History and anthropology have had a long, fruitful, and epistemologically challenging past of theoretical and empirical encounters, exchanges and cooperations. These have even resulted in new research subfields, for example historical anthropology, socio-cultural anthropology, and anthropology of history. Historiographical and anthropological methods have been converging and benefitting from mutual encounters. For example, while socio-cultural anthropologists are extending the field of their inquiries to incorporate archival sources, historians have turned to oral interactions as a major historical source. We strongly believe that this interdisciplinary dialogue shows great potential for future research. We also believe that Romani studies have already accommodated this dialogue. It has already been shown, for example, that the institutional archives in our countries are full of traces of Romani groups’ lengthy presence in Europe but, at the same time, that overlappings, inconsistencies, and silences between oral histories and memories of those involved in historical events and archival accounts of the same events are always possible. It has also been shown that Romani group ethnography can be combined fruitfully with archival research by constituting, case by case, varied forms of “historical anthropologies” or “ethno-histories” or “regressive histories” or “anthropological histories”.
In this panel we invite you to explore the dynamics of hybridization in history and anthropology in the field of Romani studies. Papers are solicited on critical reflections on using a combination of archival and ethnographic methods, on the different regimes of historicity observed, on the intersections between archival and oral histories and memories, as well as between missing archival traces and significant silences. We are also interested in presentations that can demonstrate and comment on failed attempts at bridging the interdisciplinary gaps.
Possible questions for consideration include:
How have historians implemented anthropological knowledge and its methods (the rise of oral history, memory studies)?
How is reflexivity practiced in anthropology and history?
What impact has the anthropological concept of identity and ethnicity had on historiographical research?
What are the relations between institutional histories, circumstantial histories and oral histories; what are the relations between histories and memories?
How can the concept “regimes of historicity” (Hartog, 2003) and the social construction of time in different societies be addressed in Romani studies?
How have different groups constructed their own “stories” and the relation between “history” and “myth”?
What are the possible ways of combining archival and ethnographic research in an anthropological perspective (Sahlins 2000)?
How is “engaged scholarship” (Berger 2019) perceived in anthropology and history?
Since an increasing number of researchers are involved in these questions on an international scale, this panel aims to assess the state of the art of research, as well as create space and time for mutual reflection; starting, above all, from a comparison of currently ongoing case studies and research projects. The organizers of this panel wish to encourage a continuation of the discussions from the panel Anthropologies and Histories of Romani groupsfrom the 2019 Gypsy Lore Society Annual Meeting in Reykjavík.
F. Hartog. Régimes d'historicité. Présentisme et expérience du temps. Paris: Le Seuil, 2003. M. Sahlins. Culture in practice: selected essays. New-York: Zone Books, 2000.
S. Berger (ed.). The Engaged Historian: Perspectives on the Intersections of Politics, Activism and the Historical Profession. New York - Oxford: Berghahn, 2019.
The problem of providing Roma housing and the Roma's relationship to housing space has been the frequent subject of social research. In Eastern Europe and the Balkans, the efforts of researchers have focused on the problem of Roma adapting to life in housing which they have received as a result of the policy for their settlement or their “integration”. That research has usually concentrated on social and adaptation problems. Contrary to the intentions of the authors of such a social policy, the consequences of the settlement programmes and social support for Roma communities were the creation of slums and poverty-stricken housing estates. The additional consequences of such an ill thought out housing policy have turned out to be (ostensible) assimilation, but also various forms of degenerative behaviour on a scale not known previously. Solutions which lead to positive effects are still being searched for, but good solutions can only arise from systematically comparing the housing situation of Roma in different countries.
Richard Filčák, Center of Social and Psychological Sciences and Institute of Ethnology and Social Anthropology, Slovak Academy of Science, Bratislava, Slovakia (Filcak.firstname.lastname@example.org)
Daniel Škobla, Center of Social and Psychological Sciences and Institute of Ethnology and Social Anthropology, Slovak Academy of Science, Bratislava, Slovakia (email@example.com)
This panel aims to provide a forum for a critical dialogue surrounding race/ethnicity and its intersection with environmental justice, encompassing the dimension of distributive and procedural justice. Exposure to environmental threats, access to natural resources and benefits are strongly influenced by racial and socio-economic factors: environmental (in)justice works alongside the structural violence of poverty and neoliberal practices of the state. However, these forms of violence receive little exposure or priority within discussions on the marginalisation of Europe’s Roma minority. Furthermore, even less attention is paid to Roma communities’ struggle for environmental justice, thus obscuring the ongoing mobilisation against powerful forces driven increasingly by neoliberal imperatives.
