[hr-education] Culture, Roma rights and HRE

[***Moderator's note: The article below appeared originally in Roma Rights
2/2005: Rights and Traditions Quarterly Journal of the European Roma
Rights Centre.***]


CULTURE, ROMA RIGHTS AND HUMAN RIGHTS EDUCATION: CONJUNCTIONS AND
DISJUNCTIONS

by Larry Olomoofe [1]

“Homosexuals are not human. They do not have the same rights as everyone
else.” (Participant at a Roma rights workshop held in 2003)

“ [Early marriage] it is our culture. This is what makes us Roma. We
cannot stop the practice. If we do, we will lose our identity”.
(Participant at a Roma Rights workshop 2004).

“I will talk with you later about this [Romani cultural traditions and
homophobia] only if you are not gay”. (Participant at a Roma Rights
workshop held in 2004).


In this article, I will attempt to explicate the various dynamics involved
in conducting human rights education initiatives amongst European Romani
activists and communities. Much of what will follow is drawn from personal
insights and anecdotal material based upon my involvement in a number of
training and developmental initiatives in the region. Over the course of
the past three years, a trend has become evidently apparent, related to
conducting theme-specific trainings amongst a variegated group of Romani
activists – youths, “leaders”, and women. When conducting these training
programmes, the vexed, hydra-headed issue of culture/tradition has figured
prominently and has been a major topic of discussion and in some cases,
tension. The main topic for discussion involved the putative loss of
cultural identity through the pursuit and acceptance of universally held
human rights principles. Regardless of the merits and demerits of the
discussions on this matter, the topic is one that has to be treated with a
degree of seriousness by human rights advocates and I shall attempt to
provide an analysis that will treat the matter with the gravity it
deserves. It is an issue that crosses generational as well as gender lines
amongst Romani activists, hinting at the relevance of the matter.

These debates have involved discussion around homosexuality, the role of
women in Romani culture, early marriages, sexual harassment and the
virginity cult. I intend to present material that will hopefully identify
the major contours of the continuing discussion around culture/tradition,
as well as exploring ways of addressing some of the entrenched rejection
of values by opponents of the human rights approach, values that underpin
much of the human rights paradigm that are crucial for a “culture” of Roma
Rights to take hold in and amongst Romani communities in the region.

Much of the opposition to the tenets of the rights paradigm stem from an
unequivocal relativistic position and the sense that the values of the
rights approach is a foreign, antithetical set of values that have been
created and generated in a “far away and unconnected place” and have
little or no bearing on the realities faced by many Romani communities in
Europe. Whilst accepting that much of the values of the rights paradigm
are locally contingent, a merely cultural relativistic approach would
overlook the universality of human rights and that these rights are not
culturally specific, and therefore not dependent upon a simple local
interpretation of the values that breathe life into the rights paradigm.
Such banal relativism does not allow a fully-fledged critical discourse to
emerge and I will attempt to tackle this particular renunciation of the
rights approach through provision of an analysis that allows for the
contingency of phenomena, and align it with the universality of human
rights. Indeed, many of the gains of Roma Rights over the past decade or
so, result from strategic approaches that have at some time or other,
implemented this idea which depends upon acceptance that the situation of
marginalised Romani communities must be placed in a wider global context
and not simply understood as locally occurring situations that have little
or no connection with the rest of the civilised world.

In many ways, this is one of the most difficult (if not the most
difficult) pieces I have had to write. This is because of the sensitivity
of the topic, involving the vexed issue of assimilation versus
integration, and the legitimate right to continue particular cultural
practices, that is also guaranteed by the international human principles.
However, we have to accept that if we (Roma Rights activists and
advocates) want to encourage the majority of societies in the CEE region
to acknowledge the egregious injustices Roma face there, then we will have
to grapple with the various traditional practices in the Romani
communities which violate universal human rights norms. Indeed, over the
past few years, one of the many tactics deployed by people who deny that
Roma face discrimination in their societies is the one which stresses that
Roma are the main violators of their groups/communities, through
recidivist cultural norms and values masquerading as traditional
practices. [2] This is a rather disingenuous strategy but one that has
currency since they are able to delineate a range of acts that fall
outside of the principles that underpin the human rights paradigm itself.
This moral repositioning by those who deploy this denial tactic, allows
them, absurdly, to occupy the higher moral ground suggesting that Roma are
the architects of their misery and need to be educated in the norms of
civilization. It is in this context that issues of cultural identity,
tradition, etc, need to be viewed since these practices become entrenched
signifiers of the group in defiance to the mainstream who look down their
noses at their Romani counterparts.

I hasten to add that my contribution here is not an exercise in casting
value-judgments on the opinions of those that I fundamentally disagree
with. Also, I am not seeking to castigate those who hold views that are in
stark opposition to mine and those of us within the human rights sphere.
This article is merely an attempt at moving the debate on so as to
establish firmer grounds for future human rights training initiatives
among Romani activists to be built upon. Through this, I am attempting to
open up another front for constructive discussion amongst the various
actors and participants striving to ensure and protect the rights of
Romani communities across Europe, both Romani and non-Romani. Therefore,
it should be received in the spirit it is intended, i.e., a constructive
critical contribution and not seeking to claim a higher moral ground at
the expense of others. Bearing this in mind, the article continues in
earnest below.

The quotes at the beginning of this article are deployed here to indicate
how the issue of cultural practices and the apparent clash with the
overarching human rights paradigm was/is a recurring theme during these
workshops among Romani activists. The apparent dislocation between
“Tradition” and “Human Rights” tends to crystallise in the form of a clash
of cultures, i.e., western (gadje) values on one side, and Roma values on
the other. Simple analysis taken from the perspective of rampant
discrimination that some Romani communities in the region face can offer
partial explanations of why this assumption is so prevalent amongst Roma.
Historical reasons are another subset of factors that have allowed for
this “clash” to accrue greater efficacy amongst Romani communities. A
corollary of this has been the acceptance by many interlocutors who view
the continued traditional practices amongst Roma as legitimate acts and
they should therefore, not interfere with phenomena that are locall y
contingent. This approach overlooks the many dissonant voices (mainly
women) within these same Romani communities that challenge these practices
and they are becoming an increasingly vocal and active coalition within
Romani communities in the CEE region. This much has become increasingly
evident during the course of a number of workshops and initiatives
conducted by the ERRC over the past few years, and the ERRC has
acknowledged the burgeoning influence of this sector of Romani communities
and has begun mainstreaming Women’s Rights issues into its programming.
[3] Acolytes of the cultural relativist position alluded to above refuse
to ask a series of simple questions. These are: What is Roma culture? What
are the locus/loci of this “culture”? What happens when/if a Romani person
refuses to accept these nodal points as their culture? In cases when this
refusal occurs, do these people cease being Roma or are they “self-hating
Roma” as some people have expressed to me over the yea rs? This is a
preposterous assumption indicating the facile nature of such a position,
one that should not be entertained in any setting or by any audience.

The increasingly large number of Romani women who have begun to vocalise
their displeasure and opposition towards a number of these “traditional”
practices highlights the fact they tend to be the “victims” of these acts
and are beginning to draw attention to the reality that they no longer
view the practices as legitimate. When invited to international events,
they eloquently articulate the major reasons why they feel that the
practices should be challenged and eventually stopped. The recent creation
of the Roma Women’s Network in 2003 also shows that for the first time,
Romani women are beginning to create a space for themselves within the
public sphere and are beginning to network and create expansive coalitions
– involving participants from European Union states, as well as Belarus,
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Russia, Serbia and
Montenegro, and Ukraine. A contemporary example of the increased
visibility of women’s issues in Romani communities is the Virginity C ult
project in Macedonia which has been awarded funds by the Open Society
Institute’s Network Women’s Program.

The main aim of the Virginity Cult project is to challenge the widely-held
belief amongst Roma that women must be virgins when they marry. In cases
where women are not virgins, they are stigmatised and are forced to be
outcasts in their own families and communities since it is understood (by
members of both family and community) that a woman who is not a virgin on
her wedding night has brought shame and dishonour to them. The project
aims to educate people (both men and women, young and old) that there is
no place for such beliefs in contemporary society. Decisions such as when
one becomes sexually active should be a personal one and left to the
individual to make. Women should not be subject to coercive pressure
through collective cultural expectations that suggests that they should
refrain from sexual activity until marriage, and if they decide not to
conform to the “cultural belief”, should not be stigmatised by their
communities for doing so. [4]

Opposition to some of the cultural practices does not fall along gender
lines only, but generational ones also. Today, many younger Romani
activists have voiced their opposition to many of the practices within
their Romani communities hitherto perceived as part of their traditional
heritage and integral to Romani identity. These youth tend to be
university educated and are comfortable traversing that imaginary line
between their Romani communities and mainstream society. They have managed
to process a myriad of influences gathered mainly through attendance at
university and exposure and interaction with/to wider influences, and
reconcile these with beliefs and expectations of their individual Romani
communities. It is with this group that one can patently observe the
inherent tensions involved in the construction of a strong, positive,
Romani identity. On the one hand, they understand the importance of being
“Roma”, especially in light of the manifold forms of discrimination that
they and their group experience. On the other hand, they also appreciate
that their marginal position will continue if they do not challenge
popular [mis] perceptions of Roma. The subsequent process of elision,
therefore, would involve the reconstitution and constant updating of the
Romani identity to include some of the values that hitherto now have been
considered “non-Romani” ones. For example, the simple act of trouser
wearing by Romani women in public is scorned upon by some Romani
communities in Europe. Romani women are prohibited from wearing trousers
because it is related to sexual and biological reasons and to do so would
bring shame on the family in the eyes of the wider community. This is
being challenged by the current younger generation of Romani women who
defiantly wear trousers and proclaim that doing so is their choice and one
that will not be decided or influenced by popular in-community perceptions
or expectations. This development shares similarities with the in itiative
women are taking in Macedonia and the Virginity Cult project mentioned
above.

In charactering this issue of cultural identity as “Romani” and
“non-Romani” and in need of “reconciliation” in this fashion, I hasten to
add that the two trajectories are not mutually exclusive as perceived by a
number of people involved in the current discourse. There has been much
cross-over between the two communities which is an inevitable outcome when
such groups live in close proximity with one another over a prolonged
period of time. Whilst this is considered by some as a positive outcome,
it is precisely because of this phenomenon that Romani identity and
culture is vigorously protected by its leaders, etc. The fear of
“assimilation” is a very potent one and therefore influences the
perceptions, choices and expectations of those within these marginalised
Romani communities.

As mentioned earlier above, the assumption of a potential loss of one’s
identity is further accentuated by the highly politicised, discriminatory
and racialised environment in which these communities exist, placing a
greater premium on Roma identity and their attendant cultural practices.
This environment therefore generates a “them and us” syndrome that can
eventually lead to a misconstrual of the integration process creating a
perception that integration is tantamount to losing one’s Romani identity,
valorising the assumption that Roma culture and tradition are fixed and
unchanging and that certain cultural practices are quintessentially Romani
and attempts to change them means assimilation and loss of one’s identity.
[5]

Evidence of a generational fault-line in the understanding of Romani
tradition occurred during another capacity building workshop conducted by
the ERRC in the autumn of 2004 when the topics of early marriage and
homosexuality were discussed by the participants. The group comprised of
mainly young Romani activists with a few older members amongst them.
During a discussion about the universality of human rights, the topic of
homosexuality in Romani communities was examined by the group. One of the
older members of the group continually used homophobic language to
describe homosexual men and made a number of disparaging remarks about
them. He called them “hot”, “dirty”, and “inhuman”, amongst others. His
tirade was challenged by some of the younger members of the group who
explained to him that he was guilty of repeating the practices of
prejudices that Roma faced by members of the majority population. He
justified his stance by stressing that it was “traditional” for Roma to
ostraci se gay men and that if there were any gay men in a given Romani
community, he would be forced out of the community since he would be
considered “dirty”. Younger members, whilst acknowledging that this may
well be the case, stressed that the practice was insensitive and wrong and
should be changed. He grew angry at the challenges he was facing and drew
the tradition “card” as if it were a magic wand that would quell his
detractors. It didn’t and he refused to continue the dialogue after
claiming that the younger members had been brainwashed by “gadje” values
and had lost their own Romani identities as a consequence. This is a
spurious line of argument to proffer since it misleadingly stresses that
any challenge of one’s cultural practices is influenced by outsiders, be
they human rights activists, feminists, teachers, etc. Acceptance of this
would be agreeing with the notion that Romani values are antithetical to
wider mainstream values, thereby undermining much of the gains achiev ed
by pursuing both the human rights and anti-discrimination approaches with
regard to the long-term marginalisation and entrenched poverty of Romani
communities in Europe.

Another disturbing feature of the current discourse is the relativisation
of human rights principles. By this I mean that the very same people that
insist on Roma culture and tradition being beyond the realm of inspection
and challenge when viewed in light of human rights principles, apply those
very same principles when dealing with situations in which violators are
non-Romani and the victims are Romani. This leads to claims of hypocrisy
or double-standards by the vast majority of non-Romani commentators who
rightly view the position of many Romani activists and human rights
supporters as duplicitous. The broader implications of such controversial
positions are to render implementing a culture of anti-discrimination much
more difficult -- detractors amongst the majority population too can
deploy the right to conduct cultural practices that are rooted in
tradition, whether they violate the rights of Romani people or not. I have
witnessed a number of occasions where people have str essed that Roma have
traditionally existed at the margins of society and that discrimination
against them was justified because of “tradition”.

This is a disingenuous argument but one that is difficult to tackle when
Roma continue to insist on the right to stigmatise, and/or violate certain
individuals because they have chosen not to adopt “traditional” practices
or values that are considered to be intrinsic to Romani identity and
culture.

Anecdotal insights such as the one articulated above indicate that there
is strong opposition to some Romani cultural practices within Romani
communities. Despite this though, there is also resistance as evinced
above. This tension opens up the space for critical dialogue between the
two camps that will eventually lead to a temporary resolution of sorts and
if the inherent dialectical tension continues, other fronts for discussion
(disagreement/agreement) shall open up and move the discourse forward.
There is a coalition forming in Romani communities led primarily by women
that are challenging “traditional” practices in these communities. The
fact that they challenge some practices does not make them any less Roma
than those who support and indulge in those practices. Being “Roma” does
not simply rely upon adherence of some arbitrary practices or code of
conduct that is mythologised into tradition by those who fear that loss of
them would mean the loss of the people. Romani cultur e, identity and
tradition do not exist outside of the boundaries of contemporary modern
societies. It is an intrinsic part of contemporary societies in Europe and
the political gains and developments around Roma rights highlights the
point succinctly. We need to move away from the debilitating assumption
that Roma are a “traditional” group with “traditional” practices and need
to continue to occupy their “traditional” place at the margins of society.

Likewise, Romani actors need to accept that “tradition” is not a
legitimate excuse (or explanation) to continue practices that may violate
the rights of an individual or group within the community. They also need
to accept that refusal to adhere to some of the precepts that are
understood to be “Roma” by some Romani individuals does not mean a loss of
one’s Romani identity or culture. This means that people need to vocalise
their opposition to such an understanding articulating why such
perceptions are wrong and harmful. This is currently being done by some
brave people within Romani communities who have taken the responsibility
of articulating the need for re-examining what it is that makes them Roma
and what collective values are the representative ciphers that make the
people what they are, especially in the complicated, discriminatory
environment in Europe today. Our task as human rights educators is to
provide the skills and resources that will allow these groups and individu
als to be able to articulate their positions in a coherent and
understandable fashion. We are charged with capacitating these people,
providing them with a broad range of methods/methodologies, mechanisms,
strategies, etc that will empower them and allow them to continue to
conduct the internal critique of their cultural practices and spaces.
Standing on the sidelines and claiming that all actions and beliefs are
culturally relevant is not an option. Indeed, banal relativism of this
type is actually exacerbating the situation.



ENDNOTES:

1. Larry Olomoofe is Human Rights Trainer at the ERRC.

2. A recent example of this was the huge public outcry over the marriage
of a 12 year-old Romani girl and 15 year old Romani boy in Romania in
2003. This event gained global notoriety and exposure after the BBC
broadcast the event precipitating a huge international backlash. Much of
the media focus was on the fact that the two people involved, were still,
by international law, children (Convention on the Rights of the Child,
Article 1) and they were “forced” or compelled to comply with the wishes
of their families because it was part of Romani tradition for children to
marry at an early age.

3. This fact is evinced by the recent creation and hiring of a Women’s
rights officer within the ERRC staff.

4. It is also interesting to note that whilst there are well-established
sanctions against women who become sexually active before marriage, there
are little, if any, sanctions against their male counterparts if they too
decide to become sexually active. It is this apparently hypocritical code
that has fuelled the anger of young women who see the arbitrary
application of the “rule” as unjust and unfair.

5. A corollary of this is the ring-fencing of Roma culture and an
essentialising of what it is exactly to be “Roma”.


Source: http://www.errc.org/cikk.php?cikk=2287




======== Global Human Rights Education listserv ========
Send mail intended for the list to <hr-education@hrea.org>.
Archives of the list can be found at:
http://www.hrea.org/lists/hr-education/markup/maillist.php
If you have problems (un)subscribing, contact <owner-hr-education@hrea.org>.
**You are welcome to reprint, copy, archive, quote or re-post this item,
but please retain the original and listserv source.