Structural functionalism (M. N. Srinivas)
Structural Functionalism Tradition in India
What is Structural Functionalism?
Structural Functionalism is a theory that views society as a complex but stable system. It consists of interconnected parts that work together to meet the needs of individuals. Each part (like family, education, religion, etc.) has a function in maintaining the overall stability of society.
This perspective was first explored by thinkers like Radcliff-Brown and Talcott Parsons. It was later applied to study Indian society by scholars like M.N. Srinivas, G.S. Ghurye, and others.
Background in India
Since the 20th century, Structural Functionalism has been a key approach in studying Indian society. Sociologists in India have used this approach to understand unique aspects like the caste system and village life.
Key Indian sociologists who adopted this approach include:
G.S. Ghurye
M.N. Srinivas
S.C. Dube
These scholars helped define how Structural Functionalism can explain the structure and function of Indian society.
Evolution of Structural Functionalism in India
Study of Coorgs (Mysore)
M.N. Srinivas was the first to use Structural Functionalism to study the Coorgs of Mysore. He adapted the approach from American sociologists, but with a focus on fieldwork (direct observation) instead of just theoretical analysis.
Srinivas built upon the work of W.H. Wiser, who used this perspective to study the Jajmani system, showing how traditional roles in villages are interdependent.
Fieldwork vs. Book Knowledge
Unlike traditional theories that were based only on books and general ideas, Structural Functionalism in India emphasized direct field studies. This approach focused on understanding real-life social relationships, including cooperation, conflict, and exploitation.
Key Concepts of Structural Functionalism in India
Caste System as a Social Structure
In India, Structural Functionalism views the caste system as an essential part of society. Castes define social relationships and play a key role in shaping the social system.
Pattern of Relationships
Structural Functionalism looks at society as a whole, with interconnected structures that meet the needs of individuals. For example, the studies of M.N. Srinivas and others examined how kinship, caste, and village relations work together in Indian society.
Holistic Approach
This approach takes a broad view, focusing on both micro (individual) and macro (societal) levels. It helps to explain changes in kinship and social relations through studies by scholars like Irawati Karve and Kapadia.
Structural Cleavages
The approach acknowledges the existing divisions in society, such as caste-based inequalities. It doesn't just look at society as a fixed system but recognizes changes and the dynamic nature of social structures.
Organic Analogy
Structural Functionalism in India compares society to a living organism, where each part works together to maintain the overall system. This perspective focuses on studying society through empirical (field-based) methods, not just theoretical ideas.
Inclusive Approach
The theory blends ideas from anthropology and sociology, using real-life field studies to understand society. Scholars like S.C. Dube and M.N. Srinivas used earlier anthropological studies to inform their research on Indian society.
M.N. Srinivas and His Contribution
M.N. Srinivas (1916-1999) was one of India’s most prominent sociologists. He is best known for his work on caste, social stratification, and the concept of "Sanskritization" in southern India. He also introduced the idea of the "Dominant Caste."
Key Contributions:
Religion and Society Among the Coorgs of South India (1952): This book is one of his most famous works, where he applied Structural Functionalism to study the Coorg community in India.
Social Change in Modern India (1966): A significant work discussing how social structures in India are changing in modern times.
The Dominant Caste and Other Essays (1987): A collection of essays that elaborated on the role of dominant castes in shaping Indian society.
India’s Villages (1955) and India: Social Structure (1980): Books where he analyzed the structure of rural India and the interconnections between different social groups.
Through his research, Srinivas helped establish the structural-functional approach as an important tool for understanding Indian society.
Methodological Approach of M.N. Srinivas
M.N. Srinivas, a key figure in the study of Indian society, used a unique methodological approach that focused on direct observation and fieldwork rather than relying on Western theories or sacred texts.
1. Field View vs. Book View
Field View:
M.N. Srinivas believed in studying society through direct observation and real-life experiences. Instead of relying on books or sacred texts, he used fieldwork to understand the everyday lives and practices of social groups in India. His research was grounded in the "field view," which emphasized empirical research and small-scale studies.Book View:
On the other hand, the "book view" refers to the understanding of society based on literature and sacred texts like religious scriptures. This perspective sees concepts like caste, religion, and family as foundational elements of Indian society but relies on traditional, written knowledge rather than lived experiences.
2. Structural Functionalism in Indian Society
Srinivas applied Structural Functionalism to study Indian society as a whole, or "totality." He believed that different social groups, such as peasants, tribes, and caste-based communities, interact and contribute to the functioning of society. His research, especially in Coorg and Rampura (South India), highlighted the importance of institutions like religion, caste, village, and family in shaping social life.
3. Blend of Approaches
Srinivas introduced a new approach that combined both macro-sociological generalizations and micro-sociological insights. This meant studying large societal patterns while also focusing on smaller, community-based organizations. His work provided a holistic understanding of Indian society, analyzing how social institutions (like caste, family, and religion) work together.
4. Functional Unity
In his study of the Coorgs, Srinivas described the concept of 'functional unity'. He showed how different castes (such as Brahmins, Kaniyas, and Bannas) in Coorg worked together in ritual activities. This concept explains how various groups interact and depend on each other in society.
5. Dynamics of Social Change
While Srinivas was primarily a structural-functionalist, he also acknowledged social change. For example, in the village of Rampura, he observed that the increasing commercialization of agriculture was changing the traditional interdependence of castes. This shift demonstrated how economic changes can affect social structures.
6. Key Concepts in Srinivas' Methodology
Book View:
This refers to the knowledge about Indian society gained from books and sacred texts. It includes concepts like caste, religion, family, and village, which are considered foundational components of society but are often learned through written sources rather than firsthand experience.Field View:
Srinivas favored fieldwork over book knowledge. He believed that studying social groups through real-world observation was the key to understanding Indian society. He focused on small-scale, regional studies to gain deeper insights into the complexities of rural India.
Indian Villages: M.N. Srinivas' Contributions
M.N. Srinivas made a significant impact in understanding Indian villages. His work on village society, especially in the 1950s and 1960s, encouraged a detailed study of Indian villages. Along with other scholars like S.C. Dube and D.N. Majumdar, Srinivas helped establish village studies as a dominant field in Indian sociology.
Types of Village Studies:
Ethnographic Accounts:
These are detailed descriptions of the villages based on fieldwork. Srinivas and his colleagues collected real-life data from villages to understand their social structure.Conceptual and Historical Discussions:
Srinivas also explored the role of villages as a social unit. He debated the usefulness of the village as a concept, examining how it should be studied in the context of Indian society.
Importance of Villages:
Srinivas disagreed with Louis Dumont, who believed that caste and religion were the only key institutions to understand Indian society. According to Srinivas, the village was an equally important unit of social analysis. He argued that villages were central to rural social life and had a unifying role in rural identity.
Villages: Not Isolated and Self-Sufficient
Srinivas criticized the British administrators who had portrayed Indian villages as isolated, self-sufficient entities. He showed that villages were always interconnected with larger economic, social, and political structures. Villagers depended on external resources, services, and goods, meaning they were never isolated.
Caste System: M.N. Srinivas' View
M.N. Srinivas disagreed with the book view of the caste system put forward by Ghurye. According to Srinivas, caste had evolved, and its hierarchy was no longer based on a rigid traditional structure. In his study of Rampura village, he observed that a backward caste, the Okkaligga, was the most powerful caste in the village.
Key Concepts in Srinivas’ Understanding of Caste:
Caste System Characteristics:
The caste system in India is characterized by hierarchy, division of labor, endogamy (marriage within one’s caste), and restrictions on sharing food and water. However, Srinivas showed that caste is dynamic and changes over time.Dominant Caste:
The concept of dominant caste refers to the caste that holds the most power in a given village or region. Srinivas used this concept to explain how caste hierarchies are not fixed and can change depending on the social, economic, and political context.Organic Nature of Caste:
Srinivas believed that castes in a village function together like the parts of a body. Each caste has a specific role in society, and the relationships between them help maintain the organic unity of the village.Adaptive Character of Caste:
The caste system has shown an ability to adapt to changes over time. Srinivas pointed out that caste was not static and could adjust to modern influences such as Sanskritization (emulation of higher caste practices) and Westernization (adoption of Western lifestyle, education, and technology). These processes allowed lower castes to move up the social ladder, but the basic structure of caste remained intact.Caste in the Modern World:
Despite changes brought by modernization, Srinivas believed that caste was deeply embedded in Indian society and linked to the core values of Hindu religion and culture. He did not agree with those who thought caste would disappear with modernization and urbanization.
M.N. Srinivas on the Family System in India
M.N. Srinivas studied the Indian family system, focusing on the shift from the traditional joint family to the modern nuclear family. Here’s an overview of his perspective:
1. Joint Family: The Traditional Setup
Traditionally, Indian families were largely joint families, where multiple generations (parents, children, grandparents, etc.) lived together. This family system was based on principles of dharma (moral duties), cooperation, and mutual support. The essence of the joint family was collective well-being, where decisions were made collectively, and resources were shared.
2. Shift to Nuclear Family:
Over time, individualism began to take over, and the joint family system gradually shifted towards nuclear families (parents and children). According to Srinivas, while the joint family has not fully disintegrated, the family structure itself has undergone a demographic and residential shift. The physical living arrangement changed, but family connections and emotional ties still remained strong, especially in rural settings.
3. Urban Middle Class Family:
Srinivas noted that the urban middle class family had undergone significant changes. This shift was influenced by the ideas of Protestant ethics, which emphasized hard work, economic development, and individual success. The urban middle-class family now had clear goals:
Providing good education to children
Ensuring good marriages for daughters
Owning a house in the city
These aspirations required families to invest extra effort and resources, often leading to increased economic development in these urban areas.
4. Preservation of Jointness:
Even as families became more nucleated, the emotional connection and jointness were not entirely lost. Many families, especially in rural areas, still maintained strong ties. Family members in nucleated households (separate homes) remained in regular touch, participating in ceremonies, holding land together, and contributing to family rituals, which helped maintain emotional bonds.
5. Factors Influencing Family Structure:
Srinivas pointed out that family jointness depends on multiple factors:
Caste and class: Different social groups may experience family life differently.
Region: Rural and urban areas exhibit distinct family patterns.
Religion: Religious beliefs influence the family structure.
Occupation and income: Economic factors can impact family arrangements.
Family size: Larger families may find it easier to maintain jointness.
Social Change According to M.N. Srinivas
M.N. Srinivas identified two major types of social change in Indian society: Orthogenetic and Heterogenetic. These concepts reflect the ways social change has occurred in India, driven by both traditional and modern forces.
1. Orthogenetic Change (Internal Sources)
Orthogenetic change refers to internal changes that arise from indigenous sources within Indian society. These changes are rooted in traditional Indian institutions and cultural practices. Key examples of orthogenetic change include:
Buddhism
Jainism
Bhakti Movement
Sanskritization
These movements and processes transformed the social structure and spiritual life of Indian society. Sanskritization, in particular, is a concept introduced by Srinivas to describe the process by which lower castes or tribes attempt to adopt the practices, values, and rituals of higher, Sanskrit-speaking castes to improve their social status.
