Animals and symbolic boundaries.(The Gypsies, the Rom: A Culture at the Borders)

Publication: Papers on Language & Literature

Publication Date: 22-JUN-05

Bookmark this article Print this article Link to this article Email this article Digg It! Add to del.icio.us RSS

COPYRIGHT 2005 Southern Illinois University

TRANSLATED FROM THE ITALIAN BY JAMES HILL from The Gypsies, the Rom: A Culture at the Borders

The gypsies are constantly pushed to assimilate into the dominant society, which imposes on them its rules and its patterns. They need to reconcile the need to modify themselves under the pressure coming from the surrounding society with the need to conserve intact their underlying identity. The Rom are a tiny population dispersed in the middle of another population hostile to them, infinitely stronger, on whom they depend for food, housing, and well-being. The gypsies must move among the non-gypsies everyday, often camouflaging their true identity, adapting themselves to the expectations of the non-gypsies in ways that contrast with their own integrity and that could, in the end, degrade and change their cultural identity. A mode of defense is necessary, an invisible cultural shield, behind which they can move in the midst of the non-gypsies with security, without being damaged. Judith Okely has demonstrated that the habits, the beliefs, and the customs of the English gypsies, in particular in regard to cleanliness, constitutes in reality a coherent system of symbolic borders to separate themselves ideologically from the non-gypsies. For the most part, this deals with customs regarding daily tasks such as the preparation of food, cleanliness, the allocation of space, customs which, if respected, guarantee the integrity of the gypsies in the midst of the alien culture. The customs and beliefs of the gypsies cannot be explained either in terms of archaic residues of an Indian past, nor as superstitions due to illiteracy, or other reasons that do not consider the surroundings into which they are inserted. Apparently habits disjointed and without meaning hide a logical system expressed in symbolic terms, capable of mediating between the gypsies and the external world. An ideology of separation expresses itself in numerous modes, powerful and invisible, thanks to which the gypsies continue to be Rom in the midst of the non-gypsies. One of these modes concerns the rapport among men, flesh, and animals.

Among the Rom there is a curse, unique in its power to control the behavior of others and for the seriousness in the reactions it causes. "Te has tre mule" (literally, "Eat your dead") are words that, as a Rom has said, "are worth your life." In order not to hear this insult, that would constrain one to revenge oneself in order to escape the vendetta of the dead, a Rom is disposed to leave the area and to face whatever sacrifices. If the curse has been pronounced when there has been a recent death, speaking the name of the dead, these words are literally worth the life of him who has spoken them. The relative of the offended deceased has no other choice; he fears the wrath of the deceased more than the consequences of his own act. Up to now in Italy there are Rom in jails accused of attempted murder because of the consequences of an offense to the dead. Naturally, through trials, lawyers, judges and tribunals that seek to disentangle a tangle of improbable lies and inexplicable complicity and reticence, no one suspects the truth. On the other hand, in these cases, only a few people come to know what has really happened. The Rom whose relative has been thus offended keeps the affair to himself, even if he has to go to jail. To reveal the offense would mean dragging his family into an obligatory vendetta.

There is, moreover, a very severe taboo that forbids the killing and consumption of whatever domestic animal, which may absolutely never be eaten, even if it had been killed accidentally. This taboo doesn't have to do with the consumption of meat in general, but only the flesh of domestic animals. It is the closeness between man and animal that creates the condition for the taboo. Why don't gypsies eat chickens and swine killed in the field?

You don't have the heart to eat it. If they eat it, they will die of evil ... but it doesn't sit with the stomach, it is upset when it sees your chickens. You don't eat them. If you eat them, then you die of ... you can't. You'll vomit it all. The gypsies don't eat them; no one, ever. Not even if it is a swine, a swine. A swine that is ours, we don't eat. Truly once I took a swine of 100 kilograms. After I carried it home, truly, I made a deal with a non-gypsy; he gave 200,000 lire for that grand, lovely swine. The gypsies don't eat them. (1)

Behind this taboo, as is evident from the text quoted here, is the fear that the eating of one's animal would stand as a death penalty. The rationalization for this custom is from the suffering of one's animals, that is, exactly the same justification for the destruction of property on the occasion of the death of a relative. Just as the sorrow for the deceased person prevents the Rom from being able to see the things and places associated with the deceased, and demands this destruction on the leaving of them, so the sorrow for the death of one's hens prevents one from eating them. Thus one's animals are equal to one's relatives, and in both cases the punishment for the violation of the taboo is death. In the case of the death of a relative, not to show the appropriate grief, with the destruction of everything used or touched by the deceased, could push the dead to be offended and to revenge himself, while if a Rom has to eat his own animal, "the stomach would be offended," and as a consequence, the Rom would die, even if the actual causes are not very clear. What is the relationship between this taboo and the most terrible of curses, "eat your own dead"? The Rom are habitually surrounded by many animals, such as horses, a few goats, geese, chickens, pigs, rabbits, little birds, hamsters, Guinea pigs, and dogs, a custom the Kalderash gypsies consider "dirty." There is no use of the animals except for the eating of hens' eggs, a prized food. Furthermore, the Rom capture wild animals, such as little birds and squirrels, which are prized, as the Rom say, "for beauty" (pu susipe). Strange animals, miniature dogs or horses, are particularly prized and often bought at high prices. The mode of understanding the rapport with animals resembles the mode of understanding the relationship with relatives. Mourning in some cases is extended to horses, (2) and I have heard of a vendetta proposed confronting a strange dog that has violated a little bitch. Between the taboo of "eating the dead" and that of eating domestic animals, the analogy between relatives and animals is clear.

ANIMAL CATEGORIES

Besides the domestic animals, some other animals are not edible because of their nature. Animals can be divided into edible and non-edible (gadno: impure, contaminated) and among those that are edible there are clean and dirty animals:

Animals that may be eaten: Clean: Dirty: wild animals chickens horses pigs rabbits goats sheep Animals that may not be eaten: dogs lizards cats frogs domestic animals snakes

The edible category has a cultural significance only if one deals with discrimination--that is, if besides specific persons who don't eat certain animals, there are specific persons who do eat them. As we shall see, this is exactly the case with animals considered inedible.

Some animals are invested with a particular symbolic meaning. The value attributed to certain animals allows them to represent the relationship between gypsies and non-gypsies, and to express definitions that are necessary in distinguishing between the Rom and the non-gypsies. Gypsies are forced to frequent non-gypsies and to have relationships with them on various levels. The economy of the Rom rests with the non-gypsies, and, besides certain bonds of friendship with certain non-gypsies, it is essential for assuring their protection, and to have the documents and permits necessary (what Piasere calls the non-gypsy capital). (3) The common intercourse with non-gypsies might produce alliances (and also dependency) that are economic and familial if they...

Read the full article for free courtesy of your local library.