![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
Amongst highly marginalized minorities, such as the Roma, intersectional groups – i.e. those positioned at the crossroad of several oppressions, like racism, classism, and sexism – are the major victims of injustice and discrimination. Their intersectional invisibility forces them to struggle for their recognition as political interlocutors by both national/supranational institutions and civil society actors. By exploring the case of Romani women’s intersectional activisms in Romania and Bulgaria, this article serves a double scope. First, it empirically contributes to the study of intersectional forms of mobilization in Central and Eastern Europe, where research and comparative analysis remain meager. Second, it fosters theoretical discussions about “how intersectionality is and should be deployed” [Bilge 2013. “Intersectionality Undone: Saving Intersectionality from Feminist Intersectionality Studies.” Du Bois Review: Social Science Research on Race 10 (2): 405–424.] when critically approaching social movements. Challenging the predominant “logic of inclusivity” that characterizes current European research on intersectional mobilization, this study explores Romnja’s activisms in Romania and Bulgaria through a five-category comparative analytical framework based on strategy, agencies, repertoire, alliances, and positioning vis-à-vis the wider Romani movement. Mostly building on interview data gathered in 2015–2016, this article shows that intersectionality-related considerations inform and shape the agenda and strategies of domestic activists, who can create their own type of (intersectional) mobilization regardless of their inclusion in and/or exclusion from more powerful mainstreamed movements.
Acknowledgements
The author is deeply grateful to those who have accepted to take part in the interviews, in particular the local activists who work at the grassroots – whose commitment toward this study is invaluable. A heartfelt thanks go to Ilke Adam, Karen Celis, Petra Meier, Peter Vermeersch, and the two anonymous reviewers of Politics, Groups, and Identities for their precious comments on earlier versions of this paper. The author gratefully acknowledges support from the Research Council of the Vrije Universiteit Brussel (Strategic Research Programme “Evaluating Democratic Governance in Europe” – EDGE).
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Notes
1 Note on terminology. For practical reasons, this article employs the generic term “Roma” as defined by European policy makers, notwithstanding the limits and constraints such a definition entails. By doing so, the author does not intend to simplify or underestimate in any manner the diversity of the communities it refers to, nor to neglect their cultural, social, and linguistic differences. Several attempts to build an exhaustive terminological glossary around the term “Roma” have been made by the Council of Europe since the early 1970s. The current terminology, which has become increasingly accurate over the years, states that “[t]he term “Roma and Travellers” […] encompass[es] the wide diversity of the groups covered by the work of the Council of Europe in this field: on the one hand (a) Roma, Sinti/Manush, Calé, Kaale, Romanichals, Boyash/Rudari; (b) Balkan Egyptians (Egyptians and Ashkali); (c) Eastern groups (Dom, Lom and Abdal); and, on the other hand, groups such as Travellers, Yenish, and the populations designated under the administrative term “Gens du voyage”, as well as persons who identify themselves as Gypsies”, at www.coe.int/roma/. Inspired by the definitions provided by the Council of Europe, EU policy making on Roma integration mostly refers to the Roma as an umbrella term encompassing different groups of people who have more or less similar cultural characteristics, whether sedentary or not (cfr. European Commission Citation2011, 2 – note 1). Romani leaders opted to use the term “Roma” – instead of the negatively connotated word “Gypsy” – at the First World Romani Congress held in London in 1971. Nonetheless, as Fremlová and McGarry (Citation2018) specify, not all use “Roma” and many continue to identify as “Gypsy.” A more in-depth analysis on how the term “Roma” has been politically constructed at the European level by different institutional political actors (such as the Council of Europe and the EU), to become the subject of policies creating both opportunities and constraints for the populations it aims at representing, would definitely deserve more space and, probably, a distinct context of investigation. This article uses the term “Roma” as a noun and an adjective, and the word “Romani” as an adjective only. “Romnja” stands for Romani women (pl.) in Romanes, i.e. the Romani language.
2 The workshop “Addressing Intersectionality: Social Movements and the Politics of Inclusivity” has been organized within the framework of the ECPR Joint Sessions of Workshops (Nicosia, 10–14 April 2018). Further information at https://ecpr.eu/Events/PanelDetails.aspx?PanelID=6843&EventID=112 (Accessed May 9, 2018).
3 The stereotyped image of the thieving, begging, illiterate, hypersexualized (cfr., for instance, Hancock Citation2008) or even prostituted Romani woman is predominant all around Europe. Both politicians and the media have often contributed to perpetuating these stereotypes. Cfr., for instance, the judicial case against the former Romanian President Traian Băsescu (NCCD Decision 92/2007, 23 May 2007), who referred to a Roma female journalist as “birdie” – “păsărică” in Romanian, a pejorative with demeaning and sexual connotations – and “filthy Gypsy”. More detailed information about the “Băsescu Case” in Iordache Citation2008, 8–10.
4 “Producing Roma Culture While Rejecting the Concept of Culturalism – An Interview with a Romani Feminist Theatre Group Giuvlipen” – Interview by Salome Kokoladze, Hysteria Magazine, November 1, 2016. Accessed April 30, 2018 http://www.hystericalfeminisms.com/voices1/2016/11/1/producing-roma-culture-while-rejecting-the-concept-of-culturalism.
5 Giuvlipen is the first Romanian “feminist theatre group with, about and for Roma women” (emphasis added. Source: https://www.facebook.com/pg/giuvlipen/reviews/?ref=page_internal, accessed March 12, 2018). In her on-line article Breaking down the stereotypes that plague young Roma women, published in “Dazed” in July 2017, Paula Erizanu reports that the term Giuvlipen “combines the Romani words for woman, giuvli, and the suffix -ipen, which stands for crowd. It’s the closest Romani language gets to feminism, says actress Mihaela Drăgan, one of the founders of the theatre and a graduate in Romani language studies. She hopes to add the word to the Romani dictionary.” Accessed March 12, 2018 http://www.dazeddigital.com/artsandculture/article/36649/1/breaking-down-the-stereotypes-that-plague-young-roma-women.
6 See Law no. 202/2002 on equal opportunities between women and men, revised in 2006 to introduce the concept of “multiple discrimination.”
7 In comparison to the six discrimination grounds listed in Article 13 of the Treaty of Amsterdam, the Romanian anti-discrimination legislation (Governmental Ordinance 137/2000, amended by Law 324/2006) includes social class (social category and underprivileged category) and HIV status.
8 The Bulgarian Anti-discrimination legislation (Protection Against Discrimination Act (PADA) of 2004 – Title amended, SG no. 68/2006) covers 18 grounds of discrimination (art. 4(1) PADA) as well as multiple discrimination cases. The two legislative tools protecting women’s rights are the PADA and the Law on Protection against Domestic Violence (Citation2015). Specific regulations on gender equality are not enshrined neither in the Bulgarian Constitution <http://www.parliament.bg/en/const> (Accessed April 22, 2016).
9 Cfr., for instance, Iordache (Citation2014), 30–31.
10 The definition of multiple discrimination is contained in art. 11 of PADA’s Additional Provisions, while the positive actions in cases of multiple discrimination in articles 13 and 14 of the General Provisions.
11 For more exhaustive argumentations on the “naturalisation of intersectionalities” in the term Roma women by policy-makers and the “naturalisation of violence” by Roma women, see Stoykova (Citation2008a) and Vincze (Citation2013), respectively.
12 The CPD is the only national Equality Body in Bulgaria and is divided in working panels. Each panel is responsible for a specific discrimination ground. An ad-hoc five-member panel assesses multiple discrimination claims.
13 Cfr. E-Romnja’s mission at http://e-Romnja.ro (Accessed July 17, 2017).
14 By way of example, fieldwork data shows that the lack of engagement of small grassroots organizations (where Romani women activists are particularly numerous) in EU funding schemes in both Romania and Bulgaria, is principally due to three main reasons: lack of capacity, time constraints, and divergence of missions and purposes. The first aspect refers to the lack of the necessary requirements to apply for EU-funds, such as the possibility to co-finance and/or advance important sums, as well as the human resources and essential expertise for managing complex projects. The second element concerns the inability to comply with two demanding activities at the same time, namely the daily commitment at the community level and the very bureaucratized office work related to the EU-funded projects (i.e. regular narrative and financial reporting, monitoring and evaluation, etc.). Finally, the third standpoint pertains the substantial discrepancy between the kind of activities usually covered by the EU funding (like capacity building, networking, developing partnerships, sharing good practices) and those of interest to activists working on the ground, usually more oriented towards improving the basic needs of Roma communities living in precarious conditions and/or experiencing serious marginalization.
15 Mariea Ionescu is also a founding member of the Împreună Agency for Community Development http://agentiaimpreuna.ro, one of the biggest civil society organizations in Romania working on the economic empowerment of the Roma.
16 The ‘Phenja’ project has been implemented by E-Romnja, the Filia Center, the Center for Legal Studies and Human Rights, and Romano ButiQ. More information is available at http://centrulfilia.ro/?causes=prezentarea-proiectului-phenja-violenta-nu-are-culoare (Accessed November 5, 2018).
17 Additional information about the project ‘Roma Women Can Do It!’ is available at https://gender-bg.org/bg/component/tags/tag/roma-women-can-do-it-ii.html(Accessed November 5, 2018).
18 The term gadje is used by Romani people to indicate those who do not belong to the Roma communities, such as (but not exclusively) majority group members. This article refers to gadje-ization as the process of influence and/or the transfer of cultural norms, values and behaviours from the gadje to the Roma.