intelligent and received good grades at school, they would in the end be dragged down to the level of the rest of the Romani children. Monika, a resident of one of the council flats, told me you wouldn’t even raise a dog in such an environment, and Zoralo felt similarly: If I was a member of parliament I’d abolish these settlements. Did they actually improve anything by building these apartment blocks? We’re still in one place, still in the settlement. I would have put one building here, one there, even if there were only to be two buildings… If the Roma were to be dispersed in this way, I believe it would be better for everyone.73
Zoralo’s criticism is similar to a way of thinking that views the construction of council flats in many Slovak municipalities as the confirmation, not to say intensification of racial segregation (ibid.). However, although his reasoning was highly reminiscent of the plans of the socialist state for an organised “dispersal”, the question remains as to whether Zoralo and the rest of the residents of the council flats would genuinely wish to be “scattered” in this way (let us not forget that after the flooding of 1974, individual Romani families in Jolany apparently turned down the offer of independent housing in surrounding villages). Zoralo’s feelings are more a reflection of the hopelessness of his own situation: he had attempted to obtain accommodation in the village, but, in the face of repeated failure, called instead for a systematic intervention from outside. I am of the opinion that the situationally nostalgic recollection of life in the “wooden houses” can also be seen as an expression of dissatisfaction with the state of affairs at the time of my research, in which the tenants of the council flats faced ongoing precarity. The question therefore arises as to how the construction of the council flats corresponded to the previously formulated interests of individual actors during the communist period. In the text explaining why the mayoress received her award, we read that she was responsible for the “liquidation of the settlement”, a formulation that in itself creates a continuity with earlier socialist policies. However, the aim was not only to oversee the material “liquidation of the Gypsy shacks” (likvidácia cigánskych chatrčí), but also the “liquidation of Gypsy concentrations” (likvidácia cigánskych koncentrácií) in their capacity as places characterised by a “backward” way of life. The construction of council flats had the effect
73
Interview with Zoralo (b. 1987), conducted in Romani, 11 May 2015.
98 Ukázka elektronické knihy, UID: KOS510518
of preserving such “concentrations” and was thus in its way a continuation of the policies of the local committee (MNV), which under socialism had sought to preserve non-Romani territorial hegemony. As well as the construction of the council flats ensuring the continuity of the territorialisation of the Roma, the location in question retained its association with a certain “backward” way of life despite its makeover. This continuity of the stigmatisation of place was symbolically implied in the designation “settlement” (vatra), which the local residents, both Roma and non-Roma alike, used to describe the area where the council flats were located. Zoralo had put his finger on things: the Roma remained “still in one place, still in the settlement”. I take this “territorial stigmatisation” (Wacquant 2007), in which a certain segment of the population is categorised and stigmatised on the basis of its place of residence, to be a dynamic process that reflects both the centralised policy of the state and that of the regional authorities, especially the municipality of Jolany. At the same time the particular social practice of the residents of Jolany, including the Roma themselves (both those inside and those outside the settlement), entered into the process.
Covert discrimination I have already shown that the material progress represented by the construction of low-grade council flats only partially satisfied the longheld desire of the Roma to build housing on their own land, and that the Roma themselves considered the settlement to be a “bad address” (cf. Wacquant 2007). The task now is to show how their specific social practices entered the context of these sentiments. During the period of my research, as previously in history, the Roma attempted to quit the settlement and find alternative housing. These attempts were prompted by the symbolic stigmatisation of the settlement and the desire to “to manage their own affairs” (korkoro peske te chulajinel), though they were also a reaction to the gradual overcrowding taking place of the council flats. Three-room flats, each with a total floor area of 64 m2, were soon insufficient for growing families, and the plans some of the Roma had to built wooden extensions were quashed by the local authorities. As well as conserving the existence of the settlement, the construction of the council flats basically set a limit on the number of residents and led to strict controls on any expansion. With the continuing unavailability of housing in the non-Romani part of Jolany, 99 Ukázka elektronické knihy, UID: KOS510518
many young Romani families were obliged to relocate to the surrounding villages, usually into its “Romani” quarter. This applied not only to young Romani women born in Jolany, who in accordance with tradition moved in with their husbands, but also to many Romani men who would otherwise be expected to remain with their families in their home village. This situation was again basically in line with what had earlier been the interests of the MNV, which had sought to prevent the expansion of the settlement and had at different times and in different contexts proposed displacing its residents outside the village. Martin and Fabián were young brothers, each of whom had a wife and three children, who lived in a three-room apartment with their parents. With twelve people living under the one roof, the brothers took matters into their own hands. During the course of my research, they both managed to secure a large bank loan in order to buy a house. They were aware that they would not find a property in Jolany. However, they had their eye on a long abandoned two-storey brick house with garden in a village a few kilometres away. Together we went to view the house and ask the local mayor about the possibility of buying it.74 Like the writers of the letter to the president from the 1970s, in talks with the non-Romani side Martin and Fabián made every effort to evince their credibility in specific ways. With the mayor they made frequent mention of the fact that their maternal grandfather hailed from this village, where he had enjoyed good relations with his non-Romani villagers. In a similar spirit they pointed out that they themselves were from Jolany, pinning their hopes on the good reputation of the Jolany Roma amongst the non-Roma in the region. In both cases, in order to establish their credibility, they emphasised their (historical) embeddedness in the socio-economic networks of place. The local mayor heard them out. He then proceeded to explain in a friendly enough fashion that the purchase of the house would not be possible, that ownership of the land on which the building stood was shared amongst a number of different people and the agreement of all of them would be difficult to reach. The two brothers nodded understandingly and bade farewell. On the way back to Jolany in the car they parsed the entire conversation thus: “It’s obvious he doesn’t want to sell [the house] to the Roma”. 74
Martin and Fabián told no one of their plans. They feared that other Jolany Roma would be envious and on our departure would “spit at us”, so as to bring us misfortune when negotiating the sale (cf. the fear of weakened solidarity networks in Chapter One).
100 Ukázka elektronické knihy