© Nitin Sangwan www.meandupsc.blogspot.in
Louis Dumont’s Perspective on Caste System In 1970s, French sociologist Louis Dumont in his seminal work ‘Homo ‘Homo Hierarchicus: Caste System and Its Implication, 1966’ 1966 ’ synthesized macro perspective of Ghurye with micro perspective of empirical studies, thus, combining ‘text’ with ‘context’. His theory of caste hierarchy locates its basis in ‘ pollution ‘ pollution and purity ’ distinction and it is a special type of inequality according to him.
I.
He borrowed theoretical framework from Levis Strauss which calls for identification of binary opposites and applied it in Indian context as caste being opposition of pure and impure.
II.
He was also deeply influenced by Bougle’s cultural explanatio n of caste and his ideas that
division of labor in caste system is not on economic basis, but cultural basis and hence not exploitative. Bougle further argues that position of every other caste is relative to Brahmins and they evaluate themselves taking position of Brahmins as reference and every caste is concerned with its boundary maintenance. He condensed the 3 core features of Bougle into one all encompassing principle of caste as an ‘ideology’ of separation of pure and impure. Thus, he sees caste from an ‘ideological perspective’ perspective’ and not just an empirical realty. Louis Dumont constructed a textually-informed image of caste which according to him is a combination of Indological and structuralist approach with dual focus on ideology as well as structure.
According to him, caste plays an integrative role in Indian society and is distinctive of India and he sees caste system in terms of ‘ideas and values ’ i.e. caste system is an ideology. Ideology of Indian society is in binary opposition with Western ideology – modern against tradition, holism against individualism, hierarchy against equality, purity against pollution and status against power. Dumont emphasized on ideology as it is reflected through ancient te xts. According to Dumont, caste hierarchy is a peculiar feature of Indian society and there cannot be any cross cultural comparisons of caste system. He further says that hierarchy is of status and hence is independent of power. According to him even kings were subordinate to priests. This hierarchy, and hence separation of pure and impure, is evident in other fields of Hindu life as well. Jajmani as an economic system is also dominated by hierarchy and not principles of economics. Similarly, aspects of civil life such as marriage, eating, socialization are governed by hierarchy. Louis Dumont in his – ‘Homo Hierarchicus – The conceptualized The Caste System and Its Implication, 1966 ’ conceptualized caste as ‘opposition of pure and impure’. Three elements are central to his analysis –
I.
Division of labor on basis of pure and impure
II.
Superiority of pure over impure
III.
The separation of the two
These unique core principles of caste-hierarchy, according to Dumont, are observed in scriptural formulation as well as the every-day life of all Hindus. He identified a number of pure and impure practices which are attached with notions of purity and impurity. Endogamy, cleanliness, vegetarianism are considered pure and superior. Accordingly, those who are engaged in impure occupations are separated from the class of sacred/pure occupations. Pure and impure are attached to not only occupation, but to the entire structure of ideas.
© Nitin Sangwan www.meandupsc.blogspot.in
The interactional approach to caste (as used by Beteille) draws attention to the structural aspect as opposed to attributional /ritual/cultural one. However, for an institution like caste the 'ideology' supporting it is of critical importance for proper understanding of caste and the identity politics of today. According to him, caste is a set of relationships of economic, political and kinship systems sustained by certain values which are mostly religious in nature. In the Indian context Dumont has made an incisive statement against the use of stratification model for caste in his ‘Homo Hierarchicus’ has forced attention to the ideological approach once again. According to him, ‘caste is not a form of stratification, but a special form of inequality and hierarchy is the central tenet of this system’. According to him, in Indian context, opposition of equality is hierarchy. Dumont
defines hierarchy ‘as the principle by which the elements of a whole are ranked in relation to the whole .’ His concept of ‘Homo -Hierarchicus’ has built up a model of Indian civilization based on non -competitive
ritual hierarchical system. In urging the relevance of the principle of hierarchy, Dumont notes how alien it is to the modern mentality. Modern man's ideology is decidedly egalitarian and individualistic, diametrically opposite to a hierarchical and collectivist one. According to him, principle of purity and pollution is universal irrespective of region and class. He thus rejects Srinivas’ idea that caste hierarchy has both ritual and secular streams. Ritual hierarchy always
dominates secular status. Division of labor is culturally defined and not by economic needs. He also analyzed caste in changing times and according to him, overall framework has not changed. ‘There is change in society and not of society ’. One significant change that has taken place is that
traditional interdependence has been replaced by competing interests which he termed as ‘substantialisation of caste’.
However, critics question his approach for being too textual. Andre Beteille says his views are much on what caste ought to be and not what caste today is. Superiority of Brahmins claimed by him is also questioned by others who see power concentrated in hands of kings. Beteille blames Dumont in particular for encouraging a ‘caste-view’ of Indian society. Gerald Berreman rejects his idea of impurity or pollution and cites example of foothills of Himalaya, where people never considered themselves impure in terms of mannerism, food habits etc. According to him caste is a product of domination and sub-domination. Dumont has almost tried to represent caste as a static concept and Indian society a stagnated society. Gerald Berreman also criticized Dumont’s notion that power and economic factors are distinct from caste. Similarly, Dipankar Gupta’s study of Jats in North India indicates that Jat consider Brahmins as idle, lazy a nd greedy contrary to Dumont’s understanding o Brahmins as pure, sacred and high placed. His critics compare him to ‘new Manu’ and his idea of Homo-hierachicus as ‘new Manusmriti ’. Yogendra Singh accuses him of obsessed with integrational aspects of caste. According to Hira Singh in his ‘Recasting Caste, 2014’, Dumont’ s approach is overburdened with religion and it also
fails to see that caste was never a rigid fixed entity even in ancient India. Despite criticism, his approach to caste study is unique and thought provoking. In words of T N Madan, ‘Indian sociology must have been poorer to a great extent without contribution of Dumont ’.
© Nitin Sangwan www.meandupsc.blogspot.in
Andre Beteille’s Perspective on Caste System Understanding of Beteille is diffusive and he adopts an interactional approach rather than unidimensional approach to describe caste. He started his analysis of caste from the empirical study of caste in village of Sripuram in Tanjore district of Tamil Nadu ( Sripuram: A Village in Tanjore District, 1962 ) which he also explained in his book ‘Case, Class and Power: Changing Patterns of Stratification in a Tanjore Village,1965’. He also wrote many other essays and books like – ‘Social and Cultural Reproduction of Caste, Kinship and Occupation in India’, ‘Inequalities among Men, 1977 ’, ‘The Backward Classes in Contemporary India, 1992’ etc.
While Ghurye and Dumont focused only on ideological/ritual aspect of caste only, Beteille casts his net wider to understand Indian society and adopts a trinitarian approach of Weber. According to him, along with caste, one should also study kinship, class and power as well. So, according to him structural aspects of caste – mainly economic and political dimensions have remained underestimated by these thinkers. So, he advocates studying of relations between upper caste and lower caste, between landowning and land landless caste, between Jajman and Kamin etc should be studied from structural perspective also by using universal stratification as a general phenomenon. His analysis is also useful in showing that empirical reality of caste is rem arkably different from the cultural ideal type of caste. His multi-dimensional view affords us a better view of society as a whole and caste in relation to other social dimensions. For example, according to his study, he concluded that Kinships also play an important role as individuals often chose the occupation of their parents. This influence of kin is evident in Industry, cinema and politics as well. So, his focus is not on hierarchy of caste alone, but stratification in general. His understanding of caste is reflexive and it doesn’t take a stereotypical approach.
In Sripuram, it was not only Brahmins that maintained distance from other castes, but Adi-Dravidians (so called depressed classes) also avoided mixing with Brahmins as they saw doing so will attract misfortune. Thus, it rejects view of Ghurye, Dumont and others which saw caste as a uniform phenomenon with implicit superiority of Brahmins. Further, lower castes were equally concerned about boundary maintenance and less keen on Sanskritization. He also noticed that sub-castes among even Brahmins have unequal relations. For example – Iyenger Brahmins deem themselves ritually purest. He observes that, education becomes open and Dravidians too are able to place themselves in white collar jobs. Within village also, land had come into market and Brahmins have also sold their land in many instances and Adi-Dravidians bought in other. As land comes in open market, the productive organization of village tended to be free from the structure of caste. Thus, due to these factors, power structure in villages also changes. Caste alone is now not the only determinant of status and power. According to Beteille, shift from traditional occupation also impact social standing of caste groups. Most Brahmins are now either in government jobs or in agriculture. This has also impacted relations of Brahmins with other castes. Further, according to him inter-relation between caste, class and power is not as harmonious as it was before which is attributed to factors like – growth of education, secularization of society and occupations, migration, politics and democracy etc. Further, dilution of values, decline of Jajmani system have contributed to hierarchical gradation of caste in India.
© Nitin Sangwan www.meandupsc.blogspot.in
However, caste dimension still remains and India has gone for only ‘selective modernization’ and not complete modernization as explained by Yogendra Singh neither has it remained totally traditional as Dumont has put it. Andre Beteille observes that power has shifted from one dominant caste to another and it is shifted from the caste structure itself, and come to be located in more differentiated structures such as panchayats and political parties. He is sometimes criticized for being obsessed with only understanding the dynamism of caste through three hierarchies only and also accused of narrow empiricism for generalization from the study of a single village of Southern India. DUMONT
BETEILLE
Work
Homo hierachicus – Caste System and Its Implications – 1966
Caste, Class and Power – Changing patterns of stratification in a Tanjore village, 1965
Perspective
Structural Indological
Weberian Trinitarian; Multidimensional view
Methods
Book View
Direct Observation; Ethnographic studies
Key idea
Purity-Impurity
Caste, Class and Power Nexus
Features
a. Hierarchy is core of caste system b. Indian society is based on hierarchy – Homo Hierarchichus and Western Society is based on equality – Homo
a.
Aquealis c. Hierarchy is understood in terms of purity and impurity d. In distinction of purity and impurity, implicit is notion of superiority and inferiority e. ‘Ritual Status’ and ‘Power’ are distinct in caste system. This also implies that there is no parallel of Indian caste system
c.
Future of caste
a. Ritual Status to remain significant b. Substantialisation of Caste going on c. Change ‘in’ society will happen and not change ‘of’ society
a.
Criticism
a.
a.
Berrmen criticize him for looking at power and status in dichotomous terms as more often than not they are two sides of same coin b. Too much of Indology, sweeping inferences drawn from Sanskritic Classical texts which contradict with today’s ground reality
Ritual Status is not the only determinant of structural relations b. Power and Class also play important role Villages are integrated with wider society – Systemic view d. Structural shifts are happening – Landed elite from upper caste no longer call the shots
Becomes more complex – Caste, Class and Power Nexus b. Caste no longer basis of occupations Narrow Empiricism – A single village study cannot be generalized for whole India
© Nitin Sangwan www.meandupsc.blogspot.in
c.
Caste is almost seen as functional when
he
talks
it
as
‘functional
necessity’ – ignored the conflict that
exist
