[PDF] Some Theoretical Considerations on Caste

View - Download Some Theoretical Considerations on Caste

Previous PDF

Next PDF

Dhaulagiri Journal of Sociology and Anthropology Vol. 7, 2013 |51 52 | Madhusudan Subedi

Some Theoretical Considerations on Caste

Madhusudan Subedi

Abstract

Caste as a system of social stratification was an encompassing system in the past. There was reciprocal system of exchange goods and services. With time, occupation and mode of generation of livelihood of various caste groups changed, and the traditional form of jajmani system fizzled out. This paper provides an account of changing perspectives of caste relations in social science writing and political discourse. The discourse of caste has been shifted from ritual hierarchy and social discrimination to an instrument to mobilize people for economic and political gain.

Keywords

: Affirmative action, identity politics, ritual hierarchy

1. Introduction

The theme in this article is social stratification and social inequality. This is not a new issue in sociology, but this article will focus on caste, its context and position in people's day-to-day life, relations among them, and the changes taking place in those relations. I believe that stratification and inequality is the most important issue in sociology, and the conditions of castes have been crucial when discussing Nepal's social structure. My impression is that there has been a major change from treating caste as a rigid stratum to the

current perception of caste as 'identity to negotiate power and resources'. In this article, I mainly focus on some key theoretical

debates on caste and its changing context. Caste has been discussed in classical Hindu texts, in micro level ethnograph ic accounts, and in large-scale surveys of attitudes and perceptions, and caste-based mobilizations. What is caste and how can it be defined? What are its core descriptive dimensions? How could it survive for so long and what keeps it going even in modern, contemporary times (Jodhka 2012)? Although these questions appear to be rather simple and obvious, the rich literature dealing with these issues do not offer any straightforward answers. Social stratification is the ordering of social differences based on a set of criteria or just one single criterion (Gupta 2000). Caste, class, race, ethnicity, and gender are some of the pertinent categories of social hierarchy and differentiation in many societies. The term 'caste' means different things when used by different people in a variety of situations. What people mean by caste in everyday life is different from its meaning in the traditional literature or from what people consider to be its traditional and orthodox meaning (Béteille

1965, p. 45). Sometimes peo

ple mean 'caste' to be a small and more or less localized group, but the same word also can refer to a collection of such groups. This article starts with sociological and anthropological understandings of the caste system and its variations.

2. Issues in the Theoretical Discussion of Caste Systems

Caste may be defined "as a small and named group of persons characterized by endogamy, hereditary membership, and a specific style of life which sometimes includes the pursuit by tradition of a particular occupation and usually associated with a more or less distinct ritual status in a hierarchical system" (Béteille 1965, p. 46). Berreman (1967, p. 70) has defined the caste system as a "system of birth-ascribed stratification, of socio-cultural pluralism, and of hierarchical interaction". With Sinha's words (1967, p. 94), "caste is a hierarchy of endogamous groups, organized in a characteristic hereditary division of labour". Hutton (1946) describes a functional

Dhaulagiri Journal of Sociology and Anthropology Vol. 7, 2013 |53 54 | Madhusudan Subedi

view of caste system for individual members, community functions, and function for the state and society as a whole. Ghurye (1950) gives a comprehensive definition of caste. According to him, the six main features of the caste system are: segmental division of society, hierarchy of groups, restriction of feeding and social intercourse, allied and religious disabilities and privileges of the different sections, lack of unrestricted choice of occupation, and restriction on marriage. Endogamy is the stable feature of a caste system. However, in recent years, inter-caste and inter-religious marriages have taken place (Sharma 2007). Sociologists and social-anthropologists use the word 'caste' in two different senses. On the one hand it is used without any particular geographical limitation to denote the type of class system in which hierarchy is very sharply defined and in which the boundaries between the different layers of the hierarchy are rigidly fixed (Leach

1967, p. 9). A ruling class may be described as a caste when class

endogamy is strikingly obvious and when the inheritance of privilege has become narrowly restricted to members of that caste in perpetuity. This kind of situation is likely to arise when the ruling group is distinguished from the inferior group or groups by large differences in the standard of living or by other easily recognized labels or conditions (Leach 1967, p. 9). Thus, it is usually easy to locate an individual in his/her stratum, and when this is done, one knows how to deal with him/her even without knowing him/her personally. If X belongs to the first stratum and Y to the second one, X will be considered socially superior to Y, irrespective of their personal qualities, and be treated accordingly. The other use of the word 'caste' is to specifically define the social organization found in traditional regional societies in India and within adjacent Hindu and related populations in Bangladesh, Nepal and Sri Lanka (Leach 1967; Hutton 1969; Dumont 1980; Marriott and Inden 1985;), and which to a large extent have survived to the present day. Clearly there has been a long debate in the literature over

whether the caste system is a unique social phenomenon or simply one manifestation of general processes of social stratification. (Leach

1960; Sinha 1967; Berreman 1968; Appadurai 1986; Gould 1990).

