The problem of poor people’s mobility – a genealogical inquiry

ABSTRACT

In recent years, an increasingly visible poverty has been widely debated in Sweden, not least in terms of ‘vulnerable EU citizens’. Issues of EU-internal mobility have gained renewed interest as EU citizens have the legal right to move freely within the EU. The focus in this debate has been on poor EU citizens categorized as ‘Roma’. In many respects, ‘the Roma’ have become a symbol for the mobility of poor people as a problem. The purpose of this article is to investigate contemporary discourses on poor people’s mobility as a social problem, in the light of similar descriptions in the past. Starting with the 2010s, we analyse governmental reports from the 1950s and 1920s in which the mobility of poor people has been subjected to political debate. We draw upon a genealogical approach informed by Michel Foucault, focusing on the categorization of mobile poor people as problematic and deviant, in relation to what is conceptualized as the norm. In line with this approach, we analyse historical formations of particular ‘regimes of truth’ concerning the mobility of poor people. Our results show that the mobility of poor people is a recurring problem, even though in different ways at different times. The political responses to the problems caused by poor people’s mobility range from disciplinary and excluding to assimilating interventions directed at the mobility of poor people – in the 2010s represented by ‘the vulnerable EU citizens’, in the 1950s by ‘the gypsies’ and in the 1920s by ‘the travellers’.

KEYWORDS:

• Poverty
• citizenship
• Roma
• mobility
• social inclusion
• social exclusion

You, you are so special. You have the talent to make me feel like dirt. And you, you use your talent, to dig me under. And cover me with dirt.Alice in Chains, Dirt

Introduction

In recent years, an increasingly visible poverty has been highly debated in Sweden, not least in terms of ‘vulnerable EU citizens’ (Dahlstedt 2016; Hansson 2015; Swärd 2017). The debate has been centred around a core issue in social work, i.e. who has the right to belong to the societal community and thus receive its welfare and rights, with implications for how social work is conceptualized, and what is left outside. Thus, this debate addresses the problematic of citizenship, i.e. membership in the societal community, in formal as well as substantial sense (Isin 2012). In recent decades, the problematic of citizenship has gained renewed interest as EU citizens – poor or not – have, legally, the right to move freely within the European Union. In line with this development of citizens’ right to free mobility, there have been lively political discussions throughout the member states regarding the potential risks of impairing welfare systems and labour standards (Woolfson 2007; Hansen and Hager 2010; Schierup and Jørgensen 2016).

The discussion regarding visible poverty, in Sweden as well as other parts of Europe, has lately focused on people from Eastern Europe, where focus is often put on poor EU citizens categorized as ‘Roma’ who are begging in the streets (cf. van Baar 2018; Hansson 2019). In many respects, ‘the Roma’ have become a symbol for the mobility of poor people as a problem and as a threat (Yıldız and De Genova 2017). ‘The Roma’ are portrayed as bringing visible poverty and social problems to richer countries in the EU, yet at the same time, they can be seen as living up to the contemporary ideal of the mobile EU-citizen (Isin 2012; Chatty 2015).

The problem of visible poverty is not new – and do not concern ‘the Roma’ alone (Edman 2008). At the end of the nineteenth century, in Sweden as well as in other European countries, extensive discussions took place regarding the so-called social question, centred around the accelerating poverty (Ulmestig 2007). In this discussion, the mobility of the poor was not a problem on the supranational level, but foremost for the nation-state, as an apparently well-defined and homogenous space where people have their natural residence (Malkki 1997; Sibley 1997; Tesfahuney 2001). In this discussion, the mobility of the poor – the ‘vagrancy’ – was seen as a serious threat to the social order. In this context, it was not ‘the Roma’, but rather ‘the traveler’ and ‘the gypsy’ who symbolized a threatening mobility. In response to the problems with ‘vagrancy’, a range of enforcement measures were taken to remove or assimilate these mobile poor, not the least in the form of taking custody of the children of ‘travelers’ and ‘gypsies’ (Montesino Parra 2002; Sjögren 2010; Ericsson 2015).

During the postwar period, extensive policy measures have been taken in order to assimilate ‘the Roma’ in the Swedish welfare state. At the same time, Montesino and Olsson Al Fakir (2015, 312) note that ‘since the 1950s, expansive Swedish authority policy towards the Roma … has tended to strengthen, rather than change the Roma’s position as “outsiders in the Swedish society”’. For example, studies have shown how ‘the Roma’ still are discriminated in the Swedish society, among other things on the housing market (Popoola, 2002), and in the judicial system (Granér 2004; Du Rées 2006).

On this background, the purpose of this article is to investigate contemporary policy descriptions of poor people’s mobility as a social problem, including some people into the societal community, while excluding others, in the light of similar problem descriptions in the past. Starting with the 2010s, we analyse policy documents from the 1950s and 1920s to problematize seemingly obvious truths concerning what it means to be a citizen in the present. In each period, we point out how the mobility of poor people has been subjected to political measures, based on three Public Government Reports.

The article is structured as follows: Initially, the analytical approach guiding our investigation is presented. Then, we will present our analysis of how the mobility of poor people has been problematized in three Public Government Reports. Starting with the 2010s, the problem descriptions are contrasted with problematizations in the 1950s and 1920s. Finally, the main results of the article are summed up with conclusions, followed by a final reflection about contemporary social policy challenges regarding poverty and mobility.

Analytical approach

The article draws upon a genealogical approach, departing from Foucault (1980, 1991) and his understanding of how societies are governed. The aim of such an approach is to generate a critical understanding of the present (Foucault 1994). According to Foucault (1980), in every society, in every historical period, certain ways of thinking about the state of the world becomes established as ‘truth’, forming certain ‘regimes of truth’. In line with a genealogical approach, our focus is directed at the present, and present ‘regimes of truth’, rather than on the past. Such analysis questions the search for origins and beginnings or ‘truths’ about the world. Thus, a genealogical analysis questions the very search for essence and stability. The starting point for a genealogical analysis is rather to problematize the present, i.e. to destabilize and question the taken-for-granted ways of thinking, knowing and doing things in the present (Taylor 2009).

Following Foucault (1991), conceptions established as ‘truth’ in different times and locations are the products of historical processes and are thus contingent. In line with these ‘truths’, certain categories of the population are constructed as normal and belonging, whilst others are constructed as deviant, not belonging and in various ways problematic (for society). According to such problematization, these categories are construed as in need of certain interventions, that may take a wide range of shapes, ranging from exclusive, repressive and disciplinary means of governing, to inclusive, productive and emancipatory (Foucault 1988, 1991). Such interventions make the governing of the population as well as society at large possible.

Thus, categorization can be understood as a crucial means of governing, with ‘significant effects for the ways in which governing takes place, and for how people come to think about themselves and about others’ (Bacchi 1999, 9). Through categorization, people are put into categories, attributed with specific values and characteristics. These people are then construed as different to people of other categories. Categorization often produces dichotomies, where ‘what is one side of a binary is considered to be excluded from the other side’ (Bacchi 1999, 7). These dichotomies are usually hierarchical: ‘One side is privileged, considered to be more important or more valued than the other side’ (Bacchi 1999, 7).

Within a contemporary ‘national order of things’ (Malkki 1997), the ‘imagined community’ of the nation is still a crucial basis for belonging in society, i.e. citizenship (cf. Anderson, 1983; Billig 1995; Yuval-Davis 2011). According to this ‘regime of truth’, categorizations are made in order to divide the population into those belonging and those not belonging to the national community, into insiders and outsiders (Tesfahuney 2001). Such categorizations are not least made along the lines of race, ethnicity and culture, whose specific meanings are not given, but rather produced in the very act of categorization and the drawing of boundaries (cf. Hall 1997; Yuval-Davis 2011). On the basis of such categorizations, similarities as well as differences among various sections of the population are produced, in turn making a range of technologies of governing possible, targeting various segments of the population.

Analysing the mobility of poor people as a problem

In line with the genealogical approach outlined, the analytical focus of this article is directed at the categorization of poor and mobile people in Sweden as a problem, in three different historical periods. More specifically, the analysis draws attention to, first, how poor and mobile people are categorized (which terms that are used in order to distinguish the poor and mobile), second, the specific values and characteristics attributed to the poor and mobile people, third, in what ways and in what respects poor and mobile people are constructed as a problem (in and for society), and four, the different interventions (i.e. technologies of governing) made possible by such categorization, problematization and attribution.

According to the genealogical approach adopted, the starting point for the analysis presented is contemporary truths regarding the mobility of ‘vulnerable EU citizens’ as a problem. Departing from problem descriptions in the present, we then direct analytical focus towards problem descriptions in other periods. Specifically, the analysis focuses on the ways of describing the mobility of poor people during three different periods – the 2010s, the 1950s, and the 1920s. In each period, there are Public Government Reports focusing on the relation between mobility and poverty. In the analysis, one report from each period is selected: Framtid sökes (Seeking a future) (SOU 2016:6), Zigenarfrågan (The Gypsy issue) (SOU 1956:43) and Förslag till lag om lösdrivares behandling (Proposal for an Act on treatment of vagrants) (SOU 1923:2). These reports were selected as they all deal with the mobility of poor people as a social problem, with a particular focus on how different categories of poor people are conceptualized as different, deviant and dangerous, in relation to what is conceptualized as the norm – i.e. ‘vulnerable EU citizens’ (utsatta EU-medborgare), ‘gypsies’ (zigenare), and ‘travelers’ (tattare).

The periods of the 1950s and the 1920s were selected as in each period, the relation between mobility and poverty rendered political attention and was the subject to governmental interventions. Between the periods selected, substantial changes have taken place when it comes to the development of the Swedish welfare state (Esping-Andersen 1990; Åmark 2005; Swärd 2017) and its relation to mobility (Svanberg and Tydén 1992; Johansson 2005; Frank 2017). These developments make the selected periods an interesting point of departure for further analysing contemporary truths regarding the mobility of ‘vulnerable EU citizens’.

The analysis starts out with the 2010s, a period when the welfare state is under transformation, gradually more influenced by a neo-liberal political rationality (cf. Larsson, Thörn, and Martin 2012; Swärd 2017), but also a period where there is a high degree of mobility, within as well as outside Europe. In relation to Sweden’s membership in the EU, issues of welfare are no longer solely a national affair but are also part of a larger European policy context, where EU citizens have the right to move freely within the Union borders. In this period, migration is a highly debated political issue, in relation to a Swedish welfare state, as well as to the EU.

Then, we turn to the 1950s, a period that has been described as a golden age of the Swedish welfare state, a time of a flourishing economy, a strong optimism regarding the future and the possibilities of developing an inclusive welfare state (Arter, 2003; Åmark 2005). The building of this welfare state was guided by a state-centric political rationality, where the State was seen as the primary agent for the development of society, based on centralized policies aiming at equality and redistribution (Esping-Andersen 1990). In this period, there was also an extensive discussion on the welfare of one particular category of poor people, namely ‘the gypsies’. Now, there was a strong will to assimilate ‘the gypsies’ and make them part of the welfare state, by means of providing education, housing, and work (cf. Montesino Parra 2002; Selling 2013; Montesino and Olsson Al Fakir 2015).

Finally, we turn to the 1920s, a period when the building of this Swedish welfare state was in its beginning (Åmark 2005). In the 1920s, there was also an extensive debate regarding the challenges of ‘vagrancy’, echoing the debates on the social question of the late 19^th century (Svanberg and Tydén 1992; Ulmestig 2007; Swärd and Edebalk 2017). Once more, ‘vagrancy’ was seen as a serious threat to the social order in society, with a particular focus directed at two categories of poor people – ‘gypsies’ (zigenare) and ‘travelers’ (tattare) (Catomeris 2004).

‘The vulnerable EU citizens’ of the 2010s

The financial crisis in 2008 resulted in severe tensions in the economy and society at large, with a range of challenges for the welfare states of the member states in the EU. These tensions and challenges triggered a crisis-driven mobility of precarious citizens, primarily from the member states in the Eastern parts of Europe. This mobility in turn caused a lively debate throughout the EU concerning the migration of poor people as a problem (Woolfson and Mešić 2015). In the year of 2016, the Public Government Report Seeking a future (SOU 2016:6), is presented. The focus of the report is on visible poverty in Sweden in the 2010s, mainly related to the inner mobility of the EU and poverty in other member states, particularly in the new member states of Bulgaria and Romania.

In the report, there is a specific focus on the category of ‘vulnerable EU citizens’ (utsatta EU-medborgare), a category that is described as in several respects causing problems in Sweden, in terms of visible poverty moving from the outskirts of Europe to Sweden.

In the report, the category of ‘vulnerable EU citizens’ is described as consisting mostly of ‘Roma’ people, most often originating in Romania and Bulgaria. Further, these people are described as illegally residing in Sweden, in order to make a living through begging.

Vulnerable EU citizens sitting on streets and squares asking for money is, at least since autumn 2012, a fixed feature in the streets in a number of small and large cities in Sweden. […] In those cases where they are Roma – a majority of the group – there is a history of discrimination in their countries of origin, leading to marginalization and less access to citizen’s rights. When they come here it is due to a wish to create better material conditions for themselves and their children. (19-20)

In the quote, the category of ‘vulnerable EU citizens’ is defined on the basis of ethnicity, as the majority of the category is labelled ‘Roma’. These people are further attributed with a legacy of discrimination in ‘their countries of origin’, which is described as the main motive for migrating to Sweden, in search for a better future. However, as described in the report, this migration causes several problems.

In the report, the category of ‘vulnerable EU citizens’ is repeatedly attributed with certain ways of life described as incompatible with the way of life and laws in Swedish society.

When vulnerable EU citizens began sleeping in street environments and creating settlements in parks and woods, the Swedish society was not prepared to manage the situation. In a land with a high welfare level, where we systematically have worked to eliminate homelessness and slums, we were not used to meet such vulnerability and poverty. (62)

In the quote, the forms of poverty made visible by the presence of ‘vulnerable EU citizens’ – referred to as ‘sleeping in street environments and creating settlements in parks and woods’ – are described as belonging to the past in Sweden. Accordingly, there is no place for such ways of life in a well-functioning welfare system as the one in Sweden. In line with such characterization, the category of ‘vulnerable EU citizens’ is further associated with different forms of criminality.

Littering is a criminal offence, under the Environment Code. Vandalism is a crime as well. Also, to relieve oneself in public is a criminal offence. […] In connection to the illegal settlements. […] it has occurred that individuals have been guilty of the described offences. […] Swedish police are not allowed to give individuals special treatment. (68)

In the quote, the precarious living conditions of ‘vulnerable EU citizens’, in terms of illegal littering as well as illegal settlements, are described as an issue to be dealt with by the police. Thus, the category of ‘vulnerable EU citizens’ is distinguished on a juridical basis, their way of life does not belong in contemporary Sweden.

In the report, there is a distinction made between those who have and those who have not the legal right of residence in Sweden. For all EU citizens who do not have Swedish citizenship, the basic requirement for the legal right of residence is employment, thus actively contributing to the economy. Those who have the legal right of residence also have the right to make use of the services provided by the Swedish welfare state. However, those who still stay in Sweden, after 3 months, without having an employment do not have the legal right of residence, and hence, they are not entitled to the services provided by the Swedish welfare state.

As long as an unemployed EEA citizen can prove that he or she seeks employment and that a real opportunity to get employment exists, the person has the right to stay in Sweden. […] Individuals making a living from begging […] are usually not seen as having a real opportunity to get employment. (43)

‘Vulnerable EU citizens’ are thus described as not belonging, in a juridical sense. As they are neither Swedish citizens, nor employed, they do not belong. In the report, it is repeatedly held that the poverty of the ‘vulnerable EU citizens’ is not something that Sweden should take the main responsibility for. Rather, it is emphasized that the well-being of these citizens is the responsibility of the ‘home countries’.

According to such conception, there are certain main interventions highlighted as a means of dealing with the problems of poverty among ‘vulnerable EU citizens’. The importance of the Swedish welfare state to take a more restrictive position is repeatedly emphasized, when it comes to offer ‘vulnerable EU citizens’ access to the welfare systems. An approach to ‘vulnerable EU citizens’ that is too generous is presented as risking to bring additional poor people to Sweden making use of the services provided, which would be very expensive. Instead, the main message emphasized by the report is that the welfare of ‘vulnerable EU citizens’ is the responsibility of their ‘home countries’, and not for Sweden. The ‘vulnerable EU citizens’ are not to be encouraged or facilitated to come and stay in Sweden. Instead, the assistance provided should be offered in the ‘home country’ (94). Accordingly, among the interventions proposed is a so-called emergency aid, granted for return travels to their ‘home countries’. While judicial equality is emphasized in the report, it is underlined that, legally, those defined as ‘vulnerable EU citizens’, lacking reasonable chances to get employment, have right only to emergency aid for emergency needs and return trips. Another proposal in the report concerns accompanying children and severely limiting their right to schooling in Sweden. The principle is here that children should go to school in their ‘home countries’ and not in Sweden. According to the report, this must be signalled clearly to prevent more ‘vulnerable EU citizens’ from bringing their children to Sweden (50).

In summary, in the 2010s, we can see that the mobile poor people are categorized as ‘vulnerable EU citizens’, primarily defined on the basis of ethnicity (labelled as Roma) but also as lacking Swedish citizenship. The mobility of poor people is primarily defined as a problem in economic terms, in terms of not contributing to the economy by productive work. Furthermore, this problem is located to the outside, as not belonging to the national community. In line with such problematization, interventions with a focus on repatriation and exclusion of the mobile poor from the nation-state and its community are proposed.

‘The gypsy issue’ of the 1950s

The Public Government Report The gypsy issue (SOU 1956:43) is presented in 1956. As explicitly highlighted in the title of the report, the category in focus of the report is ‘the gypsies’. In the report, the situation of ‘the gypsies’ in Sweden of the 1950s is described as highly precarious. With the rapid developments in Swedish society, the main, traditional sources of income of ‘the gypsies’ are described as declining. In the report, it is argued that the standards of living of ‘the gypsies’ increasingly deviate from that of the majority of the citizens in the Swedish welfare state.

