The narrower focus of rural society provided few opportunities for choice, and custom over the years set a pattern that was accepted as a matter of course. Social standing depended to a large extent on how well an individual performed within the established pattern, and the gradations were very slight. The wider focus of urban society, on the other hand, offered far greater opportunity for choice and freedom of action. This made for greater differentiation between individuals than was possible in the village. The greater freedom and the opportunity for economic and social advancement offered by the urban society were most noticeable in the social contrast between the urban worker and his peasant relatives. Although most workers had a very low standard of living, they considered themselves emancipated from the restrictions of rural society and, therefore, better off. When they returned to the village to visit relatives, they were looked up to as persons who had enlarged their horizons and bettered their lot in life. The social contrast between the educated urban intelligentsia--white-collar workers and professionals with a secondary or a higher education--and the peasant was even greater. Some members of the intelligentsia maintained a romanticized attachment to their village origins, but most of them tried to build up their own status by disparaging the rural population. Even the village schoolteacher and rural physician were seen as unsophisticated country bumpkins, although they had the same education as their city counterparts. The urban intelligentsia saw itself and was seen by others as the top group in society, just below the royal family, which occupied the apex of the social pyramid. The top level of the intelligentsia, that is, the leaders in the political, economic, and cultural spheres, became a small entourage surrounding the king and thereby gained additional prestige and power. The economic position of most of the intelligentsia, however, was very precarious because there was an oversupply of graduates for whom government employment was virtually the only outlet. Those who had an official position held on to it against all odds. Others, who could not find employment appropriate to their presumed qualifications, sat around cafés waiting for openings rather than returning to their home villages to put their education to use there. The peasant, for his part, was distrustful of the city and of city ways. He did not feel inferior--even to the intelligentsia whose education he greatly admired. The peasant took pride in his land, in his self-sufficiency, and in his adherence to custom and tradition. He was conscious of belonging to the large mass of peasantry that shared his point of view, his way of life, and his strong sense of tradition. Differences in wealth and economic independence were recognized among peasant families but did not affect their relationships, which were basically egalitarian.