Power and Solidarity: Clientage in Domestic Service [and Comments and Reply] Author(s): V.

Tellis-Nayak, Karen Tranberg Hansen, H. D. Lakshminarayana, Joyce Pettigrew, G. N. Ramu, Savitri Shahani, Lynn Walter Source: Current Anthropology, Vol. 24, No. 1 (Feb., 1983), pp. 67-79 Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2742486 . Accessed: 19/07/2011 16:41
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The University of Chicago Press and Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Current Anthropology.

http://www.jstor.org

CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY

Vol. 24, No. 1, February1983

1983 by The Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research, all rightsreserved 0011-3204/83/2401-0001$02.00

Power and Solidarity:Clientagein Domestic Service1

by V. Tellis-Nayak

THAT INDIA IS A WORLD

and multiple of parallel hierarchies has been amply documented.This channelsof interchange the of worldhas spawneda variety waysofregulating complex withinthe caste flowof social goods-jajmani relationships uponsinceWiser1936),exchanges commented (widely structure of based on principles gift,duty,and honor(Iswaran 1966), of networks(Beals 1970), commercialization communication (Frankel 1972), and class struggle(Gough 1973, agriculture studydeals witha dependency 1973). The present Shivaraman outside the formalcaste tradition:the vertical arrangement interchange betweenrural and urban solidarity and diffuse domestic performing Christiansin South India, the former conserviceforthe latter.Though the Christiancommunity thiscase showsthat to sidersitself immune thecaste ideology, share in it. However,domesticservicein in fact Christians Christianhomesdoes not duplicatethe rituallyand occupaRather, of tionally based casteobligations jajmani relationship. bond. a patron-client it approximates culture-specific Reliance on the patronageconceptis not withoutits risks. "it As Gilsenan(1977:168) suggests, has becomea conceptfor of to all seasons,applied quasi-universally a multiplicity relaformations." in of tionships a widediversity socialand economic by a Patronagecan rangefrom "dyadic contract"negotiated or permanence, any coherence, theparticipating pair,without between secondarysupport (Foster 1961), to a relationship nations which operatein theidiomthatobtainsat interpersonal levels (Gonzalez 1972). It has been applied to multipurpose (Gould within caste framework the linksbetween socialclusters
1 I wishto thankJessie Tellis-Nayak,forherhelp in data collection, and Thomas Brockman and Mark Mosco, who read earlierversions of thispaper and suggestedminorand major changes.

of V. TELLIS-NAYAK is AssociateProfessor Sociologyat St. Xavier College (103rd and Central Park Ave., Chicago, Ill. 60655, U.S.A.). Born in 1936,he was educated at Sacred Heart College, India (B.A., 1961), at the Athenaeum,De Nobili Shembaganur, College,Poona, India (B.A., 1967), at Loyola University (M.A., 1969), and at Michigan State University(Ph.D., 1973). He taught sociology at Hartwick College from 1978 to 1981. His nonare researchinterests the sociologyof health and medicine, and conflict,and the Western medical systems,stratification religiousethos of the elderly.His publicationsinclude "Gandhi for on theDignityof the Human Person,"in Quest Gandhi,edited by G. Ramachandranand T. K. Mahadevan (Bombay: Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, 1970); "Conjugal Egalitarianism and Violence Studies,in press), and Across Cultures" (Journalof Comparative "The TranscendentStandard: The ReligiousEthos of the Rural in Elderly" (The Gerontologist,press). in The presentpaper was submitted finalform18 II 82.

1958,Leach 1960) and outsideit (Pocock 1962,Brenan 1974). and formalized of It has servedin the examination ritualized relations ties kin-based (Freed 1963,Osborn1968),ofextralegal and in bureaucracies polities(Legg n.d.), and in the explicitly crimebothin within organized and violentformations coercive n.d.). Sicily(Blok 1974) and in the UnitedStates (Abadinsky societies weaklycentralized It is not true that the primitive, to are the only seedbedsof patronage;"contrary the general life of the assumption, bureaucratization modern has increased (Legg n.d.:46). of thepossibilities clientism" patron-client have approached severalscholars Conceptually, in context, which game in a zero-sum alliancesas a defensive are resources limitedand fixed(Foster 1965,Silverman1968, theyhave raised issues of inScott 1968). In this framework (Beidelman1959) as well of equality,power,and exploitation based on an equitable balance of exchange(Scott legitimacy also 1972). The literature includesstudiesthatstressthe inteaspects bond,its interpersonal roleof thepatron-client grative (Weingrod features and ceremonial (Wolf1966),its processual 1977), and the impact on it of ideas and religiousmodels exchange againstthespecific model, (Boissevain1977).Arguing Legg (n.d.:15) suggeststhat the conceptof "controlof noncomparableresources"is more useful than the concept of the for of "unequal control resources" understanding principle in and ofmutualbenefit reciprocity patronage. a Despite thesedivergences, criticalreviewrevealsthat the tie in element a patron-client is "lopsidedfriendship" operative to is 1961),in which"one partner clearlysuperior (Pitt-Rivers the otherin his capacityto grantgoods and services"(Wolf as bond may be described an 1966:16). Thus, a patron-client in friendship which and voluntary, instrumental asymmetrical, goods and servicesare exchangedformutual noncomparable theseconis regarding benefit. Thoughthere a broadconsensus is the elements, problem to knowhow theymix,and stitutive reallyobtains. whenpatronage exchanges particular one Foran answer, mayhave toexamine Sahlins(1965:149) and setting. in their institutional normative a that of has positeda continuum reciprocities rangefrom freely "amount to a these reciprocities bestowedgiftto chicanery: in fromsacrifice favorof anotherto of spectrum sociability, self-interested at the expenseof another."He superimgain variationon the sectoraldivisionsof poses this reciprocity societyin orderto obtain an exchangemodel whichrestson that It moralfoundations. is thesesocial and moralparameters has Waterbury in mindwhenhe arguesthat forpatronageto and morethana residualcategory less than becomesomething with little analytic utility"it is a ubiquitous phenomenon 67

1983 Vol. 24 * No. 1 * February

important join the examination any of its discrete to of manifestations withthatof thegeneral politico-economic context in whichit is found"(Waterbury 1977:340-41).Normsestablish the context social exchange, of values inform motivations the of theparticipants, institutional settings determine stratethe gies theyemployto attain theirgoals. Thus, once the context ofsocialexchange identified,fruitful is a attempt understand to thepatron-client bondmaybe underway. This studyattempts "actor-oriented an analysis" (Strickon and Greenfield 1972:13-14) of how employers and servants resortto strategies and negotiate exchanges within theirinstitutionalsettings. These settings comprise least fourcrucial at factors:the character domesticservice,the locationof the of participants theinstitutional in system, material the and nonmaterial resourcesavailable to them,and the sociocultural
ambience.

tookplace mostly age of twelvehad to be omitted;interviews hesihours; the servant'sage, illiteracy, duringbusy working responses affected real and incomprehension, or feigned, tancy, to on sensitiveissues or on those irrelevant her world. The and situation, of pageswillrevealthatfactors timing, following or some truncated maniptowards also circumstance conspired ulatedresponses. THE MISTRESS-SERVANT BOND the Nanavoor Catholic Four operativeelementscharacterize bond: (a) unconditional proprietorship/ mistress-servant (c) dependence,(b) primaryaffiliation, status distance,and (d) reciprocity.
UNCONDITIONAL PROPRIETORSHIP/DEPENDENCE

and Abercrombie and paternalism patronage, In distinguishing Hill (1976:415) suggestthat patronagedoes not assume domThe CatholicChristians Nanavoor,2 urbanagglomeration of an signifilife.The Nanavoorvariantdeparts inancein theclient's ofover 175,000 peoplein SouthIndia (18.2%0 Christian, accordis cantly fromthis model. Though the live-in arrangement ing to the 1971 census),have over severalcenturies evolveda in of domestic service responsible part fortotality dependence, cultural identity distinct from thatof thesurrounding populaon thatit is thepersonof the predicated thepremise is in itself tion. Their kinshipconstellations faintlyreflectthe Hindu not her servant, primarily skills,thatis hired.On thisassumpcastes fromwhich they were convertedto Catholicism.In the servantas a social and tion rest reciprocal expectations: mattersof marriagetheyidentify themselves belonging as to and the family, moralbeingis at the disposalof the employer one of two castes. (Neitherlengthof Catholic heritage, geofor is mistress responsible the servantas if fora ward. This graphicdistribution, economicstatus consistently nor distindominanceover postulatelends substanceto the employer's guishesthese status groups.) The higher-status group is, by her theservant-hertimeand leisure, privatelifeand conduct, and large,the elite class, and its richer families on employ, a of herfreedom movement. full-time, live-in basis, domesticworkersfromlower-status is the At theinitialrecruitment, agreement vague and casual, Catholicfamilies theadjacent ruralareas.3Overwhelmingly of contractual as incomplete to detail and lackingin any formal thesedomestics unmarried are females their in teensand young but It understanding. involvesnot only the two families, also adulthood.The age distribution male servants similarto of is in and otherswho serveas mediators nuns,landlords, priests, that of the females exceptat the upperend, wheremales are recruiting ruralgirlsintourbanhomes.Oftenweeksor months few.The authority screen, to recruit, supervise servant and the has the mayelapsebefore employer any contactwitha member belongsto the mistress the household. of The term"servant" mayoccur Some negotiation family. of theservant's immediate accurately describes statusof theworker the and is commonly about wages, but the details of paymentand the termsare used in thecommunity. out for worked in a subtlejockeying advantageby bothparties The fieldwork was conductedwith interruptions over five is in the monthsthat follow. The servantherself not included years in the middleand late 1970s. The data derivemainly in the wage discussion, except perhaps when she is married from participant observation worksettings. in Extensivequali(8%0ofour sample) or an adult. (In our sample,35%0weresixtativeinformation also collectedthrough was with interviews and Only teenor younger, themeanage was twenty-four. 27%0 employers and servants,with religiousand lay leaders,and 13%0 not even know did salarypaid to themdirectly; with representatives educationaland welfareinstitutions. had their of theamount.) Finally,theinvestigation included brief a questionnaire survey. all overher time, Once hired,the servantsurrenders control A sampleof8 out of 14 jurisdictional subdivisions thechurch of before generally She wakes up at least withthe earliestriser, yielded open-ended structured and responses from servants, 281 fifaroundnine-thirty. During the intervening six,and retires ofwhom were 241 live-ins, some85 employers. and Threefemale teen or more hoursshe has very littleaimless time. In midprofessional social workers and one trainedmale interviewer, and themistress may indulgein a slackens, activity afternoon, all of them Catholicsresidingin the area, administered the may be allowed to nap or lightactivity.The servantherself questionnaires both to servants and to employers. however, must remainvaguelyin attenshe nap; moreoften, Though the surveywas intendedto be supplementary, it dance,perhapswashingher own clothesor doinglightchores pointedto thepitfalls quantitative of data collection using by is riceor rakingleaves. Many a mistress consuch as cleaning interviewers wererecognized the servantas belonging who by a vincedthat letting servantsleep duringthe day or allowing to the mistress class. The employers' overtand covertinteris herto do nothing liable to "spoil her" or to "make herlazy." ference could not always be avoided, despite the strategy of for Sheela's mistress, example,is accustomedto an hour of two interviewers' engagingthe servant and employersepsiestadaily.She does not feelthat Sheela shouldindulgein the arately.Otherfactors also intervened: someservants belowthe Instead, she habit or be allowed to sit around unsupervised. who to sendsthe girleveryafternoon help a sister-in-law lives 2Nanavoor is, of course, a pseudonym.Some other names and The servant may have to awaken at in the neighborhood. minor detailshave also been changedwithout, hope,prejudicing I the a from partyor and minister family to members returning night presentation and analysis. on the movies,and she assumesadditionalresponsibilities the 3 Servantsare found Nanavoor in Christian, in Hindu, and Muslim and Consequently, occasionoffeasts, celebrations, emergencies. households, well as in secular and religious as institutions. They are employedforgeneral,specific, outdoor,and indoor tasks. They intherangeofherdutiesand theuse ofhertimeare nota matter clude males and femalesof different age-groupsand marital status would The employer fordiscussionon the occasion of hiring. workingon a full-time, part-time, live-in,or dav-workbasis. The be it shouldsuch inquiries made. consider impudent presentdiscussionpertainsto only one type of arrangement this in complex. set Not only does the mistress the termsand controlthe 68
CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY

THE SETTING

but reachintotheverydomain servant's time, herprerogatives of the servant's privacyand personalconduct.In a Nanavoor or servesas the home,a lockabledesk,cupboard, suitcaseoften of expression one's privacyand individuality, it is rarefor but a servantto possess anything beyonda small clothbundlein and otherproperty. whichshe keepshercash,jewelry, letters, retains access to thissanctum.In Still,themistress privileged of on a striking indication thelimitations theservant's to right in privacyand independence, 36%0of the cases in our survey the employer wouldnot leave the servantalone to respondto and questions. the Occasionally entire family remained, in a few cases the employer volunteered answers. the Givenherorigins, servant the comespresocialized; readily she submitsto the new guardianship. She rarelyventures outside thecompound an without assignedtask; she refrains from purand avoids cultivating chasingthingsforherself relationships withoutthe knowledgeand approval of the mistress.Such prudence dictatedless bv the servant'ssex and age thanby is themistress's role.Many a parent custodial endorses suchmoral withan explicit supervision to requestto themistress be "strict withmy daughter." The mistress's are proprietary rights further apparentin the The explicitconsentof the servantis not lendingof servants. requiredto send her to the householdof a relative, or friend, neighbor whenadditionalhelp is neededor whentheemployer family goeson vacation.Somewhat arbitrarily, mistress less the may arrangeto give the servantaway to another family. a By proprietary logicsimilarto bondedlabor,families occasionally a inherit servant. Threeelderly women oursamplespokewith in pride about their"adoption" by theirfamilyand about the faithful servicetheyhad rendered overa generation. Unconditional proprietorship/dependence, then, is the and markofthisdomestic primary distinctive service. means It of the surrender the servant to the needs of the employer familyand a discretionary "parentship"on the part of the These elementscontribute the otherfeaturesof mistress. to thisvertical pact.
PRIMARY AFFILIATION

Tellis-Nayak: CLIENTAGE

IN DOMESTIC

SERVICE

wentto Bombay to join her husbandtemwhenthe mistress porarily. The former servantof an aged and infirm widower livingalone woulddropby periodically inquirewhether to she couldlend a hand withsomeof his chores.One even notesthe and whimsof to servant'ssensitivity the subtle expectations or of the mistress to the peculiarities her family. Repeatedly denied entryto our interviewers, servantsfirmly thoughthe to latterbelonged themistress's ownclass,because themistress was not at homeand mightnot approvean interview. Leela, was coaxed by the mistress cooperatewith to aged fourteen, ourinterviewer. smiledshyly and shookherhead in refusal; She then she rushedinto the compoundand withdrew near the and washing stone.Whentheinterviewer followed engagedher again, she confided: "The mistress may say she wants me to answeryourquestions, I think but she'd be annoyedif I did." and for and Negotiation jockeying affect position on all the go from her timeon both sides. The servant'sadvantagesprings directinvolvement withthe detailsand dilemmas dailylife, of in her growing competence dealingwiththem,and her ability and to cope withthe moodsand idiosyncrasies the mistress of her family. From all thisarise the mistress's dependency and and affection, from thememerge devotion theservantto the of of heradoptedfamily. Theirsharing a faitheases thisentry of the clientinto the sanctumof the patron'sfamily.Religious homogeneity marks them offas a castelikegroup fromthe Hindus, Muslims,and Protestants and overrides theirdifferand ence in social origin, facilitating empathy, communication, The servant's and age also promote sex thisbonding. cohesion. obliEmphasizing social responsibility rather thancontractual affiliation of gation,thisprimary contributes thelegitimacy to the relationship, enhancesthe employer's status and security, and provides humanizing a space in whichtheservant belongs, and commands affection, exercises someinitiative.
STATUS DISTANCE

The servant's fictive affiliation theemployer with underfamily of bond. Power scoresthe powerasymmetry the patron-client and emotional are that come disparity solidarity polar entities The starklyasymmetrical mistress-servant alignment renis in coalitogether, though theydo notdissolve, a precontractual dered morehumaneand given stabilityand legitimacy a by tion.Meticulous social ritualmediatesthisunion. familistic to relationship. Referring the paradoxicalcharacterStudies have documentedhow institutionalized power inbetweensuch unequal social actors,Eisenistic of friendship and reinforcement "body politics" in equalityfinds expression stadt and Roniger(1980:50) suggestthat thisstrong element (Henley1977,Mitford 1956,Brownand Gilman1960,Johnson ofsolidarity, often couchedin terms mutualpersonal of loyalty, 1971, Scheflen 1972). Social prescriptions pertaining dress, to may even bear a note of spiritualattachment. Mutual affect deportment, gestures, eye contact,and paralanguageclearly runs high in Nanavoor. Personalizedidiom dominates the the distinguish unequalpartiesalso in Nanavoor.Any resident oftenrefer theirservants "indisto vocabulary.Employers as of the community identify can servantsby the materialand pensable," "devoted," "dependable." and "just like a family their designof theirclothes,theirgrooming, theirdemeanor, member." Whendissatisfied, express they their displeasure also one of speech.In the case of one twenty-two-year-old servant, in personalizedterms: servantsmay be "ungrateful," "disour interviewers was unsure: "She was clean and smartly honest,"or "untrustworthy." of Pilfering foodand footdraginterdressed.She worejewelryand spoke English."Another a but gingirritate mistress, theinsufferable offense remaining viewer noted with surprisea "bold one" who greeted her is aloof or withholding devotionfromher family.The servant "sittingon the parapet withher legs crossed."A thirdinterquicklylearnsthat her mostprizedattribute not the work is viewer noted that a servant remainedstandingthroughan she does, but the attachment she can develop for,and elicit entireinterview. Whenasked to sit down,the servantreplied, the from, employer family. "No, themistress may get annoyed." Ideally, the servantguardsand defendsthe family's house Status rulesare remarkably In acrosshouseholds. consistent and property, upholdsits name in local gossip and disputes, most householdseven adult servantsare served their food and improvises momentsof need. She is tuned in to the in an for of (perhaps inferior variety ricecookedseparately them); family's cultureand quirks.She deals withvisitors the abin on mealssitting theydo notserveit themselves. They eat their sence of adult family whomshe strivesto resemble. the floor, members, oftenout of sight,and afterthe family meal. Status She anticipatesproblems, adjusts to crises,and unflinchingly differentials also markedby the place the servantsleeps are suffers the petty tyrannies domesticservitude.In some of on (not uncommonly the kitchen floor), what outhouseor by householdsservantspurchase groceries, decide on the day's lavatoryshe uses, or by the back door or side gate through menu,manage the fruittrees,or care forchildren. One ninewhichshe enters and leaves. In markedcontrast the Hindu, to teen-year-old the house singlehanded ran while the mistress Catholicritualsurrounding cookingrestsless on the servant's was hospitalized. Another teen-ager undertook totalhousecare originsthan on the tastes and skillsof the mistress, and the Vol. 24 * No. 1 * February 1983 69

servant's kitchen dutytherefore variessignificantly house from to house. The exception seems to be the recentCatholiccona vertsfrom lowlyuntouchable group; theyare employedfor outdoorhelp but not usuallyassignedkitchenresponsibilities. Avoidanceof social intimacy, even wheregenuineaffection obtains,betweenunequal parties is commonin status hierarchies.In Nanavoor familiarity playfulness and betweenthe and the employer's servant children exemptfrom are thisprobut at scription, children an earlyage beginto noteand assert theirsuperior status. They issue commandsto adult servants in vocabularythatbetraysstatusconsciousness. theygrow As older,theyare constantly reminded adults to "know their by place," "maintaintheir dignity," "keep their or distance"when dealingwithservants. youngservantmay join children a A in game,but unspoken rulesdictatethat she not be too competitiveor assertive. Limitations the servant'sinteractions on apply even beyond the family and home.Visiting relatives guestsof the family or deemit properto issue ordersto a servantor to converse with herin status-reflective vocabulary. Even whenout ofthehouse or whenrunning errand, servantis aware of herstation an the and the prescriptions consequent it. One does of courseenon counter anomaloussituation whicha servant's the in personalor ity dominatesthe mistress the household,but even here statusdistance strictly is maintained. Thus themistress-servant social discourseutilizesat a micro-level same grammar the of hierarchical relatedness foundin the caste society.

affluent families assume the survivalneeds of a lame or halfblind individualin exchangeforunskilledservicesthat their householdsneed-drawing water, weeding,runningerrands, etc. These individuals circulate within chainofhouseholds a or religiousinstitutions; exchangethey receivefood, shelter, in clothing, protection. and Our sampleof live-ins also contained somedestitute, family-less widowsand six womenbetweenthe ages of sixty-five eighty-two. and Children, like the elderly, maynotreceive cash wages.Someare takenin before age of the ten because of theirparents'pleadingsand the needs of the employer. littlegirlsaid, "My mother One died,and mygrandmother wantedme to be in a goodhome.She brought here." me The old stay withthe family theybecomefeebleand bedtill ridden,at which time they may be admitted to charitable shelters the aged. The very youngmay graduateto fullfor fledged servants. We maynowturnfrom social concerns thepsychodynamto ics ofcooperation within domestic the setting. live-in A servant providesa personalized and flexible service to the employer of home. She freesthe mistress the tyranny of and drudgery tedious tasks the latteris unwilling unable to perform or or cannot reconcilewith her career.Above all, she ensuresthe employer family lordlyway of lifeand an important a status reinforcement a status-bound in culture.For herpart,the servant becomes the beneficiary important of psychosocialrewards. Reminiscent the lower-class of English nanny,"in a sensetheanimalmother theyoungchild" in theupper-class of home (Plumb 1973:107), a youngservantfindsan outletfor hernurturing instinct thepresence youngchildren the in of in COMPLEX AND DIFFUSE RECIPROCITY home.In contrastto factory work,her diffuse tasks give her The disparityof power and the ritualization interaction significant Her responsibility, security, belongingness. own and of and between mistress servant and serveone central restssecurethatshe is protected from immoral the purposein their family alliance:regulation theexchange valuedmaterial of of alienating forces urbanlivingand factory of work. and nonmaterialresources. in the typicalpatron-client As A The initial encounter may,however, seemtraumatic. young relationship (Eisenstadtand Roniger1980:51), thisis nota simple, of a is deprived her specific, girlfrom poor,ruralbackground suddenly utilitarian market it of comes underthe exchange. mutual- supports kin and villageand, defenseless, Rather, entailsa diffuse ity which includes honor, trust,generosity, of in The initial urbansetting. and gift-giving authority a mistress a strange, within kin logicand terminology. a at phase is replete withmiscues, awkwardattempts accommoThe interchange All betweenmistressand servanttranscends dation,and psychicstress, but it seemsshort-lived. indicatheirdyadic pact and involves the community a whole. a torspointto the factthat servants generally happyand are as First,theemployer's obligation embraces onlytheservant, secure lot. Our somewhatshaky quantitativemeasure cornot her as but,importantly, family well.Parentsin ruralareas who roborates fact:an overwhelming the number(97%) state that are economically seek assistance frompriests, theyare satisfied verysatisfied theirpresent hard-pressed or in placement. nuns,and otherpatronsin placingtheirchildren domestic a in and Belongingness security constitute centralconcernfor service.The mistress's custodialresponsibility the servant.Almostunanimously, takes shape in Catholicservantssay they relation thegirl'sparents to and to themediators, whomshe to wouldnot want to workin non-Catholic homes.They possess in maybe beholden otherways.The mistress theservant's a strong and and even a senseof religious superireligious identity parentswritelettersor otherwise remainin contact through ority. a whether Hindu homewouldrespect They are uncertain the good offices a priestor conventin the village.Members or permittheirreligiouspractice. Some fear they mightbe of of the servant'sfamily feelfreeto approachthe employer in for "cheapenedin the eyes of our relatives"by working nonhelpin placingother in relatives domestic service urbanjobs; or Catholic homes. Catholics have acquired a singularcultural foraid in illness, disputes, in seasonalunemployment; in from or for differ in identity thiscaste society. Non-Catholics sharply advice,protection, and intervention confrontations Catholicsin dietarypractices,social and religiousfestivities, in redress, withmoneylenders, and for landlords, urbanbureaucrats; gifts dress codes, language, and kin structure. These differences on the occasion of religiousfeasts or weddings;and, more homevulnerin render Catholicgirlserving a non-Catholic a for routinely, directaid by way of food,old clothes, loans, or able, and both Catholicand non-Catholic employers agreethat advancesagainstthe servant'swages. The mistress in such cross-denominational "servantsdon't take gives food placements or lends money withoutinterest;she relies on her superior liberties, are remainmorerespectful, moreobedientand make resources education,knowledge the urban system, of of of and environment Nanavoor, In betterworkers." the small-town contactsto mediateforherclientin obtaining privileged legal veryfewcross-denominational placements actuallyoccur.4 and medical services.In brief,she becomesa formof social I The servant'sneed to belong and to retain some controlcan be insurance againsttheuncertainties life. of in seen in a metropolis North India, where an impersonal,market Another aspect of thispatronage thatlinksit to thesocietal contextprevails. Here nuns place hundredsof Catholic girls from structure its function an alternative a formal is as to institu- different areas in wealthyHindu homes. These servantsretaincontionaleffort succorthesociallyhandicapped. considerable siderablecontrolover theirlives, since theirnon-Catholicemployers to A as in and are respectful sometimes awe ofthenunswho function their numberof servantsweredescribed the employers "idiby as The head of the conventhas noticed that the few girls protectors. otic," "slow," "retarded,""stupid," "dull," "below normal, for the whocometo herfrom Nanavoor area avoid working a Catholic and "not intelligent." These judgmental labels reflect gap the if mistress she comes fromthe same area. The latterwould be well betweenmistressand servant,but they also point out how acquainted with the servant's backgroundand would also be very 70
CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY

In themistress's quasi-parental responsibility be a cultural to modeland a moralguardianto her ward one can again trace the repercussions the caste principle. of Thereare overtones of the notion of multipledharmasand its emulativeimpetus, in elucidated the conceptof Sanskritization (Srinivas1966),in the dual citizenship impliedin mistress-servant obligations. The habits of a ruralservantfall well shortof the refined tastesand standards themistress. therefore of She monitors the servant'sworkand remains vigilantof herpracticesin housekeeping, dress,eating,and hygiene, especiallywhen a young girl attains menarche rarely, or, becomespregnant.She may eventually impartto her ward the values and mannersof an urbanhome: skillsin finehousekeeping, and embroicooking, dery, habitsof reading and thecreative and gainful of time. use She is solicitous her servant, for her sometimes guarding from her own needy,thoughtless, grasping or parentsor investing thegirl'searnings goldjewelry savingsaccounts.She may in or go to considerable pains to finda matchforherservantand to collectdonations the modestjewelryand weddingcelebrafor tions. Whatfunctions theseskillsand manners do serve? This study did not specifically of addressitselfto the careerpatterns servants,but impressionistic suggest data thatservants experience littleor no social mobility. negligible A number may use their acquiredskillsto moveon to semiskilled jobs outsidethehome or to marginally higher-paying domestic ones,but by and large servantsslip back into the class and culturefrom whichthey came. Many are recalled becauseoffamily needs;a feware sent back becauseofillness, incompatibility, other or problems. The return home to marryand raise a family. majority, however', At this point, the tastes and mannerstheyhave assimilated difficult. from home may make the reentry Servantsreturning visitshave been heardto complainabout thelow standards of in ownhomes.One ten-year-old was apprecleanliness their girl would hensiveabout goinghome: hernewlyacquiredclothing be sharedwith otherrelatives.A nineteen-year-old returning homeconfessed thatshe wouldmiss the "funand excitement" ofurbanliving.At timestheservant's marriage prospects may be affected. The prospective groommay feelthreatened a by girlwhohas acquiredalien habits,tastes,and demeanor, while the servantherself may approach marriagewith a new cautiousness about the drunkenness, and abandonment, infidelity thatrunhighamongruralmales. The mistress's roleof guardianimpliesnot onlybeinga culturalexemplar, also exercising but over the servant's vigilance moral conduct and religiouswell-being. Moral elitismis of course congruent with the multitiered ethical standardof a caste society.In part it derivesalso fromthe community of of faithof mistress influence and servantand the consequent theaudienceoffellow Catholicsto whosepartisanexpectations and reactions mistress sensitive. the The naiveteoftheyoung is to villagegirland hervulnerability male attention may cause the mistress due concern.She is particularly of watchful any rickshaw interest exhibited by male servants, chauffeurs, or if drivers, otherlower-class men,especially theyhappen to be non-Catholics. own Advancesby males in the employer's mustalso be prevented; womenplan leisure,siesta,or family in sleepingarrangements such a way as to precludeprivate encounters betweentheirmales and theirservants. Whensuch advancesare made,theservantcannotreadilyseek thehelpof themistress; of and theunpredictability her prudence, respect, reaction to force into silence.A nun who ministers domesher a ticsin another largeSouthIndian cityreports fewsuch cases of harassment, and here the servanthas discreetly requested in home.Whena youngNanavoorman who placement another
familiarand friendly with the nuns. Despite the metropolitan ambience in such an eventthe servantloses herleverageand the mistress acquires a feudalistic control.

CLIENTAGE Tellis-Nayak:

IN DOMESTIC

SERVICE

aged beat servant, was notedforhis drunkenness up thefamily in it for sixteen, disobedience, was interpreted theneighborhood to by as havingbeenoccasioned herresistance his advances. are and especiallypregnancy, a Lapses in sexual morality, to However,the presource of embarrassment the mistress. sumptionis not that she has defaultedin her guardianship; the rather, episodemerelyconfirms presumedlower stanthe class.The fewpregnancies handleddisare dardsof theservant A creetlyand with sympathy. large local municipalhospital years, abortions recent in of has had a handful cases ofservant and a local womandoctorhas dealt withan occasionalcase of a following privatelyinduced abortion.More complications the homerunby nuns. girl often, pregnant is sentto a halfway run of facility and records a 15-inmate The incomplete sketchy 13 by the Catholicdioceseidentified ofits inmatesovera fourborn to unyear periodas havingbeen servants.The infants marriedservantsare invariablygiven up foradoption or to orphanages. In sum, this Nanavoor domesticserviceis a complex,reciprocal relationshipbetween religiouslyhomogeneousbut systemicneeds and unequal social actors whose roles reflect The servant'sage, sex, religion, and communalexpectations. princiarrangement combinewith the hierarchical residential of ples of a statussocietyto producethe paradoxicalfeatures and the patron-client bond: subordination devotion,uncondiand instrumentality, and social distance. sentiment tionality SOCIAL BASIS AND INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT

The social conditions and sustainthe systemof that generate may be analyzedin termsof (a) the patronagejust described factors socioeconomic forces that generate (b) the symbolic it, thatlegitimate (c) theinstitutional framework makesit that it, it. possible,and (d) the modesof controlthat help to enforce
ECONOMIC EXIGENCY

a In Nanavoor, domesticwork cannot be considered market lies at its heart. but the economicimperative phenomenon, associatedwithmodEconomicconsiderations universally are that afterthe ern domestic work.Watson (1931:199) suggests in servicebecame the abolitionof feudalism Europe, domestic In laborers. Londonin the chief of of occupation thepoorest free women and prostitutes of 1840sa largeproportion thedestitute were domesticservants.In his economicanalysisof domestic work in the United States around the turn of the century, Rubinow (1906:517) concluded that a "plentifulsupply of obstacleto cheaplaborhas alwaysbeen and stillis thegreatest Katzman (1978:271) for technical especially women. progress," in of notes the importance the social structure the U.S. case: "Domestic servicedrew less fromwomenwho chose service lack and morefrom thosewho due to race,ethnicity, of educahad no choice." Scattereddocumentionor maritalcondition tation shows that economically deprivedgroups continueto labor aroundthe world.Agencies providea sourceof domestic in traffic such a in the Philippines and in the host countries export"to the Middle East, Europe,and North "warm-body 1980:10). A similartrade America(WorldCouncilof Churches India to the Middle East was curin domestic servantsfrom In action in the mid-1970s. Colombia, tailed by government to the ruralsectorsteadilysuppliesdomestics its cities (ISIS 1980:8). In the UnitedStates,illegalaliens workas domestics or (Warren1977); Cambodianand Vietnameserefugees visaholdingnativesof the West Indies or Mexico serve as live-in maids (New YorkTimes 1969:34; Liddick 1973; Quinn 1975); 71

