Roma Identity
irakan_0
romaarticle.pdf
Identity, Communication, Inclusion: The Roma and (New) Europe Liliana Lubomirova Herakova
Based on the theoretical concepts of imagined communities (Anderson, 2006), public
sphere (Habermas, 1962/1991), and muted groups (Kramarae, 1981), this essay looks at
issues of identity and identity formation of the largest European minority*the Roma, or Gypsies. The essay argues that, similarly to the European identity project, the Roma are
actively building a transnational identity without abandoning national identities.
Although this model can be a valuable blueprint for increasingly globalizing societies, it is
neglected as a possibility because of Roma’s marginal social status. Further exploration of
self-organized Roma identity-construction is advised.
Keywords: Ethnic Identity; Imagined Communities; Public Sphere; Muted Groups;
Roma
In a continuously globalizing world, human rights and a chance at social equality
remain a loudly promoted focus of development programs, as indicated in the United
Nations Millennium Declaration (United Nations, 2000). In Western Europe and the
former Soviet bloc, a central issue of equality is the effective social integration of
national minorities. Of special concern is the social inclusion of the largest European
minority*the Roma or Gypsies. The need for solving a problem of social exclusion on racial and ethnic basis is signified by the European Union (EU) Directive 43 (European
Commission, 2000), ‘‘implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons
irrespective of racial or ethnic origin’’ ( p. 22).
Several factors underline the implementation of the Directive in regards to the
Roma. First, as with other EU legislation, the decisions and monitoring are
transnational, but the changes are to be implemented within national borders. Second,
and perhaps more significantly, unique to the Roma is their position simultaneously
outside and within European national communities. The Roma are not a homo-
geneous ethnic group (Horváth, 2006; Marushiakova & Popov, 2001; Petrova, 2003),
Liliana Lubomirova Herakova is affiliated with the University of Massachusetts Amherst, USA. Correspondence
to: University of Massachusetts Amherst, 240 Hicks Way, Amherst, MA 01003, USA. Email:
ISSN 1751-3057 (print)/ISSN 1751-3065 (online) # 2009 National Communication Association
DOI: 10.1080/17513050903177318
Journal of International and Intercultural Communication
Vol. 2, No. 4, November 2009, pp. 279�297
yet they claim a bond with other Roma across and beyond national boundaries, on one
hand, and, on the other, take on the national identity of their country of citizenship
(Horváth, 2006; Margalit & Matras, 2007).
Commenting on the dialectic of Romani identity, Horváth (2006) notes, ‘‘Social
scientists, just like any ordinary person, cannot give a proper answer as to who is
a Romani person. . . . In fact, it is the awareness of our dual identity that allows us to
understand the essence of Romani identity [italics added]’’ ( p. 2). Thus, not only is the
essence of a Romani identity debated, but perhaps, in the case of the Roma, we need
to reconceptualize our very definition and understanding of identity as a fluid
singular.
Simultaneously, within the EU, one of the largely debated issues is that of the
possibility for a European identity surpassing but not erasing the borders of national
identities (e.g., Habermas, 2007). Thus, the new European citizens, if they were to
emerge, might experience a dual (or multiple) identity not so different from the
present Roma experience (not forgetting, of course, that European Roma should, in
theory, also be European citizens). The question is, then, could the debate over the
development of a European identity be informed by the (marginalized) Romani
experience.
The current paper considers the role of communication in constructing and
sustaining European Roma’s dual identity and discusses possible links between
debates on European and on Roma identity. Specifically, it explores the ways in which
communication theories can explain the history and the present of European Roma’s
marginal national belonging and Roma’s transnational bonding in the face of such
marginalization. Cursorily, and by no means exhaustively, I also consider the
implications the Romani experience may have on debates on European identity and
the reasons why such implications may be overlooked. I argue that, in regards to
Roma identity, theoretical interpretations need to be reconsidered to encompass the
experience of dual collective identity, related to experiences of marginalization and
activism. Such focus does not only provide a new, more positive, direction for
consideration of the Romani experience, it also may inform debates on European
supernational identity.
Because of the socially marginal status of European Roma, three theories
connecting matters of power and (in)equality, identity, and communication are
considered as explanatory lenses of the Romani experience: Anderson’s (2006)
imagined communities, Habermas’ (1962/1991) public sphere (which presently
extends to a ‘‘transnational public space,’’ Habermas, 2007, p. 82), and Kramarae’s
(1981) muted groups. Within each theoretical vista, the European Roma experience
of identity and identity formation is considered. I begin with some historical and
social background on the European Roma, Roma activism, and identity. After
discussing the Roma’s experience of marginalization and transnational bonding
through the lens of each of the above theoretical frameworks, I conclude with possible
implications for reconsidering collective identity as a multiple entity within the
framework of political communication.
280 L. L. Herakova
Roma, Roma Rights, and Roma Identity in the European Context
Currently, ‘‘Roma’’ is the formally accepted and politically correct name for those who
are most popular under the (derogative) label of ‘‘Gypsies.’’ The unifying name was
accepted as a self-appellation in 1971 at the First World Romani Congress (Patrin,
1998). When it comes to individual self-identification, however, not all Gypsies would
consider themselves Roma (Margalit & Matras, 2007; Petrova, 2003). Petrova (2003)
sees present-day Roma as a ‘‘continuum of more or less related subgroups with
complex, flexible, and multilevel identities’’ ( p. 114). Because of such heterogeneity,
the notion of a unified transnational Roma identity is sometimes contested and seen as
a political assumption more than anything else (e.g., Simhandal, 2006).
Despite such contentions, and indeed fueling them, the dominant published
discourse suggests a transnational Roma identity that coexists with intragroup
subdivisions and Roma’s national identities (e.g., Gheorghe & Acton, 2001; Horváth,
2006; Marushiakova & Popov, 2001; Stauber & Vago, 2007). Such arguments are
mostly supported by Roma’s efforts to organize internationally without abandoning
their national and subgroup identities (Marushiakova & Popov, 2001). As summed
up in Gheorghe and Hedman’s (2000) online press release announcing the first
International Roma Day:
The spirit of the First International Congress set up a goal to bring the Roma together and to encourage them to act throughout the world, to bring about their emancipation in accordance with their own intuition and ideals*to go forward to a rhythm that suits them. Everything they do will bear the mark of their own personality, it will be amaro romano drom, ‘‘our own Gypsy way.’’ (’2)
Such sentiments suggest not only that the Roma are organizing internationally, but also
that there are common Romani ‘‘intuition and ideals,’’ ‘‘rhythm,’’ and ‘‘personality’’
that bind the Roma together. Further, these qualities are discursively positioned in
emancipatory resistance to the continued marginalization of the Roma. Thus, the
historical construction of Roma’s marginal social status as national citizens seems to
have affected the historical construction of a transnational Romani identity. This
section of the paper traces connections between Roma history, Roma rights, and Roma
identity in Europe.
