Romani culture and academic success: arguments

Romani culture and academic success: arguments against the belief in a contradiction Christian Brüggemann Institut für Erziehungswissenschaften, Vergleichende und Internationale Erziehungswissenschaft, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany Roma, today perceived as the most numerous European minority, face marginalisation and exclusion. Education is considered to be one of the focal points for improvement, and numerous studies have analysed and reported on the educational situation of Roma. Several studies have argued that Romani cultural values are not compatible with institutional schooling and that Romani families perceive schools as an alien institution. Other studies have drawn upon cultural– ecological theory (CE theory), developed by Ogbu and colleagues, and argue that the Romani cultural frame of reference is oppositional to academic success and thus suggest that successful Romani students distance themselves from Romani culture. The paper discusses the application of CE theory in the context of the academic discourse about the educational achievement of Romani students. Drawing on interviews with Spanish Romani university students, the paper argues that Romani students themselves challenge the assumption that educational success leads to cultural alienation. Keywords: Roma; Gitanos; Romani culture; educational success; educational inequality; minority education

Some remarks about culture The understanding of culture as an analytical tool of scientific investigation has been constantly changing. Two broad currents in the conceptualisation of culture can be distinguished. The static concept of culture defines culture as norms, values and beliefs shared by a group. The dynamic concept of culture defines culture as a process of negotiating belonging. The first can be described as a ‘stationary force, with an immutable presence and irresistible impact’ (Sen 2006, 111) the latter as an ‘active process of meaning making and contest over definition’ (Street 1993, 25). Using metaphors, Baumann (1999, 26) calls the essentialist concept a ‘photocopy machine’ and the dynamic concept a ‘historically improvised jam session’. Both concepts have been strongly influenced by anthropologists who were first engaged in the construction of an essentialist concept of culture and in the last decades have moved towards deconstructing this view in favour of a much more dynamic concept of culture. This change in understanding culture is to some extent part of a general trend in the social sciences that have shifted from essentialist to constructivist approaches of understanding social realities. Considering culture as dynamic is also a reaction against identified ‘exoticising and racialising’ tendencies of the static

Author Accepted Manuscript, please visit www.tandfonline.com to access the final published article

1

concept of culture (Anderson-Levitt 2012, 444). Anthropologists have argued that groups cannot be defined as owners of particular cultures as ‘meanings are too frequently shared between group boundaries’, whereas not all members of a certain group share similar norms, values and beliefs (ibid.). In this vein, the construction of group identity does not result from an implicitly given culture but from the creation of meaning that is strongly influenced by hierarchies, power-relations and labelling processes. Different understandings of culture have influenced theory and analysis in intercultural education. The question of how cultural difference interacts with educational performance belongs to the core concerns of intercultural education (Gogolin 2010; Hornberg 2013). One often cited theory that attempts to explain how culture influences educational inequalities is the cultural–ecological theory (CE theory) of school performance.

The CE theory of school performance1 The theoretical understanding of the interplay between minority culture and educational success and failure has been substantially influenced by the CE theory developed by John U. Ogbu. Ogbu identified two sets of factors relevant for minority achievement and engagement: 1) societal and school forces and 2) community forces (including family and peer influences). Arguing from a comparative perspective and observing that in the US different minorities with a similar socio-economic status and similar experiences of discrimination significantly differed in terms of school success, Ogbu concluded that not enough attention was paid to understanding the importance of community forces. Ogbu assumed that ‘differences among minorities are primarily due to differences in the community forces of the minorities’ (Obgu 2002, 15). Community forces have been understood as being shaped by a minority’s collective identity and cultural frame of reference (Fordham and Ogbu 1986). Collective identity refers ‘to people’s sense of who they are’ is developed by ‘people’s collective experience’ and depends ‘on the continuity of the external (historical and structural) forces that contributed to its formation’ (Ogbu 2004, 3). The cultural frame of reference refers to the ‘correct way of behaving (…) from the point of view of the minorities’ (ibid. 5). CE theory assumes that collective identity and cultural frame of reference guide human behaviour, including minority students’ behaviour at school. Whether collective identity and cultural frame of reference are supportive of, or an obstacle to, minority school success depends on whether they are perceived as oppositional to majority culture or not (Ogbu 1995a, 195). Oppositional identities and frames of reference result from historical and on-going subordination and interconnected status problems (ibid.).

The cultural frame of reference of the subordinate group may include attitudes, behav itors, and speech styles that are stigmatized by the dominant group. It often excludes he attitudes, behaviors, and speech styles of the dominant group rejected by the subor dninate group. Consequently, the cultural frame of reference of the subordinate group is ot only different from that of the dominant group; it is also oppositional to it. (ibid. 196) Author Accepted Manuscript, please visit www.tandfonline.com to access the final published article

2

In conclusion, CE theory assumes that historical subordination (marked by, for example, slavery, colonisation or persecution) causes status problems that provoke collective responses to status problems. Finally, collective responses to status problems explain differences in engagement and performance:

How the minorities perceive and interpret cultural and language differences and the pcome roblems these differences generate affect the extent to which they are able to overthe learning problems caused by these differences. (Ogbu 1995b, 281) Ethnographic data underlining Ogbu’s theory was among others collected in rural

areas in the US (Ogbu 1978; Fordham and Ogbu 1986; Ogbu and Simons 1998; Ogbu 2003). Comparisons applied by Ogbu and colleagues focused on educational trajectories, behaviour and sensemaking of minorities such as African-Americans, Chinese Americans and Mexican Americans. One of Ogbu’s main concerns was to explain achievement gaps, with special interest in African-American achievement. Based on an ethnographic study in Washington, DC, Fordham and Ogbu (1986) introduced the notion of ‘acting white’ – a notion prevalent among African Americans to refer to and judge a certain behaviour of peers – as important evidence of cultural opposition and a trigger of academic disengagement.2 Educational disengagement and its negative effect on school performance were observed to be one out of several responses to the ‘burden of acting white’:

In the case study of Capital High School in Washington, DC, we showed that coping with the burden of acting white affects the academic performance of both underachiev ing and high-achieving students. Black students who are encapsulated in the fictive kin sbhip system or oppositional process experience greater difficulty in crossing cultural oundaries; i.e., in accepting standard academic attitudes and practices of the school and in investing sufficient time and effort in pursuing their educational goals. (ibid. 202)

According to Ogbu, a significant part of the African American population perceives ‘white’ attitudes and a certain behaviour conducive to high achievement ‘as detrimental to their own culture, language and identity’ (Ogbu 1991, 26). Students belonging to this category were observed to have poor study habits and apply minimum effort (Ogbu 2003, 23–32). CE theory has been applied and discussed by innumerable contributions and is perceived as one of the most influential theories about ethnic educational inequality in the US. Many authors have discussed the potentials and limits of CE theory.3 This paper looks at the adoption of CE theory in the context of academic discourse on the education of Roma in Europe.

Romani education and the CE theory Roma4 face marginalisation and exclusion all over Europe. Education – usually considered a precondition for upward social mobility – is widely believed to play a key role in improving the situation of Roma. This belief is strongly supported by several international organisations such as the European Union, the Council of Europe, the World Bank and the Open Society Institute and reflected in various policy approaches and international and European funding strategies. Numerous publications have repeatedly argued that Roma are strongly disadvantaged in terms of educational participation (e.g. school attendance), outputs (e.g. school attainment) and outcomes (e.g. employment prospects) (Liégeois 1999, 2007; Open Society Institute 2007a, 2007b; Symeou, Luciak, and Gobbo 2009; FRA and UNDP 2012;


3

Brüggemann 2012; Hornberg and Brüggemann 2013; Nistor, Curcic, and Brüggemann 2014; Roma Education Fund country assessments various years). A huge amount of research has been undertaken in order to describe, explain and suggest reactions to the educational disadvantages that Roma face. One common assumption is that the Roma’s educational disadvantage can be explained by factors primarily related to Romani culture. Lee and Warren (1991, 315), for example, suppose that historically experienced discrimination and marginalisation, the ‘nomadic lifestyle’,5 a cohesive group identity, boundary maintenance and the use of Romani as a ‘secret language’6 ‘have produced a particular Romani education system’. In this education system, reading and writing are supposed to be ‘alien concepts’ and schools are ‘alien institutions’ viewed as ‘inimical’ to Romani culture. Roma are supposed to perceive time spend in schools as ‘wasted’ and schooling as ‘counterproductive’, whereas in the ‘Romani education system’, education ‘occurs only in the context of real life activity’ (ibid. 316–322). In similar fashion, Smith draws a bipolar picture of two mutually exclusive understandings of education stating that many Roma do not perceive institutional education ‘as either practical, essential, or necessary for their children’ due to ‘opposing structures, values and interests’ that traditional Romani education is located in (Smith 1997, 244). Besides the benign intentions of the authors, whose primary aim is to attempt to develop a critical approach towards mainstream education, their arguments are based upon the above-mentioned static concept of culture and bear the risk of identifying Romani culture as essentially different. Other research on Romani education has explicitly drawn upon the CE theory of school performance. CE theory applied to the achievement of Romani students assumes that historical exclusion and on-going marginalisation of Roma has contributed to subordination that results in status problems and reactions to status problems that are comparable to those identified by Ogbu. Especially, research on the educational situation of Gitanos in Spain has drawn on CE theory to contextualise empirical analysis. A pioneering attempt to understand factors that may contribute to the educational success of Gitano students has been undertaken by Abajo and Carrasco (2004, 2005a, 2005b). In a comprehensive account of ethnographic fieldwork, Abajo and Carrasco and their team draw on 50 biographic interviews with Gitanos that have completed compulsory education, showing that besides institutional factors,7 several personal factors contribute to educational success of Gitano students such as: (1) the emergence of a personal project of continuing education, fostered by early success, (2) the individual commitment to seek favourable conditions for carrying out such a project, (3) the ability to negotiate with the family, community pressures and the peer group and (4) social skills and access to peer group support (Abajo and Carrasco 2005a, 25). While arguing that the assumption of fundamental differences between Gitano culture and school culture is misleading, Abajo and Carrasco identified two structural phenomena that are relevant to biographies of educationally successful Gitano students:

Ethnic invisibility refers to a coping strategy of Gitanos in secondary education

who hide their identity from classmates and teachers in order to avoid other ing, exclusion or racism (Abajo and Carrasco 2004, 105–106). Ethnic invisi bility was found to partly depend on how much individuals corresponded to stereotypical phenotypes of ‘the traditional Gitano’. Apayamiento refers to peer pressure among Gitanos targeted to those who behave in a certain way that is accused to be not in line with Gitanidad (being 8


4

Gitano). Apayamiento is understood as equivalent to the phenomenon of ‘acting white’ (Abajo and Carrasco 2004, 38).

The change of perspective to educational success as well as the corresponding findings of Abajo and Carrasco has inspired several studies on the educational situation of Gitano students (Poveda and Martín 2004; Bereményi 2007, 2011; Harry, et al. 2008; Pastor 2009, 2011; Beuchling 2010; Gamella 2011). While a discussion of all mentioned research is beyond the scope of this paper, I focus on a recent contribution by Olaf Beuchling, who stresses that educationally successful Gitanos hide their origins, are subject to disidentification processes and alienated from Gitano culture.

