Bases of Social

Stratification

BLOCK 2
APPROACHES

31
Introducing
Stratification

32
UNIT 3 MARXIAN Marxian

Structure

3.0 Objectives
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Marx on Stratification '
3.2.1 Division of Labour
3.2.2 Meaning of Class
3.2.3 Growth of Classes

3.3 Mode of Production

3.4 Class Struggle
3.5 Class Consciousness
3.6 Capitalist Industrial Society
3.7 Let Us Sum Up
3.8 Keywords
3.9 Further Readings
3.10 Specimen Answers to Check Your Progress

3.0 OBJECTIVES
In this unit we shall discuss the view of the founding father of sociology,
namely, Karl Marx. He had made tremendous contributions for sociological
thought. We will of course concentrate on only one aspect of his contribution
- social stratification. After reading this unit you will understand:
• how classes emerge in society:
• the basis of class formation; and
• role of classes in social stratification; and

3.1 INTRODUCTION
Karl Marx (1818-1881) is regarded as one of the greatest thinkers of all
times. His views have influenced people classes and nations. His main
contribution to understanding society and social processes was through his
theory of historical materialism. This presented a radical alternative to the
traditional views. Marx tried to understand social development in terms of
class conflict. Social stratification was central in his analysis. On the one
hand he saw it as a divisive rather than an integrative structure and on the
other hand he saw it as inevitable for social development.

33
Approaches In this unit we shall discuss the view of Marx. We will then discuss the
significance in analysing class in understanding stratification systems.

3.2 MARX ON STRATIFICATION

Marx used Historical Materialism as the theory to understand social change.
For him the first premise of history was the existence of living human beings.
The physical organization of human society and the relations human beings
have with nature are important indications of development. All living things
depend on nature for survival. Plants need soil and water, cows need grass
and tigers need to hunt other animals for survival. Human beings also depend
on nature for survival. However the basic difference between human beings
and other living things is that they can transform nature for their survival
while other living things adapt to nature. A cow eats grass but it cannot grow
grass. Human beings exploit nature but they have the power to transform it as
well. This means that human beings are able to produce their own means of
subsistence. This is the basic difference between human and other living
things. Marx therefore noted in his work, German Ideology, that "Men can be
distinguished from animals by consciousness, by religion, or by anything one
likes. They themselves begin to distinguish themselves from animals as soon
as they begin to produce their means of subsistence, a step which is
determined by their physical condition. In producing their actual means of
subsistence men indirectly produce their actual material life".

It was through production that human beings developed. Primitive human

beings were totally dependent on nature as they subsisted through hunting or
food gathering. These societies produced the minimum needs for survival. As
human beings gradually started transforming nature society was able to
produce more for existence of the people.

3.2.1 Division of Labour

Through the development of technology, human beings were able to improve
agriculture and could form settled communities. As production grew, the
community produced more than its requirements. There was surplus. It was
now possible to support people who were not directly involved in the
production of food. In earlier societies all people performed similar activities
which were needed for survival, namely, food, clothing and shelter. Once
there was surplus it was possible for people to diversify their activities.
Hence some produced food, which was sufficient to feed all, while others
were engaged in other activities. This is called the division of labour.

This system resulted in some people gaining control over the mean of
production by excluding others. Thus property, which was held by all, came
under die control of only some members giving rise to the notion of private
property. Hence now the interests of all people were no longer common.
There were differences in interests. Thus the interests of individuals became
different from the interests of the community. Marx stated that "Division of
34
Labour and private property are identical expressions". It implied the Marxian

contradictions between individual and communal interest.

These differences which occur in human society which are due to the
existence of private property lead to the formation of classes which form the
basis of social stratifictition. In all stratified societies, there are two major
groups: a ruling class and a subject class. The ruling class exploits the subject
class. As a result there is basic conflict of interest between the two classes.
Marx further stated in his work, Contributions of the Critique of Political
Economy, that the various institutions of society such as the legal and
political systems, religion etc. are instruments of ruling class domination and
serve to further its interests. Let. us now examine the term 'class'.

3.2.2 Meaning of Class

Marx used the term 'class' to refer to the two main strata in all stratification
systems. As mentioned earlier, there are two major social groups in all
stratified societies: a ruling class and a subject class. The ruling class derives
its power through its control over the means of production. It is thus able to
appropriate the labour of another class. In The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis
Bonaparte, Marx describes class in this way: "Insofar as millions of families
live under economic conditions of existence that separate their mode of life,
their interests and their culture from those of the other classes, and put them
in hostile opposition to the latter, they form a class."

