CASTE, CLASS AND POWER

The relationship between caste, class and power has to be examined in the context of change. Because of the introduction of democracy, land reforms and many other measures, change has been an important feature of this relationship over the last few decades. The distribution of power has acquired a very dynamic character over the last two decades. In some ways, the traditional relationship between caste and power has been reversed.

As a traditional basis of stratification, caste is a distinctive category in the Indian social system. Though it had its beginning in the Hindu philosophy of four ‘Varna’s corresponding to four functional divisions, it has resulted in the perpetuation of several caste groups by birth among the Hindus, leaving about one-third of them as outcastes (called Harijans by Mahatma Gandhi and then called Dalit by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar). By impact or otherwise, caste also extends to other religious communities in India, such as the Muslims and the Christians.

CASTE

Traditionally it is the hierarchical arrangement of castes according to different degrees of dominance and privileges. The ancient ‘Varna’ model of classification of Hindu society was based on an identical functional division of fourfold classification which eventually evolved into the caste system. The Brahmins in India stand at the apex of the social ladder. A Brahmin is entitled to whatever exists in this world. The whole world is his property and others live on his charity. In the caste hierarchy, the Brahmins are followed by the Kshatriyas and Vaishyas.

At the bottom is Sudras. Along with the untouchables, the Sudras constitute the downtrodden section of Hindu society. The supposition of purity and pollution being communicated by some caste groups to the members of the higher caste places severe restrictions on the extent of feeding and social intercourse. In terms of a social group, caste is an occupationally specialized group that is close-knit on account of the fact that social custom sanctions marriage within the same caste.

This endogamy, being the “essence of the caste system”, any man violating this law is put out of his own sub-caste. Members of a particular caste group are expected to take to their hereditary occupation. No caste would allow its members to follow any occupation which was either degrading or impure. It was not only the moral pressure of one’s own caste group that compelled one to choose one’s occupation but also the prohibition imposed by other castes whose members did not permit members of the castes except their own to take to their occupation. The impure castes suffer from civil and religious disabilities.

CLASS

The stratification or division of society into several ranks on the basis of superordination and subordination is a characteristic feature of most social systems. Social scientists use class as the powerful concept of stratification for explaining the social organization, social movements and power structure. Greek philosopher, Plato conceived of three great classes (rulers-intellectual, warriors-physical power and artisans-aesthetic skills) on the basis of natural faculties.

A social class may be interpreted in a couple of ways. First, it may be defined in terms of some objectives, normally economic. According to Karl Marx, classes are large groups of people who differ from each other by their relation to the means of production, by their role in the social organization and labour and consequently by the mode and dimension of acquiring the share of social wealth of which they dispose.

In modern times Marx made the concept of class conflict central to his theory of dialectical materialism. Max Weber defined the class as a group of persons having the same ‘life chances’ or social opportunities. He thus added the ‘status’ dimension to determine one’s class. By status, Weber meant social honour or social esteem and this, he said, ‘normally stands in sharp opposition to the pretensions.

Modern sociologists like Maclver and Marshall regarded status as the basic criterion of social class. Maclver and Page define social class as “any portion of a community marked off from the rest by social status.” Where a society is composed of classes, the social structure looks like a truncated pyramid. At the basis of the structure lies the lowest social class and above it other social classes arranged in a hierarchy of rank and distinction. Thus secondly, a class is interpreted on the basis of status.

Each particular social class has its own behaviour pattern, its standards and occupations. The members of each social class contribute many attributes of an in-group. They recognize one another as their social counterparts and draw a line of demarcation between themselves and the members of other classes. Usually, they live with the members of their own class. Therefore, each social class is a society within a society, though not complete and independent.

A social class has its own distinctive ways of life in matters of the consumption system, type of conveyance, the way of recreation and leisure. The members of the upper class are considered masters rather than servants. They are free from manual labour and their lifestyle is completely marked off from the rest. They, thus, live in the lower class.

POWER

Power is a universal aspect of social interaction, social power plays a significant role in shaping affinity among the members of a group. Power differences are found among occupants of various statuses, father and child, employer and employee, politician and the voter, teacher and the student etc. ‘Power’ is the ability to get one’s wishes carried out in-spite of opposition if any. By saying that someone has more power than someone else, we usually imply his ability to influence the behaviour of others. But influence is not equivalent to power in the group. It need not be considered equivalent with ‘influence’ without regard to the situation of its occurrence. In the words of K. Davis, “power is the determination of the behaviour of others in accordance with one’s own ends.”

Power is a relative matter. A man who has power in one situation will not necessarily be powerful in all situations. Thus power differs from situation to situation. The extent of one’s power may determine the status of the person exercising power.

In the past power was concentrated in the hands of Brahmins, today the village panchayat is controlled by non-Brahmins and the traditional elite is being pushed into the background. Thus the traditionally dominant higher castes now face new challenges to the power they used to hold.

Due to the absence of internal differentiation among the members of the same caste on the one hand and vertical differentiation between the members on the other, the members of the same caste occupy social, economic and political positions at the same level and mark themselves off from the members of other castes in respect of their social, economic and political positions.

Conclusion

The process of differentiation between caste, class and power may be attributed to the introduction of land reforms. Andre Beteille’s study of Sripuram village reveals that economic and political structures are increasingly being differentiated from caste structures. A person may exercise power because of his status and position which he enjoys in the social structure. Usually, the entire social structure is viewed as a legitimate power system. Caste, class and power are three major dimensions of stratification in Indian society. The caste system with its myriad forms of super-ordination and sub-ordination, its many customs and taboos, is perhaps most responsible for confirming on India this dubious honour. But this is not all. Economically too India is highly stratified. In traditional India, both class and power were subsumed under caste. The uniqueness of the caste system tended to subsume the entire field of social stratification. Therefore, very often we talked of social stratification in India almost exclusively on the caste system.

Post a Comment

Previous Post Next Post