home work project

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=shou20

Housing, Theory and Society

ISSN: 1403-6096 (Print) 1651-2278 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/shou20

Understanding the Stigmatization of Gypsies: Power and the Dialectics of (Dis)identification

Ryan Powell

To cite this article: Ryan Powell (2008) Understanding the Stigmatization of Gypsies: Power and the Dialectics of (Dis)identification, Housing, Theory and Society, 25:2, 87-109, DOI: 10.1080/14036090701657462

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14036090701657462

Published online: 19 May 2008.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 3752

Citing articles: 25 View citing articles

Understanding the Stigmatization of Gypsies: Power and the Dialectics of (Dis)identification

RYAN POWELL

Centre for Regional Economic and Social Research, Sheffield Hallam University, UK

ABSTRACT Most theorizations on the stigmatization of Gypsies have centred on structural factors: issues of race, ethnicity, the role of the media and the general incompatibility of nomadism with a sedentary mode of existence. This paper contends that a focus on the power differentials which characterize everyday social relations between Gypsies and the settled population can enhance our understanding of the stigmatization of the former. It argues that stigmatization is manifest in the ongoing process of disidentification, which involves the related processes of projection and the exaggeration of stereotypical constructions of threatening ‘‘Others’’. Drawing on the work of Norbert Elias an attempt at a theoretical synthesis is made that emphasizes the centrality of the power differential in social relations between the two groups, which is a key factor in enabling and maintaining effective stigmatization. The paper focuses on the dialectics of identification articulated by Gypsies in relation to their perceived collective similarity and difference, which is crucial in understanding their marginal position in British society. Using empirical data, the paper then explores the ways in which power differentials shape the social relations between Gypsies and the settled population, and how stigmatization serves as a potent weapon in maintaining the weak position of British Gypsies.

KEY WORDS: Gypsies and Travellers, Power relations, Stigmatization, Disidentification, Elias

Introduction

Gypsies and Travellers 1

have always operated on the fringes of mainstream British

society and have faced discrimination and persecution in a range of guises since the

first Gypsies arrived on the shores of Britain over 500 years ago. Historically, they

have collectively been subjected to extermination and expulsion (Mayall 1988) and

more recently to policies of assimilation, modernization (Sibley 1986, 1987) and

social control (Halfacree 1996, Niner 2004, Richardson 2006b, Sibley 1988). Such

policies have often been based on racist notions that Gypsies and Travellers are in

Correspondence Address: Ryan Powell, Centre for Regional Economic and Social Research, Sheffield

Hallam University, Unit 10, Science Park, City Campus, Howard Street, Sheffield, 52 SS1 1WB, UK.

Tel.: +44 (0)114 225 3561; Email: [email protected]

Housing, Theory and Society,

Vol. 25, No. 2, 87–109, 2008

1403-6096 Print/1651-2278 Online/08/020087–109 # 2008 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/14036090701657462

need of ‘‘saving’’ or corrective treatment, and initiatives to this end, often

emphasizing their perceived moral deficiencies, have been put in motion by everyone

from evangelicals to liberals (Vanderbeck 2003). This extensive range of pressures on

Gypsies to conform to a sedentary way of life, alongside wider social transforma-

tions, has resulted in a mixture of adaptation, evasion, conformity and conflict

(IPPR 2004, Mayall 1988). The persistence of stigma in relation to British nomadism runs so deep that the Commission for Racial Equality (2006) recently concluded that

Gypsies and Irish Travellers are the most excluded groups in Britain today.

Advancements in terms of social mobility and access to power made by other

‘‘weaker’’ groups in Britain, such as other Black and Minority Ethnic groups, gays

and lesbians, and the physically impaired, have not been matched in relation to

Gypsies and Travellers (Gil-Robles 2005). This stigma is not just confined to Britain

but is mirrored across much of Europe, with the same dynamics of marginalization

and exclusion reproduced across different spaces (Bancroft 2005). Theoretical frameworks seeking to explain the perceived anomic status of this

group have focused attention on issues of race, ethnicity, the media, social and

spatial policy and the general incompatibly of nomadism with a dominant sedentary

mode of existence (at both an economic and social level). Thus, most conceptualiza-

tions have emphasized difference, and more importantly, visible distinctions between

Gypsies and Travellers on the one hand, and the settled population 2

on the other.

This paper, however, argues that our understanding of the socio-dynamics of

stigmatization and its effects have been hindered by a neglect of the role of power in shaping the social relations between Gypsies and the settled population. It calls for a

move beyond static distinctions and accounts and places the dynamics of power

relations at the centre of an understanding of processes of disidentification and

stigmatization. As such, issues of ethnicity and race are not central here. The focus of

this paper is on Gypsies but aspects inherent in the process of stigmatization can also

be found in relation to a range of social relations between groups where the defining

characteristic is a power differential which confers one group with much greater

power resources than the other (Elias & Scotson 1994). The paper begins with a brief discussion on conceptualizations of power before a

review of the literature which draws attention to the neglect of the concept in existing

accounts of the marginal position of Gypsies and Travellers. Other deficiencies such

as a-historical approaches and a narrow focus on the issues of the day amounting to

problems of involvement (Elias 1987) are also identified. It is also argued that the

strong boundary maintenance between different academic disciplines has meant that

concurrent developments within them, as well as commonalities in terms of

theoretical frameworks, have been largely unrealized and consequently cross- disciplinary understanding has not accrued.

Drawing on the work of Norbert Elias, it is suggested that in order to comprehend

the process of stigmatization, its socio-dynamics and the ways in which it is

maintained by and within groups, one must first understand the complex dialectics

of identification and disidentification, which enable effective stigmatization. Only

then can we begin to grasp the role of power in the process and, in turn, account for

the role of the socio-spatial order in the maintenance and reproduction of social

boundaries and control. This approach requires a theoretical synthesis, it is argued, as scholars in different academic areas have largely been concerned with works

88 R. Powell

confined to their own disciplines and which speak to their own particular

methodological standpoints, with little attention given to concurrent arguments in

other disciplines (Jenkins 2004:93).

This synthesis is then drawn upon in order to understand the empirical findings

from 25 qualitative in-depth interviews conducted with Gypsies in Yorkshire and

The Humber in the UK, in the spring of 2006. Interviews sometimes involved more than one family member, lasted between 25 minutes and three hours, and were

recorded and transcribed. The results of the analysis of these transcripts form the

bulk of what is presented in the Findings section of this paper. There was also an

ethnographic element to the research and informal discussions with Gypsies and

visits to Gypsy sites, recorded in field notes, are also drawn upon. The findings point

to the link between the processes of disidentification and stigmatization – with each

reinforcing the other where there is a relatively large power differential – and

resultant apathy on the part of the stigmatized as ‘‘power inferiority is experienced as human inferiority’’ in some cases (Elias 1994). Finally, the paper concludes that an

unequal power balance in social relations, the projection of exaggerated fears,

and disidentification are prerequisites for continued stigmatization which, in

itself, is a powerful process in maintaining the status quo at the level of group

relations. The conclusion also suggests areas for further research that would enhance

our understanding of the continued marginalization of Gypsies within British

society.

Theoretical Framework

The academic literature on Gypsies and Travellers is a diverse body of thought

drawn from a number of different disciplines. Some of the different theoretical

frameworks that have hitherto been used in explaining the marginal position of

Gypsies and Travellers share some positive commonalities. However, they also share

a common deficiency in terms of a neglect of the role of power, and particularly the

power differentials inherent in the social relations between the settled population and Gypsies and Travellers. Before turning to the Gypsy and Traveller literature, then, it

is necessary to briefly consider some conceptualizations of power.

