MOCHE: A PERUVIAN COASTAL COMMUNITi— GILLIN 



109 



his compadyc dc pih, meaning the father of his god- 

 child, before turning to another type of conipadrc. 



The two godparents, who are compadrcs compa- 

 iicros with each other, siiare the mutual responsibil- 

 ities of the announcements and other matters previ- 

 ouslv mentioned as concerned with the feast, and 

 stand up beside the parents and answer for them 

 during the church ceremony. After the ceremony 

 and feast, they continue without formal obligations 

 to each other, although in a relationship of special 

 friendliness which, as already mentioned, usually in- 

 volves a joking pattern with sexual overtones. At 

 the feast itself, the two godparents are usually sup- 

 posed to start the dancing, by performing alone the 

 first dance, and the godfather frequently makes a 

 show of mock courting behavior toward the god- 

 mother. This is especially true if the two god- 

 parents are Mocheros. If one is a Mochero and the 

 other a jorasfero. especially if the latter is from out- 

 side the community, their mutual behavior is usually 

 more restrained and respectful. 



.As a rather pallid imitation of this joking behavior, 

 the spouses of the two godparents will also some- 

 times engage in playful courting activity. All such 

 joking behavior is, of course, supposed to be per- 

 formed strictly in public and accompanied by the 

 laughter of the other members of the assemblage. 

 The two families of godparents now enter into a 

 relationship of special friendliness, the compadrazgo. 

 All the other persons who call each other compadre 

 and/or comadrc as a result of this occasion are from 

 now on united into this type of bond. In general 

 terms, it means that one may approach his comadrc 

 or compadre with less timidity or shame {vergilenza) 

 than he would feel witli other persons. One may call 

 on his compadrcs for help in social obligations, work 

 and emergencies, and one has the obligation to re- 

 spond to such appeals and even to offer aid and 

 assistance without appeal, as at times of sickness and 

 death. The work-sharing groups, for example, usu- 

 ally are composed of compadrcs. Pallbearers are 

 frequently compadrcs of the deceased. However, the 

 rights and the obligations are graded more or less 

 according to the degrees which we have indicated 

 in discussing the terminology of the compadra::go. 

 When in need, one goes to a compadre or comadrc 

 of the first degree first, and so on down the line. 



Aside from the drinking of toasts and the practice 

 of newly established compadrcs and comadrcs danc- 

 ing together, there is no formal ccremonv involved 



in the establishment of this relationship. No one 

 lectures the participants on their new obligations or 

 reads a ritual solemnizing their status. Godparents 

 are, of course, registered as such in the baptismal 

 records by the priest. 



Perhaps the foregoing discussion will make clear 

 the basis of the view that, although the ostensibly 

 central social feature of the baptism, aside from its 

 religious features, is the establishment of a bond be- 

 tween godparents and godchild, actually the most 

 important goal is the establishment of a group of 

 compadrcs. At least, this aspect has more far-reach- 

 ing social results than the godparent-godchild rela- 

 tionship. First, the latter relationship in itself has 

 reduced social importance, because, regardless of the 

 godparents' behavior, the child is functionally inca- 

 pable of effective social interaction until it has passed 

 its infancy ; after that, the formal social and economic 

 obligations of the godparents continue only until the 

 child has reached adolescence and is supposed there- 

 after to be capable of fending for itself in case of 

 need. Second, the largest number of relationships 

 in the system established by a baptism are relation- 

 ships between compadrcs. By playing a role in such 

 a system an individual increases his range of intimate 

 friends, creates a net of relationships for himself, as 

 it were. From the individual's point of view, one 

 might think of these relationships as something like 

 the ropes attached to mountain climbers, if such ropes 

 were spread from climber to climber in a number of 

 directions, instead of in a continuous line. The in- 

 dividual may get along all right by his own efforts, 

 but, if he slips or falls or has difficulty, he mav lean 

 on his connecting ropes and be supported or pulled 

 out of the abyss. Conversely, if some other member 

 of the group slips or falls, our individual has to stand 

 fast and pull on his end of the rope to assist or res- 

 cue his fellow. In the baptismal system, the individu- 

 als who have the most "ropes" attached to them are 

 the parents of the child, not the child himself, and all 

 the other compadrcs and comadrcs are better linked 

 up by the system than is the child. 



Although adults, by entering such a system of 

 compadracgo. form a group of compadrcs. it must be 

 recognized that this is not an organized group with 

 status in the society as a whole. The relationships are 

 phrased in terms of social connections between in- 

 dividual statuses and the individuals who occupy 

 them. Although the child might be considered the 

 symbol of the group, there is no leadership, no group 



