ȱ(Fergusonȱ2009:ȱ 172)ȱ

ȱ

IȱtakeȱtheȱelementsȱthatȱJamesȱFergusonȱincludesȱinȱthisȱquotationȱasȱtheȱstartingȱpointsȱ toȱ describeȱ theȱ featuresȱ ofȱ neoȬliberalȱ constructivistȱ projects.ȱ First,ȱ Iȱ willȱ discussȱ howȱ theyȱ aimȱ atȱ theȱ blurringȱ ofȱ stateȬeconomyȱ andȱ stateȬsocietyȱ boundaries.ȱ Second,ȱ Iȱ willȱ clarifyȱ howȱ theseȱ rearrangementsȱ relateȱ toȱ attemptsȱ toȱ disseminateȱ enterpriseȱ modelsȱ overȱtheȱentireȱsocialȱbody.ȱThird,ȱIȱwillȱshowȱhowȱthisȱdisseminationȱconnectsȱtoȱactiveȱ andȱresponsibleȱformsȱofȱcitizenship.ȱ

13_{ȱAlternatively,ȱweȱcouldȱapproachȱtheseȱsharedȱneoȬliberalȱelements,ȱasȱPeckȱdoes,ȱfromȱtheȱviewpointȱofȱ}

familyȱ resemblancesȱ (ifȱ understoodȱ inȱ aȱ Wittgensteinean,ȱ nonȬessentialistȱ way).ȱ Weȱ couldȱ alsoȱ approachȱ them,ȱasȱClarkeȱdoes,ȱfromȱtheȱangleȱofȱaȱdistinctionȱbetweenȱtheȱ“‘preliminaryȱgrammar’ȱofȱneoȬliberalismȱ andȱ itsȱ ‘disjointed,ȱ disjuncturedȱ articulations’ȱ inȱ particularȱ places”ȱ (2008:ȱ 142).ȱ Heȱ derivesȱ thisȱ distinctionȱ fromȱ Catherineȱ Kingfisher,ȱ whoȱ arguesȱ thatȱ “Itȱ is,ȱ inȱ fact,ȱ onlyȱ inȱ theȱ circulationȱ ofȱ neoliberalȱ relatedȱ meaningsȱ andȱ theirȱ articulationȱ withȱ otherȱ meaningȱ systemsȱ thatȱ neoliberalismȱ takesȱ onȱ itsȱ multipleȱ andȱ contradictoryȱlives”ȱ(Kingfisherȱ2002:ȱ12).ȱ

RadicallyȱcontestedȱstateȬeconomyȱandȱstateȬsocietyȱboundariesȱ

NeoȬliberalismȱandȱ(classic)ȱliberalismȱdifferȱonȱtwoȱfundamentalȱpoints,ȱnamelyȱ(1)ȱtheȱ relationshipsȱ betweenȱ theȱ stateȱ andȱ theȱ economyȱ andȱ betweenȱ stateȱ andȱ (civil)ȱ society,ȱ andȱ(2)ȱtheȱbasisȱofȱfree,ȱliberalȱgovernmentȱ(Lemkeȱ2001).ȱSinceȱtheȱmarketȱitselfȱhasȱtoȱ becomeȱtheȱcentralȱorganizingȱandȱregulativeȱprincipleȱunderlyingȱtheȱstate,ȱitsȱ‘original’ȱ liberalȱ tasksȱ toȱ respectȱ forȱ theȱ freedomȱ ofȱ thoseȱ involvedȱ inȱ marketȱ exchangesȱ andȱ toȱ guaranteeȱandȱmonitorȱtheȱmarketȱfromȱthisȱpointȱofȱviewȱareȱdisplaced:ȱ

ȱ

Thereȱwillȱnotȱbeȱtheȱmarketȱgame,ȱwhichȱmustȱbeȱleftȱfree,ȱandȱthenȱtheȱdomainȱinȱ whichȱtheȱ stateȱ beginsȱtoȱ intervene,ȱ sinceȱ theȱ marketȱ …ȱcanȱ onlyȱ appearȱ ifȱ itȱisȱ proȬ duced,ȱandȱifȱitȱisȱproducedȱbyȱanȱactiveȱgovernmentality.ȱThereȱwillȱthusȱbeȱaȱsortȱofȱ completeȱsuperimpositionȱofȱmarketȱmechanisms,ȱindexedȱtoȱcompetition,ȱandȱgovernmentalȱ policy.ȱ Governmentȱ mustȱ accompanyȱ theȱ marketȱ economyȱ fromȱ startȱ toȱ finish.ȱ Theȱ marketȱ economyȱ doesȱ notȱ takeȱ somethingȱ awayȱ fromȱ government.ȱ Rather,ȱ itȱ indicates,ȱ itȱ constitutesȱtheȱgeneralȱindexȱinȱwhichȱoneȱmustȱplaceȱtheȱruleȱforȱdefiningȱallȱgovernȬ mentalȱaction.ȱOneȱmustȱgovernȱforȱtheȱmarket,ȱratherȱthanȱbecauseȱofȱtheȱmarket.ȱ(Foucaultȱ 2008a:ȱ121,ȱmyȱemphasis)ȱ

