Advertisement

Bringing the Third Sector Back into Ghetto Studies: Roma Segregation and Civil Society Associations in Italy

  • Gaja MaestriEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

By considering the segregation of Roma in camps in Rome, in this chapter I evaluate the merits and limitations of Wacquant’s work on the ghetto. While rightly placing the state at the core of the analysis of racial segregation dynamics, Wacquant overlooks the complexity of public policies and does not discuss the role of civil society organisations in the (re)production of ghettoisation. I thus suggest integrating this view with theories coming from “camp studies”, which stress the heterogeneity of actors operating around state-enforced camps. Drawing on this approach, I explore the role of third sector associations not only in the planning and implementation of Roma housing segregation but also in the potentially exclusionary effects of their Roma inclusion discourses.

References

  1. Agamben, G. (1998). Homo sacer: Sovereign power and bare life. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Agamben, G. (2005). State of exception. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  3. Agier, M. (2011a). From refuge the ghetto is born: Contemporary figures of heterotopias. In R. Hutchison & B. D. Haynes (Eds.), The ghetto. Contemporary global issues and controversies (pp. 265–292). Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  4. Agier, M. (2011b). Managing the undesirables. Refugee camps and humanitarian government. Malden: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  5. Agier, M. (2014). Un Monde de Camps. Paris: La Découverte.Google Scholar
  6. Alexander, M. (2003). Local policies towards migrants as an expression of host-stranger relations: A proposed typology. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 29(3), 411–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Amnesty International. (2013). Double standards. Italy’s housing policies discriminate against Roma. London: Amnesty International Ltd.Google Scholar
  8. Annunziata, S., & Lees, L. (2016). Resisting “austerity gentrification” and displacement in Southern Europe. Sociological Research Online, 21(3), 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Anzaldi, A., & Stasolla, C. (2010). Esclusi e Ammassati. Rapporto Di Ricerca Sulla Condizione Dei Minori Rom Nel Villaggio Attrezzato Di via Di Salone a Roma. Roma: Associazione 21 Luglio.Google Scholar
  10. Arbaci, S. (2012). Paradoxes of segregation: Urban migration in Europe. Studies in urban and social change. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  11. Armillei, R. (2015). The “camps system” in Italy: Corruption, inefficiencies and practices of resistance. [Online] romanistudies.eu. Retrieved March 3, 2016, from http://romanistudies.eu/the-camps-system-in-italy
  12. Armillei, R., & Maestri, G. (2018). Camps, civil society organisations, and the reproduction of marginalisation: Italian and French ‘solidarity/inclusion’ villages for Romani people. In I. Katz, D. Martin, & C. Minca (Eds.), Camps Revisited. Multifaceted Spatialities of a Modern Political Technology. London: Rowman and Littefield.Google Scholar
  13. Associazione 21 Luglio. (2014). Campi Nomadi s.p.a. Segregare, Concentrare e Allontanare i Rom. I Costi a Roma Nel 2013. Frosinone: Nuova Stampa.Google Scholar
  14. Associazione 21 Luglio. (2017). Roma: Oltre Le Baraccopoli. Agenda Politica per Ripartire Dalle Periferie Dimenticate. Roma: Associazione 21 Luglio.Google Scholar
  15. van Baar, H. (2011). Europe’s romaphobia: Problematization, securitization, nomadization. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 29, 203–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. van Baar, H. (2012). Socio-economic mobility and neo-liberal governmentality in post-socialist Europe: Activation and the dehumanisation of the Roma. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 38(8), 1289–1304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Bermann, K., & Clough Marinaro, I. (2011). Exclusivity and exclusion: Roma camps and the “degypsification” of the Roman Urbs. Public, 43, 62–75.Google Scholar
  18. Brown, W. (2010). Walled states, waning sovereignty. New York: Zone Books.Google Scholar
  19. Clough Marinaro, I. (2009). Between surveillance and exile: Biopolitics and the Roma in Italy. Bulletin of Italian Politics, 1(2), 265–287.Google Scholar
