Kemper - The Compadrazgo in Urban Mexico

ABSTRACT: This paper examines the institution of compadrazgo (co-godparenthood) in urban Mexico. A comparative analysis of twenty-one case studies, ranging from Mexico City to such small towns as Tonalá (Jalisco), provides information on the types of (or occasions for) compadrazgo, the choice of compadres, the relative status of compadres, and the quality of inter-personal relations among compadres. On the basis of quantitative and qualititative data derived from this comparative analysis, the author concludes that the compadrazgo flourishes in Mexican towns and cities. Therefore, this institution should not be perceived by anthropologists as primarily associated with rural peasant communities, for it permeates all levels of Mexican society. Moreover, the flexibility of the compadrazgo is especially compatible with the diversity of contemporary Mexican urbanization. This article complements an earlier survey of the compadrazgo, written by Manuel Carlos, that appeared in the Anthropological Quarterly in 1973.

As the “first distinctive aspect of Latin American social structure to be discovered by anthropologists” (Foster 1969:263), the compadrazgo¹ long has been an important topic of ethnographic research. Until recently, however, nearly all of our knowledge about this widespread form of fictive kinship² has come from studies of small rural communities. Indeed, as Thompson (1970:288) has suggested, the assumed relative unimportance of compadrazgo in urban settings is in some degree a consequence of the discipline’s traditional emphasis on fieldwork in villages, hamlets, and dispersed rural populations.

As more research on the compadrazgo has been done, and more urban groups studied, anthropologists have revised the initial hypothesis (Redfield 1934:65) that urbanization operates to simplify and disorganize fictive kinship relationships. For example, rather than arguing for a degeneration of the compadrazgo in urban settings, Ravicz (1967:251) observes that it “may withstand the onslaught of modern market and secular conditions, its form signaling the absence of other systems to satisfy needs created by such conditions, as well as mirroring the nature of the needs.” Similar views on the compadrazgo’s viability and flexibility are expressed by other recent commentators (Berruecos 1976; Carlos and Sellers 1972; Foster and Azer 1970; Nutini and Bell 1980; Thompson 1973; Wilson 1969). Thus, although its structure, functions, and symbolism may be modified from that in the rural settings in which it was first described by anthropologists, the compadrazgo has proven to be a durable and pervasive social, economic, and religious institution.

For anthropologists interested in the social organization of Latin American cities, the compadrazgo raises two main questions: what is it like among different urban sectors and in different kinds of cities? how does its range and variation in urban settings compare with that in rural places?

In this paper, I shall deal with these questions through a comparative analysis of twenty-one case studies which cover a broad range of Mexican cities, from the capital to small towns in Yucatán, Hidalgo, and Jalisco. The analysis will focus on the following key characteristics of the compadrazgo: the occasions on which compadres are selected; the choice of relatives versus friends as compadres; the relative status of compadres, including the selection of neighbors or fellow workers as compadres; and the quality of interpersonal relations among compadres.

On the basis of the comparative analysis, it will be possible to develop a set of propositions regarding the characteristics of the compadrazgo in Mexican cities and to suggest how these might be tested through additional field research in other Latin American countries.

The available ethnographic literature on the compadrazgo in Latin American cities is still conceptually fragmentary and geographically uneven (see Nutini and Bell 1980:405-428 for a critical survey of the largely rural compadrazgo literature). Nevertheless, the appearance of several recent studies of social organization in Mexican cities makes it possible to assemble a set of comparative, fieldwork-based data covering large metropolitan areas, middle-sized cities, and small towns spread throughout the nation. Mexico is an appropriate choice for such an analysis because it has been the scene of more urban studies than any other Latin American country and because it has a reasonably well developed hierarchy of urban places. Moreover, since Mexico’s rapid urbanization has been due in considerable measure to cityward migration, its cities contain a broad range of social, economic, and ethnic groups from diverse backgrounds.

The data for the comparative analysis are derived from twenty-one ethnographic case studies of urban populations. Eight of these groups are located in Mexico City, three in the city of Oaxaca, and rest distributed among the following cities and towns: Monterrey (Nuevo León), Ciudad Juarez (Chihuahua), the conurbanización Coatzacoalcos-Minatitlán-Cosoleacaque (Veracruz), Uruapan (Michoacán), Querétaro (Querétaro), San Cristobal de las Casas (Chiapas), Juchitán (Oaxaca), Ticul (Yucatán), “Ciudad Industrial” (Hidalgo), and Tonalá (Jalisco). The places range in size from Mexico City, whose population in 1980 was about 15,000,000 to Tonalá, whose population in 1960 was about 5,000. The communities are geographically dispersed throughout Mexico and include both mestizo and indio populations.

