STUDY MATERIAL | Sociology | Social Stratification | 6th semester | Cluster University Srinagar
syllabus For 2017 Bach
Semester
VI
Social
Stratification
Discipline
Specific Electives
DSE-SOC-2A
(6 Credits)
Objectives:
To
acquaint the students with the concept and nature of social stratification and
social mobility.
Unit I: Introduction
a) Concept
b) Types of Stratification: Caste, Class and
Estate
c) Change in the nature of Stratification
Unit II: Perspectives on Social
Stratification
a) Functional Perspective
b) Marxian Perspective
c) Weberian Perspective
Unit III: Stratification and
Society
a) Stratification in Agrarian Society
b) Stratification in Capitalist Society
c) Stratification in Contemporary Society
Unit IV: Social processes and
Social Mobility
a) Secularization
b) Modernization
c) Sanskritization
Unit V: Tutorial-I
a)Individual
presentations on various topics from the main course content.
b) Term
end class test based on the main course content.
Unit VI: Tutorial-II
a) Home
assignments to be prepared on various topics from the main course content.
b) Viva
voce on home assignments.
References:
·
Bateille.
A. (1977). Inequality among Men. New
Delhi. Oxford University press.
·
Bendix,
R. and S.M. Lipset. (1970). Class Status and Power (2nd edition).
London. Routledge.
·
Haralambos,
M. (1992). Sociology: Themes and perspectives. New Delhi. Oxford University
press.
·
Singh
Yogendra. (1977). Social Stratification and Change in India. New Delhi. Manohar
Publications.
Note: List of
readings provided is not absolute and additions may be made to it
UNIT 1
Unit-4
UNIT 1
Concept of Social Stratification:
The
concept of stratification describes the idea that people can be ranked
differently in terms of their social importance or status. Social
stratification is the hierarchical arrangement of large groups based on their
control over basic resources. The Concise Oxford English Dictionary defines the
word "strata" as: "A layer or set of successive layers, of any
deposited substance; layer of atmosphere, biological tissue, or other
structure; social grade (the various strata of society)".
To
stratify, therefore, involves the ability to, “Arrange in strata; construct in
layers, social grades, etc. ".Giddens (“Sociology”, 1993) for example, has
defined it as: “Structured inequalities between different groupings of people”.
Crompton (“Class and Stratification”, 1993) expands this simple definition when
she notes that social stratification is: “A hierarchical system of inequality
(material and symbolic),always supported by a meaning system that seeks to
justify inequality. People are not only different from each other in terms of
their assignments to a certain typology but they are ranked differently in accordance with these assignments…this
phenomenon of ranking is what sociologists call social stratification and the various
ranks are called strata(Berger and Berger:1972,p117 ).Gisbert in his
Fundamentals of Sociology defines social stratification as, “Social
stratification is the division of society in permanent groups or categories
linked with each other by the relationship of superiority and subordination”.
For Sutherland, stratification is simply a process of interaction or
differentiation, whereby some people come to be ranked higher than the other.”
Characteristics of Social Stratification:
1. It
is a universal process and is found in some form or the other throughout the
human society.
2. It
causes unequal distribution of economic opportunities, social prestige ,respect
and all other kinds of privileges.
3. It
is not only limited to the individual rather it should be viewed in its
totality.
4. The
basis of stratification is not same everywhere. Though its nature is universal,
basis is not universal. As for India it is the caste, whereas for the West it
is the class distinction on which the individuals are stratified.
5. In
social stratification there is always the feeling of superiority or inferiority
among the members of different strata.
Basis
of Social Stratification:
Broadly speaking, the bases of social stratification may be divided
into two categories: Ascribed basis of stratification and achieved basis of stratification.
1. Ascribed basis of social stratification: Such basis of
stratification is those which the members of the group acquire through
birth.one do not have to strive for such statuses, e.g. Status inequality on
the basis of sex, age, race or caste. This is basis of stratification is also
known as closed type of stratification as it does not allow social mobility of
the individuals. It is the prime feature of traditional feudalistic society.
2. Achieved basis of stratification: a member of any group can also
achieve the status through his merit, hard work or entrepreneurship, as against
the ascribed status by birth. In every society people who are highly qualified,
politically and economically strong, and outstandingly skilled and all other
such valued qualities being achieved by individual have always been given a
higher status in the society. This is basis of stratification is also known as
open type of stratification as it allows social mobility of the individuals. It
is the prime feature of modern capitalist society.
Besides
the above, Talcott Parsons a famous American Sociologist has identified six
bases of Social Stratification: Membership in Kinship group, personal
qualities, achievements, possessions, authority and power.
Functions of Social Stratification:
H.M. Johnson has identified following functions of Social
Stratification in modern society:
1. It Encourages Hard work
2. It Ensures circulation of elites
3. It serves as economic function
4. It prevents waste of resources
5. It stabilizes and reinforces the attitudes and skills
6. It helps to pursue different professions or jobs
7. It ensures social control
Types of Stratification: Caste, Class and Estate
Caste System:
According to Mazumdar & Madan – 'Caste is a closed class' i.e.
class refers to people based on property, business, occupation i.e. one can't
change his own caste system by can change the class system & can be a
member of many classes at the same time. According to Herbert Risely –
"Caste is a collection of families or group of families bearing a common
name which usually denotes or is associated with specific occupation, claiming
descent from a mythical ancestor, human or divine, professing to follow the same
heredity callings & regarded by those who are competent to give an opinion
as forming a single homogenous communities." According to C. H. Cooley –
"When a class is somewhat strictly hereditary, we may call it a
caste."
Features of Caste:
1. Hereditary: Caste status of an individual is determined strictly
by his heredity, i.e. the caste into which one is born. No amount of personal
accomplishments or efforts can alter his caste status.
2. Endogamous: It endogamous character strictly prohibits
inter-caste marriages. Accordingly a person born in low caste can never hope to
marry someone in higher caste. Each individual is supposed to marry within his
caste and sub-caste. Marrying outside caste makes an individual or ‘without a
caste which is the lowest category even below Shudra’.
3. Hierarchal: Caste system has a system of superiority and
subordination. According to Hindu Caste hierarchy. Brahmin occupies the highest
followed by kshatriya, Vaishya and Shudra.
4. Fixed Occupations: Members of any caste are obligated to adopt
the professions of their caste. Having developed from Varna system the
occupation in caste system is definite; son of blacksmith Perseus the
occupation of his lather, son of carpenter becomes carpenter and so on. (With
development of industries people belong to many castes have lost their
occupation and have taken agriculture or some other occupation).
5. Restricted Food Habits: Higher castes try maintaining their
traditional purity by different food habits. Thus Brahmins will only take
‘Satwil’ or ‘Pure’ food. Kshtriya and Vaishya will take ‘Royal’ food. A Shudra
takes ‘Tamsi’ food. Each individual caste has its own laws which govern the
food habits. There is no restriction against fruit, milk, butter, dry fruit
etc. but food can be accepted only from the members of ounces own or higher
caste.
6. Untouchability: In Indian caste system Shudra and out castes are
considered to be untouchables. In certain times of day even seeing a shudra is
considered to be pollution. Even if shadow of a low caste falls on a Brahmin,
latter is said to have been polluted.
7. Absence of Vertical Mobility: In a caste system, there is no
mobility movement of its members, up or down, the social status ladder. A
person’s status at birth is his life time status.
8. Reinforcement by Religious Beliefs: Religious beliefs have
played a significant role in making caste system unavoidable. Religion has
described Brahmin as sacred and also an element of reverence and awe is
attached to him. In absence of religious support such rigid caste system was
not possible.
Six structural features of Caste System
according to Prof. Ghurey:
Segmental division, Hierarchy, Pollution and purity, Civil and
religious disabilities and privileges of different sections, Lack of choice of
occupation, Restrictions on marriage
Dysfunctionality of Caste system
(i) C.S. is
undemocratic & therefore contradictory to the Indian democratizes. Peoples
sales, status etc. are fixed in C.S. but not in a democracy.
(ii) Social Disparity –
C.S. brings a social disparity in society. It minders social life or economic
life. Due to fixed occupation person with I.Q in other occupation can't go into
it & this hinders optimum productivity.
(iii) Barrier to
National Unity – In this all acc. equal whereas in C.S. there is no equality.
It gives support to castism which is limited to their own caste. Ex –votes are
given to the person of one's own caste. Every man wants the people of his caste
to go ahead & this creates problems
(iv) Untouchability –
lower than shudras are untouchable &unseeble& they are exploited by the
higher caste. There are certain privileges & disabilities in caste system.
The Brahmin's get more privilege. Brahminsm there- C.S. came into being due to
Brahmin supremacy.
Theories regarding the origin of Caste
system:
Traditional Theory – (Vedas,
mainly Rig Veda, Maha Bharat, Geeta, Upanishad, Manu Smiriti) It says caste
system(C.S). Originated from the of body Bramha i.e. from the month came
Brahmin, Keshahiya, arms, Vaishyas – thighs & Shudras from feet. And the
place was given to the hierarchy of organs in the body. Varma, status &
position is fixed according to this. Therefore 1st come Brahmins then
Kshatriyas then Vaishayas & last Sudras. The month for preaching, learn,
ceremonial performation, the arms – protections, thighs – to cultivate or
business feet – helps the whole body therefore the duty of the Sundras is to
serve all the others. Manu – C.S. has developed due to Anuloma & pratiloma.
Religious theory given by
Hocart' C.S. Originated due to religious factor a due to performance of various
religious rites. In India religion plays an imp. place. Everything is based on
this religion. He gave – pure work i.e. to perform religious work. Those who do
Yagya they are Brahmins, the ones who gather flower – messages – impure work –
those who sacrificed the low caste (Dasas).
Political theory – Abbe Dubois,
- C.S. originated due to the supremacy of Brahmins – the Brahmanism, theory. To
maintain their superiority diff. castes & sub-castes came into being Ghuray
– 'Caste is the Brahmin child of the Indo-Arjun culture, cradled in the Ganges
& Yamuna & then transferred in other parts of the country'.
Occupational Theory by Nesfield
C.S. is based on occupation. The hierarchy is according to occupation. The
higher the occupation the higher the position & status in societies. If the
according is considered good in a place that caste is high but it may
necessarily be higher in another place.
Social Classes:
P.Gisbert - "A social class is a category or group of persons having
a definite status in society which permanently determines their relation to
other group – feeling of superiority & inferiorities. The relative position
of the class in the social scale arises from the degree of prestige attached to
the status.
MacIver & Page - "A social class is any portion of
community marked off the from the rest by social status’
Ogburn & Nimkoff. A social class is the aggregate of persons
having essentially the same social status in a given society." i.e. a
class consciousness.
Max weber – held that "classes are aggregate of individuals
who have the same opportunities of acquiring goods. The same exhibited standard
of lining.
Hoebal defines "A social class is a group within a society,
whose members hold a no. of distinctive status in common & who trough the
operation of roles associated with these status, develop are awareness of the
life interest as against the unlike trait & interest of other groups."
In general "A social class consists of group of individuals
who are ranked by the members of the community in socially superior inferior
position."
Characteristics of class system:
1. Class system is based on occupation, wealth, education, age, sex
2. Hierarchy of status group. In general there are 3 class – upper
middle & tower. Status, prestige & role is attached. Upper class are
less in no in comparison to the other two whereas their status & prestige
is most. This is like a pyramid. Karl Marx (Rich & poor) preliterate &
3. Feeling of superiority & inferiority. In these 3 classes there
are such feelings the upper class people feel they are superior to the other
two whereas the lower class feels it is inferior to the upper class.
4. Class consciousness – wherever a class is formed this feeling a
consciousness is a must. There should be feeling of in group i.e. I belong
class conflict is due to this the people of the preliterate class feel the
upper class exploits them their they unite revolt. The behavior action is
determined by this class consciousness..
5. Class system is an open system.
There's social restriction in this too. In general there is
endogamy in a class. To maintain their status & position they mix among
themselves & it is seldom that marriage between upper & lower class is
wished.
Estate System:
Estate system has a long history .it emerged in the ancient Roman
Empire and existed in Europe until very recent times. The estate system
consists of three main division of the society: the clergy or the first estate,
the nobles or the second estate and the commoners or the third estate. This
estate based stratification had two typical features, each estate was to some
extent characterized by a distinctive life styles and it was hierarchical.
Characteristics of Estate System:
T.B.Bottomore has mentioned about three important characteristics
of the feudal estates of the medieval Europe:
1. Legal Basis of estates: estates were legally defined, each had a
status of its own and the status was associated with the rights and duties,
privileges and obligations. In comparison to the clergy and the nobility, for
example, the third estate comprising of the serfs or commoners had the
inability to appeal before the king for the justice .moreover they had no
rights over their possessions and holdings. They had the liability of paying
the fines of merchet (fine paid to the lord for the marriage of a daughter) and
heriot (fine paid to the lord on the death of the tenant).
2. Division of labour: according to the law of the land, the
nobility had to fight and defend all , the clergy had to pray and the commoners
had to pay taxes and provide food for all.
3. Estate as a political group: the feudal estates were political
groups .an assembly of the estates possessed political powers. The estates
functioned like three political groups. As far as the participation in govt.
was concerned the clergy used to stand by the nobility and the third estate had
very weak political status. It was only until French Revolution took place ,the
exploitative political system got replaced by democracy.
UNIT 2
Unit II: Perspectives on Social Stratification
1. Functionalist Perspective
2. Marxist Perspective
3. Weberian Perspective
1. Functionalist Perspective: the
functionalist theories of stratification must be seen in the context of general
functionalist theories of society. Functionalists assume that there are certain
basic needs or functional prerequisites which must be met if the society is to
survive. They therefore look to social stratification to see how it meets these
functional prerequisites.
Arguments of some key functionalist on importance of Social
stratification:
Talcott Parsons: Like many functionalists parsons believes that
Oder, stability and cooperation in the society are based on value consensus. He
argues that stratification systems derive from common values.it follows from
the existence of values that individuals will form rank order .in parsons words
stratification in its valuation aspect is the ranking of units in a social
system in accordance with the common value system. Thus those who perform
successfully in terms of society’s values will be ranked highly to receive a
variety of rewards. Parsons argument suggests that stratification is an
inevitable part of all human societies. If value consensus is an essential
component of all societies, then it follows that some form of stratification
will result from the ranking of individuals in terms of common values. Parsons
argues that there is a general belief that stratification systems are just,
right and proper, since they are basically expressions of shared values. Thus
he views social stratification both as an inevitable and functional for the
society.
Kingsly Davis and Wibert E.Moore: Davis and Moore begin with the
observation that stratification exists in every known human society. They
attempt to explain in functional terms, the universal necessity which calls
forth stratification in any social system. Davis and Moore argue that all
societies need some mechanism for insuring effective role allocation and
performance. This mechanism is social stratification which they see as a system
which attaches unequal rewards and privileges to the different positions in
society.
To summarize all the functionalists are primarily concerned with
the functions of the social stratification, with its contribution to the maintenance
and well-being of the society.
Criticism: Melvin M.Tumin has produced a comprehensive criticism of
the functional theory of social stratification propounded by Davis and Moore.
He argues that they have ignored the influence of power on the unequal distribution
of rewards. Thus differences in pay and prestige between occupational groups
may be due to differences in their power rather than their functional
importance. Tumin agrees that stratification by its nature can never adequately
perform the functions which Davis and Moore assign to it. He also questions the
view that social stratification functions to integrate the social system. He
argues that differential rewards can encourage hostility, suspicion and
distrust among the various segments of a society.
2. Marxist Perspective: Marxian
perspective provides a radical alternative to the functionalist views of the
nature of social stratification. They regard stratification as a divisive
rather than an integrative structure. They see it as a mechanism whereby some
exploit others rather than a means of furthering collective goals. According to
Karl Marx, in all stratified societies, there are two major social groups:
ruling class and subject class .the power of the ruling class derives from its
ownership and control of the forces of production. The ruling class (haves)
exploit and oppress the subject class (have not’s). As a result there is a
basic conflict of interest between the two classes. And it is a historical
phenomenon. From Marxian perspective, systems of stratification derive from the
relationships of social groups to the forces of production. Marx used the term
class to refer the main strata in all stratification systems. From Marxian view
a class is a social group whose members share the similar relationship to the
forces of production. Thus during ancient period there were masters and slaves,
in the feudal epoch there were lords and serfs and in the present capitalistic
period there are bourgeoisie and proletariat. The former in every case exploited
the latter except in the primitive communistic stage of human history. Marxian
advocated the end of the stratification system and pitched for the inauguration
of communism.
Prof Yogendra Singh outlines the main features of Marxian analysis
of social stratification as follows: “the treatment of stratification in
Marxist theory has distinctive features, it is systematic, it is dialectical,
it treats structures(stratification)as historical product, it locates
historical forces in the mode of production, reflection of the specific nature
of man which under certain historical conditions creates contradictions of
classes, it is essentially evolutionary and developmental, since mode of
production and relationship it generates are endowed with dialectical quality
of self-transformation,” thus mode of production is the key of the Marxian
theory of social stratification.
