More Menu

Concept of Class and Caste in Social Stratification

byPosted at

 Contents

  1. Introduction
  2. Social Stratification: Theoretical Understanding
  3. Concept of Class
  4. Concept of Caste and its Characteristics
  5. Summary

Introduction

Man has always wished for an egalitarian society in which all people are treated equally, but this lofty goal has never been fully realised in recorded history, and particularly not in modern civilizations, which are more concerned with equality than past societies. Inequalities have increased inside countries and between countries throughout the previous century, according to metrics of development created by national and international organisations.

Several agencies at various levels are working to reduce economic and social disparities. The modern state has assumed the primary role in decreasing social inequities. International organisations such as the United Nations Development Programme, the World Bank, and the Asian Development Bank also play an important role in policy formation and resource mobilisation to eliminate poverty. Voluntary organisations are becoming more active in the implementation of development programmes with the primary goal of reducing poverty and empowering people. Needless to say, these efforts have only yielded partial results.

The study of social stratification is of particular interest to social workers. Individuals, groups, and communities seek to improve their social functioning through social work. Individual and collective behaviour are highly influenced by the type and structure of social stratification in a society. A caseworker, for example, will have to deal with a client who is concerned about losing his or her position as a result of a string of business failures. Understanding the individual's social background necessitates knowledge of his or her social class and caste status. Similarly, these criteria are frequently used to construct groups for completing group work. The necessity for community organisation is even greater in Indian society, since prospects for development are determined by a community's class and caste position.

Social Stratification: Theoretical Understanding

The arrangement of groups of individuals in hierarchical positions based on variables such as income, prestige, ethnicity, gender, and power is known as social stratification. Because of their similar social positions, they establish a shared understanding of who they are, what their common problems are, and what should be done to address these issues. A prominent form of social inequality is social stratification. Individual-based inequality and profession-based inequality are the main types of social inequality in sophisticated industrial countries like the United States, according to sociologists. Lists have been created to indicate how the general public views the relative prestige of various jobs. The medical doctor is at the top of the list, while the sweeper is at the bottom. The social worker is a middle-ranking employee.

Individual mobility disrupts the hierarchy's organisation of status, which limits the development of group consciousness. It is critical for the formation of group consciousness that the social structure be stable, that members remain in a group for an extended period of time, and that social mobility be limited. The main determinants of social stratification in India are class and caste, which we will learn about presently.

There are two prominent social thinkers who have enriched our understanding of the nature, types and consequences of social stratification: Karl Marx and Max Weber.

The economic aspect plays a significant part in Marx's theory of society. A class, according to his conception, is a collection of people who have comparable relationships to the forces of production. In modern civilizations, for example, all persons who own factories are capitalists, and all individuals who labour for wages in these firms are workers. Individuals who own land are known as feudal lords, and those who work for them are known as serfs or labourers in an agrarian society. He also believed that the interests of these several groups were incompatible, meaning that one group benefited at the expense of another. As a result, capitalists, feudal lords, and slave owners in their separate societies always exploited workers, labourers, and slaves. Through various means, all other institutions in society, whether religious, political, or educational, aided the exploitation process. Religion, for example, preaches fatalism, which persuades individuals that their suffering is unavoidable and that passive suffering can lead to celestial benefits after death. Similarly, the government uses pressure to suppress attempts by the poorer sectors to demand economic fairness by referring to it as a law and order issue or revolt. In the Indian setting, a Marxist interpretation of caste and the kanna theory linked with it would explain exploitative relationships between landlords and serfs. They keep the serfs from realising that the landlord is exploiting them, which makes it impossible for them to challenge the exploitative system. As a result, Marx presents us with the notion of the economic basis of social inequality.

Max Weber, another renowned thinker, agreed with many ideas of Marx but differed on others topics. He agreed with Marx that the most significant feature of stratification is economic which leads in construction of the hierarchical system of class but he points out that there are other elements which determine social stratification. According to him there are three elements of stratification: wealth, prestige and power. Weber also stated that class development did not depend exclusively on ownership of productive forces. It depended on the market context by which an individual may achieve his potential in competition with others. For example, a known lawyer or a doctor may not own a field or an industry but he has specialised talents, which not many others have. That is why these professionals are given substantial pay. Weber points out that if the market situa~ion of the individual is good then the person can become affluent and thus earns membership into the upper class. Status is the second dimension of stratification and it is a measure of prestige the society provides to an individual and that depends on the lifestyle of the person. A person who occupies a prominent office would be admired because of his stature and not because of his economic situation. The third dimension is power which is the ability of the individual to influence the conduct of others against their own volition. For example a village community leader may neither be rich nor occupying a prestigious office but his status as leader of the community provides him influence. Weber agrees that in most circumstances, all three elements, income, position and power are connected. A person who enjoys wealth and power is likely to enjoy great status. This is however true of most circumstances but not in all cases. For example~ a dalit may be skilled and well to do but may not be accorded the respect he deserves due of his caste origin. Weber by adding these characteristics of stratification, has enabled a broader understanding of social stratification.

Concept of Class

A social class is a group of people who share a comparable level of wealth.

Possessing wealth allows an individual to get scarce commodities and services that are highly desired by others. These products and services vary depending on the society. The affluent individual in traditional civilization might buy land and gold, whereas in modern society, he may invest in the stock market, buy beautiful cars, or travel overseas for vacations. Wealth enables a person to accumulate more wealth and invest it wisely.

Concept of Class and its Characteristics

The majority of modern societies are divided into classes. Many aspects of ancient stratification, such as the caste system and feudalism found in India, can be found in modern society. However, as the economy develops, class-based stratification becomes more essential. The following are some of the major aspects of the class system:

Class is a Relatively Open Stratification System

Depending on the quantity of opportunities for upward social mobility accessible to its people, a society is said to be generally open or closed. Equally crucial is the society's attitude regarding its members' mobility. An open stratification society is one that provides a vast number of chances to its members and encourages them to advance in their careers. A closed stratified society, on the other hand, is one in which the number of options for upward mobility is limited and normative ideals prevent people from obtaining higher positions. With advancement, the stratification system becomes more open and goal-oriented.

A type of open stratification system is the class system. With his accomplishments, he can advance to a higher class and obtain prestige. There are examples of people who climbed from poverty to become millionaires as a result of their hard work and accomplishments. Individuals like them are valued in modern culture because they serve as role models for others.

Individual intelligence, merit, competence, and success are used to determine social mobility in modern civilizations. Regardless of openness, socioeconomic background, parental position and resources, social networks, and other attributed characteristics all have a part in defining individual motivation, achievement, and the availability of chances in every community. Modern cultures cannot be claimed to be entirely accomplishment oriented and open because these characteristics are beyond the individual's control and cannot be easily manipulated to his benefit. That is why, in comparison to other cultures, we have stated that class-based societies are comparatively open. We'll look at the caste system, which is a somewhat closed system of stratification.

In traditional societies, social hierarchy is established through ascription, whereas in class-based systems, achievement is vital. To put it another way, the difference between traditional and modern social hierarchies resides in the distinction between (status awarded and status attained being) the social stratification's foundations. Traditional social hierarchies are based on assigned states, whereas modern social hierarchies are based on status earned.

In today's society, competition is fierce, and only the strongest will survive. Two consequences of an achievement-based society must be remembered by social workers. Because achievement is emphasised, an individual's failures are looked down upon by others, and they lose their self-esteem. You may have read in the news about schoolchildren who committed suicide as a result of failing their exams. Vulnerable students are pushed to take this extreme step by their desire for high achievement and meeting others' high expectations. Second, an achievement-based society should provide individuals with the bare minimum of health, education, and housing in order to prepare them for competition. In countries like India, we find that these basic amenities are not available to everyone, and many people are unable to compete on an equal footing with others. As a result, the social situation is unjust for these people. Welfare and development programmes are implemented by the government and non-governmental organisations to help disadvantaged people integrate into society.

Impact of Class System in India

The behaviour of its members is influenced by their membership in specific class groups. It makes kids more aware of their social standing. However, caste and related issues are accorded more weight in the Indian setting than class factors. In comparison to Western countries, India has a distinct class structure. In India, class and caste categories coexist, with higher, medium, and lower class categories running parallel to caste groups. They work together to determine an individual's social rank, power, and prestige. According to studies, the upper classes mostly belong to the upper castes, which are granted social standing. Although there have been substantial changes in recent decades, the pattern has remained consistent.

The social status of an individual influences the accumulation and distribution of resources, including education. Those who are higher in terms of class and caste have a large amount of control over available resources, leaving a large portion of the Indian population below and near the poverty line. Globalization and liberalisation appear to have exacerbated the gap between the haves and the have-nots, between the rich and the poor, between urban and rural populations, and between upper and lower castes.

Concept of Caste and its Characteristics

In India, caste is a hotly disputed topic. The word 'cast' is derived from the Spanish word 'Casta,' which meaning 'breed.' In India, it refers to caste and the social practises that go with it. The caste system has a lot of effects on Indian social life since it assigns ascribed rank to its members.

According to the Rig Veda, the oldest and most important of all four Vedas, there are four Varnas: Brahmans, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas, and Shudras, who are arranged in a hierarchical order. Priests and teachers are the professions of brahmans. Warriors and rulers, the Kshatriyas. Traders and other common folk make up the Visahyas (Vis). Shudras are the lowest-ranking members of society, performing menial chores. Some historians believe that there is a fifth Varna, the untouchables, who are not considered members of society. Tribes and adherents of other religions are likewise excluded from the Varna system.

People are born into a caste, and their caste membership is defined by their birth. An individual's caste cannot be changed. However, there have been times where castes as a whole have claimed a greater rank in society as a result of improved economic status and lifestyle changes. Such accusations may not be recognised by the mayor. The ruling castes may be offended by the claim. Even if the allegation is approved, the caste system will continue to exist. However, the degree of rigidity of the caste system in India has changed as a result of Sanskritization, intercaste marriage, and educational growth.

According to G.S. Ghurye, a noted anthropologist, caste has six characteristics:
  1. Hierarchy: The superior-subordinate connection between distinct persons and groups is known as hierarchy. Every culture has hierarchy in some form or another, but the principles used to determine the hierarchy change from one society to the next. In India, caste is the most important factor in determining social status. A caste's position in the hierarchy is determined by the degree of ceremonial purity and impurity associated with it. The factors that determine success are neither wealth or power. Because of his higher ceremonial rank, a Brahmin with a lower economic status than a Rajput is given a superior position. 

    However, while political and economic variables certainly play a role in establishing the caste's position, sociologists have pointed up that high ceremonial rank does not always equate to higher social status. As an example. While a Rajput may not play as significant a role in ritual as a Brahamin, he is unlikely to grant the Brahmin a higher position in other areas. 

    A dominating caste, according to sociologist M. N. Srinivasan, is a caste in a community with a sufficiently high ceremonial rank, numerical strength, and material resources such as land, riches, and power. A caste's position in the hierarchy is maintained by a mixture of these elements. The ruling caste frequently plays a significant role in village politics and social life.
  2. Segmented Division of Society: Castes are well-developed social groups in which membership is determined by birth rather than selection. Individual rights and responsibilities are governed by caste councils, which exist in every caste. These councils have extensive authority over their members' social lives. They can maintain order by enforcing penalties for a range of offences. Adultery, causing bodily harm to others, and murder are examples of crimes that can result in fines, physical punishment, or even the death penalty. Many castes have their own gods and goddesses who aren't associated with the wider religious tradition. As a result, caste enjoys a considerable degree of autonomy in dealing with issues affecting its members, and is free of government constraints.
  3. Restrictions on Feeding and Social Intercourse: The exchange of prepared food between castes is governed by a set of laws and regulations. Particular castes will only eat certain foods prepared by members of other castes. Food is separated into two categories: pakka and kacha. Pakka, which is made with ghee, is regarded superior to kacha, which is made with water. A Brahmin can only eat pakka meal from Kshatriyas and Vaishyas, not Shudras or untouchables. Kshatriyas, on the other hand, will accept kacha food from Brahmins but only pakka food from Vaishyas who are lower than them. The differences in food offering and taking are based on the caste ranks involved.

    The maintaining of social isolation between different castes exemplifies such distinctions. Caste statuses are reflected in the physical gap between castes. In traditional Kerala society, for example, a Nayar may approach but not touch a Nambudri, however a member of the Tiya caste (lower than the Nayar caste) must maintain a 36-step distance from the Nambudri.
  4. Civil and Religious Disabilities and Privileges of Different Castes: In the hierarchy, different castes have different rights and benefits. As a result, social life is segregated along caste lines. Impure castes are separated in north Indian villages, while pure castes coexist. All castes are divided in South India. In Tamil Nadu, for example, areas where caste Hindus live are referred to as Ur, while areas where dalits live are referred to as Cheri. The village is a long way away from the Cheri.

    Ghurye uses examples from the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries to demonstrate how these impairments were imposed. Shudras, for example, were forbidden from wandering on temple streets in Viakom, a town in the princely kingdom of Travancore. The situation was transformed by a nationwide protest led by notable figures such as Mahatma Gandhi and Periyar against these discriminatory practises. Similarly, a Shudra could not enter Pune in the morning or sunset since their lengthy shadows would taint individuals of the upper caste. We also see disparities in the treatment of people who commit identical offences. For example, if a Brahmin was caught stealing, he was just fined, whereas a Shudra was subjected to physical punishment for the identical offence.

    Shudras had liabilities associated with his caste status, which were reinforced by religious activities. They were unable to enter the sanctum sanctorum, the most sacred area of the temple. This privilege was only given to Brahmins. Even today, discrimination against lower caste individuals exists in rural regions. We frequently hear of caste violence as a result of higher caste people refusing to allow lower caste individuals to participate in a wedding or funeral procession on the main thoroughfare.
  5. Lack of Unrestricted Choice of Occupation: Each caste had a traditionally given occupation, and membership in the caste was hereditary. Regardless of an individual's abilities and capabilities, he was forced to work in the caste's occupation. Similarly, each occupation was associated with a certain caste. As a result, each caste has only one vocation, which was based solely on the presence of that caste. Because he was born into a Brahmin household, only a Brahmin could become a priest. Caste was used to determine who received an education. Young members would be paired with senior members to learn the caste's occupation skills. There was no such thing as a universal or common education. Despite such limits on employment, sociologists have pointed out that certain occupations, including as weaving, agriculture, and military service, were open to all castes.

    The jajmani system governed economic interactions between the various castes in pre-modern periods. For the landlords, each service caste performed a certain job. They used to be compensated in kind, usually on an annual basis. There was a client-patron connection between the lower castes and the higher ones. Their relationship has evolved in modern times.
  6. Endogamy: Endogamy is a marital practise in which members of a group marry from within their own ranks. Endogamy is a significant feature of the caste system. Endogamy exists at the subcaste level in several castes. Even though they are both Tamil Brahmins, Iyers and Iyengars may not marry one other. 

    However, there are a few exceptions to the norm. Hypergamy and hypogamy are the two exceptions. Hypergamy occurs when a higher caste man marries a lower caste woman, while hypogamy occurs when a lower caste man marries a higher caste woman. Hypergamy is permitted, but hypogamy is strictly prohibited. If a lower caste family's daughter is accepted by a higher caste man and family, it is a matter of status. Marriage between a male Nambudri and a Nair woman is an example of this custom.

Caste in other Religions

Only Hinduism is one of the world's main religions that recognises caste. In India, however, followers of practically all religions appear to be divided into castes. In different ways, Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, and Sikhs appear to follow the idea of inclusion and hierarchy. Islam and Christianity both believe in complete equality among their adherents. The prevalence of caste-like behaviours, on the other hand, demonstrates that the social context in which a religion is practised influences it more than its theology in some ways. Sikhism and Buddhism are similar in this regard.

Other religions, outside Hinduism, have caste-like divisions. There are different types of Sikhs in Sikhism, such as Jat Sikhs and Mazhabi Sikhs. They do not marry each other. Syeds, Sheikhs, Pathans, and Mughals are four categories in Islam that can be equated to castes. Syeds claim to be descendants of Prophet Muhammad, whereas Sheikhs claim to be descendants of Prophet Muhammad's tribe. In Hinduism, Pathans and Mughals are regarded as warriors equivalent to Kshatriyas. Other Islamic groupings are based on their chosen professions, such as weavers, butchers, and water carriers. These people have a lower social position than the Syeds, Sheikhs, Pathans, and Mughals. The majority of these communities are endogamous. There is little social interaction amongst these individuals. Anyone from any social category, however, can become a priest or moulvi if they are religiously knowledgeable.

Christianity is also an egalitarian faith that has encouraged individuals of all castes to convert at various times throughout history. Many of these castes have kept their caste identities even after becoming Christians, which has influenced their social behaviour. Islam and Christianity, on the other hand, have no concept of pollution or cleanliness, which are important to Hinduism. As a result, unlike Hinduism, these religions were less impacted by caste.

Summary

In this post we looked at many facets of social stratification, which is the partition of society into hierarchically placed groups based on one or more factors. Wealth, prestige, and power are used to classify people in modern society. The amount of wealth a person possesses determines the social class he or she belongs to, as well as the prestige bestowed upon him! His or her social status will decide how much power he or she has; his or her position in organisations will determine how much power he or she has.

References

  1. Gupta, Dipankar (1993), Social Stratification, Oxford University Press, New Delhi. 
  2. Haralamboss, Michael (!989), Sociology, Themes and Perspectives, Oxford University Press, New Delhi. 
  3. Kolenda, Pauline (1997), Caste in Contemporary India, Beyond qrganic Solidarity, Rawat Publications, Jaipur.

Post a Comment

Comments

Thank You

Find your topic