Page 59 - DSOC201_SOCIAL_STRUCTURE_AND_SOCIAL_CHANGE_ENGLISH

Social Structure and Social Change

Notes occupational prestige is by and large dependent upon one’s education. The higher the education,
the higher the possibility of attaining higher occupational status. Since urban communities offer
better educational facilities, the chances of status mobility are higher here. However, Rajendra
Pandey (1974) in a comparative study of differences in occupational aspirations of rural and urban
college youth concluded that the structural background of the rural and urban societies does make
a difference to the aspirations, urges, and values of the youth and accordingly the rural and the
urban youth aspire for different kinds of jobs.
The caste system, however, does admit mobility; but it is the group as a whole which changes its
position in the caste hierarchy. Scholars like Lynch (1969), Hardgrave (1970) and Ashis Nandy
(1978) have pointed out many instances, including those of Jatavs, Nadars and Mahishyas where
urbanisation and industrilisation have supported caste mobility. Satish Saberwal (1976) has
discussed the process of upward mobility among the Ramgariahs, a carpenter caste of Punjab.

Ethnic Diversity and Community Integration
Since selective type of people migrate to urban areas, urban communities often have some ethnic
minorities. This poses the problem of their integration in urban social structures. D’Souza has
referred to the studies of two scholars in this context—one by K.S. Nair in Poona in 1978 and other
by Andrea Menefee Singh. Both these scholars studied the integration of Brahmin south Indians,
following their white-collar occupations, in urban social structures. In both studies, it was found
that the migrants had not imbibed the mode of life of the local members, but, on the contrary, they
had recreated in the localities of their segregation the conditions of their home communities by
establishing south Indian services, institutions and associations. We find the same pattern of
integration among Bengalis, Punjabis, Keralites, Tamils, Maharashtrians, Kashmiris, etc. who
migrate from their cities of origin to cities in other states. Not only do they create their associations
but they meet each other on specific occasions where they continue to follow their traditional
social practices. B. Punekar (1974) also found the same process of integration among north Indian
migrants in Bangalore city. Punekar, Singh, and Nair analysing the relationships between different
ethnic groups living in a city, found mutual indifference and non-interference. In rare cases, they
noticed hostility. M.S.Gore (1970) noted hostility in his study of neighbourhood relations in Bombay
where the Maharashtrians expressed negative attitude against neighbours who hailed from other
regions. However, Maharashtrians are so much affected by the ideology of Shiv Sena Sainiks
(Maharashtra for Maharashtrians) that it cannot be said that similar ideology determines relations
among different ethnic groups in other parts of the country. The pattern of adjustment of different
ethnic groups in cities is one of accommodation and toleration.
Urban Neighbourhoods

Neighbours, as described by sociologists, are the member of a primary group who have close and
intimate relationships with one another. But urbanisation has of late affected neighbourhood
relations to the extent that the neighbours do not even know each other, not to talk of having
social interaction or close relations. Besides M.S. Gore’s study on neighbourhood relations
mentioned above, Subhash Chandra’s study in 1977 examined the level of social participation in
neighbourhoods in Kanpur in Uttar Pradesh. He found that neighbourhood interaction is marked
by a high degree of informality. Harish Doshi in his study of neighbourhoods in Ahmedabad in
1974 found persistence of traditional neighbourhoods as well as some adaptation to the changing
circumstances. Niranjan Pant in his study in 1978 found that persons of higher socio-economic
status in neighbourhoods are more active in community affairs and in articulating the needs and
demands of neighbours.
An analysis of the occupants of the inner city shows that in terms of factors like income, education
and occupation, people in the same neighbourhood lead radically different lives. Residents in a
neighbourhood can be divided into various groups: immigrants, professionals, students,
intellectuals, businessmen, service class, less educated, highly educated and members of middle
and rich classes. These varied social classes, though they live in close physical proximity, yet
socially they live in different ‘worlds’. A member of an upper class may live at a stone’s throw
from a person belonging to a poor or a lower middle-class community but is sealed off from its

54 LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY