Growing up as a Gypsy

By: Sinead Ni Shunear
Source: Children of Minorities - Gypsies, edited by Sandro Costarelli, Unicef, 1992

THE ISSUES

OVERVIEW

The world is currently in ferment, with contradictory trends creating widespread uncertainty and disquiet. On the one hand, there has been a vast cultural leveling: music, clothing, food and lifestyles are becoming more and more uniform, and this has been paralleled in the political sphere, with the major ideological divisions gone. On the other hand, there has been a resurgence of regionalism and ethnic conflict. Either trend, taken to extremes, may result in cultural impoverishment for all. There is an increasingly urgent need to find a middle way: a way to break down barriers and pool the resources of all without losing diversity in the process. In this context, the Gypsy issue is particularly relevant. Gypsies are the minority par excellence a permanent minority, familiar for centuries in every European country but also in the United States, Latin America, Asia and Australia. The Gypsies present a microcosm of the challenge of inter-cultural coexistence. What we learn in the process of interacting with Gypsies can also help in our relations with other minorities. This may also provide insights of use in other contexts in which a 'folk' minority confronts an 'urban' majority, such as in the developing countries where interethnic urban situations are becoming increasingly evident. Most importantly, the Gypsy experience can teach us that seemingly straightforward questions - -such as health care, accommodation, school provision, vocational training - can become incredibly complicated in the context of interethnic dynamics. To ignore this fact is to condemn both cultural sides to an impasse of inappropriate responses, wasted resources and spiraling resentment.

A further valuable insight may be gained by looking into the 'Gypsy question': here is a people - or rather, many peoples - who have been absorbing what they consider useful from alien cultures for centuries, while remaining uncompromisingly themselves. Isn't this precisely the balance to aspire cowards in the 'new world' of intercultural coexistence? In this context, the Gypsies may really have something to teach us.

THE GYPSY CHILD

Few topics are so emotive as child-rearing, and small wonder: it is the means by which we perpetuate our way of life, shape our own future, pass on our dreams. Over the past century, scores of scientific studies have been undertaken on the processes which transform infants into well-adjusted and responsible adults. Bur even a cursory review of the literature reveals that there is absolutely no practice which has not, in some period, been promoted as indispensable and, in another, condemned as irreparably harmful (Hardiment, 1983). Even a seemingly straightforward question like breastfeeding has long been a focus of heated controversy.

There has, however, been a generally unanimous condemnation of Gypsy child-rearing practices. Glimpsed in the most superficial and fragmented ways, the common perception of Gypsy children sees them either 'running wild' in groups or sitting alone for hours pleading for money from passers-by. There is no apparent sign of parental supervision or any sort of education in practical or vocational skills.

Furthermore, there is a general conviction chat Gypsy parents spend their ill-gotten cash on drink and gold jewellery, while the best their malnourished, ragged children can hope for is not to be beaten. If such a picture were even close to the truth, its victims would desert en masse: Gypsy children would be only too anxious to assimilate into the non-Gypsy world, or at least to escape such intolerable home situations. But even those Gypsy children judged by social workers to be at risk, and removed into care by authorities, remain fiercely loyal to their parents and families. The Gypsy family must be doing something right!

"The child occupies a central position in the social and cultural world of Gypsies regard-less of group affiliation or national origin. Researchers unanimously praise the care bestowed upon the Gypsy child by all members of the family and the community. This intensive care exists in tandem with distinctive respect for the child's independence: the Gypsy child eats, sleeps, and plays when he wants subject only to the requirement of remaining within sight of family or community members." In contrast to the patterns of industrial culture, "socialization [of the Gypsy child] is carried on by the group rather than the nuclear family... Children live in a climate of freedom within the extended family, where affective warmth and permissiveness dominate. Early on, young children participate in communal life and wish to accede to the status of adult. The feelings of belonging to a family, the way of life that brings together all the family in a very small space, and participation in the parents' professional activities reinforce the wholeness of the group, often opposed to the hostility or the incomprehension of external society" (Charlemagne, 1983).

The Gypsy child lives in a community which supports and reinforces his sense of belonging: he is never alone. And like all members of his family, the Gypsy child lives in a perpetual 'now'. He expresses his moods, his needs, his wants directly; and receives an immediate and attentive response. The Gypsy model is one of immediacy, generosity and mutual assistance. Needs are met as they arise; so too, the Gypsy socio-economic system as a whole (as will be detailed later) is based on cultivating flexibility in order to respond to demands and opportunities as they arise.

Both on a physical and emotional level, the Gypsy child's needs are looked after not just by his immediate family, but by the community as a whole. This creates an intense emotional bonding and identification with the group, all the more so as it is surrounded by hostile outsiders. The independence of the Gypsy, child does not contradict the norms and values of the group but conforms to them, placing the child at a distance from the non-Gypsy world, if not directly at odds with it. Moreover, the time the Gypsy child spends in non-Gypsy environments is educational for him; increasing his knowledge of the alien world enables him to make it work more effectively to his advantage.