Gitano culture understood as an essential barrier to educational success In his book ‘Zwischen Payos und Gitanos’ (between Payos and Gitanos),9 Beuchling (2010) presents a comprehensive analysis of ethnic inequality in Spain, arguing that Gitanos perceive schooling as a threat to ethnic distinction and group cohesion. Schooling is supposed to operate as a ‘demarcation criterion’ (ibid. blurb). Following Weber’s thoughts about pariah groups and Ogbu’s CE theory, Beuchling describes European Roma as an involuntary minority and their culture as oppositional. In this vein, a single member of an involuntary minority faces the dilemma to choose between educational success and recognition within his/her minority group (ibid. 27). According to Beuchling, the educational disadvantage of Gitanos is mainly determined by their social organisation, their cultural values and their ethnic self-image; Gitanos perceive education as a ‘threat to community integration’ (ibid. 29). This thesis is elaborated through the reinterpretation of interview material cited in secondary literature. Beuchling interprets the notion of ‘apayamiento’ as evidence for cultural distance and fear of assimilation. He further mentions differing gender concepts, the participation of children in family economy and the lack of parental interest as reasons for low attendance and attainment rates of Gitano students (ibid. 95–108). Following this logic, Beuchling recognises the existence of educationally successful Gitano students, referring to the work of Abajo and Carrasco (2004). Based on selectively chosen citations taken from this study, Beuchling refers to the phenomena of ‘invisibility’, ‘apayamiento’ and ‘alienation’ in order to underline the identity conflict and family and peer group pressure that educationally successful Gitano students are exposed to. Concluding that ‘educationally successful Gitanas and Gitanos show the tendency to distance themselves from Gitano culture’ (ibid. 120), Beuchling constructs a binary picture about Gitano culture and educational success. In this picture, Gitano culture is seen as a contradiction to educational success and, following the reverse logic, educationally successful Gitanos are necessarily alienated from their culture of origin. Gitano culture is, thus, being constructed as a ‘stationary force’. Questioning this construction, I analyse interviews with Gitano university students looking for the phenomena characterised above.

Gitano culture understood as an active process of meaning-making and contest over definition The empirical material presented in the following section was collected during research about educational trajectories of Romani university students in Spain.


5

Sample and method The aim of the research was to analyse biographies of educationally successful Gitano students. Educationally successful Gitano students have been defined as persons who were enrolled in university and identified themselves as (1) a member of the Spanish Gitano minority and (2) educationally successful. In total, 10 Spanish Gitano students were interviewed between May and July 2010. The family backgrounds of the students were heterogeneous in terms of economic situation (including poor and affluent families) and educational background (including parents without formal education and parents with a university degree), and all but one interviewee identified both parents as Gitanos. A content-analytical approach based on problem orientation (a low share of Gitanos studies at university), subject orientation (the interview focused on the biography of the students) and process orientation (data collection and interpretation were undertaken stepwise) was applied (compare Mayring 1996, 50). Contacts to Gitano university students were developed through university employees and other Gitano university students. The interviews were divided into a narrative part (‘please describe your educational pathway starting with education in the early years of your life’) and a semi-structured part containing specific questions about educational experiences. Following the transcription, thematic coding (Kuckartz 2007) was applied based on a deductive-inductive approach; codes were defined ex ante and later redefined and refined during the analytical process. Special attention was given to key events. According to Erickson (1986, 108) cited in Kroon and Sturm (2000, 564), ‘a key event is key in that it brings to awareness latent, intuitive judgments the analyst has already made about salient patterns in the data. Once brought to awareness these judgments can be reflected upon critically’. In this vein, the statements presented are believed to be significant for the making of meaning among Romani students. In addition, I do not assume that the material presented is representative for all people who identify (or are identified) as Gitanos, but only for the cases presented.

Invisibility It has been assumed that educationally successful Gitano students ‘hide their origins’ (Beuchling 2010, 110). This assumption points back to Abajo and Carrasco (2004, 104–106) who mention ‘ethnic invisibility’, responding to the finding that classmates and teachers of successful Gitano students are usually not aware of the ethnic affiliation of their fellow students. Invisibility also played an important role in the analysed educational trajectories. ‘I am a woman with an invisible identity’ stated Esemeralda (Abs. 11), explaining that she would have not been treated as Gitana by her classmates if she did not mention her ethnic affiliation. Several Gitano students believed that not being externally identified as Gitano had contributed to their educational success:

A veces pienso que …, que también uno de los factores que me ha contribuido que yo tqenga éxito en …, educativo, éxito no en cuanto a nota sino a que me he mantenido, es ue yo no aparento ser gitana. (Samara, Abs. 9) Que el hecho de que tú siendo gitana si no aparentas ser gitana o si no … planteas tu gitanidad, ¿no? Eso te va a poner menos obstáculos en el camino. O sea si tu invisibli zas tu … tu pertenencia étnica vas a tener más … más posibilidades. (María Abs. 56) Author Accepted Manuscript, please visit www.tandfonline.com to access the final published article

6

Snotometimes I think that another factor that helped me to be successful in …, education, with regard to the grades but [considering] that I have remained [in school] is that I do not look [like a] Gitana, […] (Samara, 9) The fact is, that if you do feel you are a Gitana but you do not look like a Gitana or you do not show your Gypsyness (gitanidad), you are confronted with fewer barriers in your path. This is to say that if you make invisible your … your ethnic belonging, you will have more … more opportunities. (María, 56) Samara and María supposed that one factor that contributed to their success was that they did not correspond to the phenotypic characteristics that people relate to Gitanas. They could ‘pass’ as a member of the majority. With this in mind, they believed they were ‘confronted with fewer barriers’ compared with other Gitanas. Ethnic invisibility seems to be a strategic choice of those whose ethnicity is not externally identified by teachers and classmates as corresponding to the Gitano phenotype (Abajo and Carrasco 2005a, 24). Even though they were not recognised as ‘Gitano’, respondents faced stereotypes expressed by fellow students, teachers or in textbooks. Juan mentioned the following incident:

[…] a mi nunca me ha gustado ir diciendo que soy gitano, ¿sabes? es algo que yo, ante tdodo soy persona, después sí que soy gitano porque mi et … pero tampoco tengo ganas e ir diciéndolo por ahí. Entonces yo en secundaria cuando llegué, llegué a 1º de la ESO, no conocía a nadie porque la mayoría de compañeros habían ido a otro instituto. Yo estaba siempre calladito. […] Entonces me acuerdo cuando llegó un día que lo dije, smalió el tema, estaban hablando sobre los gitanos, y salté yo y dije: ‘¡Yo soy gitano!’, y e acuerdo de la reacción de todos los compañeros, incluso del profesor, que fu … no seestudia. lo creía, porque ellos tienen una visión de los gitanos como de la persona que no (Juan, 14) […] In my case, I have never enjoyed going around saying I am Gitano, you know? It i…s something that I, first of all, I am a person, then yes, I am Gitano because of my eth but nevertheless I have no desire to mention this. Then in high school, when I aorrived, I arrived in the first year of ESO. I did not know anyone because the majority f my friends had gone to another school. I was always quiet. […] Then I remember one day, I told it, the subject came up, they were talking about the Gitanos, and I jumped and said: ‘I am a Gitano’, and I remember the reaction of all of my classmates, iancluding of the teacher, it … they did not believe it, because in their vision Gitanos re people who do not study. (Juan, 14)

Juan attended a primary school in a marginalised district of a large city. During this time, the teachers and professors knew about his Gitano identity as the school was situated in an area with a relatively large number of Gitanos. After the transition from primary school to a high school in an adjacent district, Juan was confronted with a new environment and felt alone since he was the only one of his group of friends who was attending that college. He did not ‘go around saying he was Gitano’, but after a while and after being humiliated by negative stereotypes about the Gitano population, he stood up in front of his class and said: ‘I am a Gitano!’. For Juan, invisibility ensured equal treatment, avoiding the possibility of being treated ‘like a Gitano’. After a certain period of time and most probably after having gained self-confidence and security, Juan decided to confront the class. Being aware that his ‘coming out’ might lead to negative consequences, Juan strategically chose to present his ethnic identity in front of people who believed that ‘Gitanos are people who do not study’. In doing so, Juan actively contested the production of meaning in the classroom.


7

Apayamiento It has been claimed that educationally successful Gitanos are subject to ‘disidentification processes’ and that Gitano students experience considerable ‘pressure to conform’ from the peer group (Beuchling 2010, 110–114). The respondents’ biographies indeed suggested a sort of pressure that was connected to stereotypes of the ‘uneducated Gitano’, expressed by peers as well as teachers and classmates.

[…] muchos de los compañeros consideraban que tú no eras gitano ‘de verdad’ porque nteza o coincidías con los estereotipos marcados por la sociedad y eso me daba rabia y trisa la vez. Solo decían que eran gitanos los que vivían en caravanas, no estudiaban, robaban, etc. (Luis, 11) […] many of the friends thought that you were not a ‘real’ Gitano because you do not cor rsespond with stereotypes created by society and this made me feel angry and sad at the ame time. They said that Gitanos lived in caravans, did not study, they stole. (Luis, 11)

Luis experienced that many friends (Gitanos and well as Payos) did not perceive him as ‘true Gitano’, because he did not appear to be that different and, thus, did not fit public stereotypes. Stereotypes of how a ‘true Gitano’ behaves seem to be complemented by images of what a ‘true Gitano’ looks like. Samara, (Abs. 11) for example, was often asked: ‘You are a Gitana? You do not look like a Gitana!’. Many respondents faced a certain suprise and disbelief when their educational career was considered in the light of their ethnic identity. Educationally successful Gitanos do not fit the ethnic stereotype:

Tanto no gitanos como gitanos, ‘no porque los gitanos que estudiáis os apayáis’,¿no? tmeomento, vuelves payo, o ‘o no porque entonces si estudias no eres un verdadero gitano’. Un o sea, el ser analfabeto no es nada inherente a la cultura gitana, por supuestoel estudiar, que No. (Samara, 27) Both non-Gitanos and Gitanos [said] ‘no because the Gitanos who study become Payo (yosouapayáis), no? You become Payo (te vuelves payo)’, or ‘oh no because if you study are not a real Gitano’. One moment, studying or being illiterate, is nothing inher ent in Gitano culture, of course not. (Samara, 27)

Several respondents mentioned community pressures related to the notion of ‘Apayamiento’. In some instances, the term seemed to be used as a discursive strategy to delegitimise decisions in favour of continuing education. In such instances, educationally successful Gitanos were accused of being ‘less Gitano’. However, respondents also mentioned positive responses and pride expressed by community members related to their university career. Moreover, those students interviewed openly rejected and confronted the notion of ‘Apayamiento’, whether this notion was expressed by members of the majority or by the Gitanos themselves. The mere presence of people like Samara seemed to challenge widespread stereotypes and cultural essentialism. Some respondents even experienced their own biography as an appreciated role model for others:

‘¡Mira, la Carmen está estudiando esto!’ Y te sientes que puedes defraudar a muchas pchas ersonas que están esperando a que tú termines una carrera, a que tú demuestres mucosas, enseñes a otra gente gitana a que puede estudiar, a los niños para que se cDonciencien, a las familias para que vean que puedes ser gitana y estar estudiando. esde eso a la otra parte, una persona que no es gitana, que tienen una idea a lo mejor epquivocada o bueno, es lo que igual ven en la tele, donde sea, la imagen de los gitanos ues también yo me he sentido responsable muchas veces de mostrar lo contrario, ¿no? (Carmen, 22) Author Accepted Manuscript, please visit www.tandfonline.com to access the final published article

8

‘Look, Carmen is studying this!’ And you feel that you may disappoint many people wyouhoshow are expecting that you finish your career, and that you prove many things, that others that also a Gitana is able to study, to raise awareness among children, aomong the families so that they see that you can be Gitana and study. Since on the hand, a person who is not Gitana, who may have a mistaken idea, or well, this is wvther hat they also see on TV, or wherever, [where they see] the image of Gitanos, thus, I ery often also felt responsible to demonstrate the opposite. (Carmen, 22) Carmen felt a certain responsibility to prove that Gitanos can have successful academic experiences. She wanted to fight the image of Gitanos presented by television, and therefore seemed to actively contest existing perceptions. Rather than being a passive subject to alienation, Gitano students questioned the notion of ‘apayamiento’ related to education and thus engaged in the process of reconstructing this notion.10 While experiencing themselves as living examples and role models, the reference to their own trajectories seemed to carry a special discursive power.

Alienation It has been argued that educationally successful Gitanos (1) have to stand up to families and friends and (2) experience cultural alienation (Beuchling 2010, 115–116). My analysis, however, shows that this is not necessarily the case. All but one respondent mentioned strong familial support for continuing institutional education. In terms of relating Gitano culture to educational success, the respondents contested public stereotypes with self-confident opinions:

[…] no tiene nada que ver tu tradición familiar, tu tradición cultural con que tu sepas ssumar o restar, leer, escribir o conocimientos de historia, o de matemáticas o de filoofía. No no hay que confundir las cosas. La gente no deja de ser lo que originalmente es por tener más conocimientos. (Ramón, 43) […] your family tradition, your cultural tradition has nothing to do with your ability to anddot orconfuse subtract, read, write, or knowledge of history, math or philosophy. One should things. People do not cease to be what they originally are by gaining knowledge. (Ramón, 43)

Contradicting public opinion, Ramón argued that people do not lose their roots just because they gain knowledge about history, math or philosophy. According to Ramón, cultural traditions should not be confused with the ability to read or write, add or subtract. People like Ramón, Carmen, Esmeralda, Juan, Luis, Maria or Samara were concerned about the reconstruction and redefinition of public and scientific views regarding Gitano culture and educational success. They experienced alienation but also support from community members. Rather than being victims of essentialist interpretations, they were actively engaged in what Street (1993, 25) calls a ‘process of meaning making and contest over definition’. In this manner, they supported the dynamic concept of culture since they argued against essentialist perceptions of academic success and Gitano culture as being mutually exclusive.

Discussion Several decades ago, John U. Ogbu devised an often cited explanation for the educational disadvantages experienced by minorities, which takes into account not only economic status or discrimination, but also culture; referred to as the CE theory of


9

school performance. CE theory stresses the importance of historical subordination, collective identity and cultural frame of reference and its impact on school behaviour and educational engagement resulting in achievement differences. Some criticisms have pointed out that CE theory overestimates community forces and that Ogbu tends to present observer opinions as factual and to make generalisations that are not sustained by his own data (Diamond 2005). Others have found that CE theory fails to explain achievement variation among subordinate groups (Kao 1996) as well as among migrant minorities (Luciak 2004; Lundy 2006). Furthermore, the empirical validity of CE theory – especially the ‘acting white hypothesis’ – has been called into question by a wide range of qualitative and quantitative studies (Foley 1991; Ainsworth-Darnell and Downey 1998; Cook and Jens 1998; Spencer et al. 2001; Downey and Ainsworth-Darnell 2002; Tyson 2002; Harris 2006; Fryer and Torelli 2010).11 It has been assumed that Gitano students, in order to be successful, need to assimilate and distance themselves from Gitano culture, while coping with what Ogbu calls ‘oppositional community forces’. The present research concludes that this assumption should not be generalised. The cases presented in this paper point to the importance of a different coping strategy: students do not give up their identity or cultural frame of reference but continue to have close ties to family, friends and community. They question the assumption that success in school is Apayamiento and thus instead of being passively alienated, they actively engage in the negotiation about the relationship between Gitano culture and school success. In summarising the critical debate about CE theory, Foster (2008, 586–589) has argued that two steps are of main importance towards improving CE theory. First, CE theory should operate with a more complex notion of culture, acknowledging that culture is ‘an ongoing and interactive process (…) thoroughly contested and constantly negotiated’. Second, CE theory should pay attention to the interplay between system and community forces and to how ‘individuals perceive specific system forces, and how the system incorporates and accounts for actions generated by community members’. Researchers who take such criticisms seriously will necessarily need to contextualise Romani students’ entire educational career, while paying special attention to the interrelated perceptions about culture, community, system and educational success. If and how educationally successful Romani students challenge images about the incompatibility of Romani culture and educational success are questions that call for further research.

