THE BASKET THEORY AND THE DEFENSE OF PLURAL WORLDS

Abstract

The notion of “lumping everything together” fosters a worldview that 
precludes plurality. Although various theoretical fields have 
problematized the limits of universal categories and the processes of 
invisibilization resulting from broad classifications, approaches that 
articulate this critique based on Romani experience and thought remain 
scarce. It is from this standpoint that the present work is situated. 

“Basket Theory” (Teoria do Balaio)—formulated through internal 
dialogues within AMSK/Brazil and experiences gained in political 
advocacy and the defense of Romani rights—was identified as a 
mechanism of homogenization. By gathering distinct peoples under a 
single category, it erases fundamental differences, dilutes collective 
identities, and undermines the possibility of effective listening. Yet, we 
must go further: this is not merely a classificatory practice, but a logic 
that structures how we think about, manage, and interact with collective 
subjects. 

Basket Theory refers to the process by which broad, seemingly inclusive 
institutional categories group distinct collective subjects under 
homogeneous frameworks. This produces forms of recognition that can 
obscure historical, cultural, linguistic, and political specificities, thereby 
compromising self-determination and the effectiveness of public policies. 

By placing different peoples, trajectories, and experiences under the same 
“umbrella,” the basket does not simply simplify matters; it reorders 
reality from an external perspective, transforming subjects into 
manageable categories. This operation creates an appearance of equity—
as if everyone shared the same conditions, needs, and challenges—when,in fact, they are situated within deeply unequal histories and shaped by 
distinct markers of belonging, exclusion, and resistance. 

In this sense, the basket is not neutral; it acts as a mechanism that—by 
failing to recognize, or by deliberately ignoring, historical, ethnic, 
cultural, social, and political differences—produces invisibilization, 
silences specific voices, weakens distinct claims, and hinders the 
formulation of public responses that are truly just. It is precisely at this 
point that the critique needs to be sharpened: the problem with this 
catch-all approach lies not merely in the fact of “lumping everything 
together,” but in denying the existence of plural subjects. 

Contrary to the logic of diversity as mere aggregation, individuals do not 
constitute interchangeable parts of a homogeneous whole; rather, they 
are shaped by relationships, territories, cultures, and histories that 
cannot be reduced to broad, undifferentiated categories. 

Thus, drawing on Romani thought, this work asserts plurality as an 
ethical and political principle. Recognizing plural individuals does not 
mean expanding lists or adding new names to existing categories, but 
rather shifting the very way we understand the social realm: moving from 
a logic of aggregation to a logic of relationship, wherein differences are 
not obstacles but fundamental conditions for constructing truly equitable 
responses—an indispensable condition to ensure that the notion of 
diversity does not function as a form of erasure, especially regarding 
Romani peoples, and to affirm what is proposed here as "plural worlds," 
understood as ethical, political, and epistemological spaces of existence, 
listening, and recognition.