The case studies emphasize working-class groups, but several sources also mention middle- and upper-class populations as well. Most of the studies use neighborhoods as the unit of analysis, some deal with entire communities, still others examine migrant populations dispersed throughout a metropolitan area. The size of the populations studied ranges from 14 families to 475 households; the number of cases of compadrazgo reported ranges from an unspecified small sample to a sample of 1,291 cases. Appendix 1 provides detailed information on the 21 sources used in the comparative analysis.

baptism

confirmation

marriage

first communion

school graduation

blessings

Child Jesus

15th birthday (girls)

de la corona

evangelios

Saint’s Day

burials

penance

medidas

(blessed

ribbon)

tertulias

priesthood ordination

first haircut (boys)

mock

weddings

/heetzmeek/ Maya (boys)

Total

1) The number after each case study is keyed to Appendix 1. Since six of the ethnographic sources (i.e., 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, and 20) do not provide specific data on the types of compadrazgo, they are not included in this table.

2) The following descriptions of the less common types of compadrazgo may be useful: blessings or consagraciones may be done for houses, cars, business, etc.; Child Jesus (levantar el niño, del niño Jesus, arrullo del niño) involves blessing an image of the Christ child during the Christmas season; de la corona (“crown”) involves blessing a child and buying him/her a toy; evangelios involves prayers for a sick child or to prevent a child from becoming ill; medidas involves tying a blessed ribbon on a child to prevent disease; tertulias involves social bonds among drinking partners or friends; /hèetzmeék/ is a Maya ceremony which introduces a boy to the tools of adult life.

Table 1 shows that the occasions on which people in urban places seek ritual sponsors are far more numerous and diverse than earlier theorists supposed. Of the twenty-one ethnographic case studies analyzed, only fifteen provide specific information about the range of compadrazgo types. The others merely say that the compadrazgo is “important” or is “widespread.”

The ceremony of baptism is clearly the most frequent and important occasion for selecting godparents. The other life-cycle rituals – confirmation, marriage, and first communion – celebrated within the Catholic Church also represent significant opportunities for establishing compadrazgo bonds. The number of minor “spiritual” compadrazgo types is large, but there is considerable variation among the cases as to the combinations in which they occur.

In addition to these religious types of fictive kinship, urban residents also practice a variety of “secular” forms of the compadrazgo. The quince años party for girls requires a madrina as sponsor; school graduations, both primary and secondary, offer opportunities for children to choose a godparent (madrinas for girls, padrinos for boys). Other “less serious” forms of compadrazgo include: blessings of businesses, houses, and cars; a boy’s first haircut; and even mock weddings at church bazaars. Many of these “secular” compadrazgo ties are ephemeral, but sometimes they may lead to more significant, long-term relationships cemented by baptismal or other sponsorships.

Thus, it seems that the number of occasions on which urban dwellers may elect compadres is hardly less restricted than that for rural Mexicans (for data on rural compadrazgo in Mexico, see Berruecos 1976; Carlos 1973; Davila 1971; Nutini and Bell 1980; Ravicz 1967). This observation is valid for large and small urban places as well as for a broad range of socioeconomic strata within these cities. In fact, far from reverting to the limited Spanish form³ (Foster 1953:26), the compadrazgo appears to offer an arena for social innovation in urban life.

For example, marriage ceremonies are often much more elaborate and costly in Mexican cities than in villages. In some middle- and upper-class groups, as many as fifteen couples may serve in a variety of roles, although only a few are considered to be of the first order. Similarly, the use of ritual sponsors for quince años parties and for school graduations appears to be an urban invention. As mass communication and mass education diffused into the countryside, many rural children have also begun to seek out “godparents” for these occasions. (These events may, in fact, be their first active participation as electors in the compadrazgo system.) It seems probable that the constant flow of people and information between city and hinterland in contemporary Mexico will ensure that the compadrazgo and other social institutions are as diverse in the national capital as in the smallest hamlet (cf. Arizpe 1978:163).

Whether an individual uses the compadrazgo as a means to strengthen already existing ties of kinship (or fictive kinship) or to expand his ties among friends is likely to depend on specific functional-historical circumstances (Mintz and Wolf 1950:355). The city offers a potentially much wider range of choices than does a small rural community, for it provides more specialized niches (e.g., neighborhood, job, associations) in which personal relationships can be furthered. As the same time, the dispersion of kinsmen over the metropolitan region may diminish the affective quality of their blood ties; in such circumstances, they may wish to strengthen these bonds through the compadrazgo.

What do the Mexican case studies reveal about the choice of relatives versus friends as compadres? Specific information is provided in only six of the fifteen ethnographies. Lomnitz (1974, 1975) offers the most impressive set of quantitative data; her sample of 1,038 city-based compadrazgo cases in Mexico City is consistent in the proportion of relatives selected. Of 575 baptisms, 42% of the godparents are kinsmen; of 291 confirmations, 42% are kinsmen; of 79 first communions, 41% are kinsmen; and of 31 marriages, 48% are kinsmen. (No percentages are given for the remaining 62 miscellaneous compadrazgo cases.) The figures from two other urban areas are in reasonable agreement: Hubbell (1971) found that 37% of 380 cases in Uruapan (including these same four major types of compadrazgo) were kinsmen; Díaz (1966) also had 37% of her Tonalá sample (130 church register cases, of unspecified types) composed of kinsmen serving as compadres. In contrast to these studies, Thompson (1971, 1973) discovered that in the small town of Ticul (Yucatán), 59% of 252 baptismal compadres were relatives.

