SAN MIGUEL MILpAs ALTAS: AN ETHNOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS or INTERPERSONAI. . RELATIONS IN A PEASANT ‘LADINO COMMUNITY or GUATEMALA Thesis for the Dogru'of Ph. D, ' MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Joseph Spielberg I955 "HM”WHIwI-L . This is to certify that the thesis entitled San Miguel Milpas Altas: An Ethnographic Analysis of Interpersonal Relations in a Ladino Peasant Community of Guatemala presented by Joseph Spielberg; has been. accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for 211.3..— degree in We]. 0837 (<34L5n49w1aC/;:?liéZQ, . M . Dme June 17, 1965 0-169 L I B R 1‘ R Y Michigan Staw University .\ Tn. i ' ‘?‘E. -- '5 .f unlinuflu-‘ ' o I .. l l d- -- I. ‘ J ' .f “-3-??- “I 5"". .__?.‘flf.flfii‘;'-’ :._‘_ , . . a ' .1 1.1 A“ 5A. TIE-1.3“ 1Puk‘mm.g‘ A ‘7'“ f..- “A”! '14“ ‘? -1-7-r—.1.—-v—rv-— Tw+——r'—‘-rQ-—-fi T ”‘1‘“: 1| 'i .‘f‘. " 13a: - "I". _,__ ’ WW ' A , IA‘JD n “—- ~ In- "I .‘f‘fo “ .Vu‘ m V I“ ' i"' P' ' M—E-‘AY" Tflq ‘ . ' L‘ls-i‘i —- sur- -34 um L’ m '4 E." ABSTRACT SAN HIGUEL HILPAS ALTAS: All ETHI‘EOGiislIPi-lIC AI-JALYSIS or RPEnsoIIAL RELATIOI‘JS III A PEASAHT LADINO COHHUHITY or GUATEHALA Iihl W by Joseph Spielberg The primary objective of this Thesis is to pr0\rick3 23 basic ethnography of a completely ladino (rKDn-rirujian) peasant connmnity. The community described is :3 :snuall village, oF approximately 400 persons, lCDCEItGHj a few miles east of Antigua, Guatemala. The etfiincxgraphic data was gathered primarily through the \JSLJal techniques of anthropological research, namely pen'ti<:ipant observation, informal surveys and intensive intxerviews with selected informants, during two periods I- or' residence in the village and the nearby area in T932 and l934. Secondly, on the basis of the ethnographic Inaterials gathered in this community, an attempt is made in the concluding chapter of this Thesis to examine local modes of interpersonal relations in the context of selected social institutions. The problem periOdlCZ lrlttaran3tion; 3) whether the institution is akned eat; FLJlFilling a single class or multiple classes C)? ifianctions; 4) whether the interaction required by the institutions is "Form-ally (legally or twiligicnasly) based or informally (consensually) based; 23nd 5) whether the institutions are viewed as sacrexi (dealing with transcendental or religious valuems) or secular (dealing with the performance oF practical tasks only). The principle Finding oF this analysis is that social institutions that require lontherm, continuous association and have a Formal basis, the aims and goals oF which Fall into a multiple classes and connote sacredness, appear to be less Favored by San Higuelenos as contexts or through which to relate and interact with their Fellowevillagers. In other words, situations do occur in this peasant village which exhibit limited cooperation, a demonstration oF corporateness and, at least, aFFectively neutral views of their Fellows, but seldom or never do such situations occur in the context oF institutions which, by their nature, are binding and require a greater degree oF intensive association or aFFiliation. In this case, such institutions were Formal marriag embOOTGd 1“ twiis; analysis grows out oF an increasing bOdY 0f anthrc>i3C>logical literature which has Focused on the seeafirqgljy atomistic (lack oF corporateness) character (DF iaexasant communities in Latin America and Southerwa Ethope, their lack oF cooperative eFFort For the cxmrmxari good and the highly negative view peasants tnavc: oF their Fellow villagers. Particular critical Eittcuition is paid in the introductory and concluding (flaapters oF this Thesis to George Foster's “dyadic cxxitract model“ as an explanation For the above newrtioned characteristics oF these communities. Unlike Foster's approach, the proposition entertained in this Thesis is that in certain types oF social institutions, this atomistic character 0F peasant communities, their lack oF cooperation and highly negative Feelings towards others are absent; while these same Features are highly evident when looked at in terms oF other social institutions. The social institutions examined in relation to modes oF interpersonal relations are analyzed in terms OI Five dimensions conceived to be common to all \. h institutions. These dimensions are: 1) whether the institution requires long-term or short-term association; 2) whether the institution requires continuous or and that oF ritual co-parenthood. (compidrazgo) On the basis oF this general Finding, a tentative paradigm is constructed For the conceptualization oF peasant social organization. This paradigm attempts to explain both the seemingly atomistic character oF communities such as San Miguel and the centripetal Forces providing the necessary cohesion and integration necessary For their continuity as communities. SAN MIGUEL MILPAS ALTAS: AH ETHHUGRAPHIC ANALYSIS OF IilTWEFHQERS HAL RELATIONS IN A PEASAHT LADINO COMMUNITY OF GUATEMALA By Joseph Spielberg A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial Fulfillment oF the requirements For the degree oF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department oF Anthropology 1955 FRONT-MATTER ‘Wiany years ago this village had another name. lixui, one day, in the middle oF the small Rio de 1:5 1 Canes, not Far From here, a statue oF San Miguel was Found. Hen From other villages came and took San Miguel to their own village church. But San Miguel did not like these places and so the next day he would be Found back in the river. Many other villages in the vicinity took San Miguel and tried to give him a home in their church, but he disliked them all. Then one day men From this village went and brought him here. And he stayed. He liked it here. Once, when the people oF this village were Fighting and being bad to each other, San Miguel tried to leave. One morning they Found him oFF the altar and at the door. IF the people oF San Miguel continue LC) bein bad, he will leave us. And we shall die.“ a tale told by an old Gentleman oF San Miguel d. d DEDICATION To the people oF San Miguel Milpas Altas and all campesinos like them--people oF incredible courage, stamina and patience-awhose unjust and unnecessary poverty has brought them in its wake, scorn, neglect, inconsiderateness and, as in this case, cold, impersonal, analytical attention. When it is their turn-- as it will be--may they demonstrate greater sympathy and understanding than was shown them. To them I respectFully dedicate this Thesis. ACKNOylLEDGI'iENTS I wish to thank Dr. Bernard Gallin, Chairman of my Thesis Comnfittee whose encouragement, constructive criticism and friendship provided much of the impetus behind this Thesis. I am deeply grateful. I also wish to thank Drs. Charles C. Hughes, fiilliam A. Faunce and John Donoghue-amembers of my Committeea-for their stimulation, advice and patience on a variety of matters relating to this Thesis and my own, professional growth. The special and extensive debt of a student to his teacher is owed to Professor Richard N. Adams, of the University of Texas. This indebtedness extends to his wife Betty, and their children, who often shared their happy home life and their love with me; so needed during many, early periods of gnawing uncera tainty, confusion and frustration. In Guatemala, many individuals gave of their time and energy in order to make my work easier. Among them, I wish to thank Dr. Alfredo Mendez, of the Instituto de Nutricion de Centro-flmerica nyanama (INCAP), and Lic. Flavio Rojas of the Seminario de Integracion Social at Guatemala City. I especially extend my thanks and gratitude to Sr. Joaquin Hoval, iv who, iri better times perhaps, might have authored a much snaperior and insightful monograph on San Miguel. Hay Pris hopes for his country, and the abilities he could bring to its development, ultimately find their expression in a free and healthy society. The warmth and genuine friendliness of old and new Guatemaltecos for the fumbling "gringo" were well manifest in Don Alejandro Alvarenga, of Guatemala City, Mr. Mrs. Walter Hannstein and Dona Hillie Schleser of Panajachel. To them, my wife and I, extend our thanks for many a restful and pleasant hour away from the frustrations of field work. Perhaps the greatest debt of all is owed to my wife Maria, who willingly shared and endured many hours of discomfort and neglect through some of the field work and the writing of this Thesis. Her greatest gifts have been her love and a daughter, Tani, whose recent arrival has added significance to everything I have tried to do. With all my love, I thank them. TABLE CF CCHTEHTS Page Front Matter..................................... l Dedication....................................... ll Acknowledgments.................................. iii List of Tables................................... vi Chapter I. II. III. SAN MIGUEL MILPAS ATLAS: AH ETHHCGRAPHIC ANALYSIS OF INTERPERSOHAL RELATIONS IN A PEASANT, LADIHO COHHUHITY OF GUATEMALA ..o. 1 Introduction ijectives of Thesis Special Theoretical Focus Field Work and Data Gathering Special Problems THE VILLXGE SETTIHGoooooooooooooooooooooooo “5 Village Government Village School The People The Household Household Routine Kinship System Subsistence Agriculture and Land Tenure Cash Producing Activity Small Scale Entrepeneurs Some Important Aspects of the San Higueleno Point of View RESIDENCE INHERITAHCE AHD HARR AGE......... l37 Introduction The Residential Sitio and Its Composition Residence Rules Patterns of Inheritance and Residence Marriage Versus Common Law Unions Common Law Unions and world View Summary Chapter IV. C:LPADRAZGO.............................. l33 Types of Compradre Bonds Criteria for Selection of Compadres The Pattern of Compadre Bonds world View and Compadrazgo Cther Functional Correlate Summary and Conclusion V. CCHH'NITY ADMINISTRATION AND THE POLITICAL SYSTEHoooooooococo-00.000000000000000. 217 Introduction Cowwmnity Administration Recent Guatemalan Political History Village Political Factions History of Political factions in San Miguel Summary v1. RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION................... 300 Short History of Religious Organization Comite de la Iglesia Duties of the Comite The Hermandades Components and Calendar of Community Religion ' Death Romerias and the ”Hake for the Candle“ Swwnary VIII. INTERPERSOHAL RELATIONS IN THEIR INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT.0.0000000000000000000000000000 355 Introduction The Institutions Agricultural Hgge Labor Marriage and Common Law Unions Compadrazgo Faenas and the Auxiliatura Political Factions Comite De La Iglesia and the Hermandades Religious Fiestas, Velacion de la Candela and Funeral makes CG 0 Paradigm for the Conceptualization of Peasant Social Organization Conclusion APPEJDIX.00000.00.00000000000.0000000000000000ooooouog BI3LIOGRAPHY...00.000000000000000oooooooooooooooooou33 vi LIST OF TABLES A Diagram of the Structure of Levels OF Governmentooooooooooooo Kinship Nomenclature................ Frequency of Family Types........... Number of Individuals per Household. Frequency of Residence Types........ Types of Conjugal Unions............ Age Distributions of Hales Married and Common Law Unions............ ”A'- PAUL. al $134 MIGUEL hILPAS ALTAS: RH ETHNCGRaPHIC rkHKLYSIS OF IHTERPERSCHA RELATIONS IN A PEASAFT LADIHG COMMUNITY CF GUATEMALA CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Objectives of Thesis The primary over-all objective of this thesis is to provide a basic, ethnographic description of a non- Indian, Guatemalan Peasant community. The motivation behind this objective is related to the fact that only until very recently, the overwhelming ethnographic and ethnological concern with the cultures of Middle America had been focused on traditional Indian communities. Given that the hypothetico-deductive stage of investigation should always follow the des- criptive, or natural history stage, it is worthwhile and significant, then, that an ethnographic grounding be provided for this type of cownmnity, heretofore neglected in favor Indian communities. This nearly exclusive interest in traditional Indian communities was understandable. Given the 2 strong interest in culture contact and acculturation in American anthropological thinking prior to Vorld War II, the emphasis appears to have been in the general area of diffusion of new culture traits (usually Hispanic) and survivals or retentions of pre-columbian ones. The several centuries of contact and inter- action between the Spanish-American cultural tradition and the sedentery Indian villages of highland Guatemala and Mexico made this area ideal for such studies. Excellent examples of this type of orientation are found in the work of Elsie C. Parsons (l933) and Antonio Goubaud (l937). Also, the work of Maud Cakes (l95l), William Madsen (l957) and Oliver LaFarge (l9h7) illustrates that this type of emphasis was not necessarily abandonded after World War II. While this type of interest and approach has produced some sound, significant and interesting pieces of work, it appears to have had a tendency to create a rather faulty impression or image of modern Latin America, or, at least, diverted anthropological attention from the more far-reaching and newer, social and cultural forces bringing about change in that part of the world. As Gillin (1943: 2h3-248) has stated it, “Our tendency and that of most Europeans 3 has been to identify the modern way of life in Latin America either with some indigenous configuration or with European civilization in one or another of its national traditions. we have persisted in viewing the Latin American either as degenerate Indians struggling with the ruins of a conquest- wrecked native culture or as tainted Iberians fumbling with the traditions of Spain and Portugal...Latin American culture is not a servile copying of either foreign or indigenous models, but a new and vigorous expression of modern life...which enables it to be seen collectively as a cultural design distinctive from that of other varieties of Western Civilization.” with World War II, however, a related, but new, emphasis or interest appears to have arisen in the anthropological work on Latin finerica. Under the impetus of men like Gillin, this new emphasis or interest has centered itself squarely on the ”emergent“ creole or mestizo culture of modern Latin America. The problems grappled with in many of the random community studies which bore this new interest in “emergent” mestizo culture appear to have been centered around the processes by which Indians were and are being culturally transformed into true nationals (often referred to as the process of “ladinoization”) and the impingements of the larger society on the aspects of traditional Meso-American Indian culture which these communities continue to demonstrate. A Tax (l953), for example, was interested in the place of an Indian comnunity's economic and productive system in the larger market system of Guatemala. Manning Hash (l958) on the other hand, was interested in the effects of a factory and unionization of factory workers in Cantel. The series of articles by anthropologists with research experience in Guatemala, compiled by Richard N. Adams (l957), had as their focus the effects of a national political revolution on the local political systems of Indian communities. And there were still other specific works by other anthropologists with this new interest, such as Gillin (l95l), Ralph Seals (l953 , Morris Siegel (l9hl, l95h) and Melvin Tumin (1352). Curiously enough, however, inspite of this new interest in emergent creole or mestizo culture and the process of modern acculturation, the rural Ladino (nonQIndian) peasant still did not, and as far as I know, has not become a primary object of field in- vestigation and study. The work continued to be centered on the Indian, or ”Modified or Ladinoized Indian” (R.N.Adams lQS’: 893-897), in whom a transition and assimilation to the larger, national culture and society was evident. At most, the rural, completely S Ladino component of the population was taken into account in the these works only in terms of their relationship to the Indians (usually characterized as disparaging and exploitative) and limited comparisons of the differences between them (the Ladinos) and the numerically dominant Indians in the specific communities studied. Furthermore, in most of these cases the Ladinos of these communities were hardly what anyone would refer to as peasants, but rather they were “farmers” (producers for profit), entrepeneurs and government representatives. In short, the non-Indian (or Ladino) peasant of Middle America is truly a ”forgotten man“. To my knowledge, there exists no basic ethnography which describes the nature of the culture of such a community. This is not to say that they are ”unknown” or even unimportant as a distinctive segment of the populations of the Central American countries found in this area. Much of the systematic knowledge we have of these people is due to the efforts of Richard H. Adams and his cultural surveys of Guatemala and four other Central American countries (l957a). Fortunately, he chose as his special focus the culture of the Spanish- American countryman (rural Ladino), and his rationale i) l:OI’ choirag) so can well serve as the rationale for this ethrmogtflapfiay. According to AdJflS (1957a: 7), “The Spanish-American countrymen of Central America compose the largest single cultural population in the entire area. This pop- ulation is larger in numbers than either the non-Spanish speaking group or the Spanish- speaking urban groups. The rationale of studying this group in particular was the reverse of that which has motivated many Studies of refugees or survival groups. Our interest was focused on the Spanish- American countryman precisely because it is the largest and the fastest growing group in the region. The fact of rapid growth, and the consequence in the fields of both rural and urban growth, the depletion of natural resources, and the national and economic political development, make the countryman culture of tremendous importance; and as was already indicated, it is probably the group which we know systematically the east.“ §pecial Theoretical Focus As indicated initially, the primary objective of thesis is to provide an ethnograpnic description type of comnunity and culture which has rarely been covered in the basic anthropological literature on Middle America. However, much of the current theoretical literature on Middle America, and Latin America generally has dealt very seriously with the nature of peasant communities, such as the one described here. Many issues revolving around this type of society 7 haVe been raised. I have been particularly intrigued wiflionelioarticular issue and the literature to which it.has gi\nen rise. This problem has to do with the natunecof interpersonal relations and social integration in peasant communities. The final conclusions chapter of this thesis, then, will have this problem as its central issue. What follows here is an attempt to conceptualize this problem in such a way as to examine it in the light of this basic ethnography. A) Background of the Problem One of the most significant events in the ethnological study of Latin American culture and society was the publication of Oscar Lewis' Life ingg Mexican Village: Tepoztlan Restudieg in l95l. This was a significant event in that it raised a number of serious questions concerning the reliability and validity of the anthropological approach to the study of human existence. More specifically, the community of Tepoztlan Horelos, Mexico, had been studied by Robert Redfield in l925 and l927. In the subsequent publication, Redfield summed up the community as “a relatively homogeneous, isolated, smoothly functioning and well- integrated society made up of contented and well-adjusted 8 people.“ (l930) The community described by Lewis in l95l may as well have been of another time or another place. There were a number of points at which the difference in these two descriptions of the same conaunity were provocative of much discussion and stock-taking among anthropologists. The most important of these sub- stantive differences appears to have been with regard to the degree of homogeneity, isolation and integration which is possible in peasant comnunities found within modern national entities. Lewis' description conflicted directly with Redfields on this major point. There was good reason for concentration by anthropologist on this difference. AnthrOpology, as Eric Wolf has pointed out (l96ha: 22), was and is divesting itself of strict cultural relativism, manifest, in part, by a local, contextual focus, which had it in its grip prior to World war II. Local cultures and communities, it was now becoming evident, are part and parcel of larger socio-political entities which affected them in numerous ways. To many, it seemed that Lewis had aptly demon- strated how misleading previous approaches had been. Another difference in the descriptions of Tepoztalan by Redfield and Lewis, respectively, had to 9 do with the nature of Tepoztecans and their inter- personal relationships. Unlike Redfield, who saw Tepoztecos as being “contented and well-adjusted people“, Lewis found them to be highly individualistic, uncooperative with one another, full of fear, envy and distrust, frequently engaging in unrelenting and harsh gossip and malicious distortions and gruesome character assasination. (l95l: 29%) Whereas the picture of inter- personal relations painted by Redfield was Rousseaupan, Lewis' was Machiavellian. While these two areas of differences are interrelated, the former (i.e. homogeneity, isolation and integration) appears to have been much more productive of theoretical discourse in anthropo logical circles. Due to the post-World War II shift in viewpoint, noted above, much of this discourse was in tune with Lewis' description and rejecting the Redfieldian view, or at least suggesting serious modification. Furthermore, the search for causes underlying their (nedfield vs Lewis) difference with respect to this dimension of Tepoztecan life was not a difficult one. ”irst of all, it could easily be seen that Redfield's techniques lacked the depth of Lewis'. Redfield worked along, primarily, with a few selected informants. Lewis, on the other hand, had a lO fairly large staff of trained assistants that systemati- cally, and in detail, investigated a wider range of phenomena among a larger group of villagers. Secondly, Redfields' grounding in the typological tradition of sociology predisposed him to more stereotypic description and sublimation, whereas Lewis' grounding in the quickly developing interest in national acculturation and development predisposed him to more intensive or in depth analysis of parts. The difference between the views of these two men with regard to the nature of Tepoztecos themselves, and especially the nature of their interpersonal relation- ships, appears to have received a different sort of attention than the first difference noted above. Much of the discussion of causes for the two drastically different descriptions offered by these two men, respectively, revolved around questions of their sub- jectivity, motivation and personal character. For example, John Paddock (193]: l29), in a lengthy review of Lewis' works, evaluates him in the following manner: “Lewis is a very unusual anthropologist, and his work deserves discussion not only because of its impact in Mexico and be- cause it might affect some Latin American feelings toward North Americans, but equally because of its high quality and iconoclasm.“ ll Then, he goes on to say that by omission Lewis tended “consistently to darken his portraits of people and comnunities”. (193]: 133) Other opinions, mostly directed at Lewis' characterizations of Mexican life, claim that Lewis' work suffers from an inability to eliminate his (Lewis') own personality from his work. Margaret Head, on the other hand, taking issue with both med"ield and Lewis, claimed that their differing characterizations reflected their tempermental and cultural differences (l953: 203) Even Redfield suggested ”subjectivity” as an explanation for his difference with Lewis by stating that he carried within him a “hidden question”, as did Lewis. More specifically, Redfield claims to have been asking, “what do these people enjoy”?, while Lewis was asking ”what do these people suffer from“? (lDSS: l3h) l Furthermore, Lewis, tacitly, at least, appears to nave accepted this as a possible explanation by defending V his own “hidden question” (l9Sl: l79). He replied: “It seems to me that concern with what people suffer from is more productive of insight about the human condition, about the dynamic of conflict and the forces for change. To stress the enjoyment in peasant life as Redfield agreed he did is to argue for its preservation and inadvertently to boost tourism.” 13 Thus, implicit in much of the discussion concerning the nature and quality of interpersonal relations is the tendency to view this type of phenomenon as being outside the scope of anthropological research since it does not readily lend itself to objective description and analysis. Furthermore, such phenomenon, even if made amenable to objective analysis, appears to be viewed as relatively insignificant for the understanding of the socio-cultural organization of peasant communities since better and more directly related indices of this can be obtained through an analysis of other aspects of the connmnity. A significant exception with respect to these two implicit conclusions (or assumptions) has been provided by the work of George Foster. In an article titled ”Interpersonal Relations in a Peasant Society,“ Foster states, initially, that it should be possible for ethnographers to agree upon and describe with some degree of objectivity the quality and nature of interpersonal relations found in a community. Thus, he dismisses the idea that this aspect of interpersonal relationships is simply a function of the “hidden questions” packed away in the ethnograper's luggage. There is a concrete reality, says Foster, and it can be discovered and analyzed. ”Further”, he suggests, 13 “the nature and quality of interpersonal relations should be recognized as an important diagnostic criterion in the definition of societal types, a functional reflection of certain structural characteristics of a cannunity” (l930: 174). These two points by Foster are the crucial points of departure for the theoretical focus encompassed within this ethnography. Therefore, I would like now to elaborate on them, somewhat, in order to arrive at as succinct a statement of the problem as possible. a loster's goal in the article quoted above is not an attempt to reconcile the antithetical views of Redfield and Lewis, as might seem at first glance. In 0 point of fact, Fost~r is predisposed to the Lewis characterization of Tepozteco personality and interpersonal relations since, it seems, it appears to be more in conformity with what he (Foster) had observed in peasant communities of Mexico. Thus Foster's goal, here, is to document what appears to him to be “the rather uniform character of interpersonal relations” characteristic of peasant societies in many parts of the world, and to indicate some of the structural characteristics function- ally associated with it. Foster begins by gathering together an impressive collection of statements l4 crnacerning interpersonal relations by students of gmeasant communities in which the Lewis characterization is very closely approximated. The ex mples are taken from his own study of Tzintzuntzan (Mexico), Banfield's study of Montenegro (Italy), Ozzie Simens' study of Lunahuana (Peru), G. Horrison Carstairs study of a Rajasthan village in India and Cctavio Romano's studycf a Mexican-American village in South Texas. Even Redfield's conclusions concerning Dzitas, in his {olk Culture of Yucatan, is used to substantiate his thesis concerning the uniform quality or character of interpersonal relations in peasant communities. In short, conflict is what characterizes peasant inter-personal relations outside the adult's nuclear family; often times this conflict characterizes relations within an extended kin group. foster then goes on to ask what structural characteristics makes conflict endemic in peasant societies or comnunities. His attempt to answer this question is what appears to be his most worthwhile contribution. Here, Foster focuses on the economic competition for the means of subsistence as the answer to his question. More specifically, the “economic pie” (resource base) of these communities is relatively small, and it is . A»: .‘h .d \JW cornstant in size, i.e. absolutely limited. Consequently, production is constant. Holding technology constant, he says, “there is no known way to increase it (production) however hard the individual works” (foster l930: l77). He adds, “Tradition, then, has determined what a amily may expect as its share of this small productive pie. It can expect no more and zealously watches that it receives no less...(thus), if someone is seen to get ahead (within the village) it can only be at the -xpense of others in the village“. The consequences of such an economic-ecological adjustment, and it's concomitant psychology, according to Foster, would be: l) successful persons would invite suspicion; 2) families would attempt to conceal economic improvements whatever their source; 3) cooperative innovations (outside the traditional forms of economic exchange) would be very difficult; 4) “security” in life would mean eternal vigilance with reSpect to the activities and motives of one's fellow villagers; and S) a community of this size could function with a minimum of leadership. Tradition and knowledge of one's fellow would make (much) leadership unnecessary and probably would be considered a threat to the group. Finally, Foster does not fail to take into account an important demographic aspect. Accor ing to him, the I la Efixave strains and tensions inherent in the economic (arder of peasant life are aggravated or appear in sharper relief (at least in the accounts of ethnographers), because these peasant communities are, in fact, large, and face to face relationships (with concomitant, intimate knowledge of the activities and tendencies of others) are rendered less possible. Thus, this larger population size, i.e. optimum size being 1000 to lSOO (1950: l78), tend to aggravate the suspicion and antagonism, make it more diffuse (as opposed to factions) and further strain the integrative mechanisms which maintain social order. In Foster's thesis we have the beginning, at least, of a community typology quite obviously based on the idea of technological-environmental adjustment. Communities can be typed according to the degree of restrictiveness or ampleness of the resource base and the degree to which productivity is fixed or expanding. Associated with this dimension is community size. Thus in community types where the resource base, productivity and productive technology is restricted, and, in addition to this population is quite small, conflict would not necessarily be the characteristic quality of relationships obtaining between its members. A l7 suitable representation of such a society or community, it seems to me, would be the hunting and gathering bands. At the other extreme of these interrelated dimensions, one could legitimately place the relatively prosperous, small towns of western, industrialized nations. Here, also, conflict would not be the characteristic mode of interpersonal relations outside the nuclear family but rather extensive or multiple types of cooperation for the common good, as witnessed by the plurality of associations, such as P.T.A.'s, Chambers of Connerce, and so on, found in these communities. Truly peasant communities are to be found somewhere between these two extremes and, paradoxically enough, not cooperation but conflict and uncooperativeness characterize interpersonal relations within them. But of course, Foster's model could not be complete without giving some consideration to the nature of the integrative mechanisms which maintain social order, at least in the case of peasant communities. In this publication, “Interpersonal Relations in a Peasant Society,” Foster gives us a clue as to the nature of these mechanism. He states: “Unfortunately, space does not permit ['1 consideration of the centripetal forces which counter balance the centrifugal forces in peasant society. These, I suspect, are found in relations of a contractual nature, such as fictive kinship, formalized friendship, and some forms of labor exchange in which reciprocity, and especially individual reciprocity, in the key. Peasant society, however severe its internal strains, has stood the test of time as successful social device.“ (l78) In a subsequent article, titled “The Dyadic Contract: A Model for the Social Structure of a hexican Peasant \r Village“ (33, Vol. 63, $3, l“"l), Foster c nwdel to “reconcile the institutional roles which can 0 oe recognized and described with the underlying principle which gives the social system coherence.” (lDSl: ll73) Nhile he derives this model from his empirical study of Tzintzuntzan, and uses these materials to illustrate its utility, Foster makes it quite evident that he recognizes the model--”The Dyadic Contract“--as applicable to all classic peasant communities (such as in Spain and Italy) and most, and possibly all, non- Indian Latin American peasant communities. According to Foster, (l93l: ll7h) “...a thorough description and a profound understanding of the workings of institutions which are evident enough to be named do not add up, by themselves, to a structural analysis of the social organization of the community. We need to know more than the a . . l . n . A u n ~ A . I N . . .7 l . A s , . r x \ Q | u .— . l I . . n. G I O a . . I.l : l a . . . Ii < k - . . a . .~._ '1... e . . . A c . c l . Q7 I . 4 _ n. l , . . |~ " 1 ~, . . 0 fl 19 totality of roles and attendant statuses that tradition recognizes in institutional frameworks. It is not sufficient to conceive of the community as formed by a conventional arrangement of sociological constructs. What is needed, at an intermediate level of analysis, is an integrative principle--here reciprocity-- which leads, at a higher level of analysis to a social model-~here the dyadic contract.” Thus, outside of the nuclear family, an adult person's relationships with others are based on a contractual relationship. Althougl foster does not say this directly, he implies that a peasant may possess four types of contractual relationships: a) informal or implicit (lacking legal or ritual basis) and symmetrical (between equals); b) informal and asymmetrical (between non-equals); c) formal or exelicit (legally or ritually validated) and symmetrical; and d) formal and asymmetrical. Curiously enough, Fosters model of dyadic contract, does not, by his admission, include formal or explicit contractual relations, but is restricted only to informal or implicit relationships. He states that, (l93l: ll75) ”These formal contracts may be but are not necessarily congruent with the dyadic contracts, since the latter cut across formal institutional boundaries and permeate all 20 aspects of society. For example, two compadres are bound by a formal contract validated in a religious ceremony. This tie may be reinforced and made functional by an implicit dyadic contract, making the two relationships congruent. More often than not, however, compadre bonds are not backed up by implicit contracts.” Tfqu, the individual villager sees that, (l96l: ll73) ”...quite apart from conventional institutions, he is tied in another way to certain relatives, compadres, neighbors, and friends to the partial or complete exclusion of other occupying the same statuses vis-a-vis ego, who collectively make up his world. Though he might not put it in so many words, the TzinTuszeno recognizes that these contractual ties are the glue that holds his society together and the grease that smoothes its running.” It is important to emphasize, however, that these contractual ties that cross-cut conventional institutions, according to Foster, do not give rise to any fianediate corporate entity. But rather, they give rise to sets of inter-locking dyadic like social systems that eventually, for all practical purposes, result in a corporate entity or reality--namely the community. Furthermore, these dyadic contracts can be identified and said to exist whenever informal reciprocity (or exchange) of goods or services are seen in the daily round of village activities. 2l To summarize, what Foster has offered us in these two very significant articles is an equilibrium type model of the structure and organization of peasant communities, at least those of Latin America. These communities usually exist on an extremely marginal level with respect to their resource basis and subsis- tence productivity. In such a situation, cooperative behavior, outside the nuclear family, and corporate action, as well, is not merely superfulous, but is viewed as dangerous by the peasants themselves. Therefore, all interpersonal relations outside the context of the household or nuclear family tend to be negative, e.g. distant, viewed with suspicion and conflict oriented. Given such a situation, the institutions or institutional framework of the community does not necessarily and of itself provide the integrative mechanisms which maintain social order. But rather, the integration of the cannunity is provided by interlocking sets (through the possession of a common member) of dyadic (person to person), informal, contractual relationships, marked by intensive complementary reciprocity of goods and services, within these more or less traditional institutions, such as 22 compadrazgo, extended kinship ties, neighborhoods and peer groups. Thus, the centrifugal forces centering around the suspiciousness and conflict in most inter- personal relations outside the nuclear family are counter- balanced by the centripetal forces of these dyadic contractual relations. 8) Critique There can be no doubt that the general structural- functional analysis of peasant connmnities offered by George Foster is a brilliant exercise in attempting to make more understandable and consistent much of what we know about such communities in various parts of the world. Furthermore, it is productive of much insight into other aspects of the nature of these societies. For example, the much discussed but rarely explained Latin American phenomenon of personalismo (the cult of individualism or personality) is reduced to manageable terms and divested of its mystical and elusive nature. According to Foster, “The model of the dyadic contract makes more precise this loose term, for personalismo is nothing more than a contractual tie between two people who feel they can help each other by ignoring in large measure the institutional context in which they meet.” (l95l: ll9l) 23 But this is not the issue that I wish to confront in this thesis. What concerns me here is the utility of Foster's propositions as a model of peasant society and, furthermore, the necessity of reducing a community, or a society, to the multiple sets of social systems (or relational principles), the locus of which is psychological predispositions of individuals. It should not be necessary to re-read, in depth, the work of Foster to come to the realization that the model he offers is based on basic tenets of Malinowskian functionalism. As was adequately demonstrated by Radcliffe-Brown, and followed up in the work of his students, Malinsowkian functionalism may be useful for the construction of a model of behavior, but it is definitely inadequate for a model of societies. Thus, it is my contention that while Foster's model helps explain much of the behavior of Latin American peasants, it fails to offer a useful explanation for the existence of the entity, sui generis, which we call a peasant community or society. Further- more, I contend that its failure to do is because it merely pays lip service to the institutions and the framework they form--takes them as givens, so to speak-- within the community and focuses directly an integrative 2h principle--complementary reciprocity be ween individuals-- the locus of which is a negative psychological pre- disposition with respect to corporate action born out of a restrictive and relatively harsh margin of survival. It leaves no room for explaining the place of formal contractual ties in the over-all social structure and organization of these communities, other than to say that they may or may not be congruent with the informal or implicit contractual ones. Finally, this model offers no explanation for its most basic premise. Specifically, it claims that these informal contracts between equals cross-cut conventional institutional statuses and roles, yet there is no explanation of the rationale behind the differential intensification, through complementary reciprocity, of specific ones. In other words, what factors determine which compadre, cousin or neighbor a villager will cement and intensify these ties with are not derivable from Foster's propositions. I believe that by basing his model on the structural-functional analysis of informal social systems, and taking their institutional framework as a given, the explanation of differential intensification could only be determined by egocentric, idiosyncratic or personality factors. 25 Therefore, through an exercise of successive approximation, I would like here to suggest some modifications growing out of Foster's basic ideas that could lead to a broader and, perhaps, more fundamental analysis of the social organization of L tin American peasant cannunities. C) To be sure, Foster's primary focus on such factors as the static economy, low productivity and numerical increase beyond optimum size (for intimate knowledge of others), as the major determining factors under- lying the seemingly uniform peasant personality and interpersonal relations, are very significant and would probably hold for most communities in similar situations. As in the work of cultural ecologists, this primary focus represents, at least, an attempt to postulate some definite, concrete invariants for a theory of culture, and its interrelationship with personality tendencies and modes of interpersonal conduct. This focus or idea, however, had laid Foster open to the charge of postulating a “crude economic determinism” (Lewis l960: l80), since no intervening variables are taken into consideration. But there are still two other examples of ”stretching reality” evident in Fosters work. | l r x . 4 «A . V K i u n . v - . 