CEU eTD Collection

In

partial

fulfillment Department The

Ev eryday of Central Supervisor:

of the in

Sociology

Budapest, requirements

Erzs a Struggles

Submitted European Roma é bet

2014 By Dani Viole

and

Hungary Guly

School

el University

tta to Social for

of á Monterescu

s Zentai

the Urban

Anthropology degree

Youth

of

Master

of

Arts

CEU eTD Collection domestic issues ‘ systemic observation reference emerges dynamic urban differentiation. structure construct years practices Keywords: youth Budapest The ABSTRACT sameness’

aim after separated youth that

of as imagined ed

relationship and and of work that points

. the the

even eth in

and the Furthermore, struggles, between

experienced

constitute

political

communitytheir and a nicity, an

Moreover,

within study

negotiated Roma of d if

income

it self

sameness

between

process

is education,

overlaps economic gender kinship, the

school -

their identification, to

exclusion

I I generation. educational

examine by discover show

identity of

these and for

practices

with

identity transition.

employment, three otherness through

relation two behind

various the everyday and

Finally, system, I

mo processes.

construction, have and section emerge

empirical

nths Through the

to

at practices

and the the

in i collected I

strategy .

kinship struggles

examine

In a

on mechanisms from within

same separate

Through the anthropological

struggles, evidence exclusion,

and

subtle

research of and time.

family qualitative

rooted the

“

struggles chapter,

” choosing this tradition

In correlation and

of how

.

helps order

relationship I urban in

exclusion multi- discover

I their data

investigation the

of to take

creates separation to young

urban

layered

reveal

everyday between

through understand contribution an

direct

as a account Roma, a

young shared logic

determinant mechanism dialogical

and

among the and participatory struggles

of

economic

of the imagined

identities Roma DRAFT ethnicity indirect,

of shifting

gender

Roma inner

care, and

25 of of in

CEU eTD Collection This must s together m comments. I attention this Besides guidance broad Foremost, me F a

incere nd e would y s i

na in

thesis. t

l thesis udi critical moments. l also knowledge y, e pe thanks in like e

I helped me my to s

s

cannot .

I t

the acknowledge

I L would

thanks the

would to would a supervisor, s library

t

thank go

direction but

find and not are to like during also

not

my .

Vlad

due w profes have

ords

to like

l I

loving e Á

of

a

to would

express gnes Naumescu my s

been

t sional the to to them , ACKNOWLEDGMENT anthropological I

thank

express

family w thesis.

T the like o

óth support ul my

same

d the

to

for who l for sincere I my

i

ke thank Roma am

his

without their

provided

gratitude t

helped o also

encouragement t fieldwork Don

ha ii gratitude Access lifelong

nk indebted

Al

Kalb

me the to D í z a

Program

the

ni Balogh,

support basis in as

to for e

l

students to

the my well M

his

Juli to to ont

supervisor, last

asduring writing and for my be insightful enter

e Perczel

r

e

and able making good s my minutes c

u the

the

pa f to

or

friend for

r field

commen

finish t

teachers. Violetta me ne

hi

with the s r

possi who

s one who

up

my time

my her por

ts.

Zentai. ble

year encourage My

thesis. thesis. turned

Also, t we DRAFT

valuable

t

to sincere h

ago. r

spent write ough

Her His my my s I

CEU eTD Collection CHAPTER CHAPTER CHAPTER INTRODUCTION OF TABLE ACKNOWLEDGMENT ABSTRACT 3.1. Systemic Exclusion 2.3. Moral 2.2. Limitations 2.1. Participatory 1.2. Identity 1.1. The 3.3. Conclusion Exclusion 3.2. Experiencing 3.1.1. 3.1.2. from 3.2.4. 3.1.3. students 3.2.1 3.2.3. 3.2.2. “Those

education “ “ Proc “ “ “ “ Where I THREE: TWO: ONE: I We I We CONTENT felt

had want and Issues,

are both keep ess of there

no the

do to of only LITERATURE METHODOLOGY

Observation know

choice traditions

Dilemmas be you school the that Exclusionin “FREE BEHIND

migrants strong

go Observation

that I

”

: am if Relationship

” ” we it`s

: : OFCONTENT TABLE Roma

”: Unaccepted

Exclusion

kick

a Relationship

favor Hungary ” REVIEW : you

Escaping

that of

out?

from CHOICE”

values the

you ”

of :

the students

Penetration from iii

the

can

labor

system

identity be

and

m here. arket,

and the of

”

: the

system Relationship

the self

notion

school - exclusion

of

exclusion

of

the

DRAFT 14 12 10 10 15 16 28 22 16 27 25 24 22 20 18 iii ii 7 4 5 1 i

CEU eTD Collection Bilbliography CONCLUSION CHAPTER 4.3. Gender 4.4. Ethnicity 4.2. Income 4.1. Kinship: 4.2.1 4.3.1. 4.3.2. 4.2.2

“ “ Marriage Simultaneously Good TESCO FOUR:

Generation Domestic

old

or

STRUGGLES and days

McDonalds Early ”

Being

Work, Contribution

Motherhood

a ”

Prostitute

and to a iv

Care Virgin

DRAFT 48 38 34 45 30 31 43 41 39 36 34

CEU eTD Collection segregation decades. deprivation identity. broader particular students. I which complicated. go school students every Ten economic arrived. later, the

was

to company

minutes he

excited morning. school"

it attendance Scholars A School

checked

system. arrived. I is

Moreover,

S couple factors s entered

tudies in chool. of

(

after

Szalai Irregular

of

to

a are Roma

performance

Before dialogical the It Some

enter whether

has of

and on 8 is is Thus, based into

minutes porter.

am stereotypes 2002; founded

crucial, pa

exclusion (Szalai to as of

school

they

i the the

d

my them have they every on on

attention relationship.

When Zenta

fir

classroom entered before

field this the

since of 2002; by attendance st seemed

human

such

from

students Roma, students

surface, phenomenon. they site, 2009; INTRODUCTION

it eight a

Emigh, on the

a and notebook

can as

the entered, into much

action; with

the and Yet, building, “

Farkas o`clock

Roma is

arrived, be depends the

labor

a the trajectory

it Fodor

the older seemingly a Roma

enrolls concept

it teacher.

the consequence 1

do However,

2007) main market

is in they although

than

and

not porter

on embedded - high the

Finally pen.

Roma

of

reason smoked

‘

several Szel of morning, reveal want

this But the

(Kertesi school. reaching

looked

the as ir their

é

youth

school ’

nyi it of

peers.

of always,

to

in th school

a was factors. subtle

first the

e 2001; I study cigarettes into I the a

2004), did who

was

mechanism this

broader is

empty. high

moment,

class

their

working not the

combination

is

and

Stewart walking ‘ point, decided

Among

built

inter - drop

know picture

starts bags.

they front social Slowly

the I

on out

isolated and and

2001)

’

on

do that was

of As at them,

to

is

exclusion structure

shared

the rate

not eight

the of

the study it intra

a I much waiting

turned was i social

couple

street

n

‘ school of from irregular want logic

o`clock the

school in

ethnic Roma early.

more with

for,

that ’ and and and last

out the

of of in to

CEU eTD Collection by of show practices. differences” a that system cultural identity educational constructed Still, exclusion two employment, define stereotypes, culture with be outside

role.

ethnic enrolled practices

processes. hostile a

as through

” special school ’ Emigh, Through

in ,

Szalai, and and and

my

identity as an

in system, by to

Kertesi

irregular attitude (2001:5). well economic goal urban and

kinship

empirical es. grad attention

each

a Messing Fodor social

Furthermore “ my

the Roma as is on

context?

other. and

I to its

anthropological towards and which school meanings examine mechanisms and They

Similar ly,

grasp

practices, to - impact evidence and K school

tradition cultural é Szel

zdi

claim

, Nem

Thus, a attendance? identities

several

é Roma Roma ” the (2014)

on nyi . (2006).

é Spencer how

Moreover,

defi

nyi and that

a correlation w

of creates

refer minori

ith

high

nes

(2010) plays

questions exclusion investigation the discovered economic through ‘

ethnicity examining Furthermore

to What

claims - the everyday schoo a ty

‘

role even dialogical ethnicity

show

. group occupation between

2 “ is

differences”

’ l rise. as practices that

within whether the is if , per

the belongingness

struggles

determinant among , the

built?

What ethnicity,

’ logic identity What ,

se

the and as I

sp aim do these

of among

“ ‘

ace is identities ethnicity How

behind cultural

dynamic

Roma is not

young and

of to commonly

constitutes

of the

as

processes. urban reveal of determine

ethnic constant

Roma the

to a

maintaining

youth relationship differentiation. ’ distinctions Roma central

a

construct relationship school belongs

youth minority the

identity students

accepted economic

positioning separated dynamic

within In school aspect

between is

ed to

order

the built

group

based

between that

the who and

between

the in of

performance.

shared Moreover,

and

of

factors

on the within

is

identity, to negotiated education,

‘ does

education to on identities chose

built

cultural “ destroy

field ‘ shared

ethnic others

social sense

these have

that

’ the

on

to is is I

CEU eTD Collection and by - high looking responsible embedded students` observation, at look ‘ t he sameness’

foundation relationship preserve school s In Within ocial for opinions

order

in

in or

for I

an relations

Roma strong

and have Budapest the shared

to between preparing English

onany

wider it reveal

collected tradition. has kinship

ethnicity defined and

been

scope of kind three teacher, the

the

participated

relations

above

qualitat established

by‘

Since

state of students of event

the I the traditions

mentioned regulations, found at

ive

thesis, students. and

or

the

for

in data

20 issues.

derived the myself time

’

first years

their

and including everyday

questions, 3

Secondly,

the

when I I

will ago annual will from in

maintenance

a as I discover examine

stories, life entered role exclusionary

an I exam. I

spent

of will identity

of

the

the

conversations

the

reveal the almost of an

institution. As differences in

forces

the project school English

processes.

a

their

school three result behind

in

the

everyday

teacher That

month or

order and

of directorate

short

Finally,

their ‘

free school participatory the

to

in

who

struggles

identity. maintain remarks,

sense choice” a

Rom I is

run was will was

of a ,

CEU eTD Collection

heterogeneous everyday goal exclusion framework

period, of to of of of understand main called material

the between poverty the the exclusion

is

two,

self factors main development

In First, In without

to representation

-

the and this I

struggles identity

offer of its dimensions will focus

in

I

that second

communityby defined my everyday will

chapter trajectory

CHAPTER Hungary closely

point

formation study. played neoclassical

give of

section, maintains

the on ”

I of

looking

of

an

struggles (Spencer, during

present

the

The (Szel

concept a positioning departure

overview

role

through which

instead aim mechanism é

nyi at economists traditional and ONE: the

a two

in

of and the 2006:24).

of

sense 2001). transitional

the

‘ institutional belonging.

to on

of this identity

sections contested in the

reveal offering the deprivation order

of REVIEW LITERATURE

chapter process of Howe one

creating literature Thus,

’

to within shared

of 4 how

situates period.

history

a ver,

“

two is understand complete of I

will ‘ the to

and

psychology, I identification that

otherness’

fields

ethnicity, In will

foreshadow

of them reproduction put

marginalization

institutionalists. this examines Roma

limit picture

emphases within

of

race chapter,

. Moreover

studies or the that sociology and

of of the an the the

review of the history ethnicity

on

I

imagined system. of debate

relational pr that put

social

the ocess of self. I sameness

and an will draw

dra Roma

to mechanism

and

about

emphasis Furthermore,

grounded and w the the distinctions

field the a

intersection

in mechanism transitional the theoretical

trajectory

attentio within

order between

origins

on that in

the the

by

its to is n a

CEU eTD Collection lives to Szalai, impact importance e separation uneducated They individualization al. social sociology (Enyedi Lad socialism 1.1. assimilation were from mbedded locally

Roma 2001), á

nyi

in “

The rural and claim forc

post Messing, Since During The of

2006), 1996;

on ed economic and in globalization

within

“ to Process -

of process the people

socialist of

” that Roma

Roma

a

urban,

to comparative socialism

anthropology.

Szel Roma the Nem

racialization comparative

have of education limitedand the

é role

are and/or in of countries nyi characteristics poverty

é

followed

had

of

nyi above job exclusion

life the

of

on 1996)

and 2010)

Exclusion

been (Szalai

- ethnicity the

largest long “ approach and/or

ona disintegration and within mentioned Scholars of

in way

poor

the for and

forced, East

unemployment “ poverty

space of during “

2002:37).

and blaming” intra of

unskilled

economic (Szalai

discrimination in has the

Central and in market

poorest the explain

moreover in

or received rational the the cessespro

a

”

creation Hungary inter (Emigh, ,

2002; school

Furthermore deeper

transitional

I and transition workers

order.

ethnic focus 5

the

school

labor in scholars Europe, great

labeling the

within in Lad

of outcome

understanding resulted great Fodor

Completing on

Budapest. minority space

soci in

á market, attention (Havasi segregation nyi

Hungary, period demographic the

the al

proportion the

and

of

and boundaries labor of industrial in

within poor trading

industrial 2002;

in

transition Szel the by Szel the

often market since of Hungary,

(Zentai

scholars (Szalai

é

emergence

picture Europe,

nyi, é Szalai

social made narrowed

changes, nyi

areas, issues approach related (Barth,

my

jobs

(Kertesi

2001) with

2009; 2006).

2002;

2002, exclusion, within up empirical and

of

and moreover were

1969; inner theories

the for by

of

Farkas, the

and 80% Szel 2004). Gans

Despite

the “ Roma a Roma ‘

available”

progress effects migration Emigh with

é mass

study of

and

fi nyi

people

1995). of eld

2007;

them

who

and and the the the the

of of of et is ’ ,

CEU eTD Collection (Emigh, kept who language the Kertesi growth expenditure individualization discrimination themselves 2004:3). 40). political ideology due - long than became phenomenon

dominant

to non- term, traditional belong

the Th After In of shows

‘ Fodor change,

behavior Roma.

(Ibid.) e on

industries order multi- economic

in on theory

the to

“ ideology

which

the sporadically also and that

the

.

profession Thus

the dimensional the of political-

to Nevertheless, ’ vicious

Szel minimum and

played

of not

poverty

based understand core Olah

and

the “ to individualizing losing é the only nyi

the

social reason

circle economic system

” a on group responsibility (Stewart

(2002). 2001)

role

poverty. (Havasi occurred. lack conflict level ” job uneducated

the

structure; of the of in

resisted

of

illuminate per

rested. did

erty;pov “

“ She indi

change,

However 2012). modernization” crowding schooling of mechanism

se, not poverty In

vidualization argues economic

had

was labor

order the bring Yet and

insufficiently

the a

been not

picture

out ” 2002; 6 that mass

(Szalai maintained and

poverty origins to social

resulted

” the of

interests.

shifted eliminate ‘ (2004:44) ;

“ poverty

of Szalai

shifted regional only “ exclusion

of

expansion justice some

2002) these of

poverty existed in

educated to factor

the

2002; ’ The an

traditional

from individuals. Roma was

the

people into Roma

systemic backwardness” and “

illusion

priority

I within

did contradiction, dur of a Lad

the prominence

refer

the taboo

and

communities,

the workers ing

not lost logical

á

practices racialization nyi ”

mechanism

the

unemployed. of

primary

to

fit of Furthermore, under the their

Szel and

keeping

process

integration Szalai`s into

to incompatibility period,

but

(Szalai

jobs, socialism, the a

the education

and

greater mainly labor

of of

é government explanation

nyi of

egalitarian and

theory Moreover

exclusion emerging Romanes

2002:37

thus

after (Kertesi

2006). poverty market

extent found

those since

and

the the

of of -

CEU eTD Collection use authors multilayered, constructed Nevertheless, sexuality, 1.2. and its (Breakwell space identity is identity underline Kymlicka based (Erikson emphasize depending

extended fluid

‘ as

identity

Identity of on

Aspects In led

well who within nature,

1968:17)

my 1995; differences the the on

community to the

onthe 1986),

’

to by as

are

second thesis, and economic,

a concept in

Spencer

dynamic the

on Spencer

series the of institutions

concerned coding my

instead

Moreover, self, the

field

experienced

I part thesis,

and

of

works do of

or stresses such

valid nature of 2006). ‘ cultural

and of

’ ground of the in

not

sociology geographical

with

(Spencer as the

proje

maintaining as in

” investigation I relativeness

decoding intend

of “

will

which chapter, ethnicity interplay that the and exclusion,

. cting identity,

st

dialogical

political and ‘ ress to

2006; ethnicity the

a

I

delineate

(Ibid.,

static loc ‘ psychology.

which between aim that sameness’ analyses of I

or

will ation

du (Erikson practices socially

to the

’ and

in 7 image,

Gay Hall is

circumscribe highlight is

other

references

the individual

constitute “ multileveled of the understood ,

2007) 1968:16), the

the Instead, embedded

1996) development a (Spencer

word central snapshot

meaning sense

the

Even

of

Thus, and “ who the function I

identity

of positioning considering of 2006; will process by “

notion

of public

sense concept if of shared

we

“ of

highlight the

identity, social “ the

Hall

the

the of threatening

are of of

of messages” material

image

identity ethnicity

conceptualization

of 1996). identity various identity to personal the meanings (Spencer

I identity “ the

limitation others

rely is

literature and In in

formation. , experience concepts focusing (Hall

on subtle

addition as sameness” separation ” ”

” symbolic

, , 2006:2). selected changes a gender, that

of 1996; space

that

and the

on of of to is ” I

CEU eTD Collection struggle background on bounded He based 1996; sense of identity and process 2006:8) a deviants construction requires (Spencer themselves dependent ‘ under nd

the argues marks representation

on

du maintenance In Therefore ‘

’ construction and

shared

Otherne appears while of

or the within imagined

2006) that Gay on my

reference by construction, to

asthe

(Kalb). are position positioning

thesis

“ Hall “ the culture, 2007;

others

ethnification is ss a (Hall not

’ under nation uncertain existence a

sameness stresses

(Sp that

of tool Thus in

only points

” Friedman

of 1996:236)

and . social encer order

ethnicity,

Due

is

the (Spencer of state,

communication identity

in the

“

negotiation

the affirm of

”

not of

term ‘ to my despite to

boundaries. division’ 2006:24). (Friedman

selfs

an identity

the - instability Spencer, understand self

2003).

values study including

ethnic ation. ’ 2006:2).

depends practices boundaries but ”

t

he and

that the (Hall Economic also

and

between It

Nevertheless, diversity group 2003). the

(1969) to of

different is produces

the concept on the

’

institutions is livelihood

points “ “ created 1996) I

others process

are depiction does economic, 8 existence refer The

However,

of

personal more practices

.

of

“ in ” not

reproduces and concept

Roma Thus, by boundary”

to

of identification as the gender,

depend labels

the such often of

forging of depending onthe well

political

the population, practice in

ideas, sameness

the construction constitute or

as

the invisible of

exis (2006). race,

imagination on community is

the

identity

legal case values

shared tence used

and

st

of (Hall state, class,

ruggles

and of Barth`s

production, status, representation,

Therefore,

and

cultural both

” of

and

in an values

1996:

existence schools

is

costume

the groups of

of are

which ethnic uncertain feelings in

as

such ‘

concept the others 225).

presented and ‘ livelihood. the others practices

school

the and based consumption as

group one

of or outcome culture,

’

Within

(Spencer),

criminals,

’ ‘ in actor separates

is (Spencer behavior families.

position others

that useful.

on that that which in (Hall

s

but

the the the

of of ’ is is is .

CEU eTD Collection i state authorities, constantly thesis, State represent ndividuals,

institutions as Thus, concepts,

spaces formed peers, referring

the

of

appear classmates,

ideas

by school individual

to factors values. and

t through he or

family above

imagined and as well regulations

are

mentioned shaping are

as

in communities

that dialogues

of 9 literature, such reshaping and

the

as —the with (imagined)

welfare I

understand other “ Hungarians each

policies, agencies. community. other identities ” ’

s —

spaces of school The or These

institutions in actors

and plural

identity. spaces

families such

in

like

my are

as

CEU eTD Collection speak the circumstances, to receive entered conduct the field. their deputy 1 record comparing school 2.1. defined and data for concept had

I

explained

students, “ both field.

an

built that

English, annual Participatory Secondly,

his informal

During I in director

official

the

of did sides. otherwise

structured

(Bernard)

Budapest.

speech,

my to especially my the school.

my

thus

not her, English

my perceived school field 1 Thus, permission I

memory

my allowed interview

I

record that

quote took

anthropological he

would It CHAPTER gender the

work. I My interviews

Since has

the would e rejected. exam.

and

ven one Observation any Abu ”

responsibility

personality

identity me

two

have with

who

from (Bernard

the and if like the of

-

Lughod; The

to

my

causes.

the

decline

took to

a “

remained ethnic

students the enter

I

limited

teacher

conduct with

position cannot rules

conversations

fieldwork,

mature

“ METHODOLOGY TWO: of president became

1995).

First

into

origin “ preparation. of theirs,

of my

my who

did hidden tell the its exam

made the of

participatory anthropological

also unwillingness original

not you the Moreover, causing has all,

I ”

extent 10

field at [the taught

for neither

possible

the

infl focal being taught have officially

me, head as

end

uenced

mission.

emotional to

English

a

an and

a

of

with

there it

fieldwork, volunteer observation of which “ to

the May also

teacher English

to

anything reference the the

take

st

collection since

When pursue for needed udents determined

foundation].” information struggles, I

”

three in

an teacher and the could

required

the

about I someone

crashed

nor point questions

asked

honest very

school. months prepare of

with

confusions and study

particular the at

of became beginning

interventions Thus, who

him

I

that

in

limited was teachers. their

school. account

in the

aggressively

—more

the some whether

a

also moment,

st Roma available

discussions I

qualitative udents

moment

and

have strategies about aware,

I

or Once, matters on did

in crises - high less I

start

can not

that the the the the for — or

in

I I

CEU eTD Collection stories, my find data appeared remarks, 2 at did about systematically. stories (a) unexpected she interviews, probe general every observation

One

the

qualitative

narrated not

major did

required class their

’ end (Bernard day,

told Due In In I interrupt.

questions

so

filtered comments

during is short, lines. life of

some

40 when right by situation stories to and until

this

a minutes

data. to ” the

students 1995:215-

certain

I

(1986:23) the chose my

after For me have per

I cases, , the nature

involving

could

but

on class

data

iod, long. when

where instance,

end “

collected

method. the it,

and teaching it

spontaneously according of

I such pose

self

219). I Thus, had did strategies

of asked only my I finally

the

- became

narratives the as, when questions.

to

not

an Looking

” all explicit I

.

organize their thropological have

Before class (c) to kinds work

only of

their inevitably

their them,

education, gathered 2 probing opinion

I in

at . of

Not one

out. I

assorted relevance Furthermore, had

the the data reaction “ how

entered student at 11

occasion fragments Thus

investigation,

a such one fragments of related the

are. they absence

, chance teachers

mixed

beginning and of

of

I into came as

students`

decided the

to

of ‘ opinion several

remainin

of

or

the

‘ In

of data, the my to to ‘

who

main discussions, any

that

the discussions the

field conduct emerged students but

‘ to

teach self

aspect times,

related organization noisy case class, actor g

” later rely , silent - identification. I

there ’

’ I

prepared

. and of let

of situations informal, information on,

I The to only notes

and ’

found

my performances them or different

I for they

let

wrote sources that of

life on

about many

continue her the a

started

myself

serve per participatory of unstructured

basic

Even

them

in speak, i qualitative

events, ssues

the years, se. had

order

’ also to

.

set if I and in Thus, ‘ down

Still, been echo

that talk it

and

(b)

an of or as to is

CEU eTD Collection teachers helped me different imagined 3 the but 2.2. information Romungro or their not not justification struggles numbers, myself multilayered following: name!

The first time

for belong completely

quotes

family Limitations ”

3 Since Most By sure, and That

when between sameness derived

are

“

evaluating

to What

appeared

came back (5%), of

asked of Olah the

image,

many translated

time

the

I ‘ us

scientific,

choosing’ had feeling

is

from (4%) hold working to class the

they of

their

and my to

started

verify of

several by the

involveme

the find memor onthat

my

name? references did of beenhad stayed, myself the

nam

students

a I

excitement and

domains background of

my focus fieldwork not clustered Roma

es. times. Observation

ies

and day.

Miss,

fieldwork, education

answer stared nt stressed

The of

are and

were

to school

into

the However,

from

and

it

- ‘

my to diary, first others is at

is first curious me, black

filter part

my

approximately better (33%), and vaulting the (21%). but data

answer

day fieldwork but ’

was ,

of

students. that 12 economies

listened information. sinc I

and

to

if focused they at

the

defining

The to you

meet certain e

schools. my

that quantified

recollection. my diary. illuminate

told

stories

don`t

to

with data,

equally. focus

on

I

(6%),

feeling

me. gender me

had They T

the know

the

he

related

the each had I

them.

and the during students` focal newcomer, was

are of My roles

question

anything

been

of main entering the

perhaps

to shaking, The

purpose points

the

(31%)

my their differentiation perceived

narratives. lines stereotypes only

even

about fieldwork of

into of only duties

and and

but

of the validity function

high those

pale me, the a

position self I

data

and

introduced subtle Moreover,

-

- school forces that

even pictures, of was identity, who

care are of

of being

they

was and did my the the the the

or in at

CEU eTD Collection of girl said, fieldwork. 1995: about themselves, so and got about first world tried than Roma not calmly thought been experiences but them, meone

used doing leave

used students class an to

its 149)

Roma identity economic :

During The

put assomeone I ‘

crises. “ and

to

outsider

You from ” wanted

it my the Not .

was

the

it during they above I on her and

in

into soon research

became made

the chance ” phenomena rarely, the

not

the

- high task crises

’ what presented to

and same

the

the majority.

described

an who realized table. hear. your

school is

as

it

the broader ‘ three

effort. to in meant native

to

week, means be could an

teach

They 2008’ luck, subject

Suddenly, made

of

me

outsider

months. and that

They

’ a

Moreover,

situation to

one

economic at them, to “ didn`t told . a

teacher

if

them fun

in the picture their “ of

be

did Miss, of I

me

in that inquiry still

The

Roma. out same

I of them

you?

simply classmates, have not a

”

how took

high want my we first fact and my that of for

time. ” think apologized

been Although

several the

hadn` many

Thus, whom -

‘ that place “ political

they school, class, stranger 13 that to naivety

Many

context, of have

in probed I

t but

I children

thought

taught I

times. “ even me at

am I Gypsy” decided

who

”

’ none speaks represented my context. to

. the

times as position still

“ one heard me.

Maintaining but

phone My even

Gypsy.

almost very answers of they

studying

differently, is to I

He of

I

them behavior,

represented

I

was about an

do

explain

have, them asked remained at first said,

every abstract the Thus,

not

the not was to

the

caused class

they

started that look “

the if end my an

stranger them the

class. true,

“ when they world

in accredited category the myth until they

“ of naivit different language a and had

the confusions. my

gentle at

the

‘ heard

other they ”

are itself, the y to ,

and me I

é”

life day,

the have

probe had

much (Solt

’ end

introduced way

and about than

(Bernanrd

“ that narratives

story while teacher let outsider, I

already similar should

of

1998) ” asked at I alone I some older

use, ‘

as a

and had my the the the ” ,

CEU eTD Collection same 4 exemplifying my same ‘ landscape 2.3. aboutdiscussion the know complained student, my position despite therefore conte personal writing

teacher I

did

presence focus tone

nts

explain Moral time. class the

Entering Moreover, the ’ them

quest who clear who

of of

some on within answers.

problematic in This

them my the about

Roma, did

is

down. ” incidents did a within Issues, details (Bernard

not

collective thesis skin their ‘ several means

not into the

not the even

able

However, than

change

I

class. was the

remained

the class.

have fill are sameness’ times

that nature and Dilemmas to

1995:154). if

a field,

the

conversation, field out very teach student

“

I

my selected in anything

Fortunately” Than my

use

focal

since many of any purpose.

I uncovered.

sensitive as anything,because she position have

compared my

pseudonyms her resignedly

English

a point

I

the cases, within

fieldwork,

“ to classmate am teacher

students , stories

point

and raise of some concerned

with my

test the several

told

” personal

14 out

times

character very and

classroom, and

I

infers stand during my

asked

also

me; that

‘ keep kept

serious conversations. because otherness abou

“

do not did next

I inevitable and So, me

classes

had

became many not the t

comparing that about

to the in

moral

been

know of

hear name her ’ some

.

is of importance

at the

the

my

why intervention and

observer

them me all

questions

Thus, if

lack

of

point cases

studies. “ it

at even judged

you it

the

to

in all. of was

in

of the

I

are my means of and

school if Another

felt

order

reference and

anthropology

I

me break.

raising I here! fieldwork and told

observed prayed

uncomfortable as

I to

to

hidden, ” still changes them

a One

in day 4 discipline,

make This the very within to do

of diary, at about issue

or

her, two

the bad

my not the the the of

a a

CEU eTD Collection set schools forced (Szalai, educational identification parents. Although, projects. creates separation dependent are through 2002; implemented questionable.

of not

institutions

Farkas assimilation

Furthermore, Mor Exclusion

Messing

dependent

aim Still inadequate It

it

on CHAPTER

has system.

eover is

to ‘

2007). of As by

ethnicity the run

been offer Nem and

Roma. ” it inter aswell.

within

Kertesi

number (Szalai by

on was during

‘

Apart as supervision’ established proper a ’

ethnicity, and

My foundation,

introduced reactions is the

é

and

2002),

nyi the one

of from

intra fieldwork BEHIND THREE:

educational education

2010). the K

socialist of

é

the

twenty Roma school but zdi

to the and students. in the

institutional, the show

on

site, the factors

differentiation

school

era

- high for

system segregation years above socio

Literature

a that (Stewart ethnic

It Roma schools that

- receives 15

wor

ago

economic differences makes me

regulation highly

ks groups ntioned school to

Review, 2012),

came

(Kertesi-

as or maintain parental financial

a determine ‘

“

status

labeling in and into FREE in public exclusionary apart

based Budapest

schools school K

to free existence. é

and including support

z

from di create ’

school choice

exclusion,

the performance

preserve

2014; among CH are

belongs the

students, from

tendencies the

the

Minority within

OICE

of the established Zentai

the

possibility space

high the

the indirect

education to

received

the in Roma - state, these self

school

” 2009;

based of - high

and

Hungarian -

exclusion exclusion exclusion “

which kinds separate culture. of

also

school grades highly of public Szalai

self

the

of to is -

CEU eTD Collection colleagues all screen them 5 think watching 3.1.1. 3.1. “ their real force stude the as several this in as

different A

high the

an the

leavers

nature chapter experiences decision

nts

them Systemic

if about

-

second ‘

school “Those

School My In exit cases answered; result

they

and and

” the

prom the

force

of ’ to

assumption

how

is

teachers.

(3) from

in

to had

can

video exit first (1) - part, to

of leavers is Hungary.

choose

are

students that

of

show a fast

be

started

the

from exclusionary section Exclusion formal

the “ the I

record well

only defined

of

discover the relationship

of the

mainstream

students

the is the The separati

…

event, to

years - high one

that migrants”: of

mechanism

students of mainstream leave school only

as

the

vocational

their organiz a how school at

shifted

on. and Roma processes,

following

- and

the leavers three of

prejudices performance educational and their

ed

the choose - high

here

of

reference

school,

Relationship for educational

the prepare

of

class

self system everyday

the

school or chapter,

system between us, -

‘ - school

came and and and sameness’

based

16

a

those system.

points dance at and

passed. several systemic

discrimination

in struggles, leavers system through the later.

on

majority

the the choreography of

are of leavers

the .

Thus,

the light school,

every One teachers identity I

to only

heard Through exclusion. sense my

I a system

of

of year discover

and Roma prom ‘ ethnographic sameness’

migrants

three

(2) them their affect

of fo and

were not

rced ethnicity

5 shared

that .

s perform

and only

chool. regulations. Three conversations,

who what sitting urban

by

” of

. at the

and

ethnicity

struggles.

The

kept

this

the front evidences, the The students considered

young in

school

the

ethnicity high

school

logic

the ratio looking of overall

Furthermore,

perceived - their

school,

library is Roma

and

Conflicts,

started is

working between

I and

families,

behind aim are reveal at to asked

but

and and the

the

be

of or in to at

CEU eTD Collection their students, on have “ the Another February number better present other they newcomers during “ place simple, quota migration m a

social given a daily

used have [school] words, chance to ”

the When paper classroom representative We The

know

if

of was teacher,

the

2014,

we

basis. is ”

the

three names are

assessment and

is

that

certainly

future. and work. more decreased their I kick

to possibility valid fighting entered

the

receive those

The

months. these students

go.” economicand however,

only

on out

cultural support. But number

in

foundation

of the

Despite who

relevant.

these

into

terms of ten for a we by the

certificate Twenty offic to the

have those

had the out

and was the of authorities, However, gain kids,

of total

ial the

officially

situations

field,

of very are Students started

state. itself social ‘

to more

seemingly

who

mature documents

years neither plisticsim

number the know of

a

has

Thus, end

clerks, being direct as teacher thirty capital

- high ‘

and ago

registered within exam,

problematic who where we to she

up of ’

tell

sustain

the manner school free it

[teachers] of students when

the

here. added,

17 ‘ explained became

chose

is

the the they them the school

choice students easy

students

society In rest chefs or she the here

institutions, of ’ real ’

the

[disadvantaged]. the other are to

to the school will had to

are

explained

ly of the

is

causes come

reason

a is sitting,

understand

aswell: are.

latter,

clearly entering enrolled

was opened waiters words have great difficulties very

which

If here

I of 183. of

problematic.

both a there

we extent met the

we different, the job, absence

its into and as

‘

“

buy

At

have does

try the

logic explanations with

absences… door

is vocational that nor

waitresses.

a the

determine

a

to a

principles:

field

monitoring,

not

to

the

the one around are for to ‘ end but play

Despite

explain

work

me: - institution rest

t often 35 way hat the of

’ students

d. You

with

students.

foreshadow 60

June, will ” “

promises expression

, To ticket The the rooted since the it students

and

have

the have

put to

43 faces more

great term ’

who

in . the the the

In In of in in to

a a a

CEU eTD Collection students “ slowly that annually, of criterion prove according 6 hand the orphans and which eyes of 3.1.2. students. the is

We “

Mindketten rooted inde

main

complex

particular know I that

pendence state met “ implies because Teachers, Family Another

We

as

reason within

this their children and

to

that

with a

tudjuk, , a

stop Jano, aid.

both

the means structural school

they lthough th allowance,

— day

their most of

reason Hungarian

of

a in

e Hungarian who

hogy the

studen

enrollment. know school 1848.

of of occupation does

failure

gathered are sz

why

discipline,

you, ar problem í t vess

As

that even e who often it!We so

often are regulations. in

students

laws, é respect

all of

as gb

contract

Students

it`s

is if

ő discipline. the together exhausted well.

l

within

know both

it behind vagy

planning as parents

a Hungarian is

for

responsible are it

favor

an Around itt! with

happened

Those

are the

not ” and important

in the

or At

from to an heterogenous

exceptions, that expelled, that the

penetration the continue mutual some young

50 primary 18 educational

for the

it`s auditorium. on you students children

supplement the

point, March everyday

adults

a even dependency can favor

and great their are

in

into one

institution —the

receive

be here if are secondary 15

the that

education, of proportion

they The

‘ of here.

at the

considered of fights

terms

because

youcan

total the

the

the reach commemorati family labor between ”

’ teachers

until commemoration

6 household of , number schools : use

therefore

Relationship

occupations. the of

market be allowance to

the

the the

the

here. limit

the be

has age organize budget household of

above family

dependent

on

budgets school

the he as ” of started of

started the

claims 20. well.

students

if

On

mentioned of allowance

the

of they absence,

and the it to the

the

in Thus, is event

for roar:

very

war

one can

not the the on

a

CEU eTD Collection on ‘ their ‘ importance, Secondly, Da the 7 educational disadvantaged David worried disappear “ school circumstances better enrollment the helped most The

street, vid,

’ guy mainstream

importance certificate

of quality leaves a manifested muscles. guy, would

Everyone The consideration appreciated. they the

about b entered each

ecause graduate them, from

top the

those are heterogeneous who institution. but

others

the they no

of

of into and

the he of

7 enrolled, because

‘

Gypsies, than

deal educational also You that, is

being

stone final carry did

youth

student,

teaching. system the accepted, have Because time two

the

’

not out about

they know,

of

teacher`s

strong exam,

is knife

unturned

wanted ’ of they disadvantages became However,

any to the things .

will as aswell.

clear Although

complained

the

other time

what

on

enough composition

without current chance belong On with system

raised and room

“

receive

to the lack

urban

through

disappear for give could visible students` in

the

one

themselves

in and

having of

order to any

to

s

cigarettes, some order the a give

ituation

other

hand

of

alternatives, an had outcast those paper get about

selection. the through

the

institute

this

students,

of to to wound

little circumstances,

of for any I

a

of question Gypsies be hand, at

understand. “ school,

students

it ” and ‘ keep but the of

chain

paper

able the a

kind 19 while

space on (W

week

their he

the and

You students end.

the

to his

disadvantaged would

them was moreover acquant

do ’ the

of

protect

of

institution.

can

we face.

only know is increases

classmates`

remain for

on

strong paper the aim Where

thoughts.

inside a require had

the

end

David`s A

these worried themselves thing

subject quality

who to

teacher

enough 2008)

streets? a [certif

up enrolled. would

they establish ” breakfast

. family their I As students, in Despite on

am

students

household

opinion of

asked He icate].

to among more which

one are are the prove

those At

the talking protect

chance

support

takes such

least,

While him

streets

aware of in

not

about the So school: to poor

he the

exemplifies

the the

the

themselves.

who about

be

about,

an

even during different

it is

budget. welcomed

out by

directorate ”

a

institutions

Gypsies

backyard. students teachers

institute , the not

valid interested for

thus it. the

are

if of

don`t

He the

reputation

granted

only authority. demand, we

the in they They

was

reasons

go? time that,

should

you? take declared

as difficult

He in

school. attacked is of

of wi would Where

often

while well.

even

when

their thin was that that any into The

the On be of of

CEU eTD Collection the cause complex, problematic ‘ possible multilayered dominate 8 refer from thus with In wrote 3.1. if modification

first hand Since,

tw

explanation, short, schools 3.

o unemployed to

other of

reports

I regulations, “

Since One The the out Half

conducted

Szalai`s

I c leaving

indeed. onsequences this the had ’

mainstream

if

experiences:

of not are educational third of the and

students

the or the

of discourse coordinated

them

regulation no

the

they

description the

my their student school Ho event mother

choice the teachers

obliged to

see is fieldwork result wever

school

whose to going

previous

themselves were

one

educational

that

in age institutions.

reaches or became ”

of by

the - : two

which

age.

father. referred about well affects was within ‘ Relationship a

’ fault the keep

broader

the school, the

school students

retrosp

the It modified predictable Decade

determines the ‘

the

an

After

system had them sometimes

street the

limit to

The Roma

ectively indirect possible and exclusionaryprocess.

a relationship been alluded inside

one s of kind of explanation,

’

from

after school, ‘ ,

relationship - end

of the

Roma

absence

and

as become state decreased

20

means the of consequences the is rest

being

the up’ 18 to

experts I that

“

do educational a Inclusion,

deviance students support is

to age

here. between “ “ which not naughty

16, coming naughty, 16,

he of

as

of

between know

from on 8 their or exclusion most To

I

16.

and

is ” ” the

have she

.

and of the if to a as 30 shade compulsory A 18 system

- rough

they

of teacher

topic the

‘ unemployment

comes a

school hours the students

us

to referred the our

cause

were

’ criteria

of

the .

16 students warned

and

anymore. students

system

and gave

multiple

from told picture is in - of

tumble

and

education allowed

to

he of about 2011.

“

an

kicking the

a

it, and

family or

the

are

a on of

account

it disadvantaged, authorities is she behavior broken

Although

and “ the school coming

the to deviance much

is

is

them allowance

kick

internalized

everyday school

finished,

over of

family

” is

more them from

their

out

as

and ” 16. the the

,

is a ” I

CEU eTD Collection to option. kecskeszak causalities God, determine and legitimization others` grades life (2) educational “ told K career put school I é

zdi

had

the

it of more that my

2014: ’

godown

simply,

as In At To a leg. the Moreover, no school.

mother

family;

of

well l sum,

some the and á ikely practice choice

In p11).

llas system,

family

the of —

question many “

processes ” ” free

knows this

One , to ‘ point, (2002:46- became limitation “ ” - drop referring some

conflicts , each

of

school “

section cases, choice” I

allowance girl

‘ out the freedom came of the

of other might

a ’ why

director deputy

them said:

to before 47). and of above of

means triggered

shows

of

here the ‘ the than

problematic

any ’

differ,

the

school gain

as “

—the head space of

one mentioned Then of

because to of stude a how

access prestige. kind

by me

them student

but of

—and

measure nts.

three I overcrowding, the that

she and the in of ’

came

I chose students to

(1) these resistance

foundation]

circumstances had

“ school could

21 the Moreover, regulations the (S)he

The

finally here, that to of fact school cases

answer ”

over the and was criteria

deserving or - high

that by but

(..) did the

I let through “ not the

I lay “

faced

school,

the me, they

the became Roma did me

students.

of this not age accepted

down

leaders ” in. financial

they

children

not want had regularly of and their man

school

I

16,

the often colleagues want the been

to

undeserving to network of make

with

basis accept

relational support skip any

peer

appears received during to accepted

the other

a came

the for group

and me. interrupted goatee

‘ of

my state’ as school, pulling —,

field ” school.

the

gain here the But ” to

the

‘ (Kertesi

teaching

answer: (3) another

present school,

[ ” thanks access of ‘ “ . only ez

each their

The and

the the To a ’ -

CEU eTD Collection feature.s discrimination introduce chapter, by influenced embeddedness explained affirms schools 1996, Friedmann to aspects, psychological individual experiences way: to 3.2.1 3.2.

experienced ‘ others

“

Experiencing “ I

The The Many Spencer,

I a did departing

the than

However,

felt

certain ’

, students` by and

the above reasons looked not factors

socio

stories there that and

their

several

discrimination. in

public

experiences

feel 2003) as

values the

the

from

mentioned

led - Kertesi

at economic I

why tha mainstream of

about good memories

labor

have

to social me the scholars.

messages”

t Exclusion their of

self

I

“

and

Minority

and ‘ am changing and market, otherness already ”

of

-

educational findings backgroundnot and exclusion. (1968:23).

researches Some asked

the ” Roma K exclusion

about Szalai, é peer

zdi

(2006:2). teacher

gender referred

students of schools if ’

,

”

shows

I

and

school I : the

will (Zentai, Considering know Escaping Messing are background affects

was students ethnic and

(2014) and contribute to based are Erikson, -

climate, 22

the finally picky.” him,

more ity coming identity

byethnic referring

and particular

on

report that from

and identity defines

of

defines ethnic

questionnaires. likely

to Nem the One

student lead

the to

in its their identity

origin.

a

to ‘

é

a girl,

supervision feeling, parents, scope to nyi construction to identity background ‘

Roma way it Eurydice

feelings

performance become dis

talking as (2010)

-

that with

integration

an

- high

“

living as when In

more

’ through “

- drop empirical

about an interplay the Network revealed, as school as of

you

“

the

standards, positioning and second or interplay outs the

of

her

less ’ most its feel

low

the

are

teachers

evidence

in

bet feelings 2009:10)

practices, as in

part

lonely

grades secondary self. connected important ween

the defining between parents` oneself

of

(Hall same

and and and and

the the are

is it

CEU eTD Collection even had the on an He musician, me, blame the of experiences: manner, Roma neither story:

exclusionary wanted most

only only been

leave everyday

d school

It Several this. ill previous singer

classmates. during school stinkers. actually her him diligent

yet thing

[the and me and really

to

the It teacher

’ with

“

for escape and

and judgments the . highlighted was did

Every the

and

what

classroom basis.

Then

share stories school

When atti students

several surprising organizer

not

break blamed much What a the

tude.

nor

subtle

you time she the go “

nob my came head

I

should of felt and better.

to my become teacher`s Peter`s asked

incidents. want told

ody in the

when me,

this colleagues the

-teacher`s of smile

there, they is that students to

liked level me

several

school,

My I Roma

but that, is the the

have

something

confession

put part break.” to she why

on view.

that

sister

I me. students surface

of

He

get she school did done?

soap her told only one of

arrived cultural “

I

Neither

epistemic

still was am Then, out a

not explained

After face. of

into commu me

decided

I reaction through and ”

Roma, happened, how

enrolled left about them . seemed do

yet.

David, what events in a

it. students,

several

23 She the

and couple anything. they

Then

[teachers]

violence

nity

Thus his at motivation to

was

happened came me the had

here

being some leave her

told can

where

shame

the

it incidents of nor discussions

to Budapest, the that

we a as

here. happened

days bear

me ” Somebody teacher

German teachers,

point was

well.

disgusted, series (Hall

ha I

he of of in

several should d my later school

talking does

her being my But he I started

1996:445). fed came of in. aga

presence,

who with classmates] class, persuaded

I absence, [the

let not

left

events

throw slammed stories up

Gypsy about when and

him were

into to

the main My

with have my I choose

talk

had

me to apply

since the

students spiteful

he they mother the in bag

about In in

to reason

that his was

the

as and

a soap a talked my face one

room,

in

thi the added father, classroom very if ” feeling.

not

do how ...

the went

I

English, is she

case, this s experiences

back

his ies Gyps was When

or. one.

always

that]

about looked classroom objective

that identity teachers

told a school. I into

a

one

Roma to

didn't

What in

‘dead

I

of they

was like but her his my my

the are of

at a

CEU eTD Collection section and basically parentsand ” system we secre everyday However, Later, waits 3.2.2. their discrimination is The do not the

more

had

1970s. they

role tary

parents

for come

when “ attend t trousers. Mother: Me: Mother: At fight

who a exemplif o than

We

of

were them Two conversation. I life the

office.

through

am the

She Against

her

to for

are

of girls as today Furthermore,obvious. keep is school I

the on neither by

and

[I beginning I the met Against the

teachers stressed that

less ies am

She to class her

school

‘rights whom takes

family. traditions” was

come according his “

with ‘ happy vulnerable mutual

well we

classmates. was of

while the

wearing ’ words that

in

’

them did the once onan girls, to even (Zentai

of that

losing grandfathe confused

educate of you

distrust

the two. to

she my

a

home

they

her

everyday : the lose our

week.

tight it and

fight? outc

Unaccepted

Solt was 2009:8) the Nevertheless teaching

turned

daughters laws.

can

them. Olah

the more the to often r.

ome

jeans whether

concept

underlined waiting

We a

come

ones

‘ - We

village basis. supervision’

I Gypsy

of out motivated

emerges only at keep “

know

career ‘ at were

the [Roma

distrust of for I that

24

values

had least she

traditions.

was near school tradition moment.

the

them. the

given

”

the their between

asked ,

once

( role students] ’ head a to

1998: I

of

chance

among

student as bumped Budapest.