We welcome papers and presentations that address the broader context of state and regional policies leading to discriminatory practices in the distribution of environmental benefits and harm, as well as papers based on empirical field work, and community-relevant issues surrounding the theme of environmental injustice. Possible subjects include, but are not limited to, analyses of how decommissioning of the welfare state and neoliberal policies influences people’s access to natural resources, including clean air, safe environment and clean water. The topics should explore disparities in environmental quality driven by socio-economic status, race, and/or ethnicity; analysis of national environmental legislation and its impact on Roma communities; collective struggles of Roma people to democratise access to natural resources and live a life in safe and clean surroundings.
With this panel we aim to create a platform for discussing key issues pertaining to environmental justice for Roma, such as proposals and recommendations for essential changes and improvements in the legal system; existing policies necessary for achieving climate and environmental justice for Roma; critical analysis of the current state of racial environmental discrimination; case studies of environmental (in)justice, and the like.
Critical Perspectives on the Impacts of Covid-19 Pandemic on Roma
Critical Perspectives on the Impacts of Covid-19 Pandemic on Roma
Conveners: Maria Manuela Mendes, Faculdade de Arquitetura da Universidade de Lisboa, and CIES-IUL, ISCTE, Instituto Universitário de Lisboa, Portugal (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Stefánia Toma, Romanian Institute for Research on National Minorities (ISPMN), Babes-Bolyai University (BBU), Romania (email@example.com)
Olga Magano, Uab & CIES-IUL, ISCTE, Instituto Universitário de Lisboa, Portugal (firstname.lastname@example.org)
During 2020, the world was confronted with a global pandemic which had and continues to have an impact on all countries, not only in terms of people infected with the disease, the actual death toll, but also due to its repercussions in diverse areas of daily and structural life, such as employment, access to foodstuffs, and basic services (e.g. health and education supplies) (Nicola et al., 2020). While we are experiencing a situation that embodies a threat to each and every one of us, worldwide, there are strong asymmetries in the way that Covid-19 pandemic has affected different social groups and the way how people deal with and manage these impacts.
For Romani people the scenario of social asymmetries has been even more serious, given the exacerbation of racialization and ethnicization of the Roma, with the banalization of anti-Roma prejudices and attitudes (Matache & Bhabha, 2020). Those Romani families, which already lived under precarious conditions before the pandemic, have experienced a further worsening of their disadvantaged position (Berta, 2020; Korunovska & Jovanovic, 2020; Mendes 2020).
In fact, for many Roma whose priority has been to secure subsistence and attend to the basic needs of their households, the historical and structural inequalities have been aggravated and the impacts of the pandemic have been multifaceted (FRA, 2020).
This panel aims to present a critical reflection and expand our knowledge of the main impacts of Covid-19 pandemic on Roma, which are still relatively unknown, focusing especially on those Romani communities that live in difficult socio-economic situations. Indeed, we want to bring together studies and investigators with different backgrounds to look at the impact of Covid-19 pandemic on various dimensions (access to basic services and human rights, especially medical care; access to digital tools and education; decent housing; economic activity; reduced income levels; the rise of racism and inequality etc. among Romani people in different countries). Already, we know that the pandemic has contributed to a greater gap in education, considering the fact that Romani children and young people were “disproportionately affected by substandard housing without access to the Internet or even electricity and lacking the necessary IT equipment” (FRA, 2020:13).
We would like to understand the impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic as experienced by the Roma, both in terms of difficulties and also opportunities that opened up with the pandemic and what strategies have Romani people and their familiesactivated to deal with the constraints to which they have been subjected.
Berta, Peter (2020), “Ethnicizing a pandemic: COVID-19, culture blaming and Romanian Roma”. Society for Romanian Studies Newsletter, 42(1), 1–7.
European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (2020), “Coronavirus Pandemic in the EU – Impact on Roma and Travellers”. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. ISBN: 978-92-9474-382-4; DOI:10.2811/06170.
Korunovka, Neda & Jovanovic, Zeljko (2020), “Roma in the Covid-19 Crisis: An Early Warning from Six EU Member States”.Roma: Open Society Foundations.
Matache, Margareta & Bhabha, Jacqueline (2020), “Anti-Roma Racism is Spiraling during COVID-19 Pandemic”. Health and Human Rights Journal,22(1), 379-382.
Mendes, Maria Manuela (2020), “Anticiganismo em contexto de pandemia”, In Público, 12 de maio de 2020. https://www.publico.pt/2020/05/12/opiniao/noticia/anticiganismo-contexto-pandemia-1916051.
Nicola, Marta, Alsafi, Zaid, Sohrabi, Catrin, Kerwan, Ahmed, Al-Jabir, A., Iosifidis, Christos, Agha, Maliha, & Agha, Riaz (2020), “The socio-economic implications of the coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19): A review”. International journal of surgery (London, England), 78, 185–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2020.04.018
This panel addresses two intersecting issues: current perspectives in Romani Studies and the changing roles of scholarly societies. The “critical turn” in Romani Studies centers Roma in the production of their own knowledge and interrogates the hegemony of past outsider studies “on rather than with” Roma. Simultaneously, scholars have examined the fraught colonial/collector/racist history of GLS (Acton 2014). GLS is grappling with how to attract more scholars and more Roma; does GLS need to re-tool its mission or its structure? These issues raise questions such as how is scholarship produced, who controls regimes of truth (re: structural inequality), what are the appropriate roles of insiders and outsiders (and how are these descriptors applied and with what consequences), and how and where can collaboration happen.
An overarching theme is interrogating the purposes of scholarship. What is knowledge good for, and how is it related to activism and real-world applications. Many Roma as well as non-Roma are involved in policy and grassroots work to change inequalities and address anti-Gypsyism. GLS, in its conferences and journal, has embraced studies of activism. Should GLS play a more public role? How can embracing diversity help GLS grow and become more vibrant? What role can GLS play in bridging the gap between theory and practice, academia and public policy? Regarding terminology, do the terms “Gypsy” and “Lore” represent the scholars, the scholarship, the future of the society, and its public understanding? What is our relationship to the heritage of our society and our name?
Clark offers a schema of scientific and critical reasoning on squaring the circle of past activities and outputs of GLS as well as assessing the potential of future directions, in terms of mission, engagement, activism and politics. He argues that GLS can reenergize itself as a body that is relevant to the 21st century.
Dunajeva deals with the “critical turn” to decolonize knowledge, and the ethnic, geographical and linguistic inequalities of academic contributions. How does the nexus between language and power operate within Romani Studies in providing space for certain voices, as well as incorporating local knowledge(s) and culture(s)? What is the role of GLS in this movement, and how can it guide the field toward progressive scholarship?
Ostendorf posits that the future of Romani Studies (and thus GLS) will be enriched by considering a trans-Atlantic context, moving away from a Euro-centric view.
Bila interrogates “othering” in the history of GLS, and asks how Romani experiences are visible today in GLS. Can we learn from Romani experiences in working towards a future without nationalism? How can GLS help to distinguish the mythological "Gypsy" from real Romani peoples?
Groups Understood as Gypsies with no Romani Heritage: Similarities and Differences
Groups Understood as Gypsies with no Romani Heritage: Similarities and Differences
Conveners: Anthony Leroyd Howarth, University of Oxford (email@example.com)
Freya Hope, University of Oxford (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Throughout the world there are many groups assumed to be, or classified as, Gypsies and Roma that do not have any Romani heritage. This is not simply a matter of politically imposed definitions but is also due to popular understandings, both of which disregard, or perhaps overlook, distinct migratory histories, cultural practices and inter/intra group differences. That notwithstanding, many non-Romani groups share a history of persecution from their respective ‘host’ societies, engage in similar economic activities and are afflicted with appalling health outcomes.
The aim of this panel is to engage scholars of groups without Romani heritage that have in some way been categorised as Gypsies or Roma. Its broad aim is to invite papers focusing on any aspect of non-Romani groups’ lifeways in order to explore intra and inter-group similarities and differences. In other words, the panel seeks to productively employ comparison to examine the particular with a view towards the general. The purpose of this endeavour is to investigate why it is that groups with different histories, often living in different places and holding distinct beliefs, end up experiencing similar circumstances.
Although papers examining any aspect of non-Romani groups’ lifeways are welcomed, the panel invites papers focusing on economic practices and gambling, health and well-being, and ideological and cosmological conceptions of in/out group identity. These can be theoretical pieces, ethnographic portraits (whether experimental or analytical), historical accounts, and more applied work from public health, legal studies and social policy, which address questions such as: What exactly is a Gypsy? How is this category constituted, imagined, repudiated? To what extent does the legalistic and ethnic categorisation of Gypsy/Roma affect non-Romani groups’ identities and lifeways? How do groups with no Romani heritage creatively employ or reimagine the Gypsy category to their own advantage? What economic activities do these groups engage in? Is work part of an ideology of manhood, if so, how is women’s work understood? What kinds of gambling practices do these groups engage in? Is gambling solely the domain of men, or are woman involved? Is gambling simply a waste of time and money, or is it culturally significant? How do these groups order in-group/out-group relations? Can this ordering of worlds be considered cosmological, ideological, or something else? What are the mortality and morbidity outcomes for these groups? What are the factors that impinge upon their poor health? Do they have cultural conceptions of health and illness and, if so, what do these consist of?
International Romani Literature(s): Approaches to a “New” World Literature
International Romani Literature(s): Approaches to a “New” World Literature Conveners: Lorely French, Pacific University, USA (email@example.com) Marina Ortrud M. Hertrampf, University of Passau, Germany (Marina.Hertrampf@uni-passau.de) Sofiya Zahova, University of Iceland / University of St Andrews, UK (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Romani literature has experienced remarkable developments during the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. As of today, in almost all countries where Roma live, authors of Romani background have been producing books and other publications in various languages, including Romany. In the decades since 1989 the number of books that authors of Romani background have published has increased. Likewise, the usage of Romani in books, translations, and periodical publications by and for Roma has also risen. Romani literary pieces share features that go beyond the borders of any one country or region. These circumstances allow us to speak of Romani literature, and even of Romani literatures, as a heterogeneous and multifaceted, yet still a collective phenomenon.
The remarkably developing Romani literature scene has provoked a considerable interest among researchers, and increasing scholarship on Romani literature has assumed at least three distinct approaches. First, there are those studies that adopt a historical approach and are based on providing accounts of Romani literature production and authors’ life paths, along with outlines of socio-political factors (socio-biographical approach). Second, there are those studies that adopt the methods of the field of literary theory and comparative literature and focus on case studies of authors and theoretical interpretations of literary works. Third, there are studies analysing Romani literary production in terms of methods and theories developed in the field of cultural studies.
This panel proposal comes as one of the follow-ups to the multi-session panel Narratives by and about Romaorganized as part of the 2019 GLS Annual Meeting and Conference on Romani Studies, 15-17 August 2019, at the University of Iceland. The panel participants have identified the need to further maintain a forum for discussion of Romani literature from various disciplinary angles and within the field of Romani Studies. We recognize that despite the dynamic development of Romani literary scholarship in recent decades, such scholarship has been somehow underrepresented within Romani Studies, both at forums and in academic publications.
The overall aim of the panel is to provide an interdisciplinary forum for discussion of Romani literature from historical and contemporary perspectives, bringing together researchers and practitioners from various backgrounds. We invite participants who address in their papers issues such as:
Theoretical approaches to Romani literature;
Developments of Romani literature as a field nationally and/or internationally;
Analysis and comparison of narratives and motifs in Romani literature;
Case studies of Romani authors and literary works;
Romani language production, publishing and translation;
Authenticity, representation and cultural appropriation in literature (co-written) by Roma;
Interfacing between Romani literature research and other fields (for instance history, migrations, antigypsyism, ethnic studies, nationalism, etc.)
Romani migration is an important issue. As a result of migration, Romani groups have spread across the globe. During the migrations, Romani modified their languages, livelihood strategies, their skills and crafts, and the way of communication with the surrounding population. Moving was a daily routine for nomadic and semi-nomadic Romani groups. However, settled groups also move, and for them, migration is leaving home. Perhaps at present sedentary families travel more than in the past, when moving large numbers of people was logistically much more difficult. Present-day Romanies thus engage in large-scale global migration movements that affect world politics, modify national interests, and push cultural boundaries.
This panel deals with the reasons, context and circumstances of the arrival of individuals, families, or wider migrant groups in new locations. It focuses on the way they take their first steps in the new places and establish themselves, and their acceptance by the surrounding population. It seeks to answer the question of what social space the newly arrived Roma create, and how migration to a specific place affects their lives. It asks how their language and subsistence activities have changed, and how their standard of living, property ownership and other characteristics that influence the quality of life of individuals and families, have also changed.
What people tell about migrations is usually more important for the daily life of an individual or group than what is traceable in the archives. An important place in the panel is therefore devoted to narratives transmitted by family members. We are interested in how they interpret their migrations and why. Migration biographies are one of the most interesting Romani stories, and while they may not involve large groups, they often tell of the movement of individuals who have migrated as a result of wars, the Holocaust or other persecutions, marriage, partnering, searching for and locating relatives, seeking better livelihoods and so on. Migration biographies, whether individual or collective, belong to this panel and we will explore them.
Migration deals with a wide range of disciplines that generate a variety of theories. Therefore, theoretical conclusions resulting from Romani migrations are not alien to this panel.
Conveners: Jan Červenka, Romani Studies Seminar at the Department of Central European Studies, Faculty of Arts, Charles University, Czech Republic (email@example.com)
Markéta Hajská, Romani Studies Seminar at the Department of Central European Studies, Faculty of Arts, Charles University, Czech Republic (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Pal o Roma romanes
Pro konferencii GLS sas dži akana konferenčno čhib jekhbuter angliciko. Amen paťas, hoj the romaňi čhib šaj chasňaras andro diskusii pal o romisticka buťa the disciplini u hoj the e romaňi čhib šaj jekhetaňarel eksperten pal buter lumakere thema.
Vašoda o panelos nane definimen temaha, aľe čhibaha: the o referati the o diskusii musaj te jel andre romaňi čhib. Užaras referati butere subdisciplinendar romane študiendar (sar hin lingvistika, etnologia, historia, literarno vaj bašavibnaskero džaniben…) O vakeribena musaj te jel pre učo džanibnaskero levelos, no mangas tumen: musaj len te achaľol the o džene pal o aver džanibnaskre disciplini.
Ole paneloha kamas (pašavreste) te sikhavel, hoj pal e romaňi tematika šaj diskutinas pro džanibnaskero levelos andre romaňi čhib.
Pa Rom romanes
Pej GLS konferencii ži ákánik mindik vorbijas pe maj but englišicka šibasa Ame paťas, hoď pa kadal phušimátura andaj intrégone akademickíva búťa šaj vorbinas vi romanes. Romana šibasa šaj vorbin khetánes le akademikura pi cára luma, taj šaj haťáren peske le ekspertura andaj sa intrégi thema. Kado paneli naj anglal dino la témasa, de la šibasa: i vorba (vi prezentácia, vi diskuzia) si t´avel feri romanes. Azír lešinas le referátura andaj akharsoske disciplíni romane studijendar (sar si lingvistika, etnologia, historia, literatura vaj romano arto). Kadal referátura si t´avel iskirime maj zurálasa akademickíva vorbasa, de vi kadej, hoď šaj haťáren la vorbake vi le manuš andaj áver disciplíni.
Kadale panelosa kamas te sikhavas, hoď pa sogodi romani tématika del pe te vorbij romana šibasa.
Panel in Romani
The common language of Gypsy Lore Society conferences has primarily been English. We believe that Romani can also feature as the language of common academic discussion about different issues and disciplines in Romani studies, which can connect experts from different countries. The panel is thus not defined by its topic, but by the common language of the presentations: both the contributions and discussion will be held in Romani language. This panel is thematically open, papers in any field of Romani Studies (e.g. linguistics, ethnology, history, theory of Romani literature or art) are accepted. Papers should be on high academic level but contributors are asked to make them comprehensible for researchers from different scientific disciplines.