HEALTH

Jan Yoors, a non-Gypsy who ran away with the Gypsies at the age of 12 and stayed with them for 10 years, tells the story of how he strutted proudly back to camp one day showing off a brand-new, expensive jacket. His adoptive father reached out and ripped the lapel as a reminder to him that it was, after all, merely an object, and should be kept in perspective (Yoors, 1967).

Gypsies make a clear distinction between superficial appearances which they largely ignore, and the invisible, intangible essence which is all important for them. Without an understanding of this differentiation, Gypsy children in ill-fitting, ill-matched or ragged clothing are all too often judged as neglected. On the contrary, the shirt may well be a couple of sizes off, but it has certainly been washed separately from foodstuffs and eating utensils. This refusal to mix objects belonging to different categories of cultural meaning is so crucial that it forms an impenetrable barrier between the Gypsy and those who do not share the same cultural distinctions. Surprisingly, this includes not only other Gypsy groups who do not observe identical principles, but all non-Gypsies, who are seen as pervasively 'dirty' (regardless of how clean they might look).

Nonetheless, the health needs of Gypsies are far from being met. They need to live in conditions which are not endemically unhealthy, but the rat-infested garbage dumps or cramped, prefabricated dwellings with no clean water or sewage that Gypsies are often forced to live in can literally be life--threatening. Statistics from country after coun-try show that certain types of environment - related illnesses (especially of a gastric or respiratory nature) are particularly prevalent in Gypsy communities and that the incidence of these is typically several times higher for Gypsies than for the general population (see "Gypsy Children in Europe"). The question of Gypsy health is essentially the question of Gypsy accommodation, as the root cause of sickness and low life expectancy is so closely linked to environmental conditions.

The Gypsy is his family and community, which means that the individual's health- and most particularly the child's health - must be addressed within the community context, taking full account of both objective aspects, such as unhealthy location and lack of facilities, and subjective ones, including beliefs about sickness and health.

On the surface, health-related questions, especially those of a serious and traumatic nature like infant mortality, offer common ground for Gypsy and non-Gypsy values. But Gypsy culture is folk culture in which the realms of medicine and religion remain closely intertwined. Hence, prevention and treatment may have more to do with faith and ritual than with scientific theories and practice. Such attitudes may, for example, explain the typically low take-up rate for immunization of Gypsy children: the relevance of these practices may very often not be appreciated by Gypsy parents. The result is, however, that services often remain inaccessible to Gypsy children, and this applies not only to health care but to many fields affecting Gypsy welfare.

A further health-threatening factor for Gypsy communities is their reluctance to place themselves at the mercy of the non--Gypsy world. Medical intervention is typically sought as a last resort, and this is likely to be in a hospital emergency ward. There are a number of reasons for this: it is visible and accessible even to people who may be unfamiliar with the locality; it provides an immediate response to need; it is open 24 hours a day; it is impersonal, and thus not perceived as directly threatening; it is generally free of charge; and finally, it is large enough for the extended family group to gather in and keep vigil over the sick member. This solidarity is important for the Gypsy community as the combination of illness and displacement into the non-Gypsy world is extremely traumatic for both the patient and the extended family. It is, however, often a cause of major tension with non-Gypsy staff.

An important exception to this avoidance of non-Gypsy institutions occurs in the life--or-death situation of newborn and/or sickly babies facing the harsh winter months in all too frequently subhuman conditions. In such circumstances, it is not uncommon for Gypsy -parents to place the at-risk child into foster care or hospital until the worst of the danger has passed. Unfortunately, an insufficient -understanding of regulations often means that Gypsy parents are accused of child abandonment and therefore have great difficulty regaining custody.

EDUCATION

"The Gypsy family has retained substantial responsibilities across a wide range of ser-vices - recreational, health, educational, economic, religious and so on - that are normally identified as functions of the traditional family and for which, among contemporary house--dwellers, responsibility has been transferred to [external] institutions. It is partly the non-transference of these functions to external institutions that has identified the Gypsy family as anachronistic in the eyes of local an central government officers" (Adams, et al.). Of these family functions, the one which excites the most emotive debate is education: the process through which the child is pre-pared for full participation in his community.

From a non-Gypsy perspective, the Gypsy family fails to impart many indispensable skills. Therefore, Gypsy children are frequently classed as 'backward' in school- either as 'cognitively deficient' or as mentally retarded - and school provision is tailored accordingly (see "Gypsy Children in Europe"). Strangely, illiteracy among Gypsy children is perceived as far more alarming than Gypsy infant mortality rates, and schooling is therefore considered a more urgent need than accommodation. Indeed, education is often promoted as the panacea to Gypsy problems: in the popular imagination, it will eliminate illiteracy, familiarize Gypsies with mainstream culture and values, and eventually enable them to get jobs and better themselves financially.

However, despite considerable efforts made by school authorities, the picture is the same for Gypsies everywhere: only about a third of Gypsy children of primary school age are enrolled in school, with many of these attending only irregularly. Attendance ceases altogether at about age 12, when Gypsy pupils typically leave school still functionally illiterate. Why does this happen?