Every

by

] Grandfather the

a of

me of For

The the has

week. 298).

the

the schools the teacher

to

if

example, space

the

Friday from girls

status transmitted finish or teachers foundation, I

into We The saw

I teachers a

asked at

of the was and

teacher, [she

the

of she above a passed the

that

protect ion you

“ mainstream mother

in primary

minority clearly

being

and

brings director. her

age and her and see,

and described

her why away so

he are articles

private the

girls

school.

direct in determined

them I husband] gave

(Zentai

ethnic

not

her

I

told students front

a did educational cannot

permission

allowed

to year daughters written empirical

source students

her

not,

student

school,

2009), of had

wear

ago. that and but the the

of in to to ”

CEU eTD Collection dominant schools (Willis simply often “ classes, education her the ‘ Friday are ne 3.2.3. daughters. their of patterns families. officially irregular

cessarily urban

sisters and negative also

cousins rooted

1993:4) mornings, “ The The The

as

called I within

if transmitted young Exclusion

’ ideology

want

a school . One

Later,

he

‘

family

status limited set climate

picture in as

to

or

‘

strict the sisters

Roma. of the to became a of

two until she attendance”

transferred of the be

was

downwards

from mainstream

to “ of to of

Raffael and ’

out

being passes

the strong”

two the

‘ the and generations. known Hits exclusion

labor

unequal

of

clerk. field

students school, confessed ‘

’

brothers the “

girls

regular private break , internal (2010:77).

:

that ( of by

…), system

five Exclusion

” gender education,

she . their

of

is

affects Since

continuity

’

A

but

sisters

, that exams.

students another

left. even I structures

student

do do last at

roles. her On

among

their When least

not not

became

name,

from more

but

dream K ” the class

25

of

know ó who

accept On parent means

part czé

affect

( the her extended

one …)

the complicated. and arrived,

the

, w

my

disappears as self ‘

exactly

inter as

s sisters’ nor

hand,

everyday , a labor other

that the the

students. cuts to

different

by

as

became

alia, Roma product teachers to

one

adolescences the education

who hand, the

market, came whom

and

highlight practices, forces is

passive

Systemic

We families, among

culture

a as to

exempt of

called come dressmaker, I

were

study, the

had collective

self and behind

result

the

s

mother

coming

in the

therefore to

- these cousins reproduces studying back exclusions from exclusion

she five hold the

consequences

this of

decided human

two but to terms

girls made attenda from English the

and

‘ the

school English

status because

girls

action the were

broken

are siblings from it identity of action

to nce

clear,

same ’ class

“

join one and not not her are

on

of of of at ”

CEU eTD Collection did becauseloud of lacked labor often father. of event difference parents. for help responsibility, months poverty worker`s incident, not His The again. ask

his

for father not

pay only

is

market.

keep identity

hel

Szalai On of clear. tell them. later The

and

for I

hostel. answer has

social p,

prayed is a her the

I

rent, fourth

income ‘ is

clear. The been seem

I

typical’ of (2002)

students

do the a students a

The

being capital. ‘

I

regular student

him not they fight

truth, raising received to students` After

only

poverty.

be

know as school to

an ’ lost

easily

silent. and

weak. of well Also, go

story. fell the adolescent. him goal a

was, the their

back teacher

it father

out students` day, find

as

alone,

Through became

I of it Moreove case in However,

want “

from Szel is flat to the

I

I themselves

was don`t

with obvious the entered

but (Erikson student é to and

the nyi more obvious

father

not teacher, the r, be he

four

want

Roma the — because

(2001)

strong.” availabl was

example detail,

into that

was The students.

lost as real

26 1968) out

to in

fired.

be

- high

a the

they

talk

to the

his emphas of

cause

e. but probably ‘ honest

temporary

Finally find

He

teachers`

a case of Since Losing their source of about job, I school, the and

did space

grew assume

the often a

i

of ze and not he job.

I

teacher he

it.

previously the three had

that

the up

did ’ went have If remains ask office.

After

that solut

and issue I

a different

could

not

students tell for class was

back

savings. the

became event ion

this

The find help anything falls hidden.

screaming family mentioned — provide with

to day,

room broke the

after nature if the went could they income, out

responsible The him he

I

way

was

Shame teachers`

to

did of she

was ‘ was

the

protection’

to

right payoff because

somebody of

the

isolated student,

not back called

live

continuity in extremely - long

and schools` after see trouble.

office.

for of into to

term their they and

fear him

the the the the his

or or a

CEU eTD Collection

exclusion want? school Even did “ His year, to three between capital. “ institution of it 3.2.4. lose being

asi discipline, a means

already? kind parents

month, the if a

Do

realized “

Hungarians. Teacher: Student: The Teacher: This protected year no the Where Moreover,

of other

that you corresponds

one`s

internalization

” values

institution, mainstream

supported C`mon . two

His

want “

one This that Where you

So

do t interest students

among

is

classmate

They

of

…

then will proved bythe the to is what you cannot

my the do change

Then, him,

to as value

are start

educational behave

was

you go

Roma last protecting ‘ is

some the of changed

famous

go

and

reaction if clearly go school believe

in being

to of school? term

”

we

if yourself! of another anywhere let the , accepted

empirical following we

among fo

the

’

the I excluded. kick “ for

education

system r social - high space

articulated me, kick was

their

Get

employee sure. students

high

Except you you

you ”

the

school really

empathic out . the of

prison Roma and These -

school out? will

people the ” out? in of have 27 fact

leave

for

if said: through pessimistic that here!

”

school come

you values! that statements introduced

experienced :

a

next

is school with

the Penetration students. evidence:

better You

want

“ back he

a generally school, the year.

whom trap

should

won`t education. does about

to

soon! previous

” by raised

The continue ,

the

or “

not

you be kicking Wacquant his “ start as

transformed of same

latter

This

accepted respond

the ‘

one

share the mobility One

evidence - high in

- who statement

stance

question out of notion another

the during

cultural (2002). the school ”

to

anyway…oh,

just

’ became

to

:

his students of

is “

the school What

of

started

the whether

expectation. s correspond

the

again, Within and

academic notion teachers.

a

tension

do stated, means among

social - high

thus

you you the the of

CEU eTD Collection of 3.3. students. (2010), institutions, is voluntary “ from is the consis field sending students. social

legitimized

not

a students

Roma

and Conclusion several ted the meaning” In In The ethnicity away

However, Also, reason separation the the the of

school aim (2)

as

the through

second (1) factors, “ first broader

problematic what a

well.

of

of Roma (Spencer and the

part as this referring receiving

is

is

part Moreover, school

the according

system

maintained processes crucial school of chapter third

of

2006:2) “

the students only

the

to may “ - drop institutional assimilation perceived private (Farkas

c low

regulation,highlighted in

limate

Thus, of

chapter, and

in the

”

had chapter, they

to

that solution grades.

three order

be out through plays

(3) ” study

the

been

while

2007: over (Zentai

sphere, create

characteristic Roma reinforce

through a and to research

regulations as

I

written the Thus, role

to

discrimination

showed in of blatant understand agreements 10)

“ mutual

reveal students

2009) appropriate ag the but underachievement

these 28

in

the e

anthropological

the separation.

by

conducted of students.

expects how forms

question

the dependency play K 16 and circumstances patterns of

are é “

that

zdi

from

mechanism migration this the exclusionary

roles of

related practices in

and

for

conformity

limit Exclusionary

section

mechanism segregation

by raises, the old of

in Kertesi

legal

Szalai, mainstream investigation, between the to

separation. ” ones low

are of

each to of on

of tolerates prac

Systemic Exclusion.

policies, the ” categorisation performance exclusion. (2014), what

mainstream –

in

telling maintains Messing other. in tices

processes the even Roma

the new

basis educational

The

school

of

diversity ethnicity, I The public

if

issues

Member

discovered of the

school, and

In ethnicity broader they the

existence push

of

educational

school sum, and structural,

. existence

Nem

sphere. minority of are

Partial

system per in

is States

Roma Roma

early apart

field

é

a that and

nyi not the the s se, of

” a

CEU eTD Collection institution students Zooming ex space emplify which In

from

from how in the everyday defining

is the following

‘ the

tradition based

uncomfortable

broader

on

’ empirical , including

the perspective

life. sense

space,

chapter,

gender of

to in

shared

a which

roles

I smaller

will 29

became the ethnicity. the examine

scale, reference

I

Also,

struggles force will points

reveal the behind “

of of case

the selfs the

free of role

students, are

the choice”

of

‘

others

Raffael family practices .

’ ,

to

as girls

the an .

CEU eTD Collection students whether I Roma embedded had or that the roles, attendance” said: place. domestic doing of three of during

gave

not. them my

need belonged to

“

causes

and Well

school, fieldwork, These the As Absence In

According go them

almost who they

of this the I for three in …They

(K have

that

homework income two were

can to

kinship I construction her óczé

work chapter, eve underline

my months. determines

explain

I mentioned,

students come

to

younger ry preparing asked are

2010:77). fieldwork.

at

the

day, contribution relations CHAPTER

at

home,

I

next information

and

absence. Since home difficult a

will

but had

teacher of brother not

for told out

time

or

there

the

to

examine I the

taking as

only became could

the

of leave

circumstances

These them

social

or well absence

to

immediately

if were the

English

that students`

not. he care the

barely

FOUR: regularly. 180 what

as the

are meanings married. was some

was Similarly, household to

originated of

enrolled everyday the mature

build

grandma`. available we

the sick, 30

school with

duty when rooted

O

are students Whatever

STRUGGL any ne of

since exam

whom

students, it

of

going performance left budget, from ethnicity. struggles

I

of

was to in domestic entered And

her my the often me

could

was I

…”

socio also to

met

who

factors classes during mother

I

that

discuss striking

because met

the stay

Focusing of

unpredictable only -

work, knows economic

but

urban result school:

around

my ES

in of on could around

also next the from domestic

contribution of the

fieldwork,

if

Roma on in

his

afternoon

she

60. where the previous not

time factors the irregular struggles two

job,

whether is

I way

leave

very

, work, talked youth

really

or

they they the I

and of to three one. discovered

to

beginning other

her

care teaching “ care within are. told to sick. practice that the school gender

When times some work

two She and and one

me are Or

a -

CEU eTD Collection time the domestic dominant of the and priority a 4.1. income pieces the that teaching. disappears, she daughter

gender structure

never

three

she

in Kinship: of

high

Thus, Thus, When She I to cook

order

generation. list.

was

cannot

come forgot

factors, information work, É values roles and

vi even is

rate of

The and

well

to domestic I within working came a

social every

within held

to be and wife

come,

of

clean

within if emerging

which Domestic aware

give

able drop I In

contribution my to would to was

relations day. the

will

the

several in

too. because

me

work to me her - created last

of out the

scope

family.

finish complete

a

circumstances If and the visit

close fulfill of

hug.] classes,

morning

I is cases, from

minority Work,

‘ come

everyone

we unwritten difficult of

taken her the

to environment, Since I

duties.household

the the asked

started care

her study. school,

the I to

and

told

seriously

perspective

I chapter, students case. school

Contribut reason

and situation do is

her when obviously

rules

to As

to working because not

(2)

One the why

it talk. 31

’ there

I

of

I have

is (Szalai,

of and

first cannot income

finish, students

in is not she

obvious, of the We

have that

ion she is which [in mostly any

(3) I coming don`t

no

school.

wil

evaluate, it both

my 2002; c

generation. she gender

data to omes serious that is time

l

school

her

come

family]. already present is done Care regretted

on to

I

Zentai

Thus

married to

case to have

(4) and

school

her only

effects

do

every school by attendance

3

is she Furthermore,

I my family my 2009). to

o`clock.

the

want underline related

that

already;

ethnicity. She day. was

leave,

came

everyday on

empirical very girls.

the background to performance, the

fell to

to rarely. I therefore

help

don`t

chance

the Two combination

that the was school

down I job.

data other will my

domination

her

honest: additional [However have

I

to

mother.

and in I time look start role

on

one

finish grade

meet their time

the (1)

as of to to at is

CEU eTD Collection Being disadvantages, she needs determine ‘ me weight confessed take been. had heartbr come, every quit. is you, I`ve her wants

working

how workplace: was:

For the

it. morning ‘ ’ I

eaking: old

Care we É my of I Later she

asked

to

vi started Csilla I In

that had

responsibility

hard

that

”

went

live if can enough’ mother

help

stay

a or

often

she someone

sunny to amount

her

they

“ “ work together. still is the after “

abroad. So

I she

her to take She at

told

liv wish

classmates

escape from

regularly, matches ,

students home

have study

was

ing they day,

mother.

off cleaning

had

my me of

I ‘ working

with can

their of

My

weren`t

money? the are conflicts

with mother to that regularly at

we

’ their

with clean,

themselves father

the her so whet

Strong shoulders. come

she apartment a moved in home

I

couple

ones

mother age so so to

income prayed financial

She her and

at

is

and

she

to not the tired

home kinship

in an of

who they

is her

school

you

of the

hospital. is alcoholic only Kl 30. we and or and

not

blocks and all

generation.

at mother girls, can

knew á more afternoons their siyiation. ra`s

know,

I

home well the her

relations cried

because

told and or 32

have we with case

time

sister how

often relatives Her

not. anyway.” and

decided

have now the

her for were

is each her she condition to

‘

Ho remained

to she left Helpi leaving. As salary

than and ” that to one

. study.”

avoid” fights. wever, hanging Once,

mother. was.

take suffer together an other.But Hungary. ‘

health has of I previously, After ng

was do

obvious

the

They

their My

to

when in is to

Another after like

from

Sometimes, around this ridiculously examples. getting the problems their

clean that sister

told mother Once

she

to Klara

rural decision, a consequence

serious and

her

mother ’

study.

me is

couple had case in

worse but I

not

area.

mother

was asked added: to

the very of She

a

also, when the proved low.

