In this chapter the authors examine whether the powerful who make policy can actually share that power with those within Roma communities who are seeking social advancement and justice, and what kind of changes within government, Roma civil society and communities and the academic establishment would be necessary. This requires a strong theory of how inequality works. There are many dimensions of inequality, like ethnicity, class, age, ability and disability, and gender, which make us see other people as different from ourselves. Older theories of inequality used to concentrate on single dimensions, but after the impact of feminist standpoint theory, as discussed in the previous two chapters, contemporary sociologists have tended to merge the older conceptual clusters that emerged in the second half of the 20th century, such as ‘race relations’, ‘(multi-)cultural studies’, women's studies, disability studies, Black studies (and Romani studies), disaporic studies, hybridity, poverty and the revival of class into a powerful tool of ‘intersectional analysis’ that can combine reflection, research, deliberation, activism and civil society as core components in the achievement of social justice. This intellectual development has been mirrored politically by the emergence of general anti-discrimination laws at national and European level, replacing separate laws against racism, sexism, disablism and ageism.

Some anti-racists (including the late Charles Smith) have been concerned that this development might undermine the specific struggle about racism, and some Roma activists continue to draw on a critical race theory (Hylton, 2012), which emphasises the importance of action against inequality that is constantly aware of the anti-racist dimension of all the struggles. The debate around the Roma and empowerment has been given impetus by a growing number of Roma scholars and activists who are critical of the structures and practices that have marginalised them in academia and the non-governmental organisations (NGOs) sector. Could this critique establish a dialogue with power to bring about transformative change?

Chapter One pointed out that such a dialogue was envisaged a quarter of a century ago by Habermas (1984, p 95), and renewed in his recent (2010) journalism, to suggest that a more deliberative democracy can deliver a renewed civil society through communicative action and new social movements, creating consensus and mutual understanding to sustain more egalitarian economic and social models.