Part of the answer lies with Gypsy parents' attitudes and practices: they see school as synonymous, not with 'education for life' (since the family provides that), but with literacy'. And as Gypsy culture is a non-literate, oral one, their attitudes to literacy are complex and ambivalent: literacy is suspect, because it increases contact with alien ideas; it is also seen as 'difficult'. Coming from non--literate homes, Gypsy children do not have the cultural expectation that literacy will be painlessly acquired in primary school, nor do they have access to story-books or parental help with homework that are common features of non-Gypsy children's home life (at least in middle-class families).

But Gypsy parents are also pragmatic. Their children generally remain non-literate until they decide that it is an essential skill. In the meantime, resistance to literacy -whether conscious or not - is a form of ethnic self assertion. Seen in this light, it is clear why the child's 'failure' in school may be viewed by his parents as a successful resistance to acculturation into an alien, suspect and hostile world.

Gypsy parents' attitudes to non-Gypsy education are further complicated by the need for their children to learn skills which are of use to their own community. This they do by watching and copying their parents and other older members of the extended family. Moreover, children's help, including minding younger children, fetching water and earning money, is a crucial contribution to the family and community. From this perspective, it becomes evident that the time Gypsy children spend in school is time spent away from - and to the disadvantage of - their families.

Furthermore, school as an institution within non-Gypsy cultures serves a primary function of socializing children to take their place in non-Gypsy society. This process entails a great deal that is at odds with the goals and methods of the Gypsy socialization process. Strict timetables, immobility, group discipline and obedience to a single authority figure all conflict with Gypsy emphasis on immediacy, flexibility and shared authority. Moreover, and strangely for the Gypsy child, school treats him as an individual rather than as a member of his family: brothers and sisters are separated by age, and parents have no say in the classroom.

While at school, the Gypsy child is immersed in an alien world. From the Gypsy parents' perspective, this has its positive side: their children must get to know and understand the non-Gypsy world in order to coexist with it. On the other hand, it is also threatening for them: their children may begin to internalize non-Gypsy cultural models. Therefore, the school experience is seen as best kept to a minimum, and normally ceases altogether when, at puberty; the Gypsy child reaches the point of adulthood within his culture.

Yet many Gypsy parents are adamant that their children should master non-Gypsy skills, and are willing to send their children to school. The fact that their children emerge illiterate is probably due to the school's fail-ure to take their particular needs into sufficient account. In every European country, a highly disproportionate number of Gypsy children spend their entire school career in 'special' classes specifically for them or, even more detrimentally, for the mentally handicapped. In either case, it is unlikely that the teacher has had any training in the realities of Gypsy culture. The Gypsy child's cultural difference is generally greeted with hostility by schoolmates, and not infrequently by teachers as well. As a general rule, teachers' expectations of Gypsy children are so low that little effort is made to teach them.

This assumes, of course, that the Gypsy child can get into school in the first place. In reality, bureaucracy and discrimination frequently combine to leave many willing Gypsy pupils - even fully sedentary ones - -outside the school gates. Additional practical problems, such as school transport and the cost of uniforms and books, also have the effect of deterring many children.

The trend among Gypsy families is towards an increased demand for non-Gypsy skills, with a view to incorporating them into the Gypsy life-style. There is therefore a growing need for these skills to be made available with no cultural strings attached. This requires a recognition and redressing of the problems outlined here, and more: an actively multicultural vision both of the class-room and, naturally, of the broader social organization it reflects.

ACCOMMODATION

"Nomadism is as much a stare of mind as a state of fact" (Liegeois, 1987). Indeed, the great majority of Gypsy communities have been sedentary for centuries. Yet nomadism remains a fundamental element of Gypsy culture, even for sedentarized groups. Gypsy families develop little attachment to their dwelling and little sense of involvement in local issues. Their society is in fact organized along lines of kinship rather than geographical proximity.

The prevalence of sedentarism is often cited as proof that Gypsy families themselves have recognized the advantages of the non--Gypsy lifestyle. But such an interpretation ignores the 'push' factors that have forced people off the road: even where nomadism has not been prohibited outright, nomadic groups have always been subject to harassment and are often disqualified from the most basic health, education and social services.

There are also a number of 'pull' factors, however, which make decreased nomadism compatible with the Gypsy lifestyle. One of these is motorization, the advantage of which is that a vastly expanded area can now be reached from a single base. Another is urbanization: with the move by the non-Gypsy -population - the economic base for Gypsy communities - towards larger concentrations. Gypsy families have followed. Furthermore, seasonal (autumn/winter) sedentarism coincides with school terms. Gypsy families therefore can and do choose to stop traveling for prolonged periods.

Problems arise when the option of moving on is removed. Long-term forced sedentarism has proved to be dangerous even when it has occurred in tolerable physical conditions. As the number of stopping places dwindles, members of rival groups - and of rival clans within a single group - are thrown together. The result is an explosive rise in disputes, without the traditional safety-valve of separating the warring factions. Meanwhile, each small group, cut off from the wider family, is thrown in on itself: there is less economic and social cooperation, restricted choice of marriage partners, and fewer social sanctions to help keep members in line.

