- Slides: 8
Gypsy-Travellers: stigmatisation and social integration Ryan Powell Conflict in space and place - accommodation and planning issues for Gypsies and Travellers, De Montfort University, Leicester, November 29 th, 2012.
Contested Gypsy-Traveller community p shared aspects of culture p shared space of the site p common response from government and authorities p BUT. . . heterogeneity and disidentification among different groups
Social integration? p Not straightforward; binaries can be unhelpful n n n p p p inclusion/ exclusion social care/ social control integration/ assimilation What's the problem with segregation? What's to be achieved by reducing it? (Flint, 2009) positive and enabling factors of segregation strengths and weaknesses of spatial concentration (Marcuse, 1997; Wacquant, 2004, 2008) integration on whose terms? importance of a long-term, historical perspective i. e. persistent persecution and stigma 'mixing without integration' (Sibley, 1998) n functional interdependence; unequal power relations; mutual avoidance
Gypsy-Travellers perceived to be at odds with dominant norms p social integration = individualization and self-betterment p group orientation of Gypsy-Travellers n n n p p p extended family and socialisation inter-generational mixing educational differences remarkable resistance and cultural continuity in the face of pressures to conform resistance and maintenance of culture and nomadism deemed "less civilised" Gypsy-Travellers treated as inferior; of lesser human worth - key question is why and how is this so persistent?
Learning from the "ghetto"? p 2 key and related questions: n why does the stigmatisation of Gypsy-Travellers run so deep and persistent over the last 500 years? n how have Gypsy-Travellers maintained their own identity and culture? p Loïc Wacquant's concept of the "ghetto" as a tool of comparison (Powell, 2013) p Gypsy-Traveller sites are NOT ghettos p BUT. . . commonalities. . a weapon of 'confinement and control' for the dominant and an 'integrative and protective device' for the stigmatized
Commonalities with Wacquant's ghetto p spatial confinement and control p ethnic homogeneity p retreat into the sphere of the family p mutual distancing p shared cultural identity reinforced through confinement
Divergence from Wacquant's ghetto? p changing economic function? p parallel institutionalism? p relationship with the state? p the above represent areas for further research that could enhance understanding through comparative analyses with Wacquant's theoretical concept of the "ghetto"
References p Flint, J. (2009) 'Cultures, ghettos and camps: sites of exception and antagonism in the city', Housing Studies, 24(4), pp. 417 -431. p Marcuse, P. (1997) 'The enclave, the citadel, and the ghetto: what has changed in the post-Fordist US city', Urban Affairs Review, 33(2), pp. 228 -264. p Powell, R. (2013, forthcoming) 'Loïc Wacquant's "ghetto" and ethnic minority segregation in the UK: the neglected case of Gypsy-Travellers', IJURR. p Sibley, D. (1998) 'Problematizing exclusion: reflections on space, difference and knowledge', International planning studies, 3, pp. 93 -100. p Wacquant, L. (2004) ‘Ghetto’, International Encyclopaedia of the Social and Behavioural Sciences. p Wacquant, L. (2008) ‘Ghettos and anti-ghettos: An anatomy of the new urban poverty’, Thesis Eleven, 94, pp. 113 -118. p Wacquant, L. (2012) 'A janus-faced institution of ethnoracial closure: a sociological specification of the ghetto', in Hutchison, R. and Haynes, B. D. (eds) The Ghetto: Contemporary Global Issues and Controversies (pp. 1 -32). Boulder: Westview.