2. Heterogenetic Change (External Sources)
Heterogenetic change, on the other hand, refers to external influences that have impacted Indian society. These changes were brought about by colonialism, globalization, and Westernization. Srinivas recognized that the British colonial rule over India for 200 years was a watershed moment in shaping Indian society, introducing both modern and traditional changes.
Colonialism introduced modern institutions such as trade, industry, education, and legal systems.
Westernization refers to the process by which Indian society adapted to Western values and institutions, including democracy, judiciary, media, and technological advances.
3. Impact of British Colonial Rule
Srinivas argued that the British rule had a profound impact on both the traditional and modern aspects of Indian society. While they introduced modern technologies and institutional reforms, they also caused shifts in the value system, particularly by promoting values like individualism, rationality, meritocracy, and universality.
Although these changes are often associated with the modernization of India, Srinivas used the term Westernization to describe this influence, emphasizing the direct connection to the British colonial period.
4. Westernization vs. Sanskritization:
Westernization: This process is about social change through the adoption of Western practices. It encompasses changes at multiple levels: from technology and education to values and institutions. Westernization, according to Srinivas, is a result of over 150 years of British colonial rule.
Sanskritization: A parallel process in which lower castes or tribal groups aspire to elevate their social status by adopting the practices and rituals of higher castes, specifically those that speak Sanskrit and follow traditional Hindu practices.
Both Westernization and Sanskritization are forms of social mobility, where individuals or groups attempt to improve their social position through the adoption of higher cultural practices—either through Western influences or traditional Hindu norms.
Findings of Srinivas in Coorg: Religion and Society Among the Coorgs of South India (1952)
M. N. Srinivas's work on the Coorgs, particularly in Religion and Society Among the Coorgs of South India, presents an insightful analysis of the social structure and caste dynamics of Coorg, challenging prevailing Western anthropological notions of a rigid, unchanging caste system in India. The study, considered a seminal work in Indian sociology, introduced critical concepts like Sanskritization, functional unity, and village solidarity, reshaping the understanding of caste and social organization.
1. Social Structure of Coorg:
Sub-caste System (Jatis): Srinivas challenged the simplistic view of the caste system as a single, monolithic hierarchy. In Coorg, as elsewhere in India, castes are subdivided into sub-castes or jatis, each of which is an endogamous group associated with specific traditional occupations. These sub-castes enjoy a degree of cultural, ritual, and juridical autonomy within their region.
For example, within the Brahmin caste, there are sub-castes like Kanyakubja, Suryapuri, and Gaur. Similarly, for Vaishyas, there are Maheshwari, Agarwal sub-castes.
Challenge to the Traditional Caste System:
Traditional caste theory viewed caste as a rigid, unchanging structure of five-fold varnas (Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas, Shudras, and Untouchables). Srinivas argued against this perspective, suggesting instead that caste is dynamic and changes over time.
He introduced the idea of Sanskritization, where lower castes attempt to emulate the practices of higher castes to gain social mobility, indicating that caste boundaries are not rigid but subject to change.
2. Pollution and Purity:
Social and Ritual Order: Srinivas explored the relationship between purity and pollution, which is a key concept in the caste system. He argued that caste relations are often expressed through the notions of purity and pollution, where higher castes are considered more "pure" and lower castes are seen as "polluted."
Sanskritization and Ritual Purity: Sanskritization involves the adoption of upper caste practices by lower castes, which may include rituals, customs, and worship of Hindu deities. This process often elevates their social standing within the caste hierarchy.
3. Sanskritization:
Cultural Mobility: Srinivas defines Sanskritization as the process by which lower castes or tribes adopt the rituals, beliefs, and social practices of higher castes in an effort to improve their status. This concept challenges the idea of caste as fixed, highlighting its capacity for cultural mobility.
Sanskritization, as noted by Srinivas, is also a way for lower castes to integrate themselves into the broader Hindu social order, even if they are not directly associated with the elite Sanskritic culture.
4. Vertical and Horizontal Solidarity:
Vertical Solidarity: Srinivas discusses the interdependence between castes within the Jajmani system, where caste groups are occupationally interdependent, forming vertical solidarity. This form of solidarity connects lower and higher castes through a system of reciprocal obligations.
Horizontal Solidarity: Horizontal solidarity occurs between castes of the same level across different villages. It unites people of the same caste in different geographic locations, reinforcing a sense of shared identity and cultural norms, even in different regions.
5. Village Patriotism:
Identity and Solidarity: Srinivas argued that village identity supersedes caste identity in certain contexts, particularly during external threats or dangers. Villagers identify more with the collective identity of their village than with their caste affiliations.
For example, in situations of external conflict, village patriotism and a sense of communal identity take precedence, reflecting a shared loyalty to the village over caste-based differences.
6. Kinship:
Exogamous Marriage: In Coorg, the Okka (a lineage or clan) is a key kinship group. The Okka is an exogamous group, meaning that individuals marry outside their Okka. Upon marriage, women move to the husband's Okka but retain symbolic ties to their natal Okka.
The Okka is also patrilineal and patrilocal, with property and social identity passed through the male line.
Marriage Practices: Coorg society practices levirate (marriage of a widow to the brother of her deceased husband) and cross-cousin marriage, both of which help maintain solidarity between Okka groups.