Interestingly, the very word 'housing' reveals prejudices regarding accommodation. While Gypsy communities consider a whole range of accommodation options as potentially appropriate according to their circum-stances, non-Gypsy cultures use only one measuring-stick: the house. Gypsy families commonly live in tents, wooden caravans, trailers, shanties, private and public housing and flats, and, most importantly, may frequently move among these options, but governmental housing policies make no provision for such flexibility.

Halting sites are planned not for the accommodation of Gypsy families with an alternative, but equally valid, lifestyle, but as part of a policy of 'settlement', a stepping-stone into standard housing and absorption into the 'wider community'. Even on legal sites, therefore, living conditions are usually very poor. Sites are often located on unwanted, unusable land: beside dumps and cemeteries, on swampland or under high-tension electric pylons, in the middle of nowhere.

In reality, legal sites tend to be inappropriate in a number of ways. Economic activity on-site is usually banned, with the result that Gypsy families either become passively dependent on social welfare payments, or manage to retain a degree of economic autonomy by breaking the site rules or by moving out. Site layout is invariably based on the conviction that Gypsies are 'all the same', which means, for instance, that rival groups may be lumped indiscriminately together on an open site more closely resembling an abandoned car-park, or extended family group members may be separated from each other in single trailers surrounded by high walls. Although Gypsies spend most of their time out of doors, official sites usually pro-vide very little space between caravans or common ground for work, play and socializing. Finally, sites are usually grossly over-crowded.

For all their imperfections, legal sites are still the exception. No European country has matched site numbers to the national Gypsy population, let alone provided the extra places which would make nomadism between legal sites possible. Yet accommodation, in a range of forms, is the key issue on which all aspects of Gypsy welfare hinge. How can families living near open sewers, with no access to clean water, possibly stay healthy? How can families make a living if they are refused permission to work on-site, or are unable to travel in order to take up opportunities as they arise? How can a family under constant threat of eviction send their children to school in the morning, knowing that they may have been towed away by the time they return?

THE GYPSY CHILD AND FAMILY EMPLOYMENT

The Gypsy family is an economic unit in which every member (including the baby in arms, an essential accessory when begging) is expected to play an active role. Therefore, it is normal for the Gypsy child to participate in the family economy. What is not normal is for him to have to support parents who are pre-vented from economic activity. Indeed, as more and more obstacles are placed in the way of Gypsy parents' making a living, the family may come to depend disproportionately on what the children bring in. More-over, if the Gypsy family's day-to-day survival depends on the children's earnings, they will have no time to learn new skills, either in-family or in school. Thus, these children too face a future of unemployment.

But what is unemployment from the Gypsy cultural perspective? Unlike non-Gypsy cultures which generally define work as "a job" (security) or better still "a profession" (specialization), Gypsies see work as anything and everything they can do to make money. In fact, Gypsies survive by identifying and supplying a broad range of non-Gypsy demands. This makes Gypsies - commercial nomads - fundamentally different from other nomadic groups who exploit nature either directly (as hunter/gatherers) or indirectly (as herders). Opportunities may arise on a seasonal or occasional basis (agricultural labor, chimney cleaning). or because the work is dirty (scrap), or because the skills are not available locally (white-smithing, mending jobs, horse-dealing, music). Clearly, such a self-structured approach to work demands mobility and a broad, flexible range of marketable skills. Self-employment and work flexibility are also essential to the Gypsy life-style: the individual must be able to drop every-thing to meet unpredictable family obligations, such as keeping vigil by a relative's sickbed or traveling to attend a relative's wedding.

Several countries have established training schemes for Gypsy adolescents, but a misunderstanding of Gypsy work patterns means that, from the Gypsy cultural perspective, they acquire few useful skills. For example, because Gypsies have traditionally been metalworkers, young boys may receive training in wrought ironwork- a craft requiring bulky, expensive equipment which precludes working from home. What makes a type of work or skill relevant to Gypsies is the way that it fits into their complex cultural patterns of life.

Nowadays, a number of factors collude to prevent Gypsy adults from playing an active economic role. Market changes, the loss of traditional income-generating activities and prejudicial attitudes in hiring practices make it increasingly difficult for Gypsies to survive economically, and the overwhelming majority, in every country, live well below the poverty line. The fact that virtually 100 per cent of Gypsies are in receipt of social welfare benefits should therefore be interpreted within Gypsy parameters.

Generally speaking, Gypsies see social welfare payments as simply one economic option in a broad and flexible range of income-generating possibilities. Accepting assistance does not imply a total and passive dependence, although this may be the condition on which it is granted. Where Gypsy parents have been prevented from supplementing social welfare payments with their own employment initiatives, the results have been disastrous. Gypsies are compulsive wheeler-dealers, constantly devising new ways of making a profit. While few are consistently successful, the possibility of exercising economic initiative is psychologically crucial for them.

INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTIONS

The critical situation of disadvantage and deprivation faced by Europe's Gypsy communities is by no means new: what is new is a growing recognition of the right of Gypsies (and indeed all minorities) to an equal place in a pluralist society and a greater willingness to reassess ways in which this can be brought about. To date, commitment to these ideals has been more in evidence at international than at local level, but the moral - and per-haps legal - force of such a lead should not be underestimated.

The Council of Europe first took up the question in 1975 with its Resolution on the Situation of Nomads in Europe, followed by a further Resolution on the same subject in 1981. In 1984, the European Parliament passed a Resolution on the Children of Parents of No Fixed Abode. and another on the Situation of Gypsies in the Community. In 1986, a synthesis of reports from all Member States of the European Community. School Provision for Gypsy and Traveler Children, was published. It focused on school-related issues within their broader context, giving particular emphasis to the issues of accommodation and recognition of Gypsy culture.

Throughout the 1980s, the Council of Europe called a number of conferences on questions relating to Gypsy education, the results of which were published as reports.

The 1990s have seen the pace quicken. At European Community level, an ad-hoc Group on school provision for Gypsy and Traveler children brings delegates together from the Ministries of Education of all Member States. The European Parliament has introduced a new budgetary heading, "Intercultural education", with an allocation of 700,000 Ecus specifically for Gypsy children. An EC quarterly newsletter, Interface, aims to increase awareness of developments by publishing the texts of relevant resolutions, details of exchange programmes and grant schemes, and so on. In 1991, the Conference on the Human Dimension of the Council for Security and Cooperation in Europe published a major document, which specifically mentions Gypsies in connection with minority rights.

United Nations involvement began in 1992, with the UN Economic and Social Council Commission on Human Rights Resolution 1992/65, On the Protection of Roma (Gypsies).

Local, regional, national and international non-governmental organizations have also played an active role in generating greater awareness. In 1990, the International Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights, one of the most influential NGOs, launched an ongoing programme to investigate the situation of Gypsies in Europe; six national studies were published in 1992.

ACTION FOR AND WITH GYPSIES

"To be born and to grow up a Gypsy should be normal human destiny, not a martyrdom" (Haisman, 1992). Both in studies and in interventions, the Gypsy child has commonly been considered in isolation, not only removed from his immediate family and community but also from the complex interethnic dynamic which affects all aspects of his life. But no child lives in isolation. He or she is always part of a family, and of a wider community. While it is universally true chat it is their vulnerability which makes children so special, this is particularly so with regard to ethnic minorities: the cultural, political and social dimensions of an interethnic situation transform superficially simple questions, such as health care, education, accommodation and employment, into complex ones.

Recognizing this complexity, the participants at the 1992 'Growing up as a Gypsy' Workshop proposed a two-pronged, ongoing approach to further study and action: 1) Information Base: through which information will be collected, analyzed and disseminated; 2) Proposals for Action: in order to constructively apply information.

Information base

Three distinct but closely linked areas need to be developed in order to establish a solid information base, in the absence of which action is mere guesswork: data collection, analysis and dissemination.

DATA COLLECTION

All workshop participants were acutely aware of the need to involve Gypsy communities in all three phases of developing a sound information base. Both in papers presented and in follow-up discussions, participants identified the difficulties involved in generating the active participation of Gypsies themselves as a major obstacle to the success of interventions targeting these communities.

Frequent negative experiences which authorities have made Gypsy communities reluctant to cooperate with non-Gypsy groups. Past approaches to interethnic relations, usually comprising the unilateral involvement of the majority population group in identifying the minority's problems as well as in developing and implementing policies for their solution, have done little to promote greater trust on the part of Gypsy communities. Instead, a 'pluralist' approach is needed, involving an ongoing process of dialogue initiated by the majority population group with a request for the minority to identify its own problems as a first step towards a cooperative approach to developing responses.

Who should represent the minority population group, however, in such a process? Its political structures may be very different from chose of the majority, and this can contribute to its exclusion from the decision -making process. This is certainly the case for Gypsy communities. They have kinship- based political systems, but there are also 'non-Gypsy-style' organizations and pressure groups which represent Gypsy communities in every European country. The workshop participants therefore agreed that effective consultation should involve both types of representation. At the same time, recognition was made of the difficulties in identifying single individuals to consider representative of the whole Gypsy community. It is important, though culturally difficult, to recognize and consult the minority's own leaders; it is culturally easier to interact with groups which have adopted familiar structures, but this is risky as issues of mandate and motivation will color their input.

In order to overcome these obstacles and limitations, the proposal to form national Mediating Teams emerged from workshop discussions. Such teams - made up of Gypsy representatives and non-Gypsy specialists collaborating as equals - could fulfill a range of functions on an ongoing basis. The overall goal would be to interface the Gypsy minority and the majority population group in each country, facilitating communication, mutual understanding and action.

To this end, a profile of each 'non-Gypsy--style' organization should be compiled- and subsequently updated - on both national and regional levels, with a view to evaluating their input. The following data should be included:

• Did the original initiative to set up the organization come from Gypsies or non-Gypsies?

• If non-Gypsy, was it linked with any existing group or movement, e.g. a professional or religious body?

• What are the organization's stated goals?

• How many members does it currently have?

• What is the Gypsy/non-Gypsy ratio in the membership?

• What is the Gypsy/non-Gypsy ratio on the executive?

• Are there other national/local Gypsy organizations?

• If so, what prevents this group from amalgamating with others?

These last questions serve both to guard against organizations 'slipping through the net' and to piece together an objective view of their policies. In addition to this self-assessment, each organization should also be asked:

• What initiatives/projects have you under-taken in favor of Gypsy children and families?

• What evaluation would you give to each, specifying the criteria by which 'success' or 'failure' is judged?

• What are the major problems facing Gypsy children and families in your country/region?

• What suggestions and proposals would you make for their solution?

In this way, it should be possible to eliminate organizations with little or no grass-roots mandate. A representative cross-section of groups, together with specialists skilled in intercultural dynamics, such as anthropologists. developmental psychologists, legal experts and educationalists, would form the Mediating Team at national level. The primary function of teams would be to under-take research on the situation of Gypsy children and families in each national context, consult existing bodies and disseminate research findings. In addition, teams could be active in the following areas:

1. Social Action: Acting as a sort of national 'Ombudsman', the Team could deal with questions and grievances from both Gypsy and non-Gypsy parties in relation to the welfare of Gypsy children and families. It could, moreover, take an active role in developing greater mutual understanding: training opportunities for Gypsy communities in non--Gypsy political procedures would enable them to participate directly, and input into teacher-training and social-work courses, as well as through local authorities and for the general public would enhance the non-Gypsy community's cultural familiarity with the Gypsy world.

2. Law: The Team would evaluate existing national legislation impacting on Gypsy communities (i.e., in relation to discrimination, nomadism, and so on), monitor its implementation and lobby for additional legislation as required. It should promote awareness of the law in terms of Gypsy children's and families' legal rights. Moreover, the Team could also provide free legal aid to Gypsy families, to help make the law work for them.

3. Media: The Team would monitor national/regional media in order to detect biased reporting on Gypsy children and families, taking legal action, if necessary, when existing legislation (if any) is breached. In addition, the Team could issue press statements, highlighting 'good news' stories such as inter-community cooperation, progressive local authorities, and so on. It could also pro-vide assistance (technical, financial, etc.) to Gypsy media initiatives: for a largely non--literate people, radio and video are an obvious (and relatively low-cost) choice. Irish national radio, for instance, runs a weekly 45-minute all-Gypsy programme, combining music requests, news and interviews.

4. Networking: National and regional Mediating Teams would network with each other and with concerned international bodies, such as the International Romani Union, the Gypsy Research Center, and so on.

DATA ANALYSIS

The primary goal of the workshop was to develop a research design in order to conduct an international study, the aim of which would be to effectively inform policy-making targeting Gypsy children and families. To date, the vast majority of research done on Gypsy communities concentrates on 'folkloric' aspects of their culture. Far less attention has been devoted to practical social questions concerning their welfare. Any such studies have focused almost exclusively on school-related topics. There was agreement among workshop participants on the existence of large knowledge gaps concerning Gypsy culture and welfare, and on the major challenge of collecting and bringing information both to the general public and to those working with Gypsy children and families.

Workshop discussions emphasized the fact that information is an essential precondition for the acceptance of Gypsy children and adults on their own terms. Failure to recognize Gypsies' own cultural patterns and values ensures that interventions trip up on these invisible but very tenacious realities, instead of plugging into and harmonizing with them.

A first requirement in relation to Gypsy children should therefore be the development of a Gypsy-specific scale, by which their psychosocial and behavioral development can be evaluated on their own terms. The formulation of this scale should clearly involve close consultation with Gypsy parents in order to take into account what they -regard as 'normal' child development. Conversely, research should also be done on the Gypsy community's notions of normal and abnormal development through observation of children that the community regards as having behavioral problems.

Recognizing, however, the broad heterogeneity of the Gypsy 'community', workshop participants proposed the elaboration of a number of developmental scales. These should then be 'field tested' on Gypsy groups, and modified as necessary until both Gypsy parents and non-Gypsy specialists on child development consider them accurate. The different Gypsy developmental scales should then be correlated with more familiar non-Gypsy-specific scales for use by non--Gypsy teachers, pediatricians, social workers, and so on.

In this way, the widespread practice of automatically equating 'Gypsy' with 'educationally subnormal' can be effectively challenged and replaced with realistic assessments enabling the identification of genuinely backward, problematic or other-wise abnormal children so that they may be given the special attention they need. Such assessments should not be restricted to infants, but should be maintained for the full length of the non-Gypsy period of compulsory schooling.