A Note on the Centrality of Power

Lukes’ (1974) three dimensions of power provide a useful starting point. We do not

have the space here to do justice to this seminal work, but charting the progress

towards the three-dimensional view of power is necessary for an understanding of the development of the concept (for a fuller discussion see Lukes 1974:21–25). The

one-dimensional view of power is essentially that put forward by the pluralists and in

Dahl’s words is ‘‘the power of A to get B to do something B would otherwise not do’’

(Dahl, in Lukes 1974:11). Lukes shows that the one-dimensional view is inadequate

in tackling the complexities of power in the real world, due to its focus on behaviour,

decision-making and observable conflict. Similarly, while an advance on the one-

dimensional view is made through the incorporation of non-decision-making, overt

conflict and control over agendas in the two-dimensional view, this is still found wanting due to its overemphasis on behaviourism and observable conflict.

Understanding the Stigmatization of Gypsies 89

The three-dimensional view represents a critique of the overly individualistic

behavioural focus and Lukes summarizes the main features of this approach as a

focus on: control over political agendas (involving decisions and non-decisions);

issues and potential issues; observable and latent conflict; and subjective and real interests. For Lukes this view represents the most insidious exercise of power as it

encroaches on and shapes the consciousness of individuals and the way they view

their situation. It prevents people from having grievances by:

... shaping their perceptions, cognitions and preferences in such a way that they

accept their role in the existing order of things, either because they can see or

imagine no alternative to it, or because they see it as natural and unchangeable,

or because they value it as divinely ordained and beneficial (Lukes 1974:24).

This conception is certainly closer to the realities presented in the empirical findings

of this paper. However, Lukes draws attention to some difficulties with the three-

dimensional view, most notably the focus on individuals. Power and control can also

be exercised by groups, so as Richardson (2006b:39) rightly asks ‘‘in observing a

group how is it possible to identify the precise mechanisms of the exercise of power?’’

It is in relation to this problem that Elias’s figurational sociology has particular resonance.

The concept of human figurations is central to any understanding of Elias’s

sociology and deserves attention here. The premise is that individuals are bonded

together in various figurations through their interdependencies, which is an

inescapable fact of everyday life and characterizes all human relations. These

figurations are constantly in flux as the power differentials – both within and

between different human figurations – that dictate their development change this

way and that. The development of figurations is a long-term process in which

outcomes are unforeseen and unplanned, as no individual or figuration of

individuals can control the overall direction. For Elias, power balances, like human

relationships in general, are bi-polar at least, and usually multi-polar; and should be

perceived as everyday occurrences (1978:74). For wherever there is functional

interdependence balances of power are always present.

The extent of the power differential seen in a figuration is a crucial factor in

determining the characteristics of that figuration. Elias provides a comprehensive

example of the importance of power differentials for human figurations in the

introductory essay to The Established and the Outsiders (Elias & Scotson 1994). The

book is based on findings from a study, conducted with John Scotson, of two very

similar groups on a suburban housing estate in Leicester, given the fictitious name of

Winston Parva. Indeed, the two distinct groups were so similar in terms of social

class, ethnicity, nationality, religion and other socio-economic indicators that the

only evident difference was in terms of their length of residence on the estate. After studying the relations between these groups, which were characterized by conflict,

Elias came up with a conceptual framework of great analytical insight: established-

outsider relations. Those residents who were relatively new to the estate were the

outsider group and the longer term residents, who had lived there for several

generations in many cases, were termed the established group. What Elias and

Scotson observed was the systematic stigmatization of the outsider group who were

90 R. Powell

thought to lack the superior human virtue which the dominant group attributed to

itself (Elias and Scotson 1994:xv). Consequently, the outsiders were excluded from

all non-occupational contact and this was maintained through ‘‘praise-gossip’’ for those adhering to this and ‘‘blame-gossip’’ directed at those breaking the taboo.

The key to identifying the root of the conflict rested on a figurational approach

through which one could see that the source of power for the dominant group was social cohesion; not difference (e.g. race, class), which often serves to mask power

differentials (Elias 1994:xviii–xix). Elias stresses the importance of the interdepen-

dent nature of the two groups and the need to look beyond the individual:

In Winston Parva, as elsewhere, one found members of one group casting a

slur on those of another, not because of their qualities as individual people, but

because they were members of a group which they considered collectively as

different from, and as inferior to, their own group (Elias 1994:xx).

Elias’s theoretical framework builds on that of Lukes through its exploration of the

power dynamics involved in the group setting and particularly by drawing attention

to interdependencies. In this sense it is able to address the ways in which power can

be exercised and maintained at the group level and emphasizes the importance of

collectivities for identification and disidentification. This suggests a need to focus on social relations for an understanding of the stigmatization process, not on its more

visible outcomes.

ni Shuinéar (1997) asks a fundamental question which supports the argument for looking beyond the surface for a better understanding of the dynamics of power and

stigmatization: ‘‘why are nomads who have ‘settled down’ still hated as strong as

ever?’’ ‘‘The mobility of Travellers has long been constructed as a social problem;

now their settlement is also being constructed as problematic’’ (Vanderbeck

2003:375). Given this situation one can conclude that the cultural practice of

nomadism is not, on its own, a sufficient explanation for the continued vilification of

Gypsies and Travellers. Nor should explanations be sought solely through a focus on

ethnicity which, as Mayall contends, can do more harm than good by distracting scholars from the task in hand: ‘‘To become obsessed with tracing pedigrees as an

essential stage in identifying a separate race is to be diverted from the key issue of the

relationship between the travelling and settled societies’’ (Mayall 1988:186). Notions

of a lack of morals, dirt, violence, deviance, laziness, illiteracy and racial purity

(‘‘real’’ Gypsies) have all been used to justify discriminatory responses to Gypsies

and Travellers and explain their continual stigmatization. Thus arguments to justify

the enforcement of conformity and sedentarization were modified over time (Mayall

1988:185) with these modifications taking place against a backdrop of social change which brought about an increasingly differentiated society.

This suggests the need to move beyond simplistic notions which place nomadism

or ethnicity (or any other visible marker of difference) at the core of this ‘‘hatred’’, in order to better understand the complex relationship between Gypsies and the settled

population. Elias’s theory of established-outsider relations sheds light on this matter:

What one calls ‘‘race relations’’ … are simply established-outsider relationships of a particular type… Whether or not the groups to which one refers when

Understanding the Stigmatization of Gypsies 91

speaking of ‘‘race relations’’ or ‘‘racial prejudice’’ differ in their ‘‘racial’’

descent and appearance, the salient aspect of their relationship is that they are

bonded together in a manner which endows one of them with very much

greater power resources than the other and enables that group to exclude

members of the other group from access to the centre of these resources and from closer contact with its own members, thus relegating them to the position

of outsiders (Elias 1994:xxx).

In other words, it is the interdependent nature of the social relations between groups

and the power differential that characterizes that relationship where one should

focus one’s attention in order to comprehend the socio-dynamics of stigmatization.

The fact that members of the two groups differ in terms of physical appearance or

language for instance, ‘‘merely serves as a reinforcing shibboleth which makes

members of an outsider group more easily recognizable as such’’ (Elias 1994:xxx). As

we shall see, markers of difference are important aspects in the process of

identification but alone they cannot account for the boundary maintenance and

strong feelings of anomie 3

one encounters on the part of powerful groups in relation

to weaker groups. We shall return to Elias in the discussion on the empirical findings

of the research but let us first consider some other relevant theoretical concepts.

Insights and Limitations in the Gypsy and Traveller Literature

The existing academic discourse relating to the marginalization of Gypsies and

Travellers provides us with some theoretical tools with which to develop our

understanding of the weak position of Gypsies and Travellers (McVeigh 1997, ni

Shuinéar 1997, Sibley 1981, 1987, 1988, Vanderbeck 2003, 2005). Some of this

literature, however, appears to draw upon a selective reading of the current stock of

knowledge. Narrow conceptualizations which seek to isolate particular factors at

play in the stigmatization process have an over-reliance on the thinkers of the day in

an attempt to provide explanations based on contemporary issues (see Elias 1987). In

order to fully comprehend the complexities inherent in this process it is necessary to

focus our attention on the interdependent nature of the social relations of Gypsies

and the settled population, while at the same time appreciating that the shaping and

outcome of these relations is a long term development with power as the defining

characteristic.

Some geographers have drawn on notions of the ‘‘Other’’, first put forward by

Edward Said (1978), and have developed these arguments in application to the

Gypsy and Traveller population (Holloway 2005, Richardson 2006a, 2006b). For

instance, Richardson’s argument centres on the role of discourse in the control of the

Gypsy and Traveller population, mainly that emanating from the media and the

political establishment, which is made possible through Bauman’s notion of

‘‘Othering’’ resulting in a lack of concern for the well-being of the ‘‘Other’’.

Richardson (2006b) shows how negative discourse and ‘‘othering’’ are more prominent throughout society in application to Gypsies and Travellers than to

other marginal groups. The account is also valuable in the sense that it draws

attention to the outcomes of these dynamics: the translation of discourse into actions

of social control. However, this a-historical conceptualization of ‘‘Othering’’

92 R. Powell

enabling discriminatory practice and maintaining the peripheral position of Gypsies

and Travellers within society, whilst identifying that the media and political

institutions are complicit in the reproduction of stereotypes and stigmatization,

neglects the fact that these groups are not the root causes. Similarly, Holloway’s (2005) time-space specific account of the racialization of Gypsies and Travellers by

the white residents of Appleby (the venue of the largest annual horse fair in the UK

attended by thousands of Gypsies and Travellers) does not focus on the development

of Gypsy–gauje 4

social relations. While Holloway’s findings on ‘‘the ways in which

white rural residents identify and construct Gypsy-Travellers through bodily and

cultural markers of difference’’ (Holloway 2005:351) are useful in terms of a

comprehension of how social boundaries are constructed and maintained, her focus

on race and ethnicity also means that the central role of power in the social relations

between the two groups is downplayed. While such accounts are valuable and

important in aiding our understanding of the stigmatization process, there is a need

to link these factors to the processes at play in the face-to-face and group relations

between Gypsies and non-Gypsies.

Other geography scholars have paid attention to the ways in which the spatial

order is implicated in placing Gypsies and Travellers at the margins of society

(Halfacree 1996, Sibley 1987, 1997). Such accounts stress the ways in which

contemporary, and often urban, Gypsies and Travellers do not conform to the

romanticized image of the ‘‘real’’ Gypsy; the ‘‘independent, strong, self-sufficient

and exotic Romany, living out a rural existence in brightly painted caravans, selling

their craft wares but largely remaining outside non-Gypsy society’’ (Halfacree

1996:54). Mayall asserts that ‘‘arguments permitting the creation of a Travellers’

hierarchy based on race, with the elevation of the ‘pure-blood’ Romany as the

central feature, were adopted overtly and tacitly by most people’’ (Mayall 1988:79).

As Gypsies and Travellers do not generally conform to this imagined stereotype they

are more often than not found wanting and therefore likely to be considered deviant and in need of corrective treatment (Sibley 1987:81). Crucially, in terms of the

process of stigmatization, this mythologized past contributes to the dehumanization

of Gypsies as well as the reproduction of an oppressive spatial order:

The importance of an imputed racial purity is that the people actually

encountered by members of the larger society, often in conflict situations and

particularly in cities, can be dismissed because they do not conform to the

romantic racial stereotype. In the case of British Gypsies the use of terms like

‘‘tinker’’, ‘‘itinerant’’, and ‘‘diddikai’’ all suggest a failure to meet the standards

implied in the stereotyped view – they effectively dehumanise and legitimate

oppressive policies (Sibley 1987:80; my emphasis).

In a similar vein, Halfacree (1996) posits that new travellers are also measured

against the norms of the sedentary mode of existence but, again, they are invariably found wanting. Drawing on Cohen (1972) Halfacree explains the ‘‘folk devil’’ status

of new travellers, with reference to the selective, and therefore mythical, social

construction of the rural idyll.

It is useful to consider Halfacree’s notion of Travellers as contemporary folk devils

alongside de Swaan’s ideas on the ways in which identification and, by extension,

Understanding the Stigmatization of Gypsies 93

disidentification is called upon for political ends: ‘‘In mass politics… political

entrepreneurs attempt to mobilize one or another structure of identification, defining

and redefining their appeal until they hit upon a version that works’’ (de Swaan

1995:31–32). A similar argument is also put forward by Sigona (2003) in a discussion

on the circularity of labelling and policy formulation in relation to Kosovo Roma:

‘‘The attempt to deny Roma identity is neither a contemporary prerogative of the West, nor peculiar to it. In Kosovo both Serbs and Albanians have denied, hidden,

forcedly removed and then recalled the Roma whenever required by their political

needs’’ (Sigona 2003:72). This resonates with Halfacree’s description of Travellers as

the New Right’s ‘‘enemy within’’, constructed as a threat to the purified and

homogeneous rural communities of the English countryside. But again, this speaks

more to the outcomes and maintenance of a process, rather than an understanding of

the ‘‘how’’ and ‘‘why’’.

Purification, Categorization and Projection

One theoretical concept which has managed to cross disciplinary boundaries is that

of purification put forward by the social anthropologist Mary Douglas in her

seminal work Purity and Danger (1966). Douglas argues that people need to

classify other people and objects in order to make sense of the world and, where

classification is not possible, that which cannot be classified is viewed adversely.

Consequently a strategy of purification is employed which excludes anything or anyone that falls outwith our frames of classification: ‘‘the unclassified residual

category is dirt, pollution, a threat to the integrity of the collectivity’’ (Sibley

1988:410). This notion has been further developed by Sibley (1988) in his work on

the purification of space which involves the rejection of difference and the securing

of boundaries to maintain homogeneity. Sibley’s work is valuable as he points to

the ‘‘historical continuity in the urge to exclude ‘others’ and to purify social space’’

which stems from the desire to maintain boundaries, thus expelling polluting

agencies and excluding threatening groups and individuals (Sibley 1988:411). Hence Sibley looks beyond the here and now and suggests the need for a more long-term

approach in understanding the rejection of difference. Interestingly, citing the

example of Gypsies, he also outlines how purification can work as a two-way

process with the weaker group using purification for their own ends: ‘‘Conversely,

in some cases we might see purification rules as survival mechanisms which

maintain an economically and politically weak group within a larger society, for

example, indigenous minorities, Gypsies, and some religious communities’’ (Sibley

1988:411). This dynamic could also be seen as a direct response to the lack of access to power on the part of the Gypsy and Traveller population and resultant

exclusion; more a tactic of ‘‘making do’’ (de Certeau 1984). Indeed, it should be

noted that power is a relationship and Gypsies and Travellers are never powerless;

their independence and tactics and strategies bear this out (see Okely 1983,

Sibley 1981). The point is that they are on the wrong side of an unequal power

balance.

In terms of its outcomes the purification thesis has some resonance with Elias’s

‘‘established-outsider’’ framework. For instance, Douglas touches upon the way in which the threatened group is able to maintain the boundary through the social

94 R. Powell

relations and norms within that group such that: ‘‘Group members accuse deviants

in their midst of allowing the outside evil to infiltrate’’ (Douglas 1973:169). This

notion bears resemblance to Elias’s ideas about ‘‘group charisma’’ (this is discussed

in more detail below) whereby the ‘‘power ratio of a group member diminishes if his

or her behaviour and feeling runs counter to group opinion so that this turns against

him or her’’ (Elias 1994:xxxix). However, the social relations within and between

groups are not central to the theory of purification and as a result one cannot

understand the ways in which exclusion is established and maintained; a view

consistent with other criticisms of labelling theory which argue that it neglects power

and structure (see Jenkins 2004:74).

The notion of classification in the purification thesis has similarities to the concept

of categorization, which has received particular attention in sociology:

[C]ategorisation is a routine and necessary contribution to how we make sense

of, and impute predictability to, a complex human world of which our

knowledge is only partial. The ability to identify unfamiliar individuals with

reference to known categories allows us at least the illusion that we know what

to expect from them (Jenkins 2004:82).

Thus categorization prepares the ground for the imputation of stereotypes as the

individual is recognized as part of a collective and the behaviour that one would

expect from that collective, reinforced through media discourses for instance (Cohen

1972, Richardson 2006b, Vanderbeck 2003), is attributed to the individual.

Categorization is a general interactional process of collective external definition

(Jenkins 2004), and as we shall see later it is a key component in the process of

disidentification. Jenkins’ categorization goes further than the notion of classifica-

tion put forward by Douglas in the sense that it is able to account for the central role

of power by placing more emphasis on the consequences for both categorizer and

categorized.

A recurring theme within the literature which requires some attention here is the

theoretical concept of projection whereby ‘‘impulses and feelings that are

unacceptable to the person are disavowed and attributed to other persons’’ (de

Swaan 1995:26). For ni Shuinéar (1997), in her reflection on the persistence of

stereotypes and anti-Traveller sentiment in Ireland, projection provides the central

explanation as to why ‘‘Gaujos hate Gypsies so much’’ (see also Richardson 2006b).

With reference to the social relations of Irish Travellers and ‘‘buffers’’ (the Irish

equivalent of gaujes), and the weaker position of the former, she argues that

‘‘buffers’’ need Irish Travellers ‘‘to personify their own faults and fears, thus lifting

away the burden of them’’ (ni Shuinéar 1997:27). The romanticized image of the

rural Gypsy will not do in the performance of this function as the ‘‘genuine

Romany’’ is too different and distant from the faults of the ‘‘buffers’’. She posits that

while some fears and faults are consistently drawn upon over time others change

with corresponding changes in society. Thus as Mayall argues: ‘‘The age of religion

and superstition gave way to the age of science and new myths and stereotypes

developed, allegedly based on empiricist objectivity derived from fact-finding

missions to the Gypsies’ camps’’ (Mayall 1988:185).

Understanding the Stigmatization of Gypsies 95

The Dialectics of (Dis)identification

While ni Shuinéar’s argument incorporates social change in the sense that these

faults and fears are not immanent but change as society changes, she perhaps places

too much emphasis on the process of projection. Implicit in ni Shuinéar’s account

are concepts developed further in sociology such as: the notion that perceptions of

Travellers are associated with the ‘‘worst’’, most anomic element of the travelling

community (Elias 1994); and the idea that identity (or, more appropriately,

identification) is a dialectical process (Jenkins 2004, de Swaan 1995, 1997). de Swaan

examines the process of disidentification with reference to ‘‘Hutu’’–‘‘Tuutsi’’

relations in Rwanda:

Through projection, all evil but still human characteristics have been assigned

to the ‘‘Tuutsi’’, by exaggeration they have been demonized into superhuman

proportions of evil and, finally, through dehumanization they have been

transformed into vermin. The process of disidentification is complete (de

Swaan 1997:115).

As well as the process of projection, the exaggeration required in de Swaan’s account

of disidentification is clearly evident in application to the Gypsy and Traveller

community in Britain as exemplified by media discourse (Morris 2000, Richardson

2006a, Turner 2000) and encapsulated in the following quote: ‘‘The Martin affair 5

created space for the expression of views that constructed rural crime as Traveller

crime and suggested that the presence of Travellers was somehow incompatible with

life in rural communities’’ (Vanderbeck 2003:369). The ‘‘space’’ created was

predominantly that in the media, and this strikes a chord with Cohen’s notion of

a moral panic whereby a public outcry is created in response to perceived deviance

(Cohen 1972). The media play a pivotal role in terms of the way in which they

exaggerate particular events and the effects of these events on the ‘‘threatened’’

element. Thus, as Vanderbeck asserts, in the case of the Tony Martin affair all rural

crime is attributed to Gypsies and Travellers and the extent of this crime is

exaggerated. The threat of larger travelling groups and discourse about increasing

numbers of Gypsies and Travellers have also been used as a means of exaggerating

the imagined threat that they cause to the dominant order (Mayall 1988, Sibley

1987). Thus, projection, exaggeration and the process of dehumanization

(articulated by Sibley above) have all been shown to be applicable to Gypsy and

Traveller populations. One can therefore conclude that de Swaan’s notion of

disidentification is a particularly valuable theoretical tool in aiding our under-

standing of the stigmatization of Gypsies.

According to Jenkins, identification is the ‘‘production and reproduction during

interaction of the intermingling, and inseparable, themes of human similarity and

difference’’ (Jenkins 2004:94). That is, who we are is as much dependent on who we

are not. It is a cognitive and emotional process in which people increasingly come to

experience others as similar to themselves (de Swaan 1995). A key aspect in the

dialectics of identification is the ability to distinguish, to recognize similarity and

difference – categorization (discussed above) being one such means by which we

make sense of ourselves and others. However, rather than re-charting old territory

96 R. Powell

(for an excellent and comprehensive discussion on the internal–external dialectic of

identification see Jenkins (2004)) I want to consider the specific aspects of

identification as they relate to our concerns here, that is, Gypsies. And for this it is useful to turn again to de Swaan.

de Swaan (1995) charts how the earlier identifications of kin and proximity have

widened with the onset of social differentiation and increasing interdependencies between human beings. Thus, the village, once the primordial unit of social

organization (i.e. the unit of survival) has been replaced by the nation-state as the

unit of survival and competition. de Swaan asserts that when human beings first

began to practise sedentary agriculture, they settled near neighbours and two

principles of identification were evident: familial ties (or bonds of clan); and

proximity – referring to shared lands and collective efforts of defence, policing,

irrigation:

In the villages new identifications developed, uniting neighbours against

outsiders: against landless vagrants, but also against the peasants of adjacent

villages, pilferers of the common woods, cattle rustlers or upstream pollutants

(de Swaan 1995:27).

Now, however, the urban mode of life and mass politics have led to new structures of identification, referring to classes, races and nations, and also to religious groups and

ethnicities; with the result that political entrepreneurs attempt to mobilize one or

another structure of identification (de Swaan 1995:27). However, as others have

shown (Halfacree 1996, Vanderbeck 2003) the mobilization of these identifications

are more often than not made with Gypsies and Travellers on the receiving end, i.e. a

disidentification from Gypsies and Travellers. de Swaan posits that identifications

evolve with the transformations of human society, yet this long-term process, as we

shall see, appears to be even slower in the relations with Gypsies.

The preceding discussion has elucidated the need to place power relations at the

centre of conceptualizations of the stigmatization of Gypsies. Related processes of

categorization, projection and disidentification have also shown to be important mediating factors in enabling collective stigmatization. The following section of the

paper draws on the theoretical concepts outlined above in the presentation of the

empirical findings of the research.

Findings

This central section of the paper focuses on power relations and the ways in which categorization and the process of collective identification contributes to a ‘‘we-

image’’ among Gypsies and a process of disidentification from the settled population

and other travelling groups. Conversely, in Gypsies’ articulation of their perceived

similarity and difference they also express the ways in which disidentification from

Gypsies is evident among the settled population. To paraphrase de Swaan

(1997:115), identification of Gypsies, disidentification from Gypsies and avoidance

of all identification with Gypsies are the necessary conditions for the maintenance of

power differentials, the feeling of superior human virtue in the ‘‘we-image’’ of the settled population, and the resultant stigmatization. The discussion that follows

Understanding the Stigmatization of Gypsies 97

presents evidence to support these claims and shows how Gypsies are unable to

counter their stigmatization due to their weaker position, with the resultant apathy

ensuring this imbalance is maintained. Thus, though stigmatization can be viewed as

an outcome of disidentification it also reinforces this process by further weakening

the recipient group and reinforcing the threat of contamination and taboo on social

contact among the more powerful group. This situation is shown to be further accentuated by the lack of access to those in positions of power on the part of

Gypsies. These dynamics also have implications in the form of social control as they

inform spatial policies – which are formulated in the interests of the dominant power

(the settled population) – on the location of Gypsy and Traveller sites.

