'3

>.‘ 1
p. .
5- .
z: ..
.,_ -
1-. .
e"
._, .
.'3‘_-

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF
LATIN AMERICAN COM PADRAZGO

Thesis for the Degree of M. A.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
LUIS BERRUECOS
1972

 

 

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

193 00994 0978 LIBRARY

Michigan State
University

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ABSTRACT

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF LATIN-
AMERICAN COMPADRAZGO

BY

Luis Berruecos

The growing interest in anthropological literature
on the institution of compadrazgo in Latin America is
analyzed cross-culturally in this work.

Some reference is made about the historical ante-
cedents of compadrazgo in Europe and its incorporation into
Latin-American societies. A description of its general
features is also provided.

The compadrazgo, a Spanish word used to refer to
the particular set of relationships established between
people in some Catholic and secular situations, is analyzed
in its structure and function. The principles of intensi-
fication versus extension, the vertical versus horizontal
relations, the selection criteria for choosing sponsors,
the comparison of compadrazgo with social institutions of
similar kind and some general theoretical problems are

described.

Luis Berruecos

Later on, a comparative analysis of the structure
and function of compadrazgo in some Mexican-American
communities in the United States and in Latin American
countries as well, provides a framework for the elaboration
of some propositions concerning the functioning of this
social mechanism.

The institution is analyzed in the light of three
different societal types: Indian, Peasant, and Urban.

Some propositions are set forth with the idea of explaining
what kinds of bonds the analyst may expect to find in these
societies, given certain general principles.

Finally, some suggestions are made for future

research on this subject.

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF LATIN-

AMERICAN COMPADRAZGO

BY

Luis Berruecos

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Anthropology

1972

En agradecimiento postumo y a la
memoria de quien, con profundo
interés y amistad, me alenté siem-
pre a estudiar el compadrazgo en
México, mi Maestro, el Ingeniero
Roberto Julius Weitlaner (1883-1968).

ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

In writing the present essay, I have received
numerous suggestions and criticisms, and I am particularly
indebted to Professor Fernando Camara who originally helped
me intellectually in choosing the present topic and with
Drs. Joseph Spielberg, Scott Cook, Leonard Kasdan, Stanley
Brandes, Iwao Ishino, and Bernard Gallin, who always, very
patiently, devoted many hours to the revision of my written
thoughts in my manuscripts: to all of them, my sincere
thanks.

Jacob Climo, Deanna White, Ivan Breton, Linda
Watkins, Osmond Dean, Sang-Bok Han, Salvador Herrera,

Sonia Ruiz, and Tom and Carol Thompson have commented on,
and constructively criticized, various drafts of this work.

I am greatly indebted to Susana and Martha for

their patience, encouragement, understanding, and love.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . .

Selection of Cases . . . .
Problem Areas . . . . . .

II. COMPADRAZGO . . . . . . .

Historical Antecedents . . .
General Features . . . . .

III. COMPADRAZGO IN MEXICO AND LATIN AMERICA .

Kinship and Compadrazgo. . .

Compadrazgo, Classes and Community

Integration . . . . . .
Compadrazgo and General Social

IV. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . .

Theoretical Problems. . . .

Comparative Analysis. . . .
BIBLIOGRAPHY O O O O O O O O O
APPENDICES

Appendix
A. Code of Cases Studied . . .

B. Tables . . . . . . .

iv

Patterns

Page

14

16

18
31

35

35
43

54

69

71

LIST OF TABLES

Summary of Variables and Functions . . .
Selection Criteria . . . . . . . .

Presence of Secular Bonds of Compadrazgo
in Three Societal Types . . . . . .

Distribution of Secular Types of Compadrazgo
in Latin America . . . . . . . .

Page
71

72

73

74

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

In anthropological literature concerning Latin
America, a good deal of attention and comment has been
devoted to the complex of relationships known as 9237
padrazgo. This Spanish term refers to the particular set
of relationships established between people not only
through the life cycle rituals of the Catholic Church (such
as Baptism, Confirmation, First Communion or Eucharist,
Marriage, and Extreme Unction) but also in other non-
catholic secular situations, such as witnessing the
blessing of an animal, a house, or a new tractor. These
are usually relationships established between the owner of
the object being blessed and the sponsor(s) of the event.
The object is used as a pretext to establish (or cement)
the relationship.

Compadrazgo relationships are established between
the parents of a child (the one towards whom the ritual is
directed, referred to in Spanish as ahijado or ahijada by

the sponsor or sponsors) and the sponsor(s) of the ceremony

(referred to as padrinos: padrino if a man and madrina if

1
a woman).

PARENESé--—~-9(compadres)( ------- )PADRINOS

I

\
I
‘ f

‘ 9AHIJAD0 (a)E J

The use of the word "ritual" indicates that
religious ritual or ceremonial activities can be used in
the creation of these non-consanguineal (biological or
genetic) and/or non-affinal ties. Not all societies where
this institution exists place as much emphasis on the ritual
aspects of the relationships. In some cultures, the
ceremonies associated with the establishment of the new
bond take a very complex and sophisticated form, whereas
in others the ritual involved is very simple. It has been
mentioned that the compadrazgo relationship--not the
padrinazgo relationship between the sponsors and the child
--remains (contrary to Church dogma) the central one in the
triangle of compadrazgo. From an emic perspective, these
compadrazgo relationships or bonds are often more important

than the biological ties of kinship in western society.

 

1These relationships are also referred to as:
ritual co-parenthood, ritual co-godparenthood, ritual co-
godfatherhood, ritual co-godparentship, ritual godparent-
ship, ritual kinship, fictive kinship, ceremonial kinship,
godparental complex, compadre mechanism, godparentalism,
or, simply, all of the above without the preceding words
"ritual" or "fictive."

It should be recognized that the compadrazgo pattern
is referred to by different terms in different areas of the
world where this institution exists. For example, it is
known as Compadresco or Compadrio in Brazil, Compérage in
France, Comparaggio in Italy, Kum in Russia, Kumtsvo in
Yugoslavia, and Koumbari in Greece.

Some researchers view compadre bonds as only one
of a set of three components existing in the general
institution of ritual co-sponsorship (parents-child,
parents-sponsors, sponsor(s)-child). Thus, they distinguish
and give emphasis to the relationship between the god-
father and the godchild (padrinazgo) as well as the
relationship between godfather and the parents of the god-
child (compadrazgo). Compadrinazgo, then, is the term used
to denote the whole set of involved relationships.

(However, social significance is found in the compadrazgo,
while religious significance is found primarily in the
padrinazgo.)

On certain occasions compadre bonds are established
with kinsmen (consanguineal or affinal), thus adding
another dimension to an already existing tie or bond.

Since it is our belief that this system of relation-
ships reflects some very important aspects of the social
organization of the societies in which it is found, a brief
comparison of its forms along certain general social

dimensions (ethnicity, rural-urban, class, etc.) may yield

some questions concerning the variability of this type of
social bond.

Included in the following chapters will be a
general account of the historical antecedents of the
institution and a more detailed description of its general
features. The latter will include information concerning
the nature of the system of relationships, their purpose,
the requirements needed for the sponsors and the ritual,
obligations and expectations of the three parties involved
in the relationships. Subsequent chapters will include
analysis of the institution in Mexico and Latin America,
consideration of some theoretical problems posed by the
students of this social phenomena, and the author's

comparisons and conclusions regarding the institution.

Selection of Cases

 

Originally, the area of Mexico was selected for
research, and special areas within it were carefully chosen
according to different socio-economic settings to see if
there was any variation in the patterns of compadrazgo.

As the research developed, more and more references were
found, and it was decided to extend the investigation to
Latin America since two common denominators appear through-
out the area: Roman Catholicism and the Spanish language.
References were grouped according to a number of variables,
such as kind of group (Indian, Peasant, and Urban),

country, socio-economic type of setting, etc. The

references used were also grouped according to topic,
geographical and socio-economic settings, theoretical and

methodological articles dealing with compadrazgo.

Problem Areas

 

Some of the many aspects that should be discussed
in the process of this investigation are the selection
criteria, i.e., the ways in which people choose their
compadres; the typology of compadrazgo patterns (sacred vs.
secular types); ceremonies and ritual involved; purpose;
requirements; obligations and expectations of the parties
involved; qualities that are sought in the candidates for
the relationships; the elaboration vs. attenuation of the
relationships; variation in compadrazgo patterns as
adaptation to modern situations take place (including a
taxonomy of variations related to ecological factors and
some hypotheses postulated for each taxa in relation to
particular socio-economic settings); and how compadrazgo
relationships differ from other dyadic relationships, e.g.,
social, economic, patron-client, etc. Some other overt
implications and kinship vs. non-kinship considerations
will also be analyzed.

Taking into account the idea that the societies to
be studied are in a Kroeberian way, "part-societies, part-
cultures," there will be an analysis of how the units of
the societies (be they barrios, communities, or classes)

take an institution and modify it; there will be systematic

comparisons between classes and groups or strata and a test
of this against other areas of Latin America.

A comparison of compadrazgo bonds established
between members of Indian societies and peOple from non-
Indian communities will be considered, as well as the
number of compadres and the situations that influence the
establishment of the bonds and the situations that are
present in traditional or Indian societies and urban places
as differentiated from Intermediary or Peasant societies.
These will be examined in terms of historical, ecological,
and socio-structural characteristics; there will be an
analysis of extensive vs. intensive and multiple vs. single
bonds and sacred vs. secular types of relationships, beyond
or within the confines of the established links between the

family or the barrio.

CHAPTER II

COMPADRAZGO

Historical Antecedents

Mintz and Wolf (1950:341-368) have written about
the historical antecedents of this particular social
pattern. They found references as far back as 354 A.D. in
which parents usually acted as sponsors for their own
children. Later an Edict was issued by Justinian, who
ruled from 527-565 A.D., prohibiting marriages between
spiritual relatives; in 813 A.D., the Council of Munich
prohibited parents from acting as sponSors for their own
children altogether. An extension of the ties of ritual
kinship with a concomitant growth of the exogamous group
appeared from 800 to 1000 A.D., and the incest group was
extended to cover seven degrees of relationship. God-
parents of Baptism and Confirmation became separated and
two new kinds appeared: "Cathechismal" and Confession
godfathers, the later abrogated by Pope Boniface the Seventh
in 1298 A.D. (op. cit.:343-4).

The growing centralization of the feudal structure,

as reflected by the Church, had a counterpart in the

functions of compadrazgo, i.e., the structuring of indi-
vidual or familial relationships vertically between the
members of different classes and the solidifying of social
relationships horizontally among members of the same rural
neighborhood in their struggle against prevailing forms of
land tenure (op. cit.:346-8).

Many attempts were made to control the proliferation
of compadrazgo ties, but it was not until the beginning of
the Industrial Revolution with the disappearance of the
feudal order that compadrazgo lost its function and was
replaced by more impersonal forms of organization (op. cit.:
351-2).

Compadrazgo was kept intact in Southern Europe since
the disintegration of the feudal order was less rapid
there. The complex was then transmitted to Latin America
where it was accepted, since it was, in general, congruent
with pre-columbian institutions. Paul (l942:79,80) makes
references to aboriginal forms of compadrazgo among the
Aztecs in a ceremony functionally equivalent to Baptism.

The Mayas are similarly mentioned by Ravicz (1967:239).

The development of this social pattern throughout
time is a very long one, and its historical roots are
important in understanding some of its functions today.

One point must be very clear here: The attenuation of
this pattern in Europe as a response for increased industri-
alization is the counterpart of its elaboration in Mexico

and Latin America, as shall be seen in later pages.

General Features

As stated earlier, the word "compadrazgo" is used to
refer to the particular set of relationships established
between people in Catholic as well as secular situations.
To understand the establishment of ties of compadrazgo, it
is advantageous to examine how they are initiated for a
particular ceremony. In the case of Baptism, the parents
of the child to be baptized are expected to ask a man and
a woman (in some ceremonies, one person is enough),
generally married and Catholic, to become the padrinos of
their child. The prospective padrinos are usually asked
after they have been visited two or three times in a formal
way and have been presented with some gifts. It is expected
by the parents that the padrinos of their child will gladly
accept the honor conferred to them, and the date of the
ceremony and name of the child are then determined. The
petition may be denied for several reasons, e.g., the
prospect of moving to a different place or being very sick,
but it is generally accepted.