The shift in compadre choices from relatives to friends is also revealed in two case studies of urban migrants. In Hopgood’s (1979) study of 419 families in a squatter settlement in Monterrey, he found that among the Monterrey-born, 57.8% of the ties are to friends and 40.6% are to family and relatives, whereas among migrants who arrived in the city after age 15, 65.4% of the ties are to friends and only 28.7% to family and relatives. In all cases, “friends outnumber family and relatives as compadre choices.” In my own study of Tzintzuntzan migrants in Mexico City, I found that friends were selected over relatives by 77% to 23% for baptisms and 70% to 30% for confirmations (Kemper 1979:29-30).

In contrast to these quantitative data, the other case studies offer normative statements that imply that relatives are often chosen as compadres. For example, after noting that in Tepoztlán it is unusual to select relatives, Lewis (1952) states that the urban migrants he studied have a higher proportion of kinsmen as compadres than do the villagers. Butterworth (1962) also claims that Tilantongo (Oaxaca) migrants in Mexico City frequently take kinsmen as godparents, but is not certain if the proportion is higher than in the home community. Both Higgins (1974, 1979) and Whiteford (1964) observe that, despite cultural ideals emphasizing selection of non-relatives, many people do choose kinsmen, either to intensify existing elitism (e.g., in the upper class in Querétaro) or to reduce ritual expenses (e.g., in the lower classes in Oaxaca and Querétaro). In contrast, Van den Berghe and Van den Berghe (1966) believe that the upper class in San Cristobal de las Casas intensifies kinship ties through the compadrazgo, whereas the working class stresses extension of ties among friends of the same and higher statuses.

On the basis of the available quantitative and qualitative data, it appears that urban residents find it beneficial to use the compadrazgo to strengthen ties with some of their kinsmen while also using this mechanism to build social bridges with friends and colleagues. Whether city dwellers have a greater tendency toward kin-related compadrazgo ties than do Mexican villagers, as suggested by Carlos (1973:88) and Berruecos (1976:60-72), depends on their social status, their native or migrant origins, and their occupational-residential situations. Certainly, increasing the size of the total urban population has no obvious effect on the choice of relatives or friends within the specific social units (e.g., neighborhoods, squatter settlements, dispersed migrant groups) commonly investigated by anthropologists.

When kinsmen are selected as compadres, what is their affiliation with the individual (or couple) who asks them to serve? The ethnographic materials reveal that they tend to be distributed evenly between the maternal and paternal lines. For example, in my research (Kemper 1979:29) among Tzintzuntzan migrants in Mexico City, I found that the pattern was similar to that in the village, where the compadres are evenly divided among the husband’s and wife’s families. This system of choices presumably reflects the essential bilaterality of the Mexican kinship structure. Among the other case studies which I have examined, Díaz (1966) offers the only quantitative data on this point: of the 48 relatives in her sample of 130 compadrazgo cases, 23 were of the wife’s family and 25 of the husband’s. Thompson (1971, 1973) corroborates her findings: in Ticul, kin-related compadres are equally divided between maternal and paternal lines, with a strong preference in both instances for primary relatives. He found that the first ascending generation was the most popular choice, followed by the “zero” generation. Lomnitz (1974, 1975) and Lewis (1952), working among working-class migrants in Mexico City, observed that brothers/sisters were commonly chosen to serve as godparents, with parents, in-laws, and uncles/aunts also popular. My own work (Kemper 1979:30) among Tzintzuntzan migrants supports their findings: The most common choice among relatives is the siblings of the child’s parents (20 of 41 cases), the next most frequent are first cousins (7 cases), and the category “other kinsmen” (7 cases), followed by parents (4 cases), nephews/nieces (2 cases), and uncles/aunts (1 case).

In nearly all cases in which relatives serve as compadres, the people involved in this dyadic relationship share the same socioeconomic status. They may be neighbors, work together, and even come from the same rural community (in the case of cityward migrants). Friends chosen as compadres may have these same characteristics, but they may also be of higher (or, rarely, lower) socioeconomic status. Thus, in examining the relative status of urban compadres, it appears that the situation is more complex than in rural communities. Despite the effects of modernization, many Mexican villages retain essentially homogeneous status profiles; as a result, most intra-village compadrazgo ties are with persons of similar status whereas most extra-village ties are with higher-status persons (Foster 1961:1182; 1963:1283-1284).

Unfortunately, only one of the twenty-one case studies provides quantitative data on the proportion of same-status to higher-status compadres within their samples. In my analysis (Kemper 1979:31) of working-class and middle-class Tzintzuntzan migrants in Mexico City, I found that only 56% of the baptismal and confirmation godparents are of the same socioeconomic status. Thirty-one percent are of higher status and 12% are lower. Both of these vertical dimensions of the compadrazgo are accentuated in the urban setting in comparison with their village of origin, where 75% of the compadres have the same socioeconomic status.

