Roma in Europe: The Politics of Collective Identity Formation(paper based on forthcoming book with Ashgate Publishers, 2014)

The paradox of Roma people`s identifications varying from strong assertions of Roma identity to complete negations of it triggers this paper’s inquiry into the reasons why Roma identifications are so heterogeneous. The argument unfolding through the analysis of multi-sited ethnographic data is that the heterogeneity of Roma identifications is not random, but that it follows certain context-specific patterns. For example, at local level in a multi-ethnic locality in Transylvania, one could observe that within the same hetero-identified Roma group there is a tendency for differentiated and fragmented self-identifications; while at state level (e.g. in Romania) and at international level there is a tendency that blurs differentiations and that emphasizes a more homogenous collective identity of the Roma. This paper attempts to uncover the reasons for the large array of Roma identifications through the combined method of “thick description” (Geertz, 1973) and “multi-sited ethnography” (Marcus, 1995). The conjunction of these methods offers a contextual understanding of the complex dynamics of Roma collective identity formation at three analytical levels: the local, the state and the international.

The findings indicate that Roma identifications are contextual and more often than not they represent means in the struggle for resources available within different structural contexts. In such instances, Roma identifications become forms of agency in negotiating a better standing vis a vis other (often more powerful) actors encountered in the process of social interaction.  The instrumentality of identifications and identity discourses of the Roma does not entirely dismiss the possibility of a genuine feeling of belonging to certain categories of self-ascription in the moment of identification. Such feelings could suggest an internalization or solidification of some self-identification practices as habitus (Bourdieu, 1992) or structural content.