Workshop discussions also focused on the common tendency to classify Gypsy children as 'delinquent' (see "Gypsy Children in Europe"). However, cross-cultural research showing that the norms of the two groups are genuinely at odds in some respects, for example regarding school attendance and marriageable age, highlights the need to identify what types of child behavior the Gypsy community itself regards as delinquent. How does the Gypsy community discourage unacceptable child behavior? And, on the contrary, which social behaviors are valued in the Gypsy child? Which methods are used to promote these? These questions prompted Workshop participants to propose that, by means of the methods already outlined, a

Gypsy-normal behavioral scale(s) should also be elaborated, thus enabling the two communities to work together in dealing with forms of child behavior which both regard as deviant.

Issues of sex-role differentiation were pointed to as another area requiring further study. Gypsy parents firmly disagree with views promoting gender-free child development. They regard their children as small men and women, and social expectation, acceptable behavior and obligations are defined accordingly. This much is known, but what are these different models? Work-shop participants concluded that greater understanding of Gypsy responses to the various quandaries of parenting is needed.

There was a general feeling among participants, however, that understanding the Gypsy child only within his own cultural terms does not provide a sufficient basis for the development of useful programmes and initiatives. They went further, emphasizing that a deeper understanding of the ways in which the Gypsy child perceives and evaluates the non-Gypsy world can make our inter-action with him much more effective.

Workshop participants identified a number of other areas requiring research.

Health: What concepts of illness do Gypsies have? What are their views and beliefs on causes, prevention and cures? What are Gypsy parents' attitudes to nutrition, water, disposal of bodily wastes? Again, it is vital to recognize that Gypsy parents have fundamental convictions with regard to these crucial questions.

Accommodation: Research on Gypsy -families' living conditions has by and large been done. Further research is now needed- -in consultation with the users - on how to meet Gypsy families' accommodation needs, as they define them. Firstly, negatively perceived aspects of existing accommodation provision should be identified. These will range from the 'obvious' (rubbish-dump locations) to the 'not-so-obvious' (erratic rubbish collection) to the 'invisible' (layout which offends cultural concepts of cleanliness or family links).

Secondly, existing accommodation provision which has proved successful from the Gypsy families' perspective should be analyzed. Research should cover all types of accommodation, from transit sites to group housing schemes. This should also include illegal encampments in order to observe how- Gypsy communities themselves order their space and family groupings. How can these cultural patterns be incorporated into legal, i.e. non-Gypsy-provided accommodation?

Education: Ethnic stereotypes persist in school textbooks: one children's reader, for example, offers "The gypsy stole the goose" to illustrate the letter G. Negative cultural messages need to be identified and replaced with material of a more positive pluralist nature.

Work: What makes economically successful Gypsy parents? What types of work are practiced locally? This information would provide guidelines for training and enable a pooling of ideas so that Gypsy parents in one area with innovative schemes could share them with Gypsies in other areas.

Community mobilization: It is important to identify, analyze and share information on successful community mobilization projects in each country, in close consultation with the groups themselves. Since the people concerned are likely to be ill at ease with the written word, more culturally appropriate forms of communication, such as video or audio tapes, should be favored.

DATA DISSEMINATION

Workshop discussions emphasized the fact that a great deal of urgently required information on Gypsy children and families is already available, but remains inaccessible. Unless efforts are made to disseminate information, it is likely to be unnecessarily duplicated. A number of information bases do already exist, but even the largest of these seems to have difficulty in disseminating its materials. By way of example, the major report on education, School Provision for Gypsy and Traveler Children, has been published by the Commission of the European Communities in a number of languages, yet many educationalists remain unaware of its existence.

There was general agreement among workshop participants on the fact that information collected and analyzed on Gypsy children and families should be made available to concerned institutions and organizations.

PROPOSALS FOR ACTION
LEGAL ISSUES

Workshop discussion pinpointed the need to assess the complex (and often controversial) legal reality of Gypsies. Their legal position may be anomalous for a variety of reasons, as "Gypsy Children in Europe" elucidates. As a first step, requests should be made to both state and local authorities as well as NGOs and Gypsy organizations for information on: the number of Gypsies in the country/region; their legal status; problems as they are perceived; initiatives already undertaken to rectify these problems. This approach will also provide information on both the national/local authorities' commitment to provision, and the extent to which it is being maintained.

Secondly, an overview of the existing legal situation is necessary, including: anti-Gypsy laws (whether specifically aimed at Gypsies or particularly applicable to them); legal recognition of Gypsy-specific rights, such as the right to nomadism, etc.; general laws and their relevance to children's and families' rights to schooling, health care, accommodation, etc. as well as legislation on discrimination/incitement to hatred.

Workshop participants pointed out that in many countries there are instances in which law enforcement and public representatives are involved in acts of incitement and even physical attack, which are then justified as citizens' retaliation to Gypsy provocation. The ethnic nature of such attacks needs to be recognized; they are generally aimed indiscriminately at entire Gypsy communities, not individuals. Measures should be taken at the highest state levels to prevent further displays of ethnic intolerance, and to condemn such practices when they do occur.
With regard to accommodation, it was noted that a majority of local authorities throughout Europe are likely to be in contravention of their own legally-binding standards and of nationally- and internationally -agreed policies on Gypsy accommodation. Standards often openly flouted include housing Gypsy families in areas zoned unfit for residential use, allocating condemned dwellings to Gypsy families, and constructing accommodation in breach of legal specifications on materials, clean water provision, space per inhabitant, and so on. Until there are at lease enough legal sites to match the needs of Gypsy families, some nomadic Gypsies will continue to be considered 'criminal' by their very existence. Accommodation pro-vision comes nowhere near this mark at present, and yet families may still be evicted from illegal sites with literally nowhere to go.