Final remarks Culture continues to be a contested concept within the social sciences and a concept that carries epistemological challenges for the field of intercultural education. On the one hand, speaking about culture bears the risk of strengthening perceptions about cultural difference. The widely shared assumption that Roma do not value education is an example that – apart from the lack of sufficient empirical backing – is easily used to underline essential difference and blame a minority for its disadvantage. On the other hand, neglecting culture bears the risk of ignoring existing social practices or de-legitimating minority rights. This paper has tried to question assumptions that create an image about culture as an ‘essential force’ by presenting how Gitano university students are actively


10

involved in meaning-making about culture and educational success. The findings show that Gitano university students play a role in the contest over definition and, thus, influence hierarchies, power-relations and labelling processes. Their educational trajectories illustrate that educational success does not necessarily lead to cultural loss, rather it leads to cultural change and reinterpretation – processes that are inherent and ubiquitous in every culture. Last but not least, it should not be forgotten that the research criticised, as well as the present findings, also play a role in the production of culture. Conducting research and disseminating results is perhaps not an obvious, but is certainly a powerful way of influencing contests over meaning (Anderson-Levitt 2012, 45).

Acknowledgements I wish to thank Anna Mirga, Annabell Tremlett, Eben Friedman and three anonymous referees for their helpful comments. I am extremely grateful to all the respondents interviewed for this paper.

Notes 1. The paper takes a particular interest in the idea that subordinate minorities have devel oped coping strategies that hinder academic success. Other important layers of CE the ory such as Ogbu’s minority typology and the distinction between universal, primary secondary cultural differences are not discussed due to limited space. Gender as a 2. acInnd riterion for the construction of difference is not discussed for the same reason. a posthumous edited volume, Ogbu (2008a) argues that the CE theory should not be reduced to the Fordham-Ogbu thesis that is centred on the ‘burden of acting white’. Fordham (2008, 136) even assumes that Ogbu ‘did not fully agree’ with the Fordham Ogbu thesis. However, the idea that oppositional behaviour negatively influences educa achievement is a core concern of both CE theory and the Fordham-Ogbu thesis. tFional urthermore, Ogbu (instead of making differences explicit) continuously drew upon the 3. ‘See burden of acting white’ to underline the importance of community forces. contributions in Intercultural Education (Foster and Gobbo 2004), International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education (Foster 2005), Horvat and O’Connor (2006) and Ogbu (2008b). 4. RRoma are people who either self-identify with and/or are being identified as members of omani-speaking or formerly Romani-speaking groups (Friedman 2003, 163). 5. The impression that Roma groups are nomads corresponds to the ‘fictional image of the 6. nRomani omadic Gypsy’ rather than to scientific evidence (Matras 2013). is a full-fledged language with its own lexicon, grammar, sound system and dia lectical variation and can by no means be reduced to ‘a secret language’ (Heinschink and Cech 2013; Matras 2004). 7. factors that contribute to educational success of Gitano students are accord iInstitutional ng to Abajo and Carrasco (2005, 25): (1) the appreciation, support and sustained com mitment of teachers, (2) an integrated school experience and positive school climate, (3) the appreciation and support of the family as well as familiar aspirations towards contin education and (4) the access to various resources including educational and eco uning omic resources. 8. bInterestingly, Abajo and Carrasco did not find coping strategies that rejected minority elonging as suggested by Fordham and Ogbu (1986). 9. R‘Payo’ is a word used by Gitanos to refer to non-Gitanos, comparable to ‘Gadje’, a omani word used for non-Roma. Mirga (2012, 10) for evidence on generational conflicts between Gitano elders and 10. GSeeitano youth. Author Accepted Manuscript, please visit www.tandfonline.com to access the final published article

11

11. In a late response to his critics, Ogbu (2004, 18) notes that oppositional behaviour at school is only one possible coping strategy and ‘probably by no means the most prevalent coping strategy’. According to Ogbu, other coping strategies are assimilation, accommodation, ambivalence and encapsulation (ibid. 21–23).

Notes on contributor Christian Brüggemann is researcher and lecturer at Humboldt University Berlin. He is pursuing a PhD in the field of intercultural and international comparative education at the University of Dortmund, Germany.

References Abajo, J. E., and S. Carrasco, eds. 2004. Experiencias y trayectorias de éxito escolar de gitanas y gitanos en España. Encrucijadas sobre educación, género y cambio cultural [Experiences and Trajectories of the Eeducational Success of Gitanas and Gitanos in Spain. Crossroads of Education, Gender and Cultural Change]. Madrid: Instituto de la Mujer (MTAS) and CIDE (MEC), Colección Mujeres en la Educación. Abajo, J. E., and S. Carrasco. 2005a. “En la encrucijada (I). El éxito escolar del alumnado gitano [At the Crossroads (I). The School Success of the Gitano Student].” I Tchatchipen. Revista Trimestral de Investigación Gitana 49: 20–32. Abajo, J. E., and S. Carrasco. 2005b. “En la encrucijada (II). El éxito escolar del alumnado gitano [At the Crossroads (II). The School Success of the Gitano Student].” I Tchatchipen. Revista Trimestral de Investigación Gitana 50: 34–46. Ainsworth-Darnell, J. 1998. “Assessing the Oppositional Culture Explanation for Racial/Ethnic Differences in School Performance.” American Sociological Review 63 (4): 536–553. Anderson-Levitt, K. M. 2012. “Complicating the Concept of Culture.” Comparative Education 48 (4): 441–454. Baumann, G. 1999. The Multicultural Riddle: Rethinking National, Ethnic and Religious Identities. New York: Routledge. Bereményi, B. Á. 2007. “Relaciones y experiencias de los gitanos y los rom con la escuela. Una aproximación comparativa [Relations and Experiences of the Gitanos and the Rom at School. A Comparative Approach].” Perifèria: revista de recerca i formació en antropologia 6: 1–25. Bereményi, B. Á. 2011. “Intercultural Policies and Teachers’ Contradictory Views. The Roma Case in Catalonian Schools.” Intercultural Education 22 (5): 355–369. Beuchling, O. 2010. Zwischen Payos und Gitanos. Eine Studie zur ethnischen Bildungsungleichheit in Spanien [Between Payos and Gitnos. A Study About Ethnic Educational Inequality in Spain]. Münster: Waxmann. Brüggemann, C. 2012. Roma Education in Comparative Perspective. Roma Inclusion Working Papers. Bratislava: UNDP. Cook, P. J., and L. Jens. 1998. “The Burden of ‘Acting White’: Do Black Adolescents Disparage Academic Achievement?” In The Black-White Test Score Gap, edited by C. Jencks and M. Philips, 273–317. Washington, DC: Brookings. Diamond, J. B. 2005. “Review of J. U. Ogbu and A. Davis: Black American Students in an Affluent Suburb: A Study of Academic Disengagement.” The Journal of Negro Education 74 (3): 288–291. Downey, D. B., and J. W. Ainsworth-Darnell. 2002. “The Search for Oppositional Culture among Black Students.” American Sociological Review 67 (1): 156–164. Erickson, F. 1986. “Qualitative Methods in Research on Teaching.” In Handbook of Research on Teaching, edited by M. C. Wittrock, 119–161. New York: Macmillan. Foley, D. E. 1991. “Reconsidering Anthropological Explanations of Ethnic School Failure.” Anthropology & Education Quarterly 22 (1): 60–86. Fordham, S. 2008. “Signithia You Can Do Better Than That: John Ogbu (and Me) and the Nine Lives Peoples.” In Minority Status, Oppositional Culture and Schooling, edited by J. U. Ogbu, 130–144. New York: Routledge.

Author Accepted Manuscript, please visit www.tandfonline.com to access the final published ar:cle

12

Fordham, S., and J. U. Ogbu. 1986. “Black Students’ School Success: Coping with the Burden of ‘Acting White’.” The Urban Review 18 (3): 176–206. Foster, K. M., ed. 2005. International Qualitative Studies in Education 18 (5), [Special issue]. Foster, K. M. 2008. “Forward-looking Criticism: Critiques and Enhancements for the Next Generation of the Cultural–ecological Model.” In Minority Status, Oppositional Culture and Schooling, edited by J. U. Ogbu, 3–28. New York: Routledge. Foster, K. M., and F. Gobbo, eds. 2004. Intercultural Education 15 (4), [Special issue]. FRA and UNDP. 2012. The Situation of Roma in 11 EU Member States – Survey Results at a Glance. Luxembourg: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights; UNDP Regional Bureau for Europe and the CIS. Friedman, V. A. 2003. “Review of Y. Matras: Romani: A linguistic Introduction.” Romani Studies 13 (2): 163–173. Fryer, R., and P. Torelli. 2010. “An Empirical Analysis of ‘Acting White’.” Journal of Public Economics 94 (5–6): 380–396. Gamella, J. F. 2011. Historias de éxito. Modelos para reducir el abandono escolar de la adolescencia gitana [Histories of Success. Models to Reduce Early School-leaving of Gitano Adolescence]. Madrid: Ministerio de Educación. Gogolin, I. 2010. “Interkulturelle Bildungsforschung [Intercultural Education Research].” In Handbuch Bildungsforschung, edited by R. Tippelt, 297–315. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag. Harris, A. L. 2006. “I (Don’t) Hate School: Revisiting Oppositional Culture Theory of Blacks’ Resistance to Schooling.” Social Forces 85 (2): 797–834. Harry, B., P. Arnaiz, J. Klingner, and K. Sturges. 2008. “Schooling and the Construction of Identity Among Minority Students in Spain and the United States.” The Journal of Special Education 42 (1): 15–25. Heinschink, M., and P. Cech. 2013. “Die Sprache der Roma – Grundzu ̈ ge der Romani Čhib und Perspektiven für den Unterricht [The Language of the Roma – Basics of Romani Chib and Perspectives for Teaching].” In Die Bildungssituation von Roma in Europa, edited by S. Hornberg and C. Brüggemann, 53–87. Münster: Waxmann. Hornberg, S. 2013. “Interkulturelle Erziehung und Bildung [Intercultural Upbringing and Education].” In Studienbuch Schulpädagogik, edited by L. Haag and S. Rahm, 388–406. Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt. Hornberg, S., and C. Brüggemann, eds. 2013. Die Bildungssituation von Roma in Europa [The Educational Situation of Roma in Europe]. Münster: Waxmann. Horvat, E., and C. O’Connor. 2006. Beyond Acting White: Reframing the Debate on Black Student Achievement. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield. Kao, G. 1996. “Review of A. M. Gibson and J. U. Ogbu: Minority Status and Schooling: A Comparative Study of Immigrant and Involuntary Minorities.” Comparative Education Review 40 (1): 84–86. Kroon, S., and J. Sturm. 2000. “Comparative Case Study Research in Education.” Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft 3 (4): 559–576. Kuckartz, U. 2007. Einführung in die computergestützte Analyse qualitativer Daten [Introduction to Computer-based Analysis of Qualitative Data]. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag. Lee, K. W., and W. G. Warren. 1991. “Alternative Education: Lessons from Gypsy Thought and Practice.” British Journal of Educational Studies 39 (3): 311–324. Liégeois, J.-P. 1999. “School Provision for Roma Children: A European Perspective.” Intercultural Education 10 (2): 137–149. Liégeois, J.-P., ed. 2007. European Education 39 (1), [Special issue]. Luciak, M. 2004. “Minority Status and Schooling – John U. Ogbu’s Theory and the Schooling of Ethnic Minorities in Europe.” Intercultural Education 15 (4): 359–368. Lundy, G. F. 2006. “Review of: J. U. Ogbu: Black American Students in an Affluent Suburb: A Study of Academic Disengagement.” Journal of Black Studies 36 (3): 459–465. Matras, Y. 2004. Romani: A Linguistic Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Matras, Y. 2013. Scholarship and the Politics of Romani Identity: Strategic and Conceptual Issues. RomIdent Working Papers, No. 1. Accessed August 20, 2013. http://romani. humanities.manchester.ac.uk/virtuallibrary/librarydb//web/files/pdfs/354/Paper1.pdf Mayring, P. 1996. Einführung in die qualitative Sozialforschung. Eine Anleitung zu qualitativem Denken [Introduction to Qualitative Social Research. A Guide to Qualitative Thinking]. Weinheim: Beltz.


