Page 99 - DSOC202_SOCIAL_STRATIFICATION_ENGLISH

Social Stratification

Notes • The assimilability of the non-capitalist features of economy with the capitalist system of
production has produced a system of social stratification different from both the agrarian
and the urban-industrial. The growth of regional markets and the development of modern
transportation networks initially provided the requisite stimulus for the development of
sugar industry.
• A few low status caste groups like mails also rose to become rich peasants. Several factors
including the spread of canal irrigation, co-operatives, legislations, favourable political milieu,
etc. brought about socio-economic and political transformation of the peasantry having
implications for change in the rural as well as the urban social stratification (Chithelen,
1985).
• The Industrial Policy Resolution of 1956 though reasserts the constitutional position that the
‘common good’ of the people and ‘distributive justice’ would remain the central concerns;
the role of larger industrial houses and multinationals remains unaffected to a large extent
(Siddharthan, 1979). Associations formed by the capitalists have been used to promote
economic as well as political interests (Mukherjee, 1978; Sharma, 1981).
• The pre-British middle classes comprised of the merchant, the artisan and the landed
aristocracy having their roots in ‘authoritarianism’ . During the British period, the structure
and complexion of the middle classes transformed due to a variety of factors and policy
changes. The new middle classes included the businessmen and entrepreneurs, industrialists,
landed people, educated groups, professionals, etc. The middle classes are basically trained
‘service groups’, and therefore, serve both the upper and the lower classes, though not
making available their services in equal measure. The structure of the middle classes after
independence has undergone a considerable change in terms of their size, functions and role
mainly due to the nature and character of the Indian State.
• The middle classes in India are a product of both capitalist development and the state. The
anti-reservation agitations in Gujarat as understood by Shah imply a conflict-situation between
the entrenched middle classes and the lower classes aspiring for the middle classes status by
having access to lucrative white-collar occupations.
• Middle classes are not direct rulers nor are they economic producers like the industrialists,
workers and peasants. There is a marked lack of homogeneity among different middle classes.
In Fact, structural distinctions are quite marked even between the apparently equal/
homogeneous classes. Some classes are not so important in people’s eyes, yet they enjoy high
prestige because of the autonomy of their professions and the networks which they develop
simply as a by-product of their professional obligations. These points require further probing.
• The ‘industrial man’ is not a monolith. Holmstrom (1984) discusses at length that ‘industry’
is primarily an inequalitarian system in terms of organized and unorganized labour sector,
contract labour, labour markets, the working class conditions, workers’ social worlds, the
domineering role of owners, managers, superiors and leadership of trade unions. These
distinctions based on gender (Mies, 1981) and nature of industrial or semi-industrial work
(Bhowmik, 1980; Prasanneswari, 1984; Behal, 1985; Thomas Issac, 1982) have been taken as
the main criteria of socio-cultural and economic heterogeneity of the working class, particularly
in the analysis of working class consciousness, intra and inter-working class relations and
relations of the working class with the owners and managerial and supervisory cadres of
industry.

94 LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY