Conclusion

Based on the range of research gathered, both secondary, primary and through ethnographic methods, a number of assertions can be made. First, it would appear that there are far greater numbers of nomadic communities living across the UK than most people would imagine. Secondly, the tendency to draw stereotypical connotations from the term ‘gypsy’ or ‘traveller’ without understanding the various and diverse distinctions that exist within each group of people maintaining a transient existence has led to a negative persona. A direct result of these associations ha been to force much of the traveling community into maintaining a quieter more secluded lifestyle.

The media’s portrayal of gypsies as untrustworthy and ‘responsible for spreading misery,’ whilst accurate in certain examples, fails to recognize the wider context involved in such accusations. The public’s response to this kind of subjective journalism is all too often unquestioning, establishing cynical impressions or reinforcing the prejudice created by the media. The result is that rather than basing their assumptions on firsthand experience and objective truths the tendency to condemn a whole part of our society under such umbrella terms become the predominant force that shapes our collective understanding. This representation is ill informed and largely untrue. The perpetual cycle created by the media, in order to insight emotion and ultimately create profit through its dramatisation of events, has a direct effect on the way in which travelers view mainstream society. The public face of travellers is rarely drawn from their own perspective; rather, it is their response to this negative media portrayal which further alienates them from society. Therefore without the means to expresses themselves audibly against a corporate media they retire further from sight, and aim to maintain an existence without public intrusion. Under the radar of judgment they live moving from place to place. There is a sort of unspoken contract in place concerning travelers; so long as they so not disrupt the space in which they dwell, they are permitted yet ignored. This was a fundamental problem concerning this research. The trepidation towards any unknown person, based on the history of media relations, made gaining access to individuals very difficult.

In addition to the detached position they hold in society the ideology of nomadic people is also widely considered to be substantially different to that of mainstream society. Abstention from permanent dwellings is signified as a rejection of the structure of society. As the home is the basis for all bureaucratic communication with the state, without a permanent address a person quickly becomes detached from many common aspects of our society. The capitalist democracy in which we provide labour in return for security and public services. We are expected to conform, to get on the property ladder, to drive the economy. In return for our contribution we have the right to vote on who makes the decisions and how our collective earnings are spent. It is the traveller however, who without being integrated into this system, is considered to be outside society. This supposition that through choosing to live ‘outside the system’ nomadic communities have rejected the ideology of the state. This has lead many to consider them hypocritical in that they will benefit from the public services such as the road system and the welfare state but will not contribute towards it. In order to gain significant insight into the weight of this argument more widespread research would be needed. This research does however provide evidence supporting the inclusion of travellers into society through such overt examples as paying council and road tax. It should also be added that without benefiting the state in one way or another holding any real existence is near impossible; we are all reliant on the economy in order to survive, the homeless don’t beg for food, they beg for change. Of course the notion that nomadic communities are self concerned and not part of our society is another result of the tabloid media and as such is largely speculative. It does however merit further research.

Through the ethnographic element of this research, I greater level of insight was gained than was possible through quantitative research. One of the most interesting observations was that being nomadic was as much as state of mind than a physical state of living. There is nothing revolutionary about taking up a life on the road and rarely ever is this inspired by political disaffection. The reality is that many people consider the notion of nomadic lifestyle and the reality as separate entities. The notion of ‘getting away from it all’ is often romanticised and this view of simple living, ‘organic’ and ‘of the land’ has spawned a trend in tourism. In fact the idea of taking a caravan to a remote part of the country or spending a week or so in a tent is one that has existed for years, recent fashion in tourism has seen the introduction of yurts and tree houses, yet the concepts of escapism and freedom remain the same. The difference between each and the reason why one is widely except and the other condemned is because of the timescale. It is acceptable to take a holiday and camp out in a forest for a couple of weeks yet to become permanently nomadic is not. The ideology behind each however is largely the same. Therefore it is not the mentality that is misunderstood but the people themselves. The fact that most nomadic people in the UK, and across the world, are born into this lifestyle as opposed to choosing it by choice is often forgotten. Irish travellers hold strong traditions and values and are in many ways less liberal than the average man.

Through my own reflective thought I have concluded that although I spend most of my time in and around the same space. My nature is far more nomadic. I would rather travel continuously across the world than become settled in one part of it. When I am exploring new places I feel truly alive. You are never lost within familiar elements, you may wander for miles into new and unknown territories yet the sight of the sunset over the land or the dew on the grass in the morning is all that is needed to know that all is well and that you are comfortable in your surroundings. This, I believe is the basis for the ideology behind nomadism. It is not a rejection of society, far from it, it is the ability to wander from place to place and explore each surrounding, to maintain this existence not through opposition to society but simply within it. The vast majority may accept the mythical romantic notion of this lifestyle yet due to an imagined difference of ideologies condemn it. This is in part the fault of the media and on both sides the desire to remain secular. With the future asking for more sustainable living and the trend towards economic lifestyles and greener living, it could be said that these misunderstood groups and the rest of ‘mainstream society’ will become closer together and that the perceived ideas about nomadic communities are two general in their claims and all too often no longer true.