Gypsies and Travellers
Peter Somerville
29th November 2012
Sedentarism versus nomadism
• Nomadism – a type of habitus with no fixed
abode/residence/dwellingplace
• Sedentarism – a world-wide phenomenon
based on ‘Othering’ of nomadism as an alien
habitus. Nomads are seen as:
– Having no history of their own
– A culture that does not change
– Morally inferior
– Parasitical on the sedentary world
Gypsies/Travellers and community
• Gypsies/Travellers:
• Are a distinct set of communities with no fixed
abode (broadly nomadic)
• Do not easily fit within gorgio conceptions of
community, which are based on territory
and/or interest
• Have successfully claimed to be an ethnic
group but comprise a variety of ethnicities
• Are seen by gorgios as ‘beyond the margins’
Beyond the margins?
• Are Gypsies and Travellers really beyond the
margins of mainstream society?
• Gypsies and Travellers have been effectively
excluded from urban areas, and driven to the
rural periphery
• Gypsies and Travellers do not fit easily within
rural society
• BUT Gypsies and Travellers are NOT beyond the
margins, e.g. employment, health, education
Gypsies and Travellers in the English
countryside
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Gypsies and Travellers are not recognised as a distinct ethnic group by rural
researchers. E.g.
Cloke (2006): shows how ethnic minorities are constructed as ‘out of place’ in the
countryside but does not mention G&Ts; other ethnic minorities have their ‘place’
in the city but G/Ts appear to have no place at all
Askins (2009): does not mention G&Ts as one of her ‘visible communities’ (despite
being, arguably, one of the most visible!), so G&Ts would appear to be ‘invisible’
for rural researchers
Panelli et al (2009): recognise the existence of ‘Indigenous’ groups in some parts of
the world (Alaska, British Columbia, Australia, New Zealand), some of whom are
nomadic, but do not effectively distinguish between indigeneity and nomadism;
they go some way towards ‘de-centring White ruralities’ but not towards decentring sedentarism
Gypsies and Travellers are largely ignored by mainstream (sedentarist) rural policy
and rural policy research (e.g. Clark et al, 2007; Shortall, 2008; Woods, 2011)
Reed (2008): recognises the diversity of protest movements in the countryside but
does not mention the sedentarist ‘movement’ to ignore or exclude or annihilate
Gypsies and Travellers from the countryside
All planning law and regulation involves the enforcement and reinforcement of
sedentarist assumptions
Conclusion
• It doesn’t have to be like this – sedentary and
nomadic peoples have lived and worked
alongside one another quite successfully in
different parts of the world in different historical
periods
• Sedentarist attitudes need to be challenged
wherever possible, criticised and exposed as
ideological, prejudicial, discriminatory, unjust and
oppressive
• Otherwise mainstream (or gorgio) policy and
practice will continue to work systematically to
the disadvantage of Gypsies and Travellers
References
• Askins, K. (2009) ‘Crossing divides: ethnicity and rurality’, Journal of Rural
Studies 25: 365-375
• Clark, D., Southern, R. and Beer, J. (2007) ‘Rural governance, community
empowerment and the new institutionalism: a case study of the Isle of
Wight’, Journal of Rural Studies 23: 254-266
• Cloke, P. (2006) ‘Rurality and racialised others: out of place in the
countryside?’ in Cloke, P., Marsden, T., Mooney, P. (eds) Handbook of Rural
Studies. London: Sage: 379-387
• Panelli, R., Hubbard, P., Coombes, B. and Suchet-Pearson, S. (2009) ‘Decentring White ruralities: ethnic diversity, racialisation and Indigenous
countrysides’, Journal of Rural Studies 25: 355-364
• Reed, M. (2008) ‘The rural arena: the diversity of protest in rural England’,
Journal of Rural Studies 24: 209-218
• Shortall, S. (2008) ‘Are rural development programmes socially inclusive?
Social inclusion, civic engagement, participation, and social capital:
exploring the differences’, Journal of Rural Studies 24: 450-457
• Woods, M. (2011) Rural. London: Routledge