The main problem emphasized in the report is described in terms of the mobile way of living among the ‘gypsies’, described as deviant from the Swedish societal community at large.

In our country, and usually in other countries with gypsy minorities within their borders, the few in the gypsy population are held in a markedly exceptional position compared to the rest of the population. Above all this exceptional position is shown in the gypsies’ travelling way of life and their deviating habits in general. (11)

Here, there is an explicit division made between ‘the gypsies’ and ‘the rest of the population’, where the ‘gypsies’ are characterized as fundamentally different – in terms of holding a ‘markedly exceptional position’. The category of ‘gypsies’ is attributed to values and behaviours marked as deviant in Swedish society – referred to as their ‘travelling way of life’ and ‘deviating habits in general’.

However, in the report, there is a distinction made between different kinds of ‘gypsies’ – ‘the travelling’ and ‘the resident’.

The around 230 resident gypsies in Sweden has adapted surprisingly well in society. Overall, they seem to be accepted by those around them, in working places, as well as their neighbours. Many of them are speaking enthusiastically about their new position as resident citizens. (140)

In the report, ‘the resident gypsies’ are described in a more positive way, characterized as more or less assimilated in the community of the welfare state, as compared to the ‘travelling gypsies’, characterized as more problematic due to their mobility. The report describes the situation for the ‘travelling gypsies’ as particularly precarious, as they, due to their ‘way of living’ are lagging behind and losing the opportunities and the welfare offered by the state. On the other hand, the ‘gypsies’ who have left their ‘typical gypsy way of living’ are described as living a more orderly and carefree life – thus portrayed in a way as successful role models.

Only the gypsies who had left the typical gypsy way of living and transferring to residents and orderly conditions, through their generally improved financial conditions can be said to have reached a certain measure of a carefree existence […]. For the gypsies still travelling in the traditional manner, destitution and hardship seems to be the main characteristic, not freedom and a carefree existence. Unfortunately, the state of the travelling gypsies seems to worsen each year. While the development for other people secured raising cultural and financial standards and increased social security, for the travelling gypsies has mostly involved the opposite. (12-13)

Thus, the travelling ‘way of life’ attributed to the ‘gypsies’ is described as the main cause of a range of social problems among ‘the gypsies’. Even though the ‘gypsies’ and particularly those categorized as ‘travelers’, are described as deviant in Swedish society, they are still seen as part of the community of the welfare state. They appear primarily as a welfare problem – a problem for the welfare state to handle. The main challenge addressed in the report is how to include the ‘gypsies’ into the modern welfare state developed in Sweden.

In the report, health is one of the welfare problems highlighted among the ‘gypsies’. Among other things, the report refers to studies indicating significantly lower life expectancy among ‘the travelling gypsies’ as compared to the population in general:

bronchitis and common cold disorders are prevalent among these gypsies, above all among the children, has been established by the members of the study as well as other observers. In any case, it is obvious that an ongoing severe wear and tear of this population material is occurring. A study of the age distribution among the gypsies indicates that the average life expectancy among these are significantly shorter than for the general population. (13)

Thus, problems in terms of health are described as one of the urgent effects of the travelling ‘way of life’ attributed to the ‘gypsies’. The defective, cold, and draughty dwellings of the ‘the travelling gypsies’ are highlighted as the main source of the illnesses found among ‘the travelling gypsies’. As described in the report, such illness in turn results in a ‘severe wear and tear of this population material’ (kraftig förslitning av detta befolkningsmaterial). In this quote, the report makes use of a vocabulary according to which the population is described in terms of ‘material’.

Another of the concerns highlighted in the report is that of education. Particularly, providing the children of ‘travelling gypsies’ access to public schooling is described as an acute problem to solve.

It is obvious that illiteracy is a serious impairment for people in our modern and complex society. Except the personal barrier, it makes for the concerned party through enforced isolation, the inability to read and write entails severely limited options when it comes to occupation and ways to make a living. (51)

Here, illiteracy, just as sickness, is emphasized as a problem caused by the travelling ‘way of life’. Illiteracy, in turn, makes it hard to become part of what is defined as ‘our modern and complex society’. In the report, the problem of illiteracy is described in generational terms. By providing education for the children, in the form of compulsory schooling, illiteracy among the ‘gypsies’ will in time disappear, when the children grow up. Education makes it possible to reach the ‘gypsies’, making them the target for inclusion. Accordingly, education is proposed as one of the means of the welfare state to make the ‘gypsies’ part of mainstream society, thus contributing to inclusion into the welfare state. The main condition for inclusion into the community is here residency.

In summary, in the 1950s, we can see that the mobile poor people were categorized as ‘gypsies’, primarily defined on the basis of cultural belonging, in terms of their suggested ‘deviant ways of life’. In the 1950s, the mobility of poor people was construed as a problem for the welfare state and as a responsibility for the Swedish national welfare state to manage. In line with such problematization, interventions with a focus on assimilation and inclusion of ‘gypsies’ into the community of the welfare state were proposed.

‘The traveler problem’ of the 1920s

If the problem of mobility of poor people in the 1950s is described in terms of ‘travelling’, in the 1920s, it is described in terms of ‘vagrancy’. During the 1920s, ‘vagrancy’ is the subject of several Public Government Reports, among these Proposal for an act on treatment of vagrants (SOU 1923: 2). In the report, ‘vagrancy’ is described as an increasingly widespread and alarming problem in society. This problem is characterized accordingly: ‘a number of persons have begun to prowl around and then continued with a lurking way of living’ (80). In the report, two categories are emphasized as particularly problematic: ‘One group of prowlers, to be especially noted is the one consisting of travelers and gypsies … ’ (80).

In the report, the categories described as particularly troublesome are first and foremost attributed with one specific value – what is referred to as their suggested ‘aversion to work’. ‘It is those who are adverse to working that the act wants to stop from prowling around and making a living through the settled population’s generosity and gullibility and thus avoiding work’ (81). Accordingly, mobility among those seeking employment is not seen as a problem in need of intervention in the report. ‘The aversion to work in common with destitution turns the prowling person into an individual doing damage to society’ (81). In the report, an aversion to work and to contribute to society by productive employment among mobile people is identified as a serious as well as growing problem, that in time risks to become a threat to the social order in society.

Indolence, misbehaviour, and begging will easily give rise to criminal tendencies under the common moral laws, often leading to disturbances of the judicial order. Therefore, those who are guilty of those offences could reasonably be feared as dangers to general security or private rights and thus a preventive legislation directed at them is justified. (43)

Thus, as in the 2010s, mobility is described in terms of risk. If measures are not taken, there is a risk that the problems caused by mobility will spread, and thus cause more severe problems in society. As mentioned previously, two specific categories of ‘vagrants’ are highlighted in the report, as particularly dangerous, ‘travelers’, and ‘gypsies’.

The lurking way of life, especially prevalent among the travelers, is a real danger to society and in some locations a significant detriment to the resident population, whose right to be protected from unauthorized trespassing into their homes is violated in this manner. (84)

Just like in the 1950s, those people who are ‘lurking’, here defined as ‘travelers’, are categorized in contrast to ‘the resident population’. In the report, it is suggested that ‘the lurking way of life’ of the ‘travelers’ poses a serious threat to society and ‘the resident population’, described as in need of protection.

In line with a ‘regime of truth’ established in the 1920s, eugenics, ‘vagrancy’ is in the report described as a racial problem, as a threat to ‘the Swedish population stock’ (den svenska folkstammen):

From the eugenic point of view, it is stated that these individuals’ interference in the Swedish population stock entails a declination of our people’s race. Be that as it may, since there are no means at the present to prevent this. Since most cases concern Swedish citizens, deportation is not a viable method. Nor is it feasible through other direct or indirect measures to exterminate them. (85)

Here, the ‘vagrants’ are categorized on the basis of race. Accordingly, the mobile poor are described as a threat to the population, as a risk of weakening ‘our people’s race’ (vår folkras). This threat is described as located within the borders of the nation-state, yet not belonging to the national community. Thus, this inner threat needs to be dealt with. However, as illustrated in the quote above, there are difficulties to manage this problem. Neither deportation nor extermination is described as viable solutions.

When further characterizing ‘vagrancy’ as a racial problem, a categorization is made between two racially different categories – ‘travelers’ and ‘gypsies’.

According to the most prevalent opinion, the travelers are a mixed race between gypsies and Swedes, usually children of a gypsy and a Swedish woman. Thereof it is explained that the travelers in part have been included in the societal community and in time will be assimilated, while the gypsies have kept their separate position. Thus, the prerequisites for the gypsies’ conforming to society are not the same. (89)

Both categories are described as different from Swedes, in terms of race, and both are described as a racial problem, although in different ways.

When it comes to the relation between the travelers and the gypsies, it is to be noted that they in Sweden form two from each other quite separate groups of people. While the gypsies as a rule have kept their old habits, and live as an isolated group, the travelers emerge anew, and usually are seen as descendants from the gypsies, as a part of the Swedish people’s race. (321)

On the basis of race, the two categories of ‘travelers’ and ‘gypsies’ are distinguished as ‘separate groups of people’. As a ‘mixed race’, ‘the travelers’ are described as ‘part of the Swedish people’s race’ (del av den svenska folkstammen), and thus possible to assimilate into society. However, ‘the gypsies’ are described as outsiders, attributed with ‘old habits’, and thus more or less impossible to assimilate. Accordingly, ‘the gypsies’ are characterized as the main problem to be dealt with.

In terms of the interventions proposed in the report, ‘the gypsies’ are described more or less as an ‘unsolvable problem’ in society.

Since assimilation of the gypsies in our society seems to be an unsolvable problem, the only solution is to, one way or another make the gypsies to leave the country. (89)

Unlike in the 1950s, the interventions proposed as a means of dealing with the problem of poor people’s mobility are here not about assimilating the category that is characterized as particularly troublesome into the welfare state. In fact, the only solution that is presented in the report is to ‘make the gypsies to leave the country’, i.e. deportation, which illustrates a parallel to the interventions proposed in the 2010s, in response to the problem of ‘vulnerable EU citizens’. Today, the problem of poor people’s mobility is seen as a responsibility for the ‘home countries’ to deal with, while the responsibility of Sweden is to provide return trips, i.e. a more subtle, yet exclusive will to deportation.

However, when it comes to ‘the travelers’, the report suggests other interventions as possible in order to ‘establish them in the societal order’ (86), such as sterilization and internment.

For one individual or another, who committed severe crimes or is mentally deranged etc. With scientific and judicial assistance, it might be possible to think about rendering the individual harmless in one way or another to prevent him or her from bringing new individuals into the world (sterilization), or through internment for life. Such individuals might be found in relatively large numbers among the travelers, and to the extent intervention in those forms might be carried out, it will facilitate the solution of the traveler issue. (86)

As in the 2010s as well as in the 1950s, the family is here described as of great importance. In line with a broader eugenic rationality, the family is described as part of the problem as well as the solution. As for ‘the travelers’, the problems of ‘vagrancy’ and deviant behaviour will be pervasive, as these will be passed over from generation from generation. However, in the report, it is suggested that, in time, the problem defined as ‘the traveler issue’ will disappear, as interventions such as sterilization and internment will prevent the people posing a threat to society, not least by ‘bringing new individuals into the world’.

In summary, in 1920, we can see that the mobile poor people were categorized as ‘gypsies’ and ‘travelers’, primarily defined on the basis of race. In this context, the mobility of poor people was construed as an inner threat to the societal unity, not least in the form of the racial purity of the people. In line with such problematization, interventions with a focus on sterilization, internment, and deportation of those categorized as posing a threat to the order of society were proposed.

Concluding discussion

In this article, we have made a genealogical inquiry, focusing on how the mobility of poor people is described as a social problem in three different periods – the 2010s, the 1950s and the 1920s. Specifically, we have analysed descriptions made in three Public Government Reports, one from each period. When analysing the present in the light of history, starting in the 2010s, we can see that the mobility of poor people is a recurring social problem, although conceptualized in different ways, where the main responsibility for the problem in question is put on the mobile people themselves, or on their suggested ‘home countries’. In each period, different categories are described as problematic in terms of their mobility and poverty. In the 2010s, these people are categorized as ‘vulnerable EU citizens’, in the 1950s as ‘gypsies’, and in the 1920s as ‘gypsies’ and ‘travelers’.

Each category is further attributed to specific values and characteristics. In the 2010s, the ‘vulnerable EU citizens’ are defined on the basis of ethnicity (labelled Roma) and lack of Swedish citizenship (in a juridical sense citizens of another member state in the EU). In the 1950s, the ‘gypsies’ are defined on the basis of their cultural belonging (i.e. their suggested ‘deviant ways of life’). In the 1920s, ‘gypsies’ as well as ‘travelers’ are defined on the basis of race. In the analysis, we have shown how in all periods, the respective categories of problematic mobile and poor people are characterized by their suggested ‘vagrant way of life’, which in turn is argued to cause both sickness and lack of hygiene. And in the 2010s and 1920s, such ‘way of life’ is further associated with criminality and lack of work ethic. According to such characterization, these categories are portrayed as both different and outside, in relation to the rest of the population and to the rest of society, appearing as a norm.

In whatever form it appears in these three periods, the mobility of poor people is continuously characterized as causing problems in society. However, these problems are defined in various ways in each period and, accordingly, different interventions are proposed, ranging from including and assimilative to excluding and disciplinary. In the 1920s, mobility was construed as an inner threat to the societal unity, not least in the form of the racial purity of the people. However, there is a parallel between such conception in the 1920s and to how ‘the gypsy problem’ was conceptualized in the 1950s, i.e. as a problem for the welfare state and as a responsibility for the Swedish national welfare state to manage.

At the same time, the problem was represented in different ways in the 1920s and the 1950s. The interventions proposed and legitimized by the eugenic ‘regime of truth’ prevalent in the 1920s, mainly focused on forced sterilization, internment, or deportation of those categorized as inferior and posing a threat to the racial and social order of society. In contrast to the racially motivated repressive and disciplinary interventions of the 1920s, the interventions promoted in the 1950s were assimilationist rather than disciplinary, with a focus on including the ‘gypsies’ in the community of the welfare state. While the term ‘population material’ used in 1950 did not explicitly refer to race, as in the report of the 1920s, we can see that there are similarities to ideas concerning the ‘weakening of the people’s race’ in the 1920s. Between these two reports, the Nazi regime and its racially driven terror before and during the second world war had made the usage of explicitly racial terminology highly questioned, not least in Sweden (cf. Svanberg and Tydén 1992; Goldberg 2009). These developments provide a context for understanding continuities as well as shifts in the ways of characterizing the problem of the mobility of poor people in the reports analysed.

Unlike in both the 1920s and 1950s, the mobility of poor people in the 2010s is primarily defined as a problem in economic terms, coming from the outside. In the 2010s, the ‘vulnerable EU citizens’ are characterized as not contributing to the economy by productive work, and as not belonging to the national community. This means that the mobile poor is still seen as a problem for the national welfare state. But the problem in the 2010s is seen as coming from somewhere else and therefore the responsibility for this problem is located outside of Sweden, in the ‘home countries’ of the ‘vulnerable EU citizens’. Based on such conception of the problem, other interventions are made possible, with a strong focus on repatriation for those who do not contribute to the economy and welfare in Sweden by productive work, thus excluding the mobile poor from the nation-state and its community.

Between the different periods, there are both continuities and changes regarding the relations between the nation-state and the welfare state. In the 1920s and 1950s, the mobility of poor people was primarily seen as a problem for the national welfare state in Sweden. However, in the 2010s, the mobility of poor people is not seen as a concern for the national welfare state alone. Within the EU, the mobility of poor people becomes part of a wider policy context of the European Union, where certain categories are conceptualized as worthy of social support, while others are not, and thus excluded. It is no longer ‘the gypsies’ and ‘the travelers’ who are categorized as problematic due to their mobility and poverty, but rather the ‘vulnerable EU citizens’. At the same time, there is a historical continuity in the continuous categorization of mobile poor people as a threat to society, meaning that in present conceptions of ‘vulnerable EU citizens’, notions from the past are re-articulated, although in new forms.

Even though different categories are seen as problematic in different periods, attributed differently, the representation of poor people’s mobility as a problem seems more or less intact. In a way, it seems as every community needs its Others, located either inside or outside of the borders demarcating the community (Balibar 2004). In the past, ‘gypsies’ and ‘travelers’ were characterized as internal threats to the social order of the Swedish national community. In a similar way, ‘vulnerable EU citizens’ appear as an inner threat of a contemporary European community (De Genova 2016). Thus, we may see a clash between a ‘national order of things’ (cf. Malkki 1997) regarding mobility and welfare, and an emerging supranational order. However, in different ways, in different times, for different communities, such Others constitute a threat, against purity, order and community (Hall 1997; Sibley 1997).

The construction of the other makes the rest of society appear as a norm, as a community of insiders characterized by purity, homogeneity and safety (Tesfahuney 2001), embodying responsibility, idleness and obedience, all virtues that are part of a seemingly obvious truth concerning citizenship in the present, not least in social work policies and practices (Lauri 2019). Social work interventions are formed in accord with conceptions of desirable and undesirable conduct, in terms of us and them (Härnbro 2019). Such production of hierarchical dichotomies between us and them, insiders and outsiders seem to be quite stable over time. Even though the Others may have changed name and shape, the pattern seems more or less intact. However, the question is how the boundaries between ‘us’ and ‘them’ are to be drawn, who are to be categorized as part of the community, who are to be excluded as outsiders, and who are drawing the boundaries of the community. This problem is not at all given, particularly not in a present era of international migration, where the boundaries between inside and outside are constantly challenged and where, basically, everyone is an outsider.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare under Grant number 2017-01859.