Major and minor frames within academic debates about equality

The 43 (66%) texts published between 2002 and 2011 discussed disparities between Roma and non-Roma people mostly in terms of equality between groups of people. Eighteen publications were written in the Romanian language, consisting of commissioned reports, usually including the results of studies evaluating the impact of various governmental measures in the areas of education, employment, health and housing, implemented as part of the Governmental Strategies for the improvement of Roma situation or the inclusion of Roma citizens. Ten texts were policy evaluation or monitoring reports, written in English and commissioned by the Romanian Government, the European Commission, Roma organizations, or international organizations interested in human rights issues. The rest of the publications (15 texts) were either academic articles or essays published in international academic journals.

The major problem addressed within this discussion was the unequal treatment of Roma people, at times described as socio-economic exclusion or marginalization. Authors articulated four ways of achieving equality, which led to different political strategies and solutions.

1. Ensuring equal opportunities for all people - which were framed as achieving sameness.

130

2. Special or positive measures for Roma people, framed as recognition of difference from the norms applied to the majority population.

3. Broadening the political agenda to include the Roma perspective in all areas of public policy, which was framed as mainstreaming.

4. Reforming Roma culture or identity, framed as successfully assimilated Roma.

These four strategies were presented as alternative views by authors. Nonetheless, all texts presented more than one alternative, as authors drew, with different levels of emphasis, upon a variety of frames.

Based on the frequency and comprehensiveness of the conceptualizations of equality, three major frames and one minor frame were identified. The major frames were: (1) Equality as sameness (23 publications) (2) Recognizing cultural differences (18 publications) (3) Mainstreaming ethnicity (10 publication); and (4) Successfully assimilated Roma (2 publications). Although the theme of equality was central to the texts published between 2002 and 2011, this theme was also present in publications published prior to 2002 or after 2011. Some texts that mainly discussed the theme of equality, also marginally included other themes related to disparity, such has human rights or diversity, and within those marginal themes, other frames were present, which were either discussed in the prior section, or will be presented in the next section.

Major frame 1: Equality as sameness.

According to the frame of equality as sameness, the problem discussed was the unequal treatment of Roma people in comparison to non-Roma people, and the solution proposed was the inclusion of Roma people into mainstream Romanian society. The main conceptual explanation was that each person should have equal access to the opportunities, rights and outcomes, which were already enjoyed by the majority Romanian ethnics. According to this frame, there was a

131

moral aspiration to an ethnically neutral society where all people would be treated in agreement to the same (Romanian) standards and norms.

Extract 7: Correcting the mechanisms that reproduce social inequities (Duminica & Ivasiuc, 2010, p. 6 – Original in Romanian)

We would like to constructively contribute to the regulations of 1

the new educational law, so that the Romanian school would 2

become a friendlier place, a more equitable institution, a true 3

model for all children, including the Roma. For this, there are 4

necessary from our point of view a few measures for correcting 5

the mechanisms that reproduce social inequities that

6

unfortunately the school still maintains in its mode of 7

functioning. The present study will outline these mechanisms, 8

thus pressing the finger on a severe, deep wound, which 9

necessitates an urgent intervention: the deficit of quality in 10

the education to which Roma children have access to. 11

Extract 8: Eliminate the causes that lead to a more precarious state of health (Cace & Vladescu, 2004, p. 64 – Original in English; Roma spelled with a double “r” in original) Successful sanitary policies designed to improve Rroma health 1

status depend on successful policies in the field of housing, 2

social security, economy, and child protection. In other words, 3

in order to improve the Rroma health status on a medium and long 4

term, the government's strategy to improve Roma situation must 5

be efficiently implemented in all the above mentioned levels. 6

Unless the state and NGOs take efficient action for the 7

132

improvement of Rroma living conditions, the policies in this 8

field can at best insure a better access of Rroma the health 9

care services but will not eliminate the causes that lead to a 10

more precarious state of health of the Roma population compared 11

to the majority population (fact reflected in a lower rate of 12

life expectancy of the Rroma population compared to the majority 13

population. 14

1. The problems.

The texts from Extracts 7 and 8 were written in a political context when a new educational law (Extract 7, line 2) was being drafted, and a new four-year plan for the Governmental Strategy (Extract 8, line 5) containing policies for the improvement of Rroma living conditions (Extract 8, lines 7-8) was planned. Roma activists and academics were officially invited by the Romanian Government to contribute to the drafting of these new political measures, and also to monitor and evaluate the process of policy implementation (Guvernul Romaniei - HG 430/2001, 2001; Guvernul Romaniei - HG 522/2006, 2006; Guvernul Romaniei - HG 1.221/2011, 2012). As a possible result, both extracts suggested urgency in the policy-based solutions proposed. In extract 7, the authors claimed that their contribution could help improve the Romanian educational institution for all children, including Roma children (lines 1-4). The drafting of the new educational law provided an opportunity for the request of an urgent intervention (line 9). In extract 8, as the first Governmental Strategy’s four-year intervention plan came to an end, the authors suggested policy measures which must (line 5) be taken if the causes (line 10) of the problem of inequality were to finally be tackled.

In both Extracts 7 and 8 the focus pertained to an inequality between a problem group - Roma minority - and a norm group - non-Roma majority. The difference between the two extracts lied in the form of inequality considered problematic. In extract 7, Duminica and Ivasiuc

133

described a situation of inequitable access (line 10) to quality education. According to this view, the solution for reversing the mechanisms that produced social inequality resided in the provision of equal access to quality education by all children, regardless of ethnicity. The authors implied that education was a powerful determinant of social options and chances, and that equality (possibly economic and social class equality) was dependent on equal access to resources. The gist of the argument was that if all children had access to the same educational quality standards, then society could become (more) equitable, a view often adopted by proponents of affirmative action programs (cf. Hurtado, 2005).

In a somewhat different argument, Cace and Vladescu suggested that successful policies in achieving health equality were not necessarily those that focused on access to health services (line 9), but those that could resolve disparities in outcomes, such as differences in life expectancy between Roma and non-Roma people. In extract 8, the authors also desired an equal society understood as uniformity in the measurements of particular indicators between Roma and non-Roma people. However, in order to reach sameness, Cace and Vladescu argued that the Government, and non-governmental organizations should implement targeted measures for Roma people more than one area. According to the text, an intricate network of inequalities in housing, social security, economy, child protection, and access to health care services prevented equal health outcomes. However, those targeted measures did not imply a differential treatment between Roma and non-Roma people. Later on in their report, Cace and Vladescu explained that what they had understood by successful Roma policies in the listed areas comprised of equal access to the respective institutions and services. In other words, the authors suggested that equal outcomes could be achieved by equal access to multiple inter-related levels (line 6) where there were discrepancies in both access and outcomes between Roma and non-Roma people. The responsibility for change resided with NGOs, who had the task of drawing attention to

134

discrepancies in access and outcomes, and the Government who was proposing the political Strategies.

2. The solution and concealment

According the frame of equality as sameness, typically, the solution proposed was to include Roma people in the Romanian society, which concealed any argument about challenging the underlying majority norms and values. The non-Roma majority was already enjoying access to rights, opportunities, institutions and services, and the path towards equality was paved with principles and standards of inclusion. However, this frame does not directly challenge dominant Romanian values, but rather treats as ideal a world in which there would be no more differences between Roma and non-Roma people, due to Roma becoming like Romanians. Sameness was to be achieved when Roma children’s educational attainments mirrored the Romanian children’s, Roma houses resembled Romanian houses, Roma people enjoyed the same social security and welfare benefits as Romanian people, Roma children were raised in accord with Romanian family values and Roma health and life expectancy echoed the Romanian equivalents.

Major frame 2: Recognizing cultural differences.

In contrast to the frame of equality as sameness, in this frame authors focused on the existence of a majority norm that was at odds with a traditional Roma culture. The proposed solution involved new policies that would recognize Roma people’s non-hegemonic culture, and which would encourage them to adopt certain majority norms or values. This frame helped recommend taking ethnic differences into account when establishing policies for the decrease of Roma marginalization.

Extract 9 was taken from a research report, authored by Dobrica and Jderu (2005). At the time of this publication, the Governmental Strategy for the improvement of Roma situation (2001) had fourteen bullet-pointed measures for improving Roma school participation. With the

135

exception of two measures – (1) the provision of a free meal a day for all students in the primary and secondary grades, and (2) a quota based affirmative action program for Roma students enrolled in Colleges and Universities – all other measures consisted of academic and administrative plans. These plans contained the following proposals: the elaboration of educational reports, studies and projects, the presentation of intervention plans and professional training plans, the revision of school curricula, and the organization of meetings.

Extract 9: Solutions (…) must be culturally constituted (Dobrica & Jderu, 2005, pp. 124 - 125 – Original in Romanian. Emphasis in original)

Overall, the causes of non-participation in school can be 1

combined into two aspects: poverty and traditionalism. Poverty 2

and traditionalism are the most important factors that limit 3

Roma access to education. Concerning the administrative issue 4

and the educational policy, these do not yet address correctly 5

Romanies’ problems, despite the consistent efforts used so far 6

to decrease their marginalization. This is because, until now, 7

the emphasis was placed on elements of prompt support, [which 8

were not] not connected in a unitary design, the policy of 9

support for this group was not culturally grounded, in other 10

words placed in accord with the auto-perceived Roma needs. 11

It is symptomatic, from this point of view, the fact that until 12

now, Roma problems were limited to the issue of poverty. 13

Although poverty generates a whole series of problems, this in 14

itself, produces different effects in different social and 15

ethnic communities. Some are fixed, for others it is a 16

challenge. That is why the solutions that target poverty must be 17

136

culturally established depending on the social substance of the 1

recipient. 2

Roma groups are, par excellence, traditional, paternalistic and 3

conservative, additionally, anchored in a dominant present- 4

minded attitude account of these aspects. Romanies were and are 5

further treated as an ethnic minority that is relatively 6

oppressed by the majority. This perspective is in most part 7

erroneous. As an ethnic group Romanies have their own cultural 8

models. The research has shown that this model has a neutral 9

orientation towards the values of the dominant culture. The 10

model of traditional Roma culture has different orientations 11

towards individual destiny compared to the one promoted by the 12

modern, dominant culture (implicitly European). 13

1. The problems, ambivalence and matters of concealment.

The authors criticized the government’s approach to the administrative issue and educational policy (lines 4-5) by arguing that out of the two major causes for Roma lack of school participation, only poverty was addressed (presumably through the one-meal-a-day policy), while the cultural problem was ignored.

The emphasis on differences, however, appears ambivalent (cf. Marinho & Billig, 2013). On the one hand, cultural differences are recognized, but on the other hand, those differences are seen mainly in terms of diverse and multiple social problems. From the viewpoint of this frame, different cultural models (line 18), are not seen as advantageous, but rather disadvantageous. At face value, the text suggests that in order for Roma educational policy to succeed, it should take into consideration Roma’s own perceptions about their needs (lines 2-3). However, in the process of recognizing cultural differences, authors suggested that education, desired and

137

promoted by the dominant and European culture (lines 21-22), was a non-negotiable norm or value, despite mentioning that Roma culture had different views about individual destiny (line 20), supposedly including individual educational prospects.

The cultural characteristics given to Roma people were generally negative. Roma groups were described as: traditional, paternalistic, conservative, and with an attitude focused mostly on the present. Also, the problem of Roma marginalization was, according to the authors, not caused by oppression by the majority population, but was rather due to Roma cultural models (line 17). In contrast to Duminica si Ivasiuc’s (2010) text from extract 7, in extract 9 the questionable quality of schools to which Roma children had access was concealed from the argument. Even the apparent structural problem of poverty was linked to ethnic responses. Some social or ethnic groups were said to find poverty a challenge, which presumptively could be overcome, while others – by implication Roma people - found themselves stuck (fixed, line 8) in its adverse net of effects.

2. The solution.

What the authors appear to be arguing is that an educational policy designed to appeal to Roma cultural characteristics and a vaguely implied Roma social substance (line 10), had a better chance to persuade Roma people to adopt dominant and European norms and values, at least with regard to education. In other words, the policies proposed to decrease the problem of marginalization were supposed to appeal to traditional Roma in order to persuade “them” to integrate into the mainstream Romanian and European culture.

Major frame 3: Mainstreaming ethnicity.

In this frame, similar to the frame of recognizing cultural differences, authors presented the existence of a majority norm as problematic. However, while the frame of recognizing cultural differences suggested that Roma culture was lesser than non-Roma or European culture,

138

in this frame cultural hegemony was criticized. A mono-cultural policy model was seen as perpetuating anti-Roma discrimination and prejudice, and thus, it was presented as one of the major problems necessitating a policy-based solution.