13

Mirga, A. 2012. Roma Youth, Ethnic Mobilization and Roma Associative Movement in Catalonia, EMIGRA Working Paper, No. 135. Nistor, N., S. Curcic, and C. Brüggemann, eds. 2014. “Education and Social Inclusion Against Poverty: Policy, Praxis and Research on the European Roma Minority.” European Educational Research Journal 13 (3), [Special issue]. Ogbu, J. 1978. Minority Education and Caste: The American System in Cross-cultural Perspective. New York: Academic Press. Ogbu, J. U. 1991. “Immigrant and Involuntary Minorities in Comparative Perspective.” In Minority Status and Schooling: A Comparative Study of Immigrant and Involuntary Minorities, edited by M. A. Gibson and J. U. Ogbu, 3–33. New York: Garland Publishing. Ogbu, J. U. 1995a. “Cultural Problems in Minority Education: Their Interpretations and Consequences – Part One: Theoretical Background.” The Urban Review 27 (3): 189–205. Ogbu, J. U. 1995b. “Cultural Problems in Minority Education: Their Interpretations and Consequences – Part Two: Case Studies.” The Urban Review 27 (4): 271–297. Ogbu, J. U. 2002. “Black-American Students and the Academic Achievement Gap: What Else You Need to Know.” Journal of Thought 37 (4): 9–33. Ogbu, J. U. 2003. Black Students in an Affluent Suburb: A Study of Academic Disengagement. New York: Routledge. Ogbu, J. U. 2004. “Collective Identity and the Burden of ‘Acting White’ in Black History, Community, and Education.” The Urban Review 36 (1): 1–35. Ogbu, J. U. 2008a. “The History and Status of a Theoretical Debate.” In Minority Status, Oppositional Culture and Schooling, edited by J. U. Ogbu, 3–28. New York: Routledge. Ogbu, J. U., ed. 2008b. Minority Status, Oppositional Culture and Schooling. New York: Routledge. Ogbu, J. U., and H. D. Simons. 1998. “Voluntary and Involuntary Minorities: A Cultural– ecological Theory of School Performance with Some Implications for Education.” Anthropology & Education Quarterly 29 (2): 155–188. Open Society Institute, EU Monitoring and Advocacy Program. 2007a. Equal Access to Quality Education for Roma. Vol. I. Budapest: OSI. Open Society Institute, EU Monitoring and Advocacy Program. 2007b. Equal Access to Quality Education for Roma. Vol. II. Budapest: OSI. Pastor, G. B. 2009. “Ser gitano” fuera y dentro de la escuela: una etnografía sobre la educación de la infancia gitana en la ciudad de Valencia [“Being Gitano” Outside and within the School: An Ethnography of Education of Gitano Children in the City of Valencia]. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas. Pastor, G. B. 2011. “Infancia gitana y éxito escolar: sobre la necesidad de construir vínculos socioafectivos con la escuela [Gitano Childhood and Educational Success: About the Necessity to Build Emotional Relationships with the School].” RASE: Revista de la Asociación de Sociología de la Educación 4 (3): 392–410. Poveda, D., and B. Martín. 2004. “Looking for Cultural Congruence in the Education of Gitano Children.” Language and Education 18 (5): 413–434. Roma Education Fund, ed. Various years. Country Assessments. Budapest: REF. Accessed August 20, 2013. http://www.romaeducationfund.hu/publications/country-assessments Sen, A. 2006. Identity and Violence: The Illusion of Destiny. New York: Norton and Company. Smith, T. 1997. “Recognising Difference: The Romani ‘Gypsy’ Child Socialisation and Education Process.” British Journal of Sociology of Education 18 (2): 243–256. Spencer, M. B., E. Noll, J. Stolzfus, and V. Harpalani. 2001. “Identity and School Adjustment: Revisiting the ‘Acting White’ Assumption.” Educational Psychologist 36 (1): 21–30. Street, B. V. 1993. “Culture is a Verb: Anthropological Aspects of Language and Cultural Process.” In Language and Culture, edited by D. Graddol, L. Thompson, and M. Byram, 23–43. Clevedon: British Association for Applied Linguistics in association with Multilingual Matters. Symeou, L., M. Luciak, and F. Gobbo. 2009. “Teacher Training for Roma Inclusion: Implementation, Outcomes and Reflections of the INSETRom Project.” Intercultural Education 20 (6): 493–496. Tyson, K. 2002. “Weighing In: Elementary-age Students and the Debate on Attitudes toward School among Black Students.” Social Forces 80 (4): 1157–1189.


14