Abstract
This anthropological contribution to marginality examines the narratives and imaginaries of Roma, place, social exclusion and Romani settlements as marginalized places. In the first part, the chapter focuses on the Romani studies and social anthropology and their exploration of social construction of space and place. It will show that the marginalization of Roma is connected with deprivation as a form of spatial isolation, and social exclusion. Marginalization is related to the production of space as a social product and its multiple aspects of relationship between the social and spatial. In the second part of the presentation, the case of Loke, a Romani settlement in SE of Slovenia near Krško, is explored within a wider framework of the spatial management. Loke is labeled an informal Romani settlement, where Roma settled on public property. In the previous political regime after the WW II, the company for forestry allowed Roma to settle on the property in exchange for work in forestry, when they planted trees. After 2002, within the wider framework for legalization of Romani settlements on local and national level, the spatial management of Loke was not planned nor solved. The settlement was proclaimed illegal by the local community, meaning Roma lived under the threat of being expelled for several years. The two central questions of this contribution are: first, how did Roma construct and change the meanings of their social exclusion (or social marginality) and the geographical marginality of their settlement when the legalization of Romani settlements near Krško area (SE of Slovenia) was already underway; second, how is the meaning of localities – which is usually constituted through movement – constructed in Romani narratives of belonging to a marginal place that was discursively constructed as ghetto?
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
All informants are anonymous and their names are coded for the reason of confidentiality.
- 2.
The term Roma is used here for communities traditionally known as Gypsies. Roma is a self-designation, but this term may also include Romanichels, Sinti, Ludar, and Gypsy-Travellers. Following the leading academic journal, the Romani Studies, the noun Roma and the adjective Romani is used.
- 3.
Slovenian government has accepted the Program of Measures for Helping Roma in the Republic of Slovenia in 1995, Equal Employment opportunities for Roma in 2000, The National Program of the Fight Against Poverty and Social Exclusion in 2000, and National action program for Roma 2010-2015. Romani housing and the urgent need for legalization of Romani settlements was addressed several times.
- 4.
Civili or civilians is the term used both by Roma and non-Roma to refer the latter.
- 5.
The Roma Community Act in the Republic of Slovenia—ZRomS-1 is a system act defining the role of state bodies and self-governing local communities’ bodies in realizing special rights of the Roma Community; it also regulates the organization of the Roma Community at national and local level, as well as its financing. Roma community. Government of the Republic of Slovenia office for National Minorities 2016.
- 6.
Roma community. Government of the Republic of Slovenia office for National Minorities 2016.
- 7.
Romska problematika. Občina Krško. [Romani issues. The Municipality of Krško].
- 8.
The settlement of Loke has the same name as the location Loke 20, which is also the home and a permanent address of the Roma residents in the local community of Loke.
- 9.
As local community they receive 8,5 million EUR from the state budget as a compensation, and they distribute this money amongst their local inhabitants.
References
Amnesty International. (2011). Parallel lives. Roma denied right to housing and water in Slovenia. London: Amnesty international Ltd. General Secretariat.
Amnesty International. (2014). Romi. Retrieved January 10, 2017, http://www.amnesty.si/romi.
Bancroft, A. (2005). Roma and Gypsy-travellers: Modernity, race, space, and exclusion. Hants, Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Limited.
Brajović Hajdenkumer, S. (2007). Jutro nove misli. Retrieved November 22, 2017, http://tvslo.si/predvajaj/dosje-jutro-nove-misli/ava2.2254862/00:00:36/0:0:0/.
Gay y Blasco, P. (2016). ‘It’s the best place for them’: Normalising Roma segregation in Madrid. Social Anthropology, 24(4), 446–461.
Janko Spreizer, A. (2011–12). Emotional geographies of exclusion in a selected roma settlement. Etudes Tsiganes. Nouvelle Série, (44–55), 174–189.
Janko Spreizer, A. (2016). From a tent to a house, from nomads to settlers: Constructions of space and place through Romani Narratives. In N. Gregorič Bon & J. Repič (Eds.), Moving places. Relations, return and belonging (Vol. 29, pp. 172–193). New York, Oxford: Berghnan, Easa Series.
Kendall, S. (1999). Sites of Resistance: Places on the Margin—The Traveller “Homeplace”’. In T. Acton (Ed.), Gypsy politics and traveller identity (pp. 70–89). Hatfield: University of Hertfordshire Press.
Levinson, M. P., & Sparkes, A. C. (2004). Gypsy Identity and orientations to space. Journal of Contemporary, Ethnography, 33(6), 704–734.
Marushiakova, E., & Popov, V. (2015). European policies for social inclusion of Roma: Catch 22? Social Inclusion, 3, 19–31.
MM. (2016). Romi stopili skupaj in bodo od države zahtevali konkretne izboljšave. Dolenjski list, 7 July. Retrieved January 10, 2017, from http://www.dolenjskilist.si/2016/07/07/158817/novice/dolenjska/Romi_stopili_skupaj_in_bodo_od_drzave_zahtevali_konkretne_izboljsave/.
Odlok o spremembah in dopolnitvah dolgoročnega plana Občin Krško (2002) UL RS 90/2002 (pp. 9915–9918). Retrieved January 10, 2017.
OPN. Odlok o Občinskem prostorskem načrtu občine Krško. 2015. UL RS, 61/2015. Retrieved January 10, 2017, from https://www.uradni-list.si/1/content?id=122934.
OPPN Gmajna 3. 2016. Odlok o občinskem podrobnem prostorskem načrtu stanovanjska gradnja Gmajna 3, Stran 1523. UL RS 13/2016, pp. 1523. Retrieved January 10, 2017, from https://www.uradni-list.si/1/content?id=125455#!/Odlok-o-obcinskem-podrobnem-prostorskem-nacrtu-stanovanjska-gradnja-Gmajna-3.
Powell, R. (2013). Loïc Wacquant’s ‘Ghetto’and Ethnic Minority Segregation in the UK: The neglected case of gypsy-travellers. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 37(1), 115–134.
Roma Community. (2017). Government of the Republic of Slovenia office for National Minorities. Constitutional and Legal Position. Retrieved January 10, 2017, from http://www.un.gov.si/en/minorities/roma_community/constitutional_and_legal_position/.
Romska problematika. Občina Krško. 2008. Retrieved January 10, 2017, from www.krsko.si/uploads/seje/57/oociY_Romska_problematika.doc.
R. R. (2012). Prihodnost romskega naselja Loke še vedno negotova, Posavski obzornik, May 29. Retrieved January 10, 2017, from https://www.posavskiobzornik.si/novice/prihodnost-romskega-naselja-e-vedno-negotova.
Sigona, N. (2005). Locating “the Gypsy Problem”. The Roma in Italy. Stereotyping, labelling and “Nomad Camps”. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 31(4), 741–756.
SURS. (2016). Prebivalstvo po naseljih, podrobni podatki, Slovenija, 1. januar 2016”. Statistični urad Republike Slovenije. 6. junij 2016.
Theodosiou, A. (2004). Be-longing in a doubly occupied place: The Parakalamos Gypsy musicians. Romani Studies, 14(1), 25–58.
UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. (2014). (E/C.12/SVN/CO/2). Concluding observations on the 2nd periodic report of Slovenia: Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights UN. Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (53rd sess.: 2014: Geneva) (2014-12-15).
Wacquant, L. (2010). Designing urban seclusion in the twenty-first century: The 2009 Roth-Symonds lecture. Perspecta, 43, 164–175.
Občina Krško. (2016). Retrieved January 10, 2017, from https://sl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ob%C4%8Dina_Kr%C5%A1ko.
Vincze, E., & Rat, C. (2013). Spatialization and racialization of social exclusion. The social and cultural formation of “gypsy ghettos” in Romania in a European context. Studia Universitatis Babes-Bolyai-Sociologia, 58(2), 5–21. Retrieved January 12, 2017, from http://www.studia.ubbcluj.ro/download/pdf/816.pdf [Accessed 12 January 2017].
Zore, J. (2016). Država s spodbudami Rome stiska v gete. Delo, 19. July. Retrieved January 12, 2017, from http://www.delo.si/novice/slovenija/drzava-s-spodbudami-rome-stiska-v-gete.html.
Acknowledgements
This research was partially supported by the Slovenian Research agency under the project “Ethnographies of Land and Water Routes: A Comparative Approach to (Im)mobility” (J6—6839). I thank to Nataša Rogelja and Nataša Gregorič Bon (ZRC SAZU) for comments that greatly improved my manuscript. I am deeply grateful to editors of this book, Stanko Pelc and Miha Koderman, for their suggestions and comments of my chapter. I also thank my interlocutors for sharing their stories. This research would not have been possible without the support of my husband Mitja Spreizer. Last, but not least I thank Manca Gašperšič and Gregor Pobežin for proofreading this work.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Janko Spreizer, A. (2018). Roma, Social Exclusion and Romani Settlements as Marginalized Place: The Case of Loke. In: Pelc, S., Koderman, M. (eds) Nature, Tourism and Ethnicity as Drivers of (De)Marginalization. Perspectives on Geographical Marginality, vol 3. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-59002-8_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-59002-8_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-59001-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-59002-8
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)