Whether caste is best considered as a cultural or a structural phenomenon is a question much debated by sociologists (Leach 1960, p. 1). Max Weber, for example, stated categorically that "... caste is the fundamental institution of Hinduism" (cited in

Leach 1960, p. 2).

He implies thereby that caste is a specifically cultural concept, but he proceeds with the remarks that "there are also castes among the Mohammedans of India ... Castes are also found among Buddhists" (ibid.). This contradiction leads to an inquiry into the nature of caste, but here Weber's standpoint keeps shifting. Having started by implying that caste is particularly a Pan-Indian phenomenon, he continues with a discussion of caste analogues in non -Indian contexts. Similarly, those 'diffusion' writers who manage to find historical examples of caste behavior all the way from Ancient Egypt to modern Fiji (e.g. Hocart 1950; Hutton 1946), start by assuming that caste can be defined as a list of ethnographic traits characteristic of Hindu India and then slide into the assumption that caste refers to certain features of a social structure (Leach 1960, p. 2). The work of Dumont and Pocock, Marriott and Inden, their students, and the views of Leach have stressed that caste is to be defined in terms of its Hindu attributes and rationale, and therefore, is unique to Hindu India or at least to South Asia (Berreman 1968, p.

333). Bailey, Barth, Béteille, Berreman, Passion, De Vos and

Wagatsuma have stressed that the caste system is to be defined in terms of structural features that are found not only in Hindu India but in a number of other societies as well (Gould 1990, p. 2). The latter group of scholars tend to take the view that cross -cultural comparisons can be effective only on the social structure level and not in terms of cultural patterns and value systems (Sinha 1967, p. 93). Those who hold this view find caste groups in such widely scattered areas as the Arabian Peninsula, Polynesia, North Africa, East Africa, Guatemala, Japan, aboriginal North America and the contemporary United States. The following section highlights these two schools of thought.

Dhaulagiri Journal of Sociology and Anthropology Vol. 7, 2013 |55 56 | Madhusudan Subedi

3. Caste as a Hindu Social Construct

This school of thought understands caste as a Hindu social construct, a total symbolic world, unique, self-contained, and not comparable to other systems. Most of these theorists would agree with the classic definition given by Bouglé, who wrote that the spirit of caste unites these three tendencies: repulsion, hierarchy and hereditary specialization. Here controversies are primarily about which of these aspects is stressed. Those who argue that caste as a unique phenomenon have viewed it within three sub-categories, that I have termed after Louis Dumont's description of the Hindu caste system: Pre-Dumontian,

Dumontian, and Post-Dumontian.

Pre-Dumontian Views of the Hindu Caste

When Max Weber prepared his study of religion and society in India, as a part of his famous treatise on the sociology of religion, all the major Sanskrit scriptures of Hinduism had been made available in high quality translations, through the efforts of orientalists. Weber was well acquainted with these sources, and he was also familiar with the census reports, which he described as "scientifically excellent" (Weber quoted in Lunheim 1993, p. 64). Weber considered the Indian society an "ideal type" of his general notion of belief systems as main determinants of the social and economic structure (in contrast to the Marxist view). In India the link between religious beliefs and social differentiation was direct and explicit, whereas in western society the connection is indirect and obscure. Hence caste appeared, to Weber, as an integral aspect of Hinduism, and he started out by declaring this central notion quite axiomatically: 'before any things else, without caste there is no Hindu" (Weber quoted in Lunheim, 1993, p. 64). Weber then went on to explore the alleged parallel between caste and guild. He concluded

that there was much more to caste than mere occupational specialization. For instance, the guilds of the European Middle Ages

were not closed, endogamous social units like castes. Therefore, an extensive analogy between caste and guild missed the essential features of both phenomena. This served to corroborate the major point Weber wanted to prove. The formative forces underlying caste are not to be found in economic or material conditions, but in ideology, i.e. religion, in the shape of Hinduism. Weber construed caste as a special and extreme case of status groups. Whereas a class was considered as being constituted by individuals in similar economic positions, the cohesive force of a status group was honor and prestige. Identity was created and maintained by imposing restrictions on social intercourse and marriage with those who "do not belong", primarily those being inferior in terms of honor and prestige. In the Indian caste system this mechanism was developed to the extreme with strict caste endogamy and the religious concept of pollution. Caste was thus a more perfect variety of closed status of class. The interplay between class and the Protestant Ethic ideology is a main point in Weber's analysis of industrialization. He explained industrialization by applying John Calvin's religious beliefs that an after-life could be secured by hard work, self-discipline, and thrift. A similar Hindu ideology of rebirth prescribes strict adherence to one's caste duties and prospect of transcendental rewards in subsequent reincarnations. In Weber's synthetic construction of caste and

Hinduism, the

karma doctrine was the key principle of cosmic reality. How was it that the karma theology, which is found in several ideologies other than Hinduism, combined in India with caste to form such a peculiar structure? In his analysis, Weber was rather uncertain, but pleaded in favor of a notion of racial differences in ancient India as the main determinant of the evolution of caste. Weber did not elaborate the comparative perspective explicitly, but the juxtaposition was symbolic for how an understanding of the caste system influenced sociological thought about the distinctive characteristics of western civilization.

