Laura Soréna Tittel is a researcher in the field of political theory and the history of ideas at Justus Liebig University in the German city of Giessen. Her work focuses on the theory and history of antigypsyism, on which she earned her doctorate in 2022 with the thesis Contours of a Theory of Antigypsyism. She has also published articles such as “Antigypsyism – (Not) A Topic for Philosophy?” (2023) and “Racial and Social Dimensions of Antigypsyism: Representation of ‘Gypsies’ in Political Theory” (2020). At the end of 2024, as a continuation of her doctoral dissertation, Tittel published the book Political Theory of Antigypsyism: Genesis and Critique of a Modern Relation of Domination, which served as the occasion for our conversation with the author.
To begin with, can you say a couple of words about your book, Political Theory of Antigypsyism: Genesis and Critique of a Modern Relation of Domination? What are its main theses, and what motivated you to write it?
My background is in political theory. I noticed that there is not much research on the topic of antigypsyism, and, looking into the history of ideas, the topic is not very present, even though I think it is a very important topic which has a long tradition in political theory and the history of ideas in Europe. My motivation for writing the dissertation, which preceded the book, was that I had been working on Holocaust studies and, more specifically, on the topic of antisemitism. More research is done on that topic than on the topic of antigypsyism and on the persecution of Roma and Sinti before, during, and after the Holocaust.
The aim of my book is not only to focus on the persecution during the Holocaust, but to try to understand the roots of antigypsyism in modern society, capitalism, and even in the Enlightenment. I looked at the history of ideas, and where the imaginary figure of the so-called ‘Gypsy’ can be found. Moreover, I looked at the actual laws directed at the persecution of the Roma and Sinti. I wanted to see both sides – the theoretical side, or the one that explores the background of antigypsyism, and the side of the actual persecution. The two sides are connected: the theory does not exist only in the minds of the people, but is connected to the way the society works, how it treats people, how capitalism works, and so on.
Was there some more personal motivation for writing the book?
I don’t think there was one particular experience I had. In general, if you are a little bit familiar with the topic, you can find so many situations where Roma are discriminated against. For example, if I go to the train station in Frankfurt, I can hear an announcement that one should be careful with the luggage because there are beggars. If you think about it, it is not even obvious what the connection is between begging and being careful with the luggage. They don’t say that people would steal, but just that there are beggars. So there are many situations where you are confronted with discrimination and even racism.
I took a workshop with Markus End about fifteen years ago. I was starting my studies at the university. There, I got in touch with the theory of antigypsyism for the first time. Somehow, it stuck around. And now, through my work, I have gotten in touch with many Roma and Sinti activists and scholars, so I have a much more personal connection with the topic.
The literature in the bibliography of the book is pretty extensive. Were there enough sources for you to write the book? Do researchers and scholars write about this topic, and do they write from the perspective you took?
There are other authors who write about this topic. In 2009/2013, a two-volume collection Antiziganistische Zustände(Antigypsyist Conditions) was published in Germany, the first volume with the subtitle Zur Kritik eines allgegenwärtigen Ressentiments (A Critique of a Pervasive Resentment), and the second with the subtitle Kritische Positionen gegen gewaltvolle Verhältnisse (Critical Positions against Violent Conditions). The collection engages with the theoretical approaches to the topic of antigypsyism, especially from the point of view of critical theory with authors like Markus End or Roswitha Scholz. And there are others from the field like Huub van Baar, Jan Selling, and Tobias Neuburger. I learned a lot from all of them and tried to bring together even more theoretical approaches in order to come up with a critique of antigypsyism that is a critique of society and engages with a Marxian perspective.
A few names show up in your book more often than the others – Immanuel Kant, Theodor Adorno, and Karl Marx. Are these the central figures for your approach?
Yes, they are, at least for the theoretical part of the book. Kant is very interesting because he was one of the first big philosophers, big names, who explicitly wrote about ‘the figure of the Gypsy’. His theory is very helpful in order to understand the racist part of antigypsyism, because he used this figure as an example of the persistence of character traits and of the outer appearance of races. He said that one could see that people came to Europe a couple of centuries ago and stayed there, but didn’t change in their character and appearance. That is one argument he makes to show that the races have developed until a certain point and now don’t change anymore. This is a typical classification or categorization that one can find within the Enlightenment.
Kant is not very useful to criticize antigypsyism, but to understand that this way of thinking of the Enlightenment is still present, maybe not exactly the theory of four races that live around the globe, but through characterization or classification. Adorno is helpful in order to criticize this kind of classificatory thinking, and Marx in understanding antigypsyism, even though he did not write a lot about the topic itself. He wrote about the emergence of capitalism, about the so-called primitive accumulation, the way people got forced into vagrancy and vagabondage. I found many of these elements useful in order to understand why vagrancy even exists and why it was persecuted at the same time. Marx is helpful in understanding the systemic dimensions of antigypsyism.
One of the things you mention in your articles that was helpful to me is the fact that the laws against vagrancy or idleness and the laws against Roma coincided in time and were connected to the emergence of capitalism. My colleague and I were wondering why the Roma were such an object of persecution in the 20th century and the Second World War. They were not, if I can generalize, materially well-positioned like the Jewish community, but nonetheless, they were the object of a harsh persecution. They were not persecuted because of moral reasons – for example, because the majority population was evil. We came to the conclusion that the Roma did not fit into this newly developing system, capitalism, which requires a sedentary lifestyle, obligatory work, and so on. Do you agree with that?
That’s a difficult question. There is not only one answer to it. I always try to start the other way around, not by thinking that Roma did not fit in, but by thinking about what made people not fit into the system. I am trying to look at the sources of the reasons why people differentiate, or at least seem to be different. That is, at the dominant political-economic system – capitalism – and how it forces people into different lifestyles. In the book, I also focused on the roles of the nation-state and nationalism, and their connection with the police, courts, and law in modernity. Those are the mechanisms that made Roma different from others, and they were needed for the nation-state to legitimize itself. Nation-states legitimize themselves by establishing security for the population, and in order to establish security, they need enemies and outsiders. That is also a very important part of the persecution during National Socialism.
I don’t think it’s true that the Jewish population was generally especially rich. One needs to differentiate because there were also Jewish communities that were rather poor, especially in Eastern Europe. They didn’t have the means to flee their states. Besides that, already in the 17th and 18th centuries, the Jews, especially so-called Jewish beggars, and Roma were persecuted together. For capitalism as it exists nowadays and as it existed in the last centuries, there needs to be parts of the population that are not that rich, that are vulnerable, and have to do the jobs no one else wants to. Those parts are called the reserve army of work within the Marxist discourse.
After publishing the book, you said that members of the Roma community approached you. What were the reasons?
Yes, some approached me because they were interested in scientific arguments in explaining antigypsyism. In Germany, a lot of organizations in the community do the educational work and teach others about antigypsyism and its history, as well as the history of the Roma. I hope my book gives them some scientific backing for their really valuable daily work. I did not write a book on the history of Roma, though, but one on the history of antigypsyism and the persecution. It’s important to make the difference, because the history of Roma is much broader than the persecution.
Today, the approach to working with the Roma community is mostly placed in the context of identity politics, and not so much in the context of class relations or the political-economic context. The impression is that there is a lack of a systematic approach. What are your thoughts regarding this?
In Germany, it’s very diverse. Some organizations are looking more at identity questions, while others are very aware of class questions. Personally, I find the class questions more important because I think that many of the systemic problems cannot be solved with identity politics. But I also understand that for some communities themselves, it is very important to at least start with building up their identity. For placing their points within politics, referring to identity issues can be helpful as well. I think that in the end, or in the broader picture, it won’t solve systemic problems of exploitation and of forcing people to be outsiders, though. To understand this, it is necessary to go more into the class and systemic questions.
The ethnicity or race does not guarantee that someone will also have a class consciousness.
That is true – as it is true the other way around as well: Class consciousness won’t guarantee anti-racism. To understand antigypsyism, it’s not very helpful to just look at how people from a specific class are behaving or feeling, but instead, one needs to look at the means of production and production relations. There is a new trend in research, looking at classism, that is mostly about identity politics connected to class. Instead of analyzing how it feels to be poor or how people are portrayed as poor, I think it is more important to analyze what produces that condition and position in society.
One more trap with identity politics is that it is not very helpful to overstate the differences between identities, because the subgroups of some identity start to fight against each other. In Germany, for example, as you know, the Sinti community has lived here for a long time, and Roma are seen as those who came to Germany later. Some new migrants from Eastern or Southeastern Europe have come recently. It is very important to see that all of them are endangered by antigypsyism. They need to unite and fight together. In the end, it is important not to forget that this tension among the subgroups is often set up by the system to make people play one against the other.
What is the reception of the book in Germany?
The book is still young. I was very happy to read a review by Wolfram Stender, a German professor of sociology. A couple of people contacted me and asked me if I could write more articles or another book on the topic, or have invited me to workshops, so I am satisfied with the reception. But it is still early.
When they offered you to write another book on this topic, how would you imagine it? And what is your future work?
I am thinking about writing an easier-to-read introduction to the topic, because the book was originally a dissertation and therefore is written for a professional audience. And there are not many introductions in Germany to antigypsyism. The problem in Germany is also that there is not much money going into the research of antigypsyism. There is not a single professorship on the topic of antigypsyism, unlike, for example, in Sweden. And there is not even a subject like Romani studies at the universities.
What is the current position of the Roma and Sinti in Germany? For example, after 20 years, there is not a single Roma representative in the European Parliament. Besides that, there were some issues with appointing a new Federal Government Commissioner against Antigypsyism in Germany, and the MIA Agency recently published a report for 2024, where they claim that the number of anti-Roma incidents is growing.
Some of the progress that had been made in the last couple of years regarding the awareness of antigypsyism and the situation of Sinti and Roma in Germany has been lost again. Their position in society is precarious, and with the widening gap between rich and poor, even more endangered.
As you mentioned, the mandate of the Federal Commissioner, a position which was established only a couple of years ago, was at risk with the new government. It wasn’t clear if someone would be appointed again after the Former commissioner, Mehmet Daimagüler, resigned. Now, there is someone new, Michael Brand, from the Christian-conservative party, CDU. Unlike before with Daimagüler, who had only this job, the new commissioner has several jobs, and the function of the commissioner will be just one among many. So, even though there is someone new, which is good, he won’t be focusing only on the topic of antigypsyism.
MIA is also endangered financially, as far as I know. As you know, there were elections this year in Germany. The government is now more conservative, and the whole parliament is not as democratic anymore. There are a lot of new members of the parliament from the right-wing AfD, Alternative für Deutschland. So, the situation is not very good.
