The European Roma: minority representation, memory, and the limits of transnational governmentality - Summary

(1)

UvA-DARE is a service provided by the library of the University of Amsterdam (https://dare.uva.nl)

UvA-DARE (Digital Academic Repository)

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.

(2)

Summaryȱ

ȱ

ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

Inȱ thisȱ study,ȱ Iȱ analyzeȱ theȱ currentȱ situationȱ ofȱ Romaniȱ minoritiesȱ inȱ Europeȱ fromȱ theȱ angleȱ ofȱ changingȱ formsȱ andȱ toolsȱ ofȱ minorityȱ representationȱ andȱ governance.ȱ PartiȬ cularlyȱsinceȱtheȱfallȱofȱcommunism,ȱweȱhaveȱobservedȱwhatȱcanȱbeȱcalledȱtheȱEuropeanȬ izationȱ ofȱ Romaȱ representation.ȱ Inȱ politicalȱ andȱ policyȱ debates,ȱ inȱ mediaȱ andȱ scholarlyȱ discourses,ȱandȱinȱvariousȱformsȱofȱactivismȱandȱadvocacy,ȱtheȱRomaȱhaveȱincreasinglyȱ beenȱrepresentedȱasȱaȱEuropeanȱminority.ȱThisȱdevelopmentȱhasȱgoneȱhandȱinȱhandȱwithȱ theȱdevisingȱandȱorganizingȱofȱlargeȬscale,ȱEuropeȬwideȱprojectsȱandȱprogramsȱthatȱaimȱ atȱ theȱ Roma’sȱ empowermentȱ andȱ theȱ developmentȱ andȱ improvementȱ ofȱ theirȱ situationȱ throughoutȱ Europe.ȱ Noȱ otherȱ populationȱ groupȱ inȱ Europeȱ hasȱ recentlyȱ becomeȱ theȱ centralȱfocusȱofȱsoȱmanyȱdifferentȱinclusion,ȱempowerment,ȱandȱdevelopmentȱprogramsȱ thanȱtheȱRomani.ȱAtȱtheȱsameȱtime,ȱtheȱRoma’sȱEuropeanizationȱhasȱinauguratedȱaȱnewȱ phaseȱ inȱ theȱ historyȱ ofȱ theirȱ representationȱ andȱ selfȬrepresentation.ȱ Indeed,ȱ duringȱ theȱ Enlightenment,ȱ theȱ Romanticȱ Movement,ȱ nineteenthȱ andȱ earlyȱ twentiethȱ centuryȱ proȬ cessesȱofȱnationȱstateȱformation,ȱandȱunderȱNazismȱandȱcommunism,ȱtheȱRomaȱandȱtheirȱ culturesȱ wereȱ oftenȱ consideredȱ asȱ nonȬEuropean,ȱ alien,ȱ andȱ barriersȱ toȱ ‘progress’ȱ andȱ ‘civilization’ȱinȱEurope.ȱ

Inȱthisȱstudy,ȱIȱputȱtheȱfollowingȱquestionsȱatȱtheȱcenter:ȱHowȱareȱweȱtoȱunderstandȱ theȱrecentȱshiftȱfromȱtheȱrepresentationȱofȱtheȱRomaȱasȱaȱnonȬEuropeanȱminorityȱtoȱtheirȱ representationȱasȱaȱEuropeanȱminority?ȱHowȱareȱweȱtoȱassessȱthisȱshiftȱandȱtheȱparallelȱ developmentȱ ofȱ transnationalȱ formsȱ ofȱ minorityȱ governanceȱ fromȱ aȱ culturalȱ historical,ȱ policyȱ theoretical,ȱ andȱ politicalȱ philosophicalȱ pointȱ ofȱ view?ȱ Iȱ examineȱ thisȱ andȱ otherȱ shiftsȱ ofȱ Romaȱ representationȱ andȱ selfȬrepresentation,ȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ theirȱ consequences,ȱ inȱ lightȱ ofȱ changingȱ forms,ȱ processes,ȱ concepts,ȱ andȱ toolsȱ ofȱ governanceȱ andȱ selfȬgoverȬ nanceȱ inȱ Europe.ȱ Inȱ myȱ attemptsȱ toȱ answerȱ theseȱ questions,ȱ Iȱ doȱ notȱ inȱ theȱ firstȱ placeȱ focusȱonȱhowȱminorityȱgovernanceȱisȱorȱneedsȱtoȱbeȱorganizedȱfromȱaȱpracticalȱpointȱofȱ view.ȱAtȱaȱmoreȱfundamentalȱlevel,ȱIȱconcentrateȱonȱtheȱwaysȱinȱwhichȱdiverseȱideasȱandȱ practicesȱ ofȱ governingȱ haveȱ historicallyȱ andȱ upȱ toȱ nowȱ influencedȱ andȱ changedȱ theȱ relationshipȱandȱinteractionȱbetweenȱ‘Europe’ȱandȱ‘theȱRoma.’ȱWhatȱkindsȱofȱpractices,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 heterogeneousȱ Romaniȱ groupsȱ inȱ variousȱ countriesȱ inȱ Europeȱ actuallyȱ deȬ velopȱintoȱaȱquestionȱandȱtransformȱintoȱaȱspecificȱEuropeanȱ‘problem’ȱorȱsetȱofȱ‘probȬ

(3)

374ȱȱȱȱȱȱSUMMARYȱ

lems’ȱ toȱ whichȱ variousȱ programs,ȱ interventions,ȱ andȱ projectsȱ needȱ toȱ giveȱ anȱ answer?ȱ HowȱdoȱtheȱsimultaneousȱEuropeanizationȱofȱRomaȱrepresentationȱandȱtheȱemergenceȱofȱ aȱEuropeanȱintegrationȱagendaȱrelateȱtoȱtheȱchangeȱofȱRomaȱrepresentationȱinȱtermsȱofȱ assimilationȱandȱnomadismȱtoȱtheirȱmoreȱrecentȱrepresentationȱinȱtermsȱofȱhumanȱandȱ minorityȱrights,ȱminorityȱ integrationȱ andȱ participation,ȱandȱ humanȱsecurityȱ andȱ develȬ opment?ȱ Inȱ whatȱ waysȱ doȱ recentlyȱ developedȱ governmentalȱ techniquesȱ andȱ rationalesȱ contributeȱ toȱ newȱ orȱ changingȱ formsȱ ofȱ Romaȱ representationȱ andȱ selfȬrepresentation,ȱ andȱ toȱ newȱ formsȱ ofȱ activism,ȱ historyȱ writing,ȱ andȱ advocacy?ȱ Howȱ doȱ theseȱ transforȬ mationsȱrelateȱtoȱnewȱwaysȱofȱthinkingȱ‘Europe’?ȱ ȱ Toȱshedȱlightȱonȱtheseȱquestionsȱandȱissues,ȱIȱexamineȱpracticesȱofȱRomaniȱminorityȱ governance,ȱasȱwellȱasȱtheirȱmodernȱEuropeanȱhistory,ȱfromȱtheȱangleȱofȱanȱanalyticsȱofȱ governmentality.ȱAtȱtheȱendȱofȱtheȱ1970s,ȱtheȱFrenchȱphilosopherȱMichelȱFoucaultȱintroȬ ducedȱthisȱsomewhatȱawkwardȱneologismȱ‘governmentality’ȱinȱorderȱtoȱbeȱableȱtoȱreflectȱ onȱpracticesȱofȱgoverningȱbeyondȱtheȱcontextȱofȱgovernments,ȱorganizations,ȱandȱinstituȬ tions.ȱTheȱconceptȱofȱgovernmentalityȱcanȱbeȱexplainedȱinȱtwo,ȱcloselyȱrelatedȱways.ȱInȱaȱ generalȱway,ȱthisȱnotionȱindicatesȱtheȱrelationshipȱbetweenȱpracticesȱofȱ‘governing’ȱandȱ theȱ diverseȱ waysȱ inȱ whichȱ weȱ thinkȱ aboutȱ governing.ȱ Thisȱ meaningȱ doesȱ notȱ referȱ toȱ howȱ certainȱ ideasȱ aboutȱ governingȱ areȱ firstȱ developedȱ andȱ thenȱ broughtȱ intoȱ practice,ȱ but,ȱrather,ȱtoȱhowȱtheȱtechnicalȱandȱrationalȱdimensionsȱofȱgoverningȱconstantlyȱinterȬ act.ȱ Thisȱ generalȱ meaningȱ emphasizesȱ theȱ interactionȱ ofȱ actsȱ ofȱ ‘governing’ȱ withȱ partiȬ cularȱ ‘mentalities,’ȱ henceȱ ‘governȬmentalities.’ȱ Inȱ Foucault’sȱ workȱ thisȱ generalȱ meaningȱ relatesȱtoȱaȱhugeȱvarietyȱofȱactivities,ȱrangingȱfromȱideasȱaboutȱandȱpracticesȱandȱtechȬ niquesȱofȱhowȱweȱgovernȱourselvesȱandȱothersȱtoȱtheȱwaysȱinȱwhichȱaȱcityȱorȱstateȱhasȱ beenȱ orȱ shouldȱ beȱ governed.ȱ Accordingȱ toȱ itsȱ moreȱ narrowȱ meaning,ȱ though,ȱ governȬ mentalityȱ primarilyȱ refersȱ toȱ aȱ consolidationȱ ofȱ theȱ activityȱ ofȱ ‘governing’ȱ and,ȱ thus,ȱtoȱ ‘governmentalȬity.’ȱ Thisȱ meaningȱ pointsȱ toȱ relativelyȱ stabile,ȱ institutionalizedȱ formsȱ ofȱ governing,ȱ suchȱ asȱ thoseȱ expressedȱ inȱ theȱ governingȱ orȱ selfȬgoverningȱ atȱ theȱ levelȱ ofȱ governmentsȱandȱorganizations,ȱbutȱalsoȱinȱeverydayȱlifeȱpracticesȱrelatedȱtoȱhealthȱcare,ȱ education,ȱ sexuality,ȱ imprisoning,ȱ exhibiting,ȱ activism,ȱ theȱ keepingȱ ofȱ households,ȱ andȱ theȱlike.ȱTheȱnarrowȱmeaningȱofȱgovernmentalityȱisȱrelatedȱtoȱhowȱtheȱconsolidationȱofȱaȱ particularȱwayȱofȱgoverningȱorȱselfȬgoverningȱinvolvesȱbothȱtheȱabilityȱtoȱgovernȱandȱtheȱ powerȱtoȱgovernȱandȱidentifyȱwhatȱneedsȱtoȱbeȱgoverned.ȱTheȱgeneralȱandȱmoreȱnarrowȱ meaningȱ ofȱ governmentalityȱ areȱ closelyȱ related:ȱ processesȱ ofȱ governmentalization— makingȱ particularȱ objects,ȱ subjects,ȱ orȱ processesȱ governable—contributeȱ toȱ theȱ consoliȬ dationȱofȱpracticesȱofȱgoverningȱandȱselfȬgoverning,ȱandȱgiveȱthemȱaȱmoreȱexplicitȱinstiȬ tutionalȱform.ȱSeenȱfromȱthisȱviewpoint,ȱitȱbecomesȱpossible,ȱforȱinstance,ȱtoȱunderstandȱ theȱstateȱasȱaȱhistoricallyȱinstitutionalized,ȱyetȱnonȬuniversal,ȱvariableȱformȱofȱgoverning,ȱ whichȱexistsȱbecauseȱofȱitsȱcontinuousȱandȱconstantlyȱchangingȱgovernmentalization.ȱAȱ governmentalityȱapproachȱalsoȱallowsȱforȱanalyzingȱtheȱformationȱandȱrepresentationȱofȱ certainȱgroupsȱinȱtermsȱofȱaȱminorityȱfromȱtheȱmoreȱgeneralȱangleȱofȱtheȱgoverningȱandȱ regulatingȱofȱpopulationȱgroups.ȱ ȱ Inȱthisȱstudy,ȱIȱextendȱtheȱconceptualȱframeworkȱofȱgovernmentalityȱtoȱanȱanalysisȱofȱ currentȱ formsȱ ofȱ minorityȱ governanceȱ inȱ Europe,ȱ andȱ thoseȱ ofȱ Romaniȱ inȱ particular.ȱ Iȱ interpretȱ Europeanȱ formsȱ ofȱ minorityȱ governanceȱ inȱ termsȱ ofȱ Europe’sȱ governmentalȬ ization.ȱByȱsoȱdoing,ȱIȱshedȱnewȱlightȱonȱtheȱhistoryȱofȱminorityȱformationȱandȱrepresenȬ

(4)

tationȱ inȱ Europeȱ andȱ onȱ theȱ correlatedȱ demarcationȱ ofȱ populationȱ groupsȱ inȱ termsȱ ofȱ theirȱallegedȱ‘Europeanness.’ȱIȱclarifyȱthatȱtheȱformation,ȱrepresentation,ȱandȱgovernanceȱ ofȱRomaniȱminoritiesȱcloselyȱrelatesȱtoȱourȱrepresentationȱofȱEuropeȱandȱtoȱhowȱgoverȬ nanceȱ atȱ theȱ Europeanȱ levelȱ hasȱ historicallyȱ beenȱ conceivedȱ andȱ practiced.ȱ Hence,ȱ theȱ titleȱofȱthisȱbook—TheȱEuropeanȱRoma—doesȱnotȱdescribeȱaȱneutral,ȱobjectiveȱconditionȱorȱ minorityȱ status.ȱ Rather,ȱ theȱ book’sȱ titleȱ needsȱ toȱ beȱ readȱ inȱ relationȱ toȱ theȱ notionȱ ofȱ historicallyȱ changingȱ andȱ changeableȱ Romaȱ representationsȱ andȱ selfȬrepresentations,ȱ includingȱprocessesȱofȱminoritizationȱandȱminorityȱselfȬarticulation.ȱ

Thisȱstudyȱcontributesȱtoȱinsightsȱintoȱprocessesȱofȱminorityȱformationȱinȱtheȱmodernȱ andȱrecentȱhistoryȱofȱEurope.ȱIȱalsoȱcontributeȱtoȱtheȱcurrentȱdebateȱinȱgovernmentalityȱ studiesȱonȱtheȱrelationshipȱbetweenȱpoliticsȱandȱgovernmentalȱpower.ȱIȱchallengeȱthoseȱ studiesȱthatȱunderstandȱgovernmentalityȱprimarilyȱinȱtermsȱofȱdepoliticizedȱmechanismsȱ ofȱ security,ȱ whichȱ moreȱ orȱ lessȱ effectivelyȱ succeedȱ inȱ controllingȱ particularȱ populationȱ groupsȱorȱprocesses.ȱThisȱbookȱdealsȱnotȱonlyȱwithȱgovernmentalityȱasȱaȱrelativelyȱstaȬ bleȱformȱofȱpower,ȱbutȱalsoȱwithȱsoȬcalledȱpracticesȱofȱcounterȬconductȱthatȱ(tryȱto)ȱchalȬ lengeȱthisȱexerciseȱofȱpower.ȱIȱargueȱthatȱanȱanalyticsȱofȱgovernmentalityȱentailsȱanȱexaȬ minationȱ ofȱ bothȱ theȱ consolidationȱ ofȱ governmentalȱ formsȱ ofȱ powerȱ andȱ theȱ limitsȱ ofȱ theirȱexercise.ȱSuchȱanȱanalyticsȱexplicitlyȱinterrogatesȱtheȱdynamicsȱbetweenȱprocessesȱ andȱ mechanismsȱ ofȱ deȬpoliticizationȱ andȱ reȬpoliticization.ȱ Iȱ clarifyȱ howȱ myȱ interpreȬ tationȱofȱgovernmentalityȱimpactsȱonȱbothȱuniformȱreadingsȱofȱEuropeanȱmodernityȱandȱ theȱwayȱinȱwhichȱweȱassessȱtheȱcurrentȱsituationȱofȱRomaniȱminoritiesȱinȱEurope.ȱ ȱ Inȱ thisȱ book,ȱ Iȱ bringȱ twoȱ dominant,ȱ yetȱ oftenȱ largelyȱ separatedȱ kindsȱ ofȱ researchȱ onȱ theȱsituationȱandȱrepresentationȱofȱRomaniȱminoritiesȱtogether.ȱOnȱtheȱoneȱhand,ȱcurrentȱ scholarshipȱ onȱ theȱ Romaȱ hasȱ beenȱ largelyȱ dominatedȱ byȱ analysesȱ thatȱ discussȱ Romaniȱ minorityȱrepresentationȱandȱitsȱhistoryȱinȱtermsȱofȱpolicyȱorȱgovernanceȱprocesses,ȱstrucȬ turesȱofȱpoliticalȱrepresentation,ȱandȱsocialȱinclusionȱandȱexclusionȱmechanisms.ȱOnȱtheȱ otherȱhand,ȱparticularlyȱsinceȱtheȱearlyȱ1990s,ȱmuchȱresearchȱhasȱbeenȱdedicatedȱtoȱculȬ turalȱ andȱ culturalȬhistoricalȱ practicesȱ andȱ conceptsȱ ofȱ representationȱ andȱ selfȬrepresenȬ tationȱinȱart,ȱscience,ȱtheȱmedia,ȱmuseums,ȱandȱpopularȱculture.ȱIȱbringȱtheseȱtwoȱbranȬ chesȱofȱscholarshipȱtogether.ȱIȱamȱnotȱsoȱmuchȱdoingȱsoȱbyȱdiscussingȱthemȱnextȱtoȱeachȱ other,ȱbutȱbyȱclarifyingȱtheȱintrinsicȱrelationshipȱbetweenȱprocessesȱofȱgoverning,ȱrepreȬ sentation,ȱandȱknowledgeȱformation.ȱInȱthisȱway,ȱIȱdiscussȱtheȱconditionsȱunderȱwhichȱ formsȱ ofȱ representationȱ andȱ selfȬrepresentationȱ changeȱ withoutȱ isolatingȱ oneȱ ofȱ theseȱ processesȱfromȱtheȱother.ȱ ȱ Jȱ ȱ Theȱchaptersȱofȱthisȱstudyȱareȱgroupedȱintoȱthreeȱparts.ȱInȱpartȱone,ȱIȱintroduceȱtheȱtheoȬ reticalȱframeworkȱofȱgovernmentalityȱandȱhowȱweȱcanȱextendȱitȱtoȱanȱanalysisȱofȱtransȬ national,ȱ Europeanȱ formsȱ ofȱ populationȱ regulation.ȱ Chapterȱ 1ȱ introducesȱ theȱ methodoȬ logicalȱandȱconceptualȱparametersȱofȱthisȱstudy.ȱIȱcriticallyȱbuildȱonȱFoucault’sȱworkȱandȱ postȬstructuralistȱ analysesȱ ofȱ hisȱ intellectualȱ legacyȱ toȱ explainȱ howȱ aȱ governmentalityȱ approachȱhelpsȱtoȱovercomeȱsomeȱofȱtheȱdrawbacksȱofȱaȱgovernanceȱapproach.ȱIȱdiscussȱ theȱ conceptȱ ofȱ governmentalityȱ inȱ theȱ contextȱ ofȱ Foucault’sȱ workȱ andȱ howȱ itȱ relatesȱ toȱ contemporaryȱdebatesȱaboutȱtheȱstate,ȱsovereignty,ȱpower,ȱandȱagencyȱinȱanȱageȱofȱgloȬ

(5)

balization.ȱ Buildingȱ onȱ aȱ soȬcalledȱ ‘topological’ȱ readingȱ ofȱ power,ȱ Iȱ illuminateȱ howȱ anȱ analyticsȱ ofȱ governmentalityȱ helpsȱ toȱ analyzeȱ issuesȱ ofȱ power,ȱ agency,ȱ andȱ resistanceȱ beyondȱfunctionalismȱandȱtheȱperiodizationȱofȱEuropeanȱhistory.ȱIȱexplainȱhowȱsuchȱanȱ analyticsȱ involvesȱ anȱ examinationȱ ofȱ theȱ dynamicȱ interplayȱ betweenȱ governmentalitiesȱ understoodȱasȱrelativelyȱstableȱformsȱofȱpower,ȱonȱtheȱoneȱhand,ȱandȱpracticesȱofȱcounȬ terȬconductȱthatȱchallengeȱtheȱformer,ȱonȱtheȱother.ȱ

Inȱ chapterȱ 2,ȱ Iȱ extendȱ theȱ analysisȱ ofȱ governmentalityȱ toȱ Europeȱ andȱ discussȱ howȱ intraȬstateȱ andȱ interȬstateȱ formsȱ ofȱ governmentalityȱ haveȱ appearedȱ inȱ conjunctionȱ withȱ eachȱotherȱinȱEurope’sȱhistory.ȱIȱdiscussȱFoucault’sȱreadingȱofȱtwoȱdistinctȱformsȱofȱgovȬ ernmentality—soȬcalledȱ ‘police’ȱ andȱ liberalism—toȱ examineȱ transnationalȱ formsȱ ofȱ poȬ pulationȱ regulationȱ andȱ processesȱ ofȱ minorityȱ formationȱ inȱ Europe.ȱ Iȱ explainȱ howȱ theȱ emergenceȱofȱliberalȱformsȱofȱgovernmentalityȱhasȱgoneȱtogetherȱwithȱprocessesȱofȱmaȬ jorityȱ andȱ minorityȱ formation.ȱ Iȱ willȱ moveȱ beyondȱ Foucault’sȱ Eurocentricȱ analysisȱ ofȱ interȬstateȱ governmentalitiesȱ toȱ proposeȱ howȱ weȱ couldȱ examineȱ contemporaryȱ transȬ nationalȱ formsȱ ofȱ populationȱ regulationȱ inȱ Europe.ȱ Iȱ discussȱ postcolonialȱ critiquesȱ ofȱ developmentȱregimesȱtoȱ callȱ forȱanalyzingȱ transnationalȱ populationȱ regulation,ȱ suchȱasȱ thoseȱregardingȱRomaniȱminorities,ȱbeyondȱtraditionȱvs.ȱmodernity,ȱandȱglobalȱhegemȬ onicȱpowerȱvs.ȱlocalȱgrassrootsȱresistanceȱbinaries.ȱInȱaȱtransitȱtoȱpartȱtwo,ȱIȱproposeȱtoȱ reȬnarrateȱEuropeanȱmodernityȱtoȱshedȱanotherȱlightȱonȱhowȱRomaniȱgroupsȱhaveȱbeenȱ minoritizedȱinȱmodernȱEuropeanȱhistory.ȱ

Inȱpartȱtwo,ȱIȱdiscussȱhowȱtheȱdevelopmentȱofȱliberalȱgovernmentalityȱhasȱhistoricallyȱ goneȱ handȱ inȱ handȱ withȱ bothȱ theȱ emergenceȱ ofȱ ‘Gypsyȱ studies’ȱ andȱ Romaniȱ minorityȱ formation.ȱ Iȱ investigateȱ thisȱ nexusȱ ofȱ emergingȱ liberalism,ȱ Romaniȱ minoritization,ȱ andȱ ‘Gypsyȱstudies’ȱinȱtheȱeighteenthȬcenturyȱHabsburgȱEmpire,ȱandȱanalyzeȱtwoȱcurrentlyȱ prevailingȱscholarlyȱreadingsȱofȱthisȱhistoryȱandȱitsȱlegacy.ȱChapterȱ3ȱengagesȱinȱaȱdebateȱ aboutȱ howȱ theȱ Gypsyȱ problematizationȱ duringȱ Habsburgȱ ruleȱ hasȱ beenȱ receivedȱ inȱ scholarshipȱonȱtheȱRoma.ȱIȱdiscussȱtheȱpositionȱofȱtheȱhistoriansȱLeoȱLucassenȱandȱWimȱ Willemsȱ andȱ thatȱ ofȱ theȱ linguistȱ Yaronȱ Matrasȱ andȱ callȱ forȱ bringingȱ theȱ twoȱ largelyȱ oppositeȱhistoriographiesȱthatȱtheirȱworksȱrepresentȱinȱdialogue.ȱIȱcombineȱphilosophicalȱ andȱ postcolonialȱ critiquesȱ ofȱ homogeneous,ȱ uniformȱ narrativesȱ ofȱ theȱ Enlightenment,ȱ andȱmodernityȱmoreȱgenerally,ȱtoȱquestionȱtheȱwayȱinȱwhichȱtheseȱhistoriographiesȱhaveȱ hithertoȱbeenȱreadȱinȱrelativeȱisolation.ȱNoneȱofȱtheseȱtwoȱhistoriographicȱ‘paradigms,’ȱIȱ argue,ȱcanȱbeȱmaintainedȱseparatelyȱandȱonlyȱtheirȱcombinationȱshedsȱnewȱlightȱonȱtheȱ ambivalenceȱofȱRomaniȱminorityȱformationȱinȱEuropeanȱhistory.ȱ Chapterȱ4ȱadvancesȱandȱdeepensȱtheȱdebateȱonȱRomaniȱminorityȱformationȱinȱEuroȬ peanȱhistory.ȱIȱinterrogateȱeighteenthȬcenturyȱmodesȱofȱgovernmentalityȱbyȱmeansȱofȱaȱ closeȱ readingȱ ofȱ bothȱ Habsburgȱ assimilationistȱ Gypsyȱ policiesȱ andȱ scholarshipȱ onȱ theȱ ‘Gypsies’ȱinȱtheȱPrussianȱacademy.ȱIȱdiscussȱtheȱambivalentȱimpactȱofȱtheȱscientificȱandȱ administrativeȱ traditionȱ ofȱ soȬcalledȱ ‘Cameralism’ȱ (Kameralistik)ȱ andȱ ‘policeȱ sciences’ȱ (Polizeiwissenschaften)ȱ onȱ practicesȱ ofȱ populationȱ regulationȱ inȱ theȱ Habsburgȱ Empire.ȱ Iȱ explainȱhowȱweȱcanȱunderstandȱshiftingȱHabsburgȱGypsyȱpoliciesȱandȱemergentȱRomaȬ relatedȱ knowledgeȱ formationȱ inȱ lightȱ ofȱ changingȱ governmentalities.ȱ Iȱ clarifyȱ howȱ theȱ emergenceȱofȱcomparativeȱformsȱofȱscience—suchȱasȱthoseȱinȱthenȱappearingȱdisciplinesȱ ofȱ linguistics,ȱ biology,ȱ andȱ economics—hasȱ goneȱ togetherȱ notȱ onlyȱ withȱ newȱ formsȱ ofȱ

(6)

Romaȱpopulationȱregulation,ȱbutȱalsoȱwithȱnewȱopportunitiesȱofȱRomaniȱminorityȱselfȬ articulation.ȱ

ȱ Inȱpartȱthree,ȱIȱmobilizeȱtheȱthreefoldȱnexusȱbetweenȱrepresentation,ȱgovernment,ȱandȱ knowledgeȱformationȱthatȱIȱtheoreticallyȱexplainȱinȱpartȱoneȱandȱhistoricallyȱarticulateȱinȱ partȱtwoȱtoȱmoveȱonȱtoȱtheȱpresentȬdayȱsituationȱofȱRomaniȱminoritiesȱinȱEurope.ȱInȱpartȱ three,ȱ Iȱ examineȱ theȱ nexusȱ betweenȱ theȱ Romaȱ representationȱ asȱ aȱ Europeanȱ minority,ȱ neoȬliberalȱ formsȱ ofȱ governmentality,ȱ andȱ heterogeneous,ȱ hybridȱ knowledgeȱ formationȱ atȱtheȱtransnationalȱEuropeanȱlevel.ȱChapterȱ5ȱdiscussesȱtheȱcurrentȱEuropeanizationȱofȱ theȱRomaniȱidentityȱandȱminorityȱstatusȱalongsideȱtheȱemergenceȱofȱneoȬliberalȱformsȱofȱ governmentality.ȱIȱexplainȱhowȱweȱcanȱconsiderȱneoȬliberalismȱasȱaȱspecificȱformȱofȱgovȬ ernmentalityȱ andȱ howȱ thisȱ readingȱ differsȱ fromȱ moreȱ conventionalȱ readingsȱ ofȱ neoȬ liberalismȱalongȱtheȱlinesȱofȱpolicyȱorȱideology.ȱIȱcombineȱmyȱreadingȱofȱneoȬliberalismȱ asȱgovernmentalityȱwithȱanȱanalysisȱofȱshiftingȱsecurity,ȱdevelopment,ȱandȱhumanȱrightsȱ agendasȱinȱEuropeȱtoȱexplainȱhowȱweȱareȱtoȱassessȱtheȱrepresentationȱofȱtheȱRomaȱasȱaȱ Europeanȱminorityȱbeyondȱfixedȱinstitutionalȱboundaries.ȱIȱclarifyȱthatȱweȱcanȱregardȱtheȱ emergenceȱofȱnumerousȱnewȱcentersȱofȱRomaȬrelatedȱexpertiseȱatȱtheȱlevelȱofȱIGOsȱandȱ NGOsȱinȱlightȱofȱhowȱneoȬliberalȱgovernmentalȱtechnologiesȱhaveȱbeenȱarticulatedȱwithȱ theȱpolicy,ȱpolitical,ȱandȱadministrativeȱculturesȱofȱtheseȱactors.ȱWhereasȱchapterȱ5ȱintroȬ ducesȱ neoȬliberalismȱ atȱ aȱ theoreticalȱ level,ȱ chaptersȱ 6,ȱ 7,ȱ andȱ 8ȱ exploreȱ caseȱ studiesȱ ofȱ howȱneoȬliberalism,ȱtheȱRoma’sȱEuropeanization,ȱtheȱfallȱofȱcommunism,ȱandȱtheȱresurȬ genceȱofȱnationalismȱhaveȱinfluencedȱtheȱsituationȱofȱRomaniȱminoritiesȱonȱtheȱground.ȱ

Chapterȱ6ȱisȱdedicatedȱtoȱhowȱneoȬliberalȱtechnologiesȱhaveȱrecentlyȱbeenȱarticulatedȱ inȱEastȱCentralȱEuropeȱwithȱvariousȱdifferentȱpoliticalȱandȱsocioȬeconomicȱculturesȱandȱ institutionalȱ settings.ȱ Iȱ clarifyȱ thatȱ itȱ isȱ theȱ wayȱ inȱ whichȱ theseȱ technologiesȱ haveȱ beenȱ assembledȱwithȱtheseȱculturesȱandȱsettings,ȱratherȱthanȱaȱkindȱofȱneoȬliberalismȱimposedȱ onȱtheȱregionȱfromȱoutside,ȱwhichȱhasȱambiguouslyȱimpactedȱonȱtheȱRoma’sȱsituation.ȱIȱ examineȱhowȱEUȱandȱWorldȱBankȱsupportedȱneoȬliberalȱactivationȱprogramsȱhaveȱbeenȱ introducedȱ toȱ Eastȱ Centralȱ Europeanȱ welfareȱ regimesȱ toȱ improveȱ theirȱ employmentȱ chances.ȱIȱdemonstrateȱhowȱtheȱassemblageȱofȱtheseȱprogramsȱwithȱ‘local’ȱculturesȱandȱ politicsȱhasȱhighlyȱambivalentlyȱimpactedȱonȱtheȱRoma’sȱsituation,ȱleadingȱtoȱtheirȱevictȬ ionȱandȱtoȱpracticesȱofȱexploitationȱandȱdehumanization.ȱIȱdiscussȱthreeȱinfluentialȱlegaȬ ciesȱ ofȱ communismȱ toȱ putȱ theseȱ grimȱ effectsȱ inȱ theȱ perspectiveȱ ofȱ theȱ region’sȱ recentȱ transformations.ȱIȱundertakeȱanȱinquiryȱintoȱcommunistȱsocioȬeconomicȱreformȱpolitics,ȱ pastȱ alternativeȱ socioȬculturalȱ andȱ economicȱ networks,ȱ andȱ communistȱ practicesȱ ofȱ racismȱvisȬàȬvisȱtheȱRoma.ȱIȱshowȱhow,ȱinȱinterrelationshipȱwithȱneoȬliberalism,ȱtheȱlegaȬ ciesȱofȱtheseȱthreeȱformerlyȱcommunistȱpracticesȱhaveȱdramaticallyȱimpactedȱonȱtheȱcurȬ rentȱsituationȱofȱRomaniȱminorities.ȱ

Chapterȱ6ȱneedsȱtoȱbeȱreadȱnextȱtoȱchaptersȱ7ȱandȱ8,ȱforȱtheseȱthreeȱchaptersȱdealȱwithȱ developmentsȱ thatȱ areȱ simultaneouslyȱ occurringȱ inȱ contemporaryȱ Europe.ȱ Chapterȱ 6ȱ focusesȱonȱtheȱimpactȱofȱprocessesȱofȱdeȬpoliticization,ȱandȱparticularlyȱonȱhowȱbasicallyȱ politicalȱissuesȱandȱproblemsȱareȱtranslatedȱintoȱtheȱquasiȬneutral,ȱnonȬpoliticalȱtermsȱofȱ policyȱ andȱ expertise.ȱ Chaptersȱ 7ȱ andȱ 8ȱ analyzeȱ howȱ processesȱ ofȱ deȬpoliticizationȱ areȱ actuallyȱ takingȱ placeȱ alongsideȱ attemptsȱ toȱ politicizeȱ developmentȱ andȱ empowermentȱ programsȱ meantȱ forȱ theȱ Romaȱ andȱ alongsideȱ endeavorsȱ toȱ challengeȱ issuesȱ ofȱ povertyȱ andȱinequalityȱthatȱaffectȱtheirȱcurrentȱsituation.ȱThus,ȱwhileȱchapterȱ6ȱparticularlyȱdisȬ

(7)

cussesȱ theȱ consequencesȱ ofȱ deȬpoliticization,ȱ chaptersȱ 7ȱ andȱ 8ȱ concentrateȱ primarilyȱ onȱ howȱdelicateȱpoliticalȱandȱsocialȱissuesȱhaveȱrecentlyȱbeenȱreȬpoliticized.ȱ

Inȱchapterȱ7,ȱIȱdiscussȱtheȱRomaniȱsocialȱandȱcivilȱmovementȱandȱhow,ȱsinceȱtheȱfallȱofȱ communism,ȱ transnationalȱ Romaniȱ activistȱ andȱ proȬRomaȱ advocacyȱ networksȱ haveȱ inȬ creasinglyȱenteredȱtheȱpoliticalȱscene.ȱIȱargueȱthatȱtheȱpostȬ1989ȱRomaniȱmovementȱcanȱ beȱ characterizedȱ byȱ aȱ ‘perverseȱ confluence’ȱ ofȱ participatoryȱ democraticȱ andȱ neoȬliberalȱ projects,ȱinȱwhichȱnotionsȱsuchȱasȱcitizenship,ȱparticipation,ȱandȱcivilȱsocietyȱplayȱaȱkey,ȱ yetȱ oftenȱ oppositeȱ role.ȱ Iȱ introduceȱ theȱ notionsȱ ofȱ travelingȱ activismȱ andȱ theȱ politicsȱ ofȱ citizenshipȱasȱparticipationȱtoȱhighlightȱtheȱwaysȱinȱwhichȱissuesȱofȱparticipation,ȱinequalȬ ity,ȱandȱpovertyȱareȱexplicitlyȱpoliticizedȱinȱtheȱcurrentȱRomaniȱmovement.ȱIȱshowȱhowȱ Romaniȱ activistȱ networksȱ haveȱ strategicallyȱ mobilizedȱ neoȬliberalȱ toolsȱ andȱ activistȱ knowledgeȱandȱexpertiseȱtoȱarticulateȱtheseȱprocessesȱofȱpoliticization.ȱ

Inȱ chapterȱ 8,ȱ Iȱ examineȱ theȱ significanceȱ ofȱ variousȱ Romaniȱ memorialȱ practicesȱ thatȱ haveȱbeenȱincreasinglyȱdevelopedȱinȱpostȬ1989ȱEurope.ȱTheȱchapterȱstartsȱfromȱanȱanalȬ ysisȱofȱwhat,ȱinȱ1992,ȱKatieȱTrumpenerȱcalledȱ‘theȱEuropeanȱmemoryȱproblem.’ȱWithȱthisȱ problemȱ sheȱ pointedȱ toȱ how,ȱ throughoutȱ modernȱ Europeanȱ history,ȱ dominantȱ culturalȱ andȱintellectualȱmovementsȱhaveȱdisplacedȱRomaniȱmemoryȱbyȱrepresentingȱtheȱRomaȱ asȱ‘aȱpeopleȱwithoutȱhistory.’ȱIȱexamineȱhowȱweȱareȱtoȱassessȱtheȱcurrentȱboostȱofȱparticȬ ularlyȱ HolocaustȬrelatedȱ Romaniȱ memorialȱ culturesȱ inȱ Europeȱ visȬàȬvisȱ Trumpener’sȱ thesis.ȱ Iȱ argueȱ thatȱ theȱ Europeanȱ memoryȱ problemȱ thatȱ sheȱ discussedȱ doesȱ noȱ longerȱ exist,ȱ butȱ thatȱ weȱ areȱ presentlyȱ facingȱ theȱ appearanceȱ ofȱ anotherȱ kindȱ ofȱ Europeanȱ memoryȱproblem.ȱCurrentȱRomaniȱculturalȱandȱmemorialȱpracticesȱradicallyȱcontestȱtheȱ politicsȱofȱhistoricismȱthatȱtendsȱtoȱrelegateȱ‘theȱRoma’ȱandȱtheirȱculturesȱtoȱtheȱdomainȱ ofȱpreȬmodern,ȱ‘historyȬless’ȱsocieties.ȱTheseȱpracticesȱcriticallyȱquestionȱtheȱexclusionȱofȱ RomaniȱhistoriesȱandȱmemoriesȱfromȱnationalȱandȱEuropeanȱonesȱandȱcontributeȱtoȱnew,ȱ diverseȱimagesȱandȱstoriesȱaboutȱEuropeȱand,ȱthus,ȱtoȱnewȱnarrativesȱaboutȱtheȱcomplexȱ relationshipȱbetweenȱ‘Europe’ȱandȱ‘theȱRoma.’ȱIȱshowȱthatȱtheseȱpracticesȱareȱcurrentlyȱ takingȱplaceȱinȱtheȱcontextȱofȱaȱtrendȱtoȱgovernmentalizeȱHolocaustȱremembranceȱinȱtheȱ EU,ȱ which,ȱ atȱ leastȱ inȱ theory,ȱ enablesȱ theȱ inclusionȱ ofȱ Romaniȱ minoritiesȱ inȱ Europeanȱ memorialȱ cultures.ȱ Atȱ theȱ sameȱ time,ȱ though,ȱ thisȱ governmentalizationȱ tendsȱ toȱ turnȱ Holocaustȱ remembranceȱ intoȱ aȱ pedagogyȱ thatȱ doesȱ notȱ sufficientlyȱ reflectȱ onȱ howȱ curȬ rentȱ formsȱ ofȱ Europeanȱ governmentalityȱ ambivalentlyȱ goȱ togetherȱ withȱ exclusionaryȱ practices.ȱFinally,ȱIȱargueȱthatȱcurrentȱRomaniȱmemorialȱpracticesȱinviteȱusȱtoȱrethinkȱtheȱ structuresȱ ofȱ temporalityȱ andȱ theȱ politicsȱ ofȱ historicismȱ integralȱ toȱ bothȱ pastȱ andȱ conȬ temporaryȱformsȱofȱEuropeanȱgovernmentality.ȱ

Thisȱ studyȱ endsȱ withȱ anȱ afterthought,ȱ inȱ whichȱ Iȱ reflectȱ onȱ theȱ linksȱ betweenȱ neoȬ liberalȱformsȱofȱgovernmentality,ȱgoverningȱatȱaȱtimeȱofȱfinancialȱandȱpoliticalȱcrisis,ȱandȱ theȱcurrentȱreemergenceȱofȱinstitutionalȱandȱcitizenȱviolenceȱagainstȱRomaniȱminoritiesȱ andȱmigrantsȱthroughoutȱEurope.ȱBuildingȱonȱtheȱfindingsȱofȱthisȱstudy,ȱIȱdevelopȱtwoȱ futureȱresearchȱagendas.ȱTheȱfirstȱcombinesȱinsightsȱofȱgovernmentalityȱstudies,ȱsuchȱasȱ thoseȱdevelopedȱinȱthisȱbook,ȱwithȱthoseȱofȱcriticalȱsecurityȱstudiesȱtoȱanalyzeȱprocessesȱ inȱ whichȱ theȱ Romaȱ areȱ oneȬsidedlyȱ problematizedȱ inȱ termsȱ ofȱ ‘security’ȱ andȱ ‘publicȱ order.’ȱTheȱsecondȱagendaȱthatȱIȱproposeȱbuildsȱonȱwhatȱIȱcallȱaȱpoliticsȱofȱcitizenshipȱasȱ participationȱ andȱ suggestsȱ toȱ widenȱ andȱ deepenȱ ethnographicȱ analysesȱ ofȱ practicesȱ ofȱ politicizationȱrelatedȱtoȱtheȱheterogeneousȱRomaniȱmovementȱinȱEurope.ȱ