Dhaulagiri Journal of Sociology and Anthropology Vol. 7, 2013 |57 58 | Madhusudan Subedi

Célestine Bouglé's essay stands as an important landmark in the intellectual history of caste. In the essay's introduction, Bouglé lists what he considers the three defining principles of "the spirit of caste" (Lunheim 1993, p. 66):

Hereditary specialization:

The hereditary association of caste and a

specific trade or profession. Hierarchy: Personal status, as rights and duties, is unequally divided and determined by the rank of the group to which one belongs. Repulsion: The phenomena of mutual repulsion between social groups, division into opposed fragments, isolation at the group level, and mechanism to prevent alliances and relations across the group boundary, like endogamy, pollution concepts, and food taboos. These three features combined constitute the defining properties of caste. Taking this definition as a starting point, Bouglé discussed if caste ought to be considered an exclusively Indian (Hindu) phenomenon or not (ibid, p. 66). He concluded, like Weber, that many social systems, including the western ones, exhibit caste- like properties, but that "the spirit of caste" in its fully developed sense, is found only on Indian soil (Lunheim 19

93, p. 67). Finally,

Bouglé attributed the hierarchical aspects of castes to the ritual and religious dominance of the Brahmans. Furthermore, he is among the scholars who recognized, or at least emphasized, the crucial distinction between socio-religious rank and secular power in Indian society - thereby initiating a heated discussion in the anthropology of caste. Louis Dumont considered himself to be the first one to have been influenced by Bouglé's essays on caste (Dumont 1980, p. 30).

4. Dumont on Caste

Louis Dumont was a French scholar and the author of the famous book on caste, Homo Hierarchicus, originally published in French in

1966 and translated into English in 1970. The book constructed a

textually informed image of caste, portraying two opposing

conceptual categories of purity and pollution as the organizing principle of caste structure and hierarchy (Dumont, 1980)

1 For Dumont, the dominant principle of Hindu caste system was hierarchy - hierarchy, of course, of a religious, rather than of a political, sort. Other key principles were purity and impurity, also being religious, and interdependence by which parts are interrelated, and related to the whole. Thus, Dumont said that "the Indian caste system is not individualistic; it emphasizes its totality, not its . These unique core principles of caste hierarchy, according to Dumont, are observed in scriptural formulation as well as in the everyday life of all Hindus (understandably in India). The Dumontian notion of caste puts hierarchy at the centre and assumes that this more or less (coiled in the notions of purity and pollution) prevails all over Hindu populations. Dumont's concern was with the traditional social organization from a comparative theoretical point of view. Dumont (1980) argued that the introduction of the idea of structure was a major event in social anthropology. The essential challenge for contemporary thought was to rediscover the meaning of the whole or systems, and structure provided the only logical form as yet available to this end. Dumont argues that a structural analysis is concerned with the relationships, not substance-relationship parts and between parts and totality. For Dumont, it was legitimate to include in the caste system only what we could call inter-caste relations, and not intra-caste relations. He was critical of contemporary anthropologists who "take the part of the whole" and who did not address sufficiently inter-caste relations or the total system. Dumont also criticized anthropologists who had studied only one aspect of the system such as jajmani system or food transactions between castes. 1 Dumont's principle of ritual hierarchy operates on two levels, p. the opposition between the Brahmin (as the very epitome and essence of purity) and the "untouchable" (as the carrier of impurity); and between the Brahmin (as the figure of sacred/ritual status) and the king (as the figure of the temporal/secular power). Since the pure always necessarily encompasses the impure, at least at the level of the ideology (if not at the level of the fact), the Brahmin is placed at the top of the hierarchy. And this is so not only in relation to the progressively receding states of less purity (or more impurity) as embodied in the person of other castes, but also in relation to the king or the holder of the temporal authority.

Dhaulagiri Journal of Sociology and Anthropology Vol. 7, 2013 |59 60 | Madhusudan Subedi

individual members" (Dumont 1980; Kolenda 1981). This religiously based conception of hierarchy is different from its meaning in other parts of the world. For Dumont's purpose, the most important feature of the Varna writings was the superior status of the Brahman over thequotesdbs_dbs7.pdfusesText_13

[PDF] India c. A.D. 150. 29. India in 1836. 7. Ancient Trade Routes between India and the ... mad bin Tughluq before him

[PDF] india caste percentage

[PDF] india caste population

[PDF] india caste system last names

[PDF] india caste wise population

[PDF] India geography map

[PDF] India map according to world

[PDF] India Map Outline PDF

[PDF] India Map with cities and States pdf

[PDF] India Physical map

[PDF] India Physical map PDF

[PDF] India Political Map PDF Free Download

[PDF] Indian population in Canada 2019

[PDF] INDICATIF PRESENT OU IMPERATIF PRESENT. PREMIER GROUPE :les verbes dont l'INFINITIF se termine en ER sauf. ALLER. Exemple AIMER : aim e;  ...[PDF] G

[PDF] inégalité triangulaire et construction triangle