’ health

flat well. Her there, the

courtyard

Csilla

and He came aims of

often

hospital her

“ shou in

I because parents answer was I

weeks, of she

worse.

told

am where problems. Budapest, how

she

started to to that multiple

ld beating

did

school telling asked take

her of

if leave

busy

“

also

was

But she she she she she not the

to to a

CEU eTD Collection unemployed almost cases the work After He month that dustpan let school. time understand because between outcome market, that

her wrote when effects

the and when help

period. go over, clean eight The You Yet, Although brother

Klara

she families annual 1995

of the down also home.

to

the of

case

inner

know,

Klara`s the was was those buildings and people. family

understand seemed is

the income His and logic

exam, everything

in

of in exclusionary

they When not

Szalai conflicts

find ases stairc

I exclusionary

the head the 2000,

the case was collapses “

well of Even

to were

I corner hospital generation worried,

themselves three

the

asked the was clean, so referred was

the

in Szalai`s

is

on if I over porter afraid emergence

girls

wrote

the shaved, that not and logic the

her him and some process

exclusion

so process

the

morning,

unique.

to own. of parents the and

are

agreed,

left

he

about explanation: to in I

of

annual of the it.

asked

is his

children`s to blurred. the a

the a But

them

I

of waiting boy after see

transitional vicious was his

on ha is I

white of

sh

mechanism - long I`ve but

met

nds exam,

her

if irreversible show e

final

are the these really

the her

As opened

she

got

33 for

with

term were board if

four school After institution

circle

grade.

Szalai

mother

that I grade political I surgery.

did young

nervo talked

-storied could

a period

marginalization. always

- heavy the and is the

not

parents

“ ”

3. in

grades (2002) us.

applicable,

(Ibid.).

was

door I adults boundaries to came And pick help.

which

am buildings of in change I

eyed her dirty did

alright.

2002 so ‘

became

I of

family goes up

emphasizes,

to She

had

form have

relieved not

the boy inter

and

the school

a

to and since without down

wanted have

lready between

lodge,

’ The master

in or phone.

usually help excluded is alia,

…

the the

had

pretty time ” they important above

to

: (2002 the took elevators. middle

created students to

one and

my Since a

care was

to

were

call job, consideration

much

from mentioned mother. to her study. of

47). and sitting

of the the

her

referring

in

born the a broom were She

regularly. the

the

She domestic

porter mass day My order

mother, She

logical

cannot alone. three at

labor

born adds

little

was

few and has the

of of to to to -

CEU eTD Collection thinks if asking as her able by Csilla`s tone and with 4.2.1 support are 4.2. uncertainty Wacquant of shove ‘ perf

the well

excluded parents

asked and

his to ormance

the

Income

it “ same

of

today, pay Ok, Peter, The study, the

TESCO as

[supposity] ‘ was everything

same serious my

case,

within

“ you the family

rooted second were wage place.

’ question: but I

from

story

me Klara`s have in bills know is

Generation

who

illness

or front doing,

the

to working like ”

and labor

in

the group to up that and Then McDonalds

talk

will that

the

educational work

pay it my of brother, labor ’

contribute he

alright.

then is as one

pay that broader

it after of

the

the ass. absurd [at had is vector

our - explanations

market,

not

on- she caused TESCO]. teachers`

bills.

And a he The started

bills?

in

one.

true. ‘

social

” syste started

time told and

to

Thus

of

I one common

the am

coughing. they

I

stupid - m. social in us

She

bomb don`t

room, structur

telling household

afternoon, they

the to that

They of

become [form

laugh

’ answer previous have ‘ and

instability . absenteeism had 34 he

in

e you, could

“

master] the

(2008:234 shows Then have

to to at the budget.

was go after have gave presence me.

days. not

to ones, the

to won`t that and

“

visit ’ By that, an the come

Sure! a

- doctor is At

He

236).

I

occupation

life as doctor. her great

understand. connected know

the of

the very

was I`m to grown

his

tone,

security This

doctor beginning

gav school

strange

talking ok,I nothing. and

But, classmates. e

uncertainty

she up

within me

to She`s to had let certainly again,

” every

adults,

about

work organisms expressed me emerges medicine. Since I

asked right the

go, work. he

day

He in his

labor

who

their as

changed I that entertaining

order

a cannot and carried high

economic

it

” what came girl

I

I have

is parents market have had

I

to

fever clear what

kept

stay

she

out the

on

be to to to

CEU eTD Collection among Since you explaining multinational

answer cases, batteries Englis I some he capital, belongs hard choice, agencies. work to

had

the was think? at

to

people h my a mostly household

that Within Another For

TESCO, the

was he too very

evaluate chance to

of

Peter,

fieldwork

had ‘

students others ‘

What present cars is tired blurred: tradition

who well transmitted Olah

companies

to

the way for in to and

even budget

is his work. TESCO deliver

and

order

Gypsy

meet perfect example,

school, needed better?

’ “

was then to

We circumstances.

in was

to

contrib

One .

to

several from a limited them For enterprise. take

accept listen students, ’ and

, goback well sense TESCO further

a it

year

went

a girl ute

them McDonalds generations is

to

while

to dressed.

students

to their

that ” us. ago, suddenly ‘

to

commonly to me

inquiry.

they

the

home.

or to We the

However,

work

he

it Due her application the

in McDonalds?

spac

do household

is deal

I

lived

the

whom

to

dumpsite. are asked

mother practice to every interrupted not Nevertheless, e

generations.

with preparation the of

the 35

acknowledged’

with come it

him the

I

lack aft

two

sent is hazardous through had budget

which

ernoon his I

Well school, to predictable

why

want

options

of me: him

never school, classmate`s

further it …we

classes.

he is

is

“ away, the to until is

Excuse

the

joining

waste. determined

did to important seen go

that only do n. unio

evidence work reason late that

not to because But

not

before.

me!

We family the to work

family

night. visit

in

and

he go the

In

for collect Could

to above these

by

about

for did a

as to the

he annual

note

and One businesses. This this

class, social

contract soon

them did not school

you cases

the

then mentioned

the that emerging of

explained

not exams,

really

as used when

tell but and them

family,

working

decided ‘ contribute at with possible. business

me we

In

cultural all. storage

have where

I spoke

those trend

what legal have

why was it two His

to at is ” a ’

CEU eTD Collection However enrollment uncertainty. 9 she cases system 4 TESCO and market telling her. they However wonder everyday “ remembered job. Germany,

the It .2.2

was was

She girls At her had

will

“

between strategies develop and you

When Jane Jacobs

a

Good

at if

the

not or

made

sister gossip, enough

for left Csilla

the basis. she

since exemplify that

McDonalds, 9

end

confused

end one

this

the Csilla had

old

her

working sometimes

started but

belongs of

Meanwhil more of even money country period

a the homework,

days a in

my and childhood.

relevant the year,

this year, by

if

to

fieldwork life ” as her in not to ” Prologue my

she

,

TESCO bias

procure I

e since she I a

the

the and had mot

one, to

she examined to position nostalgic

works

and

went of Moreover, worry most solve it her

to

that fired

gave

is

two

of she be prepared

prostitute moved

the individual to Peter

motivated

really

their him System and

ful care

about

urban way. confessed work up within requirement

for postponed treated this financial her

to

hard, stealing

the not They s

at of

on young

Budapest

36 who the school

for dreams

TESCO, Survival

students. everyday only the

me

that

they school,

were

to food. customers his tries

problems.

street

Roma

became as

for cannot

she mature

to to have

the a to as

emphasizes bias

As tests,

expenses.

r escape in led bec

be espected plan

the who

“

a

a those offer good

exam

serious “

ome member

to in ‘ seemingly but good“ teacher

to

enter the from

order

her in ” days. old for leave a

partner However,

same order (1992: stewardess

financial

of

a the into ’ her days

, proper to the

I

in

and After

only

to classes

could father`s

social

” make and the ‘

who students` , xii). have

as look

she option

education this problems moral exit

she is always The and instability the

a as

added: violence,

participating for period,

living. from work well.

certificate said, following value and for started

a

rely

a

either.

job

on union “

black when Also, legal I after

She and

she

am

on an to in of ’ .

CEU eTD Collection usually teenager his litigation additional Because really currently temporarily went of time, Then that told their Karcsi me ignored self father

to

somebody his

colleagues. to

he I

- hard

continue development asked

have again? ownership. nor He I

anymore,

did,

some

sister him started

a of did. having of met

help,

is electricity

court

” period.

the in to

his

in

worried,

and him Then

of

I

with

be got her

the

was that father above to

but the

his case, a there

At

since

to he Where

educational probe. more middle

legal

he Karcsi

in was

took he

class friend

When

talk some bills bro`. soon

and the continue

for and mentioned

was

up

unique.

…he serious

would in

it ‘ him When

jail

and student

I his

of after he point to

left for we until English. in bought

the [for shake for also

paid brother.

the

not

development. granted met

he d:

the

a

I

readings

I sure.

that

- class.

youthful

gave couple burdens, job

nothing. mood go didn`t

asked to

his

again, room. hands. He

’

after

deal moment

flat. He

that could him

He

refused,

to have

him

of

went in offenders] 20

So I He After with

I

stared

he he,

hit the

asked weeks asked

the Csilla`s

years? I

earn.

screwed to

any obviously

someone. paid

she individually 37 into materi

him.

but let elementary this

at

money

him

him

after

the refused He

He details and his me,

kept self

I incident, al up.

bills

understood wi how to

even

classmates

I

of I -

but

One had

his He ll reflection couldn`t which sit had

and their

and

be to has

he

school, did did down, eyes

did to

of an

started

do

his officially to explained

was. to

annual make not c

not his

old not an

do

on any find teacher

her

study.

related but

pay

classmates make

care so He it man.

me expect

to

much English

after

a warning

exam, since

this

the transferred

started teach. solution and

about

How He

him

to told

utilities.

one the

test more

any talked

we

the became he

nervous.

