Ethnic Culture and Culture of Poverty: The Gypsy/roma

Peter Szuhay asked in “Constructing a Gypsy National Culture” whether the Gypsies are an ethnic culture or a culture of poverty. I would like to argue that the Gypsy identity is a product of traditional ethnic culture as well as the product of a marginalized social stratum. There are many aspects of gypsy ethnic culture to which can be contributed to the result of marginalization and sometimes those same ethnic cultural traits become stereotypes to which society justifies their stigmatization and poverty. Thus emerges a pattern of both ethnic and social traits being interdependent, intertwined and self-perpetuated.

The intersection of the two conflicting cultures can be seen in the following statement made by many and is commonly heard.

“I have a good friend who is a Gypsy, but he doesn’t really count.”

“I’m not a raciest, I just hate Gypsies, but I have many Gypsy friends.”

Within these two statements we can clearly see two distinct types of Gypsies. First is the socially rejected “Gypsies” who are disliked because they are viewed as lazy, poor, and feeds on social welfare, a widespread believe and stereotype held by European society for generations. The other is the accepted “Gypsy” friend whom we can assume is of middle or higher class, assimilated and integrated into the immediate general society thus they “don’t really count.” Yet we see in both statements that both use the same word to label two seemingly very different groups of people. This leads to the question, what commonality do they share that led to them being labeled a “Gypsy” even though they have obviously assimilated into society? There must be some type of ethnic culture that defined them beyond the culture of poverty.

Language, one of the most obvious trademarks of an ethnic culture, must be why an assimilated family of Romas is still “Gypsies.” But according to Istavan Kemeny, in 1993 89.5% Roma speak Magyar as their native language in Hungary. However there are still many towns and cities where large Roma communities speak one form or another of Romani. While the society at large refuses to provide basic social services in Romani the Gypsies are often deterred from getting the services they need such as from doctors, lawyers, welfare officers, and most important of all, schools (Kemeny 113). Often Romany families who are poor will avoid the schools, and if they do send the children to school they have trouble going regularly as well as being socially accepted by the teacher and his classmates. (Sigler 7) A majority of these children are not able to advance further in their education because they fail to neither pass biased exams nor be fluent enough in the language of the state. Thus they are either held back or send to a special school and later end up at a trade school. In this case, the distinct language that distinguishes their ethnic culture also serves as a handicap to the children, perpetuating their social immobility and continues to stigmatize into a culture of poverty.

In Miriam Lee Kaprow’s study of the Gitanos in Spain she found that the only cultural characteristic to which she can distinguish a Gypsy from a local is through something she call the “essence of the Gypsy.” This essence is their “flair” and the “sheer energy with which they embarked on everything.” (Willems 5) Agnes Daroczi describes the Gypsies’ “knack for living from day to day” and value of “feeling good” is the same characterization for an ideal ethnic cultural trait that is unique and shared among the diverse Gypsy communities all across Europe (Szuhay 116). However, the same trait can also be used to describe and explain the Gypsies as a culture of poverty. As Daroczi also points out, historically the Gypsies in general have been denied the opportunities to amass wealth thus the “knack for living day to day” becomes a necessity to an impoverish community. In addition, depend on the syntax of such a cultural trait can attach bipolar means to the same trait. The phrase “living day to day” has a negative connotation because it implies they are unwilling, or too lazy to plan ahead, to settle down, and to be secure. While on the other hand the as Istvan Kemeny puts it, “making the most of a moment of joy” (Szuhay 112) carries a positive attitude that encourages romanticizing and emulating as Daroczi did in here characterization of the Gitanos. Thus the circle is complete, because through centuries of victimization their attitude towards life have evolved into a positive and unique ethnic cultural trait, yet this same trait can be used to justify their social outcast.

In Szuhay’s article, he argues that Gypsy music and dance as the strongest forces for integration of the diverse