'You What?': Chavs vs Gypsies and Viewer Address in My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding

My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding touches upon sensitive issues of class representations in Britain, particularly in terms of marginalized cultural groups – in this case, the ‘travelers’/‘gypsies’/‘caravan people’ of Great Britain. Importantly, while Imogen Tyler’s article on chavs provides relevant and useful background information and analysis on the prevalence of ‘chavs’ and the social phenomenon with critiquing their habits, it is vital to note that ‘chavs’ and ‘gypsies’ are not necessarily equivalent or inter-changeable within British culture. While both can share certain similarities – namely in terms of the language these groups use and their preference for excessive or ‘trashy’ fashions (which, as Tyler rightly notes, is deeply tied to larger consumerist impulses), ‘chavs’ are more strictly denominated by class and educational aspects, whilst ‘gypsies’ retain specific cultural traditions and practices that set them apart from others.

My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding situates these marked differences by opening the program with an introduction that makes evident how the gypsy culture works to separate itself from the mainstream. Subjects of various interviews note how the group tends to ‘keep to themselves’, while a voiceover narration promises to deliver unprecedented access to one of the United Kingdom’s most elusive cultural groups. Indeed, this tone is maintained throughout the program, ensuring that viewers are addressed as curious outsiders looking to gain insight into this unique and isolated facet of the population whose lives are not normally on display in this manner. There is something deeply problematic about this address, which works to highlight differences and emphasize the oddities of the gypsy’s customs, not unlike ethnographic studies or documentaries that explore cultural groups deemed wildly unusual or separate from the general population.

In this vein, rather than striving to understand the gypsies and their customs, the program instead works to sensationalize their traditions and implicitly comment upon the regressive nature of their gender politics. Instead of pursuing the history or cultural reasoning behind their lavish ceremonies or rather misogynistic courting rituals, the program emphasizes the shocking or atypical aspects of these events; viewer attention is drawn to the disturbing male aggressiveness displayed in ‘grabbing’ and the exaggerated formal wear set aside for special occasions. While the narration does refrain from giving explicitly judgmental remarks, it is evident from the selective editing that their practices are frowned upon and perceived as retrograde. This is valid to some extent, as the gender roles deemed appropriate in the gypsy community do appear to rely heavily on conservative ideas whereby the man’s duty is to provide for his family while the woman should look after the domestic sphere and the children.

Even so, it is important to again note that ‘gypsy’ and ‘chav’ are not interchangeable terms; while Tyler notes that much of the fascination with chav culture revolves around teenage pregnancy and the sexually promiscuous female, gypsies are engaged in a contradictory culture that promotes sexual abstinence before marriage yet encourages girls to dress and dance provocatively in an effort to impress the opposite sex. Nevertheless, though gypsies may marry and rear children at a fairly early stage of their adult lives, any children out of wedlock would ensure their expulsion from the community, which again distinguishes them from ‘chavs’. Ultimately, it pays to be cautious with these terms and the cultural and class generalizations that are inevitably attached to them when describing different social groups. As My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding demonstrates to some extent, the gypsy’s exclusivity and specialized customs are easily misunderstood and over-simplified, particularly in terms of a framework of sensationalistic reality television.