202 



FUNCTIONS OF WEALTH 



(2) Conservatism. — The expensive "old-fashioned" men's 

 costume is worn by persons, some very poor, because 

 (apparently) they are conservative. With rare exceptions, 

 young men do not wear it. Most of the elders of the com- 

 munity wear it; these are the people who have performed 

 their religious and political service for the community; they 

 also tend to be rich, and could in general afford to wear any 

 kind of costume. The women and girls of these conserva- 

 tive families, meanwhile, tend to wear the "simple" Pana- 

 jachel costume. (I suppose that the use of silk must be, 

 on this interpretation, relatively new.) It is significant 

 that in the three wealthiest families and in 8 of the 11 

 wealthiest the women have no silk in their garments. The 

 poor, evidently, wear conservative costumes when they 

 are conservative and can afford it — the rich because they 

 can always afford it. 



Table 85. — Panajacheleno costume distribution ' 



1 Only known cases of table 75, excluding "foreign" households, which are 

 not rated on the wealth scale. 

 ' On the scale of land controlled. 

 > In order of cost, least to most. 



(3) Comfort. — The Panajachel climate (in my opinion) 

 is too warm for the woolen gabdn, and that is one possible 

 reason why it is being discarded. The "new costume" is 

 the conservative substitute. Many men also complain of 

 the coarseness and the bulk of the cahdn, and say they pre- 

 fer the "modern" costume for that reason. Women mean- 

 while, argue that the Panajachel huipil is too warm and 

 bulky and explain the use of the San Andr(5s huipil on that 

 basis and on the grounds that, being white, it is cleaner. 

 This huipil is also cheaper, however, and that may be the 

 real reason for the change. 



(4) Fashion. — The "fashionable" costume is certainly a 

 young man's pride, and I am sure that these costumes are 

 worn with particular pleasure. The fact that so many 

 poor men wear this expensive costume may not indicate 

 more than one of the reasons they are poor. Much the 

 same can be said of the women's costumes with silk, 

 although here the poor women would seem more self- 

 denying, or conservative, than their men folk. 



(5) Competition. — The fact that in the middle-rich 

 quarter the most expensive costumes are worn may be evi- 



dence of a nouveau riche complex of conspicuous consump- 

 tion. Perhaps the richest families do not feel that they 

 need this outward evidence. 



(6) Wealth enters the costume picture in different ways, 

 it is clear; but in the distribution of the "modern" costume 

 it enters most simply. This is the cheapest local-Indian 

 costume, and in a choice between it and the "fashionable" 

 no factor is apparent other than the difference in economic 

 ability or in individual values. It is clear, therefore, why 

 the proportion of "modern" costumes decreases as wealth 

 increases. 



WEALTH MOBILITY 



A comparison of the households as classified by 

 wealth and their genealogical interrelations shows 

 that there is no such thing as a "wealthy family" 

 of two or more generations' standing. Cousins 

 and siblings of the rich are likely to be found any- 

 where along the wealth scale. For examples, the 

 man of the No. 1 family has four paternal uncles 

 and aunts whose families in 1936 stood o6th, 57th, 

 119th, and 122d in the wealth scale. The man of 

 the No. 2 family is the son of a woman who had 

 two brothers whose descendants stand 49th and 

 130th in the scale. The only descendant of his 

 father's brother stands 40th. These examples 

 could be multiplied. 



Of course the mere fact that there is inheritance 

 of property indicates that there are wealthy 

 families of one or two generations' standing. And 

 there are. For example, the families standing 

 10th, 17th, 18th, 20th, 51st, and 52d are all of one 

 originally rich household, and all tend to be rich. 

 However, in the course of time, the children of a 

 rich man tend to become widely differentiated in 

 wealth. Thus the five grown children of the No. 

 3 man were, in 1936, Nos. 4, 11, 52, 75, and 103. 

 One of the reasons for this is that with the division 

 of land (not always evenly among the children) 

 each child has but a fraction of what the parent 

 had, and one or another may go up or down from 

 there. 



Marriages tend to cut across wealth lines, with 

 a man of a richer family marrying a woman of a 

 poorer family. In 36 cases (all later than 1936) 

 on which I have information. 



The man and woman were in the same wealth-quarter 



in 9, with the man richer in 4, and the woman in 5; 

 The man and woman were in consecutive quarters in 



11, with the man richer in 8, and the woman in 3; 

 The pair were in alternate quarters in 12, with the 



man richer in 7, and the woman in 5; 

 The pair were in opposite quarters in 4, with the man 



richer in 3, and the woman in 1. 