ȱ

NeoȬliberalism,ȱthus,ȱdoesȱnotȱsimplyȱassumeȱaȱkindȱofȱuniversalȱmarketȱrationalityȱthatȱ underliesȱ bothȱ stateȱ andȱ society,ȱ butȱ startsȱ fromȱ theȱ ideaȱ thatȱ theȱ marketȱ andȱ relatedȱ enterpriseȱmodelsȱhaveȱtoȱbeȱactivelyȱproduced:ȱ

ȱ

NeoȬliberalismȱdoesȱnotȱsimplyȱassumeȱthatȱallȱaspectsȱofȱsocial,ȱculturalȱandȱpoliticalȱ lifeȱcanȱbeȱreducedȱtoȱ…ȱaȱcalculusȱ[ofȱutility,ȱbenefit,ȱorȱsatisfaction],ȱratherȱitȱdevelopsȱ institutionalȱpracticesȱandȱrewardsȱforȱenactingȱthisȱvisionȱ…ȱNeoȬliberalismȱisȱaȱconstrucȬ tivistȱ project:ȱ itȱ doesȱ notȱ presumeȱ theȱ ontologicalȱ givennessȱ ofȱ aȱ thoroughgoingȱ ecoȬ nomicȱrationalityȱforȱallȱdomainsȱofȱsocietyȱbutȱratherȱtakesȱasȱitsȱtaskȱtheȱdevelopment,ȱ dissemination,ȱandȱinstitutionalizationȱofȱsuchȱaȱrationality.ȱ(Brownȱ2003:ȱ§9,ȱmyȱemphaȬ sis)ȱ ȱ Thisȱrelationshipȱbetweenȱstateȱandȱeconomyȱalsoȱaffectsȱtheȱmoreȱorȱlessȱclearȱboundaryȱ betweenȱstateȱandȱsociety,ȱtypicalȱofȱliberalȱformsȱofȱgovernmentality.ȱTheseȱeffectsȱcanȱ beȱclarifiedȱbyȱbrieflyȱdiscussingȱwhatȱsomeȱhaveȱcalledȱ“governingȱfromȱtheȱsocialȱpointȱ ofȱview”ȱ(NȱRoseȱ1999b:ȱchapterȱ3).ȱThisȱnotionȱrefersȱtoȱvarious,ȱprimarilyȱliberalȱwaysȱ ofȱ governingȱ stateȬsocietyȱ relationshipsȱ thatȱ haveȱ dominatedȱ inȱ postȬwarȱ Europe,ȱ inȱ whatȱweȱusuallyȱreferȱtoȱasȱwelfareȱstates.14_{ȱ‘Welfarist’ȱsystemsȱcanȱbeȱimaginedȱasȱaȱkindȱ}

14_{ȱNikolasȱRoseȱdescribesȱtheseȱformsȱofȱgovernmentȱasȱfollows:ȱ“governmentȱfromȱtheȱsocialȱpointȱofȱviewȱ}

aimedȱ toȱ connectȱ theȱ ‘prophylactic’ȱ dimensionsȱ ofȱ socialȱ government—thoseȱ concernedȱ withȱ preventingȱ possibleȱsocialȱriskȱandȱdangerȱbyȱpreȬemptiveȱmeansȱrangingȱfromȱsocialȱinsuranceȱthroughȱtheȱpromotionȱ ofȱ fullȱ employmentȱ andȱ measuresȱ toȱ ensureȱ socialȱ hygieneȱ toȱ theȱ inculcationȱ ofȱ normsȱ ofȱ childȱ rearing— withȱ theȱ ‘reactive’ȱ elementȱ ofȱ socialȱ government.ȱ Thusȱ laborȱ exchanges,ȱ courts,ȱ childȱ guidanceȱ clinics,ȱ schools,ȱandȱfactoriesȱallȱprovideȱinstitutionalȱlociȱforȱidentifyingȱpathologicalȱmen,ȱwomen,ȱandȱchildren,ȱ classifyingȱ andȱ judgingȱ them,ȱ notȱ onlyȱ prescribingȱ measuresȱ ofȱ individualȱ reformationȱ butȱ trackingȱ themȱ outȱ again,ȱ throughȱ theȱ activitiesȱ ofȱ socialȱ workersȱ andȱ others,ȱ intoȱ aȱ webȱ ofȱ socialȱ relationsȱ whichȱ canȱ beȱ madeȱvisibleȱandȱsubjectȱtoȱnormalizingȱintervention.ȱButȱwhatȱwasȱatȱstakeȱhere,ȱoverarchingȱtheȱdifferentȱ