This art icle was downloaded by: [ College of St at en I sland] On: 05 June 2012, At : 12: 53 Publisher: Rout ledge I nform a Lt d Regist ered in England and Wales Regist ered Num ber: 1072954 Regist ered office: Mort im er House, 37- 41 Mort im er St reet , London W1T 3JH, UK Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power Publicat ion det ails, including inst ruct ions f or aut hors and subscript ion inf ormat ion: ht t p: / / www. t andf online. com/ loi/ gide20 Nomads and mobile places: disentangling place, space and mobility Pet er Kabachnik a a Polit ical Science, Economics, and Philosophy, College of St at en Island – CUNY, 2800 Vict ory Blvd 2N 230, St at en Island, New York, 10314, USA Available online: 10 May 2012 To cite this article: Pet er Kabachnik (2012): Nomads and mobile places: disent angling place, space and mobilit y, Ident it ies: Global St udies in Cult ure and Power, 19: 2, 210-228 To link to this article: ht t p: / / dx. doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 1070289X. 2012. 672855 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTI CLE Full t erm s and condit ions of use: ht t p: / / www.t andfonline.com / page/ t erm sand- condit ions This art icle m ay be used for research, t eaching, and privat e st udy purposes. Any subst ant ial or syst em at ic reproduct ion, redist ribut ion, reselling, loan, sublicensing, syst em at ic supply, or dist ribut ion in any form t o anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warrant y express or im plied or m ake any represent at ion t hat t he cont ent s will be com plet e or accurat e or up t o dat e. The accuracy of any inst ruct ions, form ulae, and drug doses should be independent ly verified wit h prim ary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, act ions, claim s, proceedings, dem and, or cost s or dam ages Downloaded by [College of Staten Island] at 12:53 05 June 2012 what soever or howsoever caused arising direct ly or indirect ly in connect ion wit h or arising out of t he use of t his m at erial. Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power Vol. 19, No. 2, March 2012, 210–228 Nomads and mobile places: disentangling place, space and mobility Peter Kabachnik Downloaded by [College of Staten Island] at 12:53 05 June 2012 (Received June 2011) Though there is a danger that ‘place’ may become subsumed or ignored in research as attention now shifts to questions of ‘mobility,’ discussion of place has burgeoned throughout academia. Many texts declare that place is important, or proclaim the power of place. While place has been shown to be a fundamental part of human existence, what does this then mean for those who are characterized as not being interested in places? Examining nomadic Gypsies and Travelers in Britain, who are often constructed as placeless, highlights that this is not simply a representational concern, but has a tangible empirical affect, impinging on their everyday practices as well as influencing policies and laws that actively deny them their right to place. By exploring various definitions of place and how this impacts the understanding of mobilities, I demonstrate that the meaning ascribed to nomads is dependent upon a spatialized definition of place which is underpinned by the space-place binary. It is this aspect of the discourse that allows for nomads to be constructed as out-of-place wherever they are, and by recognizing this we can avoid framing placelessness as a natural characteristic of nomadism. Reconceptualizing place allows for more nuanced understandings of nomadism, as our identities are constructed in relation to both place and mobility, not just one or the other. Keywords: Mobilities; placelessness place; Gypsies and Travelers; nomadism; While it is somewhat common to hear ‘place’ mentioned in work by geographers today, this was not always the case (Daniels 1992, Curry 1999). However, in the past three decades, discussions of place have proliferated in geography, anthropology and elsewhere (Feld and Basso 1996, Gupta and Ferguson 1997, Appadurai 1988). Many texts declare that place is important or proclaim the power of place; however, as Sack (2003) states, there is a need to go beyond mere pronouncements. When there is elaboration on the topic, attention is given to place as a context for human action, the role of place in everyday life and the idea that we are always in places. Portions of this article are derived from my dissertation completed in 2007 in the Department of Geography at the University of California-Los Angeles (UCLA). ISSN 1070-289X print/ISSN 1547-3384 online © 2012 Taylor & Francis http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1070289X.2012.672855 http://www.tandfonline.com Downloaded by [College of Staten Island] at 12:53 05 June 2012 Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power 211 Despite this recent emphasis on place, there is a danger that place may become subsumed or else ignored in research, as attention now shifts to mobility and processes of deterritorialization. However, it is not just deterritorializations that occur, but reterritorializations (Hannam et al. 2006). The mobilities literature has repeatedly called for the consideration of moorings alongside mobilities. The increased mobilities of the contemporary era are reliant upon extensive moorings – the places that allow for the production of mobilities – that connect networks of places that facilitate various movements and are themselves co-constituted through mobile practices. Identities are constructed in relation to both place and mobility, not just one or the other. Yet, what does this mean for those who are characterized as not being interested in places? If place is so vital for human practices, and such a central organizing feature of our lives, then what does this mean for those characterized as placeless, such as the homeless and nomadic groups? The Roma, better known as Gypsies, are perhaps seen as the quintessentially placeless and exemplify this precarious position. Their lack of place, which derives from their mobility, is constructed as an integral part of their identities and ways of life. Being labelled as not valuing place is not simply a representational concern, but has a tangible empirical affect, impinging on their everyday practices as well as influencing policies and laws that actively deny them their right to place. We can see this quite clearly in the contemporary situation of nomadic Gypsies1 and Travellers2 in England and Wales (Clark and Greenfields 2006). Since it still has a sizeable nomadic population – estimates range from 45,000–100,000 (Hawes and Perez 1995, Kenrick 2004) – Britain provides a unique opportunity to examine how the nomad is constructed.3 Just as the hypermobility of the cosmopolitan business traveller cannot occur without a series of places dedicated to potential and actual movement and travel, such as airports and hotels, the mobile practices of nomads necessitate a variety of places without which their mobilities are severely altered and/or restricted. The lack of a sufficient amount of legal caravan sites for the entire travelling community creates a situation where Gypsies and Travellers have to face ever stronger pressures to cease their nomadic practices and ‘settle down’ while having to endure living on land that is not zoned for caravan site use, thereby criminalizing their identities and the nomadic way of life. Thus, paradoxically, we find policies and practices that continuously displace them, which then further reinscribes and validates the image of placelessness. This situation reveals that there are severe negative repercussions when people are labelled as nomads. I will use Gypsies and Travellers as an example to illustrate the impact of certain conceptions of place and mobility which help to deny them places and construct them as placeless. The response of nomadic Gypsies and Travellers to their treatment in England and Wales, and especially their involvement in a series of legal actions about places, suggests that places may be more important for them than many have been ready to concede and that mobility and place are interdependent. For Roma, even though most are sedentary, the nomad stereotype has plagued them for centuries. There had been a long running argument in the annals of the Downloaded by [College of Staten Island] at 12:53 05 June 2012 212 P. Kabachnik Journal of the Gypsy Lore Society about whether a Gypsy ceases to be a Gypsy if he/she is no longer nomadic. The association is so strong that the term Gypsy itself has come to mean ‘nomad’. Because of the strong association between nomadism and Gypsyness, a settled Gypsy is considered a paradox or an oxymoron (Clark and Greenfields 2006, p. 12). Furthermore, the attention paid to their mobility ignores that much of their movement may be forced due to the lack of (legal) places where they can put a caravan, coupled with the intolerance and discriminatory attitudes held by English residents that seek to have them moved on. The conflation of the identity of Gypsies and Travellers with that of nomads, coupled with a lack of understanding of travelling ways of life, leads to the idea that nomads do not care about or need places. Why are Gypsies and Travellers so often characterized as placeless? To answer this question, we need to analyse how place, space and mobility are conceptualized. The placelessness attributed to Gypsies and Travellers is not an isolated example, as various people’s mobilities have been curtailed by the state for centuries (Noyes 2000, Cresswell 2006), and is a crucial line of inquiry that illustrates many critical facets of the concept of place. The meaning ascribed to nomads is dependent upon what I term a spatialized definition of place which is underpinned by the space–place binary. This allows nomads to be constructed as out-of-place wherever they are, and by recognizing this we can avoid framing placelessness as a natural characteristic of nomadism. Below, I begin with a discussion of how place has been conceptualized recently. I will examine various definitions of place, paying particular attention to what I call the spatialized definition of place. Interlocking conceptions of space with the conceptions of place have many repercussions and influences our conceptions of mobility, such as causing nomads to been seen as placeless due to the space–place binary. Next, I examine some general remarks on the relationship humans have to places, which already points to the need to discredit ideas of ‘placeless Gypsies’ – or a placeless anyone for that matter. Then I discuss how the mobility of nomads is constructed. Exploring place Place has been the subject of considerable academic debate, both within and outside of geography, 4 since the 1970s, albeit after quite a long hiatus (Curry 1999, Cresswell 2004), where place was not simply ignored but also devalued (Agnew 1987). Yet despite this recent attention, I suggest that in many accounts place still remains an underdeveloped concept, often undefined or simply assumed and taken for granted. Even in studies that discuss the notion of place, one can identify several different versions of the definition of place5 or else a very limited definition is proffered.6 How do I define place? Place is the context for all human activity. Place is a powerful influence in our lives, though by no means is it deterministic. Place matters so much in all of our daily practices because place is the crucial context for those very actions (Entrikin 1991, Curry 1999, 2002b). Places are important Downloaded by [College of Staten Island] at 12:53 05 June 2012 Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power 213 centres for meaning (Tuan 1974, Entrikin 1991, Cresswell 2004), emotive and strongly linked to our memories (Entrikin 1997, Thrift 1999). Places both constrain and enable people to do what they do (Sack 2003). It is the context where those practices and activities make sense and where they derive their meaning from (and, relationally, those practices and activities give meaning to the place as well). Though constructed, places are no less real, in the sense that they are out there, but we can only know them through our meanings that we construct and the experiences that we have (Richardson 1984). Place also enables subject and identity formation, as the self and place are mutually constitutive (Entrikin 1991, Sack 1993, 1997, 2003, Entrikin 1997, McDowell 1997, Casey 2001a). Identity is not some uniform trait or bundle of characteristics that remains consistent everywhere, but shifts according to the different places and social situations we find ourselves in. Indeed, what we do is remarkably correlated with where we are – not in the sense of latitude and longitude, but whether we are in a classroom, our bedroom, at work or in a crowded elevator. Our identities shift according to the places we are in, exemplifying the role place plays in identity formation and performance. We must avoid some of the pitfalls when talking about place. Places are not merely settings (Entrikin 1997) or contexts nor are they simply outcomes (Massey 1984, Agnew 1987). The relationality of place reveals that places are not isolated entities and are not backdrops upon which the social occurs. Places are relational, interconnected with other places (Agnew 1987, Massey 1993, Entrikin 1997, Curry 1999, Thrift 1999). Furthermore, places can be anywhere. We can be in multiple places at once (Casey 1993, Curry 1999, 2002b). Places can be at any scale (Tuan 1974, Curry 2002a, Sack 2003). Places can be stationary or moveable (Langer 1953, Casey 1993, Sack 2003, Hannam et al. 2006). This last point – that places can move – is commonly overlooked and often undermined by those talking about place. It is this notion that provides the key element in the reconceptualization of place and allows for a more nuanced understanding of mobility. Conceptualizations of place The definition of place has mutated, from what has been termed the conventional, or traditional, essentialist view, which sees place as static, bounded and having an essence, to a more nuanced conception that is dynamic, relational and antiessentialist, which has been referred to as, following Massey (1993), the progressive view. The traditional view of place, while highlighting the importance of place for human experience, tended to universalize. Places were seen as tightly bounded and fixed, so places were treated as containers. In this conception of place, exclusion flourishes. When reactionary and xenophobic attachments to place are made, this conception of place is being utilized. It also invites the idea of authenticity, leading many to fear change while upholding an ideal image of their place. Downloaded by [College of Staten Island] at 12:53 05 June 2012 214 P. Kabachnik Several theorists have problematized this notion of place as being too narrow, instead positing a ‘progressive’, or global, conceptualization of place. In this antiessentialist view, places are conceptualized as relational and changing. Places are not isolated, autonomous entities, but rather fluid and interconnected to many other places. This is not to suggest that the world is now an endless horizon of flows and networks, because as Cresswell notes, places and boundaries still matter, even in today’s globalized world, ‘just not in the ways we once thought’ (2003, p. 20).7 Despite the advent of this perspective, most people operate under the essentialist definition that they decry. However, what unites both of these (over?) generalized perspectives is the failure to fully conceptualize the relationship between place and mobility. The reassessing of mobility and place, and their constitutive relationship, has been one of the major developments in attempts to theorize place in the past 25 years. In her attempt to destabilize and deconstruct fixed and essentialist notions of place, Massey (1993) posits that mobility, both within and between places, shapes places. Yet much geographical work that considers mobility ‘often assumes a stable point of view, a world