He would exercise. whole then and my

to me not

must met started particular very institutional

the talk mon

arrived,

Neither presence. a constantly that to

screamed

for half

he

flat

class

be angry quickly dea ey about

He

to integrate

“ the

Thus, into

a years. he

than

l

water, claim

as stage has joke. what

with

first

and

has

the my He

he or

to to

at a

a I I

CEU eTD Collection Boutillier reproductive In expectations Transmitted them and economic find defining based limitation living out them, 4.3. and pay dominant speak

this

of Karcsi race bills.

out

in Gender

‘ in like

laws, the gender On During

section an the

affects

one`s society

capital. which

When

of

2011:

space Max

the represent

a context, urban

‘

‘ space, free of that tradition arena, ’

my

occasion

related position fulfilling

208) I their Weber) he

kind ”

market of (2008:231).

will determine anthropological

I took

the and . the will strategies. ’

of T

practices, use

related

hrough

’

school

new within of is marihuana

. domestic of highlight commodity

The

forced

certain the ‘

social gender

faces everyday

logic to

above to the th Thus,

struggles

girls`

e

to reveal work investigation,

only

of

’ practices of kind

out

inner following

of

develop

as urban had as explained

rejection school practices.

of some have

“ Wacquant

this

the

structure such commodity, his been and marginality. ”

of already its

question. structure pocke 38 (Connel attendance cases values

them available although of two

own Moreover

youth put of t

I

stories, and shown in

appear institution

the will it 2009:

of What order Certainly,

“ in originally wanted

in

for a

community social

and asdrug

reveal the

‘ ed the the 11, gender

negatively the

is to him

on

labor

case determinative obvious emphasize

in question cited to

relations

a it how

in response

I

sell

daily would

is of did

market

the in bounded

‘

an privileged the it

gender

girl not is

Jones,

raises basis.

to free

important that the need Raffael that,

s

intend to me, originated ’

available for , are power

power

rejection market

roles

centers Because by

whether further since Bradbury it ’

category to was girls, the

of

of underline “ factor

they

in

to to

gender. inquiry easy school.

gender on

of or of Csilla

ways class gain

and

the the the are the (to

to in

CEU eTD Collection status continue complicated, husbands, naively, behind which I within mandatory, who 4.3.1. “ sustain answer on intervened that made met collective and next she

is several

’ good

.

barely

Olah

Marriage going Since On I was

is However, massive

from

day. have what

their that

and if the money”

there the Gypsy

girls

but allow Since to

they making

her. already

after individual study occasion ‘ used

one divorce be

inequalities the was

who some and

a

. I families. are Olah chose him.

we

they

the She thing clerk. or

asked

one

‘ talked

the

Early ’

were reappeared not not. of

opportunity

of

foamed Gypsy have lives means,

day

is

them

annual Thus, Zsuzsa`s

” her

on that Sin Generally, , in

about

Motherhood during ” as got

ce the

girls

(Ibid. the after if at divorce I how well

’ I

married, had exams

the

getting

the company in did to

marriage, same

to the p209).

the

school

mouth as it make

a laws, study being not

is three chance ‘ goes, how divorce

for

wavelength possible married know as

fun transmitted

after and after

of

married month 39 his those wives ‘

tradition they

to her of

’ that wanted marriage.

classmate

the

talk

go the and

was

cousins who said: when they

Zsuzsa back ”

primary

is

serious to . even

’

through

her a I to

one and

negotiate

belong

“ I reason

am to

hit

they

commented had and did

was

decision of

school. ‘

issue: school. him. gender sure

not them, a

brothers, the

simply

going to chance to

Than it

seem

“ words that apply

the ’ When Oh

As with

or who

hand to

the

run she no… I to

as vocational not, the be

I

was

for

their was

of hardly values I meet a

in married, said

asked, away ‘

answer the

but rare w ‘

told, private going hand e family

every

to

Grandfather,

sold

of received her case’

from me the absolutely

school

regulates marriage although to

is

her

brother student student calmly if

reason , marry

more since their

they and

an is

CEU eTD Collection explanation ‘ education husband`s I marriage 3- teachers. representation; Gypsy Her communication. she well. the family. Budapest. importance met 4 years

classmate, television is

As her

considered you. to marriage That`s How Kovai He girl Then

supports it

already. Moreover regularly, your

She family] system. became is

becomes ’ Girls I do

and

she all.

right and

(2008) received an

life did to you the

After are (..)

Olah And value ‘ Kovai`s …Or

her ’ divorced started

that

not

to next clear,

in

mean I She she Marriage getting

married. told

explains everyday

be

it`s

a

want

how I

Gypsy boyanswered: of her

day. when

am

was

sense

adds

she

what one to observation. to much everyday

should

mar

I marriage all to

and communicate her

don`t belongs was persistently

I

of However,

happened

that hear ried, that that for outfit

asked easier

classmates moved

the married

I

think

the

establishing put life that`s teachers about

after

to

and most

I because they the

marriage

it…

the but that met to

with

Zsuzsa`s

all.

talking

make

marriage before marriage, her students

her Olah

I also you that

beautiful

am usually They her? her

ambitions 40 grandmother,

can

Gypsy a I if she

up, afraid

the and

about was

Nothing. nuclear I come

marriage

understand.

why live at

can

considers perfect

age are the

girls. surprised asked all. you life

to still

her

closer girls, and not of

space as Zsuzsa family the won`t Not

appearance

14. Indeed, plan

go

made who the a

plans surprised

school hing school bout to wives

to

The and fact understand.

of Budapest.”

is to is has

school.

happened. some

for

living it. that asked a marriage school

on she go

as

cannot started

way

the

“

Friday anymore and

a to I`ve the

paid teachers space

I

two them future.

university of sun have It attitude

not

She

to told go

is was and

falling attent

hours

is

of work so

what

to known only is

when

shining

In they wondering them forced jealousy.

far

married school ion towards

the

away

out happened. for and away

have loses

an

to him

[to

school, belongs

free by of

study

Olah from after now.

from self their

The

her her her the for

its as at -

CEU eTD Collection virginity leave men. belong argument the 4.3.2. symbols area contradiction marks ‘ have commented Durst that not While becoming

classes, know of a

and ’

Within

,

baby

she examined Simultaneous adulthood The What In a right to ’

and

girl

my

in

two with that is the

a

rules on the

among in

after in pureness mother case is a who

a

the concrete

t

Olah she urban her

the the class, all important

of early

first

and

wanted in she situation:

in was

fact students. school

behavior ’

Gypsy

the the context

is consisting

ly often months. She gains gave

cases motherhood

pregnant. that

an case urban Being

to to in

indica mixed

or birth. “

for

‘ dignity take note early

the patterns that She One of

the is

girls, urban a could

morning, of

is

She a tor

rooted is

One thought Prostitute of motherhood with

Romungro mature

too five

in that

for

of my related within recog

youth, gain

of young!

rep

the

stepping

them. girls in in

students

that her her

resentation

exam. nized willingness the ‘ rural

respect to

the

however

41 and and

mother

classmates, she

group.

had She The gender case

ghetto, ’ into it She

area

was

a one been

screwed just ’

in social

Virgin of

.

looks of

adulthood However, did

differences sick.

the

define boy, and, turned and

urban

the strong ‘

motherhood

not a fifth

meaning

up! after

unwillingness subject boy gender referring

girls`

know youth ba

” self month

(2006:130). in Later ck with her between

-

identities consciousness, of some to

either roles, pregnancy of child. ’

whom discussions to she

and school is motherhood

the Kelly,

cases

and her told that ‘ The she how

She no

I

only from

case

the

me she met kept

is

second

the matter

a claimed

supports

not

even

that ‘ power

girl means in is

achievable

‘ only values maternity the

is

going the

wanted.

she

case should if

not within baby.

once rural over they

that that

her

did of to in is

CEU eTD Collection reaction to naturalize and someone Whore to classes. behave to all had their and take

her, listen. Spivak, to

her its their

what ” including ’

holes Kati: Juli: The On

Meanwhile

period typically (Ibid.)

virginity and

and Then have

virginity.

the

another

he is Miss,

above

Oh of the

the

difference going

raises

a are I y and

really? our pad

offered

the

important did construction were

binary

described in , they occasion

the noise

Moreover

boy, because on you line the

And boy

protected in

her

constantly know between question with that she system

the

values/signs of what

a

within

she phenomena is

became

tampon his that course,

class. they of not

by got

about

belongingness of the

argument she of fucked.

played the told

their

her When

representation “‘ puzzled is girls

causi all

you? epistemic

same

a

me period. of

uncle, appear

whore? of Or

me

ng

“

about

woman`s she You many

them feminity maybe

class, and upwith outcry 42

entered

When

or cousin and

in That do

violence the

were started stories

your Kati the not constantly

otherness

is of dignity internalization as

imagined stories about

she

literature. her

absolutely have

the noise the arrived

doubl to older about

realized of

job.

room, scream whole

a

was had

the ” single

e She`s brother

marks —simultaneously (1996:445). several late

been

Hall discourses

a

sure she class.

that

with

of central and a hole

prostitute. fucked

asked

argues the against and

that everyone

situations

the

did Except on self

using attempts topic

boy

your Moreover, not already. of under each

that

-

courtship. as

the

for and

pay

started body

- in

tampon Madonna in other other: “

her

Racism the Other

the [laughing] tell attention which to

except

” referring

breath

girl

to

him English fix

(Ibid.). ” would

. listen

who they ( The

and and …) not the

at if

CEU eTD Collection Romungro their Romanes. the example was causing he account Gypsy name, Trading Furthermore, 11 10 limited head speak 4.4. speak easily the the community is

I In earn could

discourses use

Romungro Hungary, Roma observably

children

of

Ethnicity

the the position the

Belongingness The One

to

collective

the with During of of

still

expression

the language, Romani

ethnic

the

school ‘ of of

foundation, within in trading use

ok?!

divided antiquities

money for several

examination the

the the the themselves discourse

group. tired. Romanes.

student,

Olah

Communist the

group school, whoops factors is ‘ language, ’ more

meanwhile

originally Roma He

and and students 10 to

Alongside Gypsies

Csilla living.

the

I belongs

likely

said

parents about is

structured. the was

that the

population, of among

of differentiation

very era,

’

Olah joy that while

a

because income

‘ asked

asked

built it differentiate

certain do because

do musicians to

among within diverse he

each

not

group tra have language,

Olah

three upon

could at him joined there

me ditional

taught

inhere

of

space is other.

the a

the

Romungro

the groups limited

second to and can Gypsies shared

are

not usually ’

moment

efforts classroom.

call their

the

of

Roma, The with names, economic

define 43 heterogenous

sleep,

are

to the

with

students ethnicity, name. them

children the

of dominant;

ones

are

are who that

life students.

assimilation

of Olah

because a professions, profess

more

chain

Romungro.

by introduction Then, belong ”

who of

particular practices.

and

to is

young

culture their Olah,

speak

whether Romungro. even belong of

likely ion

In he to she

and

thought

the the

Romungro

was “

and Romanes.

urban Gypsy

defended and “ Since and

11 within activity.

Olah Several fear

last

if to to

they constantly

gender

” tradition. implies I

the

: group, class,

“ of Roma,

speak my follow

name

and

belong

one causing

Meanwhile

latter, times,

herself: However fieldwork

Beas. roles yet

Csilla`s

”

economic Romanes nation

I

, thinking

However, traditions

they cannot disadvantages usually as

to

However including

the

“ the

Rachel many

This do

I classmate state,

had

students not give Olah give

of or do

status. ”

is

of within since

speak been

how

not.

and

did my not

the the

the for an an or

CEU eTD Collection Hall identities As within Playing the defined the see a not ‘ talking

community that

presence David my prevent

1996)

the

antiquities. I ‘ I David, into cannot Can not classmates Ethnicity empirical on through really am

- not

to

students` playing fair.

it. an

you and ’ them

also

of

only from

No

accept

event don`t

coming

his

imagine …it`s fed constructed

’ diverse

who from But

that

to in data is is teacher.

identities

know up

the means

position understood built on an

I maybe are

particular teacher.

am

with the

fr

implies getting fact event.

om concepts why working

not

obligation

Unfortunately, that poverty

that not

by a

positioning themselves an the being

home Next

musician

these

a for rules, the expert. through sense of

good at

of

[

me,

a

“ TESCO, day, process

at

elegem

musician

of students

ethnicity. idea. norms,

1am Whole playing

arriving David them Romungro to I social shared

he went

then the van but

of arrived

families is

44 finish within behavior

is

majority

meanings, positioning. commented they

not a to come ethnicity.

Thus to

a csó

the

job the considered

family, do ‘ the ró significantly

their

are

to

school to s ethnicity

school á not

patterns,

but

school gbó structure dealing earn

coding shift accept it:

l also Various plays ”

]. and

money.

as

on

in ’

Perhaps

with has hard

in

late

that that the time.

late even I and

together creating asked

antiquities. a

They morning? in work levels

sometimes

on

decoding is

central I Once, economic the defined

should

that him

as accept

evening, with of the

working

day,

I

if Why

role

ethnicity

But start had structure

I (Spencer

he by tiredness

their am

thus practices

they

was cannot ‘ a

in trading

traditions but late.

in cha

families.

received building

TESCO.

are

tired

it appear

within nce That`s 2006;

of those

does born with

are my

to in ’ .