The other case studies do, however, provide valuable normative information on the relative status of compadres. In general, it seems that the poorest and the wealthiest urban dwellers emphasize horizontal compadrazgo ties, whereas the middle sectors are more likely to have vertical ties. Thus, Lomnitz (1974, 1975) found that the residents of the squatter settlement in Mexico City had very few vertical relationships; instead, they reinforced the “egalitarian ideal” by selecting neighbors and kinsmen in similar poverty-bound circumstances. Lewis (1969) states that the proliferation of compadrazgo ties within the vecindad serves to stabilize an otherwise loosely structured community and helps the residents (13 of 14 families share at least one compadrazgo link with another family in the vecindad) to cope with the tensions of daily poverty. Similar findings were made by Ugalde et al. (1974), Chance (1973), Miller (1973), Whiteford (1964), and Hopgood (1979).

Other investigators observe that working-class persons often blend vertical and horizontal ties in order to broaden their spheres of interaction and potential economic assistance. For instance, Higgins (1974, 1979) declares that, in the poor neighborhood in Oaxaca which he studies, the cultural ideal is selection of compadres of better economic position. Even poor families have ties with persons who are thought to be “comfortable” and “well-off.” Moreover, they try to multiple-load these ties in order to strengthen their relationships with these patrons (cf. Aguilar 1980:113). Similarly, Van den Berghe and Van den Berghe (1966) believe that the compadrazgo is differently defined and serves different purposes at various class levels in San Cristobal de las Casas. They note that quantitatively (without giving any figures) horizontal ties exceed vertical ties in all social classes and ethnic groups in the city; at the same time, the frequency of patron-client ties is inversely proportional to social status (cf. Arizpe 1978:163-165).

This situation of balancing vertical and horizontal ties is best explained by Thompson (1971, 1973) in his study of Ticul, Yucatán. He argues that economically mobile persons will strive to establish a variety of compadrazgo ties with potential patrons, whereas non-mobile individuals will have few or no vertical bonds, and will stress horizontal compadrazgo ties. This hypothesis, which is supported by his own survey data, has considerable appeal. It helps make sense of the structurally similar behavior of the elite and the very poor in Mexican cities, and it shows that reinforcement or extension of compadrazgo ties is not simply a matter of choosing kinsmen or friends, but is also determined by the relative socioeconomic status of the compadres.

Among “same status” compadres, neighbors are certainly the most important group. Again, Lomnitz (1974, 1975) provides the best quantitative data: 60% of baptismal compadres were neighbors (including kin and non-kin); for confirmation, the figure was 48%; for first communion, 63%; and for marriage, 48%. For a sample survey of 125 households, Ugalde et al. (1974) found that 46% of the neighbors are tied to one another by compadrazgo ties (they also note in passing that 59% of the neighbors are also relatives). For a peripheral neighborhood in Oaxaca, Chance (1973) observed that 20 of 40 households surveyed had compadres in the neighborhood, with an average of two ties per family. Finally, Hopgood (1979:110-111) observes for a squatter settlement in Monterrey that “most compadre ties are between social and economic equals,” but also emphasizes that “Bajavistanos have more compadre ties to persons in other colonias (55.8%) than to persons in Bajavista (44.2%), and many, of course, have both.” Thus, it appears that in general about half of the compadrazgo ties generated among lower-class urban residents are within the local neighborhood.

After neighbors and other relatives, fellow workers are frequent choices as compadres. These occupational compadrazgo ties may be either vertical or horizontal: supervisors or employers are thought to be less likely to fire workers who are their compadres; work companions of the same rank often establish compadrazgo ties because of the mutual trust and social intimacy (confianza) developed through their daily interactions.

Fortunately, one of our ethnographic cases deals with the social organization of manufacturing plants in Mexico City. In his study, Wilson (1969) found that compadrazgo ties were a significant aspect of these firms’ informal social structure. Traditional paternalism is prevalent in many Mexican companies and supervisors are often asked to serve as padrinos for their workers’ children. The most senior workers, regardless of status, are usually among the most sought-after compadres by those in the production force. In one plant studied by Wilson, 43 of 60 workers had at least one compadre in the labor force, but of these only seven were relatives. In a larger, U.S. subsidiary manufacturing plant, a survey of 74 workers revealed that at least 24, and probably more, had ties of compadrazgo with others in the plant. Wilson concludes that the compadrazgo “is used neither as a reinforcement of familial ties nor as a political stratagem tying subordinates to more influential individuals … [It] serves as a device by which workers without kin affiliate themselves with the supradepartmental, informal organization of the … plant” (Wilson 1969:133-134). As such, he conjectures, the compadrazgo system persists in Mexican factories as a functionally adaptive means of cooperation in a culture that values individualism and mistrusts strangers and institutions. Additional studies of occupational settings (e.g., commercial enterprises, government bureaucracies) would provide tests of Wilson’s research findings and hypotheses.

