Urbanities,
Vol. 3
·
No 1
·
May 2013
© 2013
Urbanities
main ingredient for the construction of the image of the Roma, and even serves as a
derivative for their ethnic definition, at least in Britain (Liégeois 2007). Despite the
politically neutral connotation of the term ‘travellers’, or ‘gens du voyage’ in French,
mobility has strong negative social implications as it is intricately connoted with instability
(which contains the notion of unpredictability, a notion that in turn contradicts the very aim of
applied political or managerial sciences). The concept of informality applies to social
identities and how they can be essentialized when applied to the Roma.
Following classical theories of social representations (Jodelet 1989), informality can
be seen as a major characteristic of the Roma/Gypsies. As Norbert Elias had observed for the
court society (Elias 1969), social status depends mainly on public opinion or social
representations of the majority. In the case of the Roma, informality applies to their identity
and status, helping the construction of stereotypes and prejudices linked traditionally with
informality. The fact that Roma/Gypsies mainly rely on informal networks and informal
economic activities is also common knowledge.
Informality
is a part of their assigned and
assumed identity and also contributes to forming the stereotype which has stuck for years; in
the negative light of vagrancy and laziness or, positively, as the expression of their freedom
and detachment from or even despise for ‘bourgeois’ values (Ruegg 2004).
Poverty as the expression of informality and the incapacity to manage one’s life has
attracted much more attention from the scholars and activists than the informal networks
linked with corruption and trafficking. However, as far as housing is concerned, the wild
urbanisation or acquisition of properties by the new rich – Roma or not – has not hit the front
page. For the Roma, informality is primarily a survival strategy in asymmetrical social
relationships, particularly in economically difficult times. I also believe that
Roma
informality
, as their major survival strategy, will not be recognised as positive as long as their
social status remains as it is now, i.e. that of outcasts. But what about the rich Roma and their
visibility? Do they correspond to the stereotype of informality or do they challenge it, as they
challenge the stereotype of poverty?
Roma palaces as the sign of an unacceptable Roma establishment
I would argue that the visibility of new rich Roma in solid and ostentatious buildings, in
Romania as in other Balkan countries, challenges the representation of their supposed
informality and marginality. It also breaks down the stereotype according to which Roma can
only perform survival economic activities and live in poverty. In addition, for the external
(moral) observer, successful informality is immediately linked with illegality, which allows
8