1983 Vol. 24 * No. 1 * February

homebringback live-in and diplomatsreturning missionaries domestics (Charlton1973,Gorney1977). Nanavoor faces a similareconomicreality.Its hinterland landless laborers harborsa substantialreserveof near-poor, In facedwithseasonalunemployment. oursample,theservants of memthe came from largefamilies, mediannumber family bers being6.9. When asked to explain why theyhad entered the responses: father's servants gave familiar domestic service, had incurred debts; themother the workwas irregular; family was widowed;the familywas abandoned,poor, ill, or ill-fed; widespread Servantsalso report thereweretoo manychildren. alcohol abuse among men and a high incidenceof domestic in violence.Parents seek reliefby placing children domestic favors A service. callousparentmayevenuse themto negotiate to fromemployers. Young servantsmay be reluctant visit or is return homebecause "my father cruel;he willtake away my and drink."A lack ofeducation dimension adds another money with to theirplight.Although Nanavoor comparesfavorably in rate,36.2% oftheservants therestofthecountry itsliteracy schooling. The mediannumber we surveyed had had no formal 6 ofschoolyearsattended was 3.2, and 90% reported yearsor less. but it providesa necessarycondition, Economic exigency arrangedoes notentirely of explaintheincidence patron-client ments in Nanavoor. Girls and women formed85% of our sociallyand in job sample.Femalesare notonlymorerestricted as but also less literateand preferred servants. aspirations, demeandomestic restrictive, the Males consider lifeofa live-in to manyin oursurvevgroupexpected leave ing,and womanly; servicesoon. It may be thatfamilies hesitateto employmales forfearof thisturnover, it is perhapsmorelikelythat the but to mistress findsit difficult controltheirlives, to elicit their In theirrelationships. contrastto other loyalty, to monitor or for in settings, thisone males are not employed considerations conof statusand prestige. culturaland structural Obviously, siderationsare importantin shaping domestic service in Nanavoor. approach that, is A further market argument againsta narrow in whilechangesin the local labor market the last decade and for a half have createdemployment alternatives women,the nature of live-in servicehas remainedessentiallythe same. and industries suchas nutsand fisheries thecottage Extractive and of manywomen, goodsemploy manufacture tobacco-based has an outflow migrant of laborto theArab Gulfregion further The cumulative drainedthefemale laborforce. impacthas been to aggravatethe "servantproblem," very makingrecruitment kitchens, difficult. common The has response been to modernize to to dependmoreon part-time help,and to be morewilling do menialjobs oneself.
SYMBOLIC CANOPY

to The anthropological literatureis replete with references thatprovidemodelsforinterand ideological systems religious The compadrazgo systemhas been a personal relationships. favoredcase in this regard (Pitt-Rivers1968, Ravicz 1967). Boissevain (1977:94) has argued that in Malta thereis an and between value and action,between religious secuinterplay and lar patronage:"the relation between religious socialchange betweenmortal and immortal is evident in the congruence sees no patronsand brokers."Gilsenan(1977:178), however, in in such congruence Lebanon: "thereis certainly our case no obvious parallel of saintly and political formations."The in Nanavoor situationis problematic its own way. Here we from the distinct groupreligiously have the case of a minority population,whose ideologyencompassesand insurrounding No formsall social formations. carefulattempthas yet been made to sort out the impact of Christiandogma,as distinct fromthe HIindutradition, the social orderof the Catholic on Indian Catholicsare the inheritors the Judeoof community. 72

whichhas been describedas Christiansymbolicorientation, (Parsons 1964,Berger linear,and purposeful secular,rational, live undera Hindu canopy. 1968). These Catholics,however, with the The Great Traditionof Hinduismsharplycontrasts and Catholicethosin that it is mystical, contemplative, concentric.Rather than enjoiningone to conquerthe earth and regardforits enjoyit, it expectsone to do one's dutywithout 1927). The Hindu's God is less remote (Radhakrishnan fruits and morepervasivethan the Catholic's.The Hindu relatesto the whereas Cathomanifestations, its through myriad divinity and is lic order,both mundaneand supernatural, hierarchical populatedby a host of intermediaries. withpatronage,the is Though Catholictheology consonant seemsto colorthehierarchiof casteprinciple thesubcontinent While theirjurisof cal formations the Catholiccommunity. dictionaland ritual aspects are shaped by the rational-legal and social organization cultural their of traditions Catholicism, of complieswith the imperatives the caste order.Godparentbut it has much less hood, forexample,is rituallypracticed, in relation to social life than in Catholic communities the The Cathoor Latin America, the Philippines. Mediterranean, of lic communities South India have castelike hierarchies (Koshy 1968, D'Costa 1977, Miranda 1977). Althoughthe Nanavoor Catholicsdo not openlysubscribeto caste prescriptions, especiallythose pertainingto dietarypollution,they emulatethe caste model. The Catholic "castes" of generally Nanavoormaintainsocial distanceby avoidingintermarriage. that and organizations Thoughtheylack the separateliturgies in are foundin Catholic communities Kerala, they do show and theyare distinctive by some segregation place of worship, impactof be in speech.Thus it might arguedthattheprincipal some of the salient ideologyhas been to flatten the exogenous Nanavoor of expressions caste in the Catholic community. of imperatives a adhereto the central Catholicsfundamentally and caste order:theconsciousness acceptanceofascribedsocial standardsassociated boundariesand the disparatenormative withthem. to Servantsseem resigned theirstation: "We are born like this," they explain. Domestic work carries no stigma,and becoming children's of do servants notabhortheprospect their are and resignation conpassivity, Submissiveness, domestics. adapas withthecaste premise, wellas psychologically gruent supportiveof the servant's position. tive and functionally at There is similarrecognition the oppositeend of the social disdain The employer groupshowsthe brahminical spectrum. of characteristic the forlowlyphysicaltasks thatis considered Indian elite at large (Shils 1961). It is thisbent of mind that as producessuchcasual observations thatof a sixteen-year-old doingthelaundry boy in Nanavoor:"I wouldnotlowermyself the work.Why shouldn't girldo it? She is a servantafterall." is This status disparity oftenmediatedby a primary-group loyalty and marked deference largesse, by behavior cooperative ethosofhonor, The patrician and empathy. devotion and trust, some and social responsibility, giftgiving that characterizes 1965,Iswaran 1966) (Kenny1960,Peristiany societies ascriptive to is presenthere. Since in reference the Hindu and Muslim as outgroupsCatholics identifythemselves a distinct,selffor solicitude the servant's the subculture, mistress's conscious boundary in this ethnocentric moralwell-being part reflects maintenance. bond hereseemsto of Thus thelegitimacy the patron-client be sustainedby a culturalidiom in whichHindu traditions dominateand overlap with Catholic ones. It is perhaps bolwhich service, of steredby theverycharacter live-indomestic an mayfacilitate acceptanceofone's station.Even in theWest, the medieval relationsof masterand servanthave survived deonly in domesticwork.Such workhas been progressively privedof its skilledaspects,suchas childcare,but,in contrast character. its of to otherforms labor,has retained personalized it is Domesticservice notproduct-oriented; calls forno specific
CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY

skills on the part of the servantand no precise evaluative standards thepartoftheemployer. personalized, on Its diffuse, and capriciousexpectations and legitimize depenthe fortify dencyand its ascription.
INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT

Tellis-Nayak: CLIENTAGE

IN DOMESTIC

SERVICE

Traditional structures constrain flow socialand economic the of goodsin Nanavoor,and thelowerclass has no effective, impersonal guaranteesof survivaland protection. neither Further, kin norvillagestructures adequate insuranceagainstrisk. are Finally,the Catholic ruralpoor do not seek protection from theirprivileged non-Catholic compatriots. Patronageby Catholics fillsa gap in the social fabric, the supplementing formal, universalistic bureaucratic and of institutions themodern state (Wolf1966). That domestic in workthrives the interstices betweenmodin erninstitutions manifest that the Indian censuscontains is no such category. What legislation existsregarding minimum wage,childlabor,and childeducationis either to inapplicable or domestics, In unenforced, unenforceable. somelargeIndian cities,servantsin institutions unionized;ordinances are stipulate housingconditions domestics; varietyof institutions for a serve theirinterests. Such legislativeand organizational consciousness absent as regards is live-indomestics Nanavoor. in Historically, universalistic principles have applied unevenly to domesticservicein othersocietiesas well. The United States had littleor no legislation governing conditions domestic the of workin the first halfof the century (Watson 1931:203), and very few states now includedomesticworkers theirminiin mum-wage legislation. Europe,and especially Germany, (In in social and legislative control began earlier [Watson1931:204].) As significant themarginality theformal as of institutions of the state is the role of the local religious functionaries. While priestsand nuns have achievedan impressive recordas innovators and reformers education,social welfare, in and civic participation,their interestin domesticshas been largely restricted spiritual to ministrations. They advise employers to send servants specialweekly for religious but instruction, compliance is limited.One priestprivatelyregretted that of the 200 and moreservants his parish,fewer in than 35 joined the festivities for arranged themat Christmas. One nun echoedthe sentiment others:"The servants not knowtheir of do prayers, and we are concerned. We do not questionthemabout their work,salary, or workingconditions;we care only for their spiritualwelfare."Priests and nuns quietly admit that the fearthat meeting churchgives the servantsthe employers at occasionto meetothers, exchange views,comparesalariesand it benefits; increases dissatisfaction. Religious leadersin Nanavoorgenerally comefrom local elite families. They accept domestic serviceas an inevitable part of the social order.The local and domesticeconomiesdemand thattheythemselves in employ servants rectories convents. and They also aid needyfamilies recruiting by servants from them and placing them in homes of theirown (i.e., the clergy's) relatives.5 interviewers withparish prieststo request Our met information about householdswith servantsand to solicit a letter recommendation of addressed employers. mostcases to In the priestswere sympathetic, on occasion theyprovided and theinformation, not one recommendation but letter was given, nordid theypermit interviewers quote or refer them. the to to Their intervention would,one suggested, "affect our relationship withthe laity and withthe priestswho help recruit servants; thiswouldhinder apostolate." our In at least threelarge metropolitan areas with a different social climate, Catholicnunshave institutionalizedmediator a
I In one exceptionaland notorious case, a nun was reputedly involved in major traffic domestics.At least two othersuch cases in involvingpriestsoutsideofNanavoor could be documented.

they spiritualhelp to servants, role. In additionto rendering conditions and a semicontractual demandacceptableworking In agreement fromemployers. Nanavoor, however,the elite it a making impregnable holdon thesocialorder, maintains firm Spiritual, educaor by to intervention religious lay leadership. a including marriage for tional,and social programs servants, have initiated priestsor lay social workers by and crisisfund, who of as beenshort-lived, have theefforts a fewzealouspriests of on Sundayworship themes social jushave preachedduring tice withreference servants.A surveyof servantattitudes to in a was conducted 1973,and, withthehelp ofits editor, series was publishedin the local of articleson the statusof servants Catholic paper. One memberof the clergyread the articles aloud duringSunday service,and the elite reacted with inof The memory that survey and comprehension resentment. spread quickly.As a lingers, and the news of our interviews had our interviewers to deal with some hostile consequence, One of them echoed a general complaint:"You employers. heads whenyou ask themabout whenthey plantideas in their theyare." eat, sleep,or relax,or howsatisfied among their In summary, seek security poor ruralfamilies links across religious The coreligionists. absence of horizontal of and caste groupsin the villageand the irrelevance indepenfor serveas a framework mediating structures dent,impersonal of controlthat the establishment feudalistic bonds. The firm renders patronoverlocalinstitutions theurbanelitecommands immuneto liberal challengesor innovaclientarrangements tions.
MECHANISMS OF CONTROL

that undergirds domesticclientage The institutional structure control overherservantwhenstrains ithe also insures mistress weakens.One sourceofherpoweris the developand legitimacy of the of from exchange othergoods. separation cash payment of is one-sixth the The averagewage,Rs 30 a month, roughly the to from employer theservant: value of thegoods thatflow a amenities, per food,shelter, set ofnewclothing year,personal and In transportation, some recreation. addition, medications, interestold theservant herfamily and mayalso receive clothes, If and a variety services. thevalue of of freeloans,othergifts, the materialgoods wereadded to the wages,the latterwould withthosepaid to unskilled labor, though comparefavorably in not whencomputed terms hourly of wage. is obligation subject to Thus mostof the materialexchange and this means that she can of the discretion the mistress, manipulaterewardsto demandserviceand loyalty.The misof in in acts as a gatekeeper matters emotional tress, addition, compensation.Her power to manipulate psychic salary is of in asked in privatehow they reflected theresponses servants to Rarelyreferring salaryor woulddescribe ideal mistress. the workingconditions,they described the ideal employeras "kind," "gentle," "considerate,""trusting,""loving," "symthe and "understanding." Conversely, qualitiesthey pathetic," "rudeness,""grumbling," dislikedmostwere"quick temper," Emotional "sour face," "silence," and "overwatchfulness." is seemsto serveas adequate sanction;there very manipulation male littleevidenceof physicalpunishment, younger although are knownto hit or slap youngerservants. familymembers potential, However,the servantpossessesa subtle retaliatory especiallyaftera personalizedtie has been established.She in to may not be able to resort grosscarelessness her choresor in herregard property, she can slowherpace and limit but for seem less comher smiles,be less generousand thoughtful, municative.Males, adults, or married servants may even that the servant's grumbleaudibly. The mistressrecognizes is indispensability the latter's best protection;her devotion are and dependability essential. 73

Vol. 24 * No. 1 * February 1983

A secondmodeof control the mistress's is abilityto prevent the servantfromcultivating competing alliances outside the household.Part-time adult servantslivingin the community can escape the despotism the mistress. of They have a multiplicityof employers with whomto negotiate, and theyhave kin and patronsin thecommunity whomto relyor through on whomto spreadcompromising tales.Aboveall, theycan choose not to cometo workwhentheyare neededmost.(The mistress stillexercises considerable informal authority, however. one In instance, employer an distressed over a day-worker's decision to quit marchedto herhomeand, in thepresence herneighof her In of bors,admonished on the virtues responsibility.) concan trast, mistress shutthelive-in the servant ofoutgroups. out The latter'ssignificant outsideparticipation herattendance is at churchor at religious instruction. the servantdoes not If accompanya family member Sundayworship, timesof for the her departureand arrival are monitored and any deviation evokesdemandsforexplanation. The sameis thecase whenthe servant leaves homealone to carrya hot lunch,to runerrands, or to stand in line at the milk booth. Liaisons clandestinely the made by theservant liable to be reported are back through of effective network friends, acquaintances, observant or membersof theelitewho can readilyrecognize servantand know a inwhen she violates the accepted code. In one illustrative stance,a Catholicdoctor terminated services herMuslim the of in chauffeur when he was reported have showninterest a to Catholicservantin the neighborhood. normative The and the structural ordersconspireto consolidatethe servant'sdependencyby providing manipulative leverageto the mistress. CONCLUSION Patron-client relations may be conceived as varying of along a continuum: one extreme at based on theyare asymmetrical, honor, generosity, a familistic and framework; theother on they are moreequal, symmetrical, instrumental and (Abercrombie and Hill 1976:425). The Nanavoor case is near the familistic end ofthiscontinuum. Amongthefeatures paperhas highthis lighted, three seemparticularly noteworthy: 1. The seeminglydyadic mistress-servant in relationship fact embracesthe behaviornot only of participants, also but of significant othersand of relevantaudiences.Priests,nuns, and othereliteintermediaries servethe interests both affluof enturbanfamilies needyruralonesby recruiting and domestics from latterto servethe former. the From thisare bornmultipartisan mutualexpectations based on economic interest, moral responsibility, religious obligation, and communaland status considerations. 2. Catholicsin Nanavoor accept the caste symbolism and combine it with their own traditions.The caste principle theirreligious themto avoid strengthens identity prompts and interfaith links.Withintheirranksmenialtasks are assigned a low status,socialpreeminence entailsaristocratic obligations, and social discoursereflects and fortifies status distance.The of of structure their worldand theorganization life conceptual follow hierarchical the in logicinherent the Catholictradition. It is within framework Catholicpatronsand that thissymbolic clientsdefinetheirgoals, perceive theiroptions,and choose domestic clientage a viable solution. as 3. Domestic serviceis insulatedfromlegislativeand other from universalistic conventions and immuneto intervention liberalsources.The Catholic elite of Nanavoor,whichis the social foundation the local churchleadership, for enjoysboth formal and informal command overthe self-conscious religious servicewithin and of community over theinstitution domestic it. The absence of cross-factional alliances,the lack of impersonal guarantees, and the weaknessof the marketcontribute towardstheireffective exerciseof controlwhen the patronclientbond becomesfragile and solidarity weakens. 74

Comments
EvansUniversity, Northwestern of Department Anthropology, ton,III. 60201,U.S.A. 6 vii 82 in to This articlecontributes an expandingresearchfrontier the anthropology, study of work,to which domesticservice Once themajor challenge. and an provides empirical theoretical wage occupation,firstfor men and then for women in init Europeand NorthAmerica, persists urbanizing dustrializing, of in the interstices advanced capitalistsocieties.It plays a role prominent as an urbanoccupationforwomenand menin These factsdemandeconomicexcountries. manydeveloping relationSo planations. does thenatureoftheservant-employer to whereit is presumed economies ship,forit operateswithin be outmoded. his information, While Tellis-Nayak provides interesting raises more questions than it answers,and his description Focusingon is framework not whollyconvincing. explanatory he relationship, disregardsthe larger the servant-employer economicquestion. His selectionof live-in women servants makes him avoid the genderdynamicsand the causes and to recruitment this male/female of consequences differential are concerns the following: My specific occupation. A study of domesticservice calls for examinationof the class and the betweentwo classes, the working relationship of class, and specifically the servant'spositionin employing Tellis-Nayakdoes not and household in theemployer's. his/her How "the are constituted. specifyhow these class segments of elite" makesits living,the averagesize and composition its households,and whetherthe female employerswork away questions.To requirecontinuous fromhome are unclarified housein servicetheremustprevailotherconditions Christian holds than "disdain forlowlyphysicaltasks" that theyshare largesse,ethos of the with Hindus. Highlighting employers' underservants'moralwell-being for and concerns their honor, the naturethatdefines relationthe communicates exploitative problem." shipand thatmay helpexplain"the servant in by relief placingchildren Yet ruralparentsseek economic stayput? How longdo servants How readily? service. domestic rates.Whendo servants on is No information offered turnover "slip back to the class and culturefromwhichthey came"? Why,if servantsare Whyis therelittleor no social mobility? in to home,do theynot seek employment the reluctant return that employmany women?Other than industries extractive on are no assertions, explanations offered theseissues. that the servantgives the impression The authorinitially solidaris relationship mediatedby sharedChristian employer also caste principle us ity.He laterinforms thatthehierarchical It colorsthe relationship. is impossibleto assess the relative are since only footnotes provided of weights theseprinciples, on servantsin urban Hindu households:some are Christian, of sect,caste,and gender othersHindu. What is thepreferred and what tasks do theyperform, in servants thesehouseholds, any differently structured interaction is the servant-employer households? thanin Christian is Clientship theconceptused to analyzethenatureofinterhousefor actionthe authorviewsas culture-specific Christian as termspointsto paternalism holds,but his use of familistic the structuring principle.The live-in situation enables the all to employer control aspects of her servant'slife,make her The and give her away to otherhouseholds. workelsewhere, remunerais by subordination accentuated indefinite servant's part. In patron-client tionsof whichmoneywages are a minor and is patronage onlypartial.Its scopeis specific relationships, life. doesnotcoverall aspectsofa subordinate's In paternalistic whilein patronbenefits, generally the arrangements, employer and age the clientdoes so (Abercrombie Hill 1976:415). It is
CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY

by KAREN TRANBERG HANSEN

byG. N. RAMU of University Manitoba,Winnipeg, of Department Sociology, Canada R3T 2N2. 8 vii 82 Manitoba, betweenmasterand servanthas often While the relationship been discussedunder the rubricof the jajmani system,few analyses have brought together empirical evidence from as conceptualframework skillvariousstudiesinto a coherent fullyas Tellis-Nayak'sarticle.There is littleto quibble with by H. D. LAKSHMINARAYANA because the empirical of premise the article, in the conceptual Bangalore Department Sociology,Bangalore University, of one cannothelpaskinghow has evidence dictatedit. However, 560 056, India. 7 viii 82 and servants betweendomestic likelyit is thattherelationship in analysis"of the relation- theirmistresses Nanavoor existselsewhere South India. Tellis-Nayak, his "action-oriented in in in shipbetween employers servants a SouthIndian Catholic and I experience, feelthatthestructural On thebasis ofmyresearch Christian arrangement conditions(e.g., absence of status mobility,oversupplyof community, to showa dependency tries Catholic In outside the formalcaste tradition. doing so he seems to servants, amongdomestic labour,lack oforganization draw parallelswith the Hindu jajmani systemby using the value systemunderthe canopy of Hindu ethics,etc.) Tellishowphrase "patron-client bond." The jajmani relationship, in arrangement Nanavoor to Nayak attributes thedependency and ritualisedand is foundin folklike are cast in somewhat ever, is symmetrical The analysisimplieseither static terms. in Hindu society; the relationsbetween traditional outsidethe family jajmai and that littlechangeoccursin institutions kaminare multidimensional enduring. and The patron-client Nanavoor or that change has very little impact on patronand relation, theotherhand,is asymmetrical instrumental. clientrelations on is such as thoseoutlined.My impression that Further, historicallydomestic servants have enjoyed an and servantare betweenmistress of the patterns relationship in enviableposition theirmaster'shomeand evenbecomepart from one family to and dynamic, differing heterogeneous and parcel of it. The mutual dependencyof employerand years,I over time. In the past fifteen anotherand changing servantis not foundbetweenthe patronand his client.The in settings Karnataka. in on have doneresearch thefamily three of degree and intensity dependencyvary with the type of in descriptions an attemptto suggestthe the I offer following and the between employer alternative dyadicrelations, comparing relations thatexistelsewhere. patterns and servantto those of patron and clientis an ill-conceived (in Hosuris a Hindu villageofabout 100 families 1965). The notion. and is for main sourceof livelihood mostvillagers agriculture, is per theaveragelandholding family about 6 acresofwetland and and 10 acres of dry.Most houseshave electricity gadgets and own farmers tractors affluent suchas radios,etc.,and three by JOYCE PETTIGREW Belone a jeep. The villageis welllinkedby trainand bus to urban Queen's University, Department Social Anthropology, of subjectto urbaninfluin Ireland. 1 vii 82 centers the regionand consequently fast,Northern in situation 1965generally the ence.However, domestic-servant and Tellis-Nayakhas suppliedample evidenceof exploitation, with to it is difficult see how such can be the basis forsolidarity corresponded thatin Nanavoor.A maid was employed to unthat understanding she wouldwork"forever" the implicit betweendomestic and thefamilies who employthem. servants By or childbirth, deathintervened. 1979, marriage, less illness, a of Indeed, the evidencewouldhave warranted consideration the situationhad changed.Few parentsor husbandswanted In in of the material terms domination subordination. the and The "forever." or theirdaughters wives to serveas domestics society of hierarchical, inegalitarian,and highly stratified the of duration theirservice, annual salary,and the conditions the verticalties he refers are ties betweennonto Nanavoor, Often50% of the rigourously. rather of workwerenegotiated equals. From that point of view, it does not make sense to was paid in advance to the servant annualsalaryofa domestic writeof vertical solidarity. parentor husband. The way themistress-servant would relationship described is city Kolar GoldFieldsis an industrial about thesize ofNanawhichis used by those thatpatronage an institution is suggest in monopolizing positionsof privilegeto make the gap between voor but heterogeneous terms of religion,caste, class, was language,and occupation.Until about 1965, gold mining the rich and poor acceptable, the ideologyrendering so it couldbe divided the Roughly, population industry. thecentral affiliation. However,if thisdid not producethe beingprimary in into the upper class (officers the mines and prosperous resultsrequiredin termsof labour output,then it would be workers and dispensedwith and other,more blatantlycoercivemethods businessmen),the middle class (white-collar and the lowerclass (gold-diggers middle-range businessmen), chosen.I see someparallelsbetweenthesedata and thosefora and menial workers).In the early 1960s, Kolar Gold Fields Portuguese ruralsociety,thoughCutilerio's recentanalysisis resembledNanavoor with regard to the status of domestic muchmorerevealing. Kerala's economic system, withits high 1983 Vol. 24 * No. 1 * February

that these relationships are not convincingly demonstrated other structured clientage. as What are the servant'sbenefits than dubious"psychosocial rewards"and finearts of cooking, manners,and dress which have little relevancein the rural the In area to whichpresumably returns? thiscase, rather, she her and bolstering employer benefits, relievedfromdrudgery structured society. sense of noblesseobligein a hierarchically and devoThe patron-client bond's paradox- "subordination sentimentand tion, unconditionality and instrumentality, social distance"-is only apparent. At stake is inequality the ratherthan Christianity. Despite sharedreligion, servantAlthoughit is a employer relationship remainshierarchical. ties, dependent relationship withclose physicaland emotional the social distancecharacteristic hierarchical of paternalistic etiquetteand well-defined relationships maintained is through "go divisions place and task. In myview,thesemechanisms of in I the together" all paternalistic relationships. venture guess that similar apparent paradoxes also characterizeservantas employer relationships Hindu households, theyhave and in relationships probably stilldo in manylive-in servant-employer elsewhere.

Tellis-Nayak: CLIENTAGE

IN DOMESTIC

SERVICE

dein servants their placesfemale pattern, ruralunemployment In pendencypositionvis-a-vistheiremployers. this setting, of in patronage, theform a job, a place to sleep,and somedaily and almsa food,performs similarrole to that of the charity that Cutileirodescribes. landowners givingof the Portuguese Cutileiroremarksthat almsgivingis a traditionalformof created poverty thathelpedto alleviatethe extreme behaviour normsmay Thus, though by thenatureof social stratification. establishthe contextof social exchangeas Tellis-Nayaksugin themto gests,he shouldhave been moresystematic relating labourexploitation. theprevailing

servants.Live-in maids were commonin middle-and upperclass families,and an upper-classfamilymight employ an entirelower-class one, the husband as gardener chauffeur, or the wifeas maid,and the children running errands.In 1968, however, gold mining was at its lowestebb, and workers were beinglaid off the thousands. a result,thepopulationof by As domestic workers increased. Even clerksand typists wereable to maintain live-in maids, part-timegardeners,etc. The servantswereloyal and dedicatedand would do anything to please the employer and increasetheirjob security.For example,it was reported that manyteen-age maids entered into clandestine sexual liaisons with theirmasters.By 1978, this situation had changed dramatically.The pool of domestic had shrunk, and fewmiddle-and upper-class servants families could findservants willing servethemeven forso limiteda to periodas a year. A heavy-equipment factory employed about in 3,000 individuals upper and middlemanagement positions whowereable to siphonoff mostofthedomestic servants from the miningtownship.Many gold miningofficials could no longerdemandand receiveservicefrom theirservants. Moreover,servantsrarely workedas "live-ins"because in timesof shortsupplytheycould workpart-time severalhousesand in earnmore. Most of the 400 dual-career and 400 single-career couplesI interviewed Bangalore in 1979 complainedabout the unin of availability reliable which servants, causedproblems especially forthe working womenwith children. The servantsoften negotiated terms their"contracts," the in of to mainly relation wages.Virtually one would agree to serveeven fora year. no Servantswere paid theirsalaries monthly, and the guessing game in many familieswas whether the servantwould stay afterthe payment. was commonforservantsto workpartIt timein severalhouseholds; the 800 households of studied, only about a thirdhad full-time live-inservants,the rest having either part-time ones or none. In brief, two of thesethreeresearch in I settings observeda change in mistress-servant over time, fromthe relationship dominance-dependence patternwhichexistsin Nanavoor to a moreflexible negotiated informal and but pact. One explanation forthislies in thesocioeconomic the changesthataffect supply of and demandfordomesticservants.The dominance-dependence relationship dependentupon the supply of labour. is Thus, whenthereis a surplusof unskilled the femaleworkers, pattern tendsto be theone Tellis-Nayak delineated. has When thereis an excessivedemand for theirlabour, not only do have choicesas to theideal household their servants for labour, but theirdefinitions loyalty, of and commitment, dependence, demeanor in change.Moreover, a tight labourmarket, workers willseekto do less workfor moremoney and developtheability to evaluate the demands of their employers. For example, lower-class parentsof domesticservantsin Kolar Gold Fields in 1979 were critical of the employers'treatment their of children considered and their demands unreasonable, excessive, and cruel.The frequent turnover domesticservantsin the of was of of mining township indicative thefragility the "vertical pact" Tellis-Nayak describes.Tellis-Nayak notes that the "domesticserviceis in itself on predicated the premisethat it is the personof the servant,not primarily skills,that is her hired." From the point of view of the servant,however, her personis a preciouscommodity, and wherechoicesexist she will take measuresto safeguard well-being. her Wherethereis a surplusof labour she will settleforless; whereher services are in demand,she willlook forhouseholds whereherpersonal comfort can be maximized.Finally, not only are the skills (howeverlimited) of domesticservantsportable,but so are theirloyalties and affections. This is evidentin both Kolar Gold Fields and Bangalore, where most domesticservants, whether live-inor part-time, work on a monthly salary and thus retainthe freedom quit the momenttheyfindmore to attractive opportunities. 76

SHAHANI bySAVITRI KarveRd.,Pune 128/2Kothrud, of Indian Institute Education, 411029,India. 17 vii 82 of The widespreademployment domesticservantsin middlebeen class homesin Indian cities has not, to my knowledge, Tellis-Nayak'spiece is therestudiedas a social phenomenon. fore of considerableinterest.It is, however,strongin its leaving us and weak in theoreticalorientation, empiricism of withno broaderunderstanding domesticserviceas a social typeofsocialstructure. of in institution thecontext a particular Domesticservicein Nanavoor,we are told,is a dependency because those outside the formalcaste tradition arrangement and not Hindus,but "this case shows involvedare Christians that in fact Christiansshare in [the caste ideology]."The is implication that domesticservice is a facet of the caste are. just as jajmani relations Why,then,thereferences system, Post,and the in the to articles theNew YorkTimes, Washington Bulletin?In the section "Economic ExiISIS International gency,"some very relevantwork on the problemis citedas significantly, farback as 1931),Rubinow's Watson's(dating, (even earlier),and Katzman's, all indicatingthe possibility is that the prevalenceof this institution tied up with the in moment history, at stateoftheeconomy a particular general becomes service a moment economic of crisisin whichdomestic it to something fall back on. Alternatively, existsin the interin sticesofa social structure, a kindof "legal limbo,"requiring skillsbeyondthosethateverywomanqua woman no particular no is expectedto some degreeto have, providing politicalor in ensuring survivalbut not profit. economic leverage society, Domestic serviceis foundin all kinds of societies.So are and theirasymmetry their relations. Apartfrom patron-client voluntarynature, however,they would appear to be quite The in terms. each other bothsocialand economic from distinct relationship of in exchange goodsand services thepatron-client derives and theasymmetry in contractual nature, is essentially fromthe nature of the exchange.Domestic service, directly thoughinitiallya dyadic contractfor the exchangeof goods and services, the verynatureof the workinvolved-in the by relation.It also involvessocial household-becomesa diffuse whichexistin the societyat large. inequalities is A muchmoreseriousanalysisof domestic service required empirical study.Readythanhas been made in thisessentially relationand conceptsof caste or patron-client made theories ships do not make much sense of it. What is needed is more detailedcomparative studies,especiallyof European societies in the preindustrial early industrialperiod, and a more or in analysis of the institution the contextof the penetrating of rather thansomesegment it. structure wholesocioeconomic byLYNN WALTER Green University Wisconsin, of of Department Anthropology, Bay, Wis. 54302, U.S.A. 12 vii 82 data withwhichto descriptive Tellis-Nayakprovidesexcellent problem,the nature of the masterapproach a significant whenneither servantrelationship slaverynor freewage labor adequately characterizesit. The author's specificquestion can of relationship be underwhether form master-servant this one and stoodas a patron-client is less interesting is relatedto approach to a problem more his use of an actor-oriented one. For an actor-oriented addressedby a structural fruitfully the approachto yieldveryusefulresults, actorshouldconfront mightwell be options.In this sense, the mistress significant seen as an actor, but her servantis, for the most part, the That the femaleservantprefers servingto being acted-upon. to of "abandoned,poor,ill, or ill-fed"testifies the restrictions class. The strategiesshe employsto make the best of her situationare not as centrala problemas the reasonsshe is compelledto accept servitude.Tellis-Nayak supplies ample and of her mistress's evidenceof the servant'spowerlessness
CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY

to efforts insurethat she remainsso. For example,he points out that the mistressattemptsto preventher servantfrom Howalliancesoutsidethe household." "cultivating competing of ever,the implications his data on class and powerare not developedin thisanalysis. When economic conditions changeto createnew optionsfor " and problem,' female workers thusto "aggravatethe'servant on has theresponse thepartofthemistress been "to modernize help, and to be more kitchens, depend moreon part-time to of willingto do menial jobs oneself."The significance these by changesis obscured the approachof the author,who states essensimplythat "the natureof live-inservicehas remained tiallythe same." Tellis-Nayaksuggestsbut does not develop the idea that genderlimitsthe servant'sactions and shapes her attitudes. domestic servitude For example, is notedthatmen consider it for to and are moredifficult the mistress manage. demeaning the apparentpassivityof femaleservants,the In explaining authordrawsoverthe"symbolic canopy"ofHinduismand the do If system explain castesystem. theseaspectsofthesymbolic Clearly, female what,then,explainsmale resistance? passivity, factor. gender a critical is model is appliSince the authorstates that a patron-client cable to this case, I want to suggestthat it is not the female be. servant who is the client.Perhapsherkin might If so, then is one of the "resources"beingexchanged the femaleservant by herself. She is objectified her positionin the class-gender That the mistress in of servitude. system the context domestic as and the servantboth view theirrelationship a personalone does not negatethe factthat the femaleservantis objectified. whichbuttresses her is Rather, personalism part ofan ideology objectification. model does not fit the mistressIn sum, the patron-client servantrelationship describedby Tellis-Nayak.Structural as of factors class and genderbetterexplainthe dynamics this of servant's strategies dyad.To focusone's analysison thefemale in thecontext thisrelationship to obscure powerlessness her of is and thereasonsforit.

Tellis-Nayak: CLIENTAGE

IN DOMESTIC

SERVICE

Reply
byV. TELLIS-NAYAK Chicago, Ill., U.S.A. 20 ix 82 I findthe critiques and not alwaysuncongenial to provocative are to mypointofview.My owncomments an attempt respond; a I am not sure theyconstitute reply. One concernof the commentators that the articledisreis gards the largereconomicquestion-that it does not develop theimplications class,power,and labor exploitation. does of It and the supplyof cheap labor suggestthat economicexigency create the necessary predisposingcondition for domestic servicein Nanavoor,as theydo elsewhere; however, avoids it a structural analysisof the labor market.I did not mean to service;rather, natureof domestic understate exploitative the I wanted to emphasizeand illuminatethe dynamicsof the local clientage,which a strictlystructuralanalysis might underplay. Recent years have witnessedsocial changein Nanavooretc. out-migration, The factories, colleges,cottageindustries, impressive factis that thoughthesechangeshave aggravated the "servantproblem,"theyhave not changedthe natureof domestic DomesticserviceamongCatholicsremains clientage. totally,certain popular; Catholic servantseschew,sometimes occupational options (constructionwork, street sweeping, homes; factory labor,etc.); theyavoid serving non-Catholic in domesticsand their familiesoften maintain emotionaland clientage tieswiththeemployer after servicehas ended. Vol. 24 * No. 1 * February 1983

has Ramu showsthattheNanavoortypeofpatronage given wherethe pacts in communities and way to flexible negotiated labor supply has shrunk.Demographicand labor shiftsnotin this withstanding, has notoccurred Nanavoor.This stability rests only partially on economic and labor conditions;it presumes an interplay of socioculturalfactors. Similarly, Abadinsky (n.d.) rejects the economic implicationsof the ethnic succession theory and suggests that the continued in dominanceof ethnic Italians in patronagearrangements urbanorganizedcrimein the United States is explainedby a traditions. and cultural peculiarmixof social conditions The centralrelevantfact in Nanavoor is its demographic mostofIndia. It has a largeconcentration from distinctiveness communal who have acquireda distinct of CatholicChristians linkswith urbansectionretainseffective Its identity. affluent service, professional the hinterlandthroughlandownership, functionaries of the and, very importantly, network religious solidarity ruralareas. Religious in outposts remote maintaining networks out thatemerge oftheurban-rural and theobligations each other.No one has yet sortedout, as Hansen reinforce and would wish, the relativeweightsof Christiansolidarity communalconsciousness. in caste centripetalism heightening out of one theydo not emerge In fact,I am not surewhether and the same principle.A ready acceptance of ascriptive boundariesdecidedlyshapes one's options; it explains why patrons and needy Catholics do not seek out non-Catholic remain disinclinedto entertainlogical options for security of The sociallimitations age and sex of the and advancement. economicquestionsinto cultural servantalso help transform The growingscarcityof labor, rather than considerations. arrangeand negotiated contractual towards leadingemployers ments,has caused them to modernizetheirkitchens(with electric blenders,gas stoves, processed foods, etc.), while mode. clientistic in servicesurvives the traditional domestic natureof therelationthattheexploitative Hansen suggests ship may explain the "servant problem."The patron-client "exploibond is indeeda lopsidedone. To an outsideobserver, tation" may describe the situation,but it explains neither of the dynamicsnor the structure meaningsfor the actors withinthe system.It is not so much that the two parties unequallyas that they exchangenonequivcontrolresources Scott (1972) has argued that the moral force alent benefits. collaborationand intimacy rests on of the patron-client of the perception an equitable balance of the noncomparable declines intimacy Whenthebalanceshifts, benefits transferred. occurs In results. Nanavoor thisundoubtedly and exploitation in individualcases, but on the collectivelevel it is far from evident. and herconcern her largesse, ethosofhonor, The employer's dynamics. partofthepatron-client her for clientare an integral an affiliation ideologyor strategy primary considers Pettigrew "to make the gap betweenthe richand the poor acceptable." almscompareit to traditional However,one cannotfruitfully moral to giving.Intimacyand trustare intrinsic the informal economyof patronage.Its normativeethic is not a simple functionof labor exploitation.The values of gift giving, solicitude,and trust are constitutiveof social generosity, and on systemsthat are predicated the notionof community bureauindividualistic, in emphasis; contrast, on a particularist and by are craticsystems heldtogether contractual legal bonds. Hansen wonderswhetherthe need for continuousservice and of does not call fora consideration class relationships the an I of constitution class segments. doubtwhether elaboration to of theseissues would in fact contribute the analysis.The familysize is 4.7 members;51.3% of the average employer and 22.1% have 2 or I. or have 4 members fewer, households families All of theseare middle-income-to-affluent in whichthe condioutsidethehome.Structural employed is mistress rarely 77

continuous tionsmay necessitate domestic servicein metropolises; they hardly do so in Nanavoor. The primaryreason maids are employedin Nanavoor is that familiescan afford them;as I have said, domestics providethemwitha flexible ensurethema lordlylifeservice,freethemfromdrudgery, style,help themmeet theirsocial and status obligations outside the home, and serve as status reinforcers. Personalized service therefore is preferred theefficiency a modernized over of home.What is at stake,then,is status and culture, not only and inequality. economics More thanone commentator how analytically usefulit asks in is to view the mistress-servant relationship a clientistic framework. Some of the reservations seem minor. Despite did Lakshminarayana's concern, argument notpurport my "to drawparallelswiththeHindu jajmani system."The literature (cf. Eisenstadt and Roniger 1980, Gellner and Waterbury 1977, Strickon and Greenfield 1973) also seems to contradict his otherassertions. Patron-client do relationships often imply mutualdependency, social network, a varietyof degrees a and of dependency.Nor do the abundant case studies support Shahani's conceptionof clientageas essentiallycontractual and not reflecting inequalitiesin the society at large. the Though comparativestudies would indeed illuminate the natureof domesticservice,patron-client cannot relationships be casuallydismissed ready-made inapplicable. as and Walter's suggestion that the servant herself becomes objectifiedand exchangedas a resourceis probablyapplicable to youngfemaledomestics, but the prevalentservantprofile wouldcast doubton thisconception a generalrule: 15% of as the servantsin our sample were males; 65% were seventeen years of age or older; 8% were married,an additional5% separatedor widowed;7.4% had no kin whatsoever; 10% had betterthan a sixth-standard education;6.2% had held a nondomestic job; 84% visitedtheirfamilies; 41.2% wroteletters home (half of these wrotethemthemselves). The employer's patronageis oftendirectedto the servantherself: she helps select her mate, arrangesher marriage,and continuesthe patronagewell beyondthe termof service.These are indicationsthattheservant often matureadult capable offilling a is the roleof a client. To Hansen the familistic tone of the clientshipsuggests not Her paternalism, patronage, the structuring as principle. objectionis based on the conceptualization Abercrombie of and Hill (1976), who not only dichotomize and paternalism patronage too sharply,but also restrictpaternalismto "a collective formof social organization" and (Abercrombie Hill 1976:414) whichhas a tendency becomesystematized to and institutionalized. Thus theydrawtheir examples paternalism of fromEnglish factoryvillages and Japanese industrialcompanies. Domestic workdoes not approximate theirnotionof paternalism. Their paradigmsare sharplydrawnand do not readilyallow an analysiswherepaternalism intermeshes with patronage in domestic as servicein Nanavoor. Walter objects to patronageas a usefulframework yet on anotherground-the use of the actor-oriented approach.She considersthe servant'sclass and genderlimitations, the not strategiesshe uses to make the best of her situation,the central problem. An examinationof structurallimitations would indeed have broughtto light the conditionswhich promote patronage:persistent social inequality;surpluslabor; absenceof alternative guarantees kin networks of formal of or mechanisms security for and advancement; weak counterthe vailing forceof an open marketor of class-basedalliances; the effective controlsexercisedby the privilegedclass. A structural framework, however,tends to underestimate the independence potency thesymbolic and of realm.Thus, though the theoretical range of optionshas increasedin Nanavoor, normative affiliative and factors clearly holdsway.The servant and herfamily shunextracommunal alliancesand otherlogical choices. 78

that the present to I Nevertheless, have to confess a feeling the analysis may have somewhatunderstated actor-oriented structuraldynamics. My resources would not permit an of investigation otherareas: comparativecases ethnographic and especially the interactionaldynamicswithin a Hindu predominate; caste considerations home,in which,I surmise, into theirown and theirreentry the servants'careerpatterns cultural world; and, above all, the nature and sources of in restrictions Nanavoor. gender

Cited References
ABADINSKY, H. n.d. The criminalelite: Professionaland organized

1973. Paternalismand patronage. 27:413-29. JournalofSociology British and BEALS, A. R. 1970. "Namahalli, 1953-1966: Urban influence in change in SouthernMysore," in Changeand continuity India's villages.Edited by K. Iswaran, pp. 57-72. New York: Columbia Press. University system. analysisofthlejajmani BEIDELMAN, T. 0. 1959. A comparative AssociationforAsian StudiesMonograph8. of BERGER, P. 1968. A rumor angels.New York: Doubleday. of 1860-1960: A study BLOK, A. 1974. The Mafia ofa Sicilian village, Oxford:Blackwell. violent peasantentrepreneurs. out: Reflections BOSSEVAIN, J. 1977. "When the saints go marching on the decline of patronagein Malta," in Patrons and clientsin Edited by E. Gellner and J. Waterburv, societies. Mediterranean pp. 81-96. London: Duckworth. Changingagrarian BRENAN, J. 1974. Patronage and exploitation: of in relations India.Berkeley:University CaliforniaPress. BROWN, R., and A. GILMAN. 1960. "The pronounsof power and solidarity,"in Stylein language.Edited by T. A. Sebeok. Cambridge:M.I.T. Press. CHARLTON,L. 1973. Ruckelshausbringsmaid to U.S. on apparently illegal visa. New YorkTimes,October3, p. 8. among Roman Catholics of D'COSTA, A. 1977. Caste stratification Goa. Man in India 57:283-92. EISENSTADT, S. N., and L. RONIGER. 1980. Patron-client relations as in Studies social exchange. Comparative a model of structuring 22 Societyand History (1):43-77. FOSTER, G. M. 1961. The dyadic contract: A model for the social Anthropologist of structure a Mexican peasant village. American 63:173-92. . 1965. Peasant societyand the image oflimitedgood. Ameri67:293-315. can Anthropologist of FRANKEL, F. 1972. The politicalchallenge the GreenRevolution: in of patterns peasant participation India and Pakistan. Shifting University. Princeton:CenterforInternationalStudies,Princeton FREED, S. H. 1963. Fictive kinshipin a North Indian village. Eth2: nology 86-104. GELLNER, E., and J.WATERBURY. Editors. 1977. Patronsand clients London: Duckworth. societies. in Mediterranean GILSENAN, M. 1977. "Against patron-client relations," in Patrons societies.Edited by E. Gellner and and clientsin Mediterranean pp. J. Waterbury, 167-83. London: Duckworth. GONZALEZ, N. L. 1972. "Patron-client relationships at the interin and national level," in Structure process Latin America:PatronEdited by A. Strickonand S. and powersystems. age, clientage, pp. 179-209. Albuquerque: New Mexico University Greenfield, Press. live in legal limbo.Washington GORNEY, C. 1977.Importeddomestics Post, January24, pp. Al, 4. GOUGH, K. 1973. "Harijans in Thanjavur," in Imperialism and in revolution South Asia. Edited by K. Gough and H. Sharma, pp. 222-45. New York: MonthlyReview Press. GOULD,H. 1958. The Hindu jajmani system: A case of economic 14:428-37. JournalofAnthropology Southwestern particularism. comHENLEY, N. M. 1977. Body politics:Power,sex, and nonverbal Prentice-Hall. EnglewoodCliffs: munication. Bulletin.1980. Colombian maids: Workforroom ISIS International and board. 14 (March):8-9. in ISWARAN, K. 1966. Traditionand economy villageIndia. London: Routledgeand Kegan Paul. communication JOHNSON, K. R. 1971.Black kinesis:Some non-verbal FL Reporter, Spring/Fall, patternsin the black culture. Florida pp. 17-20, 57. New York: Oxford UniverKATZMAN,D. M. 1978.Sevendaysa week. sityPress. KENNY, M. 1960. Patterns of patronage in Spain. Anthropological 33:14-23. Quarterly
ABERCROMBIE, N., and S. HILL. CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY

Press. Conn.: Greenwood Westport, crime.

Instituteforthe Study of Religionand Society. LEACH, E. R. 1960. "Introduction: What shouldwe mean by caste?" in Aspects castein SouthIndia, Ceylon, North-West of and Pakistan. Edited by E. R. Leach, pp. 1-10. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress. LEGG, K. R. n.d. Patrons, clients, and politicians: New perspectives on political clientism.Institute of International Studies Working Papers on Development3. LIDDICK, B. 1973. A critical game of hide and seek. Los Angeles Times,June8, pt. 4, pp. 1, 4-7. MIRANDA, R. V. 1978. Caste, religion, and dialect differentiation in Konkani area. International Journalof theSociologyof Language 16:77-91. MITFORD, N. 1956. Noblesseoblige:An inquiryinto theidentifiable characteristics the English aristocracy. of New York: Harper and Row. New York Times. 1969. Rules for women enteringU.S. as live-in maids are tightened. November3, p. 34. PARSONS, T. 1964. "Christianity and the modern industrial society," in Religion, and Edited by L. Schneider, 254-61. pp. culture, society. New York: Wiley. PERISTIANY, J. G. Editor. 1965. Honor and shame: The values of Mediterranean London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson. society. PITT-RIVERS, J. 1961. The peopleoftheSierra. New York: Criterion Books. in --.1968. "Kinship: Pseudo-kinship," International Encyclopedia oftheSocial Sciences,vol. 8. PLUMB, J. H. 1973. The vanishingservant. Horizon,Summer,pp. 10-11. to POCOCK, D. F. 1962. Notes on jajmani relationships. Contributions Indian Sociology, December,pp. 78-95. QUINN, S. 1975. Madame Butterfly's refugees:"Thev love me so." Washington Post, July17, pp. Bi, 3. RADHAKRISHNAN, 1927. The Hindu viewoflife.London: Allen and S. Unwin. RAVICZ, R. 1967. "Compadrinazgo,"in Handbook MiddleAmerican of Indians, vol. 6., Edited by R. Wauchope, pp. 238-51. Austin: of University Texas Press. RUBINOW, I. M. 1906. The problemof domesticservice.Journalof PoliticalEconomy14:502-19. SAHLINS, M. D. 1965. "On the sociologyof primitive exchange,"in Therelevance models socialanthropology. in Edited by M. Banton, of pp. 139-236. New York: Praeger. SCHEILEN, A. 1972. Body languageand thesocial order.Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

KOSHY, N. 1968. Caste in theKerala churches. Bangalore: Christian

Tellis-Nacvak: CLIELNTAGE IN
SCOTT,

DOMESTIC

SERVICE

J. C. 1968. Political ideology Malaysia: Beliefsof an elite. in New Haven: Yale University Press. --. 1972.The erosionofpatron-client bonds and social changein ruralSoutheastAsia. JournalofAsian Stitdies 5-37. 32: SHILS, E. A. 1961. The intellectual between tradition and modernity. The Hague: Mouton. SHIVARAMAN, M. 1973. "Thanjavur: Rumblingsof class struggle in Tamil Nadu," in Imperialism and revolution SouthAsia. Edited in by K. Gough and H. Sharma, pp. 246-64. New York: Monthly Review Press. SILVERMAN, S. F. 1968. Agricultural organization,social structure, and values in Italy: Amoral familism reconsidered.American Anthropologist 70:1-20. SRINIVAS, M. N. 1966. Social changein modern India. Berkeley: of University CaliforniaPress. STRICKON, A., and S. GREENFIELD. Editors. 1972. Structure and in process Latin America:Patronage, and powersystems. clientage, Albuquerque:New Mexico University Press. STUART, W. T. 1972. "The explanation of patron-client systems: Some structuraland ecological perspectives,"in Strutcture and processin Latin America:Patronage, and powersystems. clientage, Edited by A. Strickon and S. Greenfield, 19-42. Albuquerque: pp. New Mexico University Press. WARREN, V. L. 1977. New proceduresimplifies hiringof alien domestics.New YorkTimes,April30, p. 16. WATERBURY, J. 1977. "An attempt to put patrons and clients in their place," in Patrons and clientsin Mediterranean societies. Edited by E. Gellner and J. Waterbury,pp. 329-42. London: Duckworth. WATSON, A. E. 1931. "Domestic service," in Encyclopediaof the Social Sciences,vol. 5, pp. 198-206. WEINGROD, A. 1977. "Patronage and power,"in Patronsand clients in Mediterranean societies. Edited by E. Gellnerand J. Waterbury, pp. 41-51. London: Duckworth. WISER, W. H. 1936. The Hindut jajmani system. Luicknow: Lucknow PublishingHouse. and patron-client WOLF, E. 1966. "Kinship, friendship, relationsin complexsocieties,"in The social anthiropologycomplex societies. of Edited by M. Banton, pp. 1-22. London: Tavistock. A WORLD COUNCIL OF CHURCHES. 1980. Philippina workers: case of womenworkers. exported (Dossier 6.) Geneva: Migration Secretariat,World Council of Churches.

Wanted
* Correspondence with Third World scholars (of African, Asian,Caribbean, and othernationalorigins) who are working or have in thepast worked American in and Europeancolleges and universities who are interested participating an and in in international, longitudinal study. Please submitresume,curriculumvitae, publicationrecords,or other documentation substantiating professional contributions teaching, to research, and professional community and of service, indicating number yearsinvolved each activity, MekkiMtewa,Department in to of Political Science, Howard University, Douglass Hall 131, Washington, D.C. 20059,U.S.A. * Contributions a proposedreaderin anthropological to diplomacy-the theoretical, and practical contrimethodological, butionsof anthropology international to relations. Threeclean copiesofpapers,ofno morethan20 double-spaced typedpages, shouldbe submitted. Footnoting shouldfollow rulesof the the AmericanAnthropologist, brief biodata on the author and shouldbe enclosed.Please write:Mario D. Zamora, DepartmentofAnthropology, CollegeofWilliamand Mary,Williamsburg,Va. 23185,U.S.A.

and videotapesto be films documentary * European-produced and discussionin a session entitled for considered screening "EuropeanVisionsofAmerica"at the 1985Visual CommunicaSchool of Communications, of tion Conference the Annenberg in International scope, the conof University Pennsylvania. and practitioners, students scholars, ference bringtogether will in the impact of visual communication interested exploring please information, upon the human condition.For further write: Jay Ruby, ProgramDirector,Visual Communication University Schoolof Communications, Annenberg Conference, Pa. Philadelphia, 19104,U.S.A. of Pennsylvania, libraryand culturalcentreof the * For the anthropological of Department of Anthropology Quaid-i-AzamUniversity, Islamabad, donationsof books, journals, tapes, and films. Please write: Mohammad A. Rauf, Departmentof AnthroIslamabad,Pakistan. University, Quaid-i-Azam pology,

Vol. 24 * No. 1 * February 1983

79