The European Roma: minority representation, memory, and the limits of transnational governmentality - 3: Contaminated grounds: disputing the Roma’s origins

(1)

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.

(2)

Chapterȱ3ȱ

ContaminatedȱGrounds:ȱ

DisputingȱtheȱRoma’sȱOriginsȱ

ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ INTRODUCTIONȱ ȱ

Theȱ centralȱ aimȱ ofȱ theȱ secondȱ partȱ ofȱ thisȱ studyȱ isȱ toȱ understandȱ theȱ relationshipȱ beȬ tweenȱtheȱrepresentationȱandȱformationȱofȱGypsyȱorȱRomaniȱgroupsȱinȱEuropeȱasȱminorȬ itiesȱonȱtheȱoneȱhand,ȱandȱtheȱemergenceȱandȱtransformationȱofȱlateȬeighteenthȱcenturyȱ Europeanȱ governmentalities,ȱ onȱ theȱ other.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ part,ȱ Iȱ firstlyȱ analyzeȱ howȱ itȱ hasȱ beȬ comeȱpossibleȱthatȱGypsyȱorȱRomaniȱgroupsȱinȱEurope,ȱsinceȱtheȱlateȱeighteenthȱcentury,ȱ haveȱbeenȱproblematizedȱinȱtermsȱofȱminorities.ȱSecondly,ȱIȱscrutinizeȱhowȱtheirȱminorȬ itizationȱ hasȱ inauguratedȱ diverseȱ formsȱ ofȱ Romaniȱ minorityȱ governanceȱ andȱ differentȱ representationsȱofȱtheirȱhistoryȱinȱmodernȱEurope.ȱ TheseȱthemesȱrelateȱinȱtwoȱimportantȱwaysȱtoȱtheȱquestionsȱthatȱIȱbroughtȱupȱatȱtheȱ endȱofȱchapterȱ2.ȱFirstly,ȱIȱwillȱaddressȱtheȱrelationȱbetween,ȱonȱtheȱoneȱhand,ȱnewȱkindsȱ ofȱknowledgeȱformationȱaboutȱEuropeȱthatȱappearedȱforȱtheȱfirstȱtimeȱinȱtheȱeighteenthȱ century,ȱand,ȱonȱtheȱother,ȱtheȱthenȱemergingȱbioȬpoliticalȱapproachȱtoȱsupposedlyȱnonȬ EuropeanȱGypsyȱgroups.ȱSecondly,ȱIȱdiscussȱhowȱtheȱprevailingȱscholarlyȱunderstandingȱ ofȱtheȱimpactȱofȱtheȱEnlightenmentȱandȱitsȱlegaciesȱonȱRomaniȱgroupsȱandȱtheirȱminorityȱ formationȱhasȱhithertoȱunderestimatedȱtheȱrelevanceȱofȱtransformingȱgovernmentalities,ȱ includingȱtheȱroleȱofȱscholarsȱinȱgoverningȱRomaȱrepresentations.ȱIȱwillȱcontributeȱtoȱreȬ narratingȱ Europeanȱ modernityȱ byȱ interrogatingȱ theȱ appearanceȱ ofȱ liberalȱ formsȱ ofȱ governmentalityȱ inȱ Eastȱ Centralȱ Europeȱ andȱ byȱ analyzingȱ theȱ parallelȱ emergenceȱ andȱ developmentȱofȱsoȬcalledȱ‘Gypsy’ȱorȱ‘Romaniȱstudies.’ȱInȱchapterȱ4,ȱIȱwillȱanalyzeȱGypsyȱ minoritizationȱandȱtheȱformationȱofȱGypsyȱstudiesȱinȱlightȱofȱtheȱtransformationȱofȱpoliceȱ governmentalitiesȱandȱtheȱemergenceȱofȱliberalȱonesȱinȱtheȱeighteenthȬcenturyȱHabsburgȱ Empire.ȱ Atȱtheȱ endȱ ofȱchapterȱ4,ȱ thisȱ discussionȱ willȱ leadȱ toȱ aȱ revisionȱ ofȱ theȱ currentlyȱ prevailingȱinterpretationsȱofȱtheȱemergenceȱofȱGypsyȱstudies.ȱTheseȱinterpretationsȱandȱ howȱtheyȱrelateȱtoȱdifferentȱreadingsȱofȱEuropeanȱmodernityȱareȱtheȱcentralȱfocusȱofȱtheȱ presentȱchapter.ȱ ȱ TheȱcurrentȱdebateȱaboutȱtheȱeighteenthȬcenturyȱemergenceȱofȱGypsyȱstudiesȱandȱitsȱ crucialȱimpactȱonȱmodernȱformsȱofȱRomaniȱminorityȱgovernanceȱhasȱbeenȱdominatedȱbyȱ twoȱeighteenthȬcenturyȱscholarsȱandȱbyȱtwoȱcontemporaryȱscholarlyȱstrategiesȱtoȱrepreȬ sentȱtheseȱscholars’ȱworksȱandȱlegacies.ȱTheseȱearlyȱ‘Gypsyȱscholars’ȱareȱJohannȱRüdigerȱ (1751Ȭ1822)ȱandȱHeinrichȱGrellmannȱ(1753Ȭ1804).ȱInȱ1782,ȱRüdiger,ȱaȱscholarȱinȱtheȱthenȱ

(3)

emergingȱ fieldȱ ofȱ comparativeȱ linguisticsȱ whoȱ wouldȱ becomeȱ professorȱ ofȱ politicalȱ economyȱ atȱ theȱ UniversityȱofȱHalleȱ inȱ 1791,ȱ publishedȱ Vonȱ derȱSpracheȱ undȱ Herkunftȱ derȱ

Zigeunerȱ ausȱ Indienȱ (Onȱ theȱ Languageȱ andȱ Indianȱ Originȱ ofȱ theȱ Gypsies).ȱ Inȱ thisȱ essay,ȱ heȱ

describesȱ theȱ dubiousȱ wayȱ inȱ whichȱ theȱ Europeansȱ haveȱ dealtȱ withȱ theȱ Gypsiesȱ andȱ makesȱaȱferventȱpleaȱforȱtheirȱbetterȱtreatment.ȱInȱtheȱsecondȱpartȱofȱhisȱessay,ȱheȱtriesȱtoȱ scientificallyȱproveȱtheirȱIndianȱoriginȱbyȱcomparingȱaȱRomaniȱlanguageȱsampleȱwithȱaȱ Hindustaniȱone.ȱ

Inȱ 1783,ȱ Grellmann,ȱ aȱ historianȱ andȱ theologianȱ atȱ theȱ Universityȱ ofȱ Jenaȱ whoȱ wouldȱ becomeȱprofessorȱatȱtheȱUniversityȱofȱGöttingenȱinȱ1787,ȱpublishedȱhisȱbookȱDieȱZigeunerȱ (Theȱ Gypsies),ȱ whichȱ alsoȱ lengthilyȱ discussesȱ theȱ Indianȱ originsȱ ofȱ theȱ Gypsies.ȱ Heȱ emȬ bedsȱhisȱanalysisȱinȱaȱratherȱmonolithicȱnarrativeȱthatȱconsidersȱthemȱasȱtheȱrepresentaȬ tivesȱofȱanȱunderdeveloped,ȱuncivilized,ȱnonȬEuropeanȱpariahȱculture,ȱwhichȱisȱheavilyȱ spoiltȱ andȱ onlyȱ reallyȱ adjustableȱ toȱ Europeanȱ civilizedȱ culturesȱ byȱ aȱ radicallyȱ assimilaȬ tionistȱapproach.ȱWhereasȱGrellmannȱpraisesȱtheȱassimilativeȱGypsyȱpoliciesȱofȱhisȱconȬ temporaryȱHabsburgȱenlightenedȱabsolutistȱrulersȱMariaȱTheresaȱandȱJosephȱII,ȱRüdigerȱ heavilyȱcriticizesȱtheȱimperialistȱapproachesȱofȱtheȱEuropeanȱnationsȱtowardȱtheȱpeoplesȱ whomȱtheyȱhadȱcolonizedȱandȱtowardȱgroupsȱsuchȱasȱtheȱJewsȱandȱtheȱGypsies.ȱRatherȱ thanȱ condemningȱ theȱ latterȱ forȱ theirȱ supposedlyȱ badȱ behavior,ȱ asȱ Grellmannȱ does,ȱ Rüdigerȱconsidersȱ‘theirȱwayȱofȱlife’ȱasȱtheȱeffect,ȱratherȱthanȱtheȱcause,ȱofȱhowȱEuropeanȱ majoritiesȱ haveȱ treatedȱ them.ȱ Heȱ understandsȱ theȱ factȱ thatȱ theȱ Gypsiesȱ representȱ andȱ maintainȱtheirȱownȱuniqueȱculture,ȱwithȱtheirȱownȱlanguage,ȱcustoms,ȱandȱtraditions,ȱasȱ aȱconditionȱofȱpossibilityȱforȱdevelopingȱtheirȱnationȱinȱitsȱownȱright.ȱ

ȱ Sinceȱ theȱ firstȱ printsȱ ofȱ theseȱ publicationsȱ inȱ theȱ lateȱ eighteenthȱ century,ȱ however,ȱ Grellmann’sȱworkȱhasȱbecomeȱmuchȱbetterȱknownȱandȱwidespreadȱthanȱRüdiger’s.ȱNotȱ onlyȱhasȱGrellmann’sȱworkȱbeenȱquicklyȱtranslatedȱinȱvariousȱotherȱEuropeanȱlanguagesȱ and,ȱ thus,ȱ widelyȱ disseminatedȱ throughoutȱ Europe,ȱ butȱ atȱ leastȱ untilȱ theȱ earlyȱ 1960sȱ itȱ hasȱ alsoȱ beenȱ consideredȱ asȱ anȱ authoritativeȱ sourceȱ aboutȱ ‘Gypsyȱ culture’.1_{ȱ Onlyȱ quiteȱ}

recentlyȱ haveȱ aȱ numberȱ ofȱ scholarsȱ triedȱ toȱ makeȱ Rüdiger’sȱ workȱ topicalȱ again.2_{ȱ Thisȱ}

renewedȱattentionȱhasȱalsoȱandȱindirectlyȱledȱtoȱtheȱdevelopmentȱofȱtwoȱdominantȱconȬ temporaryȱscholarlyȱstrategiesȱtoȱrepresentȱtheȱworksȱandȱlegaciesȱofȱeighteenthȬcenturyȱ Gypsyȱstudies.ȱ

Firstly,ȱsomeȱauthorsȱ(Lucassenȱetȱalȱ1998a)ȱhaveȱarguedȱthatȱweȱneedȱtoȱrejectȱor,ȱatȱ least,ȱcorrectȱtheȱentireȱtraditionȱofȱGypsyȱstudies,ȱbecauseȱofȱitsȱhighlyȱdubiousȱconnecȬ tionȱ withȱ aȱ longȱ modernȱ Europeanȱ historyȱ ofȱ orientalizationȱ andȱ correlatedȱ Gypsyȱ

1_{ȱAȱdelicateȱexampleȱisȱtheȱwayȱinȱwhichȱthisȱlegacyȱwasȱmobilizedȱagainstȱSintiȱandȱRomaȱinȱtheȱ1950sȱinȱ}

theȱFederalȱRepublicȱofȱGermany.ȱReferencesȱtoȱGrellmann’sȱGypsyȱrepresentations,ȱasȱwellȱasȱtoȱthoseȱwhoȱ followedȱinȱhisȱfootsteps,ȱwereȱusedȱinȱtheȱpostȬgenocideȱGermanȱcourtȱcasesȱtoȱscientificallyȱdocumentȱtheȱ supposedlyȱasocialȱandȱcriminalȱbehaviorȱofȱSintiȱandȱRomaniȱvictimsȱofȱtheȱNazisȱandȱtoȱseriouslyȱhamperȱ warȱ reparationsȱ andȱ theȱ persecutionȱ ofȱ theȱ perpetratorsȱ (Margalitȱ 2002:ȱ 136Ȭ38;ȱ 2007:ȱ 495).ȱ Inȱ chapterȱ 8,ȱ Iȱ willȱdiscussȱtheȱdramaticȱimpactȱofȱpersistentȱstereotypicalȱrepresentationsȱonȱtheȱslowȱrecognitionȱofȱtheȱ NaziȱgenocideȱofȱtheȱRomaȱandȱSintiȱinȱGermanyȱandȱbeyond.ȱWillemsȱhasȱarguedȱthatȱGrellmann’sȱGypsyȱ representationsȱwereȱalsoȱusedȱuncriticallyȱinȱseveralȱpostwarȱGermanȱscholarlyȱstudiesȱ(eg,ȱArnoldȱ1965;ȱ ModeȱandȱWölfflingȱ1968).ȱHeȱalsoȱsuggestsȱthatȱaȱsignificantȱnumberȱofȱMAȱandȱPhDȱtheses,ȱwhichȱwereȱ writtenȱ atȱ Austrianȱ universitiesȱ inȱ theȱ 1980s,ȱ remainedȱ uncriticalȱ aboutȱ Grellmann’sȱ workȱ (Willemsȱ 1997:ȱ 22).ȱForȱanȱexcellentȱoverviewȱofȱantiȬGypsyismȱinȱGermanȬspeakingȱscholarlyȱstudies,ȱseeȱSeverinȱ(2009).ȱ

(4)

stigmatization.ȱAnnemarieȱCottaar,ȱLeoȱLucassen,ȱandȱWimȱWillemsȱhaveȱfollowedȱthisȱ firstȱstrategyȱandȱarguedȱthatȱGypsyȱstudies,ȱatȱleastȱuntilȱveryȱrecently,ȱhaveȱneverȱfunȬ damentallyȱdisputedȱtheȱorientalizing,ȱlateȬeighteenthȬcenturyȱworksȱofȱtheȱearlyȱGypsyȱ scholars,ȱ theirȱ searchȱ forȱ ‘trueȱ Gypsies’ȱ withȱ theirȱ allegedȱ nonȬEuropeanȱ originsȱ andȱ culture,ȱandȱtheȱdramaticȱeffectsȱofȱtheseȱscholarlyȱGypsyȱrepresentationsȱonȱmarginalȬ izingȱandȱcriminalizingȱpolicyȱformationsȱinȱmodernȱEuropeanȱhistory.ȱTheȱadvocatesȱofȱ thisȱ strategy,ȱ whoseȱ viewsȱ Iȱ willȱ discussȱ inȱ theȱ firstȱ partȱ ofȱ thisȱ chapter,ȱ argueȱ thatȱ weȱ shouldȱresistȱwhatȱtheyȱconsiderȱasȱ“theȱlureȱofȱtheȱGypsyȬloristsȱandȱscholarsȱworkingȱ inȱtheirȱtradition,ȱwhoȱhaveȱbeenȱquiteȱsuccessfulȱinȱspreadingȱtheȱimageȱofȱGypsiesȱasȱaȱ remarkableȱ andȱ centuryȱ oldȱ ethnicȱ group”ȱ (Lucassenȱ etȱ alȱ 1998b:ȱ 8).ȱ Theirȱ negativeȱ receptionȱofȱtheȱlongȱand,ȱasȱtheyȱargue,ȱstillȱcontinuingȱtraditionȱofȱtheȱGypsyȱfolkloristsȱ andȱ theirȱ ‘foundingȱ fathers,’ȱ hasȱ ledȱ Lucassen,ȱ Willems,ȱ andȱCottaarȱ toȱ rejectȱ theȱ referȬ enceȱ toȱ ‘Gypsies’ȱ inȱ termsȱ ofȱ ethnicityȱ andȱ diaspora.ȱ Withȱ theirȱ groundbreakingȱ work,ȱ publishedȱ inȱ theȱ lastȱ decadeȱ ofȱ theȱ twentiethȱ century,ȱ theseȱ threeȱ Dutchȱ authorsȱ haveȱ introducedȱ anȱ originalȱ andȱ newȱ approachȱ toȱ theȱ studyȱ ofȱ Romaniȱ andȱ Gypsyȱ groups.ȱ Whereasȱ theyȱ themselvesȱ haveȱ namedȱ theirȱ perspectiveȱ socioȬhistorical,ȱ othersȱ haveȱ usuallyȱcalledȱitȱconstructivist.ȱArguingȱforȱconsideringȱtheȱGypsies’ȱethnicȱminorityȱandȱ identityȱstatusȱasȱtheȱresultȱofȱseveralȱmodernȱEuropeanȱinventedȱnationalȱtraditions,ȱtheȱ DutchȱtrioȱquestionsȱtheȱlegitimacyȱofȱessentialistȱGypsyȱorȱRomaȱapproachesȱandȱtheirȱ relianceȱonȱlateȬeighteenthȱandȱnineteenthȬcenturyȱformsȱofȱnationalism.ȱ

Atȱtheȱsameȱtime,ȱweȱcanȱdistinguishȱanȱostensiblyȱmoreȱmoderateȱscholarlyȱstrategyȱ inȱ theȱ currentȱ debate.ȱ Thisȱ strategyȱ rejectsȱ someȱ soȬcalledȱ preȬscientificȱ andȱ mystifyingȱ earlyȱGypsyȱstudiesȱandȱtheirȱimpactȱonȱmodernȱEuropeanȱRomaniȱminorityȱformationȱ andȱgovernance.ȱHowever,ȱthisȱstrategyȱdefendsȱthoseȱEnlightenmentȱengagementsȱwithȱ theȱGypsiesȱthatȱcouldȱbeȱconnectedȱwithȱtheirȱacceptanceȱasȱaȱminorityȱinȱitsȱownȱrightȱ (Matrasȱ 1999;ȱ 2004b)ȱ and,ȱ thus,ȱ withȱ pastȱ andȱ presentȱ formsȱ ofȱ Romaniȱ minorityȱ selfȬ articulation.ȱ Whereasȱ theȱ advocatesȱ ofȱ theȱ firstȱ strategyȱ considerȱ theȱ worksȱ ofȱ bothȱ Grellmannȱ andȱ Rüdigerȱ asȱ partȱ ofȱ oneȱ andȱ theȱ sameȱ orientalizingȱ traditionȱ ofȱ Gypsyȱ studies,ȱYaronȱMatras,ȱtheȱmainȱadvocateȱofȱtheȱsecondȱstrategy,ȱconsidersȱonlyȱtheȱlegaȬ cyȱ ofȱGrellmannȱ asȱhighlyȱ problematic.ȱ TheȱlinguistȱMatrasȱ hasȱ developedȱ hisȱ positionȱ largelyȱinȱreplyȱtoȱtheȱDutchȱconstructivistȱapproach.ȱStronglyȱbasedȱonȱaȱlinguisticallyȱ informedȱargument,ȱheȱdefendsȱRüdiger’sȱworkȱandȱitsȱlegacyȱagainstȱtheȱcritiqueȱofȱtheȱ threeȱDutchȱauthorsȱand,ȱimplicitly,ȱcallsȱforȱaȱreconsiderationȱofȱtheȱlatter’sȱrejectionȱtoȱ discussȱRomaniȱgroupsȱinȱethnicȱterms.ȱMatras’sȱposition,ȱwhichȱIȱwillȱdiscussȱatȱtheȱendȱ ofȱthisȱchapter,ȱimpliesȱthatȱtheȱabilityȱtoȱspeakȱtheirȱownȱlanguageȱallowsȱRomaniȱindiȬ vidualsȱ andȱ groupsȱ toȱ expressȱ aȱ formȱ ofȱ culturalȱ agencyȱ andȱ toȱ maintainȱ andȱ developȱ theirȱethnicȱminorityȱstatusȱinȱitsȱown,ȱyetȱnotȱnecessarilyȱunambiguousȱright.ȱ

Inȱ thisȱ thirdȱ chapter,ȱ Iȱ primarilyȱ investigateȱ howȱ weȱ needȱ toȱ understandȱ theseȱ twoȱ strategiesȱvisȬàȬvisȱtheȱwaysȱinȱwhichȱtheirȱadvocatesȱhaveȱinterpretedȱEuropeanȱmoderȬ nity,ȱandȱtheȱEnlightenment,ȱitsȱengagementsȱwithȱtheȱGypsies,ȱandȱitsȱlegaciesȱinȱparȬ ticular.ȱ Theȱ proponentsȱ ofȱ theseȱ twoȱ strategiesȱ haveȱ discussedȱ theȱ eighteenthȬcenturyȱ preoccupationȱ withȱ theȱ Gypsiesȱ andȱ itsȱ legaciesȱ asȱ partȱ ofȱ theirȱ scholarlyȱ engagementsȱ withȱ theȱ positionȱ ofȱ Romaniȱ groupsȱ inȱ contemporaryȱ Europeanȱ societiesȱ andȱ cultures.ȱ WhereasȱCottaar,ȱLucassen,ȱandȱWillemsȱhaveȱfocusedȱonȱaȱreconsiderationȱofȱtheȱsocioȬ historicalȱ conditionsȱ underȱ whichȱ weȱ couldȱ understandȱ pastȱ andȱ current,ȱ oftenȱ violentȱ

(5)

mechanismsȱofȱmarginalizationȱtowardȱRomaniȱgroups,ȱMatras’sȱworkȱhasȱbeenȱclearlyȱ committedȱ toȱ theȱ powerful,ȱ yetȱ vulnerableȱ dynamicsȱ ofȱ Romaniȱ minorityȱ selfȬarticuȬ lation.ȱForȱhim,ȱunderratingȱthisȱdynamicsȱandȱitsȱsignificanceȱseemsȱtoȱrepresentȱaȱformȱ ofȱ epistemicȱ violenceȱ againstȱ Romaniȱ groupsȱ thatȱ theȱ Dutchȱ trioȱ ofȱ scholarsȱ hasȱ overȬ looked.ȱWhereasȱitȱhasȱsometimesȱbeenȱsuggested—mostȱofȱallȱbyȱMatrasȱhimself—thatȱ Matras’sȱpositionȱisȱirreconcilableȱwithȱthatȱofȱtheȱthreeȱDutchȱscholars,ȱinȱthisȱandȱtheȱ nextȱ chapterȱ Iȱ argueȱ thatȱ weȱ needȱ toȱ createȱ newȱ groundsȱ forȱ bringingȱ theirȱ valuableȱ positionsȱinȱcontactȱagain.ȱInȱorderȱtoȱintroduceȱtheirȱpositionsȱasȱtwoȱsidesȱofȱtheȱsameȱ coinȱandȱtoȱshowȱthatȱneitherȱofȱtheseȱviewsȱcanȱbeȱmaintainedȱunambiguously,ȱinȱtheȱ nextȱ section,ȱ Iȱ discussȱ theseȱ twoȱ scholarlyȱ strategiesȱ inȱ theȱ contextȱ ofȱ currentȱ debatesȱ aboutȱ theȱ rolesȱ ofȱ globalizationȱ andȱ nationalismȱ inȱ violatingȱ theȱ rightsȱ andȱ culturesȱ ofȱ differentȱkindsȱofȱminorities.ȱ ȱ ȱ ENDANGEREDȱMINORITIESȱINȱANȱAGEȱOFȱGLOBALIZATIONȱ ȱ InȱhisȱessayȱFearȱofȱSmallȱNumbersȱ(2006),ȱtheȱanthropologistȱArjunȱAppaduraiȱtriesȱtoȱunȬ ravelȱtheȱcomplexȱrelationsȱbetweenȱcontemporaryȱprocessesȱofȱglobalization,ȱtheȱendanȬ geredȱpositionȱofȱvariousȱkindsȱofȱminoritiesȱinȱtheȱworld,ȱandȱinitiativesȱofȱtransnationalȱ activistȱ networksȱ toȱ challengeȱ violationsȱ ofȱ minorityȱ rightsȱ andȱ cultures.ȱ Hisȱ pointȱ ofȱ departureȱ isȱ that,ȱ ifȱ weȱ takeȱ aȱ closerȱ lookȱ atȱ globalȱ interȬstateȱ andȱ intraȬstateȱ conflicts,ȱ theyȱ areȱ basicallyȱ aboutȱ jeopardizingȱ minoritiesȱ andȱ theirȱ ‘waysȱ ofȱ life,’ȱ whetherȱ theseȱ groupsȱrepresentȱpolitical,ȱreligious,ȱmigrant,ȱorȱculturalȱminorities.ȱAppaduraiȱputsȱforȬ wardȱthatȱthisȱglobalȱpatternȱofȱviolenceȱagainstȱminoritiesȱnecessitatesȱaȱglobalȱanswer,ȱ andȱ thatȱ manyȱ ofȱ theȱ bestȬknownȱ analysesȱ ofȱ globalȱ conflictsȱ areȱ notȱ muchȱ satisfying.ȱ SamuelȱHuntington’sȱ(1996)ȱthesisȱthatȱweȱcurrentlyȱdealȱwithȱaȱclashȱofȱcivilizations,ȱforȱ instance,ȱ cannotȱ explainȱ whyȱ manyȱ ofȱ theseȱ violentȱ conflictsȱ areȱ ‘intraȬcivilizational,’ȱ henceȱtakeȱplaceȱwithinȱtheȱallegedȱcivilizationalȱboundariesȱthatȱheȱpresupposes.ȱOnȱtheȱ otherȱ hand,ȱ Michaelȱ Ignatieff’sȱ (1998)ȱ suggestionȱ thatȱ weȱ haveȱ becomeȱ insensitiveȱ toȱ violenceȱbecauseȱofȱhowȱtheȱmassȱmediaȱhaveȱmediatedȱitȱandȱkeptȱitȱatȱaȱdistanceȱfromȱ usȱ cannotȱ explainȱ theȱ simultaneousȱ growthȱ ofȱ andȱ supportȱ forȱ grassrootsȱ initiativesȱ toȱ challengeȱviolenceȱagainstȱminorities.ȱ

Inȱ contradistinctionȱ toȱ theseȱ kindsȱ ofȱ answers,ȱ Appaduraiȱ suggestsȱ thatȱ worldwideȱ violenceȱ againstȱ minoritiesȱ hasȱ toȱ doȱ withȱ theȱ relativelyȱ recentȱ constructionȱ ofȱ bothȱ minoritiesȱandȱmajorities.ȱTheyȱwereȱprimarilyȱconstructedȱatȱtheȱtimeȱofȱtheȱbirthȱofȱtheȱ nationȱstateȱandȱitsȱvariousȱbioȬpoliticalȱtechniquesȱtoȱmap,ȱcount,ȱdemarcate,ȱandȱorderȱ populationȱ groups—toolsȱ developedȱ mostlyȱ sinceȱ theȱ seventeenthȱ andȱ eighteenthȱ cenȬ turies:ȱ

ȱ

Minoritiesȱ andȱ majoritiesȱ areȱ recentȱ historicalȱ inventions,ȱ essentiallyȱ tiedȱ upȱ withȱ ideasȱaboutȱnations,ȱpopulations,ȱrepresentation,ȱandȱenumeration,ȱwhichȱareȱnoȱmoreȱ thanȱaȱfewȱcenturiesȱold.ȱ(Appaduraiȱ2006:ȱ49)ȱ

ȱ

Nowȱ thatȱ severalȱ globalȱ forcesȱ haveȱ seriouslyȱ putȱ nationȱ statesȱ underȱ pressureȱ andȱ destabilizedȱ theirȱ sovereignty,ȱ Appaduraiȱ argues,ȱ minoritiesȱ haveȱ becomeȱ theȱ sitesȱ parȱ