26 The first of these can be seen when one examines closely the line of development behind this arguement of his. When he claims that ”conflict” is the essence or the rather ”uniform quality of interpersonal relations“ in peasant communities, Foster is making an unwarranted leap from a generalization based on verbal behavior and/or personality tendencies to actual behavior or modes of interpersonal conduct. This is evident when one notes that his ”examples” of “interpersonal relationships” are actually expressions of world view, or conceptions by the villager of the character and motivations of others--and often they are mere restatements by the ethnographer of what seems to him to be the mentality of the peasant with respect to others. These negative conceptions or viewpoints are, admittedly, universal in most peasant communities described by ethnographers. And in San Miguel, as I shall demonstrate, they are also present. But these phenomena are of a different order than is actual behavior or conduct vis-a-vis fellow villagers. In other words, while most peasants have a generalized and diffuse view of others which is pessimistic and suspicious, not all behavior or conduct demonstrated towards others can be characterized as conflict or uncooperativeness. Limited cooperation does 27 occur, and as does politeness or simple reserve and alofness, when peasant deals with peasant. Even Foster recognizes this, later on, when he gives prime importance to complementary reciprocity and dyadic contracts as mechanisms of integration. Conflict, of course, does occur, and occurs frequently as manifested in land squabbles, claims of brujeria (bewitchment), calumny and actual physical violence. But the point I wish to make here is that whether or not the peasant view of others manifests itself in “uncooperative” and ”conflict” behavior is dependent on other, modifying or intervening factors. To my mind, one of the most important of these other factors is the institutional context of the particular interaction or interpersonal relation in question. Secondly, even if the evidence for the negative quality of interpersonal relations brought to bear by Foster were behavioral rather than expressions of world view, we still would have to face up to the question of just how ”objective” the anthropologist's characterization of such behavior really is. As Julian Pitt-Rivers, in his critique of Foster, has pointed out (l930: lSO-l83), all the statements by other anthropologists used by Foster to “objectively” document the negative quality of interpersonal relations in peasant communities /1 ,‘I are evaluatory. More specifically, he says, “...they (statements) presuppose a standard in relation to which they measure the character- istics of behavior and without which they are meaningless, for they all refer to qualities which are universal, and each is significant in that it implies the presence of the quality in a 'high' (i.e. higher than the author regards as normal) degree.“ But no such standards for such an evaluation are given by Foster or anyone else. ”Moreover”, continues Pitt- Rivers, l'for each of the terms a contrary alternative nac be found if one wishes to evaluate the same be- haviour favorably instead of unfavorably.” (lSl). He concludes, then, that, “One cannot evaluate a value, one can only concur or dissent, and for an author to state his attitude towards the standards of another society is of interest only insofar as it throws light on his personality and method of working. It cannot provide a basis for the classification of societies.“ What is absolutely necessary, then, is some particular way of conceptualizing or operationalizing the observations of interpersonal relations in order make evaluation of them, and comparison between them, meaningful. Further- more, such a conceptualization or operational definition of qualitative modes of interpersonal relations should be ones which would allow for an evaluation of the degree ’) A. \\J to which they serve to integrate or atomize the totality defined as the community. The conceptuali- zation I find most fruitful is one which defines negative interpersonal relations as patterns of interaction which serve to reaffirm and strenghten the integrity of the smallest social unit of the community-- the residential unit--and thereby reduce the rotential and, consequently, serve to weaken the intearity of the largest unit; in this case the coamunity. “Positive” interpersonal relations, on the other hand, are herein defined as patterns of interaction which cross-cut the residential units and units representatives of these into larger groups within the connmnity. Furthermore, such interaction may involve two (dyadic) residential units or more (polyadic) and may be “informal” (lacking legal or ritual bases) or fornal (with legal or ritual bases), so long as they are referable to some identifiable institutional context. C) Statement of the Problem The particular nature of community institutions and the functions they perform or do not perform, it seems to me, should not be treated as givens in the 33 analysis of social structure and organization, as does Foster, but rather should be viewed as variable and problematical. Nhen referring to “institutions”, I am here following 3. F. Hadel's usage of the term. (l95l: lO7) For Hadel, “The institution would thus appear to be once more an action pattern, though magnified and more abstract than any elementary action pattern, embodying a class of ains and a series of ways of ehaving rather than a single aia and behavior cycle“. Institutions, like the personality and world view of persons, are subject to variation, in their particular manifestations and functions, from historical as well as ecological and dexngraphic factors. For example, the patterning of Compadrazgo bonds (ritual co-parenthood) and the functions it performs are not necessarily uniform from time to time, place to place or ecological setting to ecological setting. And the same tning can be said for the well-known institutions of the Civil-religious hierarchy, the cofradia (religious sodality) system, and even the structure of the supposedly nuclear family and related phenomenon, such as residence patterns and so on. Cf course, many of these institutions have taken on the nature of ideal or abstract types, for the purpose 3] of ethnological comparison and generalization. But to confuse ethnological concepts with ethnographic reality can have some rather startling consequences, as lard Goodenough has demonstrated in the case of residence rules (1953). Thus, the approach generally encompassed within this thesis is that the particular nature of the social institution wherein interaction takes place, plays a strong role in determining whether the generalized, negative view of others, seemingly natural to the peasant personality or cognitive map, will be followed out and result in negative behavior towards others-- uncooperative and conflict behavior. In other words, it seems to me that through an intensive description and analysis of the particular social institutions of a community, a better picture of the social structure and organization of the community is possible. In such an approach, also, we have the basis for a more accurate analysis of the relationship between environmental- ecological adjustment, the peasant view point and his characteristic modes of interpersonal conduct and be- havior. But before such a relationship can be struck, the social institutions must be analyzed in a particular way. More specifically, in describing and analyzing 32 the social institutions of a comaunity, we must isolate dimensions common to all of them and attempt to see how variation in these dimensions, but not necessarily variation in all, is reflected in the modes of inter- personal conduct. Such an analysis, it seems to me, could very well result in a paradigm useful in predicting when and where we may expect correspondence between the negative peasant view of his fellows and uncooper- ativeness and conflict in interpersonal conduct, and when and where we may expect other modes of interpersonal conduct and behavior (as defined above). I intend to explore the construction of such a paradigm, however tentative and preliminary, in the concluding chapter of this thesis. The dimensions to be used in analyzing the social relationships of San Miguel are derived, in part, from the rather parsimonious definition of institutions provided by S. F. Hadel, above, as well as from attempts to order the raw data. The two most important aspects of the definition of institutions used here are action (or rather, patterned co-activity) and the goals or aims of such co-activity. Logically, interaction can be distinguished as being logg;term (ideally, in effect throughout the life of the participants, such as marriage ..-‘ 33 Venus <3r compadrazgo bonds) or short-term association (FC3r ea definite and limited period of time) such as iflae zaction of persons in public posts of authority or'xuage-labor arrangements. Secondly, whether long-term or short-term association, :an action pattern (or pattern of association) may have a fixed_periodicity(i.e. taking place once a year, for example) or it may be continuous, occurring in day to day fashion. It would appear that long-term associations, by definition, could only demonstrate continuous inter- action or co-activity, such as conjugal unions. However, even in this institution, particularly at lower economic levels of the population (especially in Latin America), many times action is periodic (0. Lewis l932: l8; l933: xxvi) due to economic demands Upon the father, as well as the casualness of some consensual, conjugal unions. Thirdly, as Foster has pointed out, relationships (patterns of interaction or co-activity) may be grounded on a legal and/or religious basis. That is to say, it may have formal sanction. On the other hand, an association may be grounded merely on consensus or agreement (i.e. informal) on the part of the participants. Once again, the significant differences in the stability of conjugal unions with this formal sanction and those only consensually based gives some indication of the 3h possible importance of this dimension. Fourthly, the patterned co-activity demanded by social institutions may be viewed as being directed at a single class of aims or goals; or multiple classes of aims or goals. That is, the interactants may enter into co-activity for the purpose of acheiving some pre- determined, specific class of ains (i.e. harvesting or funeral or political action); or they may enter into co-activity with no pro-determined, specified class of aims, but rather with the understanding that their relationship will serve as the means of accomplishing any number of aims or goals that might arise so long as their association is valid (i.e. harvesting and funerals 22g political activity). Finally, the aims or goals of any association or patterned interaction may be characterized as being transcendental, involving primarily expression of a higher order of things, usually spiritual, such as friendship or after-life or communion with the spirits in their universe. On the other hand, the aims may be quite pragmatic or practical, involving only the accomplishment of certain necessary tasks. It is obvious that this dimension may not be as dichotomous as I may wish to make it, particularly if the institutionalized 3S interaction involves multiple classes of goals or aims; some could be of the transcendental sort (i.e. sacred) and others more practical or pragmatic (i.e. secular). For purposes of analysis, however, I would resort to classification on the basis of the more important goals found within the context of multiple goal or aims institutions. These, then, are the basic dimensions which seem to me to cross-cut all social institutions, and are therefore useful in cross-classifying institutions for the purpose of seeking their correlation with modes of interpersonal relations, i.e. negative or positive, as defined above. No claim is made for the exhaustiveness of this list of dimensions; nor as to their objectivity, since they are primarily logical deductions from obser- vation. I have tried merely to define them in such a way as to provide at least a tentative measure whereby evaluation (i.e. placing them at one or the other end of the respective dichotomies) would be possible. Finally, it may be that a more refined conceptualization may subsume some of these under others or yield a completely different set of dimensions at a higher or lower level of analysis, such as Talcott Parsons' “pattern variables (l962: h7-lO9). Since the substantive chapters which follow are written primarily with an ethnographic or descriptive, rather than theoretical or hypothesis testing, aim in mind, there will be no attempt to relate each one, in the context of the chapter itself, to the problem of analysis and paradigm construction stated above. This will all be reserved for the concluding chapter. There- fore, the reader is advised that the things to look for in reading the ethnographic, descriptive chapters are the following: l) reflections of the negative peasant view, in the different substantive contexts. 2) the generalized modes of interpersonal conduct or behavior, e.g. conflict, limited cooperation, reserve and aloofness, etc. 3) and finally, variation within the basic dimensions of the social institutions related to economic production (found in the setting chapter), family or household organization, community administration and politics, compadrazgo and religious activity. More specifically, here the reader should try to see whether the institutions require: a) long-term or short- term association; b) periodic or continuous association; c) a single class or various classes (concurrent) of ains or goals; d) an informal or ritual (or legal) basis of validity; e) and, finally, whether the aims of the institutions are, in substance, sacred or secular. 37 'n ield Work and Deta-Gatherigg he materials presented in this thesis are the result of two distinct sessions of daily field work in the village of San Miguel Hilpas Altas. On each occasion, I was employed as the field investigator for specialized research projects, funded by Ford Foundation ‘ Grants through the Office of International Programs of ) Michitan State University. Since eac L research projects involved distinct goals, purposes and types of data, and since neither was primarily concerned with strict ethnographic reporting or the particular problem outlined above, a short description of each will be necessary. The first field work session began in March of l962 and ended the following August. During this period the research involved getting behavioral sequence data in a preliminary delination of ethnographically valid behavioral categories for the eventual measurement of energy flows and expenditures through and in the producing and consuming units in the village. This project was conceived and directed by Professor Richard H. Adams, now of the University of Texas. I maintained residence in the village for the entire five-month period, working primarily with a randomly selected sample of nine families 33 or residential units. The work itself involved observing and recording, in as much detail as possible, lexically distinct activities (as provided by the informants themselves), usually related to household maintenance and agricultural work activities. These streams of behavior, observed and recorded, would then be submitted to the informants for a more refined, lexical breakdown of component acts (and situational factors necessary to identify them) within the context of the over-all activity. In addition, community-oriented activity, centering around the local seat or authority, the local catholic church and church-related organizations was examined in pretty much the same fashion as the materials from the sample of families. Fortunately, prior to my arrival, much of the basic ethnographic materials for the village, such as demographic data, inventories of material goods, food-consumption patterns, marketing and even household genealogies, had been gathered by Sr. Joaquin Hoval, a competent Guatemalan anthropologist, at the time on loan to Professor Adams from the Seminario do Integracion Social at Guatemala City. Mr. Noval's field notes were made immediately available to me. Furthermore, Mr. Hoval eventually put together a preliminary manuscript of the fl ,5 39 basic ethnographic data of San Miguel which included ;nany of my own observations during this period. This document has proved invaluable both as background to this thesis, as well as in orienting me in the gathering of more intensive subtle kinds of data during the second session of field work. '3. On KO (.1 \ I returned to San liguel in December of l this trip I maintained residence in nearby Antigua, but visited the village almost every day. This period of field work lasted until May of lQSM, and was under the direction of Professor William A. faunce's of the Department of Sociology, Michigan State University. U) Professor Faunce' particular intere t in San Miguel was a comparison with a northern Michigan comnunity. More specifically, his project had as its focus an analysis of the differences in the function of work-related values for the status structures of these two communities, plus an analysis of variations in the function and meaning of work as associated with these differences. The general hypothesis orienting this project was that the place of work and work-related values will differ considerably in small communities with differing exposure to urban-industrial values and degree of industrial employment, and that a primary index of these differences will be evident in the criteria and processes used for f) MO community status placement. The primary vehicle for gathering the data necessary for Professor Faunce's interests was a somewhat elaborate and lengthy interview schedule. This interview schedule, reproduced in this thesis as Appendix A, was applied to fifty of the eighty one heads of household in San Higuel. Some of the interviews were conducted by myself and the remainder by a number of hired, experienced interviewers from Guatemala City. This interview schedule was also a rich source of ethnographic data, especially data relating to community status, values and the informants views of his community. Unfortunatelyg however, only limited and very general use was made of these materials here, due to the fact that the statistical computations of these materials, necessary for analysis, took con- siderably more time than expected for more specific and detailed inclusion here. Nevertheless, a review of the interviews as they came in, served, in some cases, as affirmations of community tendencies otherwise observed and gathered, and revision or correction of still other data and impressions. During both periods of field work I also worked cal field —l. with the usual techniques of anthropolog research, such as participant observation, small-scale, Al informal surveys on selected topics, as well as in-depth interviewing of appropriate, selected informants. 'fhenever specific features of the community are noted in the text of this thesis, it is usually indicated how it was derived. Special Problems The difficulties of attempting to carve out for myself a significant problem or focus for research out of the two distinct research projects which enabled me to be in San Miguel, are too numerous and coaplicated to mention in any detail. The principal ones were those of time and personal, physical energy, since on both occasions the special interests of Professors Adams and Faunce, respectively, required considerable attention. These were problems inspite of the fact that both men generously sacrificed other aspects of their own interests in order to make available as much time, and data, as possible for my own concerns which were only being formulated during the two periods I was in the village. On the other hand, the opportunity of working closely with these two experienced social scientists proved immensely useful in arriving at an appropriate and, hopefully, worthy thesis subject. #2 In addition to the problem of time and personal energy, there were some other special problems encountered that I wish to mention here. I believe that it is safe to say that it is a rare anthropologist who gains the confidence and rapport of all the different, and differing, social segments of a community he is attempting to study. Some doors are always closed to him and usually never opened no matter how ingenious he might otherwise be. Such was my experience in San Miguel. These doors proved to be impenetrable since they were erected and locked with the chains of fear and uncertainity over the presence of an unknown quantity in their midst. Fortunately, they were not many, but sufficient to make me much more cautious in generalizing than would have been possible otherwise. The principle source of resistance to my work in San Miguel came primarily from a small number of kin interrelated households referred to by the majority of villagers as 195 anti-comunistas (the anti-communists). This group and their characteristics (and tactics) are described in some detail in Chapter V. In many instances they SOUght to spread their fear of and resistance to me to others in the village. Among the techniques they used were spreading such stories as the “fact” that I M3 was a “communist working for a North American land company that wanted to take all the village lands away“ from then. Cf course, such things are not unknown to other anthro- pologists working in similar situations, and they rarely have much effect. This was for the most part true in this case also. At one point, however, the combination of their efforts and stories, and the sensative nature of some items in the interview schedule used, led to an almost complete disruption of my working relations with a number of previously cooperative and reliable informants. The presence of interviewers from the city, as well as myself, openly recording their answers to questions about land, their community and. their neighbors proved to some that the rumors being spread by the ”anti-comunistas“ may have had some basis in fact. Fortunately, this did not become a definite problem until near the end of my last stay in the village. However, whereas the original plan was to interview all the heads of household, it was possible to carry out interviews with only fifty of them. Finally, and related to the above, another problem had to do with my role in the village. In short, I was never able to ascertain exactly how my presence and activities were being interpreted by most of the villagers Rh with whom I worked. This was primarily my fault. Given that the special interests of the two projects which brought me to San Miguel were somewhat esoteric, I was unable to formulate an explanation of my work which could be accepted on the basis of my activities and the sorts of questions I was asking. For the most part, I would answer their question about my work by saying that I was interested in the “history” of the community and their own costumbres (customs). That this ”cover story” was deficient or unacceptable was made evident to me by the fact that my best informants and close friends in the village (to whom I gave this same story) believed otherwise. As far as I could determine, these persons had the impression was that my real function in San Miguel was to survey the community for problems, such as a need for a road or a better school house, and so on, and report these needs to the appropriate authorities who would, in turn, attempt to do something about it. Needless to say, having a clearer impression of the role assigned to me by these villagers would have greatly helped in evaluating and interpreting, in as refined manner as possible, the specific information received from them. CHAPTER II THE VILLAGE SETTING San Miguel Milpas Altas is a small Ladino (non- indian) community in the central highlands of Guatemala. More specifically, it is situated on one of the high ridges overlooking the Departmental capital of Antigua, to the west. Despite the fact that it is located in the most heavily populated area of Guatemala, the outside world rarely comes to San Miguel. The only practical way of getting in or out of the community is on foot. The most a casual traveler motoring between Guatemala City and Antigua would see of San Miguel is a crudely made wooden sign, with the village name painted on, pointing up a steeply inclined dirt path that veers off and climbs away from the paved highway around the ”40 Kilometer” (from Guatemala City) marker, about A kilometers from the entrance to Antigua. Approximately two kilometers up the insistently steep and dust-choked path the first sitios (house-sites) of the lower section of the community begin to appear. This long, arduous walk is not the shortest possible line between the center of the village and the busy 1+5 1‘ #6 highway below. From the back-steps of the small, white-washed church in the middle of the small village plaza, one can actually see the highway winding around the edge of the foothills not more than 500 ft. away, almost straight down. Through the silence that con- stantly envelopes this small, community plaza, one can hear the mechanical groans and the backfiring of buses and trucks along the highway. Furthermore, there is a small, well-contoured path connecting the village and the highway at this shortest of points. But this somewhat more feasible path was not destined for the convenience of San Miguelenos. It was build/and is maintained by the owner of the coffee plantation through which it runs and which borders the village throughout its entire eastern parameter. The absentee owner of this 51223 (plantation), a well-to-do dentist from Guatemala City, consistently denies villagers the use of this path. And thus, the long, dusty climb is necessary. As the accompanying diagram indicates, the community is divided into two physically distinct and socially recognized sections or barrios (neighborhoods). There is a lower barrio and an upper one. According to in- formants, the lower barrio is the oldest inhabited #7 section of the community. Villagers occasionally refer to both sections by terms indicating the relative ages of each---barrio viejo (old section) and barrio nuevo (new section). The small plaza is located in the center of the lower section. It is not a plaza in the usual sense of the word, for San Miguel is a poor community. There is no square with benches for the promenades traditional in Latin America. There is no kiosk for community gatherings or concerts. In San Miguel, the plaza is merely a grassy slope, approximately 50 square yards, bisected by the main path to the highway, and dominated by a crudely made monument of brick and mortar, ten feet tall, topped with a cement cross. The grassy slope also serves to separate the only public buildings to be found in the community. On the eastern side of this plaza is the small, white-washed Catholic church with its large, double-doors opening on to the plaza, and facing directly across to the small one room, adobe and stucco schoolhouse and the two-room auxiliatura (auxiliary city-hall) and jail. On one side of the church, a few yards away, is a sheltered, public tank, with three lavaderos (wash-stands) and two shower baths, with piped in water. At this point, the official I ( Scum“); ~Nor 72. SALE 49 O (‘th