Activity 1

Discuss with people you know what is meant by class. Note down the
various interpretations you get. Do some of them tally with Marx's
conception of class?

From Marx's perspective, systems of stratification derive from the

relationships of social groups to the forces of production. Marx used the term
class to refer to the main strata in all stratification systems. His definition of
class has specific features. Class comprises two major groups, one of which
controls the means of production is able to appropriate the labour of the other
class due to the specific position it occupies in the social economy. Hence a
class is a social group whose members share the same relationship to the
forces of production. This in fact distinguishes one class from the other.

Another aspect of classes, which is seen from Marx's description given

above, is that they are in opposition to each other. At the same time there is a
relationship of dependence between classes. If one class can appropriate the
labour of another class because of its control over the means of production, it
means that the two classes are dependent on each other but they are also
opposed to each other. The dialectics of class therefore is a result of this
combination of dependence and opposition. The relationship between classes
is a dynamic relationship which results in social change. This is why classes
35
Approaches are central to Marx's approach to social transformation. In The Communist
Manifesto Marx wrote, "Hitherto, the history of all societies is the history of
class struggle." In other words, changes in the history of mankind are caused
by the conflict of classes. Classes conflict is hence the engine for social
change.

Check Your Progress 1

1) Write down Marx's ideas on the division of labour.

………………………………………………………………………….

………………………………………………………………………….

………………………………………………………………………….

………………………………………………………………………….

………………………………………………………………………….

2) Describe what the meaning of class according to Marx is.

………………………………………………………………………….

………………………………………………………………………….

………………………………………………………………………….

………………………………………………………………………….

………………………………………………………………………….

………………………………………………………………………….

3.2.2 Growth of Class

Development of society is through the process of class conflict. The
domination of one class over the other leads to class conflict. Alongside the
production process also develops due to changes in technology, resulting in
its improvement. This leads to changes in the class structure as classes
become obsolete with increase in production techniques. New classes are
then formed, replacing the old classes. This leads to further class conflict.
Marx believed that Western societies had: developed through four main
stages, primitive communism, ancient society, feudal society and capitalist
society. Primitive communism is represented by societies of pre-history.
Those societies, which are dependent on hunting and food gathering and
which, have no division of labour. From then onwards, all societies are
divided into two major classes: masters and slaves in ancient society, land
lords and serfs (tenants) in feudal society and capitalist and wage labour in
capitalist society. During each historical epoch, the labour power required for
production was supplied by the subject class, that is by slaves, serfs and wage
labourers respectively.

36
The polarization of classes into opposite groups is a result of class- Marxian

consciousness. This is a separate but related phenomenon. It is not

necessarily the result of class formation. Class-consciousness in linked with
the process of polarization of classes. A class can exist without its being
aware of its class interests.

Box 3.01

When people in a particular group, the membership of which is

determined by the production relations into which they are born or enter
into voluntarily, become aware of their existence as a distinctive class
they are said to be conscious of their class. For instance, workers are
constantly organizing wage struggles in their own interests. These
interests are the outcome of the economic relations of capitalist society.
They exist objectively, in the sense that they have not been invented by
any theoretician, political party, trade union or any such external force.
But the existence of these objective conditions in not enough. The
workers must be aware of these conditions.

In the extract from Eighteenth Bmmaire of Louis Bonaparte, Marx has

referred to the importance of class formation when he noted that only when a
class is aware of its opposition to another class it is conscious of its being. In
another place, in his major contribution, Capital, he comments that workers
left on their own may not be aware of their class interests as being opposed to
those of the other (capitalist) class. He noted that the advance of capitalist
production develops a working class, which by education, tradition, and habit
looks upon the conditions of production as self-evident laws of nature. In the
ordinary run of things the labourer can be left to the natural laws of
production as self-evident laws of nature. In the ordinary run of things the
labourer can be left to the natural laws of production.

This static nature of class relations changes into a dynamic one with the
development of class-consciousness. Without class-consciousness the
working is merely is relation to capital. It is a class in itself. In his work The
Poverty of Philosophy Marx obverses that the working class which exists in
this manner is only a mass of individuals and is a mere class in itself. When it
unites in its struggle against capital it "forms itself into a class for itself. The
interest it defends becomes class interests."

Hence in the Marxist framework we find that class is a dynamic unit. It may
be subject to change with the advancement of technology, but the basis for its
formulation remains the same. Class form the basis of the stratification
system in any society. Classes are related to the production process of each
society. Changes in the class structure occur when there are changