Page 290 - DSOC202_SOCIAL_STRATIFICATION_ENGLISH

Unit 13: Changing Dimensions of Social Stratification

The distinction made by Andre Beteille between caste, class and power, based on Weber’s Notes
framework of “class, status and party”, or economic, social and political orders, is justifiable in the
context of change and mobility, levels of caste and class consciousness, power structure and
emerging value orientations. Caste could be seen from a class point of view, or from “upside
down” rather than from “top down” view. Beteille observes “differentiation of institutional
structures” and weakening of “summation of statuses” in his study of a village in South India. He
also finds a very little preoccupation with purity-pollution related rituals. Beteille writes : “The
hierarchies of caste, class and power in the village overlap to some extent, but also cut across.” The
emergence of “market economy” can be better understood through Weber’s ideas of a “class
situation” and a “market situation”. Beteille asserts that caste, class and power are just abstract
categories, they are there at the empirical levels as economic, social and political distinctions
among the people.
Another noteworthy multidimensional study covering caste, class and politics is by Anil Bhatt.
The main objective of the Bhatt’s study is the understanding of what he calls –”comparative social
stratification”, meaning thereby a comparison of the traditional system of stratification with that
of the modern one.
Bhatt’s study shows the pattern and degree of relationship between caste, class and politics, the
degree of status congruence, the extent of socio-economic and political inequalities, the extent of
socio-economic and political positions and conversely the impact of democratic political structures
on the caste system. Bhatt deals with individuals as members of a caste, caste as a group in
relation to other castes and the caste system as a dimension of social stratification in relation to
socio-economic and political dimensions. According to Bhatt, social stratification in India has
deviated considerably from the traditional caste model. Caste does not encompass economic position
and political power. A given caste is internally differentiated in terms of class and power of its
members. Thus, Bhatt observes status incongruence, relative openness, mobility and competition
as the salient features of the emergent system of social stratification.
K.L. Sharma has classified the studies on social stratification into two categories : (i) the studies on
caste stratification, and (ii) the multidimensional studies of stratification. In the first category,
caste is viewed as the sole institution of social ranking; “caste model of Indian society” is the main
hypothesis in the studies of this category. Caste as an extreme form of class or as a closed community,
and a system of ideas and values concerning pollution-purity and religion is given prime
consideration in social ranking. The multidimensional studies do not consider caste as an all-
inclusive basis of social stratification. Economic position, style of life, education, occupation, etc.,
are also considered as the bases of evaluation of social position in a given community or caste.
Structuralist Approach to Social Stratification
For Louis Dumont, who is a prominent architect of structuralism, caste stands for inequality in
theory and practice both, but it is not simply an opposite of “equality”. Dumont observes that
caste as a type of social stratification is socio-centric. The inequality of the caste system is a special
type of inequality. The caste system appears as a perfectly coherent theory once one adds the
necessary but implicit links to the principles that the people themselves give. Thus, Dumont
adopts the methodology of structuralism in his analysis of the caste system. Dumont considers the
idea of the fundamental opposition between the pure and the impure in the analysis of the caste
system. Based on this, Dumont defines the caste system in terms of hierarchically arranged
hereditary groups, segregation and interdependence. Since these are based on the binary opposition
of the pure and the impure, Dumont calls it “a single true principle”. This opposition underlies
hierarchy, which is the superiority of the pure to the impure, underlies separation because the
pure and the impure must be kept separate. The whole is founded on the necessary and hierarchical
coexistence of the two opposites. Yogendra Singh sums up Dumont’s structuralism in terms of
(a) ideology, (b) dialectics (binary opposition), (c) transformational relationship, and (d) comparison.

LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY 285