7. Festivals and Village Harmony:
Common Village Deity: A key element of village life is the worship of a village deity, which may serve multiple villages. The deity plays a central role in rituals and festivities, and these religious practices help maintain horizontal solidarity across villages.
Village Festivities and Harmony: Festivals associated with the village deity are a time for communities to come together, transcending caste differences. The village dinner, held at the end of such festivals, fosters village harmony by promoting unity and collective identity.
Conclusion:
M.N. Srinivas’s study of Coorg society emphasizes the dynamic nature of caste and social change. His work moves beyond a rigid, traditional understanding of the caste system, instead offering a framework in which caste can evolve through processes like Sanskritization and functional unity. By focusing on both vertical and horizontal solidarity, kinship practices, and village unity, Srinivas provides a nuanced view of Indian social structure that incorporates both tradition and change.
Dominant Caste: Concept and Features
The concept of the Dominant Caste was introduced by M. N. Srinivas during his study of the village of Rampurva and later elaborated upon in his work on rural India. This concept challenged the rigid view of caste as a fixed, hierarchical structure, which was prevalent in colonial interpretations. Srinivas argued that in many villages, certain castes, due to their numerical strength, economic power, and political influence, dominate local life.
Definition of Dominant Caste:
According to Srinivas (1966), a caste is considered dominant when:
It is numerically the largest in the local area or village.
It has significant economic and political influence in the region.
Important Features of Dominant Caste:
Control Over Arable Land:
The dominant caste typically holds a substantial portion of the arable land in the village or local area. This economic power gives them leverage in the village's social and political life.
Numerical Supremacy:
Dominant castes are numerically stronger than other castes in the locality, enabling them to exercise influence over social interactions, political decisions, and economic activities.
High Ritual Status:
While dominant castes may be powerful in terms of land ownership and numbers, they also enjoy a high ritual status. This is important because, according to Srinivas, no untouchable caste could become a dominant caste. Ritual status is often linked to caste hierarchies in India.
Education and Employment:
Members of the dominant caste are often educated, with some holding government jobs. This education facilitates their access to positions of power and influence in society.
Organizational Structure:
There is a degree of organization and articulation within the caste. The dominant caste often has formal and informal structures that help coordinate actions and maintain power.
Political and Administrative Influence:
Dominant castes often have political contacts and administrative linkages, giving them the ability to influence decisions and maintain control over local governance.
Critique of the Varna System:
Challenge to Colonial Caste Understanding:
Srinivas used the concept of dominant caste to critique the colonial interpretation of the caste system, which viewed it as a rigid, closed hierarchy (the Varna system). While the Varna system presented caste as an unchanging structure, Srinivas found that the caste system in practice allowed for some mobility, especially among the middle castes.
Supra-local Character:
Regional Influence:
Dominant castes are not confined to a single village but can extend their influence regionally. For example, the Jats in Punjab, Thakurs in Eastern Uttar Pradesh, and Vokkaligas in Karnataka are dominant in their respective regions, influencing the social, economic, and political life beyond individual villages.
Watchdog and Protector Role:
Cultural Guardianship:
Dominant castes often act as the watchdogs and protectors of culture in their region. They help safeguard the status quo and maintain their social, economic, and political control.
Arbiters of Justice:
Influential members of the dominant caste often become the arbiters of justice in the village, resolving intra- and inter-caste conflicts through village councils or caste-based councils.
Sanskritization and Dominant Castes:
Dominant castes can become the model for Sanskritization, where lower castes adopt the practices, rituals, and customs of the dominant caste in an attempt to improve their social standing.
Examples of this process include Gujjars in Uttar Pradesh, Patils and Pattidars in Gujarat, Reddys in Andhra Pradesh, and Vokkaligas in Karnataka.
Regional Variations in Dominant Castes:
Land Ownership and Caste Control: The presence of dominant castes is more likely in regions where a large landowning caste has the ability to control not only land but also the dependent lower castes.
Rigid Caste Ranking: In areas with rigid caste ranking, dominance is more easily maintained. Conversely, in regions where multiple dominant castes exist, the power may be more evenly distributed.
Criticism of the Dominant Caste Concept:
S.C. Dube:
Dominant Individuals vs. Dominant Castes: S.C. Dube pointed out that, in practice, it is often individuals or factions within a dominant caste that hold the real power, rather than the caste as a whole. Inequality within the dominant caste itself may exist in terms of wealth, prestige, and power.
Ghanshyam Shah:
Class Interests and Hegemony: According to Ghanshyam Shah, the dominant caste often forms caste associations to protect its class interests and maintain hegemonic control over the social, political, and economic spheres. These associations serve as instruments to preserve power and ensure the dominance of the caste group.
Sanskritisation: Concept and Features
Sanskritisation is a significant sociological process that describes how lower caste groups or tribes in India attempt to raise their social status by adopting the customs, practices, and beliefs of higher, often twice-born castes, typically the Brahmins, or other dominant castes. This process reflects cultural mobility and has played a central role in social change within the Indian caste system.
Definition of Sanskritisation:
The term Sanskritisation was coined by M. N. Srinivas in his book Social Change in Modern India (1971). He defined it as:
“A process by which a low caste or a tribe or other group changes its customs, rituals, ideology, and way of life in the direction of a high and frequently, twice-born caste.”
It refers to a process where lower caste groups collectively adopt the practices, customs, rituals, and values of higher castes, especially the Brahmins, to elevate their social standing. This process is often seen as a response to social inequality and relative deprivation.
Origin of Sanskritisation:
Srinivas first observed this phenomenon during his study of the Coorg region in Karnataka, where lower castes sought to improve their position by emulating Brahmin customs. They adopted rituals considered sacred by upper castes while giving up practices deemed impure.
Features of Sanskritisation:
Characteristics of Sanskritisation:
Imitation and Change of Ideals: The lower caste groups start imitating the cultural practices of higher castes, including rituals, marriage practices, dietary habits, and social conduct.
Social Mobility: It represents upward mobility within the caste hierarchy, but it occurs gradually, over one or two generations, rather than immediately.
Time-Consuming Process:
Sanskritisation takes time as it requires generational effort. A caste or group doesn't become fully assimilated in a single generation, but it progresses over a long period, sometimes taking one or two generations.
Role of Dominant Caste:
Dominant castes play an important role in cultural transmission. Their influence in economic and political affairs is often crucial in determining which practices are emulated by lower castes.
Reference Group:
The caste or group undergoing Sanskritisation often views the dominant caste as a reference group. The lower castes model their beliefs, values, and lifestyles after the dominant group to gain recognition and status.
Based on Relative Deprivation:
The process of Sanskritisation is rooted in relative deprivation. The lower castes seek to improve their status because they are deprived of the prestige of the Brahmins, political power of the Kshatriyas, and wealth of the Vaishyas.
Inclusion of Tribals:
Sanskritisation also affects tribal communities. Many tribal groups, such as the Bhils of Western India, Gonds and Oraons of Central India, and the Pahadiyas of the Himalayan region, have adopted practices of Hinduism and now claim to be Hindus, reflecting the process of Sanskritisation.
Economic and Political Conditions:
While economic betterment is not a necessary condition for Sanskritisation, acquiring political power can lead to economic improvements, which in turn can lead to Sanskritisation. It shows that economic mobility and political influence can play a part in this cultural shift.
Variation Across Regions:
Sanskritisation does not manifest in the same way in all parts of India. The regional context influences the speed and form of Sanskritisation.
Group Process:
The process of Sanskritisation is a group phenomenon. It does not refer to the upward mobility of an individual or family, but rather of the whole caste group or community.
Factors Leading to Sanskritisation:
Several factors have contributed to the rise of Sanskritisation as a cultural phenomenon:
Industrialisation and Occupational Mobility: Economic changes, especially in urban areas, have opened up new avenues for mobility.
Improved Communication and Spread of Literacy: Increased access to education and communication channels allows lower castes to learn about the practices of upper castes.
Western Technology and Influence: The introduction of Western education and technology has contributed to social change, influencing the nature of Sanskritisation.
Sanskritisation and Positional Change:
While Sanskritisation often leads to upward mobility for the group undergoing it, it does not necessarily bring about a structural change in the caste system. Instead, it results in positional changes where specific castes or groups move up in the hierarchy. However, the overall structure of caste remains intact.
Positional vs. Structural Change:
While Sanskritisation allows for positional changes (e.g., a lower caste achieving a higher social status), it does not fundamentally alter the structure of the caste system. The system as a whole remains largely unchanged, even though individual castes may move up or down the hierarchy.
Contextual-Specific Connotation:
According to Yogendra Singh, Sanskritisation is context-specific and reflects an endogenous source of social change within the caste system, influenced by the local cultural and social context.
Effects of Sanskritisation
Sanskritisation in Social Field:
The primary social effect of Sanskritisation is the elevation of lower caste individuals' social status. By adopting higher caste customs and practices, they seek to move up in the caste hierarchy and gain recognition and respect from upper castes.
Sanskritisation in Economic Field:
Economic mobility is often linked to Sanskritisation. By abandoning "impure" occupations, lower castes often shift to cleaner and more respectable professions that are traditionally associated with higher social status. This change can lead to economic improvement over time.
Sanskritisation in Religious Field:
In the religious domain, lower castes might adopt practices similar to those of Brahmins, such as wearing sacred threads, participating in temple rituals, and abandoning forbidden foods. Some lower castes also start performing religious ceremonies like Brahmins.
Sanskritisation in Living Patterns:
Living conditions also undergo changes with Sanskritisation. Lower castes may construct pucca (brick) houses, emulate the dress and behavior of higher castes, and even sit alongside them without fear, signaling their cultural and social shift.
De-sanskritization
Concept: De-sanskritization refers to the reverse process, where higher castes imitate practices traditionally associated with lower castes. This is evident in areas like Punjab and Kashmir, where Brahmins, for example, began consuming meat and alcohol, a practice previously associated with lower castes.
Criticism/Limitation of Sanskritisation
Lack of Clarity:
Critics argue that Sanskritisation lacks a clear, standardized process across all regions and castes. M.N. Srinivas himself acknowledged this, as he observed that the reference group for Sanskritisation could be local dominant castes (like Rajputs, Jats, or Banias), which vary from region to region.
Limited Sociocultural Mobility:
Some argue that Sanskritisation only accounts for limited sociocultural mobility. It may not be a universal process for all lower caste groups, and it's unclear whether the entire caste or just a subgroup of individuals can undergo Sanskritisation. As a result, inequality remains entrenched.
Limited Scope and Influence:
Sanskritisation is not an all-India phenomenon. In some areas, different processes of social change (e.g., Islamization in Punjab or Tribalization in Uttarakhand) take place instead. Additionally, modern forces such as westernization, education, and industrialization dilute the effectiveness and impact of Sanskritisation.
Contradictory and Conflicting Views:
Critics like Yogendra Singh and D.N. Majumdar argue that Sanskritisation fails to explain the complexity of cultural changes in modern India, particularly those occurring in urban and industrialized settings. Moreover, the policy of reservation in India, intended to uplift lower castes, presents a contradictory situation to Sanskritisation as it prevents upward mobility based on traditional caste hierarchies.
Exaggeration of Social Mobility:
Some sociologists criticize Sanskritisation for overstating the extent of upward mobility for lower castes. It often results in "positional change" within the caste structure, rather than actual structural change. This means while some individuals may experience upward movement, the broader caste system remains unchanged, preserving inequality.
Acceptance of Upper Caste Ideology:
A key critique is that Sanskritisation inherently accepts the ideology of the upper castes as superior, thus perpetuating a system of inequality. Lower castes, by emulating upper caste practices, reinforce the hierarchical structure and contribute to the continuation of caste-based discrimination.
Exclusionary Practices:
By adopting upper caste customs, lower castes might also perpetuate harmful practices, such as dowry, purdah (female seclusion), and caste discrimination against other lower groups. In essence, Sanskritisation can lead to the imposition of social practices that marginalize women and other castes.
Complex and Ambiguous Concept:
Scholars like J.F. Stall argue that Sanskritisation is a complex and ambiguous concept. The term itself is difficult to apply uniformly, and its relationship with Hinduism and Brahmanical norms is not straightforward. The process may not be as clear-cut as initially envisioned by M.N. Srinivas.
Colonial Influence and Gender Bias:
Scholars like Dirks have critiqued Sanskritisation for adopting a Brahmanical framework of social mobility, which they argue is a form of colonial sociology. Additionally, critics like Anand Chakraborty highlight that gender and contemporary issues such as Dalit movements are often ignored in the discourse surrounding Sanskritisation, rendering it incomplete and biased.
Westernisation
Definition:
According to M.N. Srinivas, "Westernisation" refers to "the changes brought about in Indian society and culture due to over 150 years of British rule." It encompasses changes at various levels—technology, institutions, ideology, and values. Westernisation became prominent as a result of the efforts of missionaries, the coming of the East India Company, and later, the influence of British colonial rule.
Reason for Westernisation:
Westernisation of the caste system began with the arrival of the East India Company and the concerted efforts by missionaries to convert Indians to Christianity. British rule produced radical changes in Indian society, bringing new technologies, institutions, and cultural values. These changes became a significant source of social mobility for individuals and groups in India.
Meaning of Westernisation:
In comparison with Sanskritisation, Westernisation is a simpler concept. It explains the influence of Western contact (primarily British rule) on Indian society and culture. Westernisation implies "certain value preferences," such as humanitarianism, which include active concern for the welfare of all human beings irrespective of caste, religion, economic position, age, or sex. It also involves the introduction of new institutions (like schools, courts, etc.) and the modification of old ones (such as reform movements and laws).
Approach of Westernisation: Westernisation emphasizes:
Scientific approach
Materialism rather than spiritualism
Individualism and liberalism towards societal issues
Humanism, equality, egalitarianism, and rationalism
Characteristics of Westernisation:
Inclusive: It accommodates various outside elements.
Complex: Involves behavioral, knowledge, and institutional aspects.
Multi-layered: Occurs at multiple levels in society.
Humanitarian and Rationalistic: Prioritizes humanitarian concerns and rationalism.
Impact of Westernisation:
Industrialisation and Urbanisation: Introduction of industries and urban development.
New Institutions: Introduction of institutions like elections, Christian missions, and legal systems.
Modification of Old Institutions: Reform movements to reduce inequalities, the introduction of British procedural laws, and new judicial systems.
Behavioral Changes: Changes in food habits (e.g., from vegetarianism to non-vegetarianism among Brahmins), dining practices (moving from sitting on the floor to using dining tables), and more.
Cultural Shifts: Shift from ascribed to achieved status.
Expansion of Transportation and Communication: Creation of a national network facilitating communication.
Growth of Nationalism: The rise of nationalism and the establishment of the Indian National Congress.
Educational Reform: Introduction of modern educational systems with a scientific worldview.
Caste System: Westernisation led to a weakening of the rigidity of the caste system, allowing some degree of upward mobility.
Synergy with Sanskritisation:
M.N. Srinivas observed that Westernisation does not hinder but often accelerates the process of Sanskritisation. As higher castes adopted British ways, they left space for lower castes to move upwards, easing their Sanskritisation. Upper castes were often the first to embrace English education, modern jobs, and Western values.
Critical Review of Westernisation:
De-Sanskritisation: Some scholars advocate for the term "de-Sanskritisation" to describe Westernisation, as it leads to shifts in caste behavior that are not necessarily aligned with Sanskritic ideals.
Rainbow of Impact: Srinivas equated Westernisation with British colonial impact on India, but post-independence influences from countries like Russia and America suggest a broader, multi-faceted Westernisation process.
Non-Neutral Concept: Despite Srinivas claiming Westernisation is ethically neutral, scholars like Daniel Lerner and Andre Beteille argue that it is not. Western life has contradictions (e.g., racial prejudice, exploitation in Western economies), and these conflicts challenge the idealistic humanitarian values associated with Westernisation.
Local Variations: Westernisation may not always be a uniform process. For example, the influence of Russia or Communist ideas may be more significant than the Western model in some non-Western countries. Different countries experience Westernisation in distinct ways.
Westernisation and Social Change: While Westernisation affects one area of life (e.g., education or caste), it does not necessarily lead to change in all related areas (e.g., economic mobility or gender equality). Therefore, the impact of Westernisation can be uneven and fragmented.