Overview of Roma History in Europe
While reports on Romani arrival from India to Europe vary, most scholars agree that
certain Roma tribes were present in 11th-century Byzantium (European Union, 2004;
Fraser, 1995; Petrova, 2003) when settled communities already populated Europe.
Some sources suggest that in Eastern and Central Europe the Roma enjoyed relative
equality under Ottoman rule (e.g., European Union, 2004). However, others (e.g.,
Oprea, 2005) find that some practices of the Roma, currently criticized by human
rights activists, such as pollution taboos, developed as resistance strategies under
slavery. Citing Hancock, Petrova (2003) also asserts that ‘‘undeniably, the Romani
culture has historically been relatively closed and inaccessible to outsiders, which
Journal of International and Intercultural Communication 281
would be expected from a community constantly at risk’’ ( p. 138; Margalit & Matras,
2007, echo a similar observation). Such statements not only assume a ‘‘Romani
culture,’’ they also suggest Romani bonding in the face of discrimination.
Petrova (2003) traces the ‘‘core of the anti-Gypsy stereotype’’ to the ‘‘fifteenth-
century encounter of the nomadic Roma with Western European civilization’’ ( p. 127).
The nomad lifestyle contradicted the developing nation-state model of territorial
enclosures. Further, the developing ethics of Protestant Christianity and capitalism saw
the Romani traveling habits and lack of steady occupations as unproductive and
suspicious of criminal activity (Gheorghe & Acton, 2001; Petrova, 2003). At the same
time, contemporary notions of policing were developing, legitimizing Roma prosecu-
tion and contributing to the contemporary Roma-criminality myth (European Union,
2004), which is still often cited as a valid reason for segregation and exclusion (e.g.,
Xanthaki, 2005, p. 517). The successful ideological construction of the anti-Roma
stereotype emphasizes the historically weak social position of the Roma, which is
currently perceived as a major obstacle to overcoming negative misconceptions
(European Union, 2004; Oprea, 2005; Petrova, 2003).
More recently, the ‘‘Roma problem’’ became significantly more visible after the fall
of the communist regimes in Eastern and Central Europe, where the majority of
European Roma live. Under communism, the Roma, as national citizens, relied on
state institutions that legitimized equal basic rights for all. This link was broken after
1989. According to Kovats (1999), ‘‘‘Integration’ meant Roma had to negotiate with
institutions in order to secure services and resources. It also brought into sharp focus
inequalities in distribution and heightened the debilitating effects of anti-Roma
prejudice’’ ( p. 149). Inequalities, as a foundational concern of Roma activism, are
mostly evaluated as such in contrast to other citizens of the European states in which
Roma reside.
Roma Activism, Roma Identity
Although highlighting a transnational effort to organize, Roma activism is grounded
in a sense of national identification with the country of residence, which allows for
comparison with other citizens of the same state. As a Rom, Horváth (2006)
emphasizes this relation:
According to our inner identity, we exist as a cultural and economic community
based on the clan system. Yet, we have another identity derived from the
surrounding nations, perceived as an entity distinct from those amongst whom
we live (. . .) this second identity also means that we consider ourselves part of those (majority) nations and we see ourselves with their own eyes, although the
latter do not believe that we are also they. ( p. 1)
Thus, for the Roma, discrimination is (largely) a national experience, while the
antidiscrimination effort has more transnational dimensions. Although the problem
of anti-Roma discrimination was recognized much earlier than after the fall of
communism (for example, at the First World Romani Congress in 1971), Roma
282 L. L. Herakova
activism did not really draw international attention until the 1990s (Simhandal, 2006;
Vermeersch, 2005).
Also at this time, the wider use of the previously accepted name ‘‘Roma’’ was
propelled in effort to escape negative stereotyping associated with the traditionally
used ‘‘Gypsy’’ (Marushiakova & Popov, 2001). Simhandal (2006) points out that in
comparison to ‘‘Gypsy,’’ which was an exonym, ‘‘Roma’’ was a politically selected
endonym, which only entered the dominant discourse in the 1990s. This ethnically
unifying (re)naming was perceived as necessary by external and internal activists as
a way to foster political and social change, based on ‘‘existing international norms
and standards for recognizing cultural, ethnic, and national minority identities’’
(Vermeersch, 2005, p. 456).
The making of a European Roma identity was an attention-grabbing strategy of the
earliest activist efforts, projected, for example, in the Human Rights Watch reports of
the early 1990s (Vermeersch, 2005). The idea was that the more grandiose and
nonborder-confined the problem, the larger its chance of receiving international
support. Shahar (2007) points out that the effort to emphasize a transnational Gypsy/
Roma identity has been criticized for allowing the emergence of large-scale anti-
Gypsism. However, Shahar refutes such criticism, connecting the notion of a
transnational, ethnically large, Roma identity to political battles for inclusion which
opposes views of the Roma as ‘‘social misfits’’ who are ‘‘targeted for assimilation’’ (p.
14).
The acceptance of a transnational Roma identity by the dominant political discourse
is also evident in the establishment of EU’s Specialist Group on Roma and Gypsies and
the European Roma Rights Center (ERRC; Guet, 2006). Today, the ‘‘Roma problem’’
persistently stays on the global social-change radar, as visible from the recent World
Bank initiative on the Decade of Roma Inclusion. In addition, the Amala School offers
education in ‘‘Romany culture in an original setting’’ (Amala School, n.d.). Even
though the summer workshops are held in Serbia, the school does not claim to offer an
experience of the Serbian Romani culture, but of the (transnational) all-Romani
culture. Further, the founder of the school, Dragan Ristic, clearly links the activist
efforts of the school with both a reality of an all-Romani culture and a non-Romani
perception of such a reality:
Our approach to the majority population is to play to the image of Gypsy as
musicians and singers. They like it because they really react to the Roma just like
entertaining minstrels . . . in this way, we proudly have a way to involve our culture in European and world culture. (Talvi, 2006, p. 47)
Thus, the idea of a common Roma-ness becomes a Roma activist tool. However, the
political function of transnational commonality is problematic. Criticisms address
the notion that a unified identity allows for unified culture-based blaming of the
individual for his or her social standing (Petrova, 2003; Vermeersch, 2005; Xanthaki,
2005). Further, not all gypsies adopt the ‘‘Roma’’ identity and its implications (e.g.,
the German Sinti, see Margalit & Matras, 2007), while outsiders may readily label
them as such.