3. Weberian Perspective: the work of the German sociologist Max Weber
represents one of the most important developments in stratification theory
since Marx. Weber’s perspective on social stratification derives from three components:
class, status and power. Therefore, his theory is an improvement over Marx.
Andre Beteille writes “in Weber’s scheme, class and power appears to be
generalised categories: the former arises from unequal life chances in the
market situation and the latter form the nature of domination which is present
in one form or another in all societies. Status, on the other hand, seems to be
a kind of residual category”. Much of his views are similar to those of Marx
.Both define class in economic terms. Weber defines class as a group of
individuals who share a similar position in the market economy and by virtue of
that fact receives similar economic rewards. The class situation is determined
by market situation. People belonging to the same class share similar life
chances. Class division is the base of ownership or non-ownership of the forces
of production.in this context weber has pointed out that different occupations
provide different market values, forming different categories of social class.
Weber has distinguished four different categories according to their hierarchy:
1. The propertied upper-class
2. The property less white collar workers
3. The petty bourgeoisie
4. The manual working class.
Weber, in addition to ownership and non-ownership of forces of
production, has added several other factors in the formation of classes. This
implies that weber did not discard the Marx’s economic determinism but has
added several other factors to it. The classifications of classes into four
types show that there is little possibility of polarization of classes which
has virtually little or no potential for class struggle. This is supported by
the process of embourgeoisement. Weber argues that those who share similar
class situations may lead similar life styles in terms of purchasing power, but
he saw no reason in the development of common identity and shared interest. The
manual workers may respond in variety of ways to their dissatisfaction .weber
rejects Marx’s view that class is the only basis of power; he added several
other factors particularly status situation. Status refers to unequal
distribution of social honor. Weber argues that a member of a class may not be
necessarily aware of their class situation, but members of the status group
always do so. The basis of the analysis of the stratification according to
Weber is the status group. Unlike class group the members of the status group
share similar life styles and common identity.in addition to presence of status
group within a single class and of status group which cut across class
divisions can weaken the class solidarity and reduce the potential for class
consciousness. Those points are illustrated by Weber’s analysis of parties.
Weber defines parties as groups which are specifically concerned with
influencing policies and making decisions in the interest of their membership.
In Weber’s words parties are concerned with acquisition of power.
Weber’s analysis of classes, status groups and parties suggests
that no single theory can pinpoint and explain their relationship. The
interplay of class, status and party in the formation of social groups is
complex and variable and must be examined in particular societies during particular
time periods .weber argues that the evidence provides a more complex and
diversified picture of social stratification.
Social Processes and
Social Mobility
a. Sanskritization
b. Westernization
c. Modernization
SANSKRITISATION
Meaning of Sanskritisation: The “term “Sanskritisitation” was
introduced into Indian Sociology by Prof. M.N. Srinivas.The term refers to a
process whereby people of lower castes collectively try to adopt upper caste
practices and beliefs, as a preliminary step to acquire higher status. Thus it
indicates a process of cultural mobility that is taking place in the
traditional social system of India.M.N. Srinivas in his study of the Coreg in
Karnataka, found that lower castes, in order to raise their position in the
caste hierarchy, adopted some customs and practices of the Brahmins, and gave
up some of their own which were considered to be "impure" by the
higher castes. For example, they gave up meat-eating, drinking liquor and
animal sacrifice to their deities. They imitated Brahmins in matters of dress,
food and rituals. By doing this, within a generation or so they could claim
higher positions in the hierarchy of castes. In the beginning, M.N. Srinivas
used the term “Brahminisation” (in his book “Religion and Society among the
Coorgs” -1971) to denote this process. Later on, he replaced it by
“Sanskritisation”.
Definition of Sanskritisation
M.N. Srinivas, in fact, has been broadening his definition of the
term ‘Sanskritisation’ from time to time. Initially, he described it as- “the
process of mobility of lower castes by adopting vegetarianism and teetotalism
to move in the caste hierarchy in a generation or two” - (1962). Later on, he
redefined it as “a process by which a low caste or a tribe or other group changes
in caste” - (M.N. Srinivas in his “Social Change in Modern India - 1971). The
second definition is much broader for it includes ideologies also (which
include ideas such as ‘Karma’ ‘dharma’, ‘papa’ (sin), ‘punya’ ‘moksha’ etc.)
.
Sanskritisation and Brahminisation
Sanskritisation is a much broader concept than Brahminisation. M.N.
Srinivas preferred it to Brahminisation for some reasons:
(i) Sanskritisation is a broader term and it can subsume in itself
the narrower process of Brahminisation. For instance, today, though by and
large, Brahmins are vegetarians and teetotalers, some of them such as
Kashmiris, Bengalis and saraswath Brahmins eat non-vegetarian food. Had the
term ‘Brahminisation’ been used, it would have become necessary to specify
which particular Brahmin group was meant.
(ii) Further, the reference groups of Sanskritisation are not
always Brahmins. The process of imitation need not necessarily take place on
the model of Brahmins. Srinivas himself has given the example of the low castes
of Mysore who adopted the way of life of Lingayats, who are not Brahmin but who
claim equality with Brahmins. Similarly, the smiths (one of the lower castes)
of Mysore call themselves Vishwakarma Brahmins and wear sacred threads and have
sanskritised some of their rituals. (Still, some of them eat meat and drink
liquor. For the very same reason, many castes, including some untouchable
castes do not accept food or water from their hands).The lower castes imitated
not only Brahmins but also Kshatriyas, Vaishyas, Jats, Shudras,etc. in
different parts of the country. Hence the term Brahminisation does not
completely explain this process. M.N. Srinivas himself acknowledged this fact
and wrote: “I now realise that, I emphasized unduly the Brahminical model of
Saskritisation and ignored the other models Kshatriya, Vaishyas and Shudra...”
(“Social Change in Modern India - 1971).
Characteristics:
When the concept of sanskritisation emerged in sociological
literature in 1952, it created much academic uproar among social anthropologists
and sociologists. It was agreed that the concept is useful to analyse social
change among villagers, especially in terms of culture change.
Both Indian and foreign social anthropologists reacted to the
usefulness of concept on the basis of whatever is available in sociological
research material, we give below a few of the basic characteristics of
sanskritisation:
1. It is a cultural paradigm:
Ideas, beliefs, traditions, rituals and things of this kind
constitute the culture of a caste. When there is a change in these aspects of
social life, it is a change in cultural life. Thus, sanskritisation is a
cultural change among the lower castes and non-caste groups.
2. Sanskritisation is a change directed to twice-born castes:
Though, initially, sanskritisation meant Brahminisation, but later
on, Srinivas included other models of higher castes for imitation. It was
Milton Singer (1964) who had drawn attention of Srinivas by saying that there
existed not one or two models of sanskritisation but three if not four. He said
that the local version of Sanskritic Hinduism may use the four labels Brahmin,
Kshatriya, Vaishya and Shudra but the defining content of these labels varies
with locality and needs to be empirically determined for any particular locality.
For instance, a particular village may imitate Brahmins as their model of
change but looking to the historicity and contextuality, another village may decide
Kshatriya or Vaishya as their model. Brahmins not in all cases are homogeneous.
Nor are the Kshatriyas.
There are Brahmins, such as the Kashmiri, Bengali and Saraswat who
are non-vegetarians. Similarly, there is variation among the Kshatriyas and
Vaishyas. It is, therefore, the local history and the contexts which determine
the sanskritic model for the lower castes. However, the Shudras do not make any
model for imitation.
3. Sanskritisation also applies to tribals or non-caste groups:
In his refined definition Srinivas has stated that sanskritisation
is not confined to Hindu castes only but it also occurs among tribal and
semi-tribal groups, such as the Bhils of western India, the Gonds and Oraons of
central India, and the Pahadis of the Himalayas. These tribal groups claim to
attain the status of a caste, i.e., to become a Hindu.
4. Sanskritic values, ideology, beliefs belong to Indian tradition:
When Srinivas talks of sanskritisation of the lower castes, he has
in his view the caste-Hindu traditions. Hinduism draws heavily from its
scriptures, such as Ramayana, Mababbarata, Upanisbads and Brabmanas. The values
and beliefs held in these scriptures become the content material for the
imitation of the lower castes. The Brahmins, i.e., the priestly caste,
naturally interpret the traditions and, therefore, they become the model of
imitation for the lower castes.
Surely, acquisition of wealth and power makes a group or person
belonging to a caste, important. But, only wealth and power do not enhance the
status of a caste. The improvement in the ritual status can only help the lower
caste to improve their hierarchy in the caste system. The imitation of the
customs and habits of the higher caste, therefore, goes a long way in imparting
sanskritic status to the lower caste, if the later has wealth and power.
5. Sanskritisation, in other words, also means teetotalism:
Srinivas, to be fair to him, has always refined and redefined his understanding
of sanskritisation. At a later stage, he found that the lower castes in
sanskritisation have a tendency to move higher in the caste hierarchy and in a
generation or two they could improve their status in caste hierarchy by
adopting vegetarianism and teetotalism.
Empirically no researcher has reported that a lower caste has improved
its rank in the hierarchy despite having three generations. Though, there is no
improvement in the rank it must be said that the lower castes have taken to the
prohibition of alcoholism and many of the evils which traditionally
characterised their caste.
Criticism:
It must be admitted that Srinivas has made a serious attempt to analyse
social change not only in villages but in the wider society at large. Concepts
are not theories they are only formats of a theory. There is a possibility of a
format to suffer from several weaknesses. Response of Srinivas’ concept of
sanskritisation has been much encouraging, notwithstanding its drawbacks. For
instance, in 1965, the University of Chicago organised a seminar on ‘Social
Change in India’.
The seminar was important in the sense that it was attended by
Srinivas himself and a number of social anthropologists, such as Bernard S.
Cohen, David G. Mandelbaum, McKim Marriott, Owen M. Lynch, Milton Singer and a
few others.
All these had rich experience of working in Indian villages.
Sanskritisation was discussed thoroughly in this conference. Besides, some of the
Indian sociologists also conducted intensive field studies to verify the
concept.
The critique which we give below is drawn from all these comments:
1. Religion is sui generis for Srinivas:
Whether we consider dominant caste, sanskritisation on westernization,
in all these concepts the major thrust of Srinivas is caste. Caste is related
to religion and, therefore, when Srinivas talks about caste he means religion.
His fundamental assumption is that caste has originated from
religion. It is the Brahma who created four varnas out of the different parts
of his body. Religion and caste, therefore, for Srinivas, are the two sides of
the same coin. Viewed from this perspective, the concept of sanskritisation is
the concept of religion. And when he focuses on caste, he is concerned with
hierarchy. K.L. Sharma (1986) rightly observes:
Srinivas’ study of the role of religion among the Coorgs is clearly
an extension of Radcliffe-Brown’s functionalism. Religion is sui generis for
Srinivas. Caste and religion are intertwined. Hence religion becomes the basis
of caste hierarchy (emphasis ours).
The weakness of the concept of sanskritisation is that it is only
concerned with the culture. It would not be wrong to say that Srinivas is
concerned only with the cultural and normative criteria which bring change in
rural society. The economic and political parameters of change have largely
been overlooked by him.
2. Hierarchy is supreme:
The concept of sanskritisation is based on hierarchy. The idea in
the process of sanskritisation is that the lower castes might rise to higher
caste by imitating the sanskritic rights of the twice-born. Such a social
change is hierarchical. When today, in contemporary India, democratisation has
become a new value, hierarchical transformation is increasingly becoming weak.
Parvathamma brings out this weakness of sanskritisation when she
observes:
In all the writings of Srinivas, the Brahmin non-Brahmin values are
juxtapose, hierarchy remains basic to Srinivas.
3. Social tensions and contradictions by-passed:
For Srinivas, the idea of India society is that of caste society.
He altogether forgets that Indian society is a plural society; it does not
discriminate individuals on the basis of caste. By giving the concept of
sanskritisation he very rigidly adheres to caste model of Indian society. K.L.
Sharma comments harshly on this weakness of Srinivas:
A scholar of the eminence Srinivas does not take cognizance,
perhaps inadvertently, of the continuity of ‘social formation’ of India
society, and prefers to adhere to caste model of Indian society. He refers to
‘rural caste’ and ‘urban caste’, like some American scholars, such as Rosen and
Marriott.
Caste and class, theoretically speaking, are principles of social
status determination, hence not concerned with ‘rural’ or ‘urban’ people as
such. ‘Rural’ and ‘urban’ are patterns of living and not principles of ranking
(emphasis ours).
4. Sanskritisation may lead to inter-class hostility:
Yogendra Singh has yet another weakness in the concept of sanskritisation
given by Srinivas. His guess is that sometimes sanskritisation may manifest
suppressed inter-class hostility. In support of his guess Yogendra Singh refers
to the observation made by Harold Gould:
One of the prime motives behind sanskritisation is this factor of repressed
hostility which manifests itself not in the form of rejecting the caste system
but in the form its victims trying to seize control of it and, thereby, expiate
their frustrations on the same battlefield where they acquired them. Only then
can there be a sense of satisfaction in something achieved, i.e., tangible,
concrete, and relevant to past experience.
Not only Yogendra Singh but Srinivas himself has admitted that
sanskritisation subsumes many meanings. Some of the meanings are mutually
antagonistic.
5. Sanskritisation is a limited concept:
Surely, one of the weaknesses of sanskritisation is its limited usefulness.
It refers only to social change in the caste hierarchy. Caste hierarchy is
basically ritual-cultural hierarchy. But beyond caste, i.e., in secular
hierarchy sanskritisation ceases of exist. In any case the concept is not
comprehensive enough in explaining social change.
6. It is a process confined too little tradition only:
Admittedly, sanskritisation is a process of social change. Theoretically,
“sanskritisation may represent changes in cultural structure, of the little as
well as the great tradition. But most empirical observations of this process
are confined to the little tradition”.
In other words, changes in the great tradition, i.e., in epics like
Puranas can be made by a comprehensive cultural renaissance that can be
effected at the local level. And, therefore, sanskritisation though wider in
scope rem ains restricted to a few castes found in a specific region. For instance,
if there is a movement of sanskritisation among the potters, it does not
necessarily mean that the movement would spread among the potters at national
level. Obviously, a caste varies from place to place, region to region.
7. Sanskritisation sometimes is a protest against the normative
structure:
There are empirical observations in some parts of rural India that
the lower castes have rebelled against the sanskritic values of the higher
castes. Such protests have resulted out of the democratic values given by
education, party ideology and idiom of equality.
Emphasising this point Yogendra Singh observes:
Looked at from an ideal-typical value frame, sanskritisation is a
form of protest against the normative structure and principles laid down by the
great tradition. It, amongst to a rejection of the Hindu theory of karma which
integrates the various levels of role institutionalisation supposed to be
ascribed by birth, is thus a process of usurpation of a position higher in
hierarchy as defined by the great tradition, by rejection of fundamental
principle of hierarchy {great tradition).
The protest against sanskritisation thus gets manifested in the denial
of the karmakanda practised by Brahmins. The ritual status of Brahmin in this
process gets eroded. Similarly, the former ruling class of Rajputs is also
looked down by the rebels. And, therefore, it would be erroneous to understand
that on all occasion’s sanskritisation is looked with favour.
8. Weakening dominant caste also lowers sanskritisation:
The concept of dominant caste is a supplement to the concept of
sanskritisation. In modern India, the construct of dominant caste is fast
becoming irrelevant. No more are Brahmins a dominant caste in many of the
villages. Dominance carries power, professional status and party association.
Quite like the construct of dominant caste sanskritisation also suffers certain
weaknesses. The developed villages now hardly consider dominant caste as their
reference models for sanskritisation.
9. Power acquisition and political participation are more important
than cultural status:
Milton Singer has brought out a new empirical evidence (1968) to suggest
that the contemporary upward mobile group has rejected sanskritisation for
political participation. Singer, in this regard, refers to the studies of Owen
M. Lynch and William Rowe. Lynch conducted a study among the Jatav of Agra.
While rejecting Srinivas, Lynch observes:
The concept of sanskritisation describes the social changes
occurring in modern India in terms of sanskritisation and westernization. The
description is primarily in cultural and not in structural terms. Lynch argues
that in place of sanskritisation the process of ‘elite emulation’ applies well
so far the Jatavas, i.e., Chamars are concerned.
He says that the Jatavas have given up claims to a ‘dominant’
status of Kshatriya and sanskritic cultural behaviour, and have become antagonist
of castes and caste system; in effect, they have reversed their old position
against the Adi-Hindu movement. The reasons for rejection of sanskritisation,
i.e., caste cult urology, as given by Lynch, are:
The change is due to the fact that sanskritisation is no longer as functional
as is political participation for achieving a change in style of life and a
rise in the Indian social system, now composed of both caste and class
elements.
The object of sanskritisation was ultimately to open and legitimise
a place in the opportunity and power structures of the caste society. The same
object can now be better achieved by active political participation. It is no
longer ascription based on caste status, but rather achievement based on
citizenship status that, manifestly at least, is the recruitment principle for
entrance into the power and opportunity structures.