Ambivalence of the Elite: The rise of an elite class with ambivalent attitudes toward Westernisation complicates its effects. In some cases, the elite may reject Western ideas or selectively adopt them, such as embracing capitalist practices while resisting democratic values.
Conclusion: Westernisation, like Sanskritisation, has complex and varied effects on Indian society. It can act as a catalyst for change in institutions, social mobility, and cultural practices, though its impacts are uneven and often contested. The Westernisation process is intertwined with other social forces, and its true nature is more dynamic and nuanced than a simple imposition of Western ideals.
Sanskritization vs Westernization
Sanskritization and Westernization are two distinct but interconnected processes that have shaped Indian society, particularly in terms of caste, culture, and values. While both concepts involve a change in the social structure, their roots, methods, and effects differ.
1. Definition:
Sanskritization:
M.N. Srinivas coined the term "Sanskritization" to describe the process by which lower castes or socially disadvantaged groups try to emulate the customs, rituals, and practices of the higher castes, particularly the Brahmins, in an attempt to gain social status and upward mobility. This process typically involves adopting Sanskritic rituals, vegetarianism, wearing sacred threads, and other Brahminical practices.Westernization:
M.N. Srinivas also introduced the term "Westernization" to describe the changes brought about in Indian society due to prolonged contact with the West, primarily through British colonial rule. It involves the introduction of Western values, institutions, and technologies. These changes are focused on urbanization, industrialization, modernization, and the adoption of Western ideas about rationalism, individualism, equality, and human rights.
2. Core Focus:
Sanskritization:
Primarily focuses on cultural and religious practices. It is a vertical movement aimed at elevating the social status of a group by adopting the customs of higher castes. It emphasizes traditional Hindu values, rituals, and customs.Westernization:
Focuses on modernization, technology, education, and institutions. It includes material progress, the rise of secular values, and the adoption of ideas such as democracy, equality, and human rights. It is largely influenced by Western colonial power and the introduction of new institutions like law, education, and government systems.
3. Mechanisms of Change:
Sanskritization:
Involves emulation of higher caste rituals, customs, and behavior.
It is a bottom-up process—lower castes or groups attempt to mimic the lifestyle of higher castes in order to increase their social standing.
It does not necessarily involve a break from tradition but an enhancement of traditional Hindu cultural practices.
Westernization:
Involves the imposition of foreign ideas and practices due to colonial or cultural influence from the West.
It is a top-down process—Western ideas, institutions, and practices are introduced into society and then adapted or integrated by different classes.
It leads to the transformation of traditional institutions, such as education, legal systems, and industrial economy.
4. Impact on Caste System:
Sanskritization:
Leads to upward mobility for lower castes within the caste hierarchy by adopting the practices of the higher castes.
It is often a reformative process, meaning it tries to change social status within the traditional framework of the caste system.
Lower castes may attempt to resemble the lifestyle and values of Brahmins or other high castes, but they do not fundamentally challenge the caste system.
Westernization:
Leads to reduction in caste rigidity by introducing new social structures, such as secular education and modern occupations, where caste identity has less relevance.
It can de-emphasize the caste system to some extent, as Westernization often emphasizes individualism and social equality, which conflict with caste-based stratification.
Class-based mobility becomes more important than caste-based mobility.
5. Social and Cultural Changes:
Sanskritization:
It often involves ritualistic changes such as adopting vegetarianism, performing sacred rituals, and following Brahminical norms.
It can also involve cultural practices like language (e.g., using Sanskrit or Sanskritized vernacular), dress, and personal behavior.
The focus is on reverence for traditional Hindu ideals and institutions.
Westernization:
Involves changes in lifestyle, including the adoption of Western clothing, food, education, technology, and secular ideologies.
It promotes scientific thinking, rationalism, and humanitarian values, such as equality, individual rights, and democracy.
It results in a shift in the value system from traditional, hierarchical values to modern, egalitarian, and progressive values.
6. Relationship with Modernity:
Sanskritization:
It is not inherently modernizing. Although it may involve some degree of modernization, such as adopting new forms of worship, it generally adheres to traditional Hindu values and practices.
It reinforces traditional social structures rather than challenging them, thus it does not bring about radical social transformation.
Westernization:
It is inherently tied to modernity, as it introduces technological advancements, modern education systems, and new economic structures (e.g., capitalism, industrialization, urbanization).
Westernization typically challenges traditional social structures, particularly hierarchies based on caste, gender, and age, and promotes the idea of social mobility through merit rather than birth.
7. Impact on Social Classes:
Sanskritization:
Mainly affects lower castes who aspire to rise socially by adopting the practices of the higher castes.
It can sometimes lead to social stratification within lower castes as some adopt higher status while others do not.
Westernization:
Primarily affects the elite classes who first adopt Western practices (e.g., English education, bureaucratic jobs, Western clothing, etc.).
However, it can eventually have a broad-based impact on all sections of society, as Western education and ideas become widespread.
8. Synergy between Sanskritization and Westernization:
M.N. Srinivas believed that Sanskritization and Westernization are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they can complement each other in some instances:
Westernization can accelerate Sanskritization: As upper castes embrace Western practices, lower castes may gain the opportunity to adopt these new norms, which helps their upward mobility.
Westernized individuals or groups may also adopt traditional practices associated with Sanskritization, such as rituals or customs, to further elevate their status.
Conclusion:
While Sanskritization involves the adoption of higher caste practices to gain social status within a traditional framework, Westernization introduces broader changes, including modern institutions, technology, and values that challenge traditional structures. Both processes contribute to the dynamic nature of Indian society, with Sanskritization focusing on caste mobility and Westernization leading to modernity and social equality. These processes may sometimes complement each other but can also create tensions in the broader social structure.