Gypsies, Categorization and Disidentification

Interviewees articulated their difference from a range of ‘‘Others’’ and this was often

reinforced through the process of categorization. Gypsies were aware that they were

categorized and this often resulted in a construction based on stereotypical views which prompted the erection of social boundaries and a taboo on social contact:

The minute they find out you’re Travellers, doesn’t matter how long, you could

be in a house for 80 year, the minute they found out you were a Traveller:

‘‘don’t talk to ‘em they’re Gypsies, you know what they’re like’’ #09.

The above quote immediately draws attention to the dialectics of (dis)identification

with a clear boundary erected by ‘‘them’’ when ‘‘they find out’’ that someone is a

Traveller. Though this may not be immediately recognizable in the absence of symbolic or cultural markers of difference (Cohen 1985), once this is realized the

individual is categorized as a Gypsy and there is a negative association – ‘‘you know

what they’re like’’ – implying the threat of deviance or pollution. The power this

endows to the categorizer and the inability of the categorized to fight back is further

illustrated by the evident discord among Gypsies about who they are categorized

alongside:

#24: Because at the end of the day [new travellers] give Travellers a bad name because they stink, they’re stinky people, that’s the top and bottom of it, they’re rough, scruffy, horrible people

#25: They’re always taking drugs aren’t they? They never stop

#24: And they use the word Traveller, that’s the root of the problem, they use the word Traveller and they made the word Traveller unusable for real

Travellers

The fact that new travellers are even referred to as ‘‘Travellers’’ is a cause of concern

for the above respondents who are keen to distance themselves from this

‘‘problematic’’ group who do not conform to the symbolic norms of Gypsy culture.

New travellers are constructed as inauthentic (in opposition to ‘‘real Travellers’’), dirty and lacking the cultural heritage of nomadism that Gypsies are endowed with.

Yet categorization lumps all Travellers together and this respondent is acutely aware

98 R. Powell

of the fact to the extent that the very term ‘‘Traveller’’ is deemed contaminated by

the association with new travellers. This perceived threat of pollution also goes some

way to accounting for the re-emergence of the word Gypsy as the preferred term of

self-identification among the population where in the past this had derogatory

connotations. Claiming the word back is a means through which Gypsies can

disidentify from other travelling groups while at the same time invoking the racial

stereotype of the ‘‘real’’ Gypsy.

Disidentification and stigmatization on the part of Gypsies was also apparent in

relation to Irish Travellers, though not with the same fervour as that applied to new

travellers. Gypsies applied similar exaggerated and stereotypical views to Irish

Travellers as were applied to their own collective by the settled population, often

constructing them as violent and linking them to excessive alcohol consumption:

It’s not that [Gypsies who have moved into housing from a particular site]

don’t get on with people, it’s the Irish people, them lot, they’re not the type that

wants to get with you. Soon as they go to a pub they’ll come back and cut you

up or smash your home up. That’s the kind of people they are, you don’t have

to say anything to ‘em, you don’t have to bother ‘em but when they’ve had a

drink they go mental #23

Other constructions of Irish Travellers drew upon the idea that they travelled

together in much larger groups and had no respect for private property, drawing

attention to themselves, which had implications for all Gypsies and Travellers. So,

then, it follows that the dialectic of identification and disidentification is played out

more strongly within the context of an external threat (de Swaan 1997). This threat is

also evident in the discussion below in relation to the settled population; most

notably in terms of attitudes towards formal schooling:

After 11 [years of age], we don’t believe in [formal education]. We want them to

learn to keep their own culture going and still know the ways of their own

culture. If they go to school that gets knocked out of ‘em. Their own ways gets

knocked out of ‘em #14

My little lass, she’s seven now, she hits eleven and she can read and write I’ll

pull her out [of school]. Because all I’ve seen of the big schools is drugs, sex,

smoking and drinking. I don’t want that for my kids, that’s not the Traveller

way for kids #19

The external threat in the form of the interrelated loss of culture and fear of

pollution accentuates the need for disidentification; the projection of fears (drugs,

sex and so on) onto the settled population and the exaggeration (‘‘all I’ve seen of the

big schools’’) of these make this process possible.

The Stigmatization of Gypsies

A distancing from the settled population and other travelling groups on the part of

Gypsies is not a particularly new finding (see Okely 1983, Sibley 1981) but it does

Understanding the Stigmatization of Gypsies 99

illustrate the importance of collective identification in the maintenance of social

boundaries, which are central tenets of my argument. Of most interest in this paper

however, are the effects of this dialectic process of identification and disidentifica-

tion; carrying with it as it does implications in the form of exclusion and

stigmatization. Through the processes of categorization, projection and exaggera-

tion, exclusion is legitimized in the collective mindset of the settled population as all

Gypsies are associated with deviance, and when measured against the social norms

of the dominant group are found wanting. ‘‘[A]n established group tends to attribute

to its outsider group as a whole the ‘bad’ characteristics of that group’s ‘worst’

section – of its anomic minority’’ (Elias 1994:xix):

Don’t get me wrong there’s good and bad with everybody, but you’ll get a lot

of things what’s just exaggerated… If I went down to one of these pubs and just

say got into some aggravation and I got barred, we all get barred, they don’t

just bar me, they bar all of us, even though the others’d never done anything

wrong #08 (my emphasis).

But there’s a lot of Gypsies, same as people in houses, a lot steal, just go out

there looking for things to steal and obviously we know that, we’re not stupid,

but not everyone is the same #13.

The second quote above would suggest that in their case Gypsies are acutely aware

of the stereotypes attributed to them but at a loss as to the reasons why this should

be the case. The quote draws attention to the differences in terms of the ability to

cast a slur and to maintain the taboos on contact and interaction. Whereas the

settled population would tend to construct all Gypsies and Travellers as deviant (in

this case as thieves) the Gypsy above recognizes that some Gypsies and ‘‘gaujes’’ are

indeed involved in petty crime, but not all of them. This entrenched stereotype

amongst the settled population derives from their perceived standing as superior

human beings: the complementarity of group charisma (one’s own) and group

disgrace (that of others) (Elias 1994). Thus individual behaviour which is

incompatible with the norms of the dominant society is applied to the whole of

the weaker group and results in a desire for boundary maintenance against the threat

of pollution. The behaviour of Gypsies is then understood within this imagined

framework and the ability to maintain the boundary (and the ability to stigmatize) is

dependent, in turn, upon the maintenance of the power differential:

Give a group a bad name and it is likely to live up to it… How far the shame of

outsiders produced by the inescapable stigmatization of an established group

turns into paralysing apathy, how far into aggressive norm and lawlessness,

depends on the overall situation (Elias 1994:xxviii).

The following quote encapsulates a typical attitude amongst respondents and seems

to suggest an apathetic response on the part of stigmatized Gypsies as opposed to an

aggressive one:

Int: Do you get any hassle round here?

100 R. Powell

#23 (Housed Gypsy): Like I said to you I don’t know if it’s because I’m a Traveller, Gypsy, whatever you wanna call me, people don’t talk. There used to

be Travellers over here at number 17 before, before I moved here and I think

they used to torment the people in the house and when they think to their self

‘‘another lot’s coming’’, it’s all the same lot you know what I mean? It puts

people off doesn’t it? But what can you do?