(6)

excellenceȱwhereȱtheseȱstatesȱtryȱtoȱrearticulateȱandȱreestablishȱtheirȱpowerȱbyȱvarious,ȱ oftenȱ newlyȱ developedȱ bioȬpoliticalȱ meansȱ andȱ instruments.ȱ Accordingȱ toȱ him,ȱ minorȬ itiesȱchallengeȱconstitutionalȱandȱlegalȱorders,ȱtheirȱcrossȬborderȱmovementsȱandȱtransȬ actionsȱ complicateȱ variousȱ kindsȱ ofȱ control,ȱ theirȱ languages,ȱ ‘lifestyles,’ȱ andȱ memoriesȱ questionȱsupposedȱcultural,ȱnational,ȱandȱsocialȱhomogeneity,ȱandȱtheirȱpoliticsȱcouldȱbeȱ atȱ varianceȱ withȱ majorityȱ interests.ȱ Heȱ putsȱ forwardȱ thatȱ theȱ uncertaintiesȱ ‘causedȱ by’ȱ minorityȱ groups,ȱ aggravatedȱ byȱ theȱ difficultyȱ forȱ manyȱ statesȱ toȱ secureȱ employment,ȱ welfare,ȱ healthȱ care,ȱ andȱ theȱ likeȱ inȱ anȱ eraȱ ofȱ globalizationȱ canȱ translateȱ intoȱ variousȱ formsȱ ofȱ majorityȱ violenceȱ towardȱ minorities.ȱ Whereasȱ globalization,ȱ becauseȱ ofȱ itsȱ facelessȱandȱabstractȱcharacter,ȱcannotȱbecomeȱtheȱconcreteȱsiteȱofȱviolence,ȱ“minoritiesȱ can”ȱ (ibidȱ 44).ȱ Asȱ aȱ result,ȱ Appaduraiȱ contestsȱ theȱ interpretationȱ thatȱ minorityȱ groupsȱ themselvesȱproduceȱviolence.ȱConversely,ȱheȱprovocativelyȱputsȱforwardȱthatȱ“violenceȱ …ȱ requiresȱ minorities”ȱ (ibidȱ 46,ȱ myȱ emphasis).ȱ Violenceȱ requiresȱ minorityȱ formationȱ asȱ wellȱasȱtheȱperpetualȱperformanceȱandȱaffirmationȱofȱtheȱsocioȬculturalȱmatrixȱinȱwhichȱ minoritiesȱandȱmajoritiesȱappearȱasȱifȱtheyȱreallyȱhaveȱaȱnaturalȱandȱuncontestableȱorigin.ȱ ȱ Appaduraiȱisȱnotȱaloneȱinȱhisȱviewȱthatȱinȱorderȱtoȱadequatelyȱunderstandȱtheȱcurrentȱ relationȱbetweenȱminorityȱandȱmajorityȱgroupsȱasȱwellȱasȱvariousȱformsȱofȱcontemporaryȱ nationalismȱ andȱ minorityȱ formationȱ weȱ needȱ toȱ carefullyȱ lookȱ atȱ theȱ circumstancesȱ underȱwhichȱminoritiesȱandȱmajoritiesȱhaveȱhistoricallyȱandȱmutuallyȱbeenȱformedȱandȱ identifiedȱ asȱ such.ȱ Aȱ greatȱ numberȱ ofȱ scholarsȱ whoȱ haveȱ analyzedȱ Enlightenmentȱ thinking,ȱ andȱ modernityȱ moreȱ generally,ȱ haveȱ focusedȱ onȱ seventeenthȱ andȱ eighteenthȬ centuryȱdevelopments,ȱdiscourses,ȱandȱpracticesȱtoȱclarifyȱwhatȱtheyȱhaveȱconsideredȱasȱ oneȱofȱtheȱmostȱinfluentialȱepistemologicalȱshiftsȱinȱmodernȱhistory.ȱDespiteȱsignificantȱ differencesȱbetweenȱtheirȱtheoriesȱandȱmethodologies,ȱinfluentialȱandȱdiverseȱtheoristsȱofȱ nationalism,ȱ suchȱ asȱ Hansȱ Kohn,ȱ Miroslavȱ Hroch,ȱ Ernestȱ Gellner,ȱ Ericȱ Hobsbawm,ȱ Benedictȱ Anderson,ȱ Anthonyȱ Smith,ȱ Homiȱ Bhabha,ȱ andȱ Parthaȱ Chatterjeeȱ haveȱ allȱ emphasizedȱtheȱcrucialȱimportanceȱofȱtheȱlateȱeighteenthȱcenturyȱforȱtheȱemergenceȱandȱ understandingȱ ofȱ modernȱ nationalismȱ and,ȱ toȱ someȱ extent,ȱ forȱ anȱ analysisȱ ofȱ theȱ conȬ flationsȱofȱnationalismȱandȱracismȱofȱsomewhatȱlaterȱdate.ȱInȱthisȱcontext,ȱtheȱsupposedlyȱ particularisticȱ viewȱ ofȱ theȱ influentialȱ eighteenthȬcenturyȱ scholarȱ Johannȱ Gottfriedȱ vonȱ Herderȱ (1744Ȭ1803)ȱ hasȱ oftenȱ beenȱ consideredȱ asȱ oneȱ ofȱ theȱ mostȱ importantȱ culpritsȱ inȱ spreadingȱ ideasȱ aboutȱ nationalismȱ andȱ aboutȱ theȱ inextricableȱ andȱ essentialistȱ relationsȱ betweenȱaȱnation,ȱaȱpeople,ȱandȱtheirȱcultureȱandȱlanguage.ȱHerderianȱphilosophy,ȱandȱ otherȱlateȬeighteenthȱandȱearlyȬnineteenthȬcenturyȱformsȱofȱculturalȱparticularismȱmoreȱ generally,ȱ haveȱ frequentlyȱ beenȱ consideredȱ responsibleȱ forȱ theȱ emergenceȱ ofȱ aȱ formȱ ofȱ essentialismȱinȱwhichȱculturesȱbasicallyȱdevelopȱautonomouslyȱandȱatȱdifferentȱspeeds.ȱ Theseȱformsȱofȱparticularismȱareȱusuallyȱlinkedȱwithȱtheȱparallelȱemergenceȱofȱtheȱideaȱ ofȱsuperiorȱandȱinferiorȱorȱcivilizedȱandȱ‘notȱyet’ȱcivilizedȱcultures,ȱnations,ȱandȱraces.ȱ ȱ Forȱ manyȱ interpretersȱ ofȱ modernity,ȱ theȱ obsessionȱ withȱ theȱ originsȱ ofȱ nations,ȱ culȬ tures,ȱ andȱ racesȱ thatȱ startedȱ toȱ dominateȱ political,ȱ scientific,ȱ andȱ culturalȱ debatesȱ throughoutȱ Europeȱ fromȱ theȱ lateȬeighteenthȱ centuryȱ onwardȱ representsȱ oneȱ ofȱ theȱ imȬ portantȱproblematicsȱofȱmodernȱthought.ȱTheȱobsessionȱwithȱoriginsȱandȱtheȱinclinationȱ toȱ separateȱ ‘us’ȱ fromȱ ‘them’ȱ andȱ orderȱ cultures,ȱ nations,ȱ andȱ racesȱ hierarchicallyȱ accordingȱtoȱtheirȱallegedȱlevelȱofȱcivilizationȱhaveȱrepeatedlyȱbeenȱconsideredȱcharacterȬ isticsȱthatȱdoȱnotȱbelongȱtoȱaȱdistantȱpastȱatȱall.ȱRather,ȱasȱsomeȱhaveȱargued,ȱtheyȱhaveȱ

(7)

influentiallyȱandȱoftenȱdevastatinglyȱdeterminedȱmodernȱhistoryȱfromȱWesternȱcolonialȱ hegemonyȱandȱgenocidesȱtoȱcontemporaryȱformsȱofȱviolenceȱlegitimatedȱinȱtheȱnameȱofȱ humanȱ rightsȱ andȱ theȱ spreadȱ ofȱ liberalȱ valuesȱ fromȱ theȱ Westȱ toȱ ‘developingȱ countries’ȱ andȱ‘transitionalȱdemocracies’ȱelsewhereȱinȱtheȱworld.ȱ

Inȱ thisȱ chapter,ȱ byȱ discussingȱ theȱ exampleȱ ofȱ Romaniȱ minorityȱ formationȱ inȱ Europeȱ andȱ itsȱ relationȱ toȱ processesȱ ofȱ (nation)ȱ stateȱ buildingȱ andȱ toȱ newȱ formsȱ ofȱ knowledgeȱ formation,ȱIȱchallengeȱthisȱprimarilyȱnegativeȱperspectiveȱofȱtheȱlegacyȱofȱEnlightenmentȱ andȱRomanticȱthinking.ȱIȱmaintainȱAppadurai’sȱviewȱthatȱanȱinterrogationȱofȱlateȬeighȬ teenthȬcenturyȱdiscoursesȱandȱpracticesȱconcerningȱnationȱandȱstateȬbuildingȱisȱcrucialȱtoȱ understandingȱ processesȱ ofȱ minoritizationȱ andȱ majoritizationȱ andȱ theirȱ violentȱ effects.3_ȱ

Yet,ȱIȱwantȱtoȱchallengeȱtheȱviewȱthatȱtheȱdynamicȱofȱtheseȱprocessesȱhasȱonlyȱhadȱnegaȬ tiveȱandȱviolentȱconsequencesȱforȱminoritizedȱgroups,ȱsuchȱasȱtheȱRomani.ȱHavingȱsaidȱ this,ȱ myȱ analysisȱ doesȱ notȱ implyȱ thatȱ theȱ themeȱ ofȱ violenceȱ towardȱ minoritiesȱ andȱ itsȱ complexȱrelationȱtoȱprocessesȱofȱglobalization,ȱnationȬstateȱbuilding,ȱandȱ‘othering’ȱisȱnotȱ relevantȱtoȱanalyzingȱtheȱsituationȱofȱRomaniȱminoritiesȱinȱEurope.ȱItȱcertainlyȱis.ȱAsȱaȱ numberȱ ofȱ authorsȱ haveȱ emphasized—Annemarieȱ Cottaar,ȱ Leoȱ Lucassen,ȱ andȱ Wimȱ Willemsȱmostȱpressinglyȱ(Lucassenȱetȱalȱ1998a)—weȱneedȱtoȱunderstandȱpastȱandȱcurrentȱ formsȱofȱviolenceȱtowardȱRomaniȱgroupsȱinȱtheȱcontextȱofȱtheȱlegacyȱofȱEnlightenmentȱ thoughtȱandȱofȱmodernȱprocessesȱofȱnationȱstateȱformationȱandȱtheȱcentralizationȱofȱrule.ȱ Thisȱ alsoȱ impliesȱ thatȱ weȱ needȱ toȱ avoidȱ focusingȱ onȱ theȱ Roma’sȱ allegedȱ homogeneity,ȱ poverty,ȱmarginality,ȱorȱcriminality.ȱRather,ȱweȱneedȱtoȱemphasizeȱtheȱvariousȱwaysȱinȱ whichȱtheseȱgroupsȱhaveȱhistoricallyȱbeenȱhomogenized,ȱminoritized,ȱmarginalized,ȱandȱ criminalizedȱ withȱ determination—aȱ processȱ thatȱ theseȱ threeȱ influentialȱ Dutchȱ authorsȱ haveȱ generallyȱ reformulatedȱ asȱ oneȱ ofȱ combinedȱ categorizing,ȱ labeling,ȱ andȱ stigmaȬ tizing.4_ȱ

Inȱgeneral,ȱthereȱisȱaȱclearȱtendencyȱinȱtheȱstudyȱofȱRomaniȱgroupsȱtoȱfocusȱonȱhowȱ lateȬeighteenthȬcenturyȱ political,ȱ cultural,ȱ andȱ scientificȱ approachesȱ toȱ theȱ Roma—inȬ cludingȱ theȱ emergenceȱ ofȱ theȱ fieldȱ ofȱ Gypsyȱ studiesȱ itself—haveȱ timeȱ andȱ againȱ influȬ encedȱ historicallyȱ laterȱ formsȱ ofȱ Romaniȱ identityȱ formation,ȱ representation,ȱ andȱ selfȬ representation,ȱ fromȱ theȱ periodȱ ofȱ Romanticismȱ toȱ theȱ Naziȱ genocideȱ ofȱ theȱ Sintiȱ andȱ Roma,ȱ andȱ fromȱ communismȱ andȱ Westernȱ Europeanȱ ‘welfarism’ȱ toȱ postȬcommunismȱ andȱ theȱ currentȱ politicsȱ ofȱ minorityȱ integration.5_{ȱ Inȱ someȱ ofȱ theseȱ studiesȱ itȱ hasȱ beenȱ}

arguedȱthatȱmodernȱEuropeanȱformsȱofȱknowledgeȱformationȱaboutȱ‘theȱGypsies’ȱasȱwellȱ asȱ interrelatedȱ modernȱ Europeanȱ formsȱ ofȱ theirȱ representationȱ haveȱ significantlyȱ

3_{ȱ Byȱ violence,ȱ Iȱ meanȱ notȱ onlyȱ physicalȱ formsȱ ofȱ violence,ȱ butȱ alsoȱ symbolic,ȱ constitutional,ȱ institutional,ȱ} epistemic,ȱ andȱ verbalȱ formsȱ ofȱ violence,ȱ suchȱ asȱ institutionalȱ andȱ nonȬinstitutionalȱ racism,ȱ directȱ andȱ indirectȱdiscrimination,ȱstereotypicalȱandȱstigmatizedȱformsȱofȱrepresentation,ȱexclusionȱfromȱhuman,ȱcivil,ȱ social,ȱ orȱ minorityȱ rights,ȱ deniedȱ orȱ limitedȱ accessȱ toȱ socialȱ andȱ publicȱ services,ȱ exclusionȱ fromȱ historyȱ writingȱ andȱ fromȱ institutionalizedȱ formsȱ ofȱ representationȱ moreȱ generalȱ (inȱ academies,ȱ schoolȱ curricula,ȱ museums,ȱetc.).ȱ

4_{ȱSee,ȱmostȱnotably,ȱLucassenȱetȱalȱ(1998b),ȱLucassenȱ(1990;ȱ1996;ȱ1998a),ȱWillemsȱ(1995;ȱ1997),ȱandȱCottaarȱ}

(1996;ȱ1998b;ȱ1998a).ȱ

5_{ȱ Manyȱ authorsȱ haveȱ discussedȱ theȱ influenceȱ ofȱ eighteenthȬcenturyȱ thoughtȱ andȱ practicesȱ onȱ currentȱ orȱ}

contemporaryȱ approachesȱ towardȱ Romaniȱ groupsȱ (Fraserȱ 1995;ȱ Croweȱ 1995;ȱ Willemsȱ 1997;ȱ Lucassenȱ etȱ alȱ 1998a;ȱ Matrasȱ 1999;ȱ Lemonȱ 2000;ȱ Guyȱ 2001a;ȱ Baranyȱ 2002;ȱ Mayallȱ 2004;ȱ Saulȱ andȱ Tebbuttȱ 2004;ȱ Bancroftȱ 2005;ȱZimmermannȱ2007c).ȱ