Ideally, these relationships are established to
provide the child with people to whom he could turn should
the parents die and also with sponsors who will see that
the child attends school and church and behaves with proper
respect to his parents and other relatives. The relation-

ships involve different expectations:

10

The parents of the sponsored child are expected to
speak to the child's padrinos in a formal way,

help them in any matter in which they may need aid,
invite them often for dinner, exchange gifts with
them, and, in general, relate to them as "real"

relatives.

The child is expected to respect his sponsor(s);
greet him (them) in a very polite manner (some-
times by kissing his [her] hand); obey, care for

and love him (her) (them). Sometimes, they are

even supposed to work for their padrinos in exchange
for living with them while attending school out of

town.

Materially, the sponsors are expected to provide
for the child should the parents die, pay the
priest's fee for the ceremony, and pay for any
clothing which might be required. In addition, the
sponsor is to see to it that his godchild is
raised within the laws and the traditions of the
Catholic Church, fulfills his duties as a
Christian and as son, and attends school and makes
good grades. He may occasionally give him some
money to buy his books or clothes, pay the tuition
for elementary school, or send him to a college or

even to a university.

11

In the case of the Confirmation sacrament, the
Church requires a baptized and confirmed adult of the same
sex of the initiated. The ceremony must be administered by
a bishop in his parish when the child is around five or six
years old.

In some areas, a godfather, a godmother, or both
are necessary for First Communion or Eucharist sacrament.
The ceremony is a very simple one.

For marriage, the parents of the couple are usually
the sponsors of the ceremony, but not necessarily. Some-
times the baptismal godparents of the bride and the groom
are expected to act as sponsors, if they are still living,
and they are supposed to give gifts to the newlywed couple
as well as provide guidance and counseling to them and act
as mediators if any problem should arise in their marital
life. In other cases, as shall be seen, because there is
variation in many aspects of these relationships, the
sponsors of the wedding couple, if still alive, are
supposed to act as baptismal sponsors to the first three
children born to them. This tradition tends to change
from place to place.

The Extreme-Unction sponsors are not as usual as
the other types but are still found in some areas in
Mexico (i.e., Puebla, Morelos). Their duty is to provide
the religious assistance of a priest when the initiated is
dying and, if he finally dies, to provide some economic

help in the funeral expenses and put a cross at the grave

12

with an inscription of the date of birth and death of the
deceased, as well as the initials of his name. Sometimes

a passer-by is chosen for this sponsorship, without having
any previous relationship to the family of the deceased.
The relationship is established between the sponsor and the
closest living kin of the deceased.

As pointed out previously, there is a proliferation
of those compadrazgo ties which we have labelled as non-
sacred or secular. There are numerous instances of these
found throughout Latin America, and there are additional
factors that intervene to provide a variety of these
secular patterns. In many cases, these types involve the
use of some sacred objects, such as holy water for blessings,
or even the presence of a priest in the ceremony. Examples
of secular versions of compadrazgo are found throughout the
area: blessing of sacred objects (crosses, medals,
scapularies) or of other items such as trucks, tractors,
cars, bullocks for cultivating the land, houses; sponsors
for first nail or hair-cutting or ear-piercing, for nursing,
or for voluntary-willing bonds. Graduation, Carnivals,

"Mayordomias,' and "Novena" sponsors are other examples.
Other instances include rosary or gospel compadres when
someone is sick, Easter Compadres, etc. The relationships
are either established between the sponsors and the owners

of the objects to be blessed, in which case compadrazgo

ties exist, or involve persons, as in case of sickness,

13

where both levels are operating, that is, compadrinazgo’

bonds.

CHAPTER III

COMPADRAZGO IN MEXICO AND

LATIN AMERICA

Having defined the compadrazgo and mentioned some
of its main functions and equivalents in other areas,
research is next directed to an analysis of how the insti-
tution works in terms of structure and function, in order
to see how it is related to other institutions of similar
organization.

The importance of compadrazgo as a vehicle for
understanding the social organization and other aspects of
the societies in which it is found has been proposed by
various anthropologists (Paul, 1942; Rojas, 1943; Weit-
laner, 1945; Mintz and Wolf, 1950; Foster, 1953; Sayres,
1956; Pitt-Rivers, 1958; Deshon, 1963; Van den Berghe and
Van den Berghe, 1966; Ravicz, 1967; and Osborn, 1968). The
relevance of and interconnections between compadrazgo and
other institutions is unquestionable.

The analytical characteristics of ritualized

personal relations, which, of course, include compadrazgo,

14

15

have been described by Eisenstadt (1956:90) as being ’
particularistic, personal, voluntary, and fully insti-
tutionalized. People act towards one another in terms of
their respective personal properties and not in terms of
universal categories; these relations, because of their
particularistic connotations, are not anonymous, i.e.,
directed towards universalistic categories of people, but
are very personal and intimate and are sanctioned by some
of the most important and severe (usually ritual) sanctions
of the societies.

Once transmitted to Latin America, the compadrazgo
found widespread acceptance and was combined with native
ideologies. Thus, early Catholic and native ideologies
have become so interwoven that what we have now is not a
mere combination of two elements, a grafting of one upon
another, but rather what might be called a complete fusion
to the extent that today the Indians themselves, for
instance, are unaware that any such historical process has
taken place (Wisdom, 1952:120).

An interesting aspect of compadrazgo is that,
unlike the involuntary ties of kinship, those of ritual v’
sponsorship are formed on the basis of choice (Paul, 1942:
72). Choice, as a recognition of the inequality of the
relations, also plays an important role in the vertical
aspects of the relations (Lopez, 1969:92).

Compadrazgo relationships involve respect. This

has been analyzed in different ways. Lopez has said that

16

the key to understanding compadrazgo relationships is the
dual nature of the "respect" involved. It is both a valued
good and a medium of exchange, that is, it has more than
just intrinsic value, and it is inherent in the triadic
structure of compadrazgo that parents owe more to god-
parents than vice versa (op. cit.:86-8). Ravicz, on the
other hand, emphasizes that it is commonly stated that
there should be more "respeto" for padrinos than for
parents (1967:239), and this reflects the greater impor-
tance of compadrazgo over padrinazgo relationships, to be

discussed later.

Kinship and Compadrazgo

v/ ,/
The reciprocal term "compadre" comes into use after

 

the ritual has sealed the relationship. This term, as
Ravicz puts it, overrides kinship terms and personal terms
(1967:240). This brings us to a brief discussion of some
kinship vs. non-kinship considerations when analyzing
different patterns of compadrazgo. In this respect, it has
been pointed out that the distinctive formal difference
between ritual kinship and "real" kinship is that the first
is voluntary and the second is involuntary. Both affinal
and consanguineal kinship enter into the genealogical
record, while ritual kinship does not. It is the non—
genealogical character of ritual kinship that distinguishes

it from affinal kinship (Paul, op. cit.:142-4).

17

Some anthropologists have argued that the term
"fictive" kinship for compadrazgo relationships should not
be used because it invites confusion, since no fiction is
involved, from the emic point of view (Pitt—Rivers, 1968:
409).

"Ritual" kinship is institutionalized kinship or
pseudo-kinship, and it is like kinship because it borrows
much of the behavior and terminology which characterize
several of the type relationships that comprise the ele-
mentary family (Paul, 1942:140). Compadrazgo has no
resemblance to the family or other kin group in organi-
zation, terminology, or behavior and does not create a
family situation among compadres (Ravicz, op. cit.:242).

Another feature that characterizes this type of
relationship is the idea of incest: its rules apply
primarily to extra-marital sexual unions and have their
principal advantage in expecting more harmonious relations
between the individuals to which the rules apply (Erasmus,
1950:46). Similarly, it has been stressed that the Roman
Catholic Church prohibits marriage with a goddaughter,
toward whom the relationship is not even affinal but
spiritual only (Kroeber, 1948:208). Compadrazgo, thus,
sanctions the rule against incest and maintains harmony
between people (Ravicz, 1967:248). This aspect has been
interpreted in terms of regarding this institution in some

ways as a sort of modern clanship, to the extent of having

18

in common the taboo of sexual relationships and marriage

between persons thus related (Toor, 1947:94).

Compadrazgo, Classes and

L

Communityjlntegration

The ideal model of compadrazgo relationships is to
provide economic security as well as moral and spiritual
guidance to the initiated (Rojas, 1943:213). But, as
stated earlier, it is very clear that compadrazgo relations
override padrinazgo relations: ritual assistance among
adults has been the more important in prehispanic times as
well as today (Ravicz, 1966:287).

It has been said that ritualized personal relations
serve as a mechanism of social control and mitigate some
types of tensions and strains which are inherent in the
structure of some types of predominantly particularistic
societies (Eisenstadt, 1956:94) and that compadrazgo is a
meaningful device to keep relations open and for mobility
purposes (Adams, 1965:271-2). Compadrazgo has been proven
to provide control and aid in different situations (Ravicz,
1967:247-8), especially as a mechanism for controlling
aggression (Sayres, 1956:352). Thus, social stability is
promoted by compadrazgo, both within classes and ethnic
groups and between them (Foster, 1953:9,10,23).

Godparenthood serves as an instrument both of
vertical and horizontal integration. On the vertical side,
it formalizes relationships between generations (Paul,

1942:56,57,69). Compadrazgo has been also said to bring

l9

separated families together in special relationships of
pseudo-kinship nature (Ravicz, 1967:239) and to act as a
cohesive and integrative force within the community and
between classes and ethnic groups by formalizing certain
impersonal relationships and channeling reciprocal behavior
modes into customary patterns, so that the individual
achieves a maximum degree of social and economic security
and spiritual assistance (Foster, l953:9,10,23).

The binding force of compadrazgo for solidarity and
integration has been also stressed. The system of com-
padrazgo in Latin America effectively binds the people
together in such a way that in the smaller communities the
individual is part of a beehive where the community acts,
feels, and thinks as a single group (Tennenbaum, 1960:30).
Compadrazgo links together two families, and the spiritual
bond is of greater importance than blood ties (Whetten,
1948:398-400); even relationships between families (social
or commerical) can take the form of compadrazgo (Staven—
hagen, 1965:63). Kinship extensions in Indian Mexican
societies are tenuous, it has been said (Wolf, 1960:5-6);
even ritual co-parenthood, so vital in Creole Latin America,
seems to be more a matter of form than of function. No
significant web of social relations intervenes between the
level of the individual household and the organizational
level of the community. The linkage between family units
and the community is thus effected by the participation of

heads of the households in the system of ceremonial

20

sponsorship, and this system is the governor of all

relationships in the Indian Community, its sine qua non.

 

Where this system fails or breaks down, the integrity of
the community is threatened and the position of the Indian
in the larger society undergoes a sudden change; this is
taking place today, Wolf argues, and whether this is
temporary or permanent depends on the character of the
economic development in the larger society.

It has been pointed out that among its multiple
functions compadrazgo plays an important role in trans-
mitting the cultural heritage of a society and supple-
menting parents in their role of socializing and also
providing security for the younger members. Thus, com-
padrazgo contributes towards the persistence of the existing
social system (Paul, 1942:78) and on some occasions even
gives children a chance to participate and express them-
selves when, in some communities, they can act as sponsors
for some non-sacred situations (Ravicz, 1967:247-8).

Mintz and Wolf (l950:342,358) emphasize one of the
most important functions of compadrazgo: furthering social
solidarity and cross-cutting socio-cultural or class
afiliations. Relations of ritual kinship through Baptism
or similar relations are frequently established by Ladinos
and Indians and between Indians of different sub-groups
and communities, giving rise to a network of personal,
social, sacred, and economic relations. Almost invariably

it is the Indian who solicits the relationship, rather than

21

the Ladino, who extends courtesies which he does not give
to other Indians but yet which are not equal to those which
he would give to a Ladino compadre (De la Fuente, 1952:87).
In this respect, Redfield once wrote, "Indians ask I
frequently Ladinos to become their compadres, but I have
yet to hear of a Ladino who asked an Indian to be his
compadre" (1962:224). Compadrazgo integrates society on I
both horizontal and vertical planes. Among upper classes
in Spanish America, family relationships are intensified
at the expense of widening pseudo-kinship ties and the
proliferation of occasions on which sponsors are named
among the lower rural classes tends to be lacking. Perhaps
eventually, as impersonal social controls and mutual aid
mechanisms are developed and extended in Latin America, the
compadrazgo will revert to the modern Spanish form (Foster,
1953:24-6). Compadrazgo also affects the social structure
through the linking of status-classes (Ravicz, 1967:247).
An example is provided by the Tupian Guarani migrants of
the south of Paraguay, where kinship ties have been replaced
by compadrazgo, creating close bonds between people. In
this case, each person has many compadres among individuals
of other classes and occupations (Steward and Faron, 1959:
333).

The institution exists among all social classes,
the upper classes perhaps having a greater number of
occasions when padrinos can be utilized (Toor, 1947:94).

Relationships between families can take the form of

22

compadrazgo even if the original purpose of them was, for
example, commercial or social (Stavenhagen, 1965:63). Very
commonly godparents are sought from superior social and
economic strata, though this tendency varies from place to
place (Foster, 1953:9). Sometimes we see compadrazgo
clearly related to status differentiation, although com-
padrazgo ties cut across class or ethnic lines (Van den
Berghe and Van denBerghe, 1966:1236). Compadrazgo, as well
as friendship in general, provides a highly flexible set

of relationships that extend, literally, over much of one's
own country and often into many other nations. Where a
two-class system seems to operate, compadrazgo relations
will be extended between classes (Adams, 1965:271-2). The
sponsorship pattern is thus highly elaborated, and persons
preferred for godparents may be relatives, friends,
respected individuals, or persons from the same or a
different social class (Paul and Paul, 1952:181-2).

Some authors have argued that the compadrazgo does
not always serve as an integrative mechanism. For instance,
Osborn (1968:605) has pointed out that instead of being a
mechanism for social integration, compadrazgo brings to
light the differences between Indians and Peasants and does
not serve to integrate them. De la Fuente (1952:87) and
Redfield (1962:224) argue that Indians usually ask Ladinos
to sponsor their children but the reverse has never
occurred, and Stavenhagen (1965:63) has added, that

although at first sight compadrazgo may appear to be an

/,
23
institution in which Indians and Ladinos face each other on
a level of equality, in fact it contributes to accentuate
the Indian's condition of inferiority and dependence, since
compadrazgo is one of the many institutions in a complex
system which keeps the Indians subordinated to the Ladino
in all aspects of social and economic life. Lopez (1969:
92) approaches this problem saying that relations between
compadres are not inherently equal but it is inherent in
the basic triad of relations that they be unequal: parents
owe more to godparents than vice versa. Vertical relations
occur whenever possible and the most common of them are
with unrelated patrons: if a compadre is of a higher
status, the relation must be asymmetrical, and the vertical
choice is recognition of the inequality of the relations.»/
Compadrazgo relationships can be equal, but only if
reciprocal, if each man asks the other to sponsor his ”I
child. Otherwise, relations are structurally balanced in
favor of the sponsor, and the asymmetry is most obvious
where the sponsor is his compadre's superior, according to
age and social status, but even lateral bonds are in-
herently and behaviorally asymmetrical. Ritual kinship is,
thus, as liable to exploitation as any form of friendship,
and like friendship it depends upon a balance of reciprocal
favors providing a basis for trust between individuals
which may or may not be put to the service of political and

economic ends (Pitt-Rivers, 1968:411-2).

24

It has been said that mobility within the prestige
sector depends greatly on the availability of open relation—
ships such as compadrazgo, especially through the gaining
of and exercise of power (Adams, 1965:271-2). It is now
very common to see that in Latin America the families which
used to have the control of power still maintain some power
by strengthening their unity and cohesion through a compli-
cated web of relationships of affinity and compadrazgo.

In this way the families insure the loyalty to the elite
class and also give support and protection to Indian and
Mestizo families (Aguirre-Beltran, 1967:153). Sometimes
compadrazgo has provided a method for formalizing the
paternalistic relationships that exist between members of
the wealthier employing sector and their employees.
Elsewhere it has been used to strengthen relationships
between individuals who need a specific bond for economic
and political purposes (Adams, 1967:159).

In Mexico, a Mestizo leader needs a biological
family, a political family, compadres, and a reputation of
loyalty. Material success is at the bottom of the scale;
first comes the protection of the family, the compadres,
and the friends. The leadership of Latin America (in
general terms) upholds the ideals of paternalism, charity,
and the compadre system (Tannenbaum, 1960:119.129.22).

Sometimes compadrazgo becomes a major factor
contributing to extreme cases of nepotism in government:

a successful political figure may be suddenly faced with

25

requests from his compadres for their share of security in
the form of jobs or "favores" (Cline, 1963:66-7) depending V
upon the degree of trust between individuals who establish
compadrazgo relationships. This trust may or may not be
put to the service of political or economic ends (Pitt-
Rivers, 1968:412). One of the ways by which the effective
power seeker extends his activities over a wide range is by
being able to call on a wide network of kinsmen and com-
padres. The exercise of power depends not on the total
amount of such contacts but on the ability to mobilize what
is necessary for tactical advantage at a given time. With
the changing basis of power it becomes increasingly impor-
tant to maintain a wide series of contacts (Adams, 1967:
59). To illustrate this point, consider a brief reference
by Lomnitz (1971:93-105) in which she discussed the
specific case of compadrazgo among middle class people in
Santiago de Chile. In this case, it can be seen that the
compadrazgo operates as a system of reciprocity which
involves a continuing exchange of complementary services
("favores") performed and motivated within an ideology of
friendship. The services which compadrazgo may help to
acquire (job placement, social introductions, loans, etc.)
are always conditional upon having the right friend in the
right place at the right time. The essential point is to
have as many friends and connections as possible. The
institution thus may be seen as a mechanism to build-up a

powerful, self-perpetuating national bureaucracy. The

II

26

institution is also a major resource of the middle class
and promotes group solidarity, acting as a mechanism of
intra-group stability.

The flexibility and variation of compadrazgo
patterns has been attributed to the ability of the
societies to keep relations open (Adams, 1965:271). It is
precisely this flexibility and growth potential of the
compadrazgo that has permitted it to fulfill the needs of
the people and consequently to succeed as a viable mechanism
for integration (Foster, 1953:25). Since in Latin America
only persons united by ties of kinship, compadrazgo, or V”
real friendship can trust one another (Gillin, 1965:510),
the institution is presently quite widespread. The strong
and widespread bonds of familism and compadrazgo, coupled
with personalized individualism, are representative of the
complexities of interpersonal relationships in Latin
America (Heath, 1965:476). Proliferation of native forms
also has been characteristic of Latin American compadrazgo,
which often has been explained in terms of reinforcement of
already existing ties vs. extension of the family circle.
The emphasis on compadrazgo bonds over padrinazgo bonds in
Latin America, combined with the above characteristics,
make Latin American compadrazgo contrary to the original
Spanish pattern (Foster, 1962:215), where the original
roots of the institution must be encountered. Since
compadrazgo opens a range of patterned activities and

sentiments whose uniqueness is extended to new sets of

27

individuals and since it signifies the achievement of a
new status and an increase in the total number of statuses
on an individual, its acceptance is easily understood.

_Compadrazgo provides emotional support by sanction—
ing the rule against incest and by maintaining the harmony
between people (Ravicz, 1967:247-8). It provides psycho—
logical and/or social security for the individual as a
program of psychologically constricting and socially
enervating restraints and controls (Sayres, 1956:352).
Compadrazgo formalizes certain impersonal relationships and
channelizes reciprocal behavioral modes into customary
patterns (Foster, 1953:23). Since access is open to all,
social differences are minimized and this has some psycho-
logical effects. Compadrazgo thus provides a model for
interpersonal relationships, organizes them, and sets them
in action, giving security and psychological satisfaction
to the participants (Ravicz, 1967:250-1).

The use of compadrazgo as a system of reciprocity
of favors has been recognized and studied by Lomnitz
(1971:93) and commented on previously. Through the
mechanism of reciprocity, compadrazgo has been able to
fulfill many of the needs, basically economic in nature,
of the people and succeed as a viable institution (Foster,
1953:25). The idea of respect involved in compadrazgo is
both a valued good and a medium of exchange. Compadrazgo
relations are considered reciprocal if respect is equal; /

otherwise they are asymmetrical (Lopez, 1969:86-92).

28

Ritual kinship, as noted before, is as liable to exploi-
tation as any other kind of friendship bond (Pitt-Rivers,
1968:411-2).

One of the main functions of compadrazgo is to
provide economic security for the people involved in it
(Rojas, 1943:213). Thus, compadrazgo also has some
economic functions of security and can be regarded as a
system of exchange of goods through redistribution and
reciprocity.

In ethnically mixed societies, it has been found
that compadrazgo is a mechanism for sanctioned competition.
The form of compadrinazgo appears to reflect the degree to
which expected rights and responsibilities are fulfilled by
other systems. Compadrinazgo serves as a complementary
system to these other systems in the social structure
(Ravicz, 1967:250-1).

As stated earlier, compadrazgo often provides a
method for formalizing the paternalistic relationships
between employers and employees (Adams, 1967:159). A brief
description of paternalism and a comparison of it with
compadrazgo will be discussed in later sections.

Compadrazgo can operate to extend the number of
formalized personal relationships, or it may serve to
intensify a relationship already established. Compadrazgo
may be ranked with reference to the degree to which it
stresses one or the other of these two principles:

extension or intensification. Another avenue for

29

maximizing the relationship is the acquisition of supple-
mental sets of godparents in the course of successive life
crises (Paul, 1942:56-7). When the intensification
principle operates, the already existing bonds (affinal,
consanguineal, or even "ritual") are strengthened when
people choose relatives for sponsors; on the other hand,
the extension principle operates when the family circle is
widened or extended by converting non-relatives into
"Spiritual" kins (Adams, 1967:159; Foster, 1953:24-5;
Ravicz, 1967:241).

The way people choose their sponsors is important
in defining the relationships as being either vertical or
horizontal, asymmetrical or symmetrical. The relationships,
as pointed out earlier, can either reinforce already
existing bonds or create new ones. Different tendencies
have been found for different types of communities, and it
seems that this is associated with historical, linguistic,
economic, social, and cultural factors and characteristics.
Three levels are usually found or employed in seeking
sponsors: relatives (affines, consanguineal, or even
"ritual"), non-relatives (friends, employers, important
public persons), and strangers (a passer-by in an emergency
baptism, for instance, since the parents of the sick child
to be baptized cannot act as sponsors of their own
children).

Some propositions have been made regarding the

selection criteria: a group will have more occasions on

30

which ceremonies of ritual kinship are celebrated if it is
more "advanced" or has more contacts external to the group,
with the exception of the upper social classes in the
cities. There appear to be no rules which dictate who may
be a godparent. Godparents are chosen from among relatives
or non-relatives, from within the ethnic group or from
outside it, from within the same economic level or from
higher economic levels (Guiteras, 1952:101-2).

The problem of continuity and change of this par-r
ticular institution has not been studied profoundly. The
way in which some features change due to the impact of
industrialization and urbanization has not been studied
either. However, some comments applied to specific cases
deserve attention.

In studying cultural changes in urban areas of
Yucatan, Mexico, it has been mentioned that compadrazgo
relationships, which in the village parallel and support
the parental and parent-in-law relationships, become less
important as institutions of control as urbanization
increases (Redfield, 1962:168-9). In the urban environment
of Mexico City, the presence of secular bonds has almost
vanished, but the institution is still a highly viable
mechanism used by peasant migrants from Tepoztlan (Lewis,
1965:432-5), and close to the city, in San Juan Teotihuacan,
the institution still keeps and retains its importance

(Gamio, 1922:243).

31

Com adraz o and General
Soc1aI Patterns

Various social institutions share aspects of

 

 

commonality with compadrazgo which need to be mentioned
here. In pointing out important theoretical considerations
of compadrazgo, some anthropologists have mentioned the
similarity between this institution and others, such as
Paternalism, Patron-Client, Friendship, and the like.

Defined by Wolf (1966:12-7) as a friendship in
which each member of the dyad acts as a potential con-
necting link to other persons outside the dyad, instrumental
friendship reaches beyond the boundaries of existing sets
and seeks to establish beachheads in new sets. Instrumental
friendships thrive in social situations which are relatively
open, where friends may act as sponsors for each other in
attempts to widen their spheres of social maneuver.

It can be said that compadrazgo approaches this
pattern of instrumental friendship when the relationships
are equal and asymmetrical, or (to use Lopez' reference)
when both parties have the same obligations and expectations
towards each other due to mutual sponsorship of children.

When instrumental friendship reaches a maximum
point of imbalance so that one partner is clearly superior
to the other in his capacity to grant goods and services,
we approach the critical point where friendships give way
to the patron-client tie. The patron provides economic aid

and protection against both legal and illegal exactions of

32

authority. The client, in turn, demonstrates his esteem
and loyalty to his patron, provides information on the
machinations of others, and promises his political support.
The relations remain reciprocal, each party investing on
the other.

Similarities can be seen between patron-client
relations and compadrazgo relationships in which "in return
for the favors granted the client is expected to perform
certain services." The survival or creation of a paternal-
istic system depends on the needs and on the existing social
organizational patterns and traditions (Bennett, 1968:476).
Compadrazgo vertical relationships are thus similar to
patron-client relations since in both "the individual will
seek out such patrons (in this case compadres) in order to
receive certain benefits and protection" (ibidem); above
all, thegatron serves as an intermediary (entrepreneur in
Barth's terms, l963:5) who can deal with the official and
the professional world (Bennett, op. cit.:475).

It has been said that in almost all societies
individuals have the predisposition or capacity to form
friendships. Compadrazgo falls within the definition of
"inalienable friendship" offered by Cohen (1961:352). Such
"friendship" is entered ritually or ceremonially. Once
joined, it ideally cannot be withdrawn and is governed
morally by supernatural and quasi-legal sanctions that
pervade many areas 0f life. This type of friendship will

be found in the community with maximal solidarity and is

33

essentially an ideal or abstract category, a common
denominator or theme, upon which different societies
construct variant types. Similarly the rationalizations
for such friendships, the functions which they may serve,
and the particular contexts in which they occur vary among
the societies characterized by the maximal solidarity.

The dyadic contract model offers a means by which
every adult can organize his societal contacts outside his
nuclear family by means of a special form of contractual
relationship. The contracts are informal or implicit and
non-corporate. They are dyadic in that they occur only
between two individuals. These factors are implicit in
compadrazgo, which unites neighbors and friends of equal or
different socio-economic statuses (Foster, 1963:1174).

Wolf (1965:97) adds that one of the ways in which
the functions of the relations between community-oriented
and nation-oriented groups are established is expressed
through cultural forms or mechanisms that differ from
culture to culture. Examples of such relationships include
the Chinese Kan-ch'ing studied by Fried (1953), the
Japanese Oyabun-Kobun studied by Ishino (1953), and the
Latin American Compadrazgo studied by Mintz and Wolf
(1950), among others.

In conclusion, some general points of discussion
have been given and comments and viewpoints have been
extracted from the literature on compadrazgo to show some

differences in the definition of the institution, to see to

34

what extent it is related to other institutions in the
societies in which it is found, and to analyze some of the
functions of the mechanism in different societies as
proposed here under different sections.

The next section and the summary will present an
examination of some of the general theoretical problems
and implications inherent in the compadrazgo, as studied
by some anthropologists, and an analysis of them in light
of the ethnographic cases and their cross-cultural com-
parison. Finally, some general conclusions about the

institution will be drawn.

CHAPTER IV

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

This section includes a brief description of the
patterns of compadrazgo adopted by different groups,
emphasizing the secular vs. sacred and vertical vs.
horizontal relations and the selection criteria of friends
vs. relatives chosen as sponsors. The social, economic,
political, religious, and psychological functions of
compadrazgo will be correlated to the societal types of
communities studied (Indian, Peasant, and Urban) in order
to see how variations encountered are affected or caused by
different factors. Finally, cross-cultural comparisons

will be made and a final analysis will be presented.

Theoretical Problems
One aspect that is rarely discussed and studied by
anthropologists is the way in which this particular social
institution functions in different socio-economic settings
as an adaptive strategy used by people in different
circumstances.
Therefore this research studies the compadrazgo as

a social institution of maximal importance in Mexico and

35

36

other Latin American countries, focusing on the vertical
as opposed to horizontal types of relationships; the already
mentioned selection criteria (friends as opposed to
relatives) related to the maximization of security and the
minimization of insecurity; the quality, strength and
variation of the relationships; the emotional and material
considerations surrounding compadrazgo; the ways in which
it serves to reinforce either power or already existing
ties or sometimes both; the relationship between this
institution and status, role, prestige, and other aspects
in which the compadrazgo is strongly associated with other
institutions of the societies.

It is proposed to examine the literature dealing
with compadrazgo in order to determine the particular
patterns of adaptation of the institution as a mechanism
for social integration. Some aspects that will be analyzed

are:

1. The selection criteria;

2. the qualities that are sought and the types of
relationships;

3. the patterns of reciprocal or unilateral obli-
gations;

4. the elaboration as opposed to attenuation of the
relationships; and

5. the ritual involved in the establishment of the

links.

37

Although the institution usually functions as a
mechanism which provides integration for a group, sometimes
it does not. In these latter situations it is hypothesized
that other voluntary-types of institutions assume the
functions of the compadrazgo. This mechanism which
represents the general principle will be studied and the
factors which govern the formation of such social relation-
ships will be determined. Some hypotheses will be presented
which will structure the examination of these problems,
based on the assumption that compadrazgo is strongly
associated with the characteristics of the socio-economic
settings in which it operates.

The institution of compadrazgo will be treated as
the dependent variable and the selected socio-economic
aspects will be treated as the independent variables. This
particular framework will differ from those previously
mentioned insofar as this is based on a cross-cultural
comparative study of an institution whose importance in
the Catholic Latin-American countries is maximal.

We will operate with two models of societies: open
and closed (or Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft, or Folk and
Urban, or Indian and Peasant and Urban). The nature of
interpersonal relations found in these two types of
societies are different: in the open societies, the basis
of interpersonal relations could be non-kin, impersonal,

or contractual; in the closed-type of societies the basis

38

of interpersonal relations follow kinship lines according
to tradition.

Therefore, it is assumed that:

1. In Latin America, there has been a movement away

from closed and towards open-type of communities.

2. Closed societies are usually characterized by

being:

a. Preliterate, homogeneous, religious, familial,
personalized primitive, and peasant communities
(Folk according to Redfield, 1947, cit. in

Harris, 1968:192).

b. Moral, collective, cooperative, joint bonds,
reciprocities, barter and exchange, divine
sanction, intimate personal relations. (Tonnies'
Gemeinschaft or Durkheim's mechanical, 1887 and

1933, cit. in Harris, 1968:192).
3. Open societies are characterized by being:

a. Literate, heterogeneous, secular, individualized,
depersonalized urban societies. (Redfield's

Urban, 1947, cit. in Harris, 1968:192).

b. Relations between strangers, independent,
depersonalized bonds, purchase and contract,
secular sanctions (Tonnies' Gesellschaft, 1887,
or Durkheim's Organic, 1933, cit. in Harris,

1968:192).

39

Consequently, it is postulated that in traditional

societies compadrazgo's role is different from its role in

modern societies. Also, there is variation in the two

patterns of functioning of compadrazgo that will be

described and explained. To be more specific, the following

relationships are postulated:

1.

In societies in which the quality of interpersonal
relations are less structured on the basis of
traditional status (kinship, patron-client, etc.),
or in societies having "focal" economy or little
social differentiation (i.e., economic, educational,
political, racial, ethnic), intra-community com-
padrazgo bonds will be relatively absent. When
present the bonds will be without the intensity

of reciprocity or range of obligations usually
attributed to them. Such communities will tend to
emphasize extra-community compadrazgo bonds and
their incumbent responsibilities due to the way in

which these societies are structured.

In closed, corporate, peasant communities with
subsistence agricultural economies and little
differentiation in terms of class structure, the
pattern of compadrazgo bonds will be variable,
exhibiting a range between extra-community and
intra-community patterns. The intra-community

bonds will tend to follow kinship lines (between

40

kinsmen) while the extra-community bonds may exist

between social equals (same class or occupation) or
unequals, between ethnic equals or non-equals.

Here more variation of patterns and flexible social
relations for integration will be found due to the

changing nature of these societies.

3. In relatively larger, differentiated communities
with defined economic patterns, a variety of
patterns would be expected: extra-community and/or
inter-family bonds would be characteristic of the
upper-classes or social elements. The lower
elements will demonstrate two-pattern bonds with
local economic or political elites or with local
economic equals but with different sets of economic,
social or cultural characteristics. The intensity
or reciprocity between equals among lower elements
will be significantly less than the intensity of
relationships or reciprocity between unequals. In
the lower strata intra-community or extra-family
bonds with both elites (more intense) and with

equals (less intense) will exist.

In order to work out the present study, the

following methodological tools will be used:

1. Data relevant to compadrazgo will be gathered by
reviewing all the ethnographies and monographs

which comment on compadrazgo in Mexico and Latin

41

America. A process of selection by geographical,
ecological (socio—economic settings), and lin-
guistic areas will follow after all the material
has been collected. Some historical materials will

be used to illustrate some general features.

Local kinship systems will be analyzed to see how

"fictive" ties differ from biological—affinal ones.

An application of specially designed questionnaires
related to issues such as social class, economic,
political and religious status, role, familial and
extra-familial relationships, other types of
voluntary associations and some study of the
genealogies were used in previous fieldwork on this
subject. Any correlation between these aspects and
the compadrazgo as it is found in other communities
will be explored. Other important things to look
for are: patterns of residence and settlement;
village and extra-village relations; market systems;
power structure; behavior patterns; ritual; and
some other geographical, political, religious, and
economic considerations. Interviews, the use of
tape-recorder, movie and photographs, participant
observation, contacts with the civil and religious
hierarchies, collection of life histories and

biographical data are other techniques used, along

42

with the role of a student interested in the

customs, language, and behavior of the people.

As mentioned earlier, a primary study was done in
the communities of San Sebastian, Puebla, and Hueyapan,
Morelos, in Mexico utilizing techniques such as mapping,
survey, and census to determine the physical and strategic
characteristics of the communities. The anthropological
techniques of participant observation and non-directive as
well as directive interviewing (and unstructured or informal
interviews as well) were also utilized.

The area selected for this study was originally
Mexico. It was planned to make a cross-cultural comparative
study of how the system of compadrazgo works and operates
in different socio-economic settings; but as more sources
became available the study was extended to some other
communities in Central and South America. The topic chosen
is importance because, if properly studied, compadrazgo
could be one of the mechanisms which could gain greater
understanding as to how the social organization of a par-
ticular group is structured, how it functions, and how it
is related to some other aspects of these societies.

Finally, cross-cultural comparisons of Latin
American varieties of compadrazgo will be made in order to
see how different patterns are affected by the different
strategies employed by the people in the participation in

the compadrazgo network of relationships.

43

Comparative Analysis

As stressed throughout this paper, secular and
sacred bonds of compadrazgo are regarded as a means of
either reinforcing already existing ties (biological,
affinal, or ritual) or extending the family circle by
creating new ones. Other social considerations include the
constant references given about the importance of com-
padrazgo over padrinazgo relationships and about the
relations being either symmetrical (with socio-economic
and.political equals) or asymmetrical (with socio-economic
and political unequals). In some cases the relationship is
reciprocal if symmetrical, or more often not reciprocal or
asynmetrical and in favor of one party. In certain cases,
symmetrical relations tend to be present within the
txnxndaries of the community, and in some other circumstances
asynmmmrical relations are frequently established with
People living beyond the frontiers of the society under
analysis.

Some anthropologists use the term "interethnic
compadrazgo" to denote relations, usually asymmetrical,
established between people of different socio-economic and
Political status. The functions of compadrazgo have been
concentrated on five aspects: social, economic, political,
religious, and psychological. These will be correlated to
the Societal types studied, as pointed out before, as well
es With the different dimensions of the relations and the

Selection criteria.

44

By functions of the relationships is meant the ways
in which people manipulate different strategies to obtain
certain benefits or to satisfy certain needs: these could
be social, in the sense of filling an established norm of
the society; economic, in providing material assistance,
loans, exchange of money, or redistribution of goods and
services (whether or not the relations are reciprocal they
are still economic in this respect); political, in the
sense of establishing a patron-client type of relationship
by which the patron provides services in exchange for
political support; religious, as far as fulfilling a moral
need following the canons established by the Church; and
psychological, in the sense that compadrazgo, according to
some anthropologists, has been proven to be effective in
filling psychological needs aroused by anxiety of the
expected vs. real behavior between participants and in
providing security to the participants (see Table 1).

In Latin American anthropological literature,
compadrazgo is more effective and of more importance in
Indian and Peasant societies than in the Urban areas, but
the compadrazgo is a viable institution in these latter
societies. Migration of Indians and Peasants to Urban
environments inevitably brings changes to the lives of
these people as they become adapted to the new settings.
The institution of compadrazgo in its sacred forms has

remained highly viable in these environments and among

45

these urban groups, and it has been noted that secular
types of compadrazgo tend to disappear in these areas.

As far as the selection criteria, the pattern in
Indian villages is to choose non-relative sponsors from
outside the community. In Peasant societies, relatives
could be chosen, especially if they live in the cities,
because they can be of some help in getting jobs, when
travelling, in housing, or in other matters. Non-relatives
are also selected in Peasant societies, either from the
same or different socio—economic status. In Urban
societies, the sponsors are chosen from the upper-classes.
In the lower urban classes, vertical relations with higher
class non-relatives may also be present; in the case of
the middle-classes, both situations tend to exist.

In this research compadrazgo institutions and
functions were analyzed in 109 ethnographic cases.
References to secular types were found in 33 out of the
52 Indian societies studied, in 21 of the 38 Peasant
societies, and in 2 of the 19 Urban (see Table 3). On the
other hand, references to selection of friends for sponsors
were found in 29 cases of Indian societies, 31 of the
Peasant groups, and in 5 of the Urban societies. In 10
Indian and in 10 Peasant societies relationships were found
to be established with relatives, whereas in 12 groups from
the cities relatives are usually asked to Sponsor com-

padrazgo relationships (see Table 2).

46

Taking into consideration the secular vs. sacred
types, all were found to be present in the three societal
types but in different ways: in Indian groups, secular
types tend to be present more abundantly than in Peasant
societies but still less than in Urban environments, where
the usual pattern follows the sacred versions of compa-
drazgo. There is more variation in patterns and flexibility
of the institution, as far as selection of sponsors, in
Peasant societies. In 45 cases out of the 109 in which
this information is provided, 75 different kinds of secular
types of compadrazgo relationships were found. In one
society, besides the sacred relations there were 17 others
present. In other cases, 13, ll, 10, or less numbers of
secular types were reported (see Table 4).

The intensity of the bonds is more obvious in
extra-community Indian compadrazgo, in intra- and extra-
community Peasant compadrazgo, and in inter-family bonds in
Urban societies. Conversely, there is amelioration of
reciprocity or range of obligations of the bonds in intra-
community compadrazgo in Indian societies and in extra-
family bonds in urban environments.

Compadrazgo relationships tend to be more asym-
metrical where there are inter-ethnic bonds between Indian
and Peasant groups; relations of reciprocity always favor
Peasants. In Peasant-Urban relations, more symmetry seems
to exist in the relations; but if asymmetry is present,

it is in favor of the urbanities rather than the peasants.

47

Horizontal ties are not so frequent in Indian or Peasant
societies as in Urban environments, especially between
upper-class elements. Conversely, vertical ties are more
prevalent in Indian and Peasant groups (where there are
extra-community ties), as well as in the cases of extra-
familial bonds in Urban societies.

In conclusion, according to the information
available, the following statements concerning compadrazgo

are proposed:

1. Vertical relationships established with relatives
in Indian societies tend to have greater social
functions and to be more prevalent than vertical
relations established with friends in the same
societies with the same function (e.g., some
communities in Puebla and Yucatan in Mexico; in
Peru as opposed to other communities in the same

places).

2. Vertical relationships established with relatives
in Peasant societies tend to have fewer social
functions and tend to be less present than in the
case of vertical relations with friends with a
social function (e.g., Michoacén in Mexico; Belize;

Puerto Rico, Martinique, and Brazil).

3. Vertical relationships with relatives or friends
in Urban societies are not as significant in

providing social functions.

48

From an economic perspective, vertical relations
with friends in Indian societies (Arizona in the
United States; Chiapas, Nayarit, Mexico, Morelos,
Oaxaca, Puebla, Sinaloa, Sonora, Tlaxcala, and
Yucatan in Mexico; Guatemala; Peru) are over-
whelmingly more important and more numerous than
vertical relations with relatives for the same

economic purposes.

In Peasant societies (Arizona in the United States;
Guerrero, Oaxaca, Puebla, Quintana Roo, Sinaloa,
Sonora, Tlaxcala, Veracruz and Yucatan in Mexico;
Guatemala; Belize; and Colombia), vertical economic
relations with relatives are more prevalent and
important than vertical economic relations with
friends. (Michoacan and Morelos in Mexico;
Guatemala, Belize, Puerto Rico, Martinique and

Brazil).

In Urban societies (such as New Mexico and Kansas

in the United States and Puerto Rico), vertical
economic relationships with friends predominate over
vertical economic relationships with relatives (as
found in places such as a community in Texas and

another urban community in Puerto Rico).

Vertical relationships with relatives and friends
in Indian societies rarely fufill political

functions.

10.

11.

12.

13.

49

Peasant vertical relations with friends (in a
Guatemalan community) are more frequent for
political purposes, than peasant vertical relations
with relatives (such as found in Belize and

Colombia).

Urban vertical relations with either friends or
relatives for political purposes, are not mentioned

at all in the literature.

In Indian societies (such as in Oaxaca, Puebla,
and Yucatan in Mexico and in Guatemala), vertical
relationships with relatives have more religious
functions than vertical relationships with friends

(as found also in Puebla in one case).

Peasant vertical relationships with friends (as
found in Michoacén in Mexico; Puerto Rico; and
Brazil) are overwhelmingly more important for
religious purposes than peasant vertical relation-

ships with relatives.

Religious functions of urban relationships with
either friends or relatives were not found in the

etnographies.

There is just one reference in the literature of
compadrazgo about providing psychological functions
in an Indian society in vertical relations with

relatives (Puebla, Mexico).

50

On the horizontal dimension, the following infor-

mation was found:

1.

In Indian (Chiapas, Nayarit, Oaxaca, Quintana Roo,
Sinaloa, Sonora, Tlaxcala, Veracruz and Yucatan in
Mexico; and in Guatemala), Peasant (Coahuila,
Michoacan, Morelos, in Mexico; Belize; West Indies,
Martinique, Colombia and Brazil), and Urban
(Illinois, New Mexico, California, Kansas, Texas

in the United States; Mexico City, Puerto Rico,
Paraguay, Argentina and Brazil) societies, relation-
ships are predominately social when established with

relatives rather than friends.

In the three societal types, relations are over-
whelmingly economic when established with relatives
(Indian communities in Puebla, Mexico, and in
Colombia and Bolivia; a Peasant community in Puerto
Rico; and a Urban community in Chile) rather than

friends.

No political or psychological functions are reported

for either societal type on this dimension.

Horizontal relationships in the three societal

types have more religious functions when established
with relatives (like in some Indian societies of
Chiapas, Nayarit, Quintana R00 and Yucatan in

Mexico; in Peasant societies in the West Indies

51

and Martinique and in the Urban environments of
San Juan, in Puerto Rico) rather than friends

(for a summary, see Table 1).

In general, the persistence of compadrazgo in Latin
America over a period of more than four hundred years can
be explained by its flexibility. Perhaps the most fruitful
View of such relationships is the one which emerges when
they are analyzed as adaptive strategies.

Obviously, the compadrazgo institution has flourished
in countries with strong Spanish, Portuguese, or French
cultural influences with the related importance of the
Catholic Church as a major religious institution. It is
precisely in these countries where we found some references
to aboriginal forms of compadrazgo, and it is exactly there
where the institution has had more acceptance (Mexico,
Guatemala, Peru, and Colombia, especially). Conversely, in
Latin American countries where the influence came from
British, American, or North European cultures, compadrazgo
tends to be unimportant as an institution of extension of
interpersonal ties and contacts (e.g., in countries such
as British Honduras or Belize, West Indies; or, on the
other hand, in Chile, Uruguay, Paraguay, and Argentina with
heavy influences from Germany and Italy).

All this information has been gathered primarily to
answer the main question proposed at the beginning of this

paper, i.e., why is it that the institution of compadrazgo,

52

being present in the three different types of societies

studied,

functions in different ways. The answer to this

must be found in some of the observations proposed here as

well as in the final statements regarding the structure

and function of Latin American compadrazgo in the following

CODtGXtS:

1.

In the analysis of the nature of the quality of

the interpersonal relationships and the ways they
can be structured, either on the basis of tra-
ditional statuses or on the basis of minimal social

differentiation in terms of social structure.

In the type of socio-economic setting and in the
ways in which the environment effects the social

structure and social relations.

In the nature of the economic systems found in these
societies and in the way they are related to the
social organization and to the rest of the aspects

that conform the culture.

In the ways in which other institutions provide
some of the functions that compadrazgo tries to

fulfill.

In the nature of the structure of familial relation—

ships.

53

6. In the ways in which the institution of com-

padrazgo helps to maintain,

processes,‘

integrate
to define
narrow or

groups or

(or disintegrate)
the nature of the
to widen the gaps

segments of these

the equilibrium

through "homoestatic
of the societies or to
social relations; or
relationships, or to
between different

groups.

It is hoped that some insights have been given in

the discussion of the nature of this institution of maximal

importance in Latin American Catholic countries.

This paper represents an attempt to describe the

complexity and diversity of the compadrazgo relationships

in order to stimulate further research on the structure and

function of this institution.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adams, Richard N.

1959 A Community in the Andes: Problems and Progress
in Muquiyauyo. University of Washington Press,
Seattle.

1965 "Social Organization: Introduction." In: Heath,
D. B. and Adams, R. N., eds.: Contemporary
Cultures and Societiesg£_Latin America. New York:
Random House, pp. 257- 287.

1967 The Second Sowing: Power and Secondary Develop~
ment in Latin America. Chandler Publishing Co.,
San Francisco, Calif.

 

Aguirre Beltran, Gonzalo
1958 Cuijla: Esbozo Etnografico de un Pueblo Negro.
Fondo de Cultura Economica, Mexico.
1967 Regiones de Refugio. Instituto Indigenista
Interamericano, Mexico.

Arizpe Schlosser, Lourdes
1970 Nican Pehua Zacatipan: El ciclo de desarrollo
del grupo doméstico entre los Nahuas de la Sierra
3e Puebla. E. N. A. H., Tesis Profesional, Mexico.

 

 

 

Azevedo, Thales de
1965 "Family, Marriage and Divorce in Brazil." In:
Heath, D. B. and Adams, R. N., eds.: Contemporary
Cultures and Societies of Latin America. New York:
Random House, pp. 288-310.

 

 

Barth, Fredrik
1963 The Role of the Entrepreneur in Social Change in
Northern Norway. Norwegian Universities Press.
Bergen, Oslo.

 

Bastarrachea Manzano, Juan Ramén
1970 Organizacion Social y de Parentesco entre los
Mayas Peninsulares (ViSion Diacrénica). E.N.A.H.,
Tésis Profesional, Mexico.

 

54

56

Beals, R. L.
1945 The Comtemporary_Culture of the Cahita Indians.
WaShifigton, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing
Office.

Bennett, John W.
1968 "Paternalism." In: International Encyclopedia
of the Social Sciences, Vol. II, edited by
David L. 81113. Crower Collier and McMillan,
Inc., pp. 472-477.

 

Berruecos, V., Luis A.
1968 "Field Notes on Santo Domingo Hueyapan, Municipio
de Tetela del Volcan, Morelos, Mexico." (M.S.)

1971 El Compadrazgo en la Comunidad Nahua de San
SebastiaerMunicipio de Teziutlan, Estado de
Pueblangexico. E.N.A.H., Tésis Profesional,
Mexico.

 

 

 

 

Brandes, Stanley H.
1968 "Tzintzuntzan Wedding: A Study in Cultural
Complexity." Kroeber Anthropological Society
Papers, No. 39, Fall, pp. 30-53.

 

Bunzel, Ruth Leah
1952 Chichicastenango: A Guatemalan Village. American
Ethnological Society Publication, No. 22.

Cancian, Frank
1965 Economics and Prestige in a Maya Community: The
Religious Cargo System in Zinacantan. Stanford
University Press, California.

Cerda Silva, Roberto de la
1943 "Los Coras." Revista Mexicana de Sociologia,
Vol. V, pp. 89-117.

 

Clark, Margaret
1959 Health in the Mexican—American Culture. Berkeley,
University of California Press.

 

Cline, Howard Francis
1963 The United States and Mexico. Harvard University
Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Cohen, Yehudi
1961 "Patterns of Friendship." In: Social Structure
and Personality: A Casebook. Edited by Y. Cohen.
New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, pp. 351-386.

 

56

Colby, Benjamin N. and Pierre L. Van den Berghe
1966 "Relaciones Etnicas en el Sureste de México."
En: Los Zinacantecos. Editor: Evon Vogt.
Coleccién Antropologia Social, Instituto Nacional
Indigenista, Mexico, D.F., Mexico, pp. 29-62.

 

Covarrubias, Miguel
1947 Mexico South: The Isthmus of Tehuantepec. New
York: Alfred A. Knopf.

 

De la Fuente, Julio

1949 Yalélag: Una Villa Zapoteca Serrana. Serie
Ciencias No. 1, Museo Nacional de Antropologia,
México.

1952 "Ethnic and Communal Relations." In: Heritage of
Conquest: The Ethnology of_Middle America.
Edited by Sol Tax. Viking Fund Seminar on Middle
American Ethnology. Glencoe: The Free Press,
pp. 76-96.

1965 Relaciones Interétnicas. Instituto Indigenista
Interamericano. Mexico.

 

 

 

Deshon, Shirley K.
1963 "Compadrazgo on a Henequen Hacienda in Yucatan: A
Structural Re-Evaluation." American Anthropologist,
Vol. 65: 574-583.

Doughty, Paul L.

1968 Huaylas; An Andean District in Search of Progress.

Cornell University Press. Ithaca, New York.

Dow, James
1969 "The Otomi of the Northern Sierra de Puebla: An
Ethnographic Outline." (M.S.)
1970 "Ra-ba.i-'Those who are standing': Religious
corporate groups among the Otomi of the Sierra
de Puebla, Mexico." (M.S.)

Dyk, Anne
1959 Mixteco Texts. Summer Institute of Linguistics
of the University of Oklahoma. Linguistic Series
No. 3.

 

Eggan, Fred
1937 "The Cheyenne and Arapaho Kinship System." In:
Social Anthropology of North American Tribes, F.
Eggan, Editor. Chicago.

57

Eisenstadt, Sahmuel Noah

1956 "Ritualized Personal Relations: Blood Brotherhood,
Best Friends, Compadre, etc. Some Comparative

Hypothesis and Suggestions." In: Map, 56: 90-95.

Erasmus, Charles J.
1950 "Current Theories on Incest Prohibition in the
Light of Ceremonial Kinship." Kroeber Anthropo-

logical Papers, No. 2. Berkeley, California,
pp. 42-50.

 

Fals Borda, Orlando
1955 Peasant Society in the Colombian Andes: A Socio-

lo ical Study of Saucio. Gainesville: University
of Florida Press.

Foster, Donald W.

1971 "The Tequio in Urban Mexico: A Case From Oaxaca
City." Paper presented at the Session on Latin
American Studies, Central States Anthropological
Society Meetings, Detroit, Michigan. (M.S.)

Foster, George M.

1953 "Cofradia and Compadrazgo in Spain and Spanish
America." Southwestern Journal of Anthropology,
9, 1: 1-28.

1962 Culturay_Conqgi§Ea. Universidad Veracruzana,
Biblioteca de la Facultad de Filosofia y Letras,
Veracruz, México.

1967 Tzintzuntzan. The Little Brown Series in Anthro-
pology: Boston, Massachusetts.

1969 "Godparents and Social Networks in Tzintzuntzan."
Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, 25: 261-278.

Fried, Morton H.
1953 Fabric of Chinese Society. New York: Praeger.

Friedrich, Paul
1970 Agrarian Revolt in a Mexican Village. Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc.

Gamio, Manuel
1922 La Poblacién del Valle de Teotihuacan. Secretaria

de Agricultura y Fomento, DirecciBn de Antro-
pologia, México.

Garibay K., Angel Ma.

1957 "Supervivencias de Cultura Intelectual Pre-
colombina entre los Otomies de Huizquilucan,
Estado de México." América Indigena, Vol. XVII,

 

No. 4, Octubre, pp. 319-333. Mexico.

58

Ghersi Barrera, Humberto
1953 "El Indigena y el Mestizo en la Comunidad de
Marcaré." Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, University
of San Marcos, Lima, Peru.

Gillin, John Philip

1945 Moche: A Peruvian Coastal Community. Institute
of SoCial Anthropology, Publication No. 3,
Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

1951 The Culture of Security in San Carlos: A Study
of a Guatemalan Community of Indians and Ladinos.
Middle American Research Institute, Tulane Uni-
versity. Publication No. 16.

1965 "Ethos Components in Modern Latin-American Culture.‘
In: Heath, D. B. and Adams, R. N., Eds., Egg:
temporary Cultures and Societies of Latin America.
Random House, New York, pp. 503-517.

 

 

 

Gonzalez, Nancie L.
1967 The Spanish Americans of New Mexico: A Distinctive
Herita e. Mexican American Study Project, Advance
Report 9, Graduate School of Business Adminis-
tration, University of California, Los Angeles.

Grebler, Leo; Joan W. Moore; and Ralph C. Guzman
1970 The Mexican-American People, the Nation's Second
Largest Minority. The Free Press, New York.

 

Guiteras Holmes, Calixta
1952 "Social Organization." In: 801 Tax, Ed.:
Heritage of Conqggst: The Ethnology of Middle
America. Viking Fund Seminar in Middle American
Etfinology. Glencoe: The Free Press, pp. 97-118.

Harris, Marvin
1968 The Rise of Anthropological Theory. Thomas Y.
Crowell Co., New York.

 

Heath, Dwight B.
1965 Introduction to "Views of the World." In:
Heath, D. B. and Adams, R. N., Eds.: Contemporary
Cultures and Societies of Latin America. Random

‘—

House, New York, pp. 4 5-486.

 

Holland, W. R.
1963 Medicina Maya en los Altos de Chiapas. Instituto
Nacional Indigenista, Coleccién Antropologia
Social, Publicacién No. 2, México.

Horowitz, Michael M.
1967 Morne-Paysan: Peasant Village in Martinique.
Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York.

59

Hubbell, Linda J.

1971 “Compadrazgo and its functions among the Middle—
class in a provincial Mexican town." Paper
presented at the Session on Latin-American Studies,
Central States Anthropological Society Meetings,
Detroit, Michigan. (M.S.)

Hutchinson, Harry William

1957 Village and Plantation Life in Northeastern
Brazil. Seattle: University of Washington Press.

 

Ishino, Iwao
1953 "The Oyabun-Kobun: A Japanese Ritual Kinship
Institution." American Anthropologist, 55:
695-707.

 

Kottak, Conrad Phillip
1966 "The Structure of Equality in a Brazilian Fishing
Community." Ph.D. Dissertation, Columbia Uni-
versity, New York.

Kroeber, Alfred L.
1948 Anthropology: Culture Patterns and Processes.
Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc.: New York.

La Barre, Weston
1948 The Aymara Indians of Lake Titicaca Plateau,
BoliVia. American Anthropological Association
"—_—'- o
Mem01r No. 68: Washington.

Laughlin, Robert M.
1967 "The Tzotzil." In: Handbook of Middle American
Indians, Vol. VI: Social Anthropology, Edited By
Mann1ng Nash. University of Texas Press: Austin,
pp. 152-194.

 

Leeds, Anthony
1965 "Brazilian Careers and Social Structure: A Case
History and Model." In: Heath, D. B. and
Richard N. Adams, Eds.: Contemporary Cultures
and Societies of Latin America. Random House:
New York, pp. 379-404.

 

 

Leslie, Charles M.
1960 Now We Are Civilized: A Study of the World View
of the Zapotec Indians of MitlaL Oaxaca. Detr01t:
Wayne State University Press.

 

 

Levi-Strauss, Claude
1943 "The Social Use of Kinship Terms Among Brazilian
Indians." American Anthropologist, Vol. 45:
398-409.

 

60

Lewis, Oscar

1951 Life in a Mexican Village: Tepoztlan Restudied.
University of Illinois Press: Urbana.

1960 Tepoztlan: Village in Mexico. Holt, Rinehart
and Winston: New York.

1965 "Urbanization Without Breakdown: A Case Study."
In: Heath, D. B., and Richard N. Adams, Eds.
Contemporary Cultures and Societies of Latin
America. Random House, New York, pp. 424—437.

Lin, Paul Ming-Chang
1963 "Voluntary Kinship and Voluntary Association in a
Mexican-American Community. Unpublished M.A.
Thesis, University of Kansas.

Lomnitz, Larissa
1971 "Reciprocity of Favors in the Urban Middle-Class
of Chile." Chapter VII of Studies in Economic
Anthropology, Edited by George Dalton. American
Anthropological Association, Anthropological
Studies No. 7: Washington, pp. 93-106.

 

 

 

Lopez, David E.
1969 "The Structure of Compadrazgo in Latin America."
Department of Social Relations, Harvard University:
Cornell Journal of Social Relations, Vol. 4, No. 1,
Spring: pp. 82-95.

Madsen, William

1960 The Virgin's Children:lyLife in an Aztec Village
Toda . University of Texas Press: Austin.
1964 The Mexican-Americans of South Texas. Holt,

Rinehart and Winston, New York.

Mangin, William P.
1965 "The Role of Regional Associations in the Adaptation
of Rural Migrants to Cities in Peru." In: Heath,
D. B. and Richard N. Adams: Contemporary Cultures
and Societies of Latin America. New York:
Random House, pp. 311—323.

 

Manners, Robert A.
1969 "Tabara: Subcultures of a Tobacco and Mixed
Crops Municipality." In: The People of Puerto
Rico. Edited by Julian H. Steward: University
of Illinois Press, Urbana, pp. 93-170.

 

Merrifield, William R.
1959 "Chinantec Kinship in Palantla, Oaxaca, Mexico."
American Anthropologist, 61: 875-881.

61

Mintz, Sidney W.

 

1960 Worker in the Cane: A Puerto Rican Life History.
New Haven: Yale University Press.
1969 "Cafiamelar: The Subculture of a Rural Sugar

Plantation Proletariat." In: The People of
Puerto Rico, ed. by Julian H. Steward. University
of Illin01s Press, Urbana, pp. 314-417.

 

Mintz, Sidney W. and Eric R. Wolf

 

 

 

 

 

 

1950 "An Analysis of Ritual Co-Parenthood (Compa-
drazgo)." Southwestern Journal of Anthropology,
Vol. VI, Winter, 341-368.
Miranda, Héctor de
1936 "Los Comadrazgos." Archivos del Folklore Cubano,
V01. V, NO. 1: 77-79.
Mishkin, Bernard
1946 "The Contemporary Quechua." In: Handbook of
South American Indians, Vol. II, Edited by J. H.
Steward. Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of
American Ethnology, Bulletin No. 143: Washington.
Montoya, José de Jesfis
1964 Atla: Etnografia de un Pueblo Nahuatl. Instituto

 

Nacional de Antropologia e Historia, México.

Nader, Laura
1967 "The Zapotec of Oaxaca." In: Handbook of Middle-
American Indians, Vol. VI: Social Anthropology.
Edited by Manning Nash, University of Texas Press,
Austin, pp. 329-359.

 

 

Nash, Manning

 

 

 

 

 

1958 Machine Age Maya: The Industrialization of a
Guatemalan Community. American Anthropological
Association Memoir No. 87: Washington.

Nelson, Cynthia

1971 The Waiting Village: Social Change in Rural

Mexico. Little, Brown and Company: Boston.
Nutini, Hugo G.

1968 San Bernardino Contla: Marriage and Family in a
Tlaxcalan Municipio. University of Pittsburgh
Press, Pennsylvania.

Osborn, Ann
1968 "Compadrazgo and Patronage: A Colombian Case."

Man, Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute
of Great Britain, New Series, Vol. III, No. 4,
December: 593-608.

62

Padilla Seda, Elena
1969 "The Subculture of Workers on a Government-Owned
Sugar Plantation." In: The People of Puerto
Rico, Edited by Julian H. Steward. Universiiy of
Ill1nois Press, Urbana, pp. 265-313.

Parsons, Elsie Clews ‘
1936 Mitla: Town of the Souls. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.

 

Paul, Benjamin David
1942 "Ritual Kinship With Special Reference to God-
parenthood in Middle-America." Unpublished
Doctoral Dissertation, Chicago, University of
Chicago Press.

Paul, Benjamin David and Lois Paul
1952 "The Life Cycle." In: Heritage of Conquestz The
Ethnology of Middle Amerida, Edited by Sol Tax.
Viking Fund Seminar on Middle American Ethnology.
Glencoe: The Free Press, pp. 174-192.

 

Pierson, Donald
1951 Cruz das Almag: A Brazilian Village. Smithsonian
Institution, Institute of Social Anthropology,
Publication No. 12, Washington.

Pike, E. V.
1948 "Head-washing and Other Elements in the Mazateco
Marriage Ceremony." America Indigena, 8: 219-222.

Pitt-Rivers, Julian A.
1958 "Ritual Kinship in Spain." Transactions of the
New York Academy of Sciences, Series II, 20:
No. 5, pp. 424-431.

Plasencia Castellanos, German Wilfrido
1970 El Gobierno en San Miguel Suchiltepec. E.N.A.H.
* . ’ f
Te51s Profe51onal, Mex1co.

Press, Irwin
1963 "The Incidence of Compadrazgo Among Puerto-Ricans
in Chicago." Social and Economic Studies, Insti-
tute of Social and Economic Studies, University of
the West Indies, Jamaica, Vol. 12, No. 4, December:
pp. 475-480.

 

63

Ravicz, Robert Simon

1958 "A Comparative Study of Selected Aspects of Mixtec
Social Organization." Doctoral Dissertation,
Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.

1965 Organizacién Social de los Mixtecos. Instituto
Nacional Indigenista, Coleccién Antropologia
Social, Publicacién No. 5, México.

1966 "The Washing of the Hands: A Structural Element
in Indigenous Interpretation of Christian Baptism."
In: Homenaje a Roberto J. Weitlaner, Instituto
Nacional de Antropologia e Historia, México,
pp. 281-290.

1967 "Compadrinazgo." In: Handbook of Middle-American .
Indians, Vol. VI: Social Anthropology. Edited by
Mann1ng Nash, University of Texas, Austin: 238-
251.

 

 

Redfield, Robert

1930 Tepoztlan: A Mexican Village. Chicago: Uni-
versity of Chicago Press.

1941 The Folk Culture of Yucatan. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.

1950 AyVillage That Chose Progress: Chan-Kom Revisited.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

1962 Human Nature and tha_Study of Society: _The Papers
of Robert Redfield, Edited by Margaret Park
Redfield. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

" . .o‘c.- -§.. 1. ' .1
.
w:
4‘
'
.I

 

 

Redfield, Robert and Alfonso Villa-Rojas
1934 Chan-Kom: A Maya Village. Publication No. 448,
Carnegie Institution: Washington.

Reichel-Dolmatoff, Gerardo and Alicia
1961 The People of Aritama: The Cultural Personality
of a Colombian Mestizo Village. Chicago: Uni-
versity of Chicago Press.

 

Reina, Rubén E.
1959 "Two Patterns of Friendship in a Guatemalan Com-
munity." American Anthropologist 61: 44-50.
1967 The Law ofjthe Saints: A Pokomam Ppeblo and Its
Community Culture. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill Co.

Rojas Gonzalez, Francisco
1943 "La Institucién del Compadrazgo entre los
Indigenas de México." Revista Mexicana de
Sociologia, V, 1: 201-213}

Rubel, Arthur J.
1955 "Ritual Relationships in Ojitlan, México."
American Anthropologist, 57: 1038-1040.
1966 Across the Tracks: Mexican-Americans in a Texas
City. Austin: University of Texas Press.

64

Sayres, William C.
1956 "Ritual Kinship and Negative Affect." American
Sociological Review, 21, 3: 348-352.

Scheele, Raymond L.
1969 "The Prominent Families of Puerto Rico." In:
The People of Puerto Rico, Edited by Julian H.
Steward. University of Illinois Press, Urbana,
pp. 418-462.

Seda Bonilla, Edwin
1958 "The Normative Pattern of the Puerto Rican Family
in Various Situational Contexts." Unpublished
Ph.D. Dissertation, Columbia University, New York.

Service, Elman R. and Helen S.
1954 Tobati: Paraguayan Town. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
1965 "General Remarks on Rural Paraguay." In: Heath,
D. B. and Richard N. Adams, eds.: Contemporary
Cultures and Societie§_of Latin Amefica. Random
House: New York, pp. 70-84.

 

 

Smith, Michael Garfield
1962 Kinship and Communi_y in Carriacouj West Indies.
New Haven: Yale University Press.

Solien, Nancie L.
1960 "Changes in Black Carib Kinship Terminology."
Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, 16: 144-159.

Soustelle, Georgette
1958 Tequila: un village nahuatl du Mexique Oriental.
Institut D‘Ethnologie, Travaux et Memories, Publ.
No. 62, Paris, France.

Spicer, Edward Holland
1940 Pascua: a Yaqui Village in Arizona. Publications
in Anthropology, Ethnological Series, University
of Chicago.
1954 Potam: A Yaqui Village in Sonora. American Anthro-
pological Association, Memoir No. 77, Vol. 56,
No. 4, Part 2, August.

Spielberg, Joseph
1964 "Compadrazgo and Social Distance in a Guatemalan
Ladino Community." Paper presented at the Annual
Meeting of the American Anthropological Association,
November, Detroit, Michigan.
1968 "Small Village Relations in Guatemala: A Case
Study." Human Organization, 27, 3: 205-211.

65

Stavenhagen, Rodolfo
1965 "Classes, Colonialism and Acculturation: Essay on
a System of Inter-ethnic Relations in Mesoamerica."
Studies in Interpational Comparative Development.
Social Sciences Institute of Washington University
at St. Louis, Sage Publications, Vol. I, No. 6,
pp. 53-77.

 

Stein, William W.
1961 Hualcan: Life in the Highlands of Peru. Cornell
UniverSity Press: Ithaca, New York.

 

Steward, Julian H.
1965 "Analysis of Complex Contemporary Societies:
Culture Patterns of Puerto Rico." In: Heath,
D. B. and Richard N. Adams, Editors: Contemporary
Cultures and Societies of Latin America. Random
House, New York, pp. 30-41.

 

 

Steward, Julian H. (Ed.)
1969 The People of Puerto Rico. University of Illinois
Press: Urbana.

 

Steward, Julian H. and Louis C. Faron
1959 Native Peoples of South America. McGraw-Hill Co:
New York.

 

Strickon, Arnold
1965 "Class and Kinship in Argentina." In: Heath,
D. B. and Adams, R.: Contemporary Cultures and
Societies of Latin America. Random House: New
York, pp. 324-341.

 

Tannenbaum, Frank
1960 Ten Keys to Latin America. New York, Random House.

Tax, 801
1963 Penny Capitalism: A Guatemalan_lndian Economy.
Chicago: University ofiChicago Press.

Taylor, Douglas McRae
1951 The Black Carib of British Honduras. Viking Fund
Publications in Anthropology, No. 17.

 

Toor, Frances (Ed.)
1947 A_Treasury of Mexican Folkways. New York: Crown
Publishers.

 

Tschopik, Harry Jr.
1951 The Aymara of ChucuitoLgPeruy I: Magic. American
Museum of National History Publications Vol. 44,
Part 2, New York.

 

 

66

Tumin, Melvin M.
1952 Caste in a Peasant Society. Princeton, New Jersey:
Princeton University Press.

Tylor, Edward Burnett
1861 Anahuac or Mexico_and the Mexicans, Ancient and
Modern. Longman, Green, Longman andiRoberts,
Publishers, London.

 

Van den Berghe, Pierre L. y Benjamin N. Colby
1961 "Ladino-Indian Relations in the Highlands of
Chiapas, Mexico." In: Social Forces, Vol. 40,
No. 1: 63-71.

 

Van den Berghe, Pierre L. and Gwendoline
1966 "Compadrazgo and Class in Southeastern Mexico."
American Anthropologist, 68: 1236-1244.

Vazquez V., Mario C.
1965 "Changes in the Social Stratification of an Andean
Hacienda: Vicos, Peru." In: Heath, D. B. and
Richard N. Adams: Contemporary Cultures and
Societies ofILatin America. Random House, New
York, pp. 405-423.

Villa Rojas, Alfonso
1945 The Ma a of East Central Quintana Roo. Publication
No. 559, Carnegie Institute, Washington.
1967 "The Tzeltal." In: Handbook of Middle;American
Indians, Vol. VI, Social Anthropology. Edited by
Manning Nash, University of Texas Press: Austin,
pp. 195-225.

Vincent, Maria
1966 "Ritual Kinship in an Urban Setting: Martineztown,
New Mexico." Unpublished M.A. Thesis, University
of New Mexico.

Vogt, Evon (Ed.)

1966 Los Zinacanteoos: Un Pueblo Tzotzil detlos Altos
de Chiapas. Coleccién de Antropologia Social,
Instituto Nacional Indigenista, México.

1969 ginacantan: AiMaya Community in the Highlands
of Chiapas. The Belknap Press, Cambridge, Mass.

1970 Thg_zinacantecos of Mexico: A Modern Maya Way
of Life, Holt, Rinehart and’Winston, New York}

67

Wagley, Charles

1949 The Social and Religious Life of a Guatemalan
Villa e. American Anthropological Association
Mem01r No. 71.

1963 A9 Introduction to Brazil. Columbia University
Press, New York.

1965 "Regionalism and Cultural Unity in Brazil." In:
Heath, D. B. and Richard N. Adams: Contemporary
Cultures and Societies of Latin AmeriEa, Random
House, New York, pp. 124-138.

Weaver, Thomas
1965 "Social Structure, Change and Conflict in a New
Mexico Village." Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation,
University of California.

Weitlaner, Roberto J.
1945 Parentesco y Compadrazgo Coras. Escuela Nacional
de Antropologia e'Historia, Publicacién No. 4,
México: 3-11.

Weitlaner, Roberto J. y C. A. Castro G.
1954 Papeles de la Chinantla: Mayaltianguis y
Tlacoatzintepec. Museo Nacional de Antropologia
e Historia, Serie Ciencias No. 3, México.

Whetten, Nathan L.
1948 Rural Mexico. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
1961 Guatemala: The Land and the People. Yale Uni-
versity Press: New Haven, Connecticut.

Wilkie, Raymond
1971 San Miguel: A Mexican Collective Ejido. Stanford
University Press, California.

Willems, Emilio
1961 Ema Vila Brasilera: _}radi ao e trans ao. Difusao
Europeia do Livro. Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Willems, Emilio and Gioconda Mussolini
1952 Buzios Island: a Caicara Community in Southern

Brazil. American Ethnological Society, Monograph
No. 20, Washington.

 

 

Wisdom,
1940

1952

68

 

Charles

The Chorti Indians of Guatemala. Chicago: Uni-
versity of Chicago Press.

"The Supernatural World and Curing." In: Sol

Tax, Ed.: Heritage of Conquest: The Ethnology of
Middle America. Viking Fund Seminar on Middle
American Ethnology. Glencoe: The Free Press,

pp. 119-141.

 

 

Wolf, Eric R.

1960

1965

1966

1969

"The Indian in Mexican Society." Alpha Kappa
Deltan: A Sociological Journal. Special Issue:
The Social Anthropology of Middle America, Vol.
XXX, No. 1, Winter: 3-6.

"Aspects of Group Relations in a Complex Society:
Mexico." In: Heath, D. B. and Richard N. Adams:
Contemporary Cultures and Societies of Latin
America, Random House, New York: 85-101.
"K1nsh1p, Friendship and Patron-Client Relation-
ships." In: Bantom, M. (Ed.): The Social
Anthropology of Complex Societies. Association of
Social Anthropologists, Monography No. 4. Tavis-
tock Publications, London: pp. 1-22.

"San José: Subcultures of a 'Traditional' Coffee
Municipality." In: The People of Puerto Rico,
edited by Julian H. Steward. University of
Illinois Press, Urbana, pp. 171-264.

 

 

 

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

CODE OF CASES STUDIED

 

 

69

APPENDIX A

CODE OF CASES STUDIED

 

 

Case No. Town State Country Author
1 U.S.A. Eggan (1937)
2 Chicago Illinois U.S.A. Press (1963)
3 Pascua Arizona U.S.A. Spicer (1940)
4 Martineztown New Mexico U.S.A. Vincent (1966)
5 New Mexico U.S.A. Weaver (1965)
6 Bernalillo New Mexico U.S.A. Gonzalez (1967)
7 San Jose California U.S.A. Clark (1959)
8 Kansas City Kansas U.S.A. Lin (1963)
9 Texas U.S.A. Madsen (1964)
10 Mexiquito Texas U.S.A. Rubel (1966)
11 U.S.A. Grebler y/o (1970)
12 Zinacantan Chiapas Mexico Colby and Van den Berghe (1966)
12 Zinacantan Chiapas Mexico Cancian (1965)
12 Zinacantan Chiapas Mexico VOgt (1970,1969,l966)
13 San Luis and
Janiltepec Chiapas Mexico De la Fuente (1965)
14 Larrainzar Chiapas Mexico Holland (1963)
l5 San Cristobal Chiapas Mexico Van den berghe and Van den Berghe (1966)
16 Chiapas Mexico Laughlin (1967)
17 Chiapas Mexico Van den Berghe and Colby (1961)
18 Chiapas Mexico Villa Rojas (1967)
19 Coahuila Mexico Hilkie (1971)
20 Mexico City Mexico o.r. Mexico Lewis (1965)
21 S.Juan Teoti-
huacan Mexico D.!. Mexico Gamio (1922)
22 Mexico Rojas (1943)
23 Mexico Tylor (1965)
24 Cuijla Guerrero Mexico Aguirre (1958)
25 Jesus Maria Nayarit Mexico Weitlaner (1945)
26 Huizquilucan Mexico Mexico Garibay (1957)
27 Tzintzuntzan Michoacan Mexico Foster (1969,1967)
27 Tzintzuntzan Michoacan Mexico Brandes (1968)
28 Naranja Michoacan Mexico Friedrich (1970)
29 Uruapan Michoacan Mexico Mubbell (1971)
30 Erongaricuaro Michoacan Mexico Nelson (1971)
31 Hueyapan Morelos Mexico Berruecos (1968)
32 Tepoztlan Morelos Mexico Lewis (l965,l960,l951)
32 Tepoztlan Morelos Mexico Redfield (1930)
33 Mayarit Mexico Cerda (1943)
34 Mitla Oaxaca Mexico Leslie (1960)
34 Mitla Oaxaca Mexico Parsons (1936)
35 Tehuantepec Oaxaca Mexico Covarrubiae (1947)
36 Oaxaca Mexico De la Fuente (1965)
37 Yalalag Oaxaca Mexico De la Fuente (1949)
38 Oaxaca Mexico Dyk (1959)
39 Oaxaca City Oaxaca Mexico Foster, D. (1971)
40 Palantla Oaxaca Mexico Merrifield (1959)
41 Oaxaca Mexico Nader (1967)
42 Huautla de Ji-
menez Oaxaca Mexico Pike (1948)
43 S.Miquel Su-
chiltapec Oaxaca Mexico Plasencia (1970)
44 Jamiltepec Oaxaca Mexico Ravicz (1965,1968)
4s 031:1521 Oaxaca Mexico Rubel (1955)
46 Chinantla Oaxaca Mexico Weitlaner and Castro (1954)
47 Zacatipan Puebla Mexico Arizpe (1970)
48 San Sebastian Puebla Mexico Berruecos (1971)
49 Tenango and
Sta.Monica Puebla Mexico Dow (1970,1969)
50 Tecospa Puebla Mexico Madsen (1960)
51 Atla Puebla Mexico Montoya (1964)
52 Q.Roo Mexico Villa Rojas (1945)
53 Sinaloa Mexico Beale (1945)
S4 Potam Sonora Mexico Spicer (1954)
SS S.Bernardino Tlaxcala Mexico Nutini (1968)
56 Tequila Veracruz Mexico Soustelle (1958)
57 Yucatan Mexico Deshon (1963)
58 Cantel Yucatan Mexico Nash (1958)
S9 Chan Kom Yucatan Mexico Redfield (1950,1941)
59 Chan Kom Yucatan Mexico Redfield and Villa Rojas (1934)
60 Mexico Bastarrachea (1970)

70

 

 

Case No. Town State Country Author
61 Chichicaste-
nango Guatemala Bunzel (1952)
62 San Carlos Guatemala Gillin (1951)
63 Sta.Cruz Chi-
nautla Guatemala Reina (1967,1959)
64 S.Migue1 Mil-
pas Altas Guatemala Spielberg (1968,1964)
65 Panajachel Guatemala Tax (1963)
66 S.Luis Jilote- '
peque Guatemala Tumin (1952)
67 Chimaltenango Guatemala Wagley (1949)
68 Guatemala Hhetten (1961)
69 Quetzaltepeque Guatemala Wisdom (1940)
70 Belize Solien (1960)
71 Belize Taylor (1951)
72 La Habana Cuba Miranda (1936)
73 Jauca Puerto Rico Mintz (1960)
74 San Juan Puerto Rico Seda (1958)
74 San Juan Puerto Rico Scheele (1969)
75 Puerto Rico Steward (1969,1965)
76 Tabara Puerto Rico Manners (1969)
77 Canamelar Puerto Rico Mintz (1969)
78 Nocora Puerto Rico Padilla (1969)
79 San Jose Puerto Rico Wolf (1969)
80 Carricaou H.1ndies Smith (1962)
81 Morne-Paysan Martinique Horowitz (1967)
82 Saucio Colombia Fals-Borda (1955)
83 Narino Colombia Osborn (1968)
84 Aritama Colombia Reichel-Dolmatoff and Reichel-Dolmatoff
(1961)
85 Santiago Chile Lomnitz (1971)
86 Muquiyauyo Peru Adams (1959)
87 Huaylas Peru Doughty (1968)
88 Moche Peru Gillin (1945)
89 Marcara Peru Ghersi (1953)
90 Lima Peru Mangin (1965)
91 Kauri Peru Mishkin (1946)
92 Hualcan Peru Stein (1961)
93 Chucuito Peru Tschopik (1951)
94 Vicos Peru Vazquez (1965)
95 L.Titicaca Bolivia La Barre (1948)
96 Tobati Paraguay Service and Service (1965,1954)
97 Argentina Strickon (1965)
98 Brazil Azevedo (1965)
99 Vila Reconcavo Brazil Hutchinson (1957)
100 Arembepe Brazil Kottak (1966)
101 Brazil Leeds (1965)
102 Matto-Gro
sso- Brazil Levi-Strauss (1943)
103 Cruz das
Almas Brazil Pierson (1951)
104 Brazil Wagley (1963,1965)
105 Cunha Brazil Willems (1961)
106 Buzios Brazil willems and Mussolini (1952)

 

APPENDIX B

TABLES

'71

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.oowosue nouns Gnu mo enemas: coco on» one co>wm nuonaaze
no Hooemoaonuaoa
mm no
em mm
«m an
mod mm av usowmwaom
won m~ mo we
me am ow NH no av
on he vb ow mm H hm hm
co
ow vw
me we
no as Heowuwaom J
N@ Oh W
Hm w
em no we ow I.
a» «a no o. m~ ~m om no m
an am no mv cu an mm «v a
sh om so No he on em av
an no on do ma mm mm on
on we mm ov ma mm um um oofiocoom
up moa on mo on an vH no Hm mm
or moa an mm mm on ma mm om vm
m ooa an no am on NH vb ow we vN
u no em me me vm n mm ms OH on mm we m
on mm on
aw mm am pm
moa on we em on an
ooa an on mm mm om
Ho oH do mm mm as
an em «OH m cm em ma hm Hmfioom
he am we m up mm ma on
on om om r or Nm mu mm
HOH an am an 0 mm me ma an
we we on an as v pm me vv NH vm me
mg mp me hN me he N ma ow mv H «a N
genus undueom cofiocu Genus panacea ceaocm Gena: panacea cewocH Genus uneuoom cowocH ”omha Heuowoom
Handcuwuom HoOwuuo> HeOGONfluom Hoowuuo> “macecowueaom
on» no :oanoEfin
uncofiuh mm>wueaom newumuwuo coHuooaom
«nowumwuouoeuenu
.mCOHUOgh Us uflHQflHHfl> MO bogmilod Egan.

72

TABLE 2.--Se1ection Criteria.a

 

 

 

 

Friends Relatives
Indian Peasant Urban Indian Peasant Urban
3 12 2 1 12 2
12 13 8 3 57 3
14 14 10 25 64 6
15 15 74 52 82 7
16 16 90 58 83 8
17 17 59 84 9
26 18 60 87 ll
31 27 70 96 20
34 30 80 98 29
37 32 92 100 32
41 S7 41
42 63 97
43 64
44 66
48 74
49 75
51 76
53 77
54 78
55 79
61 81
63 82
65 83
66 84
67 87
68 94
86 96
88 99
91 100
103
105
Totals 29 31 S 10 10 12

 

aNumbers given are the code numbers of the cases studied.

he- ' -

 

73

TABLE 3.--Presence of Secular Bonds of Compadrazgo in Three
Societal Types.a

 

 

Indian Peasant Urban
3 l7 9
4 22 10

12 27
13 28
16 29
17 32
18 63
22 64
31 68
34 74
37 75
41 76
44 77
45 78
48 79
49 82
50 84
51 87
52 89
53 98
54 104
55
56
59
60
63
67
68
69
88
91
92
93
Totals 33 21 2

 

aNumbers given are the code numbers of the cases
studied. -

TABLE 4.-Distribution of Secular Types of Compadrazgo in Latin America.a

 

'3 1 V 1 0 &
-seojze313ssx yes

'714

'“U‘N—Q~~‘¢NSHfinNQNznflfiflud—‘HNNN'IOH-‘NMI‘B
H

 

1399139213!!!

IIIIIIIIIIIIiiééiaééév
...--..-----..---:!114
----------.----:!32 0

-.-.--------Z!9399!-9§--

 

.----- 'OUUJDA
_ """"'=assaq3
‘ ' 1,-7.1": 7"?" '1
--:!!29111
"""ZZZZ"““13"*P°'H
”"' nfifiy
'''' """"""*ia555§

5!- Eu--‘--o--(

-------------

 

1 a-.-

1__n 1 2791”)“le 2'15'13'IT

 

 

....... .-----.-.'f‘xsafil
'uoyj
-slaj;uoo-au so 1131:;

 

""""""" «magnum

{l

2

 

 

""""""""" 'Iasf:01

I!
I
I

 

"' """ 'ulm'qst'ni

 

---------- '551635fd'Kf5H

 

 

 

'su01§

 

""""""" 'flfiffd '55)]

 

"""""""" 'Idf5f5fdffij

 

----------- 'Idfiffisn’iifi

 

........... WUffffi5-W'1'5N'

XIXXXMXR

I
I
I
I
It!
(I

 

 

" """" 'taifirtadrstfiafi

 

 

"""""" 'u156555fi665
"""""""" '5:55r"'

~40 Klan :0 IUIIIBII

 

 

I
I
I
I
I
U
I
U
I
I
I
12 ]I7 31111111114311

1

 

--------------- ’Uf :1.
""""" “fiHUW'Sffififif

"Ud’fmfffdo'fi 'fifii'o'ffif’

""""""""""" rifsg
"""""""""" 'idfv
""""""" ’Iflfidiifj
""""""""" 'qsa;

"""""""""""" '9“):qu

"""""""" ’fiifdfij

.------------.----r6P-ufi

 

 

 

X
I

V---

b--

b

 

II

 

oooooooooooooooo rf66q'fli

 

""""""""" ’éififiiiig

‘W‘flf Tip. 'O'fd'é' {din-iii 51' '

............. 'U'o' ff $5.315
................. “3.11%“.

 

 

""""""""" (sausu
""C'I'WWNFW
""Iuvrusuvxgtn5*rsdas5

 

 

Kl

 

 

“"‘ 'u03311

 

 

 

uo 103: ”I

XXXXXR

 

 

 

 

 

Laaga;

 

 

XI I K KKK

a

 

a

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

----4

 

 

 

 

 

A

 

1 1-1 D'l'l 3:1 1 2_7-1ra 1 I 1 2 5‘2 1 1‘2 1

AJ—‘-.J.J-—L ‘4 ‘

 

 

 

J '3 ‘5
l_-J.—J_J_A

 

 

 

aNumbers given are the code numbers of the cases studied.

 

 

 

"fillfllfllfiulllflllfll“