Page 127 - DSOC202_SOCIAL_STRATIFICATION_ENGLISH

Social Stratification

Notes the relationship of the ‘encompassing’ and the ‘encompassed’. The ‘pure’ encompasses the ‘less
pure’ and so on. This applies to all the sections and aspects of society. Thus, change is in the
society and not of the society.
Dumont’s view falls short of all those points which have been indicated in regard to structural-
functionalism. In addition to these points, Singh (1981) comments that Dumont’s structuralism
suffers both theoretically and substantively. Gould’s notion of ‘contra priest’ (1967) also negates
the dichotomy or binary opposition between the pure and impure. The lower caste men also
function as priests, hence they become pure. But they remain impure being lower in the caste
hierarchy. The implication of Dumont’s treatment of caste is that caste and class are in binary
opposition. Singh’s (1981) comments on structuralism are as follows : “The structuralist’s treatment
of dialectics is dissociated from history. History, indeed, links essence to existence, form to content,
super-structure to infrastructure and theory to practice. Devoid of such a sense of historical
conjecture structuralism amounts to a set of conceptual schema, devoid of a basis in evolutionary
changes in society. Its transformational relationships being a historical abound in tautologies.”
In a study, Klass (1980) has raised the question of origin of caste. Klass projects a paradigm of the
possible development of the caste system. The main idea is that clans exchange women, whereas
the caste system exchanges goods without exchanging women. The explanation given by Klass is
that India has developed ecosystems in which people have different modes of life, and the various
human groups (corporate groups) would have a minimum of intercourse and not exchange women
with outside groups. Thus, corporate groups form marriage circles. Klass relates caste with physical
force and economic power. However, the corporateness of caste groups is equated with their
egalitarian character, and this might be historically and substantively incorrect.
The understanding of caste and class demands an approach which has such as : (i) dialects,
(ii) history, (iii) culture, and (iv) structure. Dialectics refers to the effective notions which bring
about contradictions and highlight relations between unequal segments and men and women.
Thus, it does not simply mean binary fission in the cognitive structure of Indian society as perceived
by structuralists in terms of pure and impure. History provides a sub-stantial account of the
conditions of human existence. It is not a conjectural construction based on mythology, scriptures
and ideations. Culture defines the rules of the game, the nature of relations between the haves and
the have-nots. Thus culture does not include only cultural practices, rituals, rites de passage, etc.
Structure is a product of dialectical contradictions, historical forces, and a certain ‘formation’.
Once it has emerged, it becomes a sort of force in determining the course of history, the nature of
contradictions and the evaluational standards. Thus, structure refers to relations between social
segments at a point of time as a historical product and as an existent reality.
Dialectics, history, culture and structure refer to a combination of theory, structure and process
about the social formation (both caste and class) of Indian society. Together they explain the
historicity of Indian society from the point of its genesis. The debates to-day are: whether changes
in caste and class are ‘transformational’ or they are ‘replacements’, whether caste is ‘closed’ and
class is ‘open’; whether caste is ‘organic’ and whether class is ‘segmentary’ ; and whether caste is
replaced by class. These are questions which have come up quite often as the idea of ‘social
formation’ has not gained currency in our understanding of caste and class. The obsession of
considering caste and class as polar opposites has prevented us from thinking of caste and class as
dimensions of the historicity of India’s social formation.
Several scholars have denied the ‘congruence’ version about caste, class and power in the ancient
India. They have conclusively established that social mobility existed in ancient and medieval
India. The jajmani system was never completely ‘organic’ in practice. The idea of the contrapriest
exposes the hollowness of the concepts of hierarchy and pollution-purity. In the place of
sanskritization, westernization and dominant caste etc., it is necessary to study downward mobility
and proletarianization, upward mobility and embourgeoisiement, urban incomes for the rural
people and the migration of the rural rich to towns, and rural non-agricultural income and mobility
etc.

122 LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY