PART TWO
LOVE AND ANXIETY IN INTIMATE FAMILIAL CONTEXTS

Two
The Ideology of Love in a Tamil Family

Margaret Trawick

Preliminary Thoughts

On the surface is consciousness. Underneath is the unconscious, the deep wellspring, the knower who is hard to know, who can never know himself. This is the way we think of it. The surface, having been crafted by the knower, is a face, a mask, an artifice, an obstacle, a lie. We have to get behind it, underneath it, to understand what is really going on. Because what is interesting is just what is hidden. If the surface interests us, it does so only because of its failures, because of the artfulness of its deception, which reveals the hand of the artist.

As anthropologists we are therefore simultaneously fascinated by and suspicious of everything the native tells us. Everything is significant, everything is revealing, everything is a lie. Our job is to lay bare the structure of the lies. In ethnology we seek to reveal to the world the nakedness of our informant, in its dazzling beauty, or in its ugliness, or in both. Somehow we convince ourselves, often enough, anyway, that this act of violence is an act of respect that benefits the native. At least we have shown the world that his nakedness is comparable to ours. At least we have shown the world what he really is, divested the world of its myths about him, even as we divest him of his own. But of course, we keep our own vestments on.

Let us try another metaphor. Let us not think of the person, the native, as a sphere, with a surface to be stripped off or gotten through to the real stuff, the contents. Let us think of consciousness, or better yet, culture (how do we distinguish between these two ethereal constructions of consciousness, or culture?) as an activity. Culture/consciousness as an activity not done by one person but done among people, leaving its traces in memory (which we shall admit is a mystery), which will be part of the matrix for the next cultural act,

the next interaction. Let us say that culture is in the interaction. After all, where else would it be?

Then, when we view things this way, we find that there is no surface or depth. Instead there is only the turbulence of confrontation, with ourselves as part of it, and this turbulence is the most interesting, because the most active, thing. It is where the rocks get carved. We can study the rocks later. Now let us consider the turbulence in which we together with others are swept up.

In all this churning, surface and depth are commingled. Now our aim is not to get to the bottom of things, but to stay afloat. Now what is most important is not what we or others are, but what happens between us—what others present to us, and how we receive it, and what we present, and how that is received by them, and what comes out of it all, continuously, what is being formed, the eddies, the patterns of waves.^[1]

Aims

In this chapter I wish to describe some ways in which members of one South Indian Tamil family attempted to demonstrate to me some of the principles that they regarded as important in the living of their day-to-day lives. I say "attempted to demonstrate" in order to stress the intentionality of their performances before me. One of the various things that they did, and that I believe they intended to do, as they ate their meals, swept their floors, recited their prayers, conversed with each other in my presence and with me directly was to convey to me certain information about themselves, about their relationship with me, and about their relationships with others.^[2] Sometimes these intentions were conveyed to me openly and explicitly, in so many words. Definitions of terms for my sake—explanations of and comments upon behavior, one's own and others', to me as an ignorant stranger wanting to know—were common. More often, the intentions behind actions were conveyed to me much more subtly.

I use the term "ideology" here to mean the articulable and at least sometimes articulated ideas people have about why they do what they do to each other—in this case, why they express or act out particular feelings or relationships in particular ways, or conversely, what the feeling behind a particular act is supposed to be. Ideology, then, is conscious formulation of motives and intentions. It is not "underlying" but in a sense "overlaid." This does not necessarily mean, however, that it is false.^[3]

My aim in living with this family had been to try to understand what love (as something that they thought about, or perhaps did not think about, but had "in their minds" in some way) was to them. They had the word anpu, which seemed to mean something very like English "love," and various related words, pacam ("attachment"), acai ("desire"), pattu^[*] ("devotion").

They had been exposed to many teachings expounding as well as extolling love, and they were surrounded, filled, and made into human beings by a culture that said in a thousand ways that love was the highest good.^[4] But how was I to grasp what love (as I called it, or anpu as they called it) meant to them, and how was I to put it down on paper in a believable way? Ill offer a woman ten rupees for an interview and she says to me, "Money is not important, people are important," to me that statement conveys more than a message about the relative value, in objective terms, of people and money.^[5] It is also a statement conveying information about the speaker: that she values people over money, and therefore (perhaps) she is a loving person. But how do I know that the intention to convey the latter message was there "in her mind"? How do I prove it?

Ultimately, I cannot, for no proof of another's intentions is possible. I can only assert that my interpretation of this woman's statement was one that would be accepted as a valid possibility by some Tamil speakers because those other speakers had explicitly linked such statements with feelings of love. It is important to recognize, however, that the indirectness of this woman's attribution of lovingness to herself, the nonexplicitness of it, was essential to conveying the message. In Tamil Nadu you cannot directly say, with any hope of credibility, "I am a loving person," for the loving are also humble. All you can do is show it.

In this essay, I have deliberately avoided trying to sort out my informants' "sincere" expressions of feelings and intentions from their "insincere" ones. The topic of love/anpu is too delicate, complex, and riven with illusions for me to presume an objective analysis of it. But the reader should beware, for this is also not a straight description of Tamil feelings as Tamils enact and describe them among themselves. I brought with me to Tamil Nadu my own, deeply ingrained, culturally developed feelings about what love is and should be. These feelings ran headlong into the enactments of anpu that my Tamil friends presented to me. My idea of love and their idea of anpu took deceptively similar forms. My Tamil friends and I were attracted to each other partly for that reason. I thought that they loved me; they thought that I felt anpu toward them. But just at those times when I thought that there was some fundamental something that all human beings shared and that I had found that something at last in Tamil Nadu, suddenly some small act would cast a deep shadow between us again, and once again they were strangers, whom I feared and mistrusted. I found myself thinking, time after time, "But this isn't love." Now, after years, I can answer myself with detached amusement, "Of course it isn't love, it's anpu." Somehow, back then, this relativistic answer never occurred to me.

This essay is not a description of anpu as seen "from the native's point of view." Nor is it a description of love as expressed in the Tamil context. It is an account of anpu as seen through the eyes of someone conditioned to look

for love. It is shot through with my values, biases, mistaken impressions. But it is not a 100 percent American product, either. I was strongly attached to this Tamil family; I cared what they thought about me; they changed me; now they are a little bit mixed in me. To whatever extent I have incorporated them into myself, this essay speaks their feelings.

About the Family and Others

In 1975-1976, when I was in Madras doing my dissertation research, I became dose friends with a Tamil scholar who made his living by lecturing to religious gatherings about Shaiva literature. In this chapter he is called Ayya.

There was one long poem Ayya loved, that he often urged me to read. It was a devotional poem to Shiva, allegorically framed as a love story. I decided finally to study it with his help, and to do this in the context of a general study of forms of ambiguity in spoken and written Tamil. In 1980 I returned to Tamil Nadu for that purpose. This time I lived not in Madras but in Ayya's village, the better to receive daily lessons from him. At first I stayed in a separate house, but members of Ayya's family cooked for me and looked after my five-year-old son and in other ways met all my needs. Ostensibly I was there to study the poem, but my attention was quickly drawn to Ayya's family. They were relatively relaxed in my presence, and their household was the easiest context for me to observe ordinary conversation on a day-to-day basis. As I watched them and became personally involved with them, unconsciously (as it seems to me now) the focus of my attention shifted. I came to see that Ayya's exegesis of the love poem was hooked into the everyday affairs of this family; his life in the family gave the poem its meaning for him. I also saw that for the members of this household, and especially for Ayya and Ayya's sister-in-law who formed its emotional center, anpu was a ruling principle. Many of their acts were explained by them, or could be understood by me, only in terms of this principle. And as I was trying to understand the uses of ambiguity in the poem and in the household, it struck me more and more that the most ambiguous thing of all was this anpu.

The members of this household were not Ayya's natal family. He had joined them when he married one of their members. Because he had run away in his childhood, he had no other home. The head of the family was a man whom Ayya called Annan^[*] (older brother). His wife was addressed by everyone as Anni^[*] (older brother's wife). Anni's father's sister, who was also Annan's mother, remained in the household but was old and crippled and no longer had any real power there. Anni's younger sister, Padmini, was Ayya's wife. Mohana, the cross-cousin of Anni and Padmini, also spent much time in this household; she was married to one of their brothers, who was rarely

there. Mohana and Padmini were very dose. Anni had an eighteen-year-old daughter, an eight-year-old daughter, and a six-year-old son. Padmini had an eight-year-old daughter, a six-year-old daughter, and a two-year-old-son. Mohana had a two-year-old son.

Although they were landlords, this family was poor, having barely enough money to keep their children nourished. I bought them a cow and helped them build a rice mill, and perhaps it was for the sake of money that they tolerated me as they did, though they themselves would deny this vehemently. As poverty-stricken landlords, they were not at all uncommon. The cost of rice was fixed, laborers demanded higher wages, crops often failed, and they faced litigation on all sides. Many middle-class families were better off than this one; many more were worse off. There were tensions within this family, as there are in virtually any large family.^[6] Disputes sometimes occurred over serious economic questions, but I never observed any quarrels over allocation of resources within the household, and I am inclined to think, as Anni did, that friction among people living together is inevitable.

How representative of Tamil families in general was Ayya's family? This question haunted me. I could see that in the view of Tamils themselves, there was nothing especially surprising about this family's behavior, certainly nothing pathological. They were actively involved in a wide social network, and they had many friends from the city and from villages who came into the house and participated in household affairs. None of the kinds of behavior I describe here were kept hidden from view. All of them, including the quarrels, were accepted as natural by people who dropped in. Still, I myself wondered, and many colleagues back home asked, whether Ayya and his family were not more idiosyncratic than most, as many things they did contradicted what earlier ethnographic reports from South India had led me, for one, to expect.

For this reason, in 1984 I went back to Tamil Nadu to observe other families as I had observed Ayya's. I worked this time in a village near Madurai, several hundred miles from where Ayya's family lived. But in this village I was not able to establish with anyone the degree of intimacy I had achieved with Ayya's family. So I contented myself with interviewing a relatively large number of people in the village and in the city for relatively brief periods (about one hour per person) on the topic of family relations. The interviews were open-ended. The content of these interviews supplements at some points in this essay what I learned from Ayya's family. Of the 150 interviewees, 100 were from the one village; the rest were from the cities of Madras and Madurai. The preponderance of interviewees were from the Paraiyar, Kallar, and Kavundar castes. The remainder were from the Acari, Chettiar, Vellalar, Nayakar, and Brahman castes, together with some Muslims. Although there was considerable variation among these different interviewees, for the most part they confirmed what I saw in Ayya's household.

Every basic expression of anpu that I saw in his family I also observed among many other families, and in those other families also these forms of behavior were called anpu. These kinds of behavior included the painful teasing of children, the deliberate sharing of bodily effluvia, the seeking after mixture and confusion, and the hiding of love. The assertions I make here about anpu would be considered by most Tamils to be banalities—too obvious to be worth writing an essay about. Only Americans seem to need convincing.

Characteristics of Anpu

Containment (adakkam^[*])

Discovering the meaning of love to Ayya's family was rendered difficult by their strongly held tenet that love was by nature and by right hidden. Ayya had much to say on this, as on many other topics. He was my richest source of Tamil understandings, and I was often tempted to let him do all my cultural analysis for me. This temptation was curbed by my ingrained refusal to let anybody tell me what to think. As regards feelings, verbalizations of them all flowed so easily from Ayya that I have had to clap my hand over his enchanting mouth at many points in this chapter in order to give others a chance to speak. However, I have included observations of his which were particularly revealing of his role in the family or which were strongly borne out by actions and statements of other family members. Of the hiddenness of love, he said, "Anpu adanki^[*] peruki ninrum^[*]" [sic], which could be translated "Love grows in hiding"; adanku^[*] means "be contained."

A mother's love for her child, tay pacam, the strongest of all loves and the most highly valued, had to be kept contained and hidden. Anni said that a mother should never gaze lovingly into her child's face, especially while the child was sleeping, because the loving gaze itself could harm the child. She told me this when she caught me gazing at my own sleeping child's face in just this dangerous way. When I told her it was an America custom to let people lead their own lives, she said simply, "Tappu" (That is a mistake). After some time I learned that if you cared about people, you would interfere.

A mother would avoid looking with love at her sleeping child because her look could produce kan^[*] tirusdi^[*], "the evil eye," although for Anni it was not an evil force so much as a merely harmful one. Anyone could gaze at anything with appreciation and without the slightest malice, and harm could come to that thing. But for a mother to gaze with love at her own child was the most dangerous gaze of all. "Tay kanne^[*] pullatatu" (The mother's gaze is the worst), said Anni and other mothers to me. Many women, like Anni, would show affection for others' children through affectionate words and looks, but they avoided such shows of love for their own children, especially in public. It was

not the existence of mother love but its concentration displayed through the eyes that was dangerous.^[7]

Mother love had to be contained, not only in the sense of being hidden but also in the sense of being kept within limits. Thus, almost all the many women with whom I spoke on this topic said that mother's milk should not be given to a child for more than ten months, just as a child should not stay in the womb for more than ten months.^[8] Mother's milk was a special substance because it was mixed with the feelings of the mother and transmitted them to the child. In particular, mother's milk contained the mother's love. After a child passed the age of ten months, mother's milk would become very sweet (inippu) to him, and he would be all the more difficult to wean. If he kept on nursing, women told me, he would get "too much love." Then he would become fat and proud (timir) and beat on his own mother. Thus, letting love overflow its bounds could be harmful not only to the recipient but to the giver as well.

Other kinds of love had to be concealed in other ways. There was, for instance, the convention of mutual avoidance in public between spouses, a convention that Anni and Annan scrupulously honored, rarely even looking at or talking with each other, while Padmini and Ayya exhibited before others a relationship of total mutual abrasion.

It was not that sexual display itself was considered dangerous, or the movie theatres would have been empty. Nor were physical expressions of love forbidden. In everyday life, adult males and females who were not spouses could show loving affection for one another with surprising freedom. But spouses, who were supposed to love each other most and to focus their sexual feelings entirely upon each other, were expected to keep both feelings hidden.

No one ever said that the sentiments of sexual love should not exist. Sexual pleasure (inpam, sweetness) was not an evil force. It was one of the four goals of life; any normal human being desired it. Sexual pleasure was supposed to be attained only through marriage. When people talked about "being like husband and wife" (purucan pondaddiyaka^[*] irukka), it meant specifically going to bed together. But any hint of the existence of such a relationship in public communications between husband and wife, or by one about the other, was avoided.

The custom of a woman avoiding mention of her husband's name was only part of a much larger set of conventions for hiding love. Not only was the personal name of the husband never used, but if possible he was never referred to at all. Only a very Westernized woman would refer to her husband as "my husband" (en kanavar^[*], en purucan). If a woman had to refer to her husband, she would do so through a relationship he had with some other person, as "the father of so-and-so" or "the teacher of so-and-so." Some women

would whisper and point when they wished to make reference to their husband. Others would refer to their husband by his caste name, as "my Reddiar." I asked Anni the reason for this convention, and she gave her usual enigmatic answer to questions of this sort: "habit" (parakkam^[*]). Other women cited a belief that if a woman uttered her husband's name, harm would befall him. One function of name avoidance, then, was to wrap the husband in a protective silence, whose nature and intent were nevertheless known to all.^[9]

The husband was not the only one to whom reference was avoided. Some men, avoiding reference to their wife's name, referred to her simply as aval^[*] (she). Ayya referred to his younger sister, with whom he had been especially dose in childhood, as "the teacher in the town of x," where she lived, and it took me some time to realize that he was speaking about his own sister. Sometimes long-term friends claimed not even to know each other's names.

The custom of avoiding direct reference to the loved one was fuzzy around the edges. Only in the case of reference to the husband was this custom more or less strictly adhered to by more or less all women. In other cases, the application of this custom appeared to be a matter of the speaker's own will. It was a tool, not a ritual.

Another way of hiding love was to openly downgrade the loved one. Thus, if a woman bore a series of children who died very young, when another child was born it would be given an ugly name such as Baldy, or Nosey, or Beggar's Bead, to protect it. A beautiful child would have its cheek smudged with ink. If a child was highly valued, to display directly one's high valuation of it brought it danger, and so one had to make a pretense, which everyone knew to be pretense, of not caring for it at all.^[10] The same attitude could also receive less conventional forms of expression. So a mother who had borne and lost seven children (by her own reckoning) dandled the eighth, whom she had adopted by the roadside, playfully asking it, "Arc you going to die? Are you going to die?" (cettuppoviya), tempting fate as though the child's life was of little concern to her.

It is possible that the custom among Paraiyar and other, mainly low-caste, women of singing and speaking of their husbands in the most critical, derogatory terms was motivated, at least for some women, by the desire to protect the mates to whom they were in reality strongly emotionally bonded or even, perhaps, by a desire to show that they loved their husbands and were protecting them (Egnor 1986). A similar motivation may have existed among the many men who made a habit of speaking harshly to their wives before others. "Don't reveal your treasure," said the poetess Auvaiyar. So a rich man, to protect his wealth, might dress in rags. If one regarded one's spouse as a treasure, one might best display one's regard by hiding it, as one kept a treasured wife confined. Thus, although the exterior of the relationship among spouses was almost universally mute, where not harsh, the interior of this relationship sometimes had an exactly opposite quality.

Gradual Habituation (parakkam^[*])

Love was often described as a force that was tender, gentle, and slow. A loving heart was a soft heart (menmaiyana manacu). A heart that was not moved by the feelings of others was like a stone ("Make your heart like a stone," a village man told me, when a drunkard came asking me for money).

Food metaphors for the tenderness of love were many. Of all the different kinds of food, sweet ripe fruit (param^[*]), whose coming into existence was a gentle and gradual process, was probably most symbolic of love. A mango (mamparam^[*]) was like a breast. You kneaded it between the palms of your hands until the pulp was a creamy juice, then you cut a small hole at the tip and sucked out the juice. In our village, it was a sin to cut down a fruit-bearing mango tree, just as it was a sin to kill a pregnant cow. I cannot help but think it significant that the mango tree was called ma.

Love, or attachment, or a sense of oneness with a person or thing or activity grew slowly, by habituation (parakkam). Unlike the term anpu, the term parakkam was used frequently in our household; it was an important and complex part of people's thinking and day-to-day theorizing about human behavior. Any addictive habit, such as coffee drinking or cigarette smoking, was a parakkam. Ayya was fond of saying that he had "no habits of any kind" (enta vitamana parakkame^[*] illai), a statement meaning that he had no physical addictions; but this statement also expressed for himself and for others in the family what they saw as a more general aspect of his personality, his lack of attachment (pacam) to any human being. He stood apart (otunki^[*] nitkiren^[*]) he said, and he self-deprecatingly claimed that he had no love (anpu) in his heart either.

According to popular theory, a person could become habituated to virtually any state of affairs, and once a situation became parakkam to a person, that person would not only feel comfortable with it but would also seek it out if deprived of it. The idea of parakkam explained and justified the differences between people. There was no point in trying to create a better way of life for others because people liked and wanted whatever it was they were used to having.

Once Anni and I were walking down a road in Madras when we saw a hovel built under a bridge. "Even here people live their lives," she said. "Like us, a man and a woman and children. They have a good life. They don't have to answer to anyone [yarukkum patil colla vendam^[*]]. We who are in the middle, neither rich nor poor, must suffer many burdens. But as for them, if one day they get two rupees, they live on two rupees. If they get one rupee, they live on one rupee. If they get nothing, they go hungry for a day."

"But isn't it hard to go hungry?" I asked.

"It is just parakkam," said Anni. "If I eat at a certain time today, I will want to eat at that same time tomorrow. For them, going hungry is a habit."

Most parakkams were acquired by exposure to and absorption of certain

elements in the environment, but a parakkam was not a superficial overlay upon a personality. It went deep in and at a certain undefined point became that personality. For instance, northern Madras was regarded as a dangerous place because its people were violent. "Why are they that way?" I asked Anni. "Because fighting is a habit they have practiced and practiced and that quality has grown in them" (ate paraki^[*] paraki^[*] anta kunam^[*] valarum^[*]), she answered. Through repeated practice, through parakkam, an action would become a quality (kunam^[*]) of the person.

So deeply embedded in the person was parakkam that it was not lost even at death. Babies brought certain parakkams with them into the world. That a child was born possessing certain knowledge (e.g., how to suckle) and, more importantly, that children of the same womb could have such different parakkams provided strong evidence for the reality of transmigration, of there having been previous lives. If a baby had habits, parakkams, resembling those of a recently deceased kinsperson, then people would surmise that that baby had that kinsperson's soul (uyir). Most babies were not assigned an ancestral identity in this way, and there were no apparent rules regulating this particular kind of rebirth: the soul of a male ancestor could turn up in a female baby, and vice versa, and it could be born to any woman in the kinship group. But this kind of rebirth was observed often enough for people to say that souls liked to be reborn among their previous kin if they had any choice in the matter.

Hence the idea of parakkam was in some ways like the idea of karma (vinai, pavam-punniyam). It was, and was created by, action; it was embedded in the person, and it was hard to get rid of; it was carried from birth to birth and could be passed on from generation to generation. But it differed from the idea of karma in at least one crucial way: without parakkam, love was impossible.

From one point of view, as I have tried to suggest, parakkam was love, or rather, it was the behavioral side of a reality that had also an emotional component, as weeping consists of both sorrow and tears. Parakkam was the reason for the growth of the feeling of love; love was the reason for the continuation of parakkam. To know somebody, to spend time with them, to be familiar or intimate with them, was to have parakkam with them. When you had parakkam with a person, just as when you had parakkam with a substance, that person became part of your system. This was why it was so important to avoid going near bad persons or Harijans, not even to talk to them, at least, not too much or in too friendly a way because they might become parakkam. And then, as one six-year-old child had told me, "you would become like them."

Parakkam implied friendliness, easiness, and grace because an action to which one is habituated can be accomplished smoothly, and people to whom one is habituated are not feared. Many people told me that villages were

easier than cities to live in because in a village people had parakkam with each other. As one agricultural worker put it, "in the villages they mingle lovingly" (anpaka parakuvarkal^[*]).

Cruelty and Harshness (kodumai^[*], kadumai^[*])

Parakkam was gentle and easy because its action was slow. Gradually it built the powerful bonds of love. And love itself, powerful as it was, was gentle and tender. Tender feelings (menmaiyana unarccikal^[*]) flowed (payum) most easily between people. Only feelings of love could melt the heart (manacai urukkum).

But equally as it was tender and slow, love was cruel and forceful. Cruelty was a characteristic of love acted out more often than spoken of. However, some people said outright, "Love is very cruel" (anpu mika kodumaiyanatu^[*]), or "Attachment is very cruel" (pacam mika kodumaiyanatu^[*]). I heard these two statements often enough to suspect that they, too, like the melting heart, were common formulas.

We in the United States consider love to be cruel in the sense that April is the cruelest month. Our highest flights are made in love, and we take our hardest falls there, too. Really, it is the disappointment of love that is cruel, but, because love is almost always disappointed, happy love songs are not the norm. All this is American common sense, I think.

But the cruelty of love had quite a different meaning to my Tamil family. Pacam, the bond of affection, was cruel, like American love, because when the bond was broken, as always it had to be, the newly unbound person suffered pain. When you become habituated to something, it becomes part of you, and, when you lose it, part of yourself is severed. Hence the adage, Peyyinodum^[*] pirital kasdam^[*] (Even from a demon, parting is painful). Pacam was called cruel by a person observing a child weep as her mother went out the door. But anpu, in its meaning of a higher and unselfish form of love, could be cruel in its very enactment, in and of itself.

Part of the reason for love's cruelty was that, because parakkam was hard to overcome, it was sometimes deemed necessary to violently force people to do what was in their own best interests. When times or situations changed, people had to change also. Hence Ayya's sister Porutcelvi^[*], in describing how lovingly he had raised her after their father died, said, "He beat me to make me study" (adittu^[*] padikkavaittarkal^[*]). Their father had not believed in female education, and Porutcelvi had become accustomed to avoiding books. Similarly, Anni, in attesting to the loving nature of an aunt who had helped raise her, said, "She beat me to make me eat" (adittu^[*] cappida^[*] vaittarkal^[*]), after she had become accustomed to denying herself food in another aunt's household. Beating children in the hope of getting them to study better was an everyday occurrence in this household, for small children's parakkam is to play; but as they grow, they have to change, and ripening (paruttal^[*]), as Ayya told me, is a

painful process. Beating children to make them eat did not appear necessary, except when they were sick. When people were ill and their appetites were off, it was especially important to force food down their throats, even if they gagged and vomited it up again. "At least the essence [cattu] of the food will be absorbed," said Anni. Sickness itself could too easily become parakkam.

Acts embodying the cruelty of love could also and simultaneously be acts hiding its tenderness. Thus, physical affection for children was expressed not through caresses but roughly in the form of painful pinches, slaps, and tweaks, which left marks or drew blood. Frightening a beloved child, like deceiving it, was also a favorite pastime. After my young son was stung on the arm by a scorpion, Padmini suggested that we buy a rubber scorpion and put it on his arm, "to see what he would do." Yet my son had been pampered and, for the most part, treated like a little king. In 1982, Mohana bore a second child, who in 1984 when I revisited the home was a rugged, bold, and healthy toddler. But she was for some reason terrified of a toy lion that someone had bought for her. Mohana and Padmini enjoyed showing the toy lion to the little girl and watching her scream. Yet the little girl was a family favorite, not a scapegoat or a runt. Why were the household darlings singled out for such exquisite torments? "It's a kind of love" (oru vakaiyana anpu), said Ayya in response to my puzzlement at such practices.

Among adults, this "kind of love" took the form of heated noisy quarrels, which, however, blew over quickly and often terminated in laughter. "You don't fight with those you don't love," said Ayya, and after some time it dawned upon me that, inasmuch as love was in large part a matter of mutual habituation, or, as we would say, interaction, then perhaps intense love required intense interaction (see also Kakar 1978). The true sign of love's absence might be the absence of any interaction at all.

That my guess was not entirely wrong was suggested by my observation of an argument that occurred between Anni and Ayya while I looked on. A cousin had come to the house to discuss a land dispute with Annan. In Anni's presence, the cousin had said an obscene word, and Anni had turned her back and walked away. After the cousin was gone, Ayya chastised Anni.

He told her, "When I say things that I should not say, you tell me, 'Don't speak that way in this house.' The meaning of those words is, 'This is my house and I make the rules in it,' whether or not that feeling is in your heart. In the same way, when Padmini or Vishvanathan speak wrongly, you say, 'Don't speak like that in front of me.' But today, when a person spoke wrong words on the front porch, you simply left. If you scold the people of the house for speaking wrongly, you should scold outsiders also."

After Ayya's lecture, which was much longer than my paraphrase of it here, Anni left, angry and hurt. Later I asked Anni how she felt about what Ayya had said. She answered, "In this world, money is everything. Those with money feel no need to respect those without it. When someone from

such a world brings ugliness like that inside, you can't chew it, and you can't swallow it [mennavum mudiyatu^[*] murunkavum^[*] mudiyatu^[*]]. You have to just walk away. But within the four walls of the house, we are all one [nalu cuvarile ellarum onru^[*] tan]. If someone does something wrong [tavaru^[*]], is it right or possible to hide it [maraikkalama^[*]]? We have a conscience [manacadci^[*]], and we must speak our minds." Thus to convey honestly one's disapproval of another's actions might be a sign of love for or closeness with that other, even though it could be misread by someone as close as Ayya was to Anni.

However, when mothers made their children cry, not in anger but in playful affection, it seemed to me that some force other than a need for mutual openness was at work. Or perhaps I should say, set of forces because child rearing is one area of life in which cultural, social, psychological, and biological patterns converge and find simultaneous expression in single acts.

We might count among biological forces acting upon the mothers in this family the omnipresent scarcity and hardship of their world. You had to be tough, you had to be able to endure a lot, you had to be able to absorb insults with equanimity, and you had to be able to bear without perturbation the sight of others getting what you knew you deserved, in order to survive with your mind intact in late twentieth-century India. Our family was better off than most, but food was still less than enough to go around. Toys, books, and store-bought clothes were all luxury items. So mothers in our family saw themselves as training their children to be tough and showed themselves in this light. Luxuries and soft treatment should not become parakkam, they said. When a small child learned to deprive itself, to say no (vendam^[*]) to a tempting sweet, this development was reported with glee to others as a significant advance (munnettam^[*]).

Related to scarcity was the necessity of sharing. The joint family was, in part, an adaptation to scarcity. One roof and one hearth were more economical than three roofs and three hearths. If you cooked for ten, as I was told, you would always have enough for eleven. But the great danger to a joint family was that it would fracture along the lines dividing nuclear units—each pair of spouses with their respective children. Love, which naturally (iyatkaiyaka^[*]) was given to one's own, had to be redirected across those lines. The stronger the love, the stronger the force that had to bc exerted against it to drive it outward. Consequently, in our family, mothers deliberately spurned or mistreated their own children, forcing their own and their children's affection outward. A mother might do likewise with a grown daughter, Ayya said, harshly scolding her so that she would desire to marry and so that when she did her heart would go to her husband and she would be happy.

One evening after dinner, Mohana, who was marginal to this family but dependent upon it, swept the two-year-old Sivamani^[*], her only child, onto her lap. Sivamani took her face into his small hands and kissed her on both cheeks and on the chin. I told Mohana that I thought Sivamani was not

looking very healthy. Mohana said that his belly had gotten very big, but his arms and legs were like matchsticks. She was smiling. When the children sat down to eat, Mohana fed all the other children while Sivamani, hungry, whimpered but said nothing. Finally Anuradha served Sivamani. After Sivamani had finished eating, he got up. Padmini affectionately thwacked him on the back. Sivamani lurched forward, before falling backward. Mohana laughed out loud. "He's like a little truck with a heavy load," she said, "a big heavy load up front." She laughed until tears came to her eyes.

Such surprising events were daily affairs in the lives of the children. If a child did something wrong, the child could never know if or when or even upon whom the punishment would fall for the mistake. One person would err, and another would be punished. Or punishment would fall long after a child had made a mistake and thought it forgotten. Or one caretaker would punish and another comfort; always in these cases the punisher was the child's own mother and the comforter somebody else. Or, the same person would punish and comfort, punish and comfort, until the child completely lost its bearings and began to weep. People would often tease small children in this way: they would offer a plaything and then withdraw it, offer and then withdraw, offer and then withdraw. When the child broke down and wept, it would either be cuddled and comforted or else whisked away to enjoy some other amusement.

Somehow, the tears of a child were entertaining; they brought forth laughter or at least smiles from onlookers. Children themselves, finally, learned to laugh when they were scolded, or at least some did. One mother (not of this family) told me that it was wrong to make a child laugh because for every moment of laughter that the child enjoyed now he would have to suffer a moment of tears in the future. As in the case of mother's milk, sweet pleasures had to be limited, balanced by bitterness. If hardship was a habit and had come to seem sweet, so much the better.

Dirtiness (arukku^[*])

Without question, to the members of our family, anpu was a good and powerful force. One who had love was in a very real sense higher (uyarnta) than one who did not. A loving heart was a pure (tuymaiyana) heart. But love was often at odds with the demands of physical cleanliness and purity (cuttam). It was not that love was intrinsically impure (acuttam) but rather that, in the presence of love, conventional purity did not matter. This was the ideal of the ancient Shaiva devotional texts, the ideal of bhakti, and the members of our family, especially the women, lived it to the fullest.

On a supraworldly level, love as pacam was a bond, and therefore it was an obstacle in the quest for purity, which meant the breaking of all bonds. Love as desire (acai) was even worse because it provoked restlessness (alaiccal),

which prevented the peacefulness necessary to maintaining a pure heart. Ayya had tried to teach me these principles in his lectures.

But in regular life, things were viewed rather differently. A person could be praised for having much affection (rompa pacam). A calf taking its first steps would be described as causing desire (acaiyay irukkum), that is to say, being attractive. The trait in the calf, the feeling, the person who could feel it, none of these was wrong to be as it was. Indeed, something was wrong when the trait and the feeling were not there. The calf who was sick and unable to walk, the man who had no affection for others, these were not as they should be.

The term anpu could mean lustful infatuation (as in the case of the smitten demon, described below); it could mean clinging possessiveness (an old woman who accused her octogenarian husband of having five women a day was said to have had too much anpu). But more often it referred to a certain generosity of spirit as well as of pocketbook. In this sense it was the opposite of acai, though in its broader sense it encompassed the latter meaning also.

What anpu never meant was extrication of oneself from others or from the processes of life. Indeed to our family, and most of all to its linchpin Anni, it meant just the opposite. It seemed that Anni was engaged in a constant campaign to combat the forces of purity and to promote the forces of love. She it was who allowed the lower-caste servants to help in cooking, defying the wishes of her mother-in-law. She herself engaged in food preparation even during her periods, mixing the tub of lemon rice with her bare hands. (Ayya had told me that if a woman during her period touched a growing plant, the plant would wither; if she touched a metal pot with her hand, the metal would corrode). When Anni served me dinner, she would set aside the serving spoon and ladle the rice onto my leaf with her hand. When we went to visit a great Shaiva temple and I carelessly forgot to remove my son's shoes from his feet before we went in, other people pointed and scowled, but Anni said, "It doesn't matter. Let him be."

One day, when I had finished eating and Anni as usual had rushed to pick up my leaf, I said to her, "You must like bodily effluvia (eccil)." Anni answered that picking up another's leaf was an act of merit (punniyam). I said that if that was the case, Modday^[*] the servant must have a lot of merit. Anni said that she did. More often, however, when I asked Anni to tell me why she broke the rules of purity that I had thought all good Hindus followed, she would say. "These are advanced times when all are one, and no one is alone."

Ayya commented that eccil shared in love would not cause disease but would cure it. People who love each other will eat from each other's plates or leaves without thought of sickness. He said that he himself had never loved anyone that much.

In this household, the sharing of eccil conveyed a message of love and was a way of teaching children and onlookers where love was. For instance, when Anuradha was eating rice with buttermilk, after she had eaten for a while and Jnana Oli^[*] (the two-year-old son of Padmini) and Sivamani (the two-year-old son of Mohana) appeared, she called Sivamani to drink some buttermilk: she fed him some rice from her plate with her hand and then had him drink some buttermilk from her plate. Then she had Jnana Oli drink some buttermilk from her plate, then Siva, then Oli, until both said "enough." Then she herself drank down the rest. Anuradha's feeding of the two little boys in this fashion accorded with the many deliberate attempts on the part of older people in the household to twin these children and foster love between them. Annan would often seat the two boys opposite each other on his two knees with a single toy between them, that he tried to make them share. When the boys went out with their mothers, each woman would carry the other's son. The mothers themselves shared the kind of love that they hoped their sons would share. Padmini and Mohana, who had grown up together, went everywhere together, shared everything, and claimed to be "like husband and wife," had a ritual of eating together which expressed their oneness.^[11] Ayya and I were watching this ritual when he made his comment about eccil. After everyone else had eaten, Padmini and Mohana would sit down facing each other, with the pot of remaining food between them. Padmini would mix all the leftovers together in the pot with her hand. Then she would put a ball of food, with her hand, into Mohana's mouth and a ball of food into her own; then Mohana would do the same. They would feed each other in this way, until the food in the pot was gone or until they had had enough; then each woman would lick the other's fingers and her own.

Servitude (adimai^[*])

Adakkam^[*] meant containment. It also meant control, both of oneself and of others. One contained one's love and so controlled oneself. One also contained one's beloved. Containment and protection (patukappu) were both forms of binding (kappu), which devolved from affection (pacam), itself a bond.

The reciprocal of adakkam was adimai^[*], servitude, the state of being controlled by another, of being bound. Becoming adimai, like exercising adakkam, could be a powerful expression of love. But if adakkam entailed pride, adimai entailed humility (panivu^[*]). If adakkam meant having something to hold on to, then adimai meant having nothing of one's own.

Love was complexly implicated in expressions of pride and humility, servitude and domination, possession and renunciation. Through love, all these opposites were overturned. In acts of love, the humble became proud, the servant became master, and the renouncer became possessed. Just as

through love, tenderness might be enacted as cruelty, so through love, hierarchy took ironic forms.

In a typical bhakti-like reversal of the symbols of high and low, Ayya had said in a lecture, "God is like a sandal, he is the foundation of all of us. God is like a broom, he makes the world clean."

But Anni had gone beyond him in the bhakti-inspired elaboration of broom symbolism. Ayya and Padmini had quarreled, and his anger with her had lingered. He had not spoken to her in days. The whole household was gloomy because of this. At the end of the third day, Anni came marching up to him, broom in hand.

"I thought she was going to beat me with it," Ayya said later. But she had not.

"What is this for?" Anni asked.

"For sweeping," said Ayya.

"How often do we use it?" asked Anni.

"Every day," said Ayya.

"What would happen if we didn't?" asked Anni.

"Dirt would pile up in the house," said Ayya.

"All right," said Anni, "Quarrels are like dirt. They come into the house every day. Every day we have to sweep them away and start over."

Anni had used the broom, symbol of humility, as a symbol of patience (porumai^[*], putting up with things, bearing things), purification, harmony in the household, and control.

Like the broom, sandals were a symbol of hierarchy, but their meaning as a symbol was reversible. To wear sandals was a sign of high status, wealth, pride, and, in some circumstances, arrogance. To be without sandals, conversely, was a sign of humility. To be called a sandal, or to be beaten by a sandal, was a grave insult. Harijans could not wear sandals in the high-caste part of the village; people could not wear sandals in temples where the gods lived. People should not wear sandals in a field of growing rice; it would hurt the rice. People could not enter a person's home or go where people were eating with their sandals on; to do so would be to show great contempt for the home or the food. The arrogance of the British was shown by their custom of going everywhere in their shoes.

Aside from such interactional considerations, there were attributional ones; in general people noticed whether you wore footgear and, if so, what kind. Yokels went without sandals; sophisticates did not. Laborers went without sandals; the educated did not. The poor went without sandals; the rich did not. Plastic or rubber sandals were much inferior to leather ones, but to go barefoot on the streets was lowest of all.

Yet wherever they went, Anni, Padmini, and Mohana never wore sandals. I offered to buy them sandals, but they refused. I tried to go barefoot like them. They mocked me and said that my feet would not be able to bear the

hot sand and gravel, and they were right. When Padmini waited for the bus, she sat down on the bare soil, as only village women would do, and she teased me for standing, "as though you're being punished," she said. Such behavior fit into the ethos that Padmini and her sister and cousin had worked out for themselves—they were simple (elimai^[*]) by choice; and they were protectors, not in need of protection. The spurning of sandals proved that they needed nothing between themselves and the sun-baked soil.

Ayya also often went barefoot. His clothing consisted of two rectangular strips of thin white cotton—one a waistcloth that hung to his feet, the other wrapped around his shoulders. His friends and followers all wore shirts, trousers, watches—signs of status, education, and urban ties. But on important religious holidays, their clothing imitated that of their guru, Ayya.

When I lived with them, the family was poor. Extra clothing and jewelry would have burdened the household budget severely. Their quasi-ascetic behavior might be dismissed as an attempt to make a virtue of necessity, a concession to reality. But as it related to the ideology of love, their attitude toward poverty had more aggressive meanings. For by defining themselves as beyond the hierarchy established by wealth, they negated the values legitimizing that hierarchy and so (at least temporarily and to their own satisfaction) turned it on its head.

Family members attributed their poverty to generosity, both public and private. Ayya said, "Our family is the poorest [among the landowning families in the village] because we give the most to others, and all the people know it."

The family as a unit displayed its poverty relative to others in the village as proof of its superior kindness. In the same way, individuals within the family established the superiority of their love through renunciation. Anni said, "Whatever Ayya does not need, we do not need." Because Ayya did not drink coffee, she would not drink coffee. If Ayya refused to go to the cinema, she would also stay home. If Ayya brought her nothing to wear, she would be content with her old clothes. There was something more than submission in her simplicity, for she undertook it in a spirit of hard-nosed boldness. Ayya called it nerve (tairiyam). It took some courage, he said, for Anni to maintain her practice of loving self-denial in public. When the women attended a wedding, barefoot and unadorned, Padmini escaped reproach. She was the wife of a man who had acquired the reputation of a renouncer, and it was only right (in the eyes of many) for her to become a renouncer also. But Anni was subject to scarcely concealed pity and scorn. A woman would glance at her, touch her own ears, nose, wrists, and throat, turn her palms upward, shrug, and project her lower lip, saying in the gesture language used for messages that should not be spoken aloud, "This pitiful woman has no jewelry." But Anni was not perturbed. To her luxuries and sins were both tevai illai, "not needed." Meanwhile, she indulged Ayya with yogurt and ghee, expenses he

had tried to give up but could not resist, although she herself never consumed them. Milk and its products were only for children, she said.

As love turned acts of humility into acts of pride, so it turned acts of servitude into acts of dominance.^[12] This reversal was particularly dramatic given the generally low esteem in which the family held servants as a class. Anni spoke scornfully of what she called the servant mind (velaikkara putti). Ayya and others would also speak of the slave mentality (adimai^[*] manappanmai—atermsaid to have been coined by C. N. Annadurai), of Indians as a cause of their current inability to rejuvenate their nation. Slaves and servants were the lowest of human beings and the most severely shackled.

But a slave of love was a different matter. A slave to the love of God possessed nearly unlimited power. In Tamil Nadu, and all over India, there are countless stories of devotees who, through their love of God, force God to do their bidding. And in human society, a servant of God was a recipient of the highest respect. Members of Shaiva sects in formal discourse would symbolically abase and elevate themselves by calling themselves not "I" (nan) but "this slave" (adiyen^[*]), and the guru who was nearly deified after his death would be called "the servant" (adikal^[*]).

Butthetransformation of servant into master was not dependent upon reference to God or any sentiment of religious devotion. There was in our family a pronounced feeling that servants could easily gain the upper hand, a feeling exacerbated by the current shaky status of the family in village politics and the intercaste conflicts in which they were embroiled. There was an intuitive recognition of Sartre's dictum that in reality the master is the slave. Thus when I said to Anni that I felt she was treating me like a queen, she replied, "A queen has no freedom."

However, the servitude of love, as it was practiced every day by Anni, was more than potentially dominating; it was actually so. Her absolute control as servant was epitomized in her role as family food dispenser. It was she who decided who ate what and when, and, if there were an order to eating, Anni ate last. There would sometimes be quantities of biscuits or fruit in the house, which Anni or one of the men would buy. No one would ever help themselves to them or ask for them; instead Anni would dole them out, one by one. The children of the family were absolutely under her governance with respect not only to what and when and how much they ate but also from whom they were allowed to accept food.

Like Padmini and Mohana, Ayya and Anni had a feeding game that they often played, but theirs was asymmetrical and more complex than that of the two women. Ayya said it was Anni's job (velai) to feed him. He often complained to Anni, to his friends, and to me that she did her job poorly. She would fix him buttermilk, and he would say he was sick and wanted only rice water. So she would fix him rice water, and then he would tell her that she was too lazy to fix decent meals. She would complain about how exacting he

was, but she always strove to cook to his taste. Daily she brought him his meals, and daily he refused them, saying that he didn't like that kind of food, that it was not good for him, that he had a stomach ache, or that he wasn't hungry. Anni would argue and coax for a while, insisting that the food was fine and good for him. If he still refused to eat, then she would force feed him as though he were a recalcitrant child, holding the back of his head with her left hand and bringing a ball of food to his mouth with her right. He would keep his lips tightly shut until the last second, when he would open his mouth and in went the food. Then he would chew and swallow it. In this way, Anni became his mother, servant, and controller.^[13]

Mixture and Confusion (kalattal, mayakkam)

Love, as defined and enacted by our family, brought about reversals of all kinds. The closest bonds were concealed by denial of bonds, tenderness was transformed into cruelty, humility could express pride, and servitude was a means toward mastery. All these reversals had their reasons, some of which were by no means culture-bound. Apparently reasonless reversals also took place. Nowhere could this activity of love be seen more clearly than in people's use of the word mother (amma), the one word in the Tamil language more imbued than any other with sentiments of love.

As a term of address, amma could be applied to the following people:

1. One's own mother, or someone in the category of mother, such as mother's sister. The children of the family called Anni "Annimma^[*]," and Padmini, "Pappimma."

2.Asuperior female. For such a person, amma was a term of respect and distance. Village adults wishing to show respect for me would call me amma, even when they were older than I was.

3. A female of approximately equal status to, or lower status than, the speaker. Often in this case the use of the term amma was part of hostile and sarcastic exchanges, as occurred between sisters-in-law or when a husband scolded his wife.

4. A male of equal or lower status than the speaker. When one addressed such a person as amma, one was showing affection for him. So Annan often called Ayya amma, and Anni addressed the male servants in her mother's home as amma, in both cases with obvious affection. But this usage of amma occurred all over Tamil Nadu. Conversely, father (appa) was used as a term of affection for a female of equal or lower status than the speaker.

When I searched for an explanation for these customs, family members said they did not know. Ayya suggested that the reason was, "Love does not know head or tail." This struck me as plausible, given other aspects of the ideology of love in Tamil culture that I had learned. To show affection for

someone, you demonstrated in a conventionalized way that you had forgotten what category they belonged to.

Love, then, mixed you up (mayakkum). A person who fell, as we would say, head-over-heels in love with another, was suffering, as it would be said in Tamil, from mayakkam, dizziness, confusion, intoxication, delusion. The same word was used to describe all these states. In all of them, one lost one's ability either to think clearly or even to think at all. Then one could not be blamed for acting strangely. And one could easily be misused by others. The intoxication of love was notoriously dangerous for just this reason. A servant in a Brahman household jokingly said that a Brahman girl learns to sing so that, when a potential suitor comes to visit and hears her voice in the other room, "he will become confused" (mayankuvan^[*]) and marry her.

Love, through mayakkam, could make a person see exactly the opposite of what was there. The story was told in our household of a Shaiva guru to whom an admirer, out of great love, offered a piece of raw meat. The guru saw only the love and ate the meat as though it were a ripe piece of fruit, much to his followers' disgust. In a play shown in our village, the goddess Adiparasakti was created to destroy a demon. This goddess was huge and green; she bit her bright red tongue angrily and stomped about the stage wielding a sharp trident. The demon in the play took one look at her and was smitten with desire. He went home to tell his sidekick of the beauty of his new heartthrob. The sidekick at first was baffled. Then sudden comprehension lit up his face, and he nodded and smiled like an eager puppy. "Aha, ampu, ampu!" he said, "Love, love!" (Ampu, the sidekick's dopey rendering of anpu, also means "arrow." In this play, the pun was certainly intentional).

Love, as understood by our family, not only reversed opposites but also erased distinctions completely. There will be nothing novel to Westerners in this idea; it is important only that we realize that, for the Tamil family also, mixture (kalattal) was a consciously recognized attribute of what for them also was the overarching ideal of love. This was what Anni meant by "we are all one," both here, "within these four walls," and now, "in these advanced times." People's presence with each other made them mix with each other, become used to each other, and become one.

It was impolite because unloving to treat oneself and one's own with more favor than one allowed others, at least within the four walls, in places where love should prevail. To discriminate was ora vañcakam (the deceitfulness of boundaries, that is, drawing lines). The politest, most loving pronoun was the first person plural inclusive nam, meaning "we (including you)." One used it, within the very innermost walls, when talking in one's mind to oneself. One used it when referring either to "my house" or to "your house"?; both were called, politely, "our house." Anni elevated me to the status of her equal by often referring to women of our age (nam vayacu) and laying out the rules that we both should follow. It caused members of our family distress

when I said "your children." All of them, including my own, were "our children," and, if I needed to distinguish between them, I should refer to them by name. In the extreme, this mixture of yours and mine into ours became reversal again—mine were called yours, and yours mine. So when I wrote to Ayya's sister Porutcelvi that my second child had been born, she wrote back, "I can't wait to see my new son."

This kind of total mixing—the sharing and trading of homes, of children, of selves—was necessary for the existence of love. So Ayya explained the Kannappan^[*] story, a story he returned to again and again, of a devotee so loving he tore out his eye to put as medicine on an image of Shiva when he saw that the eye of the image was bleeding. Then the second eye of the image started to bleed, and Kannappan reached for his own second eye to tear it out like the first, when Shiva stopped him. Ayya said, "This story proves that God has no love. Otherwise he would have recognized Kannappan's love from the first and saved both his eyes, not only one. It was only after Kannappan placed one of his eyes on the image that God, seeing through Kannappan's eye, understood Kannappan's pain.

"In order for you to understand my heart, you must see through my eyes. In order for me to understand your heart, I must see through yours."

References Cited

Allen, N.J.

1985 The Category of the Person: A Reading of Mauss' Last Essay. In The Category of the Person. Michael Carrithers, Steven Collins, and Steven Lukes, eds. Pp. 26-45. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Appadurai, Arjun

1981 Gastropolitics in Hindu South Asia. American Ethnologist 8(3):494-511.

Bakhtin, Mikhail M.

1981 The Dialoglc Imagination. Michael Holquist and Caryl Emerson, trans. and eds. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Babb, Lawrence

1981 Glancing: Visual Interaction in Hinduism. Journal of Anthropological Research 37(4):387-401.

Boon, James

1982 Other Tribes, Other Scribes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Clifford, James

1983 Power and Dialogue in Ethnography: Marcel Griaule's Initiation. In Observers Observed. George Stocking, ed. Pp. 121-156. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Crapanzano, Vincent

1986 Hermes Dilemma: The Masking of Subversion in Ethnographic Description. In Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography. James Clifford and George Marcus, eds. Pp. 51-76. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Daniel, E. Valentine

1984 Fluid Signs. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Eck, Diana L.

1981 Darsan, Seeing the Divine Image in India. Chambersburg, Pa.: Anima Books.

Egnor, Margaret

1980 On the Meaning of Sakti to Women in Tamil Nadu. In The Powers of Tamil Women. Susan Wadley, ed. Pp. 1-34. Syracuse, N.Y.: Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, Syracuse University (Foreign and Comparative Studies/South Asia Series, No. 6).

1983 The Changed Mother, or What the Smallpox Goddess Did When There Was No More Smallpox. Contributions to Asian Studies 18:24-45.

1986 Iconicity in Paraiyar Crying Songs. In Another Harmony: New Essays in the Folklore of India. Stuart Blackburn and A. K. Ramanujan, eds. Pp. 294-344. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Kakar, Sudhir

1978 The Inner World. Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Kristeva, Julia

1984 Revolution in Poetic Language. Margaret Waller, trans. New York: Columbia University Press.

Kapferer, Bruce

1983 A Celebration of Demons. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Malinowski, Bronislaw

1967 A Diary in the Strict Sense of the Term. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World.

Maloney, Clarence

1976 Don't Say "Pretty Baby" Lest You Zap It with the Evil Eye—The Evil Eye in South Asia. In The Evil Eye. Clarence Maloney, ed. Pp. 102-148. New York: Columbia University Press.

Narayan, R. K.

1972 Malgudi Days. New York: Viking Press.

Obeyesekere, Gananath

1984 The Cult of the Goddess Pattini. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

O'Flaherty, Wendy

1973 Asceticism and Eroticism in the Mythology of Siva. London and Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Singer, Milton

1972 When a Great Tradition Modernizes. New York: Praeger.

Stocking, George

1968 Race, Culture, and Evolution. New York: Free Press.

Trawick, Margaret

1989 Notes on Love in a Tamil Family. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Three
"To Be a Burden on Others"
Dependency Anxiety Among the Elderly in India

Sylvia Vatuk

The approach of old age must trigger in all men and women a realization of their own imminent mortality, and signals of the body inevitably join those of the mind to prompt concerns about what this rapidly shrinking span of time between now and then may hold in store. As aging individuals reflect upon the years remaining to them, the expectation of physical decline is likely to loom large in their thoughts. The question of how their basic physical, social, and emotional requirements will be met when they have been deprived of the capacity to care for themselves may become a central preoccupation. Their answers will draw inspiration both from what their culture has conditioned them to expect and from what they have observed in the past and the present in their family, community, and society, of other people in situations similar to their own. Their emotional responses likewise will be culturally constructed, falling within a framework defined and recognized by the culture into whose concepts and assumptions they have been socialized since childhood.

As inexorable processes of the universal human condition, aging and physical deterioration have only fairly recently become appropriate and interesting subjects for anthropological inquiry. Increasing numbers of researchers—psychologists and sociologists as well as anthropologists—have begun to ask what difference culture makes in the way in which old people deal with and experience life's inevitable physical and social losses. It is now well documented that the problems older persons face as they age, their perceptions of and responses to these problems, and their subjective experiences in these later years, vary widely according to the particular social-structural and cultural parameters of their lives.^[1]

It is clear that some societies provide a more congenial set of conditions for a physically comfortable and emotionally satisfying old age than do

others. An important variable in this respect is the way in which dependence upon others for support, shelter, and physical care is culturally evaluated. For example, American social scientists, reflecting upon the influences on psychological well-being of older people in American society, have often noted the importance of its culturally patterned attitudes toward dependency. Kalish (1967) has identified in his elderly American patients pervasive feelings of guilt and anxiety aroused by the experience or anticipation of physical decline and by their perception of its inevitable consequence: the necessity of relying upon their children or other people for financial and other assistance. He found that such feelings were central to older persons' sense of self-worth and hence to their general outlook on life. Their origins, in his opinion, lie in American society's prevailing child socialization patterns, which emphasize the early attainment of self-reliance and punish the outward expression of dependency.

Margaret Clark has taken up the same theme and elaborated upon the perjorative connotations of dependency in American culture. She provides quotations from informants—in this case, elderly San Franciso residents— that contain "an almost frantic quality" (1972:272) stressing their authors' need for complete autonomy in order to retain self-esteem.

The important thing in my life today is I don't want to get sick again. I want to be well, take care of myself. I don't want to be dependent on my children. (Clark and Anderson 1967:177-178)

It's very important that I do not become a burden on somebody. That's the most important thing in my life today. (Clark 1972:272)

Clark's analysis emphasizes the importance of the elderly person's real or perceived contribution to the family in which he or she lives, whether this contribution takes the form of labor, knowledge, or social linkages. She maintains that because Americans do not believe that old people have anything of real value to give to the young, and because the elderly themselves generally concur in this view, both parties define any situation in which an old person depends for support upon an adult child as involving a strictly one-way flow of benefits. An aged person's lengthy period of financial or physical dependency in our culture soon becomes intolerable because it is perceived as entailing a failure in role reciprocity.

Clearly crucial here is not the actual ability of the aged person to contribute actively to the household of which he or she is a part but rather the nature of cultural perceptions about the value of those contributions (whatever form they may take) and the time-frame within which that culture's concept of intergenerational reciprocity is formulated. It may indeed be explicitly recognized and accepted that after a certain age or stage of debility the aged person can no longer return anything of substance to other family members for their support and care. But this situation need not be culturally

interpreted as a breakdown of reciprocity, as long as the older individual's earlier contributions are remembered and taken into account. Certainly this is the case in societies that view intergenerational reciprocity within a life-course perspective, regarding an adult child's care of his parents as direct repayment for their care in infancy and childhood. Such is the case in China:

Acceptance of dependency within a society that observes the norm of reciprocity creates the most decisive support for the favorable attitudes toward the elderly. The emphasis on mutual obligations throughout the life cycle coupled with the necessity of repayment eliminate the need for the elderly to justify their need for care and respect on an individual basis. As a result, dependency in old age is viewed as unpleasant but inevitable, and . . . not . . . as a fatal attack on their self-esteem. (Davis-Friedmann 1983:13; italics mine)

These scholars' work suggests that, in cultures that refrain from discouraging dependent behavior in young children and positively value the long-term reciprocal interdependence of family members, a period of parental dependency upon adult children might be accepted by all concerned with relative equanimity. In India the notion that children owe their parents a tremendous debt for giving them birth and for feeding and caring for them through infancy and childhood is axiomatic. The concept of long-term intergenerational reciprocity is communicated to children at an early age, in a very direct and explicit manner. Parents do not hesitate to make clear that they have definite expectations of their children. They do not consider it inappropriately guilt inducing to impress upon children—of any age—how great the personal sacrifice associated with raising them was. It is not uncommon to hear a parent suggest to a child—or to another within the child's hearing—that the care lavished upon the child has been motivated largely by the desire to ensure the parent's own security and well-being in old age. Parent-child reciprocity is, thus, conceptualized as a life-span relationship.

When I began a study of aging and the elderly in India in 1974, one of my central research questions was the relationship between cultural values and conceptions about old age, on the one hand, and the manner in which individual women and men adjust to the various transitions and losses of later life.^[2] In the course of that study I was initially surprised at the prevalence of expressions of anxiety and concern about the prospect of losing physical capacities, and with them the respect, care, and love of the younger family members upon whom they depend for support and intimate companionship. Although virtually all these older people were currently living with adult children or other close kin, and few were completely self-sufficient financially, the idea that someday they might become totally helpless and present a burden to their families was apparently very disturbing. A lively woman in her

sixties, the mother of three adult sons who, to all appearances, fulfilled their filial obligations to her and to their father, expressed her concerns in words echoed many times in the utterances of other informants:

Old age is like a second childhood. In the first childhood, oh how lovable one seems to others! But do you think it is like that in old age? One can't walk properly, hands and feet don't do their work, eyes and ears become weak. An old person says something and others just say, "Oh, let him babble! That's just the way he is!" No one really listens to him. That's why I say, "Don't let me get to the point where I'm incapable of doing anything. Let me go while my body is still in good condition."

An elderly Chamar (member of the leatherworker caste), in much less comfortable economic and family circumstances, expressed an even more dismal view:

As for old age, as long as one's hands and feet are working, everyone gives one food. Otherwise, no one cares. They leave you, cursing you. . .. In old age one has to eat whatever the children have prepared and given to you, whether you like it or not. You have to fill your stomach. If you complain, they say, "Even in old age he wants to be satiated! He just lies in bed all day and keeps giving orders! No work to do, no occupation, just lying there babbling about one thing or another all day long!"

A phrase repeated in both these quotations, and in countless others as well, refers to the importance of having "working hands and feet" (hath pair calte hue) if one expects to receive respect and care from the younger generation.

It is good to die when one's hands and feet are still working: that is a good death. If a man gets sick and stays that way for a long time, then the members of his family get annoyed and start saying, "If the old man would just die, it would be a good thing. He is giving us so much trouble, it would be best if he would just leave us."

A vigorous, well-to-do, and evidently contented man of seventy years reported that, rather than risk experiencing this, he prays daily for death:

Every day I say a prayer to God: "Oh Lord, lift me up! Everything is fine—my hands and feet are both working. Now lift me up, because otherwise I am going to have to become dependent upon others!"

Informants most often used the words asrit and adhin to speak of the consequences of physical incapacitation. A standard Hindi-English dictionary glosses asrit as "resorting (to), dependent (on)," or, as a noun, "one who has recourse to or relies on another; . . . dependent, follower, subject, servant, retainer, hanger-on, parasite" (Platts 1960:51). The same dictionary translates adhin as "subject, under the authority (of), subservient, dependent, subordinate, submissive, obedient," and in verbal constructions as "to re-

main subject or in allegiance (to), to be subject (to), to submit (to), to obey, to be humble" (Platts 1960:36). Both words imply a relationship of asymmetrical power and control, and both have a negative connotation insofar as they place the "dependent" individual in the lower, less powerful position. A third word frequently employed has a more neutral connotation: nirbhar, an adjective glossed as "resting (upon)," or a noun meaning "reliance, dependence, trust" (Platts 1960:1129). These terms were used to refer to the situation of the physically helpless old person who, having lost control of his faculties, is forced into the role of suppliant, at the mercy of resentful caregivers, who are impatient for his very death. They were never used to describe the situation where the able elderly man and woman live with their children and give themselves over willingly to their ministrations. In India such old persons do not consider themselves dependent at all.

Although there were exceptions, most older people expressing anxiety about becoming dependent professed general satisfaction with their current lives; they lived with their families in households where relations between generations were reasonably harmonious and free from serious, overt conflict. They had no wish to live independently or self-sufficiently at this time of life. They considered happiness in old age possible only if one lived surrounded by members of the younger generation, ideally supported, fed, and catered to by them, and freed from such mundane concerns as making a living or balancing a household budget. Even those younger members of their families who did not get along well with their parents or who found supporting and caring for them a difficult financial, physical, or emotional burden still recognized and acknowledged their elders' legitimate claim to shelter. Only extremely rarely would an older person with living children or other close kin be left to maintain an independent household.

The idea that parent-child reciprocity involves a life-span calculus was prominent in these people's thoughts about old age. To make one's home with adult children was not associated with emotions like shame or guilt, such as have been reported for American elderly people unable to conform to our cultural ideal of self-reliance and independent living in the later years of life. On the contrary, these Indian elders typically displayed pride in having offspring who could and did support them in comfort with grace and loving concern. There was no sense of a failure of reciprocity on their own part for what they were currently receiving; they felt fully entitled to whatever support and help their sons could give, as something rightfully earned through years of hard work, sacrifice, and devotion to these children's welfare.

Yet, evident in their thinking about the future was uncertainty about the extent to which their current treatment would continue, if they became physically incapacitated. They commonly expressed this uncertainty in terms of a fear of helplessness, a situation in which they would require intimate personal services to sustain their normal bodily functions. They clearly antici-

pated that under these circumstances it was possible, and even likely, that the younger generation would begin to feel their presence a burden, no longer show them respect, and perhaps even neglect or mistreat them. Whatever the strength of the notion of entitlement through reciprocity over the life course, the ability to control one's body and have it work is of central importance for these people's sense of well-being and surety in intrafamilial relationships. Maintaining self-esteem is not the issue. Rather, the practical older person questions whether the younger family members will in fact continue to carry out their reciprocal obligations when these begin to be extremely onerous and unpleasant. Although cultural ideals maintain that they ought to do so, experience has demonstrated that they frequently do not. Hence, the prospect of physical decline—or, more accurately, of its consequences for the way in which the family treats the helpless person—often arouses anxiety and dread in these older persons. I wish to explore more fully here both the nature of and basis for such fears within the context of Indian cultural patterns and conceptions related to aging, old age, and the elderly.

The Stages of the Life Course

When in this Hindi-speaking area of northern India, people speak in the abstract about the life course, they usually divide it into three broad stages: childhood (bacpan), youth or young adulthood (javani), and old age (burhappa). The usual markers for entrance into the last stage are physical and developmental, rather than chronological, although of course the passage of years is recognized as the essence of the aging process. But adults in this community use neither their own chronological age nor that of others as a prime index of identity, as Americans tend to do. Although older informants were usually able to estimate their own age in years, if pressed to do so, more commonly they would give the year of their birth or relate their birth year to some well-known, datable event, suggesting that I "figure it out from that."

The marriages of one's children, particularly one's eldest son, are the rites of passage that most clearly propel one into the beginnings of old age. Girls are usually married at an earlier age than boys. Therefore, even if one's daughters are younger than one's sons, they are likely to be married first. But a daughter almost always leaves her parental home to reside with husband and in-laws. On the other hand, when a son marries, the presence of the new daughter-in-law in one's house is a daily reminder—to others, as well as to oneself of the life transition one has experienced. The significance of the son's marriage for the age-grade status of the parents is reflected in the phrase, "her daughters-in-law are arriving" (bahu a rahi); this commonly characterizes, in terms of her life stage, a woman in early old age.