of places and boundaries and territories rooted in time and bounded in space’ (Cresswell and Merriman 2011, p. 4). Similarly, de Certeau (1984) explicitly illustrates the vital role of people’s everyday mobilities in the production of place. The mobility of people – their mobile bodies performing the tactics and practices of everyday life such as walking through the city – helps to challenge and disrupt the normative order and intended functions and roles of places. Pedestrian practices, that is, the manner in which they walk, their pace, the routes they take, the shortcuts they make, are integral processes that produce the city they are in. Yet, de Certeau contrasts the mobility of urban nomads with the stability and fixity of place, which still reproduces binaries. Acknowledging the mobility of places allows for a nuanced definition of place, one that gets us past the usual criticisms of the conventional model of place, that it is static, bounded and fixed. But why has mobility been seen as incongruous with discussions of place? To attempt to answer this, I turn to the space–place binary as the source of this difficulty. A place in space? The most common way that place is connected to space is in the notion that place is a location in space or a part of space. This spatialized definition of place, which fixes place to a location, muddles attempts at a better understanding of the mobility of places. For much of human history, and despite the advent of GPS, GIS, MapQuest and Google Earth, for many contemporary practices, location in space is not a necessary facet of experience (Curry 2002a). The experience of place and the relationality of places all prove more influential than the mere detail of location. The most significant feature of place that challenges a spatialized version of place, where place is seen as a node in space, is that places move, and need not be fixed in one spot.8 Downloaded by [College of Staten Island] at 12:53 05 June 2012 Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power 215 To help clarify how it is that places can in fact move, a few examples are in order. Think of a cruise ship, a Winnebago, or a car for some people on a road trip or for someone who is using it as a home. We can look to the past for the ‘wandering capitals’ of Ethiopia (Horvath 1969) or to the future, with several proposed cities at sea.9 Both reveal that mobile places need not just constitute a small group of individuals, but can make up populations of 20,000–100,000 people. The mobile camps of nomads and the trailers of Gypsies and Travellers in Britain and Ireland are particularly relevant examples. Caravans and tents, it turns out, are legitimate homes, and this example shows that home, as the quintessential place, need not be in a fixed location (Douglas 1991). Mobility and immobility need to be better conceptualized to avoid stark dichotomies. Otherwise, place is represented as a part of space and the space–place binary remains. Why has mobility been seen as incompatible with representations of place? The answer lies in the aligning of mobility with space and the reproduction of the space–place binary. Instead of discussing space and place separately10 (though often influencing each other and, as I am stating, repeatedly entangled), they are understood as necessarily integrated terms which recapitulate the binary and confine the role of place. Tuan (1974), for instance, in his seminal statement on space and place, clearly advocates this dichotomy.11 For him, and others, mobility undermines the potential of place formation. A street is not a place, until movement stops, and it is ‘transformed into a centre of festivities, with people milling around in no particular direction, it becomes non-directed space – and a place’ (Tuan 1974, p. 236). Space is about mobility, while place is about stability and being fixed in a location. This point of view is pervasive, but can be rebuked by examining nomads. Careful attention to nomadic practices makes evident the important dialectic between mobility and place. To ignore this allows for the acceptance of the images of nomads moving through space and of sedentary people who sit around their places, enjoying stability and rootedness, to predominate. Instead, as the conflicts over caravan sites in England demonstrate, places are integral for nomads. Gypsies and Travellers are fighting for their places – places to stay the night, places to travel to and places to live (for extended periods of time).12 Conversely, mobility has been shown to be a very important aspect of the experiences and identities of sedentary people. Thus, space need not enter the picture, and the space–place binary can be dismantled. The spatialized definition of place One commonality, with few exceptions, between the traditional and the progressive conceptions of place is the reliance on a spatialized definition of place.13 Simply put, a spatialized definition of place defines place with reference to space. Geographers, whatever their definitional proclivity, have referred to place as ‘a portion of geographic space’ (Johnston et al. 2000, p. 582); ‘space invested with meaning in the context of power’ (Cresswell 2004, p. 12); the ‘conceptual fusion of Downloaded by [College of Staten Island] at 12:53 05 June 2012 216 P. Kabachnik space and experience’ (Entrikin 1991, p. 6); and ‘meaningful segments of space’ (Cresswell 2006, p. 3). We are also told that ‘each home is a place in space’ (Sack 1997, p. 16) and ‘we must transform space into places for us to exist’ (Sack 1997, p. 265, n. 7); that ‘place represents the encounter of people with other people and things in space’ (Agnew 2005, p. 84); that ‘in general it seems that space provides the context for places’ (Relph 1976, p. 8); that by making a sculpture ‘mere space is transformed into place’ (Tuan 1975, p. 161); and that ‘spaces become places as they become “time-thickened”’ (Crang 1998, p. 103). Anthropologists define it in a similar fashion and see place as meaning ascribed to space (Carter et al. 1993, p. xii) or a peculiar form of space (Dirlik 1999, p. 152). Can we define place as an integral part of human experience and also think of it as a location in space? Or are these ideas mutually exclusive? Tuan recognized that if place is defined as location, it gets ‘subsumed under the geographer’s concept and analysis of space’ (1974, p. 213). Yet this is precisely how place is normally defined. In both popular and scholarly accounts, it is evident that conceptions of space are heavily relied on when defining place (Casey 1997, 2001b) since place is routinely defined in terms of a spatial framework. Even when people proclaim that our lives are not dependent on map grid reference points, and exalt the importance and richness of place, a spatial definition of place is still used (see Cresswell 1996, Crang 1998). This reliance on a spatial element in their definition, even if it is only a part, and in actuality not a vital part, of their argument illustrates that space acts as a vestigial holdover in definitions of place. Consequently, the world we live in becomes first and foremost a spatial one. Does this assumption merely create the unintended consequence of devaluing place or is it a more deep-seated error? Does place come first or does space? And does it matter? Few have challenged the idea that place is not merely a portion of space. However, there is an alternate view that claims that the concept of place is more fundamental than the concept of space (Casey 1996, 1997, Curry 2002b). This perspective prioritizes the fact that we live in a world of places (Curry 2002b, Casey 1993). If place is to be defined as a part of space, then the implication is that places are inherently derivative of space. Yet as Casey (2001b) maintains, there is no need to seek an inherent connection between space and place. Place has ‘no privileged relationship to that [physical] space, either by way of exemplification or representation’ (Casey 2001b, p. 405). The inversion of the place–space nexus is not simply a reversal of the previous model. That would recapitulate the hierarchy, the difference being with place now atop, and reproduce the idea of two camps: those who advocate space and those who prefer place, emulating the debates between quantitative and humanist geographers in the 1970s.14 On the contrary, correcting the error of spatializing place does not imply that space is unimportant or an unworthy area of research. Instead, the point is to disentangle narratives of space and place, so as to better understand how the concepts are constructed and involved in human practices, rather than conflating the terms, deprioritizing one over the other or intertwining them in inappropriate ways simply to avoid the other two errors. Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power 217 Downloaded by [College of Staten Island] at 12:53 05 June 2012 Exploring mobilities I now will illustrate how these discussions are relevant to better understand mobility by turning the focus to nomadism. Because ethnographic research on nomads was lacking, with few in-depth studies using participant observation until the late 1950s and early 1960s (Dyson-Hudson 1972), ‘what a nomad is’ was – and is – usually taken for granted. However, nomadic and sedentary ways of life are not mutually exclusive categories (Misra 1986). This dichotomy ignores the variety and complexity of nomadism and settled life alike (Salo 1986) and fails to acknowledge a sedentary– mobility continuum. For example, Niner (2003) notes a threefold system of local, regional and long-distance travel. David Mayall (1988) delineates four different types of nomadic practices. At one extreme, there are habitual wanderers who have no regular settlements and continuously move from place to place. Then there are those who move for most of the year, but winter in towns. Next, he lists those who travel only in the summer. Finally, at the other end of the continuum, we have people who make frequent local trips, though they never move far from their home base. It is precisely the recognition of these nuances of nomadic practices that is overlooked in the general or metaphoric conceptions of the nomad. The mobility of sedentary people also needs to be highlighted (Flusser 2003). Just as there are variations of mobility within nomadism and nomads settle often, for sedentary people mobility is a central part of their lives.15 With the advent of the new16 mobilities paradigm (Urry 2000, Cresswell 2006, Hannam et al. 2006, Sheller et al. 2006a) along with other work that places mobilities as a central element of analysis, scholars have provided a burgeoning field of research (Bærenholdt and Simonsen 2004, Sheller et al. 2006b, Urry 2007, Uteng and Cresswell 2008, Adey 2010, Bissell and Fuller 2010, Edensor 2010, Elliott and Urry 2010, Cresswell and Merriman 2011). Recently, scholars in the new mobilities paradigm or mobility turn have begun to move past the traditional binary oppositions of mobility and place. I will not provide a detailed review of the vast literature on mobilities,17 but instead highlight some of the main issues relevant for this study. As Easthope (2009, p. 66) contends, while there has been research that invokes the nomad metaphorically and abstractly and considers everything as mobile, the idea of placelessness or the diminished importance of place is often derived from cursory readings or misunderstandings of the work of scholars like Bauman and Giddens. As Bauman relates: The fashionable term ‘nomads’, applied indiscriminately to all contemporaries of the postmodern era, is grossly misleading, as it glosses over the profound differences which separate the two types of experience and render all similarity between them formal and superficial. (Bauman 1998, p. 87) For Bauman, one must look at the privileged mobilities of the ‘tourist’ and the limited mobilities of the ‘vagabonds’. Hence, there are a multitude of meanings and ways to experience mobilities that are situated in unequal power relations. Furthermore, the current trend in mobilities research considers various mobilities ‘in relation to forms of place, stopping, stillness and relative immobility that 218 P. Kabachnik Downloaded by [College of Staten Island] at 12:53 05 June 2012 are enabled by or enable mobilities’ (Cresswell 2010b, p. 552). Thus, studying the places that enable movement, mobility and migration, and the places and identities constructed by mobile practices, has become a critical focus for research (Fortier 2000, Conradson and Latham 2005, Hannam et al. 2006, Easthope 2009, Gielis 2009, Cresswell 2010a). All forms of mobility require places (Crang 2002, Urry 2003, Adey 2006, Hannam et al. 2006). Places are produced through mobilities, and mobilities produce places. First, we are all in places, be it a cruise ship or a car speeding down a highway. Even at the fastest speeds, such as in an airplane at 30,000 feet, one is in emplaced. Second, we move in and between and through places. According to Cresswell and Merriman, mobilities also need spaces in which to enact mobility – roads, the air, the sea, railway lines, bridges. These spaces have their own grammar which can direct or limit mobility. They produce structural or infrastructural contexts for the practising of mobility. They are agents in the production of mobilities. (Cresswell and Merriman 2011, p. 7) Third, a vast network of places – moorings – are required for mobile practices. For instance, automobiles need parking spots and gas stations and ships require ports. The airplane, arguably the ‘most powerful mobile machine . . . requires the largest and most extensive immobility, of the airport city employing tens of thousands of workers’ (Urry 2003, p. 125). Gypsies and Traveller caravans or mobile homes are places, and as they move from one caravan site to another, they move through a myriad of places, and this mobility is dependent upon available caravan sites, which function as the network of places to facilitate nomadic practices. English Gypsies and Travellers that practice a nomadic way of life travel occasionally throughout the year or else remain mostly in one place but choose to live in a caravan rather than in a ‘bricks and mortar’ home and have had to face a significant decrease in the amount of places that can legally accommodate them. Post Second World War, England has witnessed increased pressure on nomadic and semi-nomadic Gypsies and Travellers, stemming from the implementation of laws, the expansion of the real estate industry and racism and discrimination. Two laws, the 1960 Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act and the 1968 Caravan Sites Acts, drastically restricted where Gypsies and Travellers could stop for the night, for a few weeks or live for extended periods of time. While the 1968 Act did include a provision to provide caravan sties, local authorities did not follow the recommendations as they were not compelled to do so by the national government. This situation became even more dire with the passing of the 1994 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act, which removed the (rarely followed) obligation of local authorities to provide caravan sites and ‘designated’ the entire country, beyond the already existing approved caravan sites, off limits for those practicing a travelling way of life. Thus, if an individual or family did not have a legal site to stop on, they were automatically committing a criminal offence, punishable by eviction, fine, prison and/or confiscation of caravans. Downloaded by [College of Staten Island] at 12:53 05 June 2012 Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power 219 Because of the shortfall of legal caravan sites, the 1994 Act effectively criminalizes travelling for one-third of the caravan-dwelling population in England and Wales. Though many Gypsies and Travellers still travel regularly, or else would prefer to if possible (and thus require a more extensive network of transit sites), most caravan-dwelling Gypsies and Travellers want a permanent caravan site, where they would stay most of the year and use as a base to occasionally travel for work, weddings or festivals. Without the ability to depend on council sites, Gypsies and Travellers turned to private caravan sites as their only viable option. This led to a proliferation of cases where, upon the advice of the government,18 Gypsies and Travellers have purchased land and built permanent facilities for living, only to be issued eviction notices for not receiving the proper planning permission for land that they themselves own. Since there are not enough caravan sites, their only recourse is to attempt to get a legal private caravan site by gaining retroactive planning permission through the appeals process.19 These legal actions illustrate the lack of access by Gypsies and Travellers to legal places, itself an expression of the view that wherever they are, they are out of place (Sibley 1981, Halfacree 1996). Although there have been some successful cases, as judges have begun to recognize that they have no legal place to go, this has led to protracted legal battles, media attention, local hostility and insecurity for Gypsies and Travellers. As Kenrick and Clark (1999) remind us, not all Gypsies and Travellers can afford to purchase land and some people travel regularly and thus require transit sites. Furthermore, the process takes years, requires large amounts of money for legal fees and its outcome is uncertain, providing instability about whether one will be allowed to continue to live in their home free from disturbance and threat of eviction. Issues of everyday anti-Gypsyism and institutionalized racism as described here are gaining greater attention as a variety of supranational organizations, such as the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance, the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and the Council of Europe, are recognizing the pervasiveness of these discriminatory attitudes and policies throughout Europe. Exclusion from place and annihilation of their homes and stopping places are two common tactics used against Gypsies and Travellers. If the planning appeal is lost, highly publicized evictions take place, such as the well-publicized standoff at Dale Farm, where, after 10 years, over 80 families were evicted in October 2011. Dale Farm, once the largest caravan site in the United Kingdom, became a dominant headline in the months leading up to the eviction, eliciting bitter emotions and serving as a polarizing issue. Media representations consistently feature Gypsies and Travellers as ‘place invaders’ (Kabachnik 2010b), and rhetorical devices such as ‘battle’ and ‘fight’ were common elements in the coverage of Dale Farm. This helped to heighten tension as people awaited the seemingly contradictory confrontation at Dale Farm – that of ‘nomads’ defending their ‘place’. During evictions, caravans are seized and impounded, fences and chalets are destroyed and many people are forced back on the road and/or to other illegal sites. The work Downloaded by [College of Staten Island] at 12:53 05 June 2012 220 P. Kabachnik of displacing families is conducted cooperatively, at huge taxpayer expense, by riot police and private bailiff companies. Destroying their places undermines their basic human needs and their attempts to settle and/or live a nomadic way of life and further reinforces that they are placeless, which then makes it easier to justify exclusion and evictions. However, it is not only that Gypsy and Traveller rights are denied occasionally, such as in these well-publicized evictions, but as several studies and organizations (e.g. The Equality and Human Rights Commission) repeatedly demonstrate, exclusion and racism pervade nearly every aspect of their lives (Clark and Greenfields 2006, Cemlyn et al. 2009) The caravan site issue illustrates that ‘moorings enable movement’ (Urry 2003, p. 126); without access to these places, Gypsy and Traveller mobilities are limited and disrupted. However, lack of moorings produces movement as well. Gypsy and Traveller mobilities do not only diminish in the light of practices and policies that work at decreasing the number of moorings available to them. Their movements may increase due to being constantly ‘moved on’ by authorities because of the lack of sites. The lack of moorings also produces different rhythms and patterns of Gypsy and Traveller mobilities due to forced movement and displacement. This alters traditional and preferred routes taken, the places selected to park their caravans and the duration of travel and stopping. Not only can their movements be forced, and hence unwanted, but where they stop may be unsuitable, and despite this fact, they choose to remain for a prolonged period due to the fear of being unable to find any other option. For centuries, the British state has regulated nomadism (Mayall 1988). The state’s spatial management of Gypsy and Traveller mobilities is intended to preserve the spatial order (Bancroft 2005) and was designed to sedentarize and assimilate Gypsies and Travellers (Mayall 1988, Home 2002, Greenfields and Smith 2010). Consequently, there are increases in both forced mobility and forced sedentarization. While being sedentary does not negate Gypsy or Traveller identity, as most Gypsies and Travellers do live, or have lived at times, a sedentary way of life, whether one chooses to cease moving or whether one becomes sedentary due to harassment and lack of options is an important distinction to make. For some, living in a house is a temporary measure, while for others it is a last resort. The difficulty of adapting to ‘bricks and mortar’ homes for the unaccustomed has been well documented (Greenfields and Smith 2010) and is another example of the repercussions of restricting Gypsy and Traveller mobilities. Their place- and homemaking practices are transformed, due to their displacement from caravan sites, and many cannot adapt successfully to non-caravan homes. Gypsies and Travellers and the denial of place As Easthope (2009) demonstrates, both mobility and place are integral for identity construction. Instead of seeing mobility and place as opposed, it is important to see them as deeply imbricated in one another. Yet for Roma the myth of the placelessness predominates, and place is denied as a component of their identities. For Downloaded by [College of Staten Island] at 12:53 05 June 2012 Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power 221 instance, to take an example from Italy, Sigona (2003) discusses the reception of Kosovo Roma during the late 1990s. These individuals were labelled nomads. This was done not because the label was accurate, nor simply to reproduce the common stereotype of Roma as being nomadic, but to actually remove their refugee status. Within this blatantly sedentarist logic (Malkki 1997), in order to be a refugee, one needs to have a place, in order to then be displaced. So here a nomad is by definition quintessentially placeless, and therefore he/she can never be a refugee, since the nomad has no home – no place – to which to return. This pernicious form of categorization helps shape Italian popular opinion to avoid any responsibility to provide aid to these ‘fake refugees’. Those who are displaced, as in the case of refugees, may not be welcomed, but they may be viewed sympathetically due to their forcible removal from their homes (which implicitly shows how place is positively valued). However, to be rootless is not understandable and marks one as pathological (again, they are seen as inferior because of their lack of place). It is this association with placelessness that renders nomads inferior. The conventional understanding of Gypsies and Travellers is that they are supposed to move. The myth of placelessness proves damaging when it legitimizes practices that deny places to Gypsies and Travellers. There has been substantial resistance to Gypsies and Travellers who attempt to travel in the summer and settle in a place for the winter (MacLaughlin 1995, p. 76, Home 2002). This misunderstanding of nomadic ways of life is predicated