One of the aims of this panel will be to show the potential of Romani language use in debating a wide variety of academic topics.
- Kozhanov, Kirill; Oslon Mikhail. Historical Evidence from Romani Etymology: A New Etymological Dictionary of the Romani Language
Religion(s) among Roma/Gypsies (churches, religious movements and institutions)
Religion(s) among Roma/Gypsies (Churches, Religious Movements, and Institutions)
Convenor: Tatiana Zachar Podolinská, Institute of Ethnology and Social Anthropology, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Bratislava, Slovakia (email@example.com)
Since the rise of modern society, religion is said to have disappeared (“disenchanted word”, Weber 1978). It is only in the last decades that secularisation itself is unveiled as a “modern myth” (Berger 1999). “Re-enchantment” is currently placed at the very heart of modernity (Jenkins 2000). Some authors not only observe a “return of the sacred” but even “desecularisation” (decrease in the secular aspects of modern culture, Bell 1977, Berger 1999).
As mentioned by H. Knoblauch (2019), religion is not just “returning”, it is undergoing a fundamental transformation, and only those forms of religion are booming that have undergone such transformation.
The purpose of the panel is to examine the state of the art of the academic research on religiosity/spirituality among Roma/Gypsies. In 2019 the Platform for Academic Networking on Religions among Roma/Gypsies was established with the aim to establish a network and spread academic knowledge about research on all forms of religion, including institutional, non-institutional, private and individual forms of religiosity and spirituality among the Roma/Gypsies worldwide (PAN-ROM, see https://uesa.sav.sk/?q=sk/pan-rom.). The GLS 2021 panel is meant to be a kick-off on the topic of the role of religiosity in the social life of Romani communities. In some regards it is also a continuation of the pre-arranged panel of GLS 2019 devoted to the mission of Pentecostal and charismatic denominations operating among Roma. This year the thematic scope is much broader in order to also examine traditional and non-traditional forms of religiosity and spirituality among Roma/Gypsies.
Contributors are invited to formulate the topic of their contribution according to their current interest in the given area. As a sort of inspiration and points of reference following theses are pinpointed:
religiosity as a vehicle of social, cultural, and ethnic innovation
role of pastoral discourse in construction and re-construction of identity
role of religion in social inclusion/exclusion
role of religion in social mobility (horizontal and vertical)
role of religion in social cohesion and social networking
religion and migration
non-traditional forms of religiosity and spirituality
The panel is also open to innovative methodological approaches, especially qualitative methodologies and approaches in order to achieve a holistic picture with emic perspectives.
Bell, D. 1977. The Return of the Sacred? The Argument on the Future of religion. In: British Journal of Sociology 28(4): 419–449.
Berger, P. L. 1999. The Desecularization of the World. In: P. L. Berger (Ed.), The Desecularization of the World: Resurgent Religion and World Politics. Washington: Eerdmans, pp. 1–18.
Weber, M. 1978. Economy and Society. Berkeley: University Press of California Press.
Responding to the State: Uncovering Romani Agency in Early Modern and Colonial Atlantic Worlds
Responding to the State: Uncovering Romani Agency in Early Modern and Colonial Atlantic Worlds
Ann Ostendorf, Gonzaga University, Spokane, USA (firstname.lastname@example.org)
This panel sits at the intersection of two contemporary scholarly trajectories: archival-based historical studies in the field of Romani Studies and a consideration of the ways diverse Romani people experienced their lives in the early modern states of Europe and the Americas. Historians today are cognizant of the risks inherent in the deployment of sources constructed to bolster the state in studies of those traditionally deemed marginalized. Yet we also recognize that hidden within these archives are the voices of diverse Romani people whose responses to their circumstances remain largely unconsidered. Their stories can be, and deserve to be, told. Re-placing Romani back into history as historical actors themselves (not merely as those being acted upon) reveals the ways they experienced, navigated, and even manipulated systems of power while attempting to secure their own best interests. Not mere victims of official power, these women and men carved out meaningful lives in relations with others around them in ways distinctive to their spatial and temporal circumstances. This panel also intends to promote a comparative lens of Romani agency vis a vis the state. Juxtaposing case studies from diverse regions not only reveals the proliferation of Romani agency on both sides of the Atlantic during an era mostly noted for their persecution, but this also reveals the distinctiveness of individual adaptative strategies dependent upon local circumstances. The microhistories presented on this panel allow the phenomena of expanding European states to be understood in some of the ways that individuals actually experienced and responded to it.