(8)

contributedȱ toȱ theirȱ socioeconomic,ȱ political,ȱ andȱ culturalȱ marginalization.ȱ Cottaar,ȱ Lucassen,ȱ andȱ Willemsȱ (Lucassenȱ etȱ alȱ 1998b),ȱ forȱ instance,ȱ haveȱ arguedȱ thatȱ theȱ perȬ sistentȱscholarlyȱrepresentationȱofȱGypsiesȱasȱaȱpeopleȱwhoȱhaveȱnoȱterritorial,ȱcultural,ȱ orȱwhatsoeverȱbondȱwithȱtheȱstatesȱinȱwhichȱtheyȱlive,ȱhasȱalsoȱimpliedȱthatȱtheȱhistoryȱ ofȱ Gypsyȱ orȱ Romaniȱ groupsȱ hasȱ remainedȱ aȱ “historyȱ inȱ footnotes”ȱ inȱ mostȱ historioȬ graphicalȱtraditions.ȱThisȱtrendȱtoȱexcludeȱtheirȱhistoriesȱfromȱnationalȱhistoriographiesȱ andȱfromȱthoseȱofȱtheȱHolocaustȱhasȱalsoȱbeenȱstrengthenedȱbecauseȱtheȱhistoriesȱonȱtheȱ RomaȱhaveȱmostlyȱbeenȱwrittenȱbyȱnonȬRomaȱ(butȱseeȱHancockȱ2002;ȱBeltonȱ2005;ȱLeȱBasȱ andȱActonȱ2010).ȱCorrelatively,ȱas,ȱforȱinstance,ȱKatieȱTrumpenerȱ(1992)ȱhasȱargued,ȱtheȱ Romaȱareȱ“aȱ‘peopleȱwithoutȱhistory’ȱinȱtheȱnarrativesȱofȱtheȱWest.”ȱSinceȱ‘theȱGypsies’ȱ haveȱ overȱ andȱ overȱ againȱ beenȱ representedȱ stereotypicallyȱ inȱ fairyȱ tales,ȱ children’sȱ books,ȱ novels,ȱ travelȱ reports,ȱ encyclopedias,ȱ operas,ȱ films,ȱ andȱ popularȱ culture—asȱ Trumpener’sȱ argumentȱ goes—theyȱ haveȱ beenȱ deprivedȱ ofȱ theirȱ ownȱ historiesȱ andȱ memoriesȱinȱwesternȱcultures.6_{ȱToȱvariousȱextents,ȱtheseȱcontemporaryȱstudiesȱofȱGypsyȱ}

orȱRomaniȱgroupsȱsuggestȱthatȱthereȱisȱaȱcloseȱrelationshipȱbetweenȱtheirȱintellectualȱandȱ culturalȱrepresentationȱandȱdiverseȱformsȱofȱviolenceȱagainstȱthem.ȱ

InȱtheseȱandȱotherȱstudiesȱofȱRomaniȱgroups,ȱspecificȱattentionȱhasȱoftenȱbeenȱpaidȱtoȱ referencesȱtoȱtheȱRoma’sȱallegedȱIndianȱandȱdiasporicȱoriginsȱinȱpastȱandȱcontemporaryȱ processesȱ ofȱ Romaniȱ identityȱ formationȱ andȱ inȱ Romaȱ representationsȱ andȱ selfȬrepȬ resentations.ȱ Asȱ severalȱ authorsȱ haveȱ analyzed,ȱ theȱ referencesȱ toȱ theȱ Roma’sȱ supposedȱ originsȱwereȱmadeȱforȱtheȱfirstȱtimeȱinȱtheȱeighteenthȬcenturyȱHabsburgȱEmpire,ȱwhenȱ theȱfirstȱ‘Gypsyȱscholars,’ȱmostȱnotablyȱSamuelȱAugustiniȱabȱHortisȱ(1729Ȭ1792),ȱJohannȱ Rüdigerȱ(1751Ȭ1822),ȱandȱHeinrichȱGrellmannȱ(1753Ȭ1804)ȱwereȱtracingȱbackȱtheȱoriginsȱ ofȱ theȱ Europeanȱ Gypsiesȱ toȱ India,ȱ mainlyȱ onȱ theȱ basisȱ ofȱ linguisticȱ arguments.ȱ Manyȱ contemporaryȱscholarsȱconsiderȱtheȱworksȱofȱtheseȱeighteenthȬcenturyȱscholarsȱandȱtheirȱ legaciesȱ asȱ enormouslyȱ influentialȱ whenȱ itȱ comesȱ toȱ theȱ scopeȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ limitationsȱ ofȱ howȱ Romaniȱ groupsȱ couldȱ beȱ representedȱ andȱ couldȱ representȱ themselvesȱ throughoutȱ modernȱEuropeanȱhistory.ȱYet,ȱtheseȱcontemporaryȱscholarsȱdoȱnotȱagreeȱuponȱhowȱweȱ needȱtoȱappreciateȱtheȱinfluenceȱofȱtheseȱearlyȱmodernȱHabsburgȱscholarsȱandȱuponȱhowȱ theirȱ legacyȱ relatesȱ toȱ aȱ longȱ traditionȱ ofȱ violentȱ displacementsȱ ofȱ Romaniȱ groupsȱ inȱ Europeanȱhistory.ȱAsȱIȱhaveȱdiscussedȱinȱthisȱchapter’sȱintroduction,ȱweȱcanȱdistinguishȱ betweenȱtwoȱdominantȱpositionsȱinȱtheȱreceptionȱofȱthisȱinfluenceȱandȱlegacy.ȱ

Cottaar,ȱ Lucassen,ȱ andȱ Willems—who,ȱ together,ȱ haveȱ beenȱ consideredȱ asȱ theȱ repreȬ sentativesȱ ofȱ theȱ soȬcalledȱ Dutchȱ School—haveȱ assessedȱ theȱ workȱ andȱ legacyȱ ofȱ theseȱ eighteenthȬcenturyȱ scholarsȱ asȱ predominantlyȱ negative.7_{ȱ Theyȱ considerȱ theirȱ influenceȱ}

andȱ theȱ repeatedȱ yetȱ basicallyȱ unchangedȱ rearticulationȱ ofȱ theirȱ ideasȱ inȱ theȱ courseȱ ofȱ modernȱEuropeanȱhistoryȱasȱlargelyȱresponsibleȱforȱaȱpersistentȱtraditionȱofȱtheȱRoma’sȱ

6_{ȱ Variousȱ authorsȱ haveȱ discussedȱ diverseȱ formsȱ ofȱ stereotypicalȱ Romaȱ representationsȱ inȱ culturalȱ objectsȱ} (SolmsȱandȱStraussȱ1995;ȱTebbuttȱ1998;ȱIordanovaȱ2001;ȱ2003;ȱMalvinniȱ2004;ȱGayȱyȱBlascoȱandȱIordanovaȱ 2008;ȱImreȱ2009).ȱInȱchapterȱ8,ȱIȱwillȱanalyzeȱtheȱhistoryȱofȱRomaȱrepresentationsȱinȱlightȱofȱcontemporaryȱ Romaniȱmemorialȱpractices.ȱThere,ȱIȱwillȱalsoȱdiscussȱTrumpener’sȱworkȱatȱlength.ȱ

7_{ȱ Duringȱ aȱ summerȱ schoolȱ inȱ Romaniȱ Studiesȱ atȱ theȱ Centralȱ Europeanȱ Universityȱ inȱ Budapestȱ inȱ 2003,ȱ}

Cottaar,ȱ Lucassen,ȱ andȱ Willemsȱ wereȱ collectivelyȱ representedȱ asȱ ‘theȱ Dutchȱ School.’ȱ Forȱ theȱ sakeȱ ofȱ convenienceȱ andȱ alsoȱ becauseȱ theyȱ haveȱ collectivelyȱ presentedȱ theirȱ worksȱ inȱ theirȱ Theȱ Gypsiesȱ andȱ Otherȱ ItinerantȱGroupsȱ(1998),ȱIȱuseȱthisȱexpressionȱinȱthisȱstudyȱtoȱreferȱtoȱtheirȱscholarlyȱposition.ȱ

(9)

stigmatizationȱ andȱ racialization.ȱ Inȱ aȱ lineȱ ofȱ thoughtȱ thatȱ isȱ similarȱ toȱ thatȱ ofȱ Edwardȱ Said’sȱ seminalȱ studyȱ Orientalismȱ (1978),ȱ Willemsȱ (1997;ȱ 1998)ȱ hasȱ putȱ forwardȱ thatȱ theȱ earlyȱGypsyȱscholarsȱwereȱtheȱfirstȱinȱaȱlongȱseriesȱofȱacademicsȱwhoȱeffectivelyȱorienȬ talizedȱ theȱ Gypsiesȱ asȱ aȱ nonȬEuropean,ȱ essentiallyȱ nomadic,ȱ andȱ ethnically,ȱ culturally,ȱ andȱ linguisticallyȱ homogeneousȱ peopleȱ withȱ theirȱ ownȱ diasporicȱ history.ȱ Accordingȱ toȱ Willems,ȱ sinceȱ theȱ emergenceȱ ofȱ theseȱ eighteenthȬcenturyȱ scholarlyȱ Gypsyȱ representȬ tations,ȱ stateȱ authoritiesȱ haveȱ timeȱ andȱ againȱ mobilizedȱ themȱ toȱ legitimizeȱ antiȬGypsyȱ measures,ȱ fromȱ assimilationȱ policiesȱ underȱ Habsburgȱ enlightenedȱ absolutistȱ ruleȱ toȱ genocideȱ underȱ Nazismȱ toȱ postȬwarȱ exclusionsȱ ofȱ Romaniȱ migrants.8_{ȱ Lucassenȱ (1996;ȱ}

2008)ȱhasȱrelatedȱtheȱpossibilityȱtoȱmakeȱsuchȱmeasuresȱeffectiveȱatȱallȱtoȱtheȱincreasedȱ centralizationȱofȱtheȱstateȱorȱtoȱwhatȱheȱalsoȱcalledȱtheȱinstitutionalizationȱofȱ‘directȱrule.’ȱ

Theȱ representativesȱ ofȱ theȱ Dutchȱ Schoolȱ haveȱ identifiedȱ threeȱ dominantȱ reasonsȱ forȱ theȱ persistentȱ historyȱ ofȱ modernȱ Europeanȱ processesȱ ofȱ Romaȱ orȱ Gypsyȱ labelingȱ andȱ stigmatization,ȱnamely:ȱ(1)ȱtheȱculturalȱparticularismȱofȱeighteenthȬcenturyȱnationalisticȱ thoughtȱ exemplifiedȱ byȱ Herderianȱ philosophy;ȱ (2)ȱ theȱ Enlightenmentȱ beliefȱ inȱ theȱ imȬ provabilityȱ ofȱ humanȱ nature,ȱ andȱ (3)ȱ theȱ graduallyȱ increasingȱ abilityȱ ofȱ emergingȱ stateȱ institutionsȱ andȱ scientificȱ conceptualizationsȱtoȱ determineȱ theȱrepresentationalȱboundaȬ riesȱofȱRomaniȱidentities.ȱTheȱDutchȱauthorsȱhaveȱexplicitlyȱextendedȱthisȱlineȱofȱthoughtȱ toȱtheȱpresentȬdayȱcircumstancesȱunderȱwhichȱRomaȱrepresentationsȱandȱselfȬrepresenȬ tationsȱtakeȱplace.ȱAccordingȱtoȱthem,ȱeveryȱattemptȱtoȱrepresentȱtheȱRomaȱandȱSintiȱasȱ oneȱ homogeneousȱ people—alsoȱ byȱ groupȱ membersȱ themselves—andȱ everyȱ attemptȱ toȱ speakȱofȱtheȱRomaȱandȱSintiȱasȱanȱethnicȱminorityȱgroupȱthatȱalreadyȱexistedȱbeforeȱtheȱ twentiethȱcenturyȱrisksȱreinforcingȱtheȱdubiousȱlanguageȱofȱeighteenthȬcenturyȱparticuȬ larismȱ andȱ nationalism.ȱ Therefore,ȱ theȱ Dutchȱ Schoolȱ rejectsȱ theȱ referenceȱ toȱ Romaniȱ groupsȱinȱtermsȱofȱanȱethnicȱandȱdiasporicȱgroup.ȱThoughȱtheyȱdoȱnotȱwantȱ“toȱdenyȱaȱ ‘Gypsy’ȱ orȱ ‘Traveller’ȱ ethnicity”ȱ (Lucassenȱ etȱ alȱ 1998b:ȱ 2),ȱ theyȱ considerȱ theȱ powerȱ ofȱ stateȱandȱscientificȱauthoritiesȱsoȱbigȱandȱinfluentialȱthatȱ“theȱRomaȱandȱSintiȱapproach”ȱ fallsȱeasilyȱandȱdangerouslyȱbackȱintoȱtheȱreinforcementȱofȱracistȱorȱnationalisticȱcategoȬ riesȱ (Lucassenȱ 1998c:ȱ 93;ȱ Willemsȱ 1998:ȱ 33).ȱ Inȱ short,ȱ sinceȱ theȱ representativesȱ ofȱ theȱ Dutchȱ Schoolȱ considerȱ theȱ lateȬeighteenthȬcenturyȱ epistemologicalȱ preoccupationȱ withȱ Gypsyȱgroupsȱasȱtheȱprimaryȱsourceȱofȱvariousȱformsȱofȱviolenceȱagainstȱthem,ȱtheyȱalsoȱ rejectȱtheȱreferenceȱtoȱGypsiesȱinȱethnicȱandȱdiasporicȱterms,ȱwhichȱtheyȱunderstandȱtoȱ beȱinherentlyȱrelatedȱtoȱtheȱlegacyȱofȱtheȱearlyȱmodernity.ȱSinceȱtheȱwayȱinȱwhichȱdomiȬ nantȱformsȱofȱknowledgeȱformationȱaboutȱGypsyȱgroupsȱhasȱledȱtoȱtheirȱminoritizationȱ asȱaȱcombinedȱandȱpersistentȱprocessȱofȱlabelingȱandȱstigmatization,ȱtheȱDutchȱauthorsȱ callȱ forȱ aȱ radicalȱ breakȱ withȱ theȱ prevailingȱ RomaȬrelatedȱ historiographyȱ andȱ howȱ itȱ isȱ dubiouslyȱconnectedȱwithȱtheȱentireȱtraditionȱofȱGypsyȱstudies.ȱȱ

Moreȱthanȱonce,ȱtheȱlinguistȱYaronȱMatrasȱhasȱexpressedȱdissatisfactionȱwithȱhowȱtheȱ Dutchȱ School,ȱ andȱ Willemsȱ inȱ particular,ȱ hasȱ representedȱ theȱ influenceȱ ofȱ eighteenthȬ centuryȱ thoughtȱ (Matrasȱ 1999;ȱ 2004b).ȱ Sinceȱ Matrasȱ hasȱ mostȱ clearlyȱ andȱ extensivelyȱ formulatedȱanȱoppositeȱpointȱofȱview,ȱheȱcouldȱalsoȱbeȱconsideredȱasȱtheȱmainȱrepresenȬ

(10)

tativeȱofȱtheȱotherȱpositionȱinȱwhatȱcouldȱbeȱcalledȱtheȱ‘originsȱdebate.’9_{ȱUnlikeȱtheȱDutchȱ}

School,ȱMatrasȱconsidersȱtheȱeighteenthȬcenturyȱcomparisonȱofȱtheȱlanguageȱofȱtheȱRomaȱ withȱIndianȱlanguages,ȱincludingȱtheȱsubsequentȱanalysisȱofȱtheirȱgreatȱsimilarities,ȱasȱaȱ majorȱ achievementȱ andȱ aȱ “sensationalȱ discovery”ȱ inȱ theȱ historyȱ ofȱ theȱ Romaȱ (Matrasȱ 2002:ȱ2)—andȱnotȱasȱaȱbasicallyȱromanticizedȱorȱevenȱracistȱorȱnationalistȱrepresentationȱ ofȱdiverseȱitinerantȱgroupsȱasȱoneȱhomogeneousȱ‘Gypsyȱpeople’ȱ(Matrasȱ2004b).ȱThoughȱ MatrasȱagreesȱwithȱCottaar,ȱLucassen,ȱandȱWillemsȱthatȱtheȱ‘oneȱnationȬoneȱpeopleȬoneȱ language’ȱ ideaȱ hasȱ historicallyȱ beenȱ mobilizedȱ toȱ makeȱ dubiousȱ political,ȱ legal,ȱ andȱ culturalȱ claims,ȱ andȱ thatȱ thisȱ tendencyȱ needsȱ toȱ beȱ interrogatedȱ critically,ȱ heȱ wantsȱ toȱ clarifyȱ theȱ roleȱ ofȱ theȱ Romaniȱ languageȱ inȱ whatȱ heȱ considersȱ asȱ theȱ mystificationȱ ofȱ Romaniȱ identityȱ byȱ scholarsȱ suchȱ asȱ Willems.10_{ȱ Hisȱ mainȱ strategyȱ inȱ doingȱ soȱ isȱ toȱ}

distinguishȱ theȱ positionȱ ofȱ Rüdigerȱ clearlyȱ fromȱ thoseȱ ofȱ Augustiniȱ abȱ Hortisȱ andȱ Grellmann.ȱMatrasȱconsidersȱtheȱworksȱofȱlatterȱtwoȱ‘pseudoȬscientific’ȱandȱthoseȱofȱtheȱ formerȱlinguisticallyȱinnovative.ȱBasedȱonȱthisȱappreciationȱofȱRüdiger’sȱposition,ȱMatrasȱ generallyȱ considersȱ theȱ eighteenthȬcenturyȱ emergenceȱ ofȱ theȱ fieldȱ ofȱ Gypsyȱ studiesȱ asȱ positive.ȱForȱhim,ȱtheȱ“sensationalȱdiscovery”ȱofȱtheȱlinguisticȱoriginsȱofȱRomanes—thatȱ isȱ theȱ languageȱ ofȱ theȱ Roma—isȱ alsoȱ relatedȱ toȱ theȱ Roma’sȱ abilityȱ toȱ articulateȱ theirȱ identityȱ withoutȱ automaticallyȱ riskingȱ whatȱ Willemsȱ hasȱ calledȱ theȱ “deathȬtrapȱ ofȱ ethȬ nicity”ȱ(1998).ȱMatrasȱoffersȱaȱmuchȱmoreȱpositiveȱinterpretationȱofȱtheȱreferenceȱtoȱtheȱ RomaȱinȱethnicȱtermsȱthanȱtheȱDutchȱSchoolȱdoes.ȱHisȱviewȱallowsȱforȱlinkingȱtheȱlegacyȱ ofȱEuropeanȱmodernityȱwithȱformsȱofȱRomaniȱculturalȱagencyȱandȱselfȬarticulationȱand,ȱ thus,ȱwithȱwaysȱtoȱapproachȱRomaniȱgroupsȱthatȱareȱnotȱnecessarilyȱviolent.ȱ

ȱ Howȱ areȱ weȱ toȱ assessȱ theseȱ twoȱ dominantȱ positionsȱ inȱ theȱ ‘originsȱ debate’?ȱ Inȱ theȱ remainderȱofȱthisȱchapter,ȱIȱwillȱfurtherȱunravelȱtheseȱpositions.ȱInȱtheȱnextȱtwoȱsections,ȱ Iȱ willȱ focusȱ onȱ theȱ howȱ Willems’sȱ andȱ Lucassen’sȱ negativeȱ interpretationȱ ofȱ modernityȱ andȱitsȱlegacyȱand,ȱasȱaȱresult,ȱtheirȱviewȱofȱtheȱmodernȱhistoryȱofȱGypsyȱgroupsȱrelyȱonȱ aȱ oneȬsidedȱ perspectiveȱ ofȱ Enlightenmentȱ thought.11_{ȱ Inȱ theȱ penultimateȱ sectionȱ ofȱ thisȱ}

chapter,ȱIȱshowȱhowȱMatrasȱpotentiallyȱofferȱanȱalternative,ȱmoreȱpositiveȱviewȱofȱEuroȬ peanȱmodernityȱandȱitsȱeffectsȱonȱRomaniȱgroupsȱandȱtheirȱrepresentation.ȱHowever,ȱinȱ theȱconclusionȱofȱthisȱchapterȱIȱwillȱargueȱthatȱhisȱviewȱcouldȱbeȱconsideredȱasȱaȱmissedȱ opportunityȱ toȱ combineȱ theȱ strengthsȱ ofȱ theȱ Dutchȱ School’sȱ perspectiveȱ withȱ aȱ moreȱ heterogeneousȱ andȱ ambivalentȱreadingȱofȱtheȱ Enlightenment,ȱ itsȱ legacy,ȱ andȱitsȱ impactȱ onȱ pastȱ andȱ contemporaryȱ problematizationsȱ ofȱ Gypsyȱ orȱ Romaniȱ groups.ȱ Iȱ willȱ argueȱ thatȱneitherȱtheȱintellectualȱstrategyȱofȱtheȱDutchȱSchool—toȱabandonȱtheȱentireȱtraditionȱ ofȱGypsyȱstudies—norȱtheȱoneȱproposedȱbyȱMatras—toȱdistinguishȱbetweenȱaȱbadȱandȱaȱ goodȱ traditionȱ withinȱ Gypsyȱ studiesȱ andȱ advocateȱ forȱ theȱ latter—canȱ beȱ maintained.ȱ Theseȱstrategiesȱneedȱtoȱbeȱcombinedȱtoȱacknowledgeȱtheȱambivalentȱroleȱofȱscholarsȱinȱ pastȱandȱcontemporaryȱformsȱofȱRomaniȱidentityȱformation.ȱ ȱ ȱ 9_{ȱSeeȱalsoȱOkelyȱ(1983),ȱActonȱ(1998;ȱ2004;ȱ2008),ȱHancockȱ(2002),ȱMayallȱ(2004),ȱBeltonȱ(2005),ȱMarshȱandȱ} Strandȱ(2006),ȱMarshȱ(2007),ȱRiesȱ(2008),ȱandȱRiesȱandȱJacobsȱ(2009).ȱ 10_{ȱSeeȱMatrasȱ(1998;ȱ2004a;ȱ2004b)ȱandȱMargalitȱandȱMatrasȱ(2007).ȱ} 11_{ȱSinceȱCotttaar’sȱworkȱfocusesȱonȱtheȱhistoryȱandȱpositionȱofȱcaravanȱdwellersȱinȱtheȱNetherlands,ȱinȱtheȱ} restȱofȱthisȱchapter,ȱIȱwillȱdiscussȱtheȱworksȱofȱLucassenȱandȱWillems.ȱ

(11)

BEYONDȱESSENTIALISM:ȱROMANIȱETHNICITYȱANDȱDIASPORAȱASȱAȱDEATHTRAPȱ?ȱ

ȱ

Inȱ2002,ȱIanȱHancockȱpublishedȱhisȱWeȱareȱtheȱRomaniȱPeopleȱ–ȱAmeȱsamȱeȱRromaneȱdžene.ȱ Theȱ backȱ ofȱ hisȱ bookȱ presentsȱ itȱ asȱ “invaluableȱ toȱ anybodyȱ whoȱ wantsȱ toȱ knowȱ moreȱ aboutȱtheseȱfascinatingȱpeopleȱwhoȱleftȱIndiaȱaȱthousandȱyearsȱago.”ȱFollowingȱthisȱstyleȱ ofȱpresentation,ȱtheȱbook’sȱfirstȱchapterȱbeginsȱwithȱtheȱquotationȱ“noȱnationȱknowsȱitselfȱ untilȱitȱknowsȱitsȱpast”ȱ(BenȱAmesȱWilliamsȱcitedȱHancockȱ2002:ȱ1).ȱHancock,ȱprofessorȱ ofȱ Romaniȱ studiesȱ atȱ theȱ Universityȱ ofȱ Texasȱ andȱ directorȱ ofȱ theȱ Romaniȱ Archivesȱ andȱ Documentationȱ Center,ȱ isȱ theȱ bestȬknownȱ representativeȱ ofȱ anȱ essentialistȱ approachȱ toȱ Romaniȱgroups.12_{ȱAsȱtheȱquotationȱatȱtheȱbeginningȱofȱhisȱbook’sȱfirstȱchapterȱsuggests,ȱ}

heȱ considersȱ unravelingȱ theȱ pastȱofȱ theȱ Romaniȱnationȱasȱ aȱ necessaryȱ conditionȱ forȱtheȱ developmentȱ ofȱ Romaniȱ nationalȱ identityȱ andȱ forȱ contributingȱ toȱ theȱ awarenessȱ ofȱ theȱ Roma’sȱ allegedȱ Indianȱ origins.ȱ Inȱ chaptersȱ withȱ suggestiveȱ titles,ȱ suchȱ asȱ “Howȱ Indianȱ areȱRomanies?”ȱandȱ“HowȱEuropeanȱareȱRomanies?”ȱheȱtracesȱtheȱcontemporaryȱEuroȬ peanȱ Romaniȱ populationȱ toȱ itsȱ Indianȱ homeland,ȱ whileȱ he,ȱ atȱ theȱ sameȱ time,ȱ remarksȱ thatȱ mostȱ ofȱ theȱ Romaȱ wouldȱ considerȱ Europeȱ asȱ theirȱ “home”ȱ (2002:ȱ 78).ȱ Onȱ theȱ oneȱ hand,ȱheȱconsidersȱmanyȱRomaniȱcustoms,ȱbeliefs,ȱandȱtraditionsȱasȱwellȱasȱtheȱRomaniȱ languageȱinȱcontemporaryȱEuropeȱasȱ“incontrovertiblyȱIndian”ȱand,ȱtherefore,ȱasȱaȱproofȱ ofȱtheȱRoma’sȱIndianȱorigins:ȱ

ȱ

Culture,ȱ language,ȱ andȱ identityȱ areȱ notȱ inheritedȱ geneticallyȱ butȱ socially,ȱ andȱ apartȱ

fromȱ theȱ geneticȱ andȱ linguisticȱ evidenceȱ [ofȱ theȱ Roma’sȱ Indianȱ origins],ȱ aȱ coreȱ ofȱ direct,ȱ unbrokenȱ transmissionȱ fromȱ Indiaȱ inȱ theseȱ otherȱ areasȱ mayȱ alsoȱ beȱ readilyȱ identified.ȱ

(Hancockȱ2002:ȱ71,ȱmyȱemphasis)ȱ13_ȱ ȱ Onȱtheȱotherȱhand,ȱHancockȱputsȱforwardȱthatȱ“ourȱRomaniȱlanguage,ȱandȱaȱgoodȱpartȱofȱ ourȱcoreȱculture,ȱonlyȱcrystallizedȱonceȱtheȱmigrationȱwestwardsȱ[fromȱIndia]ȱhadȱreachedȱ Anatolia”ȱinȱcontemporaryȱTurkey.ȱFromȱthisȱperspective,ȱRomaniȱidentityȱformationȱisȱ aȱEuropeanȱprocessȱandȱneedsȱtoȱbeȱunderstoodȱasȱ“aȱwesternȱphenomenon,ȱalbeitȱoneȱ withȱearlyȱandȱsignificantȱAsianȱroots.”14_{ȱKnowledgeȱaboutȱtheseȱAsianȱorigins,ȱHancockȱ} adds,ȱ“givesȱusȱaȱhistoryȱandȱaȱlegitimacyȱasȱaȱpeople”ȱ(2001:ȱviii,ȱmyȱemphasis).ȱ TracingȱtheȱoriginsȱofȱtheȱRomaȱtoȱIndiaȱisȱnotȱyetȱenoughȱforȱHancock.ȱHeȱevenȱtakesȱ theȱ argumentȱ aȱ stepȱ furtherȱ andȱ suggestsȱ thatȱ theȱ Romaȱ hadȱ toȱ leaveȱ Indiaȱ andȱ wereȱ broughtȱtoȱEuropeȱagainstȱtheirȱwill,ȱwhereȱtheyȱwere—again—forcedȱintoȱtheȱpositionȱ ofȱtheȱultimateȱunderdogȱ(Hancockȱ2002:ȱchapterȱ1ȱandȱ2).ȱByȱsimultaneouslyȱtracingȱtheȱ Roma’sȱ originsȱ toȱ Indiaȱ andȱ suggestingȱ thatȱ theyȱ wereȱ timeȱ andȱ againȱ evictedȱ orȱ reȬ

12_{ȱSeeȱalsoȱHancockȱ(1987;ȱ1991;ȱ2000;ȱ2004;ȱ2010).ȱ}

13_{ȱ Theȱ genetificationȱ ofȱ Romaȱ identityȱ hasȱ aȱ ratherȱ longȱ traditionȱ andȱ dubiousȱ contemporaryȱ equivalentsȱ} (Kohnȱ1995).ȱNonetheless,ȱHancockȱdoesȱnotȱhesitateȱtoȱmobilizeȱgeneticȱargumentsȱandȱtoȱreferȱtoȱrecentȱ andȱcontemporaryȱresearchȱintoȱgeneticsȱtoȱproveȱtheȱRoma’sȱIndianȱorigins.ȱ

14_{ȱThisȱviewpointȱdiffersȱfromȱHancock’sȱearlier,ȱmoreȱradicalȱstatementȱthatȱ“[a]fterȱall,ȱGypsiesȱmadeȱtheȱ}

journeyȱ fromȱ Indiaȱ toȱ Europeȱ intact”ȱ (1991:ȱ 139).ȱ However,ȱ whatȱ hasȱ remainedȱ unchangedȱ inȱ hisȱ viewȱ isȱ thatȱtheȱRoma’sȱdispersionȱoverȱEuropeȱandȱtheȱfragmentationȱofȱtheirȱidentityȱneedȱtoȱbeȱseenȱasȱtheȱresultȱ ofȱhowȱtheyȱhaveȱaggressivelyȱandȱcoercivelyȱbeenȱapproachedȱfromȱtheȱoutside,ȱnotȱofȱanyȱinternalȱfactorsȱ orȱofȱtheȱcoȬconstitutionȱofȱbothȱtheȱinsiderȱandȱtheȱoutsiderȱperspectives.ȱ

(12)

pressed,ȱ Hancockȱ universalizesȱ theȱ narrativeȱ ofȱ aȱ sufferingȱ Romaniȱ nation,ȱ forcedȱ toȱ travelȱ andȱ victimsȱ ofȱ antiȬRomaȱ societiesȱ inȱ India,ȱ Europe,ȱ andȱ inȱ everyȱ temporaryȱ haltingȱ placeȱ ofȱ theirȱ journeyȱ fromȱ theȱ Eastȱ toȱ theȱ West.ȱ Byȱ doingȱ so,ȱ heȱ alsoȱ tendsȱ toȱ projectȱideasȱaboutȱnationalismȱthatȱappearedȱforȱtheȱfirstȱtimeȱinȱmodernȱhistoryȱinȱtheȱ eighteenthȱ centuryȱ ontoȱ preȬeighteenthȬcenturyȱ histories.ȱ Theȱ situationȱ inȱ whichȱ ‘theȱ Romaniȱpeople’ȱfinallyȱendedȱupȱinȱEuropeȱleadsȱHancockȱtoȱconcludeȱthatȱ“theȱoverallȱ effectȱ ofȱ thisȱ [repressiveȱ approachȱ toȱ them]ȱ wasȱ devastatingȱ andȱ turnedȱ aȱ skilled,ȱ selfȬ sufficientȱpeopleȱintoȱdependent,ȱdispiritedȱchattel”ȱ(2002:ȱ16,ȱseeȱalsoȱHancockȱ1987).ȱ

Lucassen,ȱ Willems,ȱ andȱ Cottaarȱ haveȱ criticizedȱ essentialistȱ andȱ homogeneousȱ Romaȱ representationsȱsuchȱasȱHancock’s.ȱMoreȱparticularly,ȱtheyȱconsiderȱtheȱrepresentationȱofȱ theȱ Romaȱ asȱ anȱ Indianȱ diasporicȱ peopleȱ andȱ perpetualȱ victimsȱ asȱ historicallyȱ dubious,ȱ politically,ȱ andȱ intellectuallyȱ counterproductive,ȱ andȱ oneȱ ofȱ theȱ mainȱ reasonsȱ forȱ “theȱ ‘splendidȱ isolation’ȱ ofȱ Gypsyȱ studies”ȱ inȱ theȱ academicȱ worldȱ (Willemsȱ 1997:ȱ 305).ȱ HancockȱsuggestsȱthatȱknowledgeȱaboutȱtheȱRoma’sȱoriginsȱisȱaȱnecessaryȱconditionȱtoȱ makeȱparticularȱcultural,ȱjuridical,ȱorȱpoliticalȱclaims,ȱtoȱbeingȱincludedȱinȱtheȱhistoryȱofȱ Europe,ȱ andȱ toȱ becomeȱ moreȱ visibleȱ internationally.ȱ Inȱ contrast,ȱ theȱ Dutchȱ trioȱ arguesȱ thatȱitȱisȱexactlyȱthisȱwayȱofȱthinkingȱaboutȱRomaȱinȱtermsȱofȱnationhood,ȱdiaspora,ȱandȱ victimizationȱ thatȱ hasȱ greatlyȱ contributedȱ toȱ theirȱ invisibilityȱ inȱ societyȱ andȱ interȬ disciplinaryȱ academicȱ debatesȱ (Lucassenȱ etȱ alȱ 1998b:ȱ 2).ȱ Partlyȱ dueȱ toȱ whatȱ Lucassen,ȱ Willems,ȱandȱCottaarȱconsiderȱasȱaȱlackȱofȱselfȬcriticismȱinȱGypsyȱorȱRomaniȱstudies,ȱtheȱ historyȱ ofȱ Romaniȱ groupsȱ risksȱ remainingȱ “aȱ historyȱ inȱ footnotes”ȱ (ibidȱ 1),ȱ stayingȱ “excluded”ȱ fromȱ comparativeȱ andȱ interdisciplinaryȱ research,ȱ andȱ beingȱ “reducedȱ toȱ aȱ litanyȱofȱrepressionȱandȱpersecution”ȱ(ibidȱ5,ȱseeȱalsoȱWillemsȱ1997:ȱ306Ȭ07).ȱ

ȱ Theȱ representativesȱ ofȱ theȱ Dutchȱ School,ȱ amongȱ others,ȱ haveȱ aimedȱ atȱ updatingȱ theȱ methodologicallyȱ outdatedȱ fieldȱofȱ Romaniȱstudiesȱ andȱ openingȱ itȱupȱ toȱmoreȱ contemȬ poraryȱmethods,ȱparadigms,ȱandȱprogramsȱofȱresearch,ȱmigrationȱhistoricalȱresearchȱinȱ particular.ȱUsingȱaȱspecificȱformȱ(vanȱArkelȱ1985)ȱofȱframeȱanalysisȱ(Goffmanȱ1963;ȱ1974),ȱ Lucassen,ȱ Willems,ȱ andȱ Cottaarȱ haveȱ repeatedlyȱ defendedȱ aȱ constructivistȱ perspectiveȱ onȱwhatȱtheyȱpreferȱtoȱcallȱ“Gypsiesȱandȱotherȱitinerantȱgroups”ȱ(Lucassenȱetȱalȱ1998a).ȱ Theyȱ haveȱ putȱ forwardȱ that,ȱ dueȱ toȱ aȱ problematicȱ amalgamationȱ ofȱ aȱ newȱ scholarlyȱ approachȱ toȱ itinerantȱ groupsȱ inȱ theȱ eighteenthȱ centuryȱ andȱ theȱ parallelȱ emergenceȱ ofȱ variousȱ processesȱ ofȱ nationȬstateȱ formationȱ inȱ Europe,ȱ principallyȱ diverseȱ peripateticȱ groupsȱ wereȱ conceptuallyȱ andȱ pragmaticallyȱ categorizedȱ andȱ unified,ȱ and,ȱ thus,ȱ conȬ structed,ȱ underȱ theȱ Gypsyȱ label.ȱ Accordingȱ toȱ theȱ Dutchȱ trio,ȱ theȱ scholarlyȱ framingȱ ofȱ unrelatedȱ andȱ dissimilarȱ itinerantȱ groupsȱ asȱ Gypsiesȱ hasȱ hadȱ aȱ greatȱ impactȱ onȱ howȱ theseȱgroupsȱhaveȱbeenȱperceivedȱandȱapproachedȱbyȱstateȱofficialsȱandȱinȱpopularȱculȬ turalȱ discoursesȱ inȱ theȱ courseȱ ofȱ modernȱ Europeanȱ history.ȱ Dueȱ toȱ theȱ eighteenthȬcenȬ turyȱ tendencyȱ toȱ conflateȱ nationȱ andȱ culture—inȱ thisȱ contextȱ theȱ Dutchȱ trioȱ refersȱ toȱ Herder’sȱphilosophyȱofȱlanguageȱandȱculture—theȱGypsiesȱwereȱequallyȱapproachedȱasȱ aȱuniqueȱpeopleȱwithȱtheirȱownȱhistory,ȱtradition,ȱculture,ȱandȱlanguage.ȱPerceivedȱasȱaȱ primarilyȱnomadicȱpeopleȱthatȱdidȱnotȱbelongȱtoȱtheȱstatesȱwhereȱtheyȱwereȱsupposedȱtoȱ stayȱ onlyȱ temporarily,ȱ variousȱ itinerantȱ groupsȱ wereȱ consideredȱ asȱ havingȱ theirȱ own,ȱ separateȱ yetȱ commonȱ culturalȱ andȱ linguisticȱ traditions,ȱ whichȱ didȱ notȱ fitȱ thoseȱ ofȱ theȱ sedentaryȱ peoplesȱ ofȱ theȱ emergingȱ Europeanȱ states.ȱ Predominantlyȱ basedȱ onȱ linguisticȱ comparisons,ȱtheȱDutchȱtrioȱargues,ȱeighteenthȬcenturyȱscholarsȱbeganȱtoȱperceiveȱofȱthisȱ

(13)

‘Gypsyȱ people’ȱ asȱ anȱ originallyȱ Indianȱ and,ȱ thus,ȱ nonȬEuropeanȱ oneȱ thatȱ hadȱ traveledȱ westwardȱinȱtheȱcourseȱofȱmedievalȱhistory.ȱ

Inȱ particularȱ Willemsȱ (1997)ȱ arguesȱ thatȱ theȱ eighteenthȬcenturyȱ constructionȱ ofȱ theȱ GypsiesȱasȱoneȱhomogeneousȱpeopleȱwithȱnonȬEuropeanȱoriginsȱcouldȱtoȱaȱlargeȱextentȱ beȱconsideredȱasȱresponsibleȱforȱtheirȱstigmaticȱrepresentationȱasȱuncivilized,ȱbackward,ȱ marginal,ȱ criminal,ȱ andȱ raciallyȱ inferior.ȱ Withȱ referenceȱ toȱ Said’sȱ studyȱ onȱ orientalism,ȱ Willemsȱ(1997:ȱ300Ȭ03)ȱclarifiesȱhowȱtheȱ‘enlightened’ȱworksȱofȱsomeȱeighteenthȬcenturyȱ scholarsȱandȱscientists,ȱthoseȱofȱAugustiniȱabȱHortis,ȱRüdiger,ȱandȱGrellmannȱinȱparticȬ ular,15_{ȱeffectivelyȱorientalizedȱtheȱGypsiesȱasȱoneȱclearlyȱdemarcatedȱandȱhomogeneousȱ}

peopleȱwho,ȱdueȱtoȱtheirȱ‘uncivilized’ȱwayȱofȱlife,ȱdidȱnotȱfitȱtheȱprevailingȱcontemporaryȱ representationsȱ ofȱ theȱ culturesȱ ofȱ western,ȱ occidentalȱ peoples.16_{ȱ Inȱ additionȱ andȱ toȱ exȬ}

plainȱ theȱ influenceȱ ofȱ theȱ Gypsies’ȱ orientalizationȱ onȱ nineteenthȱ andȱ twentiethȬcenturyȱ generations,ȱ Willemsȱ refersȱ toȱ Said’sȱ notionȱ ofȱ theȱ dictatesȱ ofȱ authoritativeȱ texts.ȱ Thisȱ notionȱrefersȱtoȱtheȱuncriticalȱreproductionȱofȱtheȱsameȱhistoricalȱ(scholarly,ȱfolkloristic,ȱ etc.)ȱsourcesȱandȱtoȱhowȱthisȱculturalȬpoliticalȱmechanismȱpersistentlyȱupholdsȱparticularȱ groupȱstereotypesȱandȱlegitimizesȱstigmatizationȱorȱevenȱrepressiveȱpoliciesȱtowardȱtheȱ targetȱgroup.ȱ Byȱtracingȱtheȱ‘roots’ȱofȱtheȱpersistentȱtraditionȱofȱtheȱGypsies’ȱorientalizationȱtoȱtheȱ timesȱofȱHabsburgȱenlightenedȱabsolutistȱruleȱunderȱempressȱMariaȱTheresaȱandȱherȱsonȱ JosephȱII,ȱWillemsȱdoesȱnotȱsuggestȱthatȱtheseȱrootsȱareȱabsolute,ȱnorȱthatȱstigmatizationȱ processesȱ haveȱ notȱ undergoneȱ influentialȱ changesȱ inȱ theȱ courseȱ ofȱ Europeanȱ history.ȱ Willemsȱ showsȱ thatȱ Grellmann,ȱ Rüdiger,ȱ andȱ theirȱ contemporariesȱ alsoȱ reproducedȱ olderȱsourcesȱonȱtheȱGypsiesȱuncritically.ȱAtȱtheȱsameȱtime,ȱhowever,ȱheȱarguesȱthatȱparȬ ticularlyȱ Grellmannȱ unifiedȱ aȱ wideȱ rangeȱ ofȱ Gypsyȱ stereotypesȱ thatȱ circulatedȱ alreadyȱ longȱbeforeȱhisȱdays.ȱThisȱunityȱnotȱonlyȱconsistedȱofȱbringingȱtogetherȱtheseȱstereotypesȱ underȱtheȱlabelȱofȱoneȱandȱtheȱsameȱGypsyȱculture,ȱitȱalsoȱhadȱaȱprofoundȱtemporalȱandȱ spatialȱdimension:ȱGrellmannȱconstructedȱaȱrepresentationȱinȱwhichȱtheȱGypsiesȱhadȱoneȱ commonȱ nonȬEuropeanȱ history,ȱ oneȱ commonȱ originȱ inȱ India,ȱ andȱoneȱ commonȱ cultureȱ thatȱ basicallyȱ resembledȱ andȱ descendedȱ fromȱ pariahȬlikeȱ castes,ȱ theȱ lowestȱ onesȱ inȱ theȱ Indianȱcasteȱsystem.17_{ȱAccordingȱtoȱWillems,ȱitȱisȱpreciselyȱtheȱconstructionȱofȱthisȱunityȱ}

andȱhomogeneityȱthatȱdistinguishesȱGrellmannȱfromȱhistoricallyȱearlierȱformsȱofȱcategoȬ rizingȱ(1997:ȱchapterȱ2).18_ȱ

15_{ȱSeeȱAugustiniȱabȱHortisȱ(1994),ȱRüdigerȱ(1782),ȱandȱGrellmannȱ(1783;ȱ1787a).ȱ}

16_{ȱ Said’sȱ workȱ (1978)ȱ showsȱ howȱ influentialȱ scholarlyȱ textsȱ haveȱ historicallyȱ andȱ discursivelyȱ shapedȱ anȱ} inherentlyȱdualȱnotionȱofȱtheȱOrientȱ(‘theȱEast’)ȱandȱtheȱOccidentȱ(‘theȱWest’).ȱThoughȱWillemsȱpaysȱmuchȱ attentionȱtoȱhowȱGypsyȱgroupsȱhaveȱbeenȱorientalizedȱinȱtheȱcourseȱofȱEuropeanȱhistoryȱand,ȱthus,ȱtoȱhowȱ theyȱ haveȱ beenȱ minoritized,ȱ hisȱ workȱ doesȱ notȱ includeȱ aȱ substantialȱ analysisȱ ofȱ processesȱ ofȱ occidentalȬ izationȱ orȱ majoritization.ȱ Asȱ aȱ result,ȱ Willems’sȱ workȱ sometimesȱ createsȱ theȱ impressionȱ thatȱ theseȱ twoȱ processesȱareȱnotȱinherentlyȱrelated.ȱAtȱtheȱendȱofȱchapterȱ4,ȱIȱwillȱexplainȱthatȱthisȱunderȬrepresentationȱofȱ processesȱofȱoccidentalizationȱhasȱbigȱconsequencesȱforȱhowȱWillemsȱreadsȱRüdiger’sȱwork.ȱ

17_{ȱ Inȱ hisȱ notoriousȱ bookȱ onȱ theȱ Gypsies,ȱ Heinrichȱ Grellmannȱ plagiarizedȱ substantialȱ partsȱ ofȱ theȱ workȱ ofȱ} SamuelȱAugustiniȱabȱHortisȱ(Ruchȱ1986;ȱWillemsȱ1997).ȱ

18_{ȱ Inȱ addition,ȱ Willemsȱ pointsȱ toȱ theȱ wideȱ disseminationȱ ofȱ Grellmann’sȱ work,ȱ which,ȱ quicklyȱ afterȱ theȱ} publicationȱofȱitsȱfirstȱ(1783)ȱandȱsecondȱ(1787)ȱedition,ȱwasȱtranslatedȱintoȱotherȱlanguages,ȱsuchȱasȱEnglishȱ (1787;ȱ 1807),ȱ Frenchȱ (1788;ȱ 1810),ȱ Dutchȱ (1791),ȱ andȱ Polishȱ (1824).ȱ Theȱ factȱ thatȱ theȱ originalȱ Germanȱ termȱ ‘Zigeuner’ȱ wasȱ translatedȱ intoȱ theȱ Frenchȱ asȱ ‘Bohémiens’ȱ (Bohemians)ȱ andȱ intoȱ theȱ Dutchȱ asȱ ‘heidens’ȱ

(14)

Additionally,ȱWillemsȱarguesȱthatȱtheȱarticulationȱofȱthisȱmatchȱbetweenȱGypsyȱcultureȱ andȱitsȱallegedȱnonȬEuropeanȱoriginsȱfirstȱledȱtoȱtheȱnineteenthȬcenturyȱRomanticȱvariantȱ ofȱthisȱunityȱandȱthen,ȱunderȱnationalȬsocialism,ȱtoȱitsȱgenocidalȱcounterpartȱ(1997:ȱchapȬ tersȱ3,ȱ4,ȱ5).ȱHeȱavoidsȱframingȱthisȱhistoryȱasȱaȱlinearȱorȱnecessaryȱone,ȱasȱifȱGrellmann’sȱ GypsyȱrepresentationȱhadȱinevitablyȱledȱtoȱwhatȱfinallyȱhappenedȱtoȱRomaniȱgroupsȱinȱ theȱSecondȱWorldȱWar.ȱNonetheless,ȱWillemsȱarguesȱthatȱtheȱauthorityȱofȱtheȱworksȱofȱ Grellmannȱandȱhisȱfollowersȱwasȱneverȱfundamentallyȱdisputed.ȱWhenȱnineteenthȬcenȬ turyȱ anthropologistsȱ startedȱ toȱ conductȱ fieldwork,ȱ forȱ instance,ȱ andȱ couldȱ notȱ findȱ peopleȱthatȱlookedȱlikeȱGrellmann’sȱGypsies,ȱtheseȱethnographersȱdidȱnotȱconcludeȱthatȱ hisȱcategoriesȱhadȱtoȱbeȱfalse.ȱQuiteȱtheȱopposite,ȱtheyȱstartedȱtoȱdifferentiateȱbetweenȱaȱ true,ȱ endangeredȱ Gypsyȱ cultureȱ onȱ theȱ oneȱ hand,ȱ andȱ aȱ false,ȱ imitatedȱ oneȱ thatȱ wasȱ largelyȱresponsibleȱforȱendangeringȱtheȱtrueȱone,ȱonȱtheȱother.ȱInȱotherȱwords,ȱtheȱfixaȬ tionȱonȱtheȱallegedȱunityȱofȱtheȱGypsiesȱandȱonȱtheȱpossibilityȱtoȱdescribeȱ‘theȱtrueȱGypȬ sies’ȱ andȱ theirȱ culture—elementsȱ thatȱ wereȱ typicalȱ ofȱ Grellmann’sȱ Gypsyȱ representȬ tation—continuedȱunabated.ȱInȱitsȱturn,ȱtheȱRomanticȱdifferentiationȱbetweenȱ‘true’ȱandȱ ‘false’ȱGypsiesȱwasȱagainȱtoȱbeȱrearticulatedȱinȱtheȱformȱofȱtheȱNaziȱterminologicalȱdisȬ tinctionȱ betweenȱ ‘fullȱ bloodȱ Gypsies’ȱ (Rassezigeuner)ȱ andȱ ‘mixedȱ blood’ȱ onesȱ (ZigeunerȬ

mischlinge)ȱ whoȱ hadȱ ‘dangerouslyȱ infiltrated’ȱ inȱ theȱ ‘superior,ȱ Aryanȱ race.’ȱ Again,ȱ

Willemsȱ argues,ȱ theȱ scientificallyȱ supportedȱ labelingȱ ofȱ theȱ Gypsiesȱ asȱ anȱ essentiallyȱ different,ȱnonȬEuropeanȱpeopleȱdominated,ȱthisȱtimeȱwithȱgenocidalȱconsequences.19_ȱ

Whereasȱ Willemsȱ focusesȱ onȱ scientificȱ discoursesȱ andȱ howȱ theyȱ haveȱ historicallyȱ framedȱ Gypsyȱ orȱ Romaniȱ identities,ȱ Lucassenȱ concentratesȱ onȱ theȱ roleȱ ofȱ preȬstateȱ andȱ stateȱ institutionsȱ inȱ determiningȱ formsȱ ofȱ Romaȱ orȱGypsyȱ representation.ȱ Lucassenȱ hasȱ primarilyȱrelatedȱtheȱpossibilityȱofȱstigmatizationȱtoȱtheȱlateȬeighteenthȱandȱnineteenthȬ centuryȱshiftȱfromȱtypesȱofȱindirectȱruleȱtoȱthoseȱofȱdirectȱrule.ȱToȱexplainȱtheȱadequacyȱ andȱ efficiencyȱ ofȱ theȱ kindȱ ofȱ stigmatizationȱ processesȱ thatȱ Willemsȱ describes,ȱ Lucassenȱ arguesȱthatȱweȱcanȱneitherȱrelyȱonȱargumentsȱthatȱconsiderȱtheȱGypsiesȱasȱsocialȱoutcastsȱ norȱonȱinterpretationsȱofȱrepressionȱ“asȱaȱwayȱtoȱdisciplineȱandȱcontrolȱpeopleȱwhoȱdoȱ notȱfitȱtheȱidealȱofȱtheȱdominantȱclasses”ȱ(Lucassenȱ1998b:ȱ71).ȱRather,ȱweȱneedȱtoȱtakeȱ intoȱ accountȱ theȱ waysȱ inȱ whichȱ nationȬstatesȱ wereȱ graduallyȱ formed,ȱ bureaucraciesȱ inȬ creasinglyȱ centralized,ȱ systemsȱ ofȱ poorȱ reliefȱ (workhouses,ȱ poorhouses,ȱ andȱ otherȱ welȬ fareȱsystems)ȱdeveloped,ȱandȱsystemsȱofȱsupervisionȱandȱapparatusesȱofȱcontrolȱ(police,ȱ customs)ȱ autonomouslyȱ establishedȱ andȱ institutionalized.ȱ Followingȱ Charlesȱ Tilly’sȱ (1992)ȱtypology,ȱLucassenȱdescribesȱtheseȱshiftsȱasȱtheȱsteadyȱinstallationȱofȱtheȱinstituȬ tionȱ ofȱ ‘directȱ rule’:ȱ allȱ theseȱ processesȱ haveȱ madeȱ itȱ possibleȱ toȱ approachȱ minoritizedȱ groupsȱ moreȱ directlyȱ thanȱ beforeȱ andȱ haveȱ madeȱ itȱ muchȱ moreȱ difficultȱ forȱ themȱ toȱ escapeȱ stigmatizationȱ (Lucassenȱ etȱ alȱ 1998b:ȱ 12;ȱ Lucassenȱ 1998b:ȱ 57Ȭ66;ȱ 2008:ȱ 431Ȭ33).ȱ Accordingȱ toȱ him,ȱ thisȱ canȱ toȱ aȱ largeȱ extentȱ explainȱ whyȱ travelingȱ groupsȱ haveȱ oftenȱ beenȱlabeledȱandȱstigmatizedȱsoȱthoroughly.ȱForȱexample,ȱpoorȱreliefȱbecameȱgraduallyȱ moreȱlimitedȱtoȱtheȱlocalȱandȱlaterȱtoȱtheȱ‘national’ȱpoor.ȱTherefore,ȱpoorȱreliefȱneedsȱtoȱ beȱconsideredȱasȱaȱkeyȱelementȱinȱexcludingȱpoorȱimmigrantsȱandȱtravelingȱgroupsȱfromȱ

(pagans)ȱ pointsȱ toȱ theȱ diverseȱ wayȱ inȱ whichȱ Gypsyȱ groupsȱ wereȱ framedȱ atȱ thatȱ timeȱ (seeȱ Willemsȱ 1997;ȱ Grellmannȱ1787b;ȱ1788/1810;ȱ1791;ȱ1807).ȱ

(15)

theȱ provisionȱ ofȱ welfare.ȱ Furthermore,ȱ theȱ professionalizationȱ ofȱ policeȱ institutionsȱ reȬ sultedȱ inȱ theȱ shiftȱ fromȱ aȱ reactiveȱ toȱ aȱ proactiveȱ approachȱ towardȱ theȱ tracing,ȱ superȬ vising,ȱandȱexclusionȱofȱaliens.ȱTheȱamalgamationȱofȱtheȱidentityȱconstructionȱofȱGypsyȱ groupsȱ asȱ ethnicallyȱ andȱ linguisticallyȱ homogeneous,ȱ nonȬEuropean,ȱ andȱ diasporicȱ onȱ theȱ oneȱ hand,ȱ andȱ theȱ ‘statization,’ȱ nationalization,ȱ andȱ increasedȱ centralizationȱ ofȱ sysȬ temsȱofȱpoorȱreliefȱandȱcontrol,ȱonȱtheȱother,ȱhasȱhistoricallyȱledȱtoȱdeepȬrootedȱformsȱofȱ Gypsyȱ labelingȱ andȱ stigmatizingȱ toȱ whichȱ theȱ Dutchȱ scholarsȱ lengthilyȱ pointȱ inȱ theirȱ commonȱandȱindividualȱworks.ȱ

ȱ Howȱexactlyȱweȱneedȱtoȱunderstandȱthisȱimportantȱamalgamationȱbetweenȱscientificȱ formsȱ ofȱ framingȱ Gypsyȱ groupsȱ andȱ processesȱ ofȱ nationȬstateȱ formationȱ andȱ centralȬ izationȱdoesȱnotȱbecomeȱentirelyȱclearȱfromȱtheȱworksȱofȱLucassenȱandȱWillems.ȱOnȱtheȱ basisȱ ofȱ theirȱ criticalȱ analysisȱ ofȱ theȱ Gypsyȱ labelȱ andȱ correlatedȱ processesȱ ofȱ framing,ȱ theyȱ concludeȱ thatȱ anyȱ referenceȱ toȱ Gypsyȱ orȱ Romaniȱ ethnicityȱ andȱ theirȱ diasporicȱ characterȱ needsȱ toȱ beȱ seenȱ asȱ highlyȱ problematic:ȱ itȱ evenȱ symbolizesȱ aȱ “deathtrap”ȱ (Willemsȱ1998;ȱseeȱalsoȱWillemsȱandȱLucassenȱ2000).ȱAȱkeyȱargumentȱinȱWillems’sȱlineȱofȱ thoughtȱisȱrelatedȱtoȱtheȱrolesȱthatȱlanguage,ȱcomparativeȱformsȱofȱscientificȱanalysis,ȱandȱ culturalȱ particularismȱ haveȱ playedȱ inȱ delineatingȱ Gypsyȱ culturesȱ asȱ diasporicȱ andȱ ethnicallyȱhomogeneous.ȱTheȱfocusȱonȱlanguageȱandȱtheȱparallelȱdevelopmentȱofȱGypsyȱ studiesȱinȱtheȱeighteenthȬcenturyȱHabsburgȱEmpireȱneedȱtoȱbeȱseenȱinȱlightȱofȱtheȱZeitȬ

geist,ȱenlightenedȱabsolutism,ȱandȱHerder’sȱintimateȱlinkageȱofȱlanguage,ȱculture,ȱpeople,ȱ

andȱnationȱinȱparticularȱ(Willemsȱ1997:ȱ36Ȭ41,ȱ82Ȭ83).ȱWillemsȱexplicitlyȱrelatesȱtheȱemerȬ genceȱofȱcomparativeȱformsȱofȱresearchȱtoȱtheȱpreoccupationȱofȱlateȬeighteenthȬcenturyȱ scholarsȱ andȱ scientistsȱ withȱ linkingȱ theȱ allegedȱ ‘nationalȱ spirit’ȱ toȱ issuesȱ ofȱ culture,ȱ history,ȱandȱlanguage:ȱ

ȱ

Theȱideaȱbeganȱtoȱwinȱgroundȱthatȱlanguageȱexpressedȱtheȱmentalityȱofȱaȱpeopleȱandȱthatȱ impliedȱaȱyokingȱofȱphilologyȱandȱhistoricalȱanalysisȱ…ȱTheȱideaȱwasȱthatȱwhenȱtheȱdeepȱ

structuresȱ ofȱ languages,ȱ butȱ alsoȱ ofȱ literature,ȱ fairyȱ tales,ȱ mythsȱ andȱ otherȱ narrativesȱ

wereȱsimilar,ȱthenȱtheȱspeakersȱandȱwritersȱofȱtheseȱmustȱbeȱkindredȱasȱwell.ȱThisȱpromptedȱ aȱ tidalȱ waveȱ ofȱ publicationsȱ aboutȱ nationalȱ literatures.ȱ Theȱ notionȱ flourishedȱ thatȱ language,ȱ likeȱ peoplesȱ andȱ societies,ȱ developedȱ inȱ stages,ȱ inȱ aȱ mannerȱ analogousȱ toȱ theȱ

lawsȱofȱnatureȱ…ȱTheȱmethodȱofȱtheȱanalogyȱinfiltratedȱeveryȱdisciplineȱand,ȱaroundȱ1780,ȱ hadȱcomeȱtoȱdominateȱscientificȱthinkingȱtoȱaȱmarkedȱdegree.ȱ(Willemsȱ1997:ȱ36Ȭ37,ȱmyȱ emphasis)ȱ ȱ Atȱtheȱsameȱtime,ȱtheȱsuggestionȱthatȱlanguagesȱandȱpeoplesȱdevelopedȱinȱstagesȱledȱtoȱ theȱideaȱthatȱsomeȱpeoples,ȱmostȱnotablyȱthoseȱofȱtheȱWest,ȱhadȱdevelopedȱquickerȱandȱ better:ȱ ȱ Ethnographersȱandȱnaturalȱscientistsȱdevelopedȱtheȱscientificȱmethodsȱofȱcomparisonȱ andȱclassificationȱnecessaryȱtoȱimposeȱorderȱonȱtheirȱobservations.ȱTheseȱinterpretations,ȱ however,ȱ wereȱ coloredȱ byȱ classicalȱ notionsȱ ofȱ beauty,ȱ middleȬclassȱ valuesȱ (moderaȬ tion,ȱhonor,ȱandȱhardȱwork),ȱandȱbyȱnationalȱmythsȱandȱsymbols,ȱallȱofȱwhichȱpavedȱ