on the dominant image of mobility. On a BBC website where comments are posted in response to the situation regarding illegal caravan sites, ‘Mike’ states that ‘By definition, any “traveller” who wants to build a permanent residence (whether house or pitch, etc.) is not a traveller’! (BBC 2005). ‘Andy’ continues: ‘If they build something permanent on the land then surely they are no longer travelers’ (BBC 2005). That this proves disturbing is shown in views which state that ‘while gypsies [sic] trumpet the right to roam, they sometimes seem keener to stay still’ (Gerard 2006). Paradoxically, what this suggests is that what is at issue may be more than their mobility. Since they are being prevented from settling down, concern is expressed about them not moving. This is unnerving because it challenges stereotypical representations of those living a nomadic way of life by revealing their attachment to place. This is significant for two reasons. First, it problematizes the idea that it is solely the mobility of nomads that proves so disruptive to settled people. Second, the importance of place is highlighted. We can see the normativity of place clearly at work, because Gypsies and Travellers become a pressing problem simply because they are here, and even more importantly, here to stay (Curry 1999). What I suggest is that it is not mobility per se that proves so unnerving to those espousing sedentarist logic. Instead, I emphasize place (or more specifically, the absence of place or being seen as having a deficient relationship to place) to be the main factor in the othering of nomads, and indeed in the construction of the nomadic/sedentary binary. There are two aspects that I highlight with regard to the concept of place. First is the idea that nomads are placeless, and the ways Downloaded by [College of Staten Island] at 12:53 05 June 2012 222 P. Kabachnik in which that representation affects them. Second is that place is an integral part of nomadism, despite presumptions to the contrary. Gypsies and Travellers are seen as having the wrong relationship to place. But what is it that allows nomads to appear to not have any connection to place? John K. Noyes illustrates that the Germans thought the nomadic Herero were uncivilized because of their ‘inability to develop an emotional attachment to land’ (2000, p. 51). Likewise, Gypsies and Travellers are seen as inferior, not because they move, but because they have deficient connections to place, eschewing local attachments and rootedness. MacLaughlin (1995) explains that in the nineteenth century those who supported bourgeois property rights othered nomadic groups precisely because they were propertyless. They were seen as challenging the hegemony of territorial and property arrangements. At the same time, German geographer Ratzel asserted that sedentary societies should be given first priority to exploit the world’s resources, since their approach to environmental management was superior to that of nomads (MacLaughlin 1995, p. 26). L.P. Curtis argued that Saxons, because of their deep attachment to the land, were better than nomadic Celts (MacLaughlin 1995, p. 27). Noyes identifies this trend in nineteenth century theories of nomadism, stating that there has been a long tradition of regarding wandering as an unmediated response to landscape and environmental constraints, rather than as a rational system of land utilization. (2000, p. 48) In the contemporary context, the response to Gypsies and Travellers, as found in British newspaper accounts, reproduces the very same image (Kabachnik 2009). The narratives of the English claim the mobile nomad to be placeless and acknowledge place to be a highly important ideal, though one that they relegate solely to the domain of the sedentary. Not only is place seen as not being a part of the nomadic way of life but also place is utilized as a dominant trope in the narratives used to other and exclude Gypsies and Travellers in England. The reliance on the space–place binary allows for Gypsies and Travellers to be constructed as placeless. By aligning mobility with space, nomads are denied places, the very places that are important for nomadic ways of life but often get represented otherwise. Thus, by disentangling space and place the experiences of those living a nomadic way of life can be more accurately represented and discussions of mobility can more adequately capture the role of place. Conclusions Narrow conceptions of place lead to abstraction in the attempts to define and represent nomads that proliferate today. The privileging of space over place denies nomads their relationship to places. However, no one moves over a flat grid with points for places; we move in and through three-dimensional places. The placelessness attributed to nomads is not just an empirical error of definition that Downloaded by [College of Staten Island] at 12:53 05 June 2012 Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power 223 affects their representation but also helps reinforce discrimination and hinders life chances. The focus on (a certain idea of) mobility deflects attention from the real reason for the perception that Gypsies and Travellers are inferior. Their placelessness is not an essential feature of nomadism. On the contrary, critical ethnographies of nomadic groups reveal the importance of place for them (Kabachnik 2010a). The placelessness ascribed to nomads is a result of their having been constructed as mobile wanderers with no interest in place coupled with various strategies used to disrupt the places that are important for nomads and facilitate the nomadic way of life. Whether through legal means of eviction and segregation or through pogroms, violence and direct hostility, the places of nomads are removed and even destroyed. The hegemony of sedentary ways of life is made all too apparent. The focus on movement also deflects attentions from the lack of places and from the forced mobility of many Gypsies and Travellers. By equating nomadism with any movement, forced movement gets subsumed under the expected practices of these groups. Thus, intolerance and exclusionary practices are ignored. I suggest that place is integral to the nomadic way of life. This is also the case for sedentary English, though this should not be surprising. Indeed, place is the central feature of anti-caravan site rhetoric. English residents invoke place, in various ways, and simultaneously focus on the mobility and placelessness of Gypsies and Travellers to justify their exclusion. This, in turn, reinforces the idea that nomads are solely about mobility, not place. It also represents the current conflicts over caravan sites as if it were perfectly natural for there to be antagonism between sedentary and nomadic ways of life. In closing, the reluctance to attribute place as an important feature of nomadic ways of life and the denial of mobility as a characteristic of place, both of which are thoroughly discredited notions within much of the new mobilities paradigm, are dual processes that further obfuscate conceptions of place. As my title suggests, the fact that place can be mobile highlights the limitations of relying on a spatialized definition of place and allows one to separate the discussion of place from the narratives of space and mobility with which it is increasingly entangled and confused with. Acknowledgements I would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful suggestions. Michael Curry also provided me with valuable comments on earlier versions of this article. The usual disclaimer applies. Support for this article was provided by a PSC-CUNY Award, jointly funded by The Professional Staff Congress and The City University of New York. Notes 1. While many Roma prefer to call themselves ‘Roma’ and find the label Gypsy demeaning, Gypsies in England and Wales self-ascribe as Gypsy and that is how I will refer to them. 224 2. 