The compadrazgo is an ambivalent social institution. It serves to formalize relationships among persons who have close ties. Only emergencies, such as the impending death of an unbaptized child, make strangers or mere acquaintances suitable choices as compadres. Under such circumstances, which apply equally to rural and urban settings, the balance between social distance (defined in terms of respeto) and social intimacy (defined in terms of confianza or simpatía) varies widely among godparents. The ideal behavior stresses formality, as characterized by the use of the third person Usted rather then the second person informal tú, and attention to ritualistic or ceremonial dimensions of inter-personal relationships. In practice, compadres may maintain a façade of ritual or dispense with it completely in their interactions. As we shall see, the frequency of contact and the degree of intimacy which existed before the compadrazgo bond was established are critical determinants of how compadres behave toward one another.

The earliest observer of inter-personal relations among urban compadres was Lewis (1952). He noted that when Tepoztecans found themselves without friends in the city, they took relatives as compadres. This reinforced family ties (and ties with the village) but had the effect of making the godparent bonds more informal and personal. Thus, brothers or sisters who became compadres continued to address each other as tú-tú; uncles and nephews continued to use the Usted-tú forms of address, reflecting the difference in their status which the compadrazgo tie should have mitigated. Similar findings have been made by more recent investigators. For example, Wilson (1969) found that factory workers continued to use their given names in addressing compadres and seldom use formal modes of speech. According to his informants, compadres at the plant recognize their mutual obligations and relate them to domestic matters, not to work. Wilson notes that no behavior patterns were observed which would immediately distinguish which workers were compadres, which were friends, and which were merely work partners. Moreover, role behavior is sometimes at variance with the cultural norms of formality and respect. Workers sometimes complain that compadres are too informal and that some compadres even get into fights in the bars at night. Wilson suggests that the constant social interaction among the workers at the plants, followed by further participation in common activities at home and at leisure, makes it difficult to maintain the façade of formality and respect typical of Mexican compadrazgo. In a sense, choosing a work companion (as opposed to a superior, with whom one interacts less often) as a compadre is not very different from choosing a member of one’s own household. The constant interaction makes it difficult to avoid serious friction and the sanctity of the godparenthood bond is often in jeopardy (cf. Foster 1969:277).

From the limited data available, it appears that the formal aspects of the compadrazgo are preserved best among neighbors within the working class. Kinsmen and work companions (of whatever social status) are apt to carry on informal or inconsistently formal relationships. Middle- and upper-class individuals are also prone to make the compadrazgo ties less ceremonial and more personal. For instance, Van den Berghe and Van den Berghe (1966) claim that in San Cristobal de las Casas the formal dimensions of the compadrazgo varies by social class; the working class observes the Usted-Usted rule more than do the higher social classes.

Redfield (1934:65) long ago predicted that with the development of class and wealth differences, the compadrazgo would cease to retain its ritual aspects and would become a perfunctory relationship. In particular, he felt that the disparity in worldview between generations would result in a loss of respect by children for their padrinos. And, as Foster and Azer (1970:8) have pointed out, much of the formal respect behavior is lost in urban settings as a concomitant of the increased informality among compadres in certain socioeconomic categories. But, this does not mean that the compadrazgo as a social institution is fatally weakened as a form of alliance among peers or among patrons-clients (cf. Carlos 1973:79).

The obligations of godparents to their godchildren and the mutual assistance between compadres represent symbolic commitments. The effectiveness of the system depends on the attitude and behavior of each partner in the relationship. Some compadres will the system into full force; others treat it as a means to form closer bonds with close acquaintances, but prefer to retain the mutual trust and social intimacy they enjoyed before becoming compadres instead of creating a relationship based on formality and respect.

Perhaps the most frequent commitments made by compadres involve mutual assistance. Migrants to the city make extensive use of their ties with compadres (and kinsmen, too) in finding a place to live and a first job. Lewis (1952) discovered that in all cases of migration from Tepoztlán to Mexico City between 1920-1950, this was the pattern. Butterworth (1962), Lomnitz (1974, 1975) and Miller (1973) each note that compadres ease fellow migrants into the urban social and economic sphere. Beyond assistance with housing and job searches, urban compadres aid each other by providing personal loans during times of crisis (Carlos 1973:77) and compadres of higher status can be approached for preferential treatment in business affairs. Alonso et al. (1980:266-267) makes an important point about the compadrazgo among the families studied in Colonia Ajusco in México, D.F.: “In the colonia (neighborhood) the compadrazgo does not form the basis of subsistence-oriented interactions among the residents, but it does reinforce already existing ties among the people, and it helps to establish linkages to other social levels in the system and forms the climate for aid in specific circumstances” (my translation).

A final dimension of inter-personal relations among compadres remains to be mentioned. Although most godparents are chosen because of their mutual trust (confianza) in one another, a few are selected in order to diminish current feelings of hostility. Lomnitz (1974, 1975) makes special note of the “defensive” component of the compadrazgo for a squatter settlement in Mexico City. After becoming compadres, people who once had quarreled behave more amicably and with more formality and respect toward each other. Thus, the compadrazgo bond normalized their relations and permitted them and the rest of the neighbors to live in peace. Another aspect of the “defensive” compadrazgo strategy is based on the taboo against sexual relations among compadres. In residential situations, such as the slum vecindad studied by Lewis (1969), where privacy is at a minimum and a number of families are in constant, intimate contact, then the compadrazgo ties established among them serve as a ceremonial wall where no others exist. Choosing neighbors as compadres virtually eliminates the risk of social disruption caused by illicit sexual affairs; the same arrangement also serves to protect domestic servants by formalizing relations with their employers.

On the basis of this comparative analysis, we may conclude that the compadrazgo flourishes in Mexican cities. In addition to the basic religious occasions, people seek ritual sponsors for a variety of secular and minor spiritual events. At least nineteen different types of compadrazgo relationships are reported in the case studies. This indicates that there may be little difference between rural and urban sectors and that, instead, the compadrazgo must be conceived of as an institution which permeates all levels of Mexican society.

The compadrazgo provides a mechanism more flexible than kinship and more enduring than friendship for building social and economic alliances. Neighbors, kinsmen, fellow migrants, work companions, and employers are common choices as compadres. The relationships are both vertical and horizontal, both intensive and extensive. This multiple structure provides many opportunities for using the compadrazgo to fulfill a variety of functions: mutual assistance, aid from patrons to clients, homage from clients to patrons, and “defensive” protection against quarrels and illicit sexual affairs. Thus, the compadrazgo offers urban residents a range of options, from the most reserved, formal posture of respect (respeto) to the most informal, personal stance of mutual trust (confianza). This does not mean that compadres have perfect relationships; they are not immune from disputes, but the consequences are more serious if their ritual bonds are thereby disturbed. Moreover, because many types of ceremonial sponsorship involve no permanent obligations, a large number of a person’s ties may remain latent. Only a few compadres among those one has during a lifetime receive special attention; the rest are recognized as of lesser significance for enduring social and economic relationships. The data presented in the twenty-one ethnographic case studies show quantitatively and qualitatively that the compadrazgo is an institution whose flexibility is especially compatible with the diversity of Mexican urbanization.

For each of the case studies used in this comparative analysis, I present here a brief description of the data base and research conducted. The case studies are arranged in terms of the size of the community in which the research was carried out, with the largest (Mexico City) first and the smallest (Tonalá, Jalisco) last. In addition, for each community the population is given for 1970 (or, for 1960, if the fieldwork was done closer to that date). Obviously, many of these towns and cities have continued to grow, so that the 1960 or 1970 population figures are lower than they would be for 1980 (if the current census data were available).

1. Lewis (1952): a survey, with the aid of a student team, conducted in the summer of 1951, provides data on 100 families of Tepoztecan migrants residing in 22 different working-class neighborhoods.

2. Lewis (1969): in-depth interviews and surveys of 14 families living in a central-city slum (vecindad), carried out during the 1960s.

3. Butterworth (1962): on the basis of interviews and participant observation, carried out for nine months in 1961-1962, the author provides data on 31 families of Tilantongo migrants living in working-class squatter settlement neighborhoods.

4. Wilson (1969): through interviews with workers and key informants in four manufacturing plants, the author examined the compadrazgo among 152 workers during ten months in 1966.

5. Lomnitz (1974, 1975): interviews, survey questionnaires, and mapping during nine months in 1969 and through additional visits until 1971 provide the quantitative and qualitative data for a survey of 142 households (among a universe of some 200 households) in a “marginal” lower-class squatter settlement occupied primarily (70%) by migrants. The author offers information on a total of 1,291 compadrazgo ties, of which 1,038 were contracted in the city. These include 575 baptism cases, 291 confirmation cases, 79 first communion cases, 31 marriage cases, and 62 miscellaneous cases (covering ten other “minor” types of compadrazgo.

6. Arizpe (1978): during 8 months in 1972, the author conducted a random sample survey of 11% of two communities, given the pseudonyms of “Santiago Toxi” and “San Francisco Dotejiare,” whose migrants traveled to Mexico City. A total of 332 households from the former and 324 households from the latter were examined. The migrants included both Mazahua and mestizo individuals.

7. Kemper (1979): on the basis of fieldwork in 1969-1970, 1974, and 1976, the author surveyed 105 households of migrants from Tzintzuntzan, Michoacán. The migrant population was dispersed among more than 70 colonias in the capital. Through questionnaires and interviews, the author obtained quantitative data on a sample of 106 baptismal and 57 confirmation cases of compadrazgo.

8. Alonso et al. (1980): an economic survey of Colonia Ajusco, with emphasis on migrants from Nahuatzen, Michoacán, included 312 families. The research, done by a team of fieldworkers, was carried out in 1976-1977.

9. Hopgood (1979): through participant observation and the use of interview schedules, conducted by a team of fieldworkers during a total of 13 months in 1971-1973, data are given on 419 families living in peripheral squatter settlements in the area known as Bajavista.

10. Ugalde et al. (1974): a sample survey of 125 households in a working-class peripheral neighborhood (covering 42.5 acres and containing about 1,000 residents) was conducted by a research team in November-December 1969.

11. Nolasco et al. (1979): a team of fieldworkers conducted a sample survey of 432 families (total population of 2,466 persons) in the ciudades perdidas (slums) of the three-city conurbation in 1977-1978.

12. Chance (1973): in 1969, the author made observations on a peripheral neighborhood of some 3,500 residents. A questionnaire was used to survey some 40 lower-class households in the neighborhood.

13. Higgins (1974, 1979): through participant observation, interviews, life histories, genealogies, the author studied a peripheral lower-class neighborhood (with some 3,000 residents) during a 22-month period from 1968-1972.

14. Aguilar (1980): a team of fieldworkers conducted a sample survey of 259 families (including 1,627 persons), representing 1.6% of the entire city population, during a 6-month period in 1973-1974.

15. Hubbell (1971): through participant observation and in-depth interviews, conducted over 12 months in 1969-1970, the author surveyed 380 cases of compadrazgo among 19 middle-class female informants.

16. Whiteford (1964): the author, and a team of researchers, surveyed the community in 1955 and did a 4-month restudy in 1958, with emphasis on participant observation, interviews, and mapping procedures, to grasp the social class structure of the whole city.

17. Van den Berghe and Van den Berghe (1966): in the summers of 1959 and 1965, the authors studied the community, with an emphasis on social class and ethnic relations.

18. Royce (1975): through participant observation and interviews, carried out for 12 months during 1971-1972, the author examined the entire community, with emphasis on social classes, associations, and ethnicity.

19. Thompson (1971, 1973): for a period of 12 months in 1968-1969, the author conducted a random, representative sample of 123 males (ages 20-63), which yielded 252 baptismal compadrazgo cases, in the context of a broader study of the entire bi-cultural (Maya- and Spanish-speaking) community.

20. Miller (1973): a multi-disciplinary team of students and professionals did a survey of 475 households in seven towns and villages in the region of this new industrial town. The social survey provided data on 784 cases of compadrazgo. The field research was carried out in 1966-1970.

21. Díaz (1966): through participant observation, key informants, and a census, the author conducted a broad study of this suburban town near Guadalajara. Analysis of 130 compadrazgo cases in the church register is provided. Fieldwork was carried out for 12 months in 1959-1960 and in the summer of 1962.

¹ The compadrazgo is a system of ritualized personal relations established between two sets of individuals: the child (ahijado) and his godparents (padrinos) and the parents and godparents (compadres), with the latter ties taking precedence over those between child and godparents. The compadrazgo is usually associated with life-cycle rites within the Catholic church, especially those of baptism, confirmation, first communion, and marriage, although compadrazgo ties are also established at other occasions, such as school graduation. Ideally, compadrazgo ties are highly formal, consecrated by use of compadre or comadre (for females) as the mandatory form of address (regardless of pre-existing kinship or friendship ties), and the use of the formal Usted rather than the informal tú. In actual behavior, compadres may vary widely from the ideal model, so that different degrees of informality may exist between sets of compadres according to the degree of daily social contact, kinship ties, socioeconomic status, and other variables.

² In this paper I use the term “fictive kinship” to refer to the compadrazgo, although I also consider it to be a system of ritualized personal relations. Many scholars interested in the compadrazgo have argued, following the position taken by Gudeman (1972), that the compadrazgo is a distinctively religious phenomenon, or at least a symbolic system whereby the religious bonds are actualized in the social system. My field experience in Mexico City, in conjunction with the comparative data available through the case studies discussed in this paper, suggests that the compadrazgo has significant social, economic, and political functions in the urban system which cannot be appreciated through an analysis that focuses on the religious or symbolic qualities of the compadrazgo. I tend to stress the instrumental rather than the affective elements of co-godparenthood in the comparative analysis.

³ According to Foster (1953:7), the compadrazgo is Spain is much less complex than in Latin America: “Primary bonds are established between godparents and godchildren. Only in the case of baptism is the compadre relationship ever recognized as establishing a bond which would not otherwise exist. The average individual acquires relatively few compadres, padrinos, and ahijados during life, and numbers are not felt to constitute an advantage. The institution of the compadrazgo appears to have relatively little importance in stabilizing and integrating communal life within a village or town, to have few significant economic aspects, and to play no really important role in the whole picture of Spanish social structure. This appears to have been the case for a number of centuries.”

Alonso, Jorge, Ruben Aguilar, Alberto Arroyo, Isabel Cisneros, Alejandro Guerrero, Cecilia Lopez, Ignacio Lopez, Humberto Marrero, Ignacio Medina, J. Manuel Micher, Ignacio Rodriguez, and J. Luis Verdun

1980. Lucha urbana y acumulación de capital. México, D.F.: Ediciones de la Casa Chata, No. 12.

1978. Migración, etnicismo y cambio económico: un estudio sobre migrantes campesinos a la ciudad de México. México, D.F.: El Colegio de México.

1976. El compadrazgo en América Latina: análisis antropológico de 106 casos. México, D.F.: Instituto Indigenista Interamericano, Serie Antropología Social No. 15.

1962. A study of the urbanization process among Mixtec migrants from Tilantongo in Mexico City. America Indígena 22(3):257-274.

1973. Fictive kinship and modernization in Mexico: A comparative analysis. Anthropological Quarterly 46(2):75-91.

1972. Family, kinship structure and modernization in Latin America. Latin American Research Review 7(2):95-124.

1973. Parentesco y residencia urbana: grupo familiar y su organización en un suburbio de Oaxaca, México. America Indígena 33(1):187-212.

1971. Compadrazgo: fictive kinship in Latin America. In Readings in Kinship and Social Structure. N. Graburn, ed. New York: Harper and Row, pp. 396-406.

1966. Tonalá: conservatism, responsibility, and authority in a Mexican town. Berkeley: University of California Press.

1970. Research strategies and the compadrazgo. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Anthropological Association, San Diego, California, 19-22 November.

1953. Cofradía and compadrazgo in Spain and Spanish America. Southwest Journal of Anthropology 9(1):1-28.

1961. The dyadic contract: a model for the social structure of a Mexican peasant village. American Anthropologist 63(6):1173-1192.

1963. The dyadic contract in Tzintzuntzan, II: patron-client relationship. American Anthropologist 65(6):1280-1294.

1969. Godparents and social networks in Tzintzuntzan. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 25(3):261-278.

1972. The compadrazgo as a reflection of the natural and spiritual person. London: Proceedings of the Royal Anthropological Institute for 1971:45-71.

1974. Somos gente humilde: etnografía de una colonia urbana pobre de Oaxaca. México, D.F.: Instituto Nacional Indigenista, Serie de Antropología Social, No. 35.

1979. Social relationships among the urban poor of Oaxaca. In Social, Political, and Economic Life in Contemporary Oaxaca. A. Williams, ed. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University, Publications in Anthropology No. 24, pp. 103-142.

1979. Settlers of Bajavista: social and economic adaptation in a Mexican squatter settlement. Athens, OH: Ohio University, Center for International Studies, Latin American Series No. 7.

1971. The network of compadrazgo among middle-class Mexican women. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Anthropological Association, New York City, 21 November.

1979. Compadrazgo in city and countryside: a comparison of Tzintzuntzan migrants and villagers. In From Tzintzuntzan to the Image of Limited Good: Essays in Honor of George M. Foster. M. Clark, R. V. Kemper, and C. Nelson, eds. Berkeley, CA: Kroeber Anthropological Society, Papers No. 55/56, pp. 25-44.

1952. Urbanization without breakdown: a case study. The Scientific Monthly 75(1):31-41.

1974. The social and economic organization of a Mexican shanty town. In Anthropological Perspectives on Latin American Urbanization. W. A. Cornelius and F. M. Trueblood, eds. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. (Latin American Urban Research Vol. 4), pp. 135-155.

1973. Old villages and a new town: industrialization in Mexico. Menlo Park, CA: Cummings Publishing Co.

1950. An analysis of ritual co-parenthood (compadrazgo). Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 6:341-368.

1979. Ciudades perdidas de Coatzacoalcos, Minatitlán, y Cosoleacaque. México, D.F.: CONACYT, Centro de Ecodesarrollo.

1980. Ritual kinship: the structure and historical development of the compadrazgo system in rural Tlaxcala. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

1967. Compadrinazgo. In Handbook of Middle American Indians. Vol. 6. M. Nash, ed. Austin: University of Texas Press, pp. 238-252.

1975. Prestigio y afiliación en una comunidad urbana: Juchitán, Oaxaca. México, D.F.: Instituto Nacional Indigenista, Serie de Antropología Social, No. 37.

1970. Status, ethnicity, and mobility in a Yucatec town. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas (Xerox University Microfilms, order no. 71-11,614).

1971. Structural statistics and structural mechanics: the analysis of compadrazgo. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 27(4):381-403.

1973. A theory of instrumental social networks. Journal of Anthropological Research 29(4):244-265.

1974. The urbanization process of a poor Mexican neighborhood. Austin: University of Texas, Institute of Latin American Studies.

1966. Compadrazgo and class in southeastern Mexico. American Anthropologist 68(6):1236-1244.

1964. Two cities of Latin America: a comparative description of social classes. Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Co., Anchor Books.

1969. The social organization of the Mexican factory. Ph.D. dissertation. Columbia University, New York NY (Xerox University Microfilms order no. 69-20,199).

ANTH 3311 Mexico: From Conquest to Cancun

The Compadrazgo in Urban Mexico