Extract 10: Inclusion of Roma identity (…) at all of the educational levels (Grigore, et al., 2009, p. 8 – Original in Romanian; Roma spelled with a double “r” in original)

The results of a study, completed in December 2005, by the 1

Centre of Urban and Regional Sociology, commissioned by the 2

National Council for Combating Discrimination, at the national 3

level, concerning discrimination and tolerance, shows the level 4

of intolerance in Romania: 5

 81% of those surveyed considered that the majority of 6

Rromanies break the law; 7

 61% of those surveyed considered that Rromanies are a 8

disgrace for Romania; 9

 52% of those surveyed considered that Rromanies should not 10

be allowed to travel abroad. 11

This model of prejudicial thought was perpetuated by the 12

educational policies of Romania, even if not directly by a 13

position of rejection of the Rroma child, but was rather made 14

permanent by a mono-cultural educational model. The

15

educational system of a majoritarian society offers, as a 16

single model of reference, the values of the dominant culture. 17

Given the conditions of this policy, based on a numerical 18

criteria and on an autarchic “prototype”, the majority holds 19

139

the levers of power and of the representative and training 20

institutions, while the Rroma cultural model is subject to the 21

negative stigmatizing stereotypes, and is perceived as 22

deviant, and implicitly acculturation is advised. The 23

prejudices and stereotypes against Rromanies are due

24

especially to the lack of information about Rroma in the pre- 25

university school curricula, but also to the lack of an 26

intercultural curricula and the absence of a coherent systemic 27

approach, in the school education, of subjects such as racism, 28

discrimination, minority history and culture and cultural 29

diversity. Inclusive education represents for “Amare

30

Rromentza” ((Roma NGO, the Romani language title meaning “With 31

Our Roma”)) the inclusion of Rroma identity with all of its 32

components (language, history, culture, etc.) in the formal, 33

informal and non-formal education, and quality education 34

means, also, the presence of the relevant elements concerning 35

identity at all of the educational levels. Put in another way, 36

a Rroma student with a high educational performance, who 37

learns in a school which has excellent facilities, but who 38

does not find a component of [his/her] identity inside the 39

school environment, is not, from the point of view of our 40

organization, the beneficiary of a complete quality education. 41

1. The problems and solutions.

In the text quoted above, the authors were building an argument for an educational policy which moved away from the majority’s “prototype” (line 19) towards a policy of diversity.

140

Compared to the frames presented so far, this frame presented the most transformative political vision. Rather than achieving sameness in an ethnically neutral society, or recognizing differences within a hierarchy of cultures, incorporating ethnicity into the mainstream implies a continuous policy debate, in this case within the educational system, where components (line 32) of Roma identity were to be included at all possible types of education and all levels of education.

The existing hegemony was seen as a problem and was challenged by proposing to include non-hegemonic Roma identity (line 31), including culture, into the educational system. Positioning themselves on an institutional footing (cf. Goffman, 1081), the authors explained that a comprehensive (complete, line 30) quality education is one that includes, ideally all of the conceivable components of identity (language, history, culture, etc., line 32), but necessarily, at least one component (lines 37-38). Within this frame equal access to excellent (line 37) school facilities, or a lowering of the educational performance gap, would not be enough to combat anti- Roma discrimination, prejudice and the negative stereotypes, because the educational values remained the property of the dominant group. As long as educational policy is not diversity- based and inclusive (lines 28-29), the authors, envisioned only two possible outcomes for Roma people: stigmatization or acculturation – both of which were presented as unsatisfactory and thus, best resolved thorough systemic change.

2. Concealment.

The authors noted that the voices involved in the educational policy debates were routinely majoritarian, presenting a single model of reference (lines 16-17). Also, it was proposed that this “right” to have a voice was connected to matters of power and related to the stigmatization of Roma who were perceived stereotypically as deviant (line 22). However, the authors remain silent about who has, or who should have, a voice in the political debate about the

141

kinds of cultural information desired, and the ways in which this information should be incorporated into the educational curricula. The text remains silent whether (only) experts on

In document Framing ethnic disparities: an analysis of views about disparities between Roma and non-Roma people in Romania (Page 127-141)