For Lynch, Rowe, Singer and others sanskritisation is basically a
concept of social mobility. Quite like these American scholars Y.B. Damle has
also applied Merton’s reference group reference group theory to analyse social
change in rural India. It is argued that sanskritisation is very limited in its
scope, whereas reference group theory is quite comprehensive.
Concluding our description on sanskritisation it could be said that
the nature of sanskritisation is definitely empirical. It focuses on localised
culture. It is concerned with the culture of the twice-born. Its weaknesses are
several. The difficulty with the concept is that rural India is changing fast
and the concept has not received any corresponding change.
WESTERNISATION
The role ‘Westernisation’ has been very significant in
understanding the socio-cultural changes of modern India. British rule produced
radical and lasting changes in the Indian society and culture. The British
brought with them, (unlike the previous invaders) new technology, institutions,
knowledge, beliefs, and values. These have become the main source of social
mobility or individuals as well as groups. It is in this context, M.N.
Srinivas, a renowned sociologist of India, ‘introduced the term’
‘Westernisation’ mainly to explain the changes that have taken place in the
Indian society and culture due to the Western contact through the British rule.
Definition of the Term “Westernization”
According to M.N. Srinivas,
‘Westernisation’ refers to ‘the
changes brought about
in
Indian society and culture as a result of over 150 years of British
rule and the term subsumes changes occurring at different levels - technology,
institutions, ideology, values (Ref.: “Social Change in Modern India” By M.N.
Srinivas.
M.N. Srinivas criticises Lerner’s concept of ‘modernisation’ on the
ground that it is a value loaded term. According to him, “Modernisation” is
normally used in the sense that it is good. He, therefore, prefers to use the
term ‘Westernisation’. He describes the technological changes, establishment of
educational institutions, rise of nationalism and new political culture, etc.
as almost the bye-products of Westernisation or the British rule of two hundred
years in India. Thus, by Westernisation, Srinivas primarily meant the British
impact.
“During the 19th century the British slowly laid the foundations of
a modern state by surveying land, settling the revenue, creating a modern
bureaucracy, army and police, instituting law courts, codifying the law,
developing communications - railways, post and telegraph, roads and
canals-establishing schools and colleges, and so on...” (Srinivas). The British
brought with them the printing press which led to many-sided changes. Books and
journals made possible the transmission of modem as well as traditional knowledge
to large number of Indians. Newspapers helped the people living in the remote
corners of the country to realize their common bonds and to understand the events
happening in the world outside. More than any other thing the Western education
had an impact on the style of living of the people. They gave up their
inhibition towards meat-eating and consumption of alcohol. They also adopted
Western style of dressing and dining. As Gandhi ji wrote in his
“Autobiography”, educated Indians undertook the task of' 'becoming English
gentlemen in their dress, manners, habits, choices, preferences, etc.” It
included even learning to appreciate Western music and participating in ball
dancing. Western education resulted in a big change in the outlook of those
educated.
M.N. Srinivas says that it is necessary “to distinguish
conceptually between Westernisation and two other processes usually concouilait
with it. - Industrialization and Urbanisation.” He gives two reasons for this:
“'(i) Urbanization is not a simple function of' 'industrialisation'” and there
were cities in Pre-industrial world” also. “'(ii) There are cases of rural
people who are more urbanised than urban people”.
MAIN FEATURES OF WESTERNISATION
1. In comparison with Sanskritisation, Westernisation is a simpler
concept. As it is already
made clear, it explains the impact of Western contact (particularly
of British rule) on the Indian society and culture. M.N. Srinivas defends the
uses of the term when he says that there is “need for such a term when
analysing the changes that a non-Western country undergoes as a result of
prolonged contact with a Western one”.
2. Westernisation Implies, according to Srinivas, “certain value
preferences”. The most important value, which in turn subsumes several other
values, is “humanitarianism”. It implies “an active concern for the welfare of
all human beings irrespective of caste, economic position, religion, age and
sex”. He further observes that equalitarianism and secularisation are both
included in humanitarianism. Humanitarianism underlay many of the reforms
introduced by the British in the first half of the 19th century. As British
rule progressed "rationality and humanitarianism became broader, deeper
and more powerful...” The
humanitarian outlook among the Westernised elite led first to social reform
movement and later on to the independence movement. They were actually aware of
existing social evils like child marriage, taboos against widow remarriage,
seclusion of women, hostility to women's education, taboos against intercaste
marriages, intercaste dining, untouchability etc. Social reform movements
started with the efforts of Raja Ram Mohan Roy who founded the “Brahma Samaj”,Arya
Samaj, Prarthana Samaj, Sri Ramakrishna Mission and such other movements that
followed later, too had imbibed in them the humanitarian values.
3. Westernisation not
only includes the introduction of new institutions (for example, newspapers,
elections, Christian missionaries) but also fundamental changes in old
institutions. For example, India had schools long before the arrival of the
British. But they were different from the British-introduced schools in that
they had been restricted to upper caste children and transmitted mostly
traditional knowledge. Other institutions such as the army, civil service and
law courts were also similarly affected.
4. The form and pace
of Westernisation of India varied from region to region and from one section of
population to another. For example, one group of people became Westernised in
their dress, diet, manners, speech, sports and in the gadgets they used. While
another absorbed Western science, knowledge and literature, remaining
relatively free from certain other aspects Westernisation. For example,
Brahmins accepted the Western dress habits and educational systems and also
used gadgets such as radio, television, car, telephone etc. But they did not
accept the British diet, dancing, hunting and such other habits. This
distinction is, however, only relative and not absolute.
5. According to
Srinivas, Westernisation pervades political and cultural fields also. He writes
“In the political and cultural fields, Westernistion has given birth not only
to nationalism but also to revivalism communalism, ‘casteism’, heightened
linguistic consciousness, and regionalism. To make matters even more
bewildering, revivalist movements have used Western type schools and colleges,
and books, pamphlets and journals to propagate their ideas”
6. As M.N. Srinivas claims, “The term Westernisation unlike
‘Modernisation’ is ethically neutral. Its use does not carry the implication
that it is good or bad, whereas modernisation is normally used in the sense
that it is good.”
7. According to Srinivas, “the increase in Westernisation does not
retard the process of Sanskritisation. Both go on simultaneously, and to some
extent, increase in Westernisation accelerates the process of Sanskritisation.
For example, the postal facilities, railways, buses and newspaper media, which
are the fruits of Western impact on India render more organised religious
pilgrimages, meetings, caste solidarities, etc., possible now than in the past”
8. The term Westernisation is preferable to ‘Modernisation’, M.N.
Srinivas asserts. “He contends that modernisation presupposes' rationality of
goals' which in the ultimate analysis could not be taken for granted since
human ends are based on value preferences and "rationality could only be
predicted of the means not of the ends of social action". He considers the
term "Modernisation" as subjective and the term 'Westernisation' as
more objective. (Whereas writers such as Daniel Lerner, Harold Gould, Milton
Singer and Yogendra Singh consider the term 'Modernisation as more preferable
in place of Westernisation).
MODERNISATION
Meaning of Modernisation:
The term modernisation “does not denote any philosophy or movement,
but it only symbolises a process of change. In fact, “Modernisation” is
understood as a process which indicates the adoption of the modern ways of life
and values”. The term was being used previously to refer only "to change
in economy and its related effect on social values and practices". It was
also described as a process that changed the society, from primarily
agricultural to primarily industrial economy. As a result of the change in the
economy, the society itself underwent changes in values, beliefs and norms.
But, today the term is given a broader meaning.
Today, the term, ‘Modernisation’ is understood as an attempt, on
the part of the people, particularly those who are custom-bound, to adopt
themselves to the present time, conditions, styles, and ways in general. It
indicates a change in people's food habits, dress habits, speaking styles,
tastes, choices, preferences, ideas, values, recreational facilities and so on.
It is also described as “social change involving the elements of science and
technology”. The scientific and technological inventions have brought about
remarkable changes in the whole system of social relationship and installed new
ideologies in the place of traditional ones.
M.N. Srinivas, however, criticises the concept of Modernisation,
according to him, it is a value-loaded term. He says that “Modernisation is
normally used in the sense that it is good. He, therefore, prefer to use the
term ‘Westernisation’ which characterises the changes brought about in Indian
society and culture as a result of over 150 years of British rule”.
Yogendra Singh, on the other hand, defends the concept of modernisation.
According to him, it is broader than the two processes of Sanskritisation and
Westernisation. It is, indeed a 'cultural universal' and not necessarily
confined to any single society. Like science, modernity is not an exclusive
possession of any one ethnic or cultural group. It belongs to the humanity as a
whole. This does not mean that everywhere it should reveal the same pattern. It
need not always take place on the model of England, Germany, France or America.
It can take place on the model of Russia, India, Japan, Australia, or any other
country for that matter. What is essential to modernisation is this - a
commitment to “scientific world view” and a belief in the humanistic and
philosophical viewpoint of science on contemporary problems.
Definition of “Modernisation”
1. Daniel Lerner. Daniel Learner who introduced the term "Modernisation"
for the first time in his study of the middle-Eastern societies—uses it to
refer to the changes brought about in a non-Western country by contract, direct
or indirect with a Western country. To quote his own words : “Modernisation is
the current term for an old process of social change whereby less developed
societies acquire the characteristics common to more developed societies”.
2. Smelser. Modernisation refers to “a complex set of changes that
take place almost in every part of society as it attempts to be industrialised.
Modernisation involves ongoing change in a society's economy, politics,
education, traditions, and religion”.
3. Alatas. “Modernisation is a process by which modern scientific
knowledge is introduced in the society with the ultimate purpose of achieving a
better and a more satisfactory life in the broadest sense of the term as
accepted by the society concerned”.
4. Rutow and Ward
(1964) have said that the basic process in Modernisation is the application of
modern science to human affairs.
5. Eisenstadt says
that Modernisation refers to both (a) structural aspects of social
organisation, and (b) socio-demographic aspects of societies.
Characteristics of Modernisation
As it has already been mentioned, the process of modernisation has
different dimensions. The spirit of modernisation is expressed in different
areas such as - social organisation, culture, political field, economy,
education, etc., in different ways. Broadly speaking, the process of
modernization reveals the following important characteristics:
Modernisation includes – “a temple of science, reason and
rationalism, secularism, high aspiration and achievement orientation, overall transformation
of attitudes norms and values, creation of new functional institutions,
investment In human resources, a growth oriented economy, a national interest
rather than kin, caste, religion, region or language oriented interests, an
open society, and a mobile person” - (Ram Ahuja in his “Indian Social System”).
According to B. Kuppuswamy, “the main feature of Modernisation is
the building up of an ‘open society’ in which individuals of talent, enterprise
and training can find places in the society appropriate to their achievement...
The process of Modernisation involves an increase in social unrest till the
social system is responsive to the new aspirations built up by the
Modernisation process”. It should, however, be noted that the same process of modernisation
institutes appropriate change in the social system to meet the rising
expectations of the people.
CAUSES OF MODERNISATION
What factors condition modernisation? What conditions lead to
modernisation? What conditions hinder it? In exploring suitable answers to
these questions sociologists look within the society to discover the various
factors, groups, people and agencies and instruments that contribute to
modernisation. Modernisation is not caused by any single factor. It is the net
result of a number of factors. Myron Weiner speaks of five main instruments
which make modernisation possible: education, mass communication, ideology
based on nationalism, charismatic leadership and coercive governmental
authority.
