Amatlán
Snapshot
Hover over the images to find out more about life in Amatlán.
Culture
- Population: ~600 inhabitants
- Economy: rural: subsistence agriculture: rampant poverty
- CORN, vegetables, fruits, cattle
- Demographics: almost entirely Nahua
- Languages: Spanish and Nahuatl (language of Nahua)
- Religion: Christianity (mainly Catholics and Evangelical Protestants) as well as Nahua traditional practices
- Common food: Tortillas, beans, chicken, pork, peppers, onion, tomato
- Structure: strict gender roles: men work in the field while women are responsible for home, children, and finances (including collecting welfare money)
Hover over the images to find out more about life in Amatlán.
Culture
Economy
Amatlán’s economy is largely based on subsistence agriculture. Some families sell crops, bake bread, raise cattle, and do other small jobs like laundry or embroidery to supplement their income. Though the entire village is poor, there is a definite economic hierarchy. Teachers, for example, make more money and are more respected than farmers. Some families live, eat, and sleep on the same dirt floor in tiny one-room houses. By contrast, a lawyer who works outside of Amatlán has a large, stone wall around his newly painted house, and his pet peacock and two pet toucans lounge proudly on display in the front yard. He boasted that by Christmas he would have glass in all of his windows. In Amatlán, economic inequality is exacerbated by centuries of unequal development and present-day remittances from city-dwelling members of the village. This inequality coexists with a system of gift giving that reinforces group cohesion and survival.
In addition to being financially poor, the residents in Amatlán are poor in resources and public services. The education system is dismal; the teachers are underqualified and the test scores show that the students are not up to the region’s standard. The roads are unpaved and there is no cellphone service or running water. Amatlán is definitely the periphery in Wolf’s core-periphery model (2010). It is near impossible for the villagers to compete on a national level due to their small size, their focus on subsistence agriculture, and their geographic isolation. The lack of resources and infrastructure makes it near impossible for poor people to save money and invest in the future (Sachs 2005:56). They live locally and sell locally.
Amatlán’s economy is largely based on subsistence agriculture. Some families sell crops, bake bread, raise cattle, and do other small jobs like laundry or embroidery to supplement their income. Though the entire village is poor, there is a definite economic hierarchy. Teachers, for example, make more money and are more respected than farmers. Some families live, eat, and sleep on the same dirt floor in tiny one-room houses. By contrast, a lawyer who works outside of Amatlán has a large, stone wall around his newly painted house, and his pet peacock and two pet toucans lounge proudly on display in the front yard. He boasted that by Christmas he would have glass in all of his windows. In Amatlán, economic inequality is exacerbated by centuries of unequal development and present-day remittances from city-dwelling members of the village. This inequality coexists with a system of gift giving that reinforces group cohesion and survival.
In addition to being financially poor, the residents in Amatlán are poor in resources and public services. The education system is dismal; the teachers are underqualified and the test scores show that the students are not up to the region’s standard. The roads are unpaved and there is no cellphone service or running water. Amatlán is definitely the periphery in Wolf’s core-periphery model (2010). It is near impossible for the villagers to compete on a national level due to their small size, their focus on subsistence agriculture, and their geographic isolation. The lack of resources and infrastructure makes it near impossible for poor people to save money and invest in the future (Sachs 2005:56). They live locally and sell locally.
Gift Giving
Although the residents of Amatlán are poor financially, they are rich in social capital. Social networks are vital to village life. These networks are based on kinship ties and godparents. Children who graduate school or go through religious coming-of-age ceremonies, are always sponsored by a godparent. This relationship connects not only the child to his or her godparent; it also connects the godparent to the biological parents. Adults refer to their children’s godparents as comadres or compadres, and they know they can call upon this bond if they are in need of help. In the documentary La Boda, which discusses marriage traditions of Mexican transnational migrants, the godparents of the bride-to-be pool their resources and sponsor their goddaughter’s wedding. They pay for the dress, cook the food, and even give money for flowers and decorations. Amatlán runs on a complex system of gift exchange and mutual assistance. As a guest, many families cooked for me or gave me presents, like fruit and embroidered towels. I was expected to return the favors during my stay in the village. Everything from food to money to medical care was given freely—with the implicit expectation of some form of repayment in the future. One evening, Francisca’s grandson had not eaten the entire day. A curandera visited the house and massaged his stomach with a fresh egg as he lay on the dirt floor of the kitchen, his shirt rolled up. When Francisca asked how much she owed the curandera, she said her services were free. Still, Francisca sent her on her way with two round, fragrant melons straight from the field. There is strength in being generous in a village where reputation is everything. It casts the giver as wealthy and reliable, since she has capital to spare. On multiple occasions Francisca sent children home with plastic bags bursting to the seams with mangoes, avocados, bananas, or whatever else she had to offer. This is a way of building credit; when Francisca is in need she can call back on the time she sent someone’s daughter home with two kilos of mangoes. In this way, everyone manages to get by.
Still, this system is not without its flaws. Some families are much poorer than others, and they develop reputations of not paying back the gifts and loans that are given to them. This makes those who have extra less likely to help them; the gift giving system is an investment, not a charity. The ideal of the villagers living in “equality” and being “poor together” is false, especially as more and more men leave the village to work in bigger cities (Sandstrom 1998:48). The model of the community existing to serve the community is shifting with larger trends of urbanization and globalization. Money flows in to some families from outside sources, labor flows out from those same families, and the poorest of the poor get left behind.
Although the residents of Amatlán are poor financially, they are rich in social capital. Social networks are vital to village life. These networks are based on kinship ties and godparents. Children who graduate school or go through religious coming-of-age ceremonies, are always sponsored by a godparent. This relationship connects not only the child to his or her godparent; it also connects the godparent to the biological parents. Adults refer to their children’s godparents as comadres or compadres, and they know they can call upon this bond if they are in need of help. In the documentary La Boda, which discusses marriage traditions of Mexican transnational migrants, the godparents of the bride-to-be pool their resources and sponsor their goddaughter’s wedding. They pay for the dress, cook the food, and even give money for flowers and decorations. Amatlán runs on a complex system of gift exchange and mutual assistance. As a guest, many families cooked for me or gave me presents, like fruit and embroidered towels. I was expected to return the favors during my stay in the village. Everything from food to money to medical care was given freely—with the implicit expectation of some form of repayment in the future. One evening, Francisca’s grandson had not eaten the entire day. A curandera visited the house and massaged his stomach with a fresh egg as he lay on the dirt floor of the kitchen, his shirt rolled up. When Francisca asked how much she owed the curandera, she said her services were free. Still, Francisca sent her on her way with two round, fragrant melons straight from the field. There is strength in being generous in a village where reputation is everything. It casts the giver as wealthy and reliable, since she has capital to spare. On multiple occasions Francisca sent children home with plastic bags bursting to the seams with mangoes, avocados, bananas, or whatever else she had to offer. This is a way of building credit; when Francisca is in need she can call back on the time she sent someone’s daughter home with two kilos of mangoes. In this way, everyone manages to get by.
Still, this system is not without its flaws. Some families are much poorer than others, and they develop reputations of not paying back the gifts and loans that are given to them. This makes those who have extra less likely to help them; the gift giving system is an investment, not a charity. The ideal of the villagers living in “equality” and being “poor together” is false, especially as more and more men leave the village to work in bigger cities (Sandstrom 1998:48). The model of the community existing to serve the community is shifting with larger trends of urbanization and globalization. Money flows in to some families from outside sources, labor flows out from those same families, and the poorest of the poor get left behind.