Daily Life In Colonial Latin America (5 page)

1 - MARRIAGE, HOME, AND FAMILY

INTRODUCTION

Nothing
in colonial Latin America, and especially not the formation of the couple, can
be separated from the race-based social structure of society. It would
therefore be a mistake to discuss the “typical” home and family as being white
and upper class, relegating all other types to some lesser status or category.
Colonial families living within established norms can be found at every level
of society, just as there were families at every level that differed from those
norms. As far as formal marriage goes, however, that institution was more
common among elites and Indians, for reasons that will be explained. Married or
not, the couple and their children formed the fundamental building block of
society.

Colonial society was based on the patriarchal extended
family. Not necessarily in the sense that couples and their children all lived
together in the house of the patriarch, but in the sense that families tended
to be made up of several generations of couples with their
children/grandchildren, frequently living on the same or adjoining lands,
sharing domestic tasks, and supporting each other in various ways. This family
structure emerged in the colonial period and, somewhat modified, remains
important in Latin America today, generally more important in less modernized areas.

The family has been called “the locus of moral and
political socialization.”  It is in the institution of the family that customs
and traditions are transferred from the older to the younger generation. This
social function lends the family a communal significance that extends beyond
the personal level. Marriage is of importance not only to the married couple.
It establishes a bond between extended families and thereby cements or
jeopardizes the honor and interests of two, sometimes large, groups of people.
As the basic social unit and the institution through which social standards
were maintained and property was passed on, marriage and marital practices were
of deep interest to both church and state. Because of its centrality to human
life and relationships, marriage provides all kinds of information on the
organization of colonial society, political life, and the economy. One study of
marriage and the family points out, “When people marry they create social
alliances, establish a new social unit, change residence, exchange property,
and gain rights to sexual service.” 

The patriarchal family was reflected in monarchy, the form
of government in which the king is the omniscient and omnipotent father of
society. So the patriarchal state reflects the patriarchal family and vice
versa. The family has been termed the “fundamental expression” of patriarchal
society, with monarchy growing out of the patriarchal family only to supersede
it and become the model for it. 

Recently though, historians have begun to ask whether the
patriarchal family was as pervasive, and as orderly, as formerly believed. It
may be that a bit of wishful thinking has entered into descriptions of the
unquestioned rule of the patriarch, an attempt perhaps by men of the 20th
century experiencing diminishing control over their own families to find a past
in which men held unquestioned sway over family members who lent them blind
obedience. Recent research on the colonial era in Mexico finds a system of male
dominance that is pervasive but porous. That is, both men and women accepted
the idea of patriarchy, but in practice, wives linked their obedience to the
measure of respect accorded them by their husbands and found sometimes sneaky
ways to disobey orders.

This standard family model based on marriage, was probably
more often violated than observed, however. Many couples were not formally
married, especially if they occupied positions below the elite but above the
Indians in the social structure. Sometimes the household was headed by a woman,
possibly a single mother who had never married, a widow, or an eldest sister.
If the family controlled little or no property, the “patriarch” had marginal
control over other family members as a result of having few consequences to
dole out for their misbehavior.

This chapter will show the centrality of the family to
social life and the expectations of the church for maintaining social order
through the promotion of marriage and male-defined standards of women’s honor.
It will also examine the normative standard of the patriarchal extended family
and deviations from this norm.

FAMILIES, THE SOCIAL BUILDING BLOCK

Although the pervasiveness and power of the patriarchal
family has lately become a matter of debate, it still makes sense to begin with
this model of the elite colonial family because it defines the norm to which
church, state, and creole colonists aspired. In this model, the nucleus of
colonial society was the white couple married by the church. This family was
run by the patriarch, an
hombre de bien
(good man), who managed his
wife, his legitimate children, possibly several daughters-in-law, a widowed mother,
any poor relatives or “natural” (i.e. illegitimate) children who had become
part of the household, domestic servants, and other laborers. He was to be,
above all, an honest and honorable person in affairs of business, in the home,
in his political alliances, and as a subject of the king. Since everything from
employment to social opportunities and marital partners depended on the
family’s reputation, maintaining a high standard of honor was essential to the
future success of all its members.

It was the business of this father figure to maintain order
in the home, not only for his own benefit, but also for the good of every
member of the extended family. As the person responsible, the patriarch
received the credit or the blame for the behavior of all members of the
household. One of his responsibilities was to arrange the marriages of everyone
in the extended family, including any servants. Marriage was a contract between
families, and of such great importance that it was nothing to be left to the
capriciousness of the young folks who might not recognize the ramifications of
their decision on other family members.

Since people in all societies generally marry others of the
same social rank, marriage is a good indicator of social class position. A
noted historian of colonial New Mexico finds that “[m]arriage in Spanish
society was strictly supervised to assure the perpetuation of social
inequalities.”  That is, marriage was the primary institution through which
hierarchical social structure was maintained and strengthened. This helps to
explain the close supervision of the institution by the Roman Catholic Church,
which used its moral and legal authority to protect wealthy and powerful
families from self-destructing through poorly chosen marriages even as it sought
in many cases to defend a contradictory principle favoring the free will of
couples. One result of the self-destruction of important families might be the
loss to the church of the legacies of the wealthy who traditionally bequeathed
money and land to the church in their last will and testament. In addition,
since the family was the basic social building block, the destruction of these
model patriarchal families would, in the view of the authorities, have wreaked
havoc on the social order. Marriage was the contract that established this
normative couple and the rite of passage to adulthood for both men and women.
This family created the environment in which procreation occurred and children
were socialized.

Patriarchal Control of Marriage

As lord of the household, the master had the right and the
responsibility to arrange the marriages of his dependents, not only his
children but also his younger siblings and the household servants. Any
dependent in the house who wished to marry needed his permission and was
subject to his will in the matter. When 16-year-old Gómez de León exchanged
marriage vows with his girlfriend, younger than he by a year, he considered
himself married even though the ceremony consisted of a simple statement of
intent by the couple as they held hands in the girl’s home, with the bride’s
sister and a household servant as witnesses. Gómez’s new father-in-law, a
Mexico City merchant, did not agree and took his entire family back to Spain,
their place of origin. It seems Gómez was known for his gambling, and it is
likely the merchant had loftier goals for his young daughter.

In another story of young love nearly thwarted by parental
opposition, a Spanish mule train owner in early 17-century New Spain (Mexico)
refused to give permission for his 22-year-old daughter to marry her suitor. In
this case, the father, not content with scoldings and beatings loud enough for
the neighbors to hear, was finally reduced to ejecting his daughter from his
house while pelting her with rocks and then disowning her. Undeterred, the
couple went through all the steps and was formally married by a priest. In this
case, the church’s official policy in support of the right of marital choice
against the interests of a parent was upheld, in part, perhaps, because of the
aggrieved father’s relatively modest social status.

The patriarch was also responsible for making a marital
match for his servants. A wealthy and powerful patriarch could even marry a
servant to a partner of his choice without regard for any previous commitments
made by the hapless servant. In a case from 16th-century Mexico City, Catalina
de Vega, originally of Spain, had come to America with her widowed father in
1561 and had been placed by him with a wealthy family of Mexico City as a
servant to the lady of the house. Two years later, when she was 13, she
secretly married her boyfriend, Pedro de Ribero, while her master was out of
town. Her employer refused to permit the young couple to take up married life,
placing Catalina in the custody of the church. Catalina’s father went a step
further, threatening Pedro’s life. Under these circumstances, Pedro left for
Peru in a hurry, but he did not forget about his bride. Two years later, now an
encomendero,
he wrote to Catalina, her father, her employer, and the
supervisor of the
colegio
where Catalina had been held for a year. By
that time, the church had decided the matter in Catalina’s favor, but Pedro of
course was long gone. And because he sent all his letters through the local
parish priest, he was dependent on the cleric’s good will. Father Jorge would
later claim that he could not find the parties to whom the letters were
addressed; in any case, they were never delivered. Catalina married someone
else, only to face bigamy charges by the Inquisition after 10 years of married
life with Alonso, her second husband. After the Inquisition labeled her a
bigamist and separated her from Alonso, she was alone for 16 years before what
must have been a long-lost hope materialized: Pedro showed up to claim her as his
wife. She was by then 46 years old, having been separated for more than 30
years by the good offices of those responsible for her best interests from a
man who in the end risked everything to return to her.

Women and Family

It was the church, itself a rigidly hierarchical
organization, that promoted the idea of the patriarch as the keeper of his
women. The church constantly reminded its flock of the norms of good behavior
and the duties of all parties in the family hierarchy. As descendants of Eve, women
were seen by the Roman Catholic Church as slaves to passion who had caused the
fall from paradise. Therefore, women required the constant vigilance of the
patriarch to keep them on the straight and narrow path of righteousness, for if
they strayed, not only their own honor was jeopardized, but also that of the
whole extended family. Since women were worldly, rather than spiritual, beings,
they would not stay on this path of their own accord, making the honorable
woman proof positive of a well-managed household under the careful eye of a
responsible man. Since the most visible proof of an honorable family was the
behavior of its women, elite wives and daughters were kept under strict
surveillance, generally in
recogimiento,
seclusion in the home. If they
did go out, they never went alone but were closely supervised by an appropriate
chaperone.

The woman’s age at the time she began to engage in sexual
relations was the most important determinant of family size, since without
reliable birth control methods, children were the frequent result of sex. About
half of all children born reached adulthood, with indigenous women having
higher rates of both fertility and mortality than whites and
castas
(racially-mixed
people). Family size was also affected by the nature of the husband’s
employment. Many men worked at occupations that required travel, either across
the sea to Europe or as muleteers, peddlers, or soldiers/sailors. The husband’s
absence led to lower birth rates, possibly somewhat balanced by the non-monogamy
or bigamy of men who were away from home for long periods or at frequent
intervals.

The family was one knot in a web of social relations, and
it was through this web of relationships that individuals found respectable,
well-remunerated employment and a good marriage. The honor of an individual
depended on the honor of this family. According to a prominent historian of
women in the colonial era, “Eighteenth-century society was organized around the
family, its social position, and the preservation of its honor.”  One
dishonorable marriage was a stain on the honor of the whole extended family,
passing both horizontally to cousins and more distant relatives, and vertically
to future generations. An unfavorable marriage would call into question a family’s
social and racial status, presenting an obstacle to favorable marriages for
succeeding generations.