Roma, Education and Employability of New Generations
Roma, Education and Employability of New Generations
Olga Magano, Portuguese Open University, Instituto Universitário de Lisboa (ISCTE-IUL), CIES-IUL, Lisbon, Portugal (email@example.com)
Elena Loreni Baciu, West University of Timisoara, Romania (firstname.lastname@example.org)
In Europe, in recent decades, Roma have been systematically targeted by public policies, measures and programs aimed at promoting social integration and reducing social inequalities, including through policies to combat poverty, increase education levels and diversify the forms of labor market integration. This intention culminated with the European Strategy for Roma Integration (2011) which gave rise to national strategies in each EU member countries.
Nevertheless, data on schooling for Roma, especially children and young people covered by the latest social policies, show they continue to have high dropout rates, and there is still a huge gap between Roma and non-Roma schooling in general, in all countries. In order to promote measures for the integration of Roma the governmental agencies have implemented, in various countries, public policies that promote social welfare in accordance with the guidelines of the “modern and democratic” social state, but, however, inequalities still persist between people. Roma remain the poorest and least educated minority.
On the other hand, some Roma who have completed compulsory education or have completed higher education often report difficulties in entering the labor market, and are struggling with explicit and hidden forms of racism either by private companies or public institutions.
The purpose of this panel is twofold: (1) to analyze the impact of social policies on improving the school attendance of Roma; and (2) to understand how these policies translate into increased employability of Roma.
We are interested in learning about the experiences and results of policy implementation in various countries across Europe and providing a space for sharing and discussing research data or data from intervention projects about innovative strategies, methodologies and practices that contribute to promotion of school attendance, the prevention of early school leaving, training, as well as providing viable alternatives for the labor market participation of Roma persons.
This panel is a continuation of successful panels from 2018 and 2019 that originated from the ERC project “RomaInterbellum. Roma Civic Emancipation between the Two World Wars”. It aims at addressing one of the still under-researched topics in Romani studies, namely the history of the Roma in the period between WWI and WWII. This period represented an era of significant changes worldwide, which encompassed numerous fields, such as, to list a few: the breakdowns of old Empires, re-drawing of borders, beginning of new world relations on a macro-level along with new inter-ethnic relations on micro-levels, huge movement of populations, the birth of new nation states, the rise of nationalism and internationalism, peace arrangements and exchange of populations, civil wars, important developments in interwar diplomacy and international relations, growth of economies, stagnation and depression, novel social, ideological and cultural trends and innovations, and others. This turnover not only marked the beginning of a new stage in world history but also, on a micro level, it impacted the living strategies and visions about the future of Roma communities worldwide.
The point of departure of this panel is the fact that Roma in their history were never a hermetically isolated social and cultural system. They existed, and continue to exist nowadays, in two dimensions. On the one hand they exist as separate ethnic communities, and on the other hand as part of the macro-societies in which they live within the respective nation-states. Along with the members of the macro-societies they experienced great changes and turbulences such as the breakdowns of old Empires, the establishment of nation states and processes of modernisation. In this time span, Roma started to be politically institutionalised, instrumentalised and subjected to a variety of controversial policy practices. Most importantly for this panel, at the same time they started to develop their own visions for the development of their communities, both on local and international levels.
This panel aims to bring together researchers from different disciplinary fields and it seeks to study the impact of the Interbellum period on Roma communities. The panel is especially interested in presentations that look at Roma not only as passive recipients of policy measures but also as active architects (agents) of their own lives. The aim is, together with papers studying evidences reflecting state policies with regard to Roma, to include presentations which analyse the appearance and development of social and political projects proposed by Roma.