M.N. Srinivas's Contribution to Indian Sociology
M.N. Srinivas is regarded as one of the most influential figures in the development of sociology and anthropology in India. His works represent a significant departure from previous theorists, particularly the colonial and Indological perspectives. Below is a detailed exploration of his contributions, as well as critiques of his approach.
Reframed Existing Theories:
Inauguration of Field View:
Srinivas introduced the field view as a methodological approach to studying Indian society, moving away from the book view (also known as the Indological method) that had dominated earlier scholarship. The Indological method, championed by G.S. Ghurye, relied heavily on textual analysis and abstract theorizing about India’s social structure, which was disconnected from actual social realities.
In contrast, the field view emphasized ethnography and direct observation in real-world settings, grounding sociological inquiry in empirical field studies. This was influenced by structural-functionalism as espoused by Radcliffe-Brown and Malinowski's ethnographic methods.Caste and Varna:
Srinivas famously stated that "caste is subsumed by the traditional concept of Varna." This view was revolutionary because it acknowledged the fluidity and overlap between caste and Varna, offering a more nuanced understanding of the social stratification system in India.
Srinivas’s Departures from the Indological Method:
Social Anthropology and Sociology:
In his seminal works, including "Social Anthropology and Sociology" and "The Social System of a Mysore Village," Srinivas critiqued the Indological method for its reliance on historical texts and distant interpretations. Instead, he advocated for a more grounded, empirical approach to studying Indian society.Application of Structural Functionalism:
Srinivas integrated structural-functionalism, a dominant theory in Western sociology, into his study of Indian society. He was particularly interested in how caste structures functioned within the broader society. While this approach helped explain the stability of social institutions, it also drew criticism for not adequately addressing the contradictions and conflicts within society.
Application of Structural Functionalism in India:
Rethinking the Village as a Self-Sufficient Unit:
Srinivas contested the view that the Indian village was a self-sufficient, isolated unit. This was a core idea in earlier anthropological work, but Srinivas argued that such a view was overly simplistic and did not account for the complex relationships between villages and the larger society.Adoption of Structural Functionalism:
Srinivas's work on Indian society emphasized that caste played a central role in the functioning of social structure. He argued that caste was an adjustment mechanism—a flexible, dynamic system that allowed Indian society to adapt to changing circumstances while maintaining internal cohesion. His approach became foundational for Indian sociologists who followed, despite the various critiques of structural functionalism.Nation Building through Sociology:
Srinivas was deeply committed to the nation-building project in post-independence India. His work on institutions, caste, and village systems contributed to discussions on social policies and helped shape India's vision of a modern society. His sociological theories were grounded in the belief that social change could help transform traditional structures, including caste.
Critiques of M.N. Srinivas’s Work:
While Srinivas’s contributions were groundbreaking, his theories were not without criticism. Several scholars have pointed out limitations in his approach:
Difficult to Generalize:
Critics argue that Srinivas's micro-level findings, based on ethnographic fieldwork, may be empirically sound, but they often fail to capture the broader, macro-level social changes. His field-based research, though valuable for understanding local realities, may not always provide generalizable insights into larger national or global trends.Promoting Cultural Nationalism:
Some scholars have suggested that Srinivas’s focus on caste, village, and religious traditions can be read as promoting a kind of cultural nationalism. His theories on caste and tradition might inadvertently align with the ideologies of Hindutva or cultural nationalism, which often prioritize traditional, hierarchical social structures over modern, secular ones.Marxist Critique:
Marxist scholars argue that Srinivas’s understanding of Indian society is conservative and status quoist, as it ignores underlying contradictions within society, particularly those related to class struggle and economic exploitation. By focusing on the structural stability of caste and other social institutions, Srinivas’s framework overlooks the conflictual dynamics that drive social change.Brahmanical Domination:
Gail Omvedt critiques Srinivas for offering a perspective that centers Brahmanical (upper-caste) views of Indian society. In his works, the lower castes and Dalits are often overlooked or underrepresented, making his approach elitist and unrepresentative of the experiences of marginalized groups.Yogendra Singh’s Critique:
Yogendra Singh argues that Srinivas's analysis of social change overlooks quantitative changes, focusing too much on processes like negotiation and accumulation. Singh contends that modern social changes, such as the rise of caste associations as interest groups and the shifting nature of caste in democratic politics, require a more nuanced approach than the one provided by Srinivas.Backwardization of Caste:
Srinivas’s theory does not fully explain the recent trend of backwardization within the caste system, where historically dominant castes, like the Jats and Marathas, demand backward caste status for political and economic benefits. This trend contradicts Srinivas’s view that castes generally seek superiority to equals and equality to superiors.Urbanization and Capitalism:
RK Mukherjee suggests that in modern capitalist India, urban areas have become the primary locus of social structure, with villages merely reflecting the larger changes occurring in urban society. Srinivas’s focus on rural India may not fully capture the dynamics of urbanization and industrialization.Globalization and Feminism:
Maitrayee Chaudhuri argues that Srinivas's theories are too conservative and fail to account for the profound changes brought by globalization and the feminist movement. His focus on traditional social institutions overlooks the new social forces shaping Indian society today.Objective Idealism:
TK Oommen critiques Srinivas for an objective idealist approach, where his studies seem overly fact-based and grounded in an idealized vision of traditional Indian society. This perspective fails to critically engage with the complexities and contradictions of modern India.