(16)

moderationȱ andȱ orderȱ …ȱ tendedȱ toȱ rejectȱ everythingȱ thatȱ wasȱ consideredȱ toȱ beȱ primitive.ȱ (Willemsȱ1997:ȱ39,ȱmyȱemphasis)ȱ ȱ ItȱisȱinȱthisȱeighteenthȬcenturyȱcontextȱthatȱWillemsȱalsoȱobservesȱaȱdeepȬrootedȱ“ambivȬ alence”ȱinȱGrellmann’sȱworkȱ(1997:ȱ296).ȱWillemsȱdescribesȱitȱasȱanȱambivalenceȱbetweenȱ whatȱheȱconsidersȱtheȱEnlightenmentȱbeliefȱinȱtheȱimprovabilityȱofȱhumanȱnatureȱonȱtheȱ oneȱ hand,ȱ and,ȱ onȱ theȱ other,ȱ theȱ essentialȱ invariabilityȱ ofȱ ‘aȱ people’—whichȱ heȱ underȬ standsȱ asȱ centralȱ toȱ Herder’sȱ philosophyȱ ofȱ languageȱ andȱ culture.ȱ Moreȱ thanȱ once,ȱ theȱ representativesȱ ofȱ theȱ Dutchȱ Schoolȱ haveȱ suggestedȱ thatȱ theirȱ rejectionȱ ofȱ referencesȱ toȱ Gypsyȱgroupsȱinȱtermsȱofȱethnicityȱandȱdiasporaȱisȱintimatelyȱlinkedȱtoȱtheȱlegacyȱofȱthisȱ ambivalence.ȱ Onȱ theȱ topicalityȱ ofȱ theȱ ambivalenceȱ inȱ Grellmann’sȱ work,ȱ Willemsȱ remarks,ȱ forȱ instance,ȱ thatȱ itsȱ tracesȱ “remainȱ detectableȱ allȱ theȱ wayȱ intoȱ theȱ twentiethȱ

century.”ȱ Inȱ broaderȱ terms,ȱ heȱ putsȱ forwardȱ thatȱ thisȱ ambivalenceȱ “isȱ characteristicȱ ofȱ generalȱ Europeanȱ thinkingȱ aboutȱ Gypsies”ȱ (1998:ȱ 24,ȱ myȱ emphasis).ȱ Heȱ doesȱ notȱ considerȱ

theȱimpactȱofȱthisȱambivalenceȱlimitedȱtoȱ‘nonȬGypsy’ȱscientistsȱandȱpolicyȱmakers,ȱforȱ heȱexplicitlyȱextendsȱitȱtoȱthoseȱwhoȱareȱpresentlyȱreferringȱtoȱthemselvesȱasȱRomaȱandȱ Sinti.ȱ Lucassenȱ asȱ wellȱ hasȱ beenȱ criticalȱ ofȱ currentȱ attemptsȱ toȱ emancipateȱ ‘Gypsyȱ groups’ȱunderȱtheȱexplicitȱreferenceȱtoȱaȱcommonȱethnicȱRomaniȱorȱSintiȱhistoricalȱandȱ linguisticȱbackground:ȱ

ȱ

Fromȱ aȱ scholarlyȱ pointȱ ofȱ view,ȱ theȱ disadvantageȱ ofȱ theȱ Sintiȱ undȱ Romaȱ approachȱ isȱ thatȱallȱkindsȱofȱcontemporaryȱracistȱasȱwellȱasȱpresentȬdayȱethnicȱcategoriesȱareȱthusȱ used,ȱ whichȱ easilyȱ leadsȱ toȱ anachronisticȱ andȱ unjustifiedȱ interpretations.ȱ Assumingȱ thatȱ thereȱ everȱ wasȱ aȱ clearlyȱ ethnicallyȱ definedȱ Sintiȱ undȱ Romaȱ groupȱ inȱ theȱ pastȱ meansȱ thatȱweȱ inȱ factȱacceptȱ theȱpointȱ ofȱ departureȱ …ȱ thatȱitȱ wasȱpossibleȱ toȱdefineȱ whoȱwasȱaȱ‘real’ȱGypsyȱ…ȱWhatȱwasȱtheȱrelationshipȱbetweenȱlabelingȱandȱethnicity?ȱ Didȱ Gypsiesȱ alwaysȱ regardȱ themselvesȱ asȱ Sintiȱ orȱ Romȱ orȱ wasȱ thisȱ feelingȱ [sic]ȱ reinȬ forcedȱ orȱ evenȱ initiatedȱ byȱ aȱ longȱ periodȱ ofȱ intensiveȱ stigmatizationȱ andȱ labeling?ȱ (Lucassenȱ1998c:ȱ93,ȱitalicsȱinȱoriginal)ȱ

ȱ

LucassenȱandȱWillemsȱclearlyȱanswerȱtheȱlastȱquestionȱinȱfavorȱofȱtheirȱsecondȱoption,20_ȱ

evenȱthoughȱtheyȱacknowledgeȱsomeȱofȱtheȱachievementsȱofȱwhatȱtheyȱcallȱtheȱSintiȱundȱ

Romaȱ approach.ȱ Theȱ postȬSecondȱ Worldȱ Warȱ useȱ ofȱ theȱ autonymsȱ Romaȱ andȱ Sintiȱ andȱ

theȱ simultaneousȱ interminglingȱ ofȱ scientificȱ andȱ politicalȱ discoursesȱ haveȱ “generatedȱ aȱ numberȱ ofȱ analysesȱ criticalȱ ofȱ governmentȱ policyȱ butȱ atȱ theȱ sameȱ timeȱ theyȱ haveȱ conȬ firmedȱ someȱ stereotypicalȱ ideasȱ aboutȱ theȱ folkȱ characterȱ ofȱ theȱ Gypsies.”ȱ Inȱ theȱ end,ȱ however,ȱtheȱDutchȱSchoolȱisȱnotȱmuchȱcharmedȱbyȱhowȱRomaniȱandȱSintiȱorganizationsȱ andȱtheirȱadvocacyȱgroupsȱhaveȱrecentlyȱmobilizedȱtheȱSintiȱundȱRomaȱapproach:ȱ

ȱ

20_{ȱElsewhere,ȱLucassenȱsuggestsȱthatȱ‘thisȱfeeling’ȱtoȱregardȱthemselvesȱasȱRomaȱandȱSintiȱcould,ȱatȱleastȱtoȱ}

someȱ extent,ȱ beȱ consideredȱ asȱ theȱ resultȱ ofȱ aȱ selfȬfulfillingȱ prophecy:ȱ “Theȱ finalȱ stageȱ inȱ theȱ fixingȱ ofȱ theȱ stigmaȱisȱtheȱselfȬfulfillingȱprophecy.ȱPeopleȱwhoȱwhereȱtreatedȱasȱriffȬraffȱinȱsomeȱcasesȱstartedȱtoȱbehaveȱ asȱsuchȱandȱdevelopedȱtheirȱownȱsubculture”ȱ(1998b:ȱ73).ȱSimilarȱideasȱhaveȱbeenȱexpressedȱelsewhere,ȱforȱ instanceȱ inȱ termsȱ ofȱ theȱ developmentȱ ofȱ aȱ supposedȱ Romaniȱ ethnicȱ ‘underclass’ȱ (Ladányiȱ andȱ Szelényiȱ 2006).ȱ

(17)

[Indeed]ȱitȱremainsȱquestionableȱ…ȱwhetherȱcorrectionsȱareȱtoȱbeȱanticipatedȱfromȱthisȱ cornerȱ sinceȱ theȱ intelligentsiaȱ inȱ Gypsyȱ circlesȱ areȱ notȱ likelyȱ toȱ profitȱ veryȱ muchȱ byȱ challengingȱ theȱ coreȱ conceptsȱ ofȱ Gypsyȱ studies.ȱ Forȱ politicalȱ andȱ pragmaticȱ reasonsȱ theyȱ willȱ soonerȱ closeȱ ranksȱ inȱ supportȱ ofȱ theȱ ideaȱ ofȱ aȱ collectiveȱ Gypsyȱ identity,ȱ includingȱ aȱ languageȱ thatȱ belongsȱ toȱ themȱ …ȱ Recognitionȱ asȱ anȱ ethnicȱ minorityȱ certainlyȱculminatedȱinȱmoreȱagreementsȱpertainingȱtoȱspecificȱrights.ȱ(Willemsȱ1997:ȱ 306Ȭ07;ȱ1998:ȱ33Ȭ34,ȱhisȱemphasis)ȱ21_ȱ

ȱ

Toȱ beȱ sure,ȱ theseȱ ‘corrections’ȱ implyȱ aȱ rectificationȱ thatȱ affectsȱ theȱ entireȱ traditionȱ ofȱ Gypsyȱstudies.ȱIndeed,ȱWillemsȱconcludesȱthatȱGrellmann’sȱworkȱonȱtheȱGypsiesȱmarksȱ aȱdecisiveȱturningȱpointȱinȱtheȱhistoryȱofȱGypsyȱgroupsȱinȱEurope.ȱUntilȱaboutȱtheȱmidȬ eighteenthȱ century,ȱ “writersȱ followedȱ forȱ theȱ mostȱ partȱ inȱ theȱ footstepsȱ ofȱ theȱ governȬ mentȱandȱconsideredȱGypsiesȱasȱoneȱofȱmanyȱcategoriesȱofȱvagrants.”ȱHowever,ȱfromȱtheȱ timeȱthatȱRüdiger,ȱGrellmann,ȱandȱaȱfewȱothersȱbelievedȱthatȱtheyȱhadȱprovenȱthatȱtheȱ Gypsiesȱ comeȱ fromȱ India,ȱ “governmentsȱ andȱ judicialȱ authoritiesȱ couldȱ legitimizeȱ theirȱ stigmatizingȱ policyȱ byȱ invokingȱ scientificȱ arguments.”ȱ Thus,ȱ whileȱ scholarsȱ beforeȱ Grellmannȱ wereȱ “moreȱ followersȱ thanȱ leaders”ȱ inȱ initiatingȱ processesȱ ofȱ categorizationȱ andȱ stigmatization,ȱ sinceȱ hisȱ daysȱ theȱ roleȱ ofȱ scholarsȱ andȱ thatȱ ofȱ governmentalȱ andȱ judicialȱ bodiesȱ haveȱ beenȱ roughlyȱ invertedȱ (Willemsȱ 1998:ȱ 19;ȱ Lucassenȱ etȱ alȱ 1998b:ȱ 7).ȱ Thus,ȱ theȱ Dutchȱ Schoolȱ considersȱ theȱ inventionȱ ofȱ oneȱ commonȱ Romaniȱ languageȱ andȱ originȱasȱaȱsoundȱtheoreticalȱbasisȱforȱtheȱGypsies’ȱculturalȱunityȱandȱethnicȱothernessȱasȱ theȱcrucialȱhistoricalȱmarkerȱofȱtheȱstigmatizationȱprocessȱthatȱhasȱdominatedȱtheȱhistoryȱ ofȱmodernȱEuropeanȱRomaȱrepresentationsȱandȱselfȬrepresentations.ȱ ȱ ȱ TOWARDȱAȱPLURALIZEDȱUNDERSTANDINGȱOFȱENLIGHTENMENTȱTHOUGHTȱ ȱ InȱtheȱDutchȱSchool’sȱrepresentationȱofȱtheȱhistoryȱofȱRomaniȱstudiesȱandȱofȱapproachesȱ towardȱGypsyȱorȱRomaniȱgroups,ȱtheȱcombinedȱEnlightenmentȱbeliefȱinȱtheȱimprovabilȬ ityȱ ofȱ humanȱ natureȱ andȱ Herderianȱ culturalȱ particularismȱ appearȱ asȱ aȱ historicalȱ nexusȱ thatȱhasȱpersistentlyȱdecidedȱagainstȱtheseȱgroups.ȱWhereasȱtheȱallegedȱimprovabilityȱofȱ humanȱ natureȱ hasȱ ledȱ toȱ repressiveȱ measuresȱ againstȱ them,ȱ inȱ itsȱ turnȱ culturalȱ particȬ ularismȱhasȱresultedȱinȱformsȱofȱnationalismȱandȱracismȱthatȱhaveȱexcludedȱtheȱGypsiesȱ fromȱmainstreamȱEuropeanȱsocietiesȱandȱcultures.ȱ

Iȱ doȱ notȱ doubtȱ thatȱ thisȱ frequentlyȱ happenedȱ andȱ continuesȱ toȱ happen.ȱ Iȱ alsoȱ agreeȱ thatȱ scientificȱ conceptualizationsȱ andȱ stateȱ institutionalȱ discoursesȱ andȱ measuresȱ haveȱ hadȱ aȱ deepȱ impactȱ onȱ howȱ Gypsyȱ andȱ Romaniȱ groupsȱ haveȱ beenȱ treatedȱ throughoutȱ modernȱ Europeanȱ history.ȱ Yet,ȱ Iȱ wantȱ toȱ challengeȱ theȱ suggestionȱ thatȱ dealingȱ withȱ Romaniȱ groupsȱ inȱ termsȱ ofȱ ethnicityȱ andȱ diasporaȱ necessarilyȱ impliesȱ aȱ deathtrap.ȱ Theȱ DutchȱSchool’sȱstrongȱhesitationȱtoȱreferȱtoȱRomaniȱgroupsȱinȱsuchȱaȱwayȱhasȱmuchȱtoȱdoȱ

21_{ȱPlease,ȱnoteȱhow,ȱinȱthisȱquote,ȱ“theȱintelligentsiaȱinȱGypsyȱcircles”ȱhasȱimplicitlyȱbeenȱrepresentedȱasȱoneȱ}

homogeneousȱgroup.ȱAsȱIȱwillȱshowȱinȱtheȱthirdȱpartȱofȱthisȱstudy,ȱhowever,ȱweȱcannotȱrepresentȱcurrentȱ Romaniȱ activistsȱ andȱ elitesȱ asȱ homogeneous.ȱ Theyȱ representȱ differentȱ viewpointsȱ andȱ haveȱ representedȱ diverseȱapproachesȱtoȱRomaniȱidentityȱformationȱandȱselfȬrepresentation.ȱ