Authors

Discussion

The multiple developmental approaches deployed to address the status of Romani populations in Eastern Europe have often espoused an explicit ‘civilizing’ agenda based on the assumption that whatever shape ‘the Gypsy problem’ may have taken at a given point in time, it was always rooted in ‘Gypsies’’ insufficient integration into mainstream society. Whether it was the concern with ‘nomadism’ several decades ago, or with ‘migration’ in more recent times, the essence of ‘The Gypsy problem’ seems to be that Roma won’t stay put. Their perpetual mobility is the most prominent symptom of the widely-shared opinion that Roma ultimately ‘don’t want in’ or that they ‘choose’ to live on the social margins. In my paper, I trace Romany marginality both from an emic point of view, looking at the ways in which Roma themselves talk about their socially and geographically marginal position in relation to the majority society, and from a systemic point of view, whereby I analyze how Roma neighborhoods result in ethnic segmentation and often end up as enclaves of social ills. In doing so, I build on my research in a Roma neighborhood which I call ‘Mahala,’ on the outskirts of a southern Romanian town. Building on the neighborhood’s recent history, oral histories, and urban policies, I trace the transformation of Mahala from an industrial periphery at the turn of the 20th century to a Gypsy-only enclave in the past decades. I argue that this process of enclavization ends up singling out the Roma as an an ‘unconscientious’ public caught in webs of patronage ruled by unelected leaders.