  20. Clough Marinaro, I. (2015). The rise of Italy’s Neo-Ghettos. Journal of Urban History, 41(3), 368–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Clough Marinaro, I. (2017). The informal faces of the (Neo-)Ghetto: State confinement, formalization and multidimensional informalities in Italy’s Roma camps. International Sociology, 32(4), 545–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Clough Marinaro, I., & Ulderico, D. (2011). Roma and humanitarianism in the eternal city. Journal of Modern Italian Studies, 16, 621–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Cochrane, A. (1994). Restructuring the local welfare state. In R. Burrows & B. D. Loader (Eds.), Towards a post-Fordist welfare state? (pp. 117–135). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  24. Comune di Roma. (2017). Mozione n. 49 Del 27 Giugno 2017. Rome.Google Scholar
  25. Corriere della Sera. (1995a). L’assessore Piva al papa: “presto i campi sosta per i rom”, 9 June.Google Scholar
  26. Corriere della Sera (1995b). Rivolta contro i campi sosta, 14 December.Google Scholar
  27. Corriere della Sera (1995c). Nomadi, sindaci PDS contro Rutelli, 18 December.Google Scholar
  28. Costamagna, F. (2013). The provision of social services in Italy. Between federalization and europeanization. In U. Neergaard, E. Szyszczak, J. W. van de Gronden, & M. Krajewski (Eds.), Social services of general interest in the EU (pp. 541–568). The Hague: TMC Asser Press/Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Crawford, A. (2006). Networked governance and the post-regulatory state? Steering, rowing and anchoring the provision of policing and security. Theoretical Criminology, 10(4), 449–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Cremaschi, M. (2014). Worlding, worldly or ordinary? Repositioning Rome. In A. G. Calafati (Ed.), The changing Italian cities: Emerging imbalances and conflicts, GSSI Urban Studies—Working Papers 6 (pp. 67–74). L’Aquila: Gran Sasso Science Institute.Google Scholar
  31. Daniele, U. (2011). “Nomads” in the eternal city. Local policies and Roma participation in the “emergency” era. Géocarrefour, 86(1), 15–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Darling, J. (2016). Privatising asylum: Neoliberalisation, depoliticisation and the governance of forced migration. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 41(3), 230–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Di Maggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1991). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. In W. W. Powell & P. J. Di Maggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 63–82). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  34. Diken, B., & Laustsen, C. B. (2005). The culture of exception. Sociology facing the camp. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Doytcheva, M. (2012). Politiques Municipales et Familles Roms Migrantes: Entre Infra-Droit et Politiques de l’hospitalité. In Conference L’Etat des droits Pratiques des droits dans l’action publique, 25–26 June, University Paris 13—Villetaneuse and Sciences Po Paris, Paris.Google Scholar
  36. Edwards, B., & McCarthy, J. D. (2004). Resources and social movement mobilization. In D. A. Snow, S. A. Soule, & H. Kriesi (Eds.), The Blackwell companion to social movements (pp. 116–152). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  37. ERRC (European Roma Rights Center). (2000) Campland. Racial segregation of Roma in Italy. Country Report Series.Google Scholar
  38. Esping-Andersen, G. (1996). Welfare states without work: The impasse of labour shedding and familialism in continental European social policy. In G. Esping-Andersen (Ed.), Welfare states in transition: National adaptations (pp. 66–87). London: Sage publications.Google Scholar
  39. Evers, A., & Laville, J. L. (2004). The third sector in Europe. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
  40. Flint, J. (2009). Subversive subjects and conditional, earned and denied citizenship. In M. Barnes & D. Prior (Eds.), Subversive Citizens: Power, agency and resistance in public services (pp. 83–98). Bristol: Policy Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Fontanari, E. (2015). Confined to the threshold: The experiences of asylum seekers in Germany. City: Analysis of Urban Trends, Culture, Theory, Policy, Action, 19(5), 714–726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Foucault, M. (1991). Governmentality. In G. Burchell, C. Gordon, & P. Miller (Eds.), The Foucault effect: Studies in governmentality (pp. 87–102). Toronto: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
  43. FRA (European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights). (2012). The situation of Roma in 11 EU Member States. Survey results at a glance. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.Google Scholar
  44. Grazioli, M. (2017). From citizens to citadins? Rethinking right to the city inside housing squats in Rome, Italy. Citizenship Studies, 21(4), 393–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Hanafi, S., & Long, T. (2010). Governance, governmentalities, and the state of exception in the Palestinian refugee camps of Lebanon. Journal of Refugee Studies, 23(2), 134–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Harvey, D. (2005). A brief history of neoliberalism. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Herring, C., & Lutz, M. (2015). The roots and implications of the USA’s homeless tent cities. City: Analysis of Urban Trends, Culture, Theory, Policy, Action, 19(5), 689–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Hutchison, R., & Haynes, B. D. (2011). The ghetto. Contemporary global issues and controversies. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  49. Hyndman, J. (2000). Managing displacement: Refugees and the politics of humanitarianism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  50. Kazepov, Y. (2008). The subsidiarization of social policies: Actors, processes and impacts. Some reflections on the Italian case from a European perspective. European Societies, 10(2), 247–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Isin, E., & Rygiel, K. (2007). Abject spaces: Frontiers, zones, camps. In E. Dauphinee & C. Masters (Eds.), The logics of biopower and the war on terror: Living, dying, surviving (pp. 181–203). London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Lallement, M., & Laville, J. L. (2000). Introduction. Tiers secteur. Sociologie Du Travail, 42, 523–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Legros, O., & Vitale, T. (2011). Les Migrants Roms Dans Les Villes Françaises et Italiennes: Mobilités, Régulations et Marginalité. Géocarrefour, 86(1), 3–14.Google Scholar
  54. Lippert, R. (1999). Governing refugees: The relevance of governmentality to understanding the international refugee regime. Alternatives, 24, 295–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Maestri, G. (2014). The economic crisis as opportunity: How austerity generates new strategies and solidarities for negotiating Roma access to housing in Rome. City: Analysis of Urban Trends, Culture, Theory, Policy, Action, 18(6), 808–823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Maestri, G. (2017a). Struggles and ambiguities over political subjectivities in the camp: Roma camp dwellers between neoliberal and urban citizenship in Italy. Citizenship Studies, 21(6), 640–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Maestri, G. (2017b). The contentious sovereignties of the camp: Political contention among state and non-state actors in Italian Roma camps. Political Geography, 60, 213–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Marcuse, P. (2011). De-spatialization and de-ghettoization: The future of the U.S. ghetto. In R. Hutchison & B. D. Haynes (Eds.), The ghetto. Contemporary global issues and controversies (pp. 33–66). Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  59. Martin, D. (2015). From spaces of exception to “campscapes”: Palestinian refugee camps and informal settlements in Beirut. Political Geography, 44, 9–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Marušák, M., & Singer, L. (2009). Social unrest in Slovakia 2004: Romani reaction to neoliberal “reforms”. In N. Sigona & N. Trehan (Eds.), Romani politics in contemporary Europe: Poverty, ethnic mobilization, and the neoliberal order (pp. 186–208). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Massey, D. S., & Denton, N. (1993). American apartheid: Segregation and the making of the underclass. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  62. McGarry, A. (2017). Romaphobia: The last acceptable form of racism. London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  63. Miele, C. (2016). Living through the camp: Roma segregation and border-crossing in the city of Naples. In C. Brambilla, J. Laine, J. W. Scott, & G. Bocchi (Eds.), Borderscaping: Imaginations and practices of border making (pp. 197–204). Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  64. Milbourne, L., & Cushman, M. (2015). Complying, transforming or resisting in the new austerity? Realigning social welfare and independent action among English voluntary organisations. Journal of Social Policy, 44(3), 463–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Minca, C. (2015). Counter-camps and other spatialities. Political Geography, 49, 90–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Moran, D., Gill, N., & Conlon, D. (Eds.). (2013). Carceral spaces: Mobility and agency in imprisonment and migrant detention. Avebury: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  67. Nightingale, C. H. (2012). Segregation: A global history of divided cities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Patané, S. (2003). The third sector in Italy, in EuroSET report. Rome: European Social Enterprises Training, Centro Italiano di Solidarietà di Roma.Google Scholar
  69. Però, D., & Solomos, J. (2010). Introduction: Migrant politics and mobilization: Exclusion, engagements, incorporation. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 33(1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Pew Research Center. (2015). Faith in European project reviving. The Pew Global Project Attitudes.Google Scholar
  71. Piasere, L. (2006). Che Cos’è Un Campo Nomadi? Achab, 8, 8–16.Google Scholar
  72. Picker, G. (2017). Racial Cities. Governance and the segregation of Romani people in urban Europe. Oxon: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Raco, M. (2009). From expectations to aspirations: State modernisation, urban policy, and the existential politics of welfare in the UK. Political Geography, 28, 436–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Ramadan, A. (2010). In the ruins of Nahr Al-Barid: Understanding the meaning of the camp. Journal of Palestine Studies, 40(1), 49–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Ramadan, A. (2013). Spatialising the refugee camp. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 38(1), 65–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Redclift, V. (2013). Statelessness and citizenship: Camps and the creation of political space. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Sigona, N. (2003). How can a “nomad” be a refugee? Kosovo Roma and labelling policy in Italy. Sociology, 37(1), 69–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Sigona, N. (2011). The governance of Romani people in Italy: Discourse, policy and practice. Journal of Modern Italian Studies, 16(5), 590–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Sigona, N. (2015). Campzenship: Reimagining the camp as a social and political space. Citizenship Studies, 19(1), 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Silver, H., Scott, A., & Kazepov, Y. (2010). Participation in urban contention and deliberation. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 34(3), 453–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Squire, V. (2016). Hotspot stories from Europe’s border. OpenDemocracy. Retrieved March 30, 2017, from https://www.opendemocracy.net/5050/vicki-squire/hotspot-stories
  83. Suvarierol, S., & Kirk, K. (2014). Dutch civic integration courses as neoliberal citizenship rituals. Citizenship Studies, 19(3–4), 248–266.Google Scholar
  84. Tammaru, T., Marcińczak, S., van Ham, M., & Musterd, S. (2016). Socio-economic segregation in European capital cities. East meets West. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  85. Turner, S. (2005). Suspended spaces: Contesting sovereignties in a refugee camp. In T. B. Hansen & F. Stepputat (Eds.), Sovereign bodies: Citizens migrants and states in the postcolonial world (pp. 312–332). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  86. Tyler, I., Gill, N., Conlon, D., & Oeppen, C. (2014). The business of child detention: Charitable co-option, migrant advocacy and activist outrage. Race & Class: A Journal on Racism, Empire and Globalization, 56(1), 3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Uitermark, J., & Nicholls, W. (2014). From politicization to policing: The rise and decline of new social movements in Amsterdam and Paris. Antipode, 46(4), 970–991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Viterna, J., Clough, E., & Clarke, K. (2015). Reclaiming the “third sector” from “civil society”. Sociology of Development, 1(1), 173–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Wacquant, L. (2006). Body and soul: Notebooks of an apprentice boxer. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  90. Wacquant, L. (2008). Urban outcasts: A comparative sociology of advanced marginality. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  91. Wacquant, L. (2010). Designing urban seclusion in the twenty-first century: The 2009 Roth-Symonds lecture. Perspecta, 43, 164–175.Google Scholar
  92. Wacquant, L. (2011). A janus-faced institution of ethnoracial closure: A sociological specification of the ghetto. In R. Hutchison & B. D. Haynes (Eds.), The ghetto. Contemporary global issues and controversies (pp. 1–31). Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  93. Wilson, H. F. (2017). On the paradox of ‘organised’ encounter. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 38(6), 606–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Wilson, W. J. (1987). The truly disadvantaged: The inner city, the underclass, and public policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  95. Wirth, L. (1928). The ghetto. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Media, Communication and Sociology, University of LeicesterLeicesterUK

Personalised recommendations