Gypsy-Travellers: stigmatisation and social integration Ryan Powell Conflict in space and place - accommodation and planning issues for Gypsies and Travellers, De Montfort University, Leicester, November 29th, 2012. Contested Gypsy-Traveller community shared aspects of culture shared space of the site common response from government and authorities BUT...heterogeneity and disidentification among different groups Social integration? Not straightforward; binaries can be unhelpful inclusion/ exclusion social care/ social control integration/ assimilation What's the problem with segregation? What's to be achieved by reducing it? (Flint, 2009) positive and enabling factors of segregation strengths and weaknesses of spatial concentration (Marcuse, 1997; Wacquant, 2004, 2008) integration on whose terms? importance of a long-term, historical perspective i.e. persistent persecution and stigma 'mixing without integration' (Sibley, 1998) functional interdependence; unequal power relations; mutual avoidance Gypsy-Travellers perceived to be at odds with dominant norms social integration = individualization and self-betterment group orientation of Gypsy-Travellers extended family and socialisation inter-generational mixing educational differences remarkable resistance and cultural continuity in the face of pressures to conform resistance and maintenance of culture and nomadism deemed "less civilised" Gypsy-Travellers treated as inferior; of lesser human worth - key question is why and how is this so persistent? Learning from the "ghetto"? 2 key and related questions: why does the stigmatisation of Gypsy-Travellers run so deep and persistent over the last 500 years? how have Gypsy-Travellers maintained their own identity and culture? Loïc Wacquant's concept of the "ghetto" as a tool of comparison (Powell, 2013) Gypsy-Traveller sites are NOT ghettos BUT...commonalities....a weapon of 'confinement and control' for the dominant and an 'integrative and protective device' for the stigmatized Commonalities with Wacquant's ghetto spatial confinement and control ethnic homogeneity retreat into the sphere of the family mutual distancing shared cultural identity reinforced through confinement Divergence from Wacquant's ghetto? changing economic function? parallel institutionalism? relationship with the state? the above represent areas for further research that could enhance understanding through comparative analyses with Wacquant's theoretical concept of the "ghetto" References Flint, J. (2009) 'Cultures, ghettos and camps: sites of exception and antagonism in the city', Housing Studies, 24(4), pp.417-431. Marcuse, P. (1997) 'The enclave, the citadel, and the ghetto: what has changed in the post-Fordist US city', Urban Affairs Review, 33(2), pp.228-264. Powell, R. (2013, forthcoming) 'Loïc Wacquant's "ghetto" and ethnic minority segregation in the UK: the neglected case of Gypsy-Travellers', IJURR. Sibley, D. (1998) 'Problematizing exclusion: reflections on space, difference and knowledge', International planning studies, 3, pp. 93-100. Wacquant, L. (2004) ‘Ghetto’, International Encyclopaedia of the Social and Behavioural Sciences. Wacquant, L. (2008) ‘Ghettos and anti-ghettos: An anatomy of the new urban poverty’, Thesis Eleven, 94, pp.113-118. Wacquant, L. (2012) 'A janus-faced institution of ethnoracial closure: a sociological specification of the ghetto', in Hutchison, R. and Haynes, B. D. (eds) The Ghetto: Contemporary Global Issues and Controversies (pp.1-32). Boulder: Westview.