Paradoxically, the rights of Gypsies are becoming increasingly recognized at international level, without any discernible improvement at national and local levels. Yet international agreements have been signed by - and are binding on - national governments. If moral pressure proves inadequate, recourse to international law may become necessary.

ACCOMMODATION

· As has been noted, suitable accommodation is the hinge upon which all aspects of Gypsy welfare turn. The following are some of the points to bear in mind with respect to Gypsy accommodation:
· Adequate standards should be met with regard to space, materials, design and domes-tic services (regular rubbish collection, access to fire-fighting equipment, etc.);
· Access to normal public services, including public transport, shops, telephones, and so on, should be readily available;
· Accommodation should be designed to respect Gypsy cultural reality, not to change it. Gypsy social patterns, economic activities, hygiene regulations and life-style must be taken into account in planning accommodation, preferably by means of ongoing consultation between local authorities and the tar-get Gypsy family groups.

SERVICES

Services generally refer to the range of local and national provisions established to meet basic human rights in the fields of accommodation, education, health care, social welfare, and so on. But Gypsy families rarely make full use of these, and the need to find out the reasons for this was highlighted by the Workshop participants.

Low take-up may in fact be due to objective problems, such as residency requirements, bureaucratic obstacles, access difficulties, or poverty. There may also be subjective factors at work, such as fear, lack of information, hostility or apathy.

An evaluation needs to be made of cur-rent levels and types of service use by Gypsy families with the dual aim of enabling the services to adapt to meet their needs, and of identifying gaps requiring attention. In the health field, for example, the need to address immunization, dental care and baby feeding practices have already been identified.

Lateral thinking in service provision and delivery is urgently required, and increased input from Gypsies themselves should facilitate this. Nomadism, for instance, has always been seen as a barrier to school attendance; the possibility of distance learning and other means of adapting school provision to the nomadic child (rather than only expecting the reverse) are just beginning to be explored.

SOCIAL MOBILIZATION

Society should accommodate a range of 'difference': religious belief, skin color, ethnic identity, sexual orientation, disability, and so on. Recognizing the right of nomadic Gypsy families to decent and appropriate accommodation is essentially recognizing the right to be different. Integration is the normalization - not the eradication - of difference. But how to make this come about?

For all minorities, the 'pluralist' response demands recognition of the existence and validity of different needs and values; ascertainment of the nature of these needs and values: consultation and compromise to accommodate them.

Mobilizing for change, both on the objective level of living conditions for Gypsies and on the subjective level of attitudes and beliefs, means reaching the majority with accurate information. In particular, it is vital that authority figures (policy makers, teachers, police, social workers, nurses etc.) and schoolchildren receive undistorted messages on the Gypsy reality. At the same time, it is essential that the simplistic (and inaccurate) 'we are all the same' approach be avoided, iv favor of "infinite diversity in infinite combinations".

Promoting a 'pluralist' society also means opening the way for Gypsy children and families to see themselves as a part of it. Gypsies are potentially their own best mobilizers, but they need to be facilitated in developing practical skills through such means as training courses for community workers, teachers and health workers. It is important that no strict timetables for his process be imposed as this would favor existing organizations already attuned to 'the system', i.e. the most non-Gypsy-like groups and individuals.

Finally, a further step towards promoting pluralism in society - at once concretely and symbolically - would be to assist in the setting up of Gypsy cultural centers, at national and/or continental level. A similar aspiration, already expressed at many Gypsy conferences, is for a creation of a European Gypsy university, along the lines of the successful example provided by Native American universities in the USA.

The insights and perspectives of the Workshop participants were many and varied. Different Gypsy community situations in different countries call for careful analysis at national and local/regional levels. In general, however, participants found that they had more in common than might be expected in an international Workshop of this nature, giving rise to expectations of the considerable advantages to be gained, nbot least in the political sphere, from pursuing this critical topic on an international as well as a national and more local basis.

REFERENCES

• Adamis, Okley, Morgan and Smith (1975), Gypsies and Government Policy in England. London: Heinemann.

• Charlemagne, Jacqueline (1983), "La Délinquance des Jeunes Rom Yougoslaves dans la Région Parisienne" in: Sauvegarde de l'Enfance 1.

• Hardiment, Christina (1983), Dream Babies: Child Care from Locke to Spock, London: Jonathan Cape.

• Liégois, Jean-Pierre (1987), School Provision for Gypsy and Traveller Children. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, pp. 34-35.

• Yoors, Jan (1967), The Gypsies, London: Allen and Unwin