The name is absent

152

conventional advocacy campaigns, protests, and lobbying that various interest groups
undertake, formally and informally (Sotiropoulos 2004). However, the Roma have
almost no access to the traditional spaces through which Greek civil action is organized
and from where protests, in their various manifestations, are deployed, such as
universities and job sites which are engaged by various political organizations and trade
unions. Furthermore, while the Roma maintain protective rhizomatic networks that
operate within and between Roma camps across Greece, these same networks could not
easily be activated to undertake an offensive stance against social oppression. The
reasons for this are various and include: first, an aversion to self-identify as part of a
distinct group worthy of special recognition as this would complicate Romani claims to
mainstream Greek identity; secondly, the fluid and contingent intersubjective dynamics
on which Romani rhizomatic networking is based is not amenable to the formation of
traditional social action collectives as these require reliable and predictable numbers;
third, the demands of basic survival often eliminate the possibility of participating in
public action that would take time and might expose the individual to further scrutiny.
Christos and other Romani men and women active in this Iiminal network effectively
create a space though which the Roma can act and be heard in political spheres; this is in
opposition to the main Roma population’s aspiration to “blend in” or “fit in” with the
mainstream Greek population.

In deploying the Gypsy trope in the way that he does, Christos achieves
something beyond a justification for his activities. It can be argued that Christos’s view
of his economic activities as doubling as advocate activities can be considered a mode of

<<   158   159   160   161   162   163   164   >>

More intriguing information