Caste L😊L
SOCIAL MANIFESTATIONS OF MARGINALIZATION: CASTE
What is caste?
Differentiate between caste and varna; caste and religion and also caste and tribe. Also
understand the difference between the book view and the field view of caste: the
Indological book view provided by those like Louis Dumont in his structural account Homo
Hierarchicus gives a notion of the ideological structure of caste system as if it is static and
unchanging – frozen in time. Dumont saw the caste system in terms of binaries like purity-
pollution; status and power; Brahmin and Kshatriya – involving relations such as status and
power encompassing and being encompassed by each other. 20 th century field views of the
caste system as given by M.N. Srinivas give us a more dynamic view of caste.
How are castes ranked?
Dumont’s understanding of caste lays emphasis on attributes of caste that is why his
approach is called attributional approach to the caste system. For him caste is a set of
relationships of economic, political and kinship systems, sustained by certain values which
are mostly religious in nature. According to Dumont caste divides the whole Indian society
into a larger number of hereditary groups distinguished from one another and connected
together by three characteristics:
1. Separation on the basis of rules of the caste in matters of marriage and contact
whether direct or indirect (food).
2. Interdependence of work or division of labor, each group having in theory or by
tradition, a profession from which their members can depart only within certain
limits
3. Gradation of status or hierarchy which ranks the groups as relatively superior or
inferior to one another.
Three different approaches have been used for the ranking of castes: by attribution, by
interaction and by reputation. Different theories have been advanced for each approach.
Attributional theories of Kolenda, Stevenson, Dumont, etc. argue that castes could be
ranked on the basis of their attributes like vegetarianism, purity of blood, etc. But one
cannot rely on the attributes of local jatis alone for ranking.
McKim Marriott in 1959 suggested an alternative theory known as the interactional theory
of jati ranks. The ritual rank of a jati can be established through the sharing of food and
water, sharing of tobacco pipe, beds, buildings, etc. Dumont points out that this approach
can be applied to only one village and therefore it has limited use.
1
, Caste L😊L
A third approach suggested by Freed in 1963 called the reputational approach. In this,
knowledgeable persons are asked to rank jatis on a scale. This approach also has its
limitations.
Mobility in the Caste System in the Pre-modern Period
In the essay ‘Mobility in the Caste System’ Srinivas traces the causes and forms of mobility in
the caste system from medieval times. He tells us that mobility in the caste system was
quite common in medieval times because of two reasons: political fluidity and the open
agrarian system. Both upward and downward social mobility were possible.
In medieval times with underdeveloped forms of communication, a ruler had to rule
carefully, for otherwise his subordinates or even members of his own family may revolt and
take control over all or portions of his land. Also as soon as a ruler died there may be many
attempts by smaller chiefs to gain political power.
Dominant castes even if they were peasant castes, could seize political power and then
increase their status through Sanskritization (Srinivas mentions the example of Marathas,
Reddis, Vellalas, Nayars, Coorgs in South India) – the kshatriya varna was formed from many
such castes, according to him. Status mobility through warfare very common.
Rulers could grant an increase in status – so if there weren’t enough Brahmins in a kingdom
to do the king’s poojas the king could ordain a group of people as Brahmins. If the king was
pleased with a group he could grant them a higher status in the caste hierarchy. He could
also demote a caste. Thus there were many links between caste status and political power.
Entire tribes becoming subsumed in the hierarchy of castes? Chandragupta Maurya –
peacock herders become political rulers. In the Medieval period there was the Bhakti
movement against the Brahmanical caste system when it became too ritualistic and
oppressive.
In the medieval period, the demographic situation was static. At the same time there was a
lot of marginal land that could be brought under cultivation. If there was more agriculture
the ruler would get more revenue. Therefore labour was in great demand. If a ruler was too
harsh, a family could migrate and settle somewhere else (migration happened then too!).
Take refuge in the forest. This spatial mobility was another factor for caste mobility in
medieval India.
Burton Stein argues that mobility in medieval India involved spatial mobility and was
familial in nature – it was a family that migrated and gained social mobility. The need as well
as the conditions for group mobility (what he calls corporate mobility) did not exist,
according to him. On the other hand, in modern period mobility became a function of
competition among castes for increasing their status within a narrow, localized ranking
system. We cannot understand mobility in the medieval caste system in the same
framework. The unit of social mobility was family and not caste, according to Stein.
2
SOCIAL MANIFESTATIONS OF MARGINALIZATION: CASTE
What is caste?
Differentiate between caste and varna; caste and religion and also caste and tribe. Also
understand the difference between the book view and the field view of caste: the
Indological book view provided by those like Louis Dumont in his structural account Homo
Hierarchicus gives a notion of the ideological structure of caste system as if it is static and
unchanging – frozen in time. Dumont saw the caste system in terms of binaries like purity-
pollution; status and power; Brahmin and Kshatriya – involving relations such as status and
power encompassing and being encompassed by each other. 20 th century field views of the
caste system as given by M.N. Srinivas give us a more dynamic view of caste.
How are castes ranked?
Dumont’s understanding of caste lays emphasis on attributes of caste that is why his
approach is called attributional approach to the caste system. For him caste is a set of
relationships of economic, political and kinship systems, sustained by certain values which
are mostly religious in nature. According to Dumont caste divides the whole Indian society
into a larger number of hereditary groups distinguished from one another and connected
together by three characteristics:
1. Separation on the basis of rules of the caste in matters of marriage and contact
whether direct or indirect (food).
2. Interdependence of work or division of labor, each group having in theory or by
tradition, a profession from which their members can depart only within certain
limits
3. Gradation of status or hierarchy which ranks the groups as relatively superior or
inferior to one another.
Three different approaches have been used for the ranking of castes: by attribution, by
interaction and by reputation. Different theories have been advanced for each approach.
Attributional theories of Kolenda, Stevenson, Dumont, etc. argue that castes could be
ranked on the basis of their attributes like vegetarianism, purity of blood, etc. But one
cannot rely on the attributes of local jatis alone for ranking.
McKim Marriott in 1959 suggested an alternative theory known as the interactional theory
of jati ranks. The ritual rank of a jati can be established through the sharing of food and
water, sharing of tobacco pipe, beds, buildings, etc. Dumont points out that this approach
can be applied to only one village and therefore it has limited use.
1
, Caste L😊L
A third approach suggested by Freed in 1963 called the reputational approach. In this,
knowledgeable persons are asked to rank jatis on a scale. This approach also has its
limitations.
Mobility in the Caste System in the Pre-modern Period
In the essay ‘Mobility in the Caste System’ Srinivas traces the causes and forms of mobility in
the caste system from medieval times. He tells us that mobility in the caste system was
quite common in medieval times because of two reasons: political fluidity and the open
agrarian system. Both upward and downward social mobility were possible.
In medieval times with underdeveloped forms of communication, a ruler had to rule
carefully, for otherwise his subordinates or even members of his own family may revolt and
take control over all or portions of his land. Also as soon as a ruler died there may be many
attempts by smaller chiefs to gain political power.
Dominant castes even if they were peasant castes, could seize political power and then
increase their status through Sanskritization (Srinivas mentions the example of Marathas,
Reddis, Vellalas, Nayars, Coorgs in South India) – the kshatriya varna was formed from many
such castes, according to him. Status mobility through warfare very common.
Rulers could grant an increase in status – so if there weren’t enough Brahmins in a kingdom
to do the king’s poojas the king could ordain a group of people as Brahmins. If the king was
pleased with a group he could grant them a higher status in the caste hierarchy. He could
also demote a caste. Thus there were many links between caste status and political power.
Entire tribes becoming subsumed in the hierarchy of castes? Chandragupta Maurya –
peacock herders become political rulers. In the Medieval period there was the Bhakti
movement against the Brahmanical caste system when it became too ritualistic and
oppressive.
In the medieval period, the demographic situation was static. At the same time there was a
lot of marginal land that could be brought under cultivation. If there was more agriculture
the ruler would get more revenue. Therefore labour was in great demand. If a ruler was too
harsh, a family could migrate and settle somewhere else (migration happened then too!).
Take refuge in the forest. This spatial mobility was another factor for caste mobility in
medieval India.
Burton Stein argues that mobility in medieval India involved spatial mobility and was
familial in nature – it was a family that migrated and gained social mobility. The need as well
as the conditions for group mobility (what he calls corporate mobility) did not exist,
according to him. On the other hand, in modern period mobility became a function of
competition among castes for increasing their status within a narrow, localized ranking
system. We cannot understand mobility in the medieval caste system in the same
framework. The unit of social mobility was family and not caste, according to Stein.
2