The use of family-developmental criteria to mark an individual's passage from one stage of life to another is consistent with the explicit model for the

ideal human life course provided in the classical Indian religious and legal texts. The most familiar version of this is found in the Manusmrti, but a long textual tradition of didactic treatises on Hindu dharma gives attention to the stages of the life course and the appropriate codes for conduct at each stage (see Kane 1968-75: II; Manu 1886; Pandey 1969). Basic to the view of one's spiritual and social responsibilities presented in this body of literature is the notion that the individual's particular station in life, together with the stage in the life cycle, determine the rules by which one ought to live. Normative standards of behavior are neither absolute nor universally applicable. All are relative, depending upon the composite social personhood of the individual concerned.

The usual textual formulation posits four ideal life stages. The second of these—that of the mature, married, economically active adult male, the Householder—is generally considered at the center of the social order. All others in society depend upon him for sustenance. When, as Manu says, the Householder "sees his skin wrinkled and his hair white and the sons of his sons" (1886: 198), he is exhorted to turn over the management of household affairs to his male heir and become a Hermit, retiring to a forest retreat, either taking his wife with him or leaving her to be cared for at home. In the forest he should devote himself to contemplation, performance of the sacred rites, and bodily self-mortification, all of which should help in the process of disentangling himself, physically and emotionally, from those relationships of personal and social interdependence developed during the previous life stage. If he succeeds in this, he will ultimately be ready to enter the last stage, that of the Renouncer, the wandering ascetic, attached to no man or place, caring nothing for the world or its concerns. In this manner, alone, fully absorbed in the quest for spiritual perfection, he should end his days.^[3]

Although such a model for the life course is rarely followed in literal detail, the notion that life is made up of distinct developmental stages, each with its own appropriate normative code for conduct, immediate and long-term goals, and suitable rewards, guides the thinking of Indians about how they ought to live and shapes their aspirations for later life in particular (see Kakar 1978, 1979; Mines 1981, 1988; Vatuk 1975, 1980, 1982b, 1985). The ideas that the old should withdraw from both active involvement in economic or productive activities and managerial roles within and without the household and that they should try to renounce sensual in favor of spiritual pleasures are quite prominent in the thinking of Indians at all social levels, whether or not they are directly familiar with the classical texts. The precise way in which informants express and interpret these ideas often differs in important respects from the textual formulations. Some themes are totally absent from, and others seem almost at direct odds with, the classical model for an ideal life course. For example, the texts stress the desirability of loosening and eventually severing all bonds of personal and social interdependence during the third and fourth

stages of life. In fact, they prescribe individual self-reliance as the central goal of this period. The Renouncer should avoid engaging in material or emotional transactions with members of his family and community. However, in the contemporary conception of the ideal old age, emphasis is placed upon achieving embeddedness of the old person in a close and loving family unit. A good old age tends to be defined largely by the individual's sons, daughters-in-law, or others fulfilling their appropriate roles. Although the theme of disengagement and detachment from worldly concerns remains central to the ideas about appropriate behavior and attitudes in old age, the reference is almost always to the individual's mental state, rather than to social or familial interactions and involvements. In other words, the old person should remain in and of the family and should accept its members' ministrations. At the same time he or she should cultivate a state of mind in which the family members and their actions matter less and less. The concepts of the old person as both renouncer of the world and recipient of attentive care are not perceived as contradictory; instead, the two are seen as complementary. Only if one's sons take over full responsibility for the family's and one's own shelter, support, sustenance, and personal needs, is one then free to withdraw from active worldly involvement and concentrate on the spiritual quest.

Informants often describe old age as properly "a time of rest," a period in which one can finally take one's ease and allow others to meet one's basic needs. Old men and women speak of the pleasures of being deferred to and catered to by the younger generation and of being provided with various personal services that, especially in the case of women, were never available in their younger years. They revel in the freedom to spend their time as they like, without either the demands of others or worry about or responsibility for household functions. Old age in the ideal sense is often defined as a period without work, when a person is free to while away his time as he pleases, "just eating, drinking, and sleeping," or, if so inclined, engaging in religious devotion, contemplation, and recitation of God's name. In the course of discussing this time of life, many contrast it to earlier periods, when they could not pursue their own interests and desires because of pressing family responsibilities and, in some cases, the opposition or disapproval of other family members in positions of authority over them. This is particularly true of older women, who in this society exercise little autonomy prior to late middle age. When they have finally reached that stage of life, they have no one else to whom they must answer for the use of their time, except perhaps a considerably weakened, or at least mellowed, husband.^[4]

Care and Comfort in Old Age

The expression seva (literally service, but without its negative and demeaning English connotations) is regularly employed in talking about the perquisites of

old age. Seva is a multivalent concept, one aspect of which is the personal care directed toward the body and its comfort, which old people expect from juniors. Describing the ways in which their adult children render seva, the old typically mention such things as meals served to them daily at regular times; clothes laundered, mended, and replaced with new ones when necessary; and bedding laid out for them each night. Men often cite sons filling their water-pipe (hukka) with tobacco whenever they wish to smoke, and women tell how their legs are massaged each night, their backs scrubbed during the morning bath, and their hair combed and braided by their daughters-in-law.

Certain kinds of deference behavior are also included under the rubric of seva. Old people expect food to be offered and graciously served before it is given to other family members. They expect the young to display "fear" (dar^[*]) and to "respect" them (izzat karna) by, for example, standing and refraining from unnecessary speech in their presence. Particularly important is that the young not talk back to their elders (javab dena) by contradicting or arguing with them. They wish the young to heed (sunna) and obey (manna) their words and to consult them (puchna) when making any important decision or taking action that might affect the whole family or any individual member. All these behaviors manifest seva, and in their absence an old person will perceive that he or she is not being well-served, even if basic material needs are being met.

The extent to which an older person is able to experience the desired state of comfort, ease, and contentment—aram—in this time of life is said to be directly linked to the kind of seva provided by his children and to the spirit in which they provide it. Aram, like seva, has both a bodily (saririk) and a mental (mansik) component. Ifs person's children give shelter, food, and clothing but deny peace of mind (santi), the person cannot fully experience aram. Instead, that person will be distressed and anxious (paresan) and experience sadness (udas) and pain (dukh), even though physically lacking nothing. Thus, an atmosphere of harmony within the household and a regular display of respect, deference, and loving concern for the older person is crucial to attaining the fortunate state of one who is carefree (befikr), without any worry (cinta) about one's own well-being or that of others.

Rhetorically, happiness and contentment in old age are typically conveyed by reciting the various kinds of seav received from younger family members. For example, an elderly man had the following to say when asked about his home situation:

Up to now only my eldest son has married. His wife serves me very well. She feeds me before anyone else in the family. She says, "If Father has eaten, then all have eaten. If he has not, then none have eaten." The second thing is, if my clothes become soiled, she asks my sons to get them from me and sends clean, laundered clothes for me to put on. So how can I complain? And my sons are very good. When they come home from work, they never talk hack to me [javab kabhi nahim^[*] dete].

A woman in her fifties, also living with a married son in a joint household, spoke in similar terms about her daughter-in-law:

I have a very hard-working and serving [seva karnevali] daughter-in-law. She gives me my meals, washes my clothes, prepares my bed at night. In all things she serves me well.

On the other hand, older people unhappy with their lot tend to express discontent about continued gainful employment (or, in the case of women, cooking and heavy housework), responsibility for the support of adult children, and worry concerning family financial or other affairs. Although it is not always made verbally explicit, such complaints often reflect a perception that sons and/or daughters-in-law neglect their duty to provide seva in all its aspects. Most Indian elderly are understandably reluctant to reveal to outsiders overt dissatisfaction with their children's performance in this respect, unless the level of neglect is so extreme as to be public knowledge. For these old people to admit openly, or even to themselves, to being ill-served by their own children would be severely damaging to their self-esteem, inasmuch as in this society the individual's identity is hardly perceived as separate from the family's. It is, however, quite acceptable to ponder upon, and discuss at length, the failure of other people's children to serve their parents properly; such is a popular conversational topic within the usually sex-segregated peer groups of older people.

The Importance of Detachment

The more perceptive older person recognizes that the other side of the coin of seva is a willingness to withdraw gracefully from interference in the daily running of the household and to restrain the impulse to continue exerting close control in all matters over the younger generation. This may be a purely strategic realization that the young will not willingly remain attentive and caring to a parent insistent upon critically supervising everyone's activities. But often it is stated as a matter of principle, or policy, whose beneficial consequences for the spiritual advancement of the elderly person outweigh those of purely administrative wisdom:

In my opinion, in old age, when the children become capable, then an old man should hand over all the work to them and not interfere in what they do. He should let them do as they please .... [In my house], even if they do something that causes the loss of 10,000 rupees, and it could be avoided by my stepping in, I won't do so.

The key is not only to refrain from interfering but also to cultivate a frame of mind in which the desire to interfere has been overcome; one should no longer even care about the possibility that inexperienced young leadership may lead

to family problems. As a fifty-five-year old Rajput woman explained, she has been striving to follow her guru's advice and to develop the attitude of detachment considered most helpful in dealing with this transitional period in her family life:

He tells us to try for the salvation of the soul, and to detach ourselves from things and from people, from the idea that this is mine, that is yours.

With reference to the same issue, an elderly Chamar volunteered his opinion about why many people do not succeed in achieving a good old age:

Some old people are too much involved with their family members. Even up to the time of their death they are not able to detach themselves from the family. They keep suffering from worry over the difficulties all of them are having. Therefore they remain continually troubled.

In this community old and young alike were heard to employ the Sanskrit labels—or their Hindi vernacular equivalents—for the classical four stages of life as they talked about either the life course or the aging process and adaptation to old age. Old men are particularly prone to characterize themselves as Renouncers (sannyasi), though the context usually makes clear their reference to a state of mind rather than to their actual or intended physical departure from home:

After turning everything over to my son, I said to myself, "Let me leave everything and take sannyasa." Yes, even while continuing to live at home, I am as if in the Renouncer stage of life.

Although taking sannyasa, in this sense of the term, is not considered incompatible with enjoying the comforts of home, a life of ease, and the services of one's offspring, it does imply following an ascetic regimen in which sexual celibacy plays a central role. If the individual still has a living spouse, the decision to become celibate should be made deliberately. As one Brahman woman related:

When my eldest son was married, he [i.e., her husband] came to me and said, "From now on we will live together as brother and sister."

And an elderly man, probably about seventy years of age, spoke in similar, somewhat veiled terms about his deliberate cessation of sexual relations with his wife:

For the past six years I have been following a celibate routine, because three years ago Harishcandra's mother [i.e., his late wife] died, and three years before that I had left the world completely.

Interestingly, in this case the term he used for celibate was brahmacari^[*], the classical label for the first stage of a man's life, that of the celibate student.

An older person should ideally refrain from not only sex but also the

appearance of interest in sexuality. Beyond keeping dean and neatly groomed, an older woman should not display undue concern about her physical appearance. She should be happy to wear hand-me-down (or hand-me-up) sails given "in love" by a daughter-in-law. An old man, in turn, should be content to dress in simple cotton clothing of traditional cut; he risks certain ridicule if he assumes the fashionable styles—for example, the polyester bush-shirt and trousers—popular among younger men. These standards of dress for the old are, of course, directly related to the idea that sexual expression should be curtailed in old age. Wearing costly, stylish, or attractive clothing, or adorning the body in other ways, is considered a sign of sexual interest or provocation inappropriate in the elderly man or woman.

The old also risk criticism or ridicule if they display undue concern over the amount, quality, or tastiness of the food offered to them because this suggests lingering attachment to another sensual enjoyment. A stereotypic way for an older person to describe his or her consumption needs is to say, As long as I get two pieces of bread a day, what more do I need? Those who consume large quantities of food or hanker for sweets or spicy snacks are felt not to be acting their age; they may become the objects of derogatory comments from family members and neighbors.

Preparing for Old Age

Cultural conceptions about both ideal intergenerational relationships and the kinds of behaviors appropriate for the elderly strongly condition the Indian's aspirations for the later years and the preparations made to attain them. They provide, as well, a model against which to evaluate his or her own situation when old age arrives. Because the fundamental requirement for a good old age is a son, or sons, able and willing to shoulder the duty of serving parents, it is, thus, crucial to bear and raise male offspring to adulthood. Failing that, a surrogate may possibly be arranged: if one has a daughter, an in-marrying son-in-law (ghar jamai) may be acquired; otherwise, a young male relative may be adopted, or one can attach oneself to the household of a more fortunate sibling or sibling-in-law.

However, even the individual with one or more living sons cannot be certain of spending his later years in comfort. Sometimes sons do not turn out well (thik na nikalna), either proving incapable of providing for their parents or failing to do so. How sons will turn out seems essentially beyond one's control; that some turn out well and others good for nothing (nalaik) cannot easily be predicted. Yet the quality of treatment one receives in old age hinges almost entirely upon this:

If one's offspring are not good, then it doesn't matter how rich one is: old age will be miserable.

Or, in the words of another elderly man:

The biggest problem in old age is when one's offspring turn out good for nothing. If they are not good, then one will have all kinds of problems.

Good-for-nothing sons do not earn, or, if they earn, they refuse to contribute to keeping the joint household. They press for partition shortly after their marriage and move out with their wives and children as soon as the financial advantanges of an independent household become evident. In the worst case, they drive out (bhaga dena, nikal dena) their parents from their own home, leaving them without shelter and material support.

If one has a child who is "capable of earning" [kamane laik], the "bastard" [susura—literally father-in-law] separates [from the joint household]! So tell me, "What is easy in old age?"

Those no-good sons who leave the joint household give up any claim to their father's or other family members' support. Worse than these, perhaps, are sons who make no effort to find work and remain at home, continuing to financially burden their aging parents. A neighbor explained the situation of an aging Barber woman, whom she had called in to dress her hair:

That woman has four sons; they've all turned out good for nothing. One is "crazy" [bavala]. One is sick all the time. The others don't work—they just hang around. She says. "I have four sons, but you might as well say that I have none."

Even if a son is good, the daughter-in-law is an unknown quantity. Ironically, the parents have selected her for their son, but in the selection process there are no means to ensure that she is not the sort of woman who will take the earliest opportunity to turn him against them. One must bring a strange woman into the house, and, then, simply wait and see what happens. If she is "that sort of woman," she will instruct him (sikhana) in the fine points of parental neglect and mistreatment. Because the main burden of the actual work involved in seva falls upon her, a lazy, thoughtless, selfish, or malicious daughter-in-law can easily undermine the best intentions of the most sincerely devoted and filial son. This is an especial danger when the son is weak and unable to control his wife or so blinded by infatuation and sexual desire that he does not perceive the reality of what is happening.

Dharmvir's maternal grandmother, poor woman, gone to dust now—her daughter-in-law [actually her daughter's son's wife] was very "tricky" [calak]. The old woman took care of the boy, raised him [from infancy]. His father's family had nothing. She carried him around everywhere. Then he gets married and turns against her .... If your mother and father feed you, send you to school, do everything for you—up to the time of marriage you say they are good, and then as soon as you marry they become bad? How can that be?

One does not often hear "good for nothing" applied to daughters. Concern about how daughters turn out (nikalna) centers upon neither their earning potential nor their filial devotion but rather upon their sexual purity. In most cases, this can be preserved effectively by strict restraints on their freedom of movement and by close supervision of their associations and activities. Once given in marriage, a daughter's chastity becomes the responsibility of her husband and in-laws. Although any subsequent misadventures may cause considerable personal pain and distress and some loss of honor (izzat), they do not normally impinge directly upon the older people's domestic security or well-being. The situation may be different, of course, when a couple has only daughters:

Baijit's widow was rich, but she had no sons. Her daughters and grandchildren took all her wealth away from her. On one occasion they took ten thousand [rupees] from her, right out of the bank. It drove her crazy. Partly she went crazy on her own; partly they drove her crazy. She brought her daughter's [married] daughter here to do seva, but they didn't even feed her properly. They really mistreated that poor woman.

In such an instance the son-in-law's character plays a role as well. Daughters are generally thought more reliable than sons—and certainly more so than daughters-in-law—if called upon to provide loving care for their parents. But the situation is complicated because reliance upon a daughter married out of the family (the normal arrangement) is considered shameful and demeaning. Unlike a son, the out-married daughter has no reciprocal obligations to her own parents; her duty is to serve her parents-in-law. For her parents to ask assistance from her means, in effect, relying upon the resources and good will of the family to which they gave her in marriage. On the other hand, when a son-in-law has been brought into one's own family, for the express purpose of providing seva, it is quite acceptable to rely upon him and upon one's daughter for one's material and other needs. But an in-marrying son-in-law comes, almost by definition, with a motive of material gain and with the risk that he may take advantage of the situation.

The risk is also great in the case of an adopted son, unless he has been raised since infancy as one's own. In this community, however, most adoptions take place rather late in the life of the adopter, when he or she is finally reconciled to childlessness or when an only surviving adult son suffers an untimely death. Most adoptees, too, are young men or adolescent boys. To forestall the inheritance claims of collaterals, adopting parents often make over legal title of some or all of their property to the adoptee, against the latter's promise to live with and serve them until they die.

Of course, sometimes it happens that they don't serve their adoptive parents after that. But after all, some real sons don't turn out well either.

Although the above speaker rather casually dismissed the risks of such adoptions, in fact in this community "true" stories of adoptees failing blatantly to fulfill their contract for life-long service to the uncle or aunt who had adopted them were enough to give considerable pause to anyone contemplating such a step.

Intergenerational Relations and the Role of Property

To be alone in old age, "to have no one," is felt to be the worst of all possible fates. It is, of course, a fate more likely to befall a poor than a well-to-do individual because those with financial resources are in the best position to make alternative arrangements. The rich are anyway more likely to be de-mographically favored with surviving offspring. A number of recent studies of living arrangements of elderly people in India show that only a very small proportion of the old live alone in an independent household. Furthermore, of those who do live independently, most reside close to adult children or other kin and/or receive financial assistance from them.^[5] Yet, despite the overwhelming majority of Indian older people living in family settings, many sociologists investigating the subject have noted the prevalence of subjective feelings of dissatisfaction, unhappiness, and even despair among their elderly respondents.^[6] It is not always clear, of course, to what extent the feelings reported are associated specifically with problems of aging or with the situation of being elderly or to what extent they reflect more general problems of poverty and ill health not necessarily age-related. One sociologist who studied a sample of retired government workers in a North Indian city in the late 1960s reports approximately 44 percent "distressed about their present life" and 34 percent "lonely," although 93 percent of the entire sample lived either with a spouse, children, other relatives or some combination of these. Almost 50 percent of the sample "showed some symptoms of anxiety," and 99 percent of these gave as the primary reason that "their life is a burden upon others" (Soodan 1975: 148-150). I cite this study, not because I consider surveys of this kind a satisfactory methodology for uncovering evidence of emotional distress or for explicating its causes, but simply to illustrate the point that even such superficial inquiries suggest that the experience of an old person in an Indian joint family may be more problematic than usually assumed. Doubtless researchers in the past have given little attention to this issue because most analyses of the dynamics of extended family living in India take—unwittingly or not—the perspective of the younger generation.

Goldstein and his colleagues (1983) have recently examined the quality of intergenerational relations in the families of older people in Nepal, a society culturally very similar to India and sharing similar conceptions of family and intergenerational reciprocity and interdependence. Their investigations show widespread feelings of insecurity and unhappiness among their elderly

informants, who speak cynically of the so-called "money-is-love" syndrome that prevails, they claim, in the contemporary world. According to Goldstein's informants, only those elderly who have their own financial resources either to contribute to running their joint household or to use as leverage (by promising a future inheritance) can expect good treatment in old age. This syndrome is, according to Goldstein, a recent development in urban Nepal, arising out of deteriorating economic conditions, widespread unemployment, low wages, and rapid inflation. Such conditions make it impossible for young adults to earn enough for adequate housing and nourishment, to meet elevated aspirations for acquiring consumer goods, to provide for their children's education and occupational advancement, and to support at the same time aged, noncontributing parents. The result is tense intergenerational relations, as well as material and emotional insecurity for many older people, even for those living with adult, gainfully employed sons.

Although Goldstein's argument is convincing, and although rapid industrialization, urbanization, and overall economic transformation in South Asia have doubtless exacerbated the potential for intergenerational discord, I suggest that the seeds of such discord were deeply rooted in the cultural system itself; the kinds of anxiety expressed by my elderly Indian interviewees in Delhi were probably present among the aged in India even before the recent social and economic developments to which those researchers draw our attention.

Like Goldstein's interviewees, my informants also stressed repeatedly the importance of property for ensuring a comfortable old age—not only because it is always better to be well-off than to be poor but because control of economic resources enables the older person to command good treatment from those upon whom he or she is physically dependent. The expression dhan ka seva, service of wealth—reminiscent of the Nepali notion, "money is love"— was often used in this connection:

Nowadays people do dhan ka seva. They want money, property. If there is nothing in it for them, they don't dedicate themselves to anyone. As for their old age, well, wait and see!

A woman whose only son is deceased made that remark, while discussing the possibility off adopting a young relative to care for her and her husband in old age. An elderly former landlord living with his two married sons and their wives similarly volunteered an assessment of the importance of wealth:

It seems to me that if someone has something in the knot of his loincloth, then everyone will be prepared to do seva, out of greed for that knot. That is my opinion: if a man has money, he won't have any problems.

A poor manual laborer, not surprisingly, also agreed: "The man who has money is the only one who is served. Everyone will be ready to serve him."

Property can be used to ensure seva from the younger generation. It can be handed over to one's sons, or to a surrogate son, during one's lifetime, in exchange for a promise that one will be cared for as long as necessary. One may keep it intact and in one's control, in the hope that the anticipated inheritance will induce the young to provide the necessary support and respect as long as one lives. But often a more effective strategy is to contribute to the support of the household during one's lifetime, whether or not one's children are earning. Sometimes to do so is not even a matter of choice; adult children not uncommonly expect a father with means or some source of income to continue paying for the common household expenses—such as rent, utilities, and staple foods—while the children retain most of their earnings for their own personal uses. Such an arrangement is usually quite agreeable to those older people with sufficient resources to afford it. In poor families, however, such expectations may mean that an elderly father or mother must continue strenuous and low-paying employment in order to meet the day-to-day expenses of an unemployed son with wife and children. An elderly Brahman tailor explained:

It is somewhat painful when sons grow up and, in addition to providing their food, the old man has to take care of their pocket expenses .... My son is a lawyer, but I don't know what his financial situation is. To this day, he has never given me one penny. He lives with us. I cover his expenses myself. He is married, has children. All their expenses are my responsibility. Don't ask [how I manage]—I am just living out my days.

Cautionary Tales

As I have mentioned earlier, my informants repeatedly stressed the importance of keeping one's health, being able to get around unaided, caring for one's own personal needs, and performing some useful tasks for others, if one hopes for good treatment in old age. I have quoted statements to this effect from men and women anticipating the possible consequences of their own future debility. Conversations about this matter very often called forth highly elaborated and intensely emotional descriptions of persons in advanced old age who, toward the end of their lives, had been observed to suffer miserably due to physical or mental incapacity. These tales, certain of which I heard several times from different individuals, precisely shape what in other contexts is expressed as a more formless fear of their own possible future.

The central figures in these stories tend to be fellow villagers, either recently deceased or currently living in extreme physical debilitation and distress. One, for example, is the senile woman in her eighties, mentioned above, whose grandaughter, in collusion with her husband, reportedly robbed her of her wealth and then was unwilling or unable to keep her any longer (in her own house) and to provide the care and supervision required by her condition. Another is a childless man who had adopted a nephew "to serve him in old

age" but was ill-used by the young man; the elderly man subsequently died of a painful and debilitating illness, during which he received minimal nursing. A male fellow-villager provided the following description of the last days of still another elderly man; of those that I heard in this context, the typical theme describes neglectful and uncaring young relatives, who only reluctantly provide the bare minimum of the invalid's necessities and impatiently await the invalid's demise:

He was quite miserable in his old age. He just lay there outside the house on a dilapidated cot, all day long. No one paid any attention to him. Even to get a drink of water, he would have to call out with difficulty to his son to bring it. Actually, most of the time everyone said that if he died it would be best, it would be over.

When I began to examine more carefully the cases most often used to illustrate the dangers of incapacitation and physical dependency in old age, it became clear that, with only one exception, they involved men or women without living sons. These individuals depended upon an adopted child, an in-married son-in-law, or a nephew to whose household the old person had attached himself earlier in life. Empirically, it is not improbable that surrogate sons (and/or their wives) may be more likely than birth sons to neglect or mistreat an old person under their care. It may well be, however, that surrogate caregivers in these tales are receiving older people's projected fears that would be too threatening if expressed in the form of stories about blatantly unfilial real (sage) sons.

The Role of Karma

These tales also communicate a dual message in terms of causal explanations for the elderly invalids' extreme misery. On the one hand, the old people in these tales arc described as victims of their caregivers—unworthy, self-seeking, lazy, or malicious younger people. On the other hand, their victimization is also explained as a consequence of karma: the storytellers blame the victims for having brought misery upon themselves through bad deeds committed in the past. It is significant, however, that these references to karma almost always point to events within the present lifetime of the individual, not to acts committed in previous lives:

According to the deeds a man does, so is his death. If he does good deeds, he dies easily, and doesn't have to suffer much pain. He who does bad deeds, who commits sins, gives pain to others, God gives the fruits of that right here. And he has to suffer them right here and just remains lying and lying [in bed]. When the fruits of his bad karma are finished, then he dies.

A Brahman woman who had died in great pain several years previously after a prolonged bout with cancer, was described as

a woman "of bad character" [in ki adat kharab thi]. She died a horrible death because of her bad karma in this life. She used to take things from the house and sell them in order to cat delicacies. She pawned the jewelry of her daughter-in-law [the wife of her nephew, adopted as a young man]. When she was close to the time of death, her daughter-in-law told the old man [her father-in-law] about it, lest she herself be accused of having taken the jewelry back to her natal home.

Note here the theme of sensual indulgence, in which the old woman commits theft in order to purchase special foods for her own consumption.

In a story with a somewhat different twist, an elderly man, who died after a lengthy illness while I was in the community, was reported to have suffered at the hands of a spendthrift, alcoholic nephew. Allegedly, however, he had earned the maltreatment because he had been an extremely antisocial and stingy person before his illness. Here, as in other instances, the workings of karma were conceptualized as a short-term causal process:

I have seen five or six men in such a state that no enemy would wish it upon them. They died in such a condition that their bodies were infested with maggots. One of these was Bullan, the priest in Gangapur. It was all the fruit of his bad karma that he had to suffer. They say that you will suffer later, but that is not so. As you do, so you receive the fruits right here. According to that are the circumstances of your death determined. He who does bad karma, his soul [atma] will experience great pain, and he who does good works, his soul will leave the body without difficulty.

The use of this version of the karma theory to explain why certain individuals suffer physical and emotional distress toward the end of life, while others die in comfort, also distances its proponents from anxieties about their own future. Those confident that their own record is reasonably clear can gain some reassurance from the knowledge that only those who have accumulated a great deal of bad karma will experience the most severe suffering in old age.

The Home as the Locus of Illness and Death

In assessing the nature and significance of the emotions aroused in these Indian old people by anticipating possible incapacitation in later life, it is important to appreciate other physical and social features of their lives, which distinguish their experiences of aging quite sharply from those of middle-class, or even working-class, Americans. Old people in India do most of their physical suffering, and ultimately their dying, at home, rather than in the hospital or nursing home out of the sight of family, friends, and neighbors. Although hospitals exist, they are used mainly in cases of acute illness, and even then very little by the elderly, who find them unpleasant, threatening, depersonalizing, and alienating. Old people fear more than anything else that once admitted to a hospital, they may die there alone, away from family and

loved ones. The care of the chronic invalid in India is unquestionably a family responsibility, and anyone bedridden for an extended period is bedridden in his own home. Consequently those older people who talked to me about their fears for the future had observed many times, at first hand, the suffering that an elderly invalid might have to endure. Most had themselves also participated in taking care of an aging parent, parent-in-law, or grandparent. Although in the retelling, these experiences of being a caretaker of the elderly typically illustrate the way seva in its ideal form should be practiced, it is likely that certain partially suppressed memories of their own irritation, exhaustion, resentment, and impatience fuel anxiety about how their children will react in a similar situation.

Attitudes toward Death

Another point to consider is the Indian attitude toward death. Whereas in American society great effort is expended to prolong life, even if the quality of that life is questionable, the Indian older person is taught to prepare positively for death and to prefer an early death to a long life of pain and suffering. When Indian old people think and speak about aging, they stress not only the requisites of a good life in the later years but also the requisites of a good death. The older individual recognizes the importance of emotional and spiritual readiness to die. Unlike the situation in American society, death is openly discussed among family members and between friends. An open and positive acceptance of both the inevitability of death and the need to prepare properly for it does not mean that attempts to hasten one's own death by direct means are culturally approved. To pray for death, however, is an appropriate activity, even for those in good health and comfortable circumstances. Instead of avoiding the subject of death in their conversation, as Americans tend to do, my Indian informants spoke of it often.

They typically referred to the speaker's willingness to embrace death at any time, now that his or her major tasks in life had been completed. Although I often heard old people admit to fears of suffering toward the end of life, I rarely heard one admit to a fear of death. This does not, of course, mean that such fears are absent. But it is true that such fears are considered inappropriate in the old; as a consequence, they are probably infrequently expressed. Furthermore, to strive to overcome such fears is an important task of later life, one in which most thoughtful people at this stage are actively engaged. A woman in her late fifties, of a well-to-do former landlord family, brought this home to me most graphically in a detailed description of the burning of a dose relative's corpse, which she had forced herself to watch for several hours (from a hiding place because women in this community do not join the mourners at the cremation site), in order to try to come to terms with the prospect of her own death and the fiery destruction of her physical body.

Conclusion

Given my observations about the cultural context of growing old in India, the pleasures of this period of life, and the fear and anxiety that may cloud it, the differences between the Indian old person's situation and that of the American are quite striking. The American fear of dependency in old age is rooted in a deeply inculcated need for self-reliance and self-sufficiency, not only to retain the respect of others but, most important, to retain respect for oneself. The American old person rarely shares a household with a married child unless and until he or she has reached the point at which managing alone is no longer possible because of financial or physical incapacity. Americans typically find it discomforting to know that someone else is taking care of their needs, whether or not they are physically able to do so themselves. For this reason they hold out as long as possible before acknowledging that help is required.

Americans are likely to feel that placing demands upon their adult children for financial or other support is wrong. Needy parents feel that even an adult child's time is a precious commodity not to be infringed upon. In American culture the parent-child relationship ideally ought not contain any explicit calculation of reciprocity based on the parents' past efforts and expenditures on the child's behalf. If necessary, a parent should be prepared to give love and material assistance to a child throughout his life without expecting recompense. Therefore, if in later life parents do require aid from an adult child, it is difficult for them, as the recipients of what they perceive to be a one-way—and wrong-way—flow of exchange, to retain self-respect. These feelings are, of course, aggravated in old-old age (see Neugarten 1974), when physical and/or mental incapacitation may make impossible the elderly person's contributing anything at all—even nonmaterially—to either the caregiving child or the child's household and when the elderly's presence is perceived as an impossible drain upon the child's resources and energies. Then, the sense of being a useless burden, not simply being treated as one, intensifies.

Indian elderly are in a different situation. In terms of their understandings—which they share with other members of their culture, including, of course, their adult children—they have legitimate and hard-earned rights to support and care in old age. To accept such aid from adult sons and their wives is a pleasure and a source of pride. It certainly does not threaten their self-esteem, even if they must rely completely upon offspring for all physcial needs because they are secure in the knowledge that they have brought up these offspring and the time has come to reap the benefiits of those sacrifices. In the long-term reciprocity of intergenerational relations in India, at issue is whether the adult children will indeed live up to their part of the exchange. If they do not—and there is reason to believe that when the old person begins

to represent a severe burden upon the finances, labor, and emotional resources of the household, they may not—the Indian old person is distressed, unhappy, in physical and mental pain. But he or she is so because of feeling unfairly and cruelly dealt with by those who by all rights should continue to respect and love him or her, even in misery. The elderly's own sense of self-respect is not under threat or attack. Rather, this is an anxiety born of realistic, experientially based concerns, that others may not come through with what is legitimately expected of them and that they may leave him, a helpless aged person, without succor in extreme need. Although the old person knows that these others will eventually reap the fruits of their neglect through the workings of karma, the immediate pain and suffering must still be endured.

I have tried here to evoke through the words of my elderly Indian informants some notion of the kinds of emotions they experience when anticipating their further aging and the prospect of physical decline and incapacitation. The foregoing has been based almost entirely upon discussions with older people about aging and family relations, upon my observations, and upon the content of spontaneous conversations, among both the elderly and people of all ages, in which issues related to aging were discussed. What these individuals expressed verbally about their feelings concerning this time of life shows evidence of being highly culturally patterned; much of it is highly generalized as well, in that people spoke of the situation of "the elderly," or about "old age," without always directly describing their own inner states, as Americans do. Yet in what they chose to say, whether in the form of anecdotes and stories about others or in general pronouncements about the difficulties of enforcing intergenerational reciprocity when hands and feet no longer work, they revealed much about some key emotions evidently prevalent among aging men and women in this society, namely anxiety and fear about the future, and in particular about the possible consequences of becoming physically unable to function.

Although, as I have shown, American old people express what appear superficially to be similar fears of becoming helpless and dependent, a closer examination of the way these two very different cultures conceive of the aging process and handle intergenerational relationships and interdependencies demonstrates that not only the sources of these emotions but also the constitution of the emotions themselves are distinct.

References Cited

Amoss, Pamela, and Stevan Harrell, eds.

1981 Other Ways of Growing Old. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Brown, Judith K., and Virginia Kerns, eds.

1985 In Her Prime. South Hadley, Mass.: Bergin and Garvey.

Clark, Margaret

1972 Cultural Values and Dependency in Later Life. In Aging and Modernization. Donald O. Cowgill and Lowell D. Holmes, eds. Pp. 263-274. New York: Appleton Century Crofts.

Clark, Margaret, and Barbara Anderson

1967 Culture and Aging. Springfield, Ill.: Thomas.

Davis-Friedmann, Deborah

1983 Long Lives. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Foner, Nancy

1984 Ages in Conflict. New York: Columbia University Press.

Fry, Christine, ed.

1980 Aging in Culture and Society. New York: Praeger.

Goldstein, Melvyn, Sydney Schuler, and James Ross

1983 Social and Economic Forces Affecting Intergenerational Relations in Extended Families in a Third-World Country: A Cautionary Tale from South Asia. Journal of Gerontology 38:716-724.

Harlan, William H.

1964 Social Status of the Aged in Three Indian Villages. Vita Humana 7:239-252.

Kakar, Sudhir

1978 Images of the Life Cycle and Adulthood in Hindu India. In The Child and His Family: Children and Their Parents in a Changing World, Vol. 5. E. James Anthony and Colette Chiland, eds. Pp. 319-332. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

1979 Setting the Stage: The Traditional Hindu View and the Psychology of Erik H. Erikson. In Identity and Adulthood. Sudhir Kakar, ed. Pp. 3-12. Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Kalish, Robert A.

1967 Of Children and Grandfathers: A Speculative Essay on Dependency. The Gerontologist 7:65-69.

Kane, Pandurang Vaman

1968-75 History of Dharmasastra (Ancient and Medieval Religious and Civil Law in India). 5 vols. 2nd ed. Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute.

Manu

1886 The Laws of Manu. Translated with Extracts from Seven Commentaries by G. Buhler. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Marulasiddaiah, H. M.

1969 Old People of Makunti. Dharwar: Karnatak University.

Mines, Mattison

1981 Indian Transitions: A Comparative Analysis of Adult Stages of Development. Ethos 9:95-121.

1988 Conceptualizing the Person: Hierarchical Society and Individual Autonomy in India. American Anthropologist 90:568-579.

Myerhoff, Barbara, and Andre Simic, eds.

1978 Life's Career—Aging. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage.

Neugarten, Berenice

1974 Age Groups in American Society and the Rise of the Young-Old. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 415:187-199.

Pandey, Raj Bali

1969 Hindu Samskaras: Socio-Religious Study of the Hindu Sacraments. 2nd ed. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.

Platts, John T.

1960[1884] A Dictionary of Urdu, Classical Hindi, and English. London: Oxford University Press.

Raj, B., and B.G. Prasad

1971 A Study of Rural Aged Persons in Social Profile. Indian Journal of Social Work 32:155-162.

Simmons, Leo W.

1945 The Role of the Aged in Primitive Society. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Sokolovsky, Jay, ed.

1983 Growing Old in Different Societies. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth.

Soodan, K. S.

1975 Aging in India. Calcutta: Minerva.

Vatuk, Sylvia

1975 The Aging Woman in India: Self-Perceptions and Changing Roles. In Women in Contemporary India. Alfred DeSouza, ed. Pp. 142-163. New Delhi: Manohar.

1980 Withdrawal and Disengagement as a Cultural Response to Aging in India. In Aging in Culture and Society. Christine Fry, ed. Pp. 126-148. New York: Praeger.

1982a Old Age in India. In Old Age in Preindustrial Society. Peter N. Stearns, ed. Pp. 70-103. New York: Holmes and Meier.

1982b The Family Life of Older People in a Changing Society: India. In Aging and the Aged in the Third World: Part II, Regional and Ethnographic Perspectives. Jay Sokolovsky and Joan Sokolovsky, eds, Pp. 57-82. Studies in Third World Societies, No. 23. Williamsburg, Va.: Department of Anthropology, College of William and Mary.

1985 South Asian Cultural Conceptions of Sexuality. In In Her Prime. Judith K. Brown and Virginia Kerns, eds. Pp. 137-154. South Hadley, Mass.: Bergin and Garvey.

1987 Authority, Power and Autonomy in the Life Cycle of North Indian Woman. In Dimensions of Social Life: Essays in Honor of David G. Mandelbaum. Paul Hockings, ed. Pp. 23-44. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.