3. Downloaded by [College of Staten Island] at 12:53 05 June 2012 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. P. Kabachnik The term Gypsies and Travellers encapsulates English Gypsies, Welsh Gypsies, Irish Travellers, New Travellers, Scottish Travellers and so on. In the British context, when discussing nomadic ways of life and/or perceptions of nomadism, all these groups are relevant to examine as not only are they often confused with one another but they can all attain ‘Gypsy status’ within planning law due to their caravan dwelling and nomadic practices. This article is foremost a conceptual exploration, with the case of Gypsies and Travellers to be used for illustrative purposes, not as the central focus that would necessitate drawing on deeper ethnographic data and analysis. My focus on geographer’s definitions of place is not to imply that place is the sole domain of geography as a discipline. Instead, because place, as a concept and term, is one of the main themes that geographers draw upon, geographers have provided the most discussion and definitional attempts. Though place has entered into the formal conceptual lexicon of disciplines like cultural studies and anthropology since the 1980s, there are still many times, since other frames of analysis, in part due to disciplinary histories, are utilized, the role of place is rendered invisible and overlooked (see Kabachnik 2010a). This leads to misunderstandings and to what Curry (2002a) has termed discursive displacement, where multiple meanings are being understood by various readers/participants. Someone will use a term, with a particular meaning in mind, but another person will understand it as meaning something else entirely, leading to ambiguity, slippage and ultimately confusion. Space is often used interchangeably with place. De Certeau (1984) actually switches space with place, using the term space when clearly talking about place. The definition of Deleuze and Guattari’s (1986, 1987) ‘smooth spaces’, Lefebvre’s (1991) ‘social space’ and Soja’s (1996) ‘third space’ align with place as well. This stance is similar to Gilroy’s (1993) notion of anti anti-essentialism, enabling one to avoid essentializing place, while at the same time not reducing place to mobility and flux and denying its materiality. Out of all the characteristics of the more nuanced theorizations of place that have been postulated as of late, this facet is still the most commonly overlooked and inadequately addressed. See www.freedomship.com and English (2011). Or as Casey refers to them, as ‘two different orders of reality’ (2001b, p. 404). While not conflating space and place, nor ignoring one over the other, Tuan and many others, including Entrikin (1991), Sack (1997) and Agnew (2005), advocate adopting a middle ground, emphasizing the important aspects of both concepts, while accentuating the important interrelationships between them. This, I contend, still upholds the binary and relies on a spatialized model of place. Both conceptions of place, the traditional and the progressive, are utilized by Gypsies and Travellers. This reveals that approaches to place are still informed by the legacy of positivism (see Curry 1996). See Agnew (2005) for an excellent overview of the core issues in the place–space debate. It is not just people – but objects – that are mobile. See Urry (2007, p. 45) for delineation of the various mobilities and immobilities of objects. As Cresswell states (2010a, b), we must be wary of exaggerating the newness of the new mobilities paradigm, which overemphasizes the mobilities generated by modern communication and transportation technologies. For a summary of the recent mobilities literature, see Cresswell (2010b). This was found in government Circular 1/94, Gypsy Sites and Planning. Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power 19. 225 Applications by those qualifying for ‘Gypsy’ status are denied 90% of the time, though this lowers somewhat upon appeal. In contrast, non-Gypsies have an 80% approval rate (ACERT and Wilson 1997). Downloaded by [College of Staten Island] at 12:53 05 June 2012 References ACERT and Wilson, M., 1997. Directory of planning policies for gypsy site provision in England. Bristol: Policy Press. Adey, P., 2006. If mobility is everything then it is nothing: towards a relational politics of (im)mobilities. Mobilities, 1 (1), 75–94. Adey, P., 2010. Mobility. London: Routledge. Agnew, J., 1987. Place and politics: the geographical mediation of state and society. Boston: Allen & Unwin. Agnew, J., 2005. Space: place. In: P. Cloke and R. Johnston, eds. Spaces of geographical thought: deconstructing human geography’s binaries. London: Sage, 81–96. Appadurai, A., 1988. Place and voice in anthropological theory. Cultural Anthropology, 3 (1), 16–20. Bærenholdt, J.O. and Simonsen, K., 2004. Space odysseys: spatiality and social relations in the 21st century. Aldershot: Ashgate. Bancroft, A., 2005. Roma and Gypsy-Travellers in Europe: Modernity, Race, Space, and Exclusion. Aldershot: Ashgate. Bauman, Z., 1998. Globalization: the human consequences. Cambridge: Polity Press. BBC, 2005. Tory traveller proposals: your views [online]. BBC News, 23 March. Available from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/4367763.stm [Accessed 20 February 2010]. Bissell, D. and Fuller, G., eds., 2010. Stillness in a mobile world. London: Routledge. Carter, E., Donald, J., and Squires, J., eds., 1993. Space and place: theories of identity and location. London: Lawrence & Wishart. Casey, E.S., 1993. Getting back into place: toward a renewed understanding of the placeworld. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Casey, E.S., 1996. How to get from space to place in a fairly short stretch of time. In: S. Feld and K.H. Basso, eds. Senses of place. Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press, 13–52. Casey, E.S., 1997. The fate of place: a philosophical history. Berkeley: University of California Press. Casey, E.S., 2001a. Between geography and philosophy: what does it mean to be in the place-world? Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 91 (4), 683–693. Casey, E.S., 2001b. Body, self, and landscape: a geophilosophical inquiry into the placeworld. In: P.C. Adams, S. Hoelscher, and K.E. Till, eds. Textures of place: exploring humanist geographies. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 403–425. Cemlyn, S., et al., 2009. Inequalities experienced by gypsy and traveller communities: a review. London: Equality and Human Rights Commission. Clark, C. and Greenfields, M., 2006. Here to stay: the gypsies and travellers of Britain. Hatfield: University of Hertfordshire Press. Conradson, D. and Latham, A., 2005. Transnational urbanism: attending to everyday practices and mobilities. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 31 (2), 227–233. Crang, M., 1998. Cultural geography. London: Routledge. Crang, M., 2002. Between places: producing hubs, flows, and networks. Environment and Planning A, 34, 569–574. Cresswell, T., 1996. In place/out of place: geography, ideology, and transgression. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Downloaded by [College of Staten Island] at 12:53 05 June 2012 226 P. Kabachnik Cresswell, T., 2003. Introduction: theorizing place. In: G. Verstraete and T. Cresswell, eds. Mobilizing place, placing mobility: the politics of representation in a globalizing world. Amsterdam: Rodopi B.V, 11–32. Cresswell, T., 2004. Place: a short introduction. Oxford: Blackwell. Cresswell, T., 2006. On the move: mobility in the modern western world. New York: Routledge. Cresswell, T., 2010a. Towards a politics of mobility. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 28, 17–31. Cresswell, T., 2010b. Mobilities I: catching up. Progress in Human Geography, 35 (4), 550–558. Cresswell, T. and Merriman, P., eds., 2011. Geographies of mobilities: practices, spaces, subjects. Aldershot: Ashgate. Curry, M.R., 1996. The work in the world: geographical practice and the written word. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Curry, M.R., 1999. ‘Hereness’ and the normativity of place. In: J. Proctor and D. Smith, eds. Geography and ethics: journeys in a moral terrain. London: Routledge, 95–105. Curry, M.R., 2002a. Discursive displacement and the seminal ambiguity of space and place. In: L. Lievrouw and S. Livingstone, eds. The handbook of new media. London: Sage, 503–517. Curry, M.R., 2002b. Geographic technologies and the new topography. Unpublished paper presented at the Conference on transforming spaces, Darmstadt, Germany. Daniels, S., 1992. Place and the geographical imagination. Geography, 77, 310–322. de Certeau, M., 1984. The practice of everyday life. Berkeley: University of California Press. Deleuze, G. and Guattari, F., 1986. Nomadology: the war machine. New York: Semiotext(e). Deleuze, G. and Guattari, F., 1987. A thousand plateaus: capitalism and schizophrenia. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Dirlik, A., 1999. Place-based imagination: globalism and the politics of place. Review: A Journal of the Fernand Braudel Center, 22 (2), 151–187. Douglas, M., 1991. The idea of a home: a kind of space. Social Research, 58 (1), 287–307. Dyson-Hudson, N., 1972. The study of nomads. In: W. Irons and N. Dyson-Hudson, eds. Perspectives on nomadism. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2–29. Easthope, H., 2009. Fixed identities in a mobile world? The relationship between mobility, place, and identity. Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power, 16, 61–82. Edensor, T., ed., 2010. Geographies of rhythm: nature, place, mobilities and bodies. Farnham: Ashgate. Elliott, A. and Urry, J., 2010. Mobile lives. New York: Routledge. English, M., 2011. Floating city, libertarian colonies close to reality [online]. Discovery News, 22 August. Available from: http://news.discovery.com/human/floating-citystates-move-closer-to-reality.html?fb_ref=fb2&fb_source=home_multiline [Accessed 10 September 2011]. Entrikin, J.N., 1991. The betweenness of place: towards a geography of modernity. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Entrikin, J.N., 1997. Place and region 3. Progress in Human Geography, 21 (2), 263–268. Feld, S. and Basso, K.H., eds., 1996. Senses of place. Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press. Flusser, V., 2003. The freedom of the migrant: objections to nationalism. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Fortier, A.-M., 2000. Migrant belongings: memory, space and identity. Oxford: Berg. Gerard, J., 2006. The chancellor’s got his eye on a new best friend [online]. The Observer, 12 November. Available from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/nov/12/ comment.politics1 [Accessed 16 November 2010]. Downloaded by [College of Staten Island] at 12:53 05 June 2012 Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power 227 Gielis, R., 2009. A global sense of migrant places: towards a place perspective in the study of migrant transnationalism. Global Networks, 9 (2), 271–287. Gilroy, P., 1993. The Black Atlantic: modernity and double consciousness. London: Verso. Greenfields, M. and Smith, D., 2010. Housed gypsy travellers, social segregation and the reconstruction of communities. Housing Studies, 25 (3), 397–412. Gupta, A. and Ferguson, J., eds., 1997. Culture, power, place. Durham: Duke University Press. Halfacree, K.H., 1996. Out of place in the country: travellers and the ‘Rural Idyll’. Antipode, 28 (1), 42–72. Hannam, K., Sheller, M., and Urry, J., 2006. Mobilities, immobilities and moorings. Mobilities, 1 (1), 1–22. Hawes, D. and Perez, B., 1995. The gypsy and the state. Bristol: SAUS. Home, R., 2002. Negotiating security of tenure for peri-urban settlement: traveller-gypsies and the planning system in the United Kingdom. Habitat International, 26, 335–346. Horvath, R.J., 1969. The wandering capitals of Ethiopia. The Journal of African History, 10 (2), 205–219. Johnston, R., Gregory, D., Pratt, G., and Watts, M., eds., 2000. The dictionary of human geography. Oxford: Blackwell. Kabachnik, P., 2009. To choose, fix, or ignore culture? The cultural politics of gypsy and traveler mobility in England. Social and Cultural Geography, 10 (4), 461–479. Kabachnik, P., 2010a. England or Uruguay? The persistence of place and the myth of the placeless gypsy. Area, 42 (2), 198–207. Kabachnik, P., 2010b. Place invaders: constructing the nomadic threat in England. Geographical Review, 100 (1), 90–108. Kenrick, D., 2004. The Romani world: a historical dictionary of the gypsies. Hertfordshire: University of Hertfordshire Press. Kenrick, D. and Clark, C., 1999. Moving on: the gypsies and travellers of Britain. Hatfield: University of Hertfordshire Press. Langer, S., 1953. Feeling and form: a theory of art. New York: Scribner. Lefebvre, H., 1991. The production of space. Oxford: Blackwell. MacLaughlin, J., 1995. Travellers and Ireland: whose country, whose history? Cork: Cork University Press. Malkki, L., 1997. National geographic: the rooting of peoples and the territorialization of national identity among scholars and refugees. In: A. Gupta and J. Ferguson, eds. Culture, power, place. Durham: Duke University Press, 52–74. Massey, D., 1984. Spatial divisions of labor: social structures and the geography of production. London: Methuen. Massey, D., 1993. Power-geometry and a progressive sense of place. In: J. Bird, B. Curtis, T. Putnam, G. Robertson, and L. Tucker, eds. Mapping the futures. London: Routledge, 59–69. Mayall, D., 1988. Gypsy-travellers in nineteenth century society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McDowell, L., 1997. Introduction: rethinking place. In: L. McDowell, ed. Undoing place? A geographical reader. London: Edward Arnold, 1–12. Misra, P.K., 1986. Mobility-sedentary opposition: a case study among nomadic Gadulia Lohar. Nomadic Peoples, 21/22, 179–187. Niner, P., 2003. Local authority gypsy traveller sites in England. London: OPDM. Noyes, J.K., 2000. Nomadic fantasies: producing landscapes of mobility in German Southwest Africa. Ecumene, 7 (1), 47–66. Relph, E., 1976. Place and placelessness. London: Pion. Richardson, M., ed., 1984. Place: experience and symbol. Baton Rouge: Geoscience Publications of the Department of Geography and Anthropology, Louisiana State University. Downloaded by [College of Staten Island] at 12:53 05 June 2012 228 P. Kabachnik Sack, R., 1993. The power of place and space. Geographical Review, 83 (3), 326–329. Sack, R., 1997. Homo geographicus: a framework for action, awareness, and moral concern. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Sack, R., 2003. A geographical guide to the real and the good. New York: Routledge. Salo, M., 1986. Peripatetic adaptation in historical perspective. Nomadic Peoples, 21/22, 7–36. Sheller, M. and Urry, J., 2006a. The new mobilities paradigm. Environment and Planning A, 38, 207–226. Sheller, M. and Urry, J., 2006b. Mobile technologies of the city. New York: Routledge. Sibley, D., 1981. Outsiders in urban society. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Sigona, N., 2003. How can a ‘nomad’ be a ‘refugee’? Kosovo Roma and labelling policy in Italy. Sociology, 37 (1), 69–79. Soja, E.W., 1996. Thirdspace: journeys to Los Angeles and other real-and-imagined places. Cambridge: Blackwell. Thrift, N., 1999. Steps to an ecology of place. In: D. Massey, J. Allen, and P. Sarre, eds. Human geography today. Cambridge: Polity Press, 295–323. Tuan, Y.-F., 1974. Space and place: humanistic perspective. Progress in Geography, 6, 211–252. Tuan, Y.-F., 1975. Place: an experiential perspective. Geographical Review, 65 (2), 151–165. Urry, J., 2000. Sociology beyond societies: mobilities for the twenty-first century. Routledge: London. Urry, J., 2003. Global complexity. Cambridge: Polity. Urry, J., 2007. Mobilities. Cambridge: Polity Press. Uteng, T.P. and Cresswell, T., eds., 2008. Gendered mobilities. Aldershot: Ashgate. PETER KABACHNIK is Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science, Economics and Philosophy at the City University of New York, USA. ADDRESS: Political Science, Economics, and Philosophy, College of Staten Island – CUNY, 2800 Victory Blvd 2N 230, Staten Island, New York 10314, USA. Email: peter.kabachnik@csi.cuny.edu