Again, the respondent refers to the interviewer as the categorizer, is clear that she

herself is the categorized and suggests a lack of control over this: ‘‘whatever you

wanna call me’’. Furthermore, she is acutely aware of the fact that she is categorized

with other deviant Travellers and also of the potential for negative stereotypes being

applied to her and the possibility that she will ‘‘put people off’’. Perhaps most

importantly, however, she appears helpless in the face of this situation – even though

it is wholly wrong, it is accepted apathetically as illustrated by the final rhetorical

question ‘‘But what can you do?’’ This apathy is a direct product of the inability of

Gypsies to close ranks and fight back. Two further illustrations of this apathy are

shown below where the stigmatization is accepted and ‘‘managed’’ in a kind of

Goffmanesque (1968) way so as to construct it as an ‘‘ordinary’’, everyday

occurrence:

Well you always get a bit of problems with bullying but kids is kids isn’t they?

#01

You go to the shops and things and you get followed and things like that there,

that’s what they does, it’s a thing you get used to, not that it’s nice like but you

get used to it #06

The issue of bullying at school is accepted and downplayed as an inevitable aspect of

childhood. One could posit that the same attitude would not be evident amongst

much of the settled population and, in such an instance, there would be a response of

some sort; most likely the issue would be taken up with a teacher or someone else in

a position of power that could prevent a re-occurrence of the bullying. Again, the

central explanation to this difference lies in the power differential falling heavily

against Gypsies. Indeed, the very process of stigmatization, and particularly where

this is experienced emotionally, may serve to further accentuate this power

differential given the evident apathy set out here. This, in turn, disarms Gypsies

and they are unable to retaliate:

Like if we don’t know what names to call ‘em, we don’t call names, we just hit

‘em because they, because you’re not, like I don’t know, we don’t know how to

say something #14

The power to stigmatize is not apparent among the Gypsies; they are not equipped

with the same weaponry of stigmatization that the more powerful settled population

have. Words such as ‘‘gypo’’ and ‘‘pikey’’ have the potential to hurt because those

using them ‘‘have an ally in an inner voice of their social inferiors’’ (Elias 1994:xxiv).

Gypsies commonly refer to non-Gypsies as ‘‘gaujes’’, which literally translates as

Understanding the Stigmatization of Gypsies 101

‘‘bumpkin’’ or ‘‘clod-hopper’’ (McVeigh 1997:12) and conveys an imagery of a

‘‘simple’’ people, yet the resultant shame and humiliation is not forthcoming due to

the weaker position of Gypsies. In other words:

Their power to bite depends on the awareness of user and recipient that the

humiliation of the latter intended by their use has the backing of a powerful

established group, in relation to which that of the recipient is an outsider group

with weaker power resources. All these terms symbolise the fact that the

member of an outsider group can be shamed because he does not come up to

the norms of the superior group because, in terms of these norms, he is anomic

(Elias 1994:xxv).

Maintaining Stigmatization

Now we have an appreciation of the socio-dynamics of stigmatization it is necessary

to explore how this is maintained by, and within, groups. While Elias posits that the

only situation wherein contact with the outside group may be admissible is the

occupational setting, my findings suggest otherwise. Clearly, in the case below,

the social conditions, that is the power differential within the workplace, allow the

stigmatization to be played out and the shame and embarrassment to ensue:

Well in my night-time job the woman had a cup and it said ‘‘hands off you

thieving Gypsies’’, she wrote on it in a marker pen #13

The key to the strict adherence to taboos on social contact with Gypsies on the part

of the settled population rests within Elias’s notions of group charisma (applying

here to the settled population) and group disgrace (to the Gypsy population), and

relates to the standing of individuals within their own group. Thus those who break

such taboos are likely to witness their own standing, their position within the group

afforded the greater degree of charisma and thought to be of greater human virtue,

adversely affected. As Gypsies are regarded as failing to observe the norms of the

settled population, contact with them is perceived as a threat to these norms and

those individuals indulging in interaction with Gypsies are therefore also

threatening:

Like, my friends, my gauje friends now, they won’t talk to me now, they don’t

wanna know. Since I got with James and moved on [this site] they just don’t

want anything to do with me #22 (Gauje now living on a Gypsy site).

Though not a Gypsy herself, the above respondent is articulating her experience of

the collective emotional barrier erected by the dominant group. Such situations were

often met with bewilderment on the part of Gypsies who were at a loss as to why

they should be excluded and ostracized so vehemently. The quote below, where a

female respondent speaks of the greater degree of sociability on Gypsy sites,

illustrates this:

102 R. Powell

Well in a trailer there’s more people to mix with. It’s like here now, I’ve lived

here for five year and I only know that old lady’s name next door, nobody else

round here talks to you. I don’t know if it’s because they realise what you are, I

don’t know what it is, or people just don’t mix no more, I don’t know what it

is, but in a trailer it’s more social, like your own lot or, you know what I mean,

it’s a lot better #23 (Housed Gypsy).

If we follow Elias’s cue that stigmatization is at its most powerful when it enters the

mindset of the stigmatized, one can see, albeit tentatively 6 , how this is played out in

relations between Gypsies and the settled population. That is, where power

inferiority is experienced as human inferiority the effects are accentuated. The

following quote exemplifies how the socio-political climate, and particularly

planning authorities, contributes to this sense of inferiority or anomic status

through the criminalization of the traditional nomadic way of life:

I’d just like to have somewhere legal to live, that’s the only thing that I want,

somewhere where I actually have a right to live, rather than always knowing

that your life’s illegal. That is the only thing that would make a difference to us,

having a proper legal place, or places to live, and that would change just about

everything. It would change how I felt about myself, it would change how I felt

about the family, it would change how people out there felt about us #02.

There is a sense of criminality instilled in the mindset of the above interviewee and

when she measures herself against the norms of the dominant society – in this case

expressed through the planning system – she is found wanting and struggles

emotionally with her socially defined position as deviant. Similarly, this dynamic is

also expressed in terms of ‘‘getting on’’ in life, again constructed against the norms of

the dominant society, by a parent when talking about the future prospects for his

daughter:

If she can be one in a million of a Traveller to finish school and to make

something of herself, to make an example on other Travellers that’d be a good

idea wouldn’t it, a good thing #22.

One could assume that this respondent is implying that Gypsies can’t ‘‘make

something of themselves’’; they are anomic, inferior and generally do not amount to

anything when measured against the norms of the sedentary mode of existence. Thus

the emotional power of stigmatization is obvious, and the ability to stigmatize the

collective is in itself a key factor in ensuring that the power resources of Gypsies

remain low.

Stigmatization and the Spatial Order

Sibley (1981, 1987) sees the Caravan Sites Act of 1968 as ‘‘a programmed response to

deviance’’ in the form of a systematic attempt to restrict settlement. He argues that

resistance to site provision on the part of local authorities stems from the fact that

Gypsies are seen as a ‘‘problem’’, and where provision is forthcoming it is often

Understanding the Stigmatization of Gypsies 103

limited to prescribed and, more often than not, marginal locations; as has been the

case in Britain and the Netherlands (though obviously under different legislation).

Sibley illustrates how designation – part of the legislation of the 1968 Caravan Sites

Act – served as an instrument of control and is one example of how the spatial order,

informed by the popular perception of Gypsies and Travellers, reproduces dynamics

of marginalization and exclusion. Designation imposed financial penalties on

families stopping in designated areas but not on an official site. The result of the

legislation was that large areas of London, where designation applied to contiguous

districts, became ‘‘no-go’’ areas for families not accommodated on official sites

(Sibley 1981:83).

Now we have an appreciation of the mechanisms through which Gypsies are

stigmatized and the subtle ways in which their outsider status is maintained, we can

briefly examine how these dynamics are reproduced through the spatial order; and

how the developments outlined by Sibley are made possible. A key factor here that

we have already touched upon is the lack of (and access to) power resources among

Gypsies, to the extent that they have little or no control over their own environment,

as shown by the quote below:

Whatever they do on [this site] they sit between their self and they decide what

you want and what you don’t want, and there’s time and time again I’ve said

‘‘why don’t you get one of us there?’’ Never happens #19.

For instance, local Councillors have a vested interest in issues relating to the location

of Gypsy sites due to their wish to be re-elected, and therefore are involved to a greater

degree in this particular figuration. The result is a propensity to maintain their power

base and so attempts are made to decrease the threat of Gypsies and, by default, they

are also complicit in the erection of boundaries – physical, social and emotional –

between the settled population (a group to which they belong) and Gypsies.

Thus, disidentification, resultant stigmatization, the reproduction of stereotypes

within the mass media and the exclusion of Gypsies from positions of power (and

exclusion from access to those in such positions), all create a climate for the symbolic

boundary to be translated into a physical one through the location of sites in

peripheral and marginal locations, often some distance from residential areas and

out of the view of the settled population, thus limiting the perceived threat:

They won’t let us integrate with house dwellers and they wouldn’t say we was

them, so why can they put new age travellers in with us? #08

The above quote conveys a sense of weakness on the part of the respondent in

relation to their social interaction and their perceived identity. Power is implicit

within the quote, ‘‘they won’t let us integrate’’, and points to the complicit role of

local authorities and planning administrations in maintaining geographical, and

therefore social, boundaries and limiting the possibilities of identification between

these two antagonistic groups:

[M]uch of the restructuring of identifications actually proceeds not by

radiation, but rather through conduction, i.e. by face-to-face contacts in

104 R. Powell

primary settings: in the family and among peers… identifications apparently

survive and flourish more readily in a much more compact, face-to-face setting.

(de Swaan 1995:32–33).

Even where Gypsy and Traveller sites are planned near residential housing settlements the disparity in terms of the cohesion, organization and therefore power

of the two groups more often than not results in a ‘‘victory’’ for the settled

population in terms of boundary maintenance (that is, the very low success rate for

Gypsy and Traveller planning applications), and this continued dynamic contributes

to the apathy we have witnessed already. The following quote illustrates this:

The problem is, let’s just say the Council said ‘‘yeah we’ll [build a site]’’ then

they’re looking round for some land and if they went near some houses there’d

be petitions ‘‘we don’t want Gypsies round us’’ before even they got Gypsies near ‘em… and it’s just an ongoing thing where you can’t really win innit? #01.

By pursuing such oppressive policies against Gypsies, local authorities serve to

accentuate the situation by reinforcing stereotypes. Sites being located in marginal,

inhospitable spaces – often in industrial locations or next to refuse tips for instance –

contributes to the notion that Gypsies and Travellers are not ‘‘real’’ pure-blood

Romanies but a ‘‘sub-standard’’ group lacking the superior human virtue of the settled population:

They think we’re scruffy but they put us in scruffy places, they think ‘‘oh yeah

Travellers are always next to tips and things’’ it’s only ‘cos they put us next to

scruffy places #13.

Sort of, for normal people it’d be unacceptable half the places where they do

put sites #19.

Note the second quote where there is reference to ‘‘normal people’’, meaning the settled population, and by extension this suggests that the interviewee emotionally

experiences herself and her community as abnormal. Therein lies the power of the

emotional barrier in the sense of the ability to stigmatize and therefore maintain a

sense of power superiority, experienced as human superiority. This is what makes

such oppressive policies possible and they, in turn, have the effect to limit social

contact between Gypsies and the settled population. This could also perhaps serve to

support racist notions, evident in professional and academic discourses, about

Gypsies and Travellers being insular and ‘‘unapproachable’’:

It’s miles away from anywhere though and they’ve just stuck ‘em there. It’s

hard to believe when you see it... and then it’s like they’ve dug an ‘ole and put

‘em in it because it’s, the banks come right above the trailers #15.

Thus policies which serve to segregate Gypsies against their wishes and situate them

within marginal spaces play a role in the maintenance of the outsider status of

Gypsies but these dynamics and their mechanisms can only be appreciated within a framework which first acknowledges the importance of identification and power.

Understanding the Stigmatization of Gypsies 105

Conclusions

This paper has argued that unequal power relations and disidentification are the

central mediating factors enabling the stigmatization of Gypsies. This process takes

place at the micro level in the day-to-day social relations between Gypsies and the

settled population in a range of spaces and settings. While commentators have

directed efforts towards structural factors in search of a better understanding of the

marginalization of Gypsies, this only tells part of the story, albeit a very important

part. Certainly the media, government policy, ethnic and cultural differences and a

lack of understanding and knowledge of the latter play a key role in perpetuating

stereotypes and reinforcing and maintaining stigma, but there is a need to link these

structural factors and their characteristics to the process of disidentification and the

everyday power relations within and between groups. Thus, in order to grasp the

continued outsider status of Gypsies there is the need for a long-term, processual

approach which empirically examines the social relations between Gypsies and the

settled population alongside structural changes. The figurational sociology of

Norbert Elias appears well equipped with the theoretical tools to meet this challenge.

An Eliasian approach could enhance our understanding as to the ways in which the

socio-dynamics of stigmatization operate in this particular human figuration.

Current theoretical conceptualizations on the marginalization of Gypsies and

Travellers have neglected the role of power in shaping these relations and focused

too much on the short-term problems of the day. These factors are undoubtedly at

play in the reproduction of boundaries and stigmatization, yet they are more likely to

be outcomes of a long-term process, the central characteristic of which is the uneven

power balance in relations between Gypsies and Travellers on the one hand, and the

settled population on the other. These theoretical frameworks have, to an extent,

also neglected each other as a result of strong disciplinary boundaries, and this has

also served to slow the development of a theoretical synthesis equipped to examine

the complexities of power and identification within Gypsy–gauje figurations in a

constant state of flux.

As yet approaches have not been able to account for the dynamism of social

relations and the centrality of power in the continued stigmatization of Gypsies.

There is therefore a need to explore the complexities inherent in the processes of

disidentification and stigmatization rather than merely analysing their effects and

outcomes. Static conceptualizations fail to incorporate the role of changes in wider

society, and a preoccupation with the issues of the day blocks the path to an

appreciation of long term changes:

An approach to an established-outsider figuration as a stationary type of

relationship can be no more than a preparatory step. The problems with which

one is confronted in such an exploration come into their own only if one

considers the balance of power between such groups as changing and works

towards a model which shows, at least in broad outline, the human – including

the economic – problems inherent in such changes (Elias 1994:xxxv).

Once power is placed at the centre of a theoretical framework one can then begin

to explore how the struggles and contestations across time and space are determined

106 R. Powell

by fluctuations in the power differentials between groups and how these changes are

reflected in policy and practice. As Sibley argues, an appreciation of the power

relations within a given space gives meaning to that space (Sibley 1995:76). Fruitful

areas of inquiry could include considerations of changes in the economic sphere

(such as that developed by Sibley) and also cultural transformations and the effects

of these for the identifications (and by extension disidentifications) of Gypsies.

Bringing dynamism back in is also imperative in developing our understanding of

how identifications (and disidentifications) are widening with the onset of rapid

social transformations, which means humans, and the figurations that they form

with others, are subject to ever increasing webs of interdependence (de Swaan 1995,

Elias 1978, 1982). The effects of these developments on Gypsies should be a primary

concern for academics, and in particular how these changes impact upon the

interdependent relationships between Gypsies and the settled population in different

settings.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Sarah Blandy, John Flint, Tony Gore, Pat Niner and Robert

Vanderbeck for productive conversations and comments on earlier drafts of this

paper. I am also grateful to two anonymous referees for their comments.

Notes

1. The terminology employed to refer to ‘‘Gypsies and Travellers’’ is an emotive and controversial issue

packed with cultural and political significance and, while different populations share commonalities

in terms of their nomadic, semi-nomadic, or previously nomadic way of life, recognizing their

difference remains crucial. In this paper, the term ‘‘Gypsies and Travellers’’ is therefore used as a

collective term to refer to all Gypsy and Traveller populations. The term ‘‘Traveller’’ is never used

without an identifying prefix (‘‘new’’, ‘‘Irish’’) other than to quote individuals using this

terminology, but the term ‘‘Gypsy’’ is used alone, to refer to Romany Gypsies (regardless of their

nationality, although all Gypsies interviewed for this research were English) who form the primary

focus of this paper. Where reference is being made to a particular group, or where an issue is

discussed that is relevant to one group and not others, the proper name is used – e.g. Gypsy, new

traveller, and so on. Capitalization of the collective term reflects the ethnic minority status of

Gypsies and Irish Travellers. The findings in the empirical section of this paper refer solely to

Gypsies.