CEU eTD Collection girl discussions. me. related them months mechanism ‘ differences looking of diversity examined the sense Budapest. teacher

my

Being logic put

of to

social

In The data

in ’

at it,

, shared

examine

within

‘

order a behind

a the Moreover, their my

“

.

of or aim

Roma Moreover, ‘ I structure. H fake

speak transmitted colleagues’ owever dynamic sameness.

ethnicity,

economic to of the

English the

- high

their fulfill my

and community

looking , shifting

bei thesis school. my

spaces own

behave

I Dur the conceptual “ conceptualize teacher ng practices values

guided

discovered When role

a ing aim

was position

at reference My ‘

stranger between

defined like ’ with and forces my

it me

of

I to

position

CONCLUSION embedded have comes

and for the discover

and practices a investigation the a

related

Hungarian” ’ at

behind

special limitations study collected with points the

provided

relationship

a to highly historical reasons.

given

representation

central 45

whom in the to

that

I

the

of attention

strong chose

‘ everyday determined

all time, others

information are I

the my self

of

they did

sorts aspects between

also

- partic my students` kinship presence what exclusion ’

not

might to

and

of

derived . observation

struggles

of

economic ipatory

have qualitative is the of

” the

that

to shared relations,

relevant (Erikson share

man`s

created data identities.

and mechanism each

an help from

observation;

of

identity, that

‘

informant ethnic the practices.

existence,

ed

data other

urban to

Finally, 1968:43) ‘ confusion I

tradition

became

me i maintenance

us ntended

In based

identity for of in

based however, young other

’

exclusion

the

I . Furthermore, I personal, ’ we

available

As on filtered

spent and and

to

validation

on

can Roma words,

informal I and find

gender as forced of was

either three

only

one and my the the the for for

in a I

CEU eTD Collection two. case, space the try from shared “ the None (Ibid. their economic Budapest, Moreover the exclus clusters. qualitative students. imaginary

to individualization hostility sense

shared

233).

system ‘ of balance of ion

adolescence ‘ In Within sameness’

my childhood

Relying

based the

the practices I of data

cultural identity,

reunification

re towards

findings

based

shared second vealed

existence their the

and on

on ’ is

wider

the problems while life instead is

of

the of the

ethnicity part my struggles

proves

not

the relationship poverty

between

of ” ‘

result

problematic empirical

scope

of work (Hall

the

a students of

the

Roma “ the and

common

, focusing space of is

social (Szalai 1996:224) rela of

study,

the

stereotype “ embedded are

the

my

evidences, among ted school

embedded space between ’

in .

and

dialogue

thesis, Nevertheless, underlining 2002). historical to on

connection

adulthood.

in individual economic within t of

he that

within

the

childhood education

in Mo I wider 46

and

of

came

Roma school. the experience”

reover,

the power the

rooted

with

the

first educational behind

factors trajectories, T wide

to

everyday herefore,

do

and

and mechanism T

the unemployment in and part

hus r not in

its

educational th that behind conclusion

adulthood and

resistance kinship

the is I literal want

revealed

I label practices

system, of

I “ existence also

shared organized

work. irregular to of meaning,

there

relations.

claim

stud

but

within exclusionary that system

within a

the

codes of

School

Rom y, are the of

th the that mechanism them school

but

the e

these

cultural the

” space a

their

is In young

maintenance

are

school in

are represents

school

dependent struggles in other

most adolescen

attendance the to

family processes. originated out

identity Roma different

tools

and

words, and of of of

and self and

the the the the

on its of of in t ” s .

CEU eTD Collection space their ‘ multinational inquiry of write

the

life,

of rewriteand life My would

family

many

of study

companies,

urban be

g approachin of

has

needed.

their its Roma

its parts drama

own

would Moreover,

remained youth,

it limitation ’

. either

offer but

from hidden

si

a offering

nce

and sharper

economic my it in is

47

observation front

a image incomplete.

deeper

or of

of

gender me.

understanding the

was pological Anthro

In subtle

perspective, order

focused

and

to

grasp

multilayered of on

its the a

investigation not

particular

trajectory, space

only

factors of a

space work moment

further

of

that at the of

CEU eTD Collection du Berna Gans, Friedman, Erikson, Durst, Breakwell, Barth, Abu Farkas, Emigh, Enyedi, Gay - Lughod, L. H. rd,

Frederic J. R.

L. Gy. (1995) Difference. Press. pdf http://www.migpolgroup.org/public/docs/5.Segregation_Roma_children_edu_en_07.07. Employment, Press. Anthropology. Theory Violence. Compony Budapest né by Rebecca Harloe Change Poverty,

P. E.

R. (2006)

J., (2007) há

G. J.

Retrieved

(1996) (2007)

H. ny Fodor (1986) (1995) (2003)

Pp

’ The

(1986)

„ (1969) . London: (1968)

gett and 136 Ethnicity,

Segregation

Kirekesztetts

Ch

Urbanization War É London:

Introduction Jean

Copingwith ó” ósod . Participant -

Globalization, pp15- Iv and June

Conflict pp 164. and and

1. Veiled Qualitative Ethnic Identity: Against Emigh Sage In:

Social Szel 2,2014

43

and á Allen apr

n Szel Globalization, Sentiments.

of é é

Groups

i ó Publication. g

nyi Gender n

Iv and the

faluban under Roma

in. Youth Observation. Threatened 208- Unwin. and é

Post é and

s

I. nyi

Poor. Basic Dis Bilbliography

Organizing Affairs gyermekvá (2001)

á

- 235 Oxford, Cambridge:

Socialism Quantitative Children Socialist and n Szel in - (1970 integration, and Berkley:

the

pp. 1- Boundaries:

T Identities Th é

Crises. he 48

Eastern Greenwoodnyi. Press - e Chapter

llalá 2004)

in Books, pp.58- Societies State Racialization in and 19 Identity: University

Education. Cities Approaches.

s: Re

New

. Europe PhD and

A Methnen&Co. -

7 organi

The

Equal

After

rom

ed. Blackwell Persons a York, Disser Violence. nd

of

Social Durin á Brussel: and

74 zation:

by k Socialism: California 10 Walnut tation term London: Gr Feminization g

Opportunities. In and Organization egory

Publisher the pp 1- Walnut é

The

Directorate kenys Corvinus Research

Creek, Organizations Market Press, Urban

45 W. Transformation Andrusz,

é Creek: gé

Cal.:

W. pp. nek of

and Transtion University -

Methods

Poverty? General of

1- Nor

vá AltaMira Regional Altamira Cultural Michael 34. Source:

ltoz ton ‘ A

fter

á ed. for

of of sa & in in

CEU eTD Collection Lad Kovai, Kymlicka, Hall, K Jones, Jacobs, Havasi, Levitt, Kertesi, Kertesi, McGarry, Solt, Source: óczé á

nyi, O. Stuart

, S.

C. P,

A.

J. ( G. G. É Source: Multicultural Cit PhD. Struggles, Retrieved Making Politics. Vol.8, Dialogues University Papers Introducing Hungary Bes Community. D. 1998) J.

. (2008)

A. (1992) Liz

(2011)

and and

W. (2004) (2002) Dubner and z (1996)

http://www.ceu.hu/sites/default/files/attachment/event/9044/kertesikezditsglong.pdf élő (2010)

University

Bradbury Cigányok K Szel (1995)

No

http://beszelo.c3.hu/cikkek/az New

of Az

andits é Systems Gender, June

zdi

Press.

in The

Poverty

é New an

York, New Social 1, Who iskola Cultural Studies. nyi,

York: No2, pp.53- G.

3,2014 Underclass Institute Employment Chapter Dissertation S.

potential

(2014) izenship:

I. és Ethnicities. and Speaks of J.

Ethnicity Theory

é (2006).

Vintage c and s (2009) Survival: igány

a Shaun

csal On London:

1 of Exclusion for causes. A 75 Cambridge:

Patterns gyerekek

á (Introduction,

in

the Liberal Economics,

and Central Freakonomics. Books, d. of Roma? In:

Le

London: Transitional

A

Kiz the test

Class: Continuum Dialogue D.

Boutillier á

Roma

r score

in

of Morley ó Theory pp. xi Political Budapesten UniversityEuropean -

49 é Polity iskola

Routledge, pp.441- Exclusion: Contemporary s Romani

HAS megengedő - gap

-

pp

Evidence xiii on York: New of

Societies International (2011) - and Press es- Representat - Minority between 1- the

Dept. Women a 9) in K.H. -

csalad Con Mora

Méltóságot and

Feminist from viszonyok.

of

ucting str

Hungary. of HarperCollins, Chen Roma Rights. Oxford:

l ’ Retrieved:

s Europe

Chapter

Foundation

ion Group Publishing Human Political Hungary 449

(eds.) and of and

Mindenkinek.

Gypsy .

Transnational Beszé

Review

New

non- 3 Resources,

22May Gender Activism . Stuart (pp Budapest of pp. Roma l Ethnicity York: ő, OUP.

Commerce

34 m of 85- Hall

2014 á Theories

-

jus, 48)

students Sociology. and

114 Budapest: Columbia

Corvinus , Worki Minority

and Critical 80–86. in Social

and

the his

ng in in

CEU eTD Collection Kalb, Civil Willis, Wacquant, Spencer, Szel Szalai, ______. Stewart, ______. (2001) Zentai, ______. Szalai é nyi, D.

t

J.,

ársadalmi J. V. P.

Informal

Magyarorsz Hamps Race Foundation. Cambridge: US, UniversityEuropean cross- 135. Ideas, Michael Regional Comparative of Ethnic Order Politics M.

Stephen (2002) Messing

I.

8,pp.36- Sociology (2009) (2012) L.

(2001) (1993) in (1996)

(2002) and (2008) Ed. Ideologies national New Youth andShape hire:

Harloe Poverty

in Thesis discussions.

(2006)

Populism, byNando Sigona How Ethn

Change Poverty jelenté V.

Deprivation, Learning Cities

Contemporary

ágon Ashgate, Left Polity

From Perspective.

and Urban

icity: comparison. Iv and Do

Review and Practices and in s Identity:

Nem

Press, under

Slavery and under 2012- Schools a

Roma Culture,

pp. Social to Outcast: á Nemzeti 51 é n

the Conflict their nyi

13,January 1- Szel pp.227-

ben. Labour: Socialism Chapters post Marginal

Roma to and

7

Europe: Nidhi and M. Exclusion in Paper

Performance? Online Writing Identity mass é -

communist

nyi

Old the Budapest: (2010) A

T Europe

in

235 ársadalmi Oxford, Cambridge: and

How

Comparative

printed incarceration: European

3Online2 and and - Voices Post Poverty, -

Workshop. in 2002 February and

and Trehan ‘ 50

through the Ethnic New - working Asia, and

Socialist capitalis Reporesentation.

Af underclass

at Decade and

ter. Felz Politics workshop

Member Ethnic and the

the

in Sociology

á

Rethinking Publication (

m class Routledge Social Optic rk

Soci

Publication 2014 Central European Politics - Cities

óz

’ of the Mobiliza of . Blackwell St In ási

eties

“

Cultural eff ates kids

of

Culture Roma Differences Chris

After

London: ects a Strat

of of

ed. the

of Changed

get

tion, Difference. ( Hann www.edumigrom.eu

Advanced of

the www.edumigrom.eu é

‘ Publisher Socialism:

Difference. by and Inclusion gia race

class working

and Routledge. EU

Gregory ed. ” Poverty in

megval ’ question Regime.

and Treat Education the Postsocialism:

Chapter

University Marginality

class

ethnicity Urban Secretariat in Neoliberal ós

Andrusz, , Minority

Romani Pp í

Review Central t . á in

s

jobs

115 ár 5 ) in

and

the )

in ól in a - . .