Journal of International and Intercultural Communication 283
The Problematic of a Transnational Roma Identity
‘‘Roma’’ as an identity marker is not clearly defined in the traditional sense*‘‘No one presents a greater challenge to the ‘classic’ situation in social and cultural policy of
equating one people with one culture than the Roma’’ (Gheorghe & Acton, 2001,
p. 54). The heterogeneity of the group (Marushiakova & Popov, 2001; Petrova, 2003;
Stauber & Vago, 2007) and the elasticity of the ‘‘Roma’’ category in European discourse
(Simhandal, 2006) make fixing Roma identity difficult. Furthermore, these same
characteristics may suggest that ‘‘Roma’’ is the category of ‘‘other,’’ which can only be
defined in respect to that which it is not, as in, for example, marking ‘‘other’’ when
none of the check-box options for ethnicity or race applies.
Although this text cannot offer a full treatment of Roma’s transnational identity, the
arguments made here are based on an understanding of a politically constructed Roma
transnationality as an ethnic community ‘‘possessing a myth of common descent,
common historical memories, elements of shared culture, an association with
particular territory and sense of solidarity’’ (Smith, as quoted in Stauber & Vago,
2007, p. 117). As such, the sense of Roma transnationality is supported by the narratives
of common origin in India, common history of European marginalization of Gypsies/
Roma, common art forms and linguistic foundation, and organized Roma activism
against marginalization. These elements of a basis for community were discussed in the
previous two sections. In addition, it is worth noting that a sense of Roma transnational
solidarity has also been constructed through conscious group differentiation from the
gadje or non-Roma (Gheorghe & Acton, 2001), including the very naming of the gadje.
The articulation and repetition of narratives of Roma-ness, for example, in forms of
organized cultural reproduction such as the International Roma Day and the Amala
School, has continued to work toward establishing the reality of Roma transnational
identity.
On the other hand, perhaps the most serious criticism of the notion of a
transnational Roma identity comes from questioning its organic realness. Simhandal
(2006) criticizes the assumption of a transnational Roma-ness, pointing out that
‘‘Roma’’ is a political category created and altered in and by EU and European
Commission discourse since the 1970s. She makes a strong case for the ways in which
dominant discourse mutes marginalized groups (Kramarae, 1981) by naming them
and confining their realities into a language of power. However astute this discourse-
grounded observation about ‘‘the relevance of language in the construction of the
social world’’ (Simhandal, 2006, p. 98) may be, it neglects Romani self-organizing
around the sense of Roma-ness. Simhandal discusses the name ‘‘Roma’’ as an endonym
that gradually replaced other terms in EU discourse, but fails to notice that before the
EU adopted the name, it already was selected as a collective ‘‘category’’ by the Roma at
the First Romani Congress in 1971 (Margalit & Matras, 2007; Patrin, 1998).
This is not to say that transnational Roma-ness is any less of a political
construction than what Simhandal (2006) suggests. Indeed, Margalit and Matras
(2007) point out that even ‘‘Romani nationalists . . . implicitly accept [italics added]
the concept of Gypsies as a transnational group’’ (p. 111). However, what is relevant
284 L. L. Herakova
here is that the construction of Roma transnationality can be seen as more than an
imposed dominant discourse*it can be seen as conscious self-organizing (despite being led by Roma political elites). Indeed, it is the self-organized project of a
transnational Roma identity that may be informative to the project of a European
identity. The Romani experience and attempts at creating a collective transnational
Roma-ness that does not negate individual Roma nationalities may model the
execution of the project of a dual identity. Comparisons between the discourses and
the narratives surrounding the construction of transnational Roma-ness and Europe-
ness are beyond the scope of this paper. However, a communication theoretical look
at Romani experience of dual (national and transnational) identity provides insight
into (1) how this duality came to be, (2) how it may be sustained, and (3) why it may
be neglected as a valid model for European identity.
Theoretical Considerations of a Dual Roma Identity in the EU Context
Three sociocommunication theories provide possible context for a discussion of
Roma identity within EU nations. Each theory provides a different perspective on the
issue, forming roughly the following model: according to Anderson (2006), people
identify with a certain group based on perceived solidarities; civic solidarities,
according to Habermas (1962/1991), are formed by participating in the public sphere
and are mediated through it; finally, Kramarae (1981) considers factors limiting
participation in the public sphere, and, hence, affecting the forming of solidarities
and identity. All three theories discuss language and communication as systems of
inclusion and power relationships, suggesting implications for marginalized popula-
tions. After a brief overview of each theory, the question of Roma identity is discussed
within each specific framework.
Anderson’s Imagined Communities, Identity, and the Roma
According to Anderson (2006), ‘‘imagined communities’’ are the basis for the
development of national consciousness and nationalism. Imagined communities
include people who might never know each other, but are united by shared
knowledge of the world and by the similarities such shared knowledge highlights.
Print language has a metapower to convey such knowledge and build on similarities,
since, through advances in technology and travel, it transcends space and time. What
holds a nation together, then, is the perceived solidarity: ‘‘Members of even the
smallest nation will never know most of their fellow-members, meet them, or even
hear of them, yet in the minds of each lives the image of their communion’’
(Anderson, 2006, p. 6).
Imagined communities and Roma’s national identities. The perceived solidarity is the
starting point for the discussion on the duality of Roma identity, since one dimension
of this duality is Roma’s national identification. Horváth (2006) expresses the notion
of national identity, simultaneously reminding us of the Roma pariah position in
Journal of International and Intercultural Communication 285
society: ‘‘When we made sacrifices in the struggles of the majority nation, we were not
considered Roma. When it was the majority’s turn to help us, we became strangers in
the eyes of our own mother nation’’ (p. 1). So how is it possible for Roma to continue
perceiving themselves as members of national communities while pushed to the
margins of these communities by the national majorities?
In the center of Anderson’s theory is print language in its communicative potential
to relate experiences across space and time, thus allowing people who would never see
each other to discover similarities and develop the notion of belonging. Anderson
asserts that ‘‘much of the most important thing about language is its capacity for
generating imagined communities, building in effect particular solidarities’’ (2006,
p. 133). Furthermore, ‘‘language is not an instrument of exclusion: in principle, anyone
can learn any language’’ (p. 134).
This theory of language as a builder of imagined national communities explains (at
least partially) Roma’s national identification since, for the most part, Roma are able to
speak and read the language of the ‘‘host’’ nation. At the same time, Romani languages
do not have written forms. Roma share knowledge and use of the scripted national
language with the national majority. Simultaneously, most of the majority population
is not familiar with Romani languages. This further encloses the Roma, not allowing
the gadje (non-Roma) to develop a bond of solidarity with the Roma community, even
if other factors did not preclude that. Moreover, if we follow Anderson’s hypothesis
further, the lack of Romani script would prevent the Romani community from
forming a Romani national consciousness leading to demands for territorial and
political independence.
In addition, Roma’s particular national identity is legitimized by formal documents
(e.g., ID cards) written in the particular national language. To further strengthen the
legitimacy of national belonging and foster social inclusion, educational institutions
also step forth in the integration efforts (e.g., Panayotova, 2002), providing primarily
mono-lingual education in the national vernacular and script. However, curricula
seldom include mentions of the Romani lifestyle, culture, history, and so forth.
Similarly, Anderson (2006) notes in regard to colonialism that the ‘‘paradox of
imperial official nationalism was that it inevitably brought what were increasingly
thought of and written about as European ‘national histories’ into the consciousness
of the colonized’’ (p. 118).
Thus, Roma inclusion increasingly reminds of Roma assimilation (if not internal
colonization). In defining their identity, Roma have to negotiate between the
education they receive in schools (which ignores the legitimacy of their culture
altogether) and the knowledge they receive within the Roma community through
experience and verbal transmission of traditions and histories. By excluding the Roma
from curricula, the educational system suggests that fully fledged national identity
requires renouncement of the Roma identity; that duality is impossible.
Székelyi, Csepeli, and Örkény (2003) hint that Roma might have picked up on this
suggestion supported by observational ‘‘knowledge’’ that most non-Roma live better
than the Roma. Székelyi et al. note that Roma with an upward social mobility often
do not claim Roma identity. Among Roma of various social statuses, they found that
286 L. L. Herakova
‘‘the tendency toward assimilation prevails especially when weakening Romany [sic]
identity is associated with relatively high status and a neglect of Romany culture’’
(Székelyi et al., 2003, p. 70). Similarly, Margalit and Matras (2007) note that in their
attempts to become German nationals, Sinti feel the necessity to distinguish
themselves from the Roma, despite evidence for common Gypsy genealogy. In this
context, true social integration might mean that Roma are recognized as nationals
without having to denounce their transnational identity.
Imagined communities and Roma’s transnational identity. The idea of a transnational
identity remains challenging, while the reality of it presses questions. Without written
language and print culture to preserve history and connect generations, how does the
idea of a transnational Roma-ness fit Anderson’s framework of imagined communities?
Ardovino (2005) suggests ‘‘imagined communities might also be defined in terms of
citizenship and political participation, based on a civic approach, or they might be
based on historical biological links which presuppose an ethnic approach’’ (p. 31). As an
activist effort, Roma’s transnational identity may be seen as part of the civic approach.
In addition, however, a claim of common ethnic origin in India is part of the myth
binding a transnational Roma identity (Stauber & Vago, 2007). In the absence of a
written language, however, how does this binding ethnic myth reach Roma commu-
nities and how is it reproduced within such communities? One answer may go back to
the sites of cultural reproduction, such as the International Roma Day and the Amala
School for Romani Language and Culture. Such consideration will extend Anderson’s
focus on the written language and may also suggest ways for European transnational
bonding which does not require abandoning one’s national identity.
Certainly, suggestions in support of the above possibility of transnational identity
building by means other than written communication are not absent from popular
discourse on sustaining and communicating identity. There are suggestions, for
example, that plantation slaves in the U.S. formed solidarities through the humming
of melodies, since they did not share a language, leave alone a scripted form
(Hayward & Norris, 2007). Anderson (2006) touches on the idea of religious
paintings as contextualized representations through which people form affiliations
and develop a sense of belonging. Yet, he pronounces such a form archaic and does
not consider the potential of communicative means other than written language to
form solidarities.
Since members of the EU do not share the same language or script system (since the
acceptance of Bulgaria in the EU, Latin and Cyrillic are the official alphabets), the
question is also pertinent to the debate over the possibility for a European identity to
surpass but not erase national identities. Although Anderson (2006) points out that ‘‘in
principle, anyone can learn any language’’ ( p. 134), should we limit our understanding
of language and ignore the possibility of other means for effective development and
sustainability of a collective identity? The example of the building of a transnational
Roma identity, continued despite linguistic differences and lack of a Romani writing
system, certainly seems to suggest an answer to the contrary. Furthermore, although
Roma’s marginal national status may have served as a motivation for transnational
Journal of International and Intercultural Communication 287
community building, marginality certainly does not seem to be a requirement. Debates
on the possibility of European transnational identity suggest such motivation for
identity building already exists among Europeans; the Roma experience can serve as an
embodied example for enactment of this motivation.
However, the potential of alternative ways to a collective identity is not too popular
in the discourse on European identity. In fact, one of the most prominent supporters
of the notion of identity ‘‘beyond national borders’’ (Habermas, 2003), Habermas,
refers, very similarly to Anderson, to the language-mediated model of national
consciousness development as a blueprint for developing a European identity.
Further, Habermas is concerned with the public sphere where civic participation
legitimizes the belonging to a certain imagined community (solidarity). The Roma
experience might suggest, however, that in the face of exclusion from the public
sphere, other ways of community and identity building might be possible.
Habermas’ Public Sphere, Identity, and the Roma
In regards to the possibility of European identity, Habermas (2003) asserts that ‘‘the
process by which European states of the nineteenth century gradually created national
consciousness and civic solidarity*the earliest modern form of collective identity’’ (pp. 97�98) is a learning process of identity formation, which can be extended transnationally. In this, he hypothesizes the existence of a ‘‘transnational public
space’’ (Habermas, 2007, p. 82) as the sole arena where a civic European identity can
evolve through the ‘‘process of consciousness formation’’ (p. 82).
The notion of a ‘‘transnational public space’’ (Habermas, 2007, p. 82) is an extension
of Habermas’ (1962/1991) seminal concept of ‘‘public sphere.’’ As a construct, the
public sphere is the connecting space between society and state, and the arena of public
opinion formation. The public sphere provides an intersection for the functionality
(strategic and purposeful actions) of political and economic systems (the state) and the
moral consciousness of society (Edwards, 2004). Public opinion arises as an expression
of civic solidarities in this intersection.
According to Habermas (1962/1991), the public sphere was ‘‘established’’ (p. 106) in
the homes of bourgeoisie. In an unmistakable connection between imagined
communities and the public sphere, Anderson (2006) notes that ‘‘in world-historical
terms bourgeoisies were the first classes to achieve solidarities on an essentially
imagined basis’’ (p. 77). Although both public sphere and imagined communities are by
definition potentially inclusive, they are literacy based, which makes participation in
both dependant on social status, education, and access to a common communicative
system.
In fact, Habermas (1962/1991) emphasizes the issue of social inequality, embedded
in the history of the public sphere:
In the case of the structural transformation of the bourgeois public sphere, we can
study the extent to which, and the matter in which, the latter’s ability to assume its
proper function determines whether the exercise of domination and power persists
288 L. L. Herakova
as a negative constant, as it were, of history*or whether as a historical category itself, it is open to substantive change. (p. 250)
Since the public sphere provides an arena for the forming of civic solidarities, the
major issue of inequality in its context is that of inclusive participation. Thus,
marginalization can be deliberately or accidentally achieved by limited access to the
public sphere.
Exclusion from the public sphere, transnational Roma-ness, national marginality. A
marginal position of a certain group (e.g., the Roma) within the context of a nation-
state is related to stereotyping, and stereotyping is further perpetuated by lack of
participation in the public sphere. If we accept that ‘‘the public sphere was realized . . .
in the public use of reason by all who were adept at it [italics added]’’ (Habermas, 1962/
1991, p. 105), then, not participating in the public sphere might create the impression
of even greater inferiority of the marginalized (as they would seem nonadept), despite
objective systemic limitations to participation. Thus, a sort of individual-blame
prejudice develops.
Blaming the Roma for their marginal social position is one of the most common
racism-denial mechanisms in Europe (Petrova, 2003). Roma’s historical difference
from Europeans and from the European settled lifestyle has been seen as a legitimate
reason to segregate them. This has limited their potential for participation in the
public sphere. Through their absence from that sphere, where civic solidarities form
and identities are legitimized, further segregation and marginalization of the Roma
has been perpetuated. However, the ‘‘same factors can be described as the root cause
of anti-Gypsism and the survival of the Roma as one single*but not yet internally homogenous*cultural identity’’ (Petrova, 2003, p. 113). In essence, being excluded from the public sphere, where national consciousness was forming, allowed the Roma
to ‘‘preserve the sense of belonging together’’ (p. 112). A marginalized national
identity contributed to the potentiality of a transnational identity. Similarly, present-
day activism brings up transnational Roma-ness as a strategy to opposing
discrimination of the Roma within European nation-states (e.g., Gheorghe &
Hedman, 2000).
Nevertheless, Roma do not see themselves as less ‘‘national’’ (e.g., less Bulgarian,
Hungarian, etc.) than the majority population in a certain nation-state (Horváth,
2006). The national majority, however, perceives them as outsiders. In fact, Petrova
(2003) goes as far as to determine ‘‘the essential element of anti-Gypsism that
Western and Eastern European public opinion have in common . . . [is] the
perception of Roma parasitic existence, and, hence, the deep-seated attitude that
the Gypsies are subhuman’’ (p. 132). So, while national majorities recognize the
within-the-nation existence of the Roma, they see that existence as one of an
uninvited outside organism harming the national well-being.
It is in this clash between Roma self-perceived national belonging and the majority’s
rejection of such belonging that social inequality and uneven public sphere
participation originate as a problem. Petrova’s (2003) claim for a European public
opinion which holds anti-Gypsy attitudes suggests that the Roma are, by default,
Journal of International and Intercultural Communication 289
excluded from that public opinion. According to Habermas (2006), the political public
sphere needs, but lacks, ‘‘input from citizens who give voice to society’s problems and
who respond to the issues articulated in elite discourse’’ (p. 421). He credits this lack of
responsive citizenry partially to ‘‘social deprivation and cultural exclusion’’ providing
for ‘‘uneven participation in mediated communication’’ (p. 421).
Thus, Habermas sees social inclusion as a necessity for a public sphere which
properly mediates between state and society. Extending this view to global public
sphere and to a transnational European identity, he asserts that such identity would
be achieved when ‘‘citizens are able to extend their civic solidarities beyond their
respective national borders with the goal of achieving mutual inclusion’’ (Habermas,
2007, p. 76).
On a basic level, what unifies Habermas’ public sphere and Anderson’s imagined
communities is the notion that this ‘‘mutual inclusion,’’ a sense of solidarity and shared
identity, is formed through communication among individuals and among groups.
This communication is possible through time and space by access to (1) a commonly
understood and fixed linguistic system (Anderson, 2006) and (2) a public sphere
(Habermas, 1962/1991) where the artifacts of this linguistic system are available to the
public and serve as bonds among members of the public. Limited access to these
resources, as in the case with European Roma, results in marginalization and in an
identity which, in the eyes of the majority public, is other than and inferior to their
own.
But the worldview of the marginalized is different. Horváth (2006) notes about the
Roma: ‘‘We consider ourselves part of those (majority) nations and we see ourselves
with their own eyes, although the latter do not believe that we are also they’’ (p. 1).
The feminist communication theory of muted groups (Kramarae, 1981) offers one
explanation for the occurrence of such mismatch of majority versus minority
perceptions. Muted groups theory offers a consideration of linguistic systems with
regards to matters of domination, inclusion, and social equality. It also provides one
possible explanation why a valid model, such as Roma’s experience with transnational
identity, may be neglected by the dominant discourse.
Kramarae’s Muted Group Theory, Social Equality, and the Roma
Muted group theory (MGT) considers language as a constructively expressive entity
which affects and legitimizes the distribution of social power. This concern with
language’s social significance connects MGT with Anderson’s imagined communities
and Habermas’ public sphere.
The theory is based on the idea that language reflects a worldview. Similarly,
Habermas (1962/1991) supports the Kantian notion that the world is ‘‘constituted in
the communication of rational beings’’ (p. 106). However, inequality arises when not
all communication is equally valued and, hence, worldviews*and, in this, mindfully constructed worlds*are disregarded. In short, elites determine and enforce the collective linguistic system and ostracize what does not fit the norm. Printing, on the
290 L. L. Herakova
other hand, allowed the mass production of the normative language, thus legitimizing
it and producing ‘‘languages-of-power’’ (Anderson, 2006, p. 45).
According to MGT, the existence of such languages-of-power allows for a social
order of inequality to persist, as not everyone is allowed equal opportunity to
participate in the formation of public opinion. In its anthropological foundation, the
theory asks ‘‘whether everyone in society has participated equally in the generation of
ideas and their encoding into discourse’’ (Ardener, 2005, p. 51). In answering these
questions, MGT posits that the dominant groups solely determine the appropriate
communicative systems and that the subordinate groups are then ‘‘inarticulate,’’
because the language they use is that of the dominant groups, instead of one that
reflects their own, unique point of view (Ardener, 1975).
Although in the field of communication MGT was originally concerned with
gender-based social inequalities (Kramarae, 1981), the theory has been further
extended to the communication practices of minorities (Orbe, 1994, 1996, 1998).
This application, coupled with the unquestionably marginalized position of European
Roma, makes the theory relevant here. MGT also applies to matters of Romani
identity: if identity is reflected in communicative practices, exploring these practices
and their function will also provide insight into the ways in which identity is
constructed and sustained. In fact, one of Kramarae’s (1981) first assertions is that
‘‘experiences peculiar to the subordinate group have not yet been encoded in a
language’’ (p. 7). Therefore, feminism’s advance to gender equality included women’s
efforts to ‘‘name themselves and their activities’’ (Kramarae, 1981, p. 8). Similarly, the
First World Romani Congress in 1971 named ‘‘Roma’’ the groups of heterogeneous
‘‘Gypsy’’ clans that originated in India and spread throughout the world. In addition,
museum exhibitions and cultural celebrations, such as the International Roma Day,
also encode Roma experiences in a communicative system that is familiar to them, but
is also understood by the majority, as Dragan Ristic may suggest (Talvi, 2006).
Following MGT, the unifying name ‘‘Roma,’’ though arbitrary, is more than one
more word in dominant vocabularies*it allowed for a consideration of a worldview previously disregarded; it allowed for the beginning of a process of legitimization of
an identity which was traditionally pariah in dominant European (and other)
societies. The name ‘‘Roma’’ was not readily accepted. However, ‘‘in recent years . . . the term ‘Roma,’ which is the ethno-cultural self-appellation of many of those
perceived by outsiders as ‘Gypsies,’ has come to dominate the official political
discourse, at least in Europe, and has acquired the legitimacy of political correctness’’
(Petrova, 2003, p. 111).
This gradual acceptance of ‘‘Roma’’ as an identity marker also signifies the
acceptance of a transnational identity, as the unifying identity marker ‘‘Roma’’ applies
to groups dispersed in different European states. Simhandal (2006) argues that the
use of the term by EU institutions may in fact be violent, as, in such use, the
dominant discourse confines marginalized groups. However, it is worth remembering
that ‘‘Roma’’ was adopted by geographically dispersed Gypsy groups as a self-
appellation prior to the EU use of the term. Yet, not understanding the national-
transnational duality of Romani identity, the dominant discourse had attempted to
Journal of International and Intercultural Communication 291
cast the Roma transnational identity in a national mold (Margalit & Matras, 2007).
Horváth (2006) finds ‘‘initiatives to create a Romani nation . . . are anachronistic, violent and futile’’ (p. 2). He asserts that ‘‘the idea of a separate Romani political
entity was not developed by the Roma’’ (p. 2), but is rather a pseudo-humanitarian
act, fitted to the European nation-state model.
If we look at that situation from the combined points of view of imagined
communities, public sphere, and muted groups, the act of casting the Roma in a
singular national identity is really one of exclusion, rather than inclusion. A Romani
nationality (as opposed to transnationality) would mean that the Roma do not have
to claim the national identity of the majority. If the Roma had a territorial nation of
their own, on the face of it, they will not be a marginalized national community,
because they will be their own entity, separate from and outside the current national
majorities; they will not be ‘‘muted,’’ because they will be given the right to dominate
their own national discourse.
The problem is, of course, that the very suggestion of casting the Roma into a
nation-state mold mutes them by admitting only one concept (worldview) of identity
as normative. Because dual identity is not generally part of the dominant experience,
there is also no language to properly and meaningfully name and describe such an
experience. Kramarae (1981) posits that in such a situation the subordinate groups
‘‘are likely to find ways to express themselves outside of the dominant public modes of
expression . . . in both their verbal conventions and their nonverbal behavior’’ (p. 4). Perhaps traditions develop out of such alternative modes of expression. For example,
Oprea (2005) suggests that what she sees and has experienced as the Romani tradition
of child marriage as a communicative ritual was a response to historic threats from
national majorities.
However, even if the dominant group realizes that subordinate groups do have
means of expression, they might dismiss them as incomprehensible. Kramarae’s
(1981) comment about the language-worldview relationship between men and
women as dominant and subordinate groups applies here, as well: ‘‘While women
have had to learn the language structure of the dominant group, men have seldom
had to discern or have wanted to discern the women’s model of the world’’ (p. 9). The
potential dismissal of communicative means and systems enhances the ‘‘otherness’’ of
the marginalized.
At the same time, MGT posits that the subordinate groups would adapt to the
dominant modes of expression and be able to use and understand them (Kramarae,
1981). Such a majority versus minority dichotomy may explain why Roma have a
sense of national identity, seeing learned similarity in communicative means, while
the national majorities do not necessarily feel the Roma share a national identity with
them, because of a focus on the difference. In their subordinate position within
European nation-states, Roma appear to have adapted to at least some of the
dominant modes of expression in attempts to participate, if marginally, in society.
Perhaps not all of this adaptation has been voluntary and what we see today as
Roma’s ability to speak the national languages of the states where they reside, for
example, is a result of assimilation politics. However, some of this adaptation has
292 L. L. Herakova
been a more organic process, which has also affected and changed Romani
communities, contributing to present-day differences in language dialects, traditional
practices, and lifestyles (Margalit & Matras, 2007). Beyond the use of language,
ethnographic research suggests Romani adaptation to the dominant culture is also
expressed in leaving and forgetting their traditional crafts and occupations for more
‘‘socially acceptable’’ jobs (e.g., Slavkova, 2007).
Along with such adaptation to the dominant culture, however, Roma have
preserved some common cultural base with other Roma throughout the world,
allowing for the potentiality of transnational activist bonding (e.g., Gheorghe &
Hedman, 2000). Such a dual identity, even its potential, is unfitted to the singular
national identity model, dominant in European societies, which makes the duality
incomprehensible and often ignored. Horváth (2006) points out that ‘‘the non-
Romani people imagine the Romani identity as a lot more unambiguous, coherent,
and descriptive than how the Roma see themselves’’ (p. 3). Such a reflection, from an
emic perspective, suggests a perception of being fitted in the dominant discourse, so
as to be made sense of. Such experience, in turn, marks not integration, but social
exclusion.
Through the theories of imagined communities (Anderson, 2006), public sphere
(Habermas, 1962/1991), and muted groups (Kramarae, 1981), this essay suggests that
identity and identity perception are related to social dominance and inclusion.
Further, all three theories support the notion that identity and especially identity
perceptions are constructed through communication and that communication is a
power-arena. While such considerations explain the Romani marginal status in
Europe and the process of social exclusion, they do not provide sufficient (if any)
background to understand the phenomenon of duality of Roma identity.
The idea of transnational identity might be comparatively new in the context of
European unification, but for the Roma the notion of such an identity, which surpasses
but does not erase the national identity, seems to be a longer standing tradition. The
fact that the conceptual model of duality is not seen as possible for European identity
only emphasizes the insignificance attached to European Roma, their lifestyles, and
experiences. Moreover, the inevitable focus on the exclusion happening within
national borders, rather than on the collective solidarity across borders, suggests
that perhaps the theoretical model linking identity and communication needs to be
reconsidered.
Implications for European Identity and Social Inclusion of the Roma
The Roma experience of identity is unique in its lack of singularity or coherency.
Formally, Roma are national citizens of the countries they inhabit. They accept and
live that national identity. At the same time, they self-organize in and identify with
a Romani transnational community which has no nationalistic territorial or political
aspirations. The nonschizophrenic coexistence of these two identities is difficult to
comprehend in the European model of modernity, which centers on national
consciousness and civic participation. The ambiguity of Romani identity enhances
Journal of International and Intercultural Communication 293
the group’s marginal status in European societies. The logic of social exclusion sees
the Roma as national parasites who, having a unity resembling national community,
‘‘lack the ambition to create a nation’’ (Horváth, 2006, p. 1).
Paradoxically, such logic of exclusion carries into efforts for (so called) social
inclusion of the Roma, which become more of assimilation than integration efforts.
As such, they often meet resistance among the Roma who feel just as strong a bond
with their Roma-ness as with their national-ness. The problem is that often
integration efforts organized, carried on, and monitored from outsiders, as well-
intentioned as they might be, rely on traditional interpretations of theoretical models
and rarely succeed in understanding Romani experience, adapting the models to that
experience, and move toward true integration.
The theoretical models themselves are not inherently and entirely inapplicable. In
fact, this paper employed three theories to pursue further understanding of the
Romani marginalized experience and its effect on Romani identity. Linking the
paradigms on imagined communities (Anderson, 2006), public sphere (Habermas,
1962/1991), and muted groups (Kramarae, 1981) in the national context, one may
conclude that Roma are generally excluded from national imagined communities
because inarticulateness and nondominant worldview (because of different experi-
ences) prevent them from participation in the public sphere. Such lack of participation
allows the formation of an anti-Roma public opinion continuing the cycle of
marginalization in national societies.
However, a significant gap remains in such an analysis*an attention to that which is different in the Roma experience, namely, the duality of collective identity. If
Anderson’s and Habermas’ models are truly applicable to the development of national
consciousness and if the Roma transnational consciousness resembles that national
model in certain aspects, but is yet different in its construction and sustainability, it
would be beneficial to explore that difference as a possible alternative model.
Furthermore, building on MGT (Kramarae, 1981), Orbe (e.g., 1996, 1998) proposes
cocultural theory as a way to focus on the unique communicative systems
nondominant groups develop in order to participate in and interact with dominant
cultures. This essay suggests that the Roma might have developed such a commu-
nicative system in relation to their activist efforts of transnational community building
(e.g., the model of the Amala School), while, at the same time, adapting to the
dominant communicative systems of the states where they reside. Applying cocultural
theory to future Roma research may provide more specific insights into the Roma
communicative system and its relation to both national and transnational identity.
Such an approach may also offer an alternative to Simhandal’s (2006) criticism of the
trajectory of Roma research as violating Roma rights by blindly and ignorantly naming
Roma experiences.
Finally, the Roma experience is worth exploring for its potential of simultaneously
building and sustaining both national and transnational identity. Anderson (2006)
suggested that the ability to communicate a shared narrative and discourse is
foundational for the formation of national identity. A similar process might be going
on in Roma’s efforts of transnational community building. Some of the elements of
294 L. L. Herakova
their shared narratives*their origin in India, their common linguistic base, and experiences of discrimination in Europe*have been discussed here and elsewhere. However, the discourse reproducing these narratives has not been explored in much
depth. Roma around the world now have their own publications, web sites,
organizations, and events*these are all sites of Romani discourse. To better understand the potential role of the Romani model to European identity building,
such discourses might also be compared with European discourses on shared identity
and narratives to support such identity. Such a task was beyond the scope of this text,
but, however cursory, this essay suggest parallels between Romani and European
transnational community building are worth exploring.
Considering the duality of Romani experience of identity and community, as
suggested here, and if communication is essential to the politics and the existence of a
community, it is impossible to assume that Roma are inept in communicating. It is
safer and, at the same time, more challenging to question dominant interpretations’
ineptness at reading and listening to Romani communication systems and identity. In
a hopeful opening for future research, such questioning leaves ellipsis, so that more
innovative and ethical ideas for minority integration and community building may
enter.
References
Amala School. (n.d.). Retrieved October 13, 2008, from http://www.galbeno.com/
Anderson, B. (2006). Imagined communities (3rd ed.). London: Verso.
Ardener, S. (1975). Perceiving women. London: Malaby/Dent.
Ardener, S. (2005). Ardener’s ‘‘muted groups’’: The genesis of an idea and its praxis. Women and
Language, 28, 50�54. Ardovino, M. (2005). Are the Balkan EU candidates different? Building a Balkan model of support
for European integration. Romanian Journal of Political Science, 1, 29�51. Edwards, G. (2004). Habermas and social movements: What’s ‘‘new’’? In N. Crossley & J. M.
Roberts (Eds.), After Habermas: New perspectives in the public sphere (pp. 113�131). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.
European Commission. (2000). Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the
principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origins
[Electronic version]. Official Journal of the European Communities, L 180, 22�26. European Union. (2004). The situation of Roma in an enlarged European Union. Retrieved January
29, 2007, from http://www.errc.org/db/00/E0/m000000E0.pdf
Fraser, A. (1995). The Gypsies (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Gheorghe, N., & Acton, T. (2001). Citizens of the world and nowhere: Minority, ethnic and human
rights for Roma during the last hurrah of the nation state. In W. Guy (Ed.), Between past and
future: The Roma of Central and Eastern Europe (pp. 54�71). Hatfield, UK: University of Hertfordshire Press.
Gheorghe, N., & Hedman, H. (2000, March 23). To whom it april concern. Retrieved October 15,
2008, from http://www.romnews.com/community/modules.php?op�modload&name� News&file�article&sid�556
Guet, M. (2006). MG-S-Rom: Council of Europe Committee of Experts of Roma and Travellers: 10
years experience behind and new challenges ahead. Roma Rights Quarterly, 2/3. Retrieved
February 15, 2007, from http://www.errc.org/cikk.php?cikk�2652
Journal of International and Intercultural Communication 295
Habermas, J. (1991). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of
bourgeois society (2nd ed., T. Burger, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Originally
published in German, 1962, Darmstadt, Germany: Luchterhand)
Habermas, J. (2003). Toward a cosmopolitan Europe. Journal of Democracy, 14, 86�100. Habermas, J. (2006). Political communication in media society: Does democracy still enjoy an
epistemic dimension? The impact of normative theory on empirical research. Communication
Theory, 16, 411�426. Habermas, J. (2007). The divided West. Malden, MA: Polity Press.
Hayward, A. S. (Writer), & Norris, M. (Host). (2007). A joyful noise! [Radio series episode]. In E. V.
Tait, Jr. (Producer), Every voice and sing! Washington, DC: National Public Radio.
Horváth, A. (2006). Gadjo nation, Roma nation. Roma Rights Quarterly, 2/3. Retrieved February 14,
2007, from http://www.errc.org/cikk.php?cikk�2655 Kovats, M. (1999). Minority rights and Roma politics in Hungary. In K. Cordell (Ed.), Ethnicity and
democratisation in New Europe (pp. 145�157). London: Routledge. Kramarae, C. (1981). Women and men speaking. Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers.
Margalit, G., & Matras, Y. (2007). Gypsies in Germany*German Gypsies? Identity and politics of Sinti and Roma in Germany. In R. Satuber & R. Vago (Eds.), The Roma: A minority in Europe
(pp. 103�116). New York: Central European University Press. Marushiakova, E., & Popov, V. (2001). Historical and ethnographic background: Gypsies, Roma,
Sinti. In W. Guy (Ed.), Between past and future: The Roma of Central and Eastern Europe (pp.
33�54). Hatfield, UK: University of Hertfordshire Press. Oprea, A. (2005). Child marriage a cultural problem, education access a race issue? Deconstructing
the uni-dimensional understanding of Romani oppression. Roma Rights Quarterly, 2.
Retrieved February 14, 2007, from http://www.errc.org/cikk.php?cikk�2295 Orbe, M. (1994). ‘‘Remember it’s always Whites’ ball’’: Descriptions of African American male
communication. Communication Quarterly, 42, 287�300. Orbe, M. (1996). Laying the foundation for co-cultural communication theory: An inductive
approach to studying non-dominant communication strategies and the factors that influence
them. Communication Studies, 47, 157�176. Orbe, M. (1998). An outsider within perspective to organizational communication: Explicating the
communicative practices of co-cultural group members. Management Communication
Quarterly, 12, 230�279. Panayotova, D. (2002). Successful Romani school desegregation: The Vidin case. Roma Rights
Quarterly, 3�4. Retrieved February 14, 2007, from http://www.errc.org/cikk.php?cikk�1630 Patrin. (1998, Nov. 23). Timeline of Romani history. In The Patrin web journal: Romani culture and
history (chap. 4). Retrieved July 18, 2007, from http://www.geocities.com/Paris/5121/timeline.
htm
Petrova, D. (2003). The Roma: Between a myth and the future. Social Research, 70, 111�161. Shahar, S. (2007). Religions minorities, vagabonds, and Gypsies in early modern Europe. In
R. Satuber & R. Vago (Eds.), The Roma: A minority in Europe (pp. 1�18). New York: Central European University Press.
Simhandal, K. (2006). ‘‘Western Gypsies and Travellers’’*‘‘Eastern Roma’’: The creation of political objects by the institutions of the European Union. Nations and Nationalisms, 12, 97�115.
Slavkova, M. (2007). Evangelical Gypsies in Bulgaria: Way of life and performance of identity.
Romani Studies, 17, 205�246. Stauber, R., & Vago, R. (2007). The politics of memory: Jews and Roma commemorate their
persecution. In R. Satuber & R. Vago (Eds.), The Roma: A minority in Europe (pp. 117�132). New York: Central European University Press.
Székelyi, M., Csepeli, G., & .Örkény, A. (2003). Ambitious education: The role of family, school, and
friends in the development of successful Romany life courses. Romani Studies 5, 13, 53�72.
296 L. L. Herakova
Talvi, S. J. A. (2006, June 16). Kal (black) like me [Electronic version]. In These Times, 46�47. Retrieved October 1, 2006, from http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/2701/kal_black_like_
me/
United Nations. (2000, September 18). United Nations millennium declaration. Retrieved October 1,
2006, from http://www.un.org/millennium/declaration/ares552e.pdf
Vermeersch, P. (2005). Marginality, advocacy, and the ambiguities of multiculturalism: Notes on the
Romani activism in Central Europe. Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power, 12,
451�478. Xanthaki, A. (2005). Hope dies last: An EU directive on Roma integration. European Public Law, 11,
515�526.
Journal of International and Intercultural Communication 297