2. I use the term settled population to refer to non-Gypsies and Travellers in general. Obviously, this is

a heterogeneous group and differences in attitudes towards Gypsies and differences in power

resources are wide ranging. Yet, as Richardson (2006b:6) has noted ‘‘for the purposes of allowing a

distinction between Gypsies and Travellers, and non-Gypsies and Travellers, a term is necessary and

settled community is often used in the relevant literature’’.

3. I use the term anomie here in precisely the same way as Elias and Scotson (1994) do in The

Established and the Outsiders. In this context the crucial point to remember is that the ‘‘anomic’’ that

Elias and Scotson speak of can only be understood in opposition to the ‘‘nomic or norm-setting

section’’. In Elias’s words: ‘‘an established group tends to attribute to its outsider group as a whole the

‘bad’ characteristics of that group’s ‘worst’ section – of its anomic minority. In contrast, the self-image

of the established group tends to be modelled on its exemplary, most ‘nomic’ or norm-setting section, on

the minority of its ‘best’ members’’ (Elias 1994:xix).

4. ‘‘Gauje’’ is the term commonly used by Gypsies to refer to non-Gypsies. There is no widely accepted

spelling of the word and it sometimes appears as ‘‘gorger’’ (which closest reflects its pronunciation),

‘‘gorgio’’, ‘‘gaje’’ or ‘‘gaujo’’ (as in the case of ni Shuinéar (1997)).

Understanding the Stigmatization of Gypsies 107

5. The ‘‘Martin affair’’ refers to the case of Tony Martin who was prosecuted for the murder of 16-year

old Gypsy Fred Barras after he and an accomplice, who was also shot and wounded, attempted to

burgle his house in 1999. The case attracted widespread media attention and Martin was sentenced

to life in 2000. He was released in 2003.

6. Given that my interviews were with Gypsies and did not include research on the views of the settled

population it would be inappropriate to give too much credence to the views of the latter as

articulated by the former. There is certainly the need for more research in this area; an issue

addressed in the Conclusions.

References

Bancroft, A. (2005) Roma and Gypsy-Travellers in Europe: Modernity, Race, Space and Exclusion

(Avebury: Ashgate Press).

Cohen, A. P. (1985) The Symbolic Construction of Community (London: Tavistock).

Cohen, S. (1972) Folk Devils and Moral Panics (London: MacGibbon and Kee).

Commission for Racial Equality (2006) Common Ground: Equality, Good Race Relations and Sites for

Gypsies and Irish Travellers (London: Commission for Racial Equality).

Dahl, R. (1957) The concept of power, Behavioural Science, 2, pp. 201–205.

de Certeau, M. (1984) The Practice of Everyday Life (Berkeley: University of California Press).

de Swaan, A. (1995) Widening circles of identification: emotional concerns in sociogenetic perspective,

Theory, Culture and Society, 12, pp. 25–39.

de Swaan, A. (1997) Widening circles of disidentification: on the psycho- and sociogenesis of the hatred of

distant strangers – reflections on Rwanda, Theory, Culture and Society, 4(2), pp. 105–122.

Douglas, M. (1966) Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Purity and Taboo (London: Routledge

Kegan Paul).

Douglas, M. (1973) Natural Symbols (London: Barrie and Jenkins).

Elias, N. (1978) What is Sociology? (London: Hutchinson).

Elias, N. (1982) The Civilizing Process, Vol II: State Formation and Civilization (Oxford: Blackwell).

Elias, N. (1987) Involvement and Detachment (Oxford: Blackwell).

Elias, N. (1994) A theoretical essay on established and outsider relations, in: N. Elias & J. L. Scotson

(Eds), The Established and the Outsiders 2nd ed., pp. xv–lii (London: Sage).

Elias, N. & Scotson, J. L. (1994) The Established and the Outsiders 2nd ed. (London: Sage).

Gil-Robles, A. (2005) Report by the Commissioner for Human Rights on his Visit to the UK (Strasbourg:

Office of the Commissioner for Human Rights).

Goffman, E. (1968) Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity (Harmondsworth: Pelican).

Halfacree, K. (1996) Out of place in the country: Travellers and the rural idyll, Antipode, 28(1), pp. 42–72.

Holloway, S. L. (2005) Articulating Otherness? white rural residents talk about Gypsy-Travellers,

Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 30, pp. 351–367.

IPPR (2004) Moving Forward: The Provision of Accommodation for Travellers and Gypsies (London:

IPPR).

Jenkins, R. (2004) Social Identity, 2nd ed. (London: Routledge).

Lukes, S. (1974) Power: A Radical View (London: MacMillan).

Mayall, D. (1988) Gypsy-Travellers in Nineteenth Century Society (Cambridge: CUP).

McVeigh, R. (1997) Theorising sedentarism: the roots of anti-nomadism, in: T. Acton (Ed.), Gypsy Politics

and Traveller Identity, pp. 7–25 (Hatfield: University of Hertfordshire Press).

Morris, R. (2000) Gypsies, Travellers and the media: press regulation and racism in the UK,

Communications Law, 5(6), pp. 213–219.

ni Shuinéar, S. (1997) Why do gaujos hate Gypsies so much, anyway? A case study, in: T. Acton (Ed.),

Gypsy Politics and Traveller Identity, pp. 26–53 (Hatfield: University of Hertfordshire Press).

Niner, P. (2004) Accommodating nomadism? An examination of accommodation options for Gypsies and

Travellers in England, Housing Studies, 19(2), pp. 141–159.

Okely, J. (1983) The Traveller-Gypsies (Cambridge: CUP).

Richardson, J. (2006a) Talking about Gypsies: the notion of discourse as control, Housing Studies, 21(1),

pp. 77–96.

Richardson, J. (2006b) The Gypsy Debate: Can Discourse Control? (Exeter: Imprint Academic).

108 R. Powell

Said, E. (1978) Orientalism: Western Conceptions of the Orient (Harmondsworth: Penguin).

Sibley, D. (1981) Outsiders in Urban Societies (Oxford: Blackwell).

Sibley, D. (1986) Persistence or change? conflicting interpretations of peripheral minorities, Environment

and Planning D: Society and Space, 4, pp. 57–70.

Sibley, D. (1987) Racism and settlement policy: the state’s response to a semi-nomadic minority, in: P.

Jackson (Ed.), Race and Racism, pp. 74–89 (London: Unwin Hyman).

Sibley, D. (1988) Purification of space, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 6, pp. 57–70.

Sibley, D. (1995) Geographies of Exclusion (London: Routledge).

Sibley, D. (1997) Endangering the sacred: nomads, youth cultures and the English countryside, in: P.

Cloke & J. Little (Eds), Contested Countryside Cultures: Otherness, Marginalisation and Rurality, pp.

218–231 (London: Routledge).

Sigona, N. (2003) How can a nomad be a ‘‘refugee’’? Kosovo Roma and labelling policy in Italy,

Sociology, 37(1), pp. 69–79.

Turner, R. (2000) Gypsies and politics in Britain, The Political Quarterly, 71, pp. 68–77.

Vanderbeck, R. (2003) Youth, racism and place in the Tony Martin affair, Antipode, 35, pp. 363–384.

Vanderbeck, R. (2005) Anti-nomadism, institutions, and the geographies of childhood, Environment and

Planning D: Society and Space, 23, pp. 71–94.

Understanding the Stigmatization of Gypsies 109