Urbanities,
Vol. 3
·
No 1
·
May 2013
© 2013
Urbanities
Anthropologists here will again remember that the same had been said earlier about a
variety of small, exotic, segmentary
traditional ethnic
communities or minorities, as if their
very size would naturally engender solidarity and harmony among them. This stereotype
applies particularly to Indian tribes of the Amazons who were seen as the perfect model of
non-authoritarian societies in the 1970
According to this social representation, such ethnic
groups informally celebrate trust and solidarity which are mainly built upon kinship and
alliances. Of course this adds to the claimed homogeneity of such groups. Yet, the problem
lies in the fact that if there happens to be ‘solidarity’ among a particular community, and this
term should still be looked at in a closer way, the construction of a global
Roma community
,
based on such western-humanitarian values, is utterly misleading, primarily because there is
no such thing as one Roma community. As documented already in the 19
th
century Ottoman
Empire (Paspátis 1870), a strong rivalry separated nomad Gypsies from established Gypsies,
the latter being blamed by the former to have mixed with the local (Bulgarian) population.
Similarly,
Travellers
(Sinti, Yenish, etc.) in different European countries do not admit to
having any link with the mainly Eastern and Central European
Roma.
In Switzerland, for
example, local
Gypsies,
the Yenish, refuse to have anything in common with other
Gypsies/Roma and particularly with Eastern European groups. They regard them as dirty and
uncivilised as they often leave rubbish and disorder on their camping sites once they have
left, which in Switzerland is considered as one of the main offence against Swiss traditions
(these having been well incorporated by the Yenish). Recent events in Western Switzerland,
amply related in the press, would confirm this.
Despite numerous initiatives launched by Roma and non-Roma activists over the last
twenty years, aimed at uniting all Roma in a common ethnic/cultural community through the
creation of a common language and a new common culture (Liégeois 2007), there is only a
community of fate
and not (yet) of
destiny
. In other words, the Roma common identity is a
negative one. Since they are and have always been segregated in diverse ways, under
different political regimes (Barany 2002), they are publicly recognised as a globally
discriminated minority
. This ascribed identity – used in turn by the Roma to gain public
international attention – does not help to understand the social variety and stratification
among diverse Roma/Gypsy groups.
As applied to the Roma, informality is in fact primarily linked with their legendary
mobility
. Mobility, associated with nomadic and/or a traveller’s lifestyle still represents the
2
See the essays by Pierre Clastres (1977) or Robert Jaulin (1971), and others in France. However,
there are many counterexamples and among them the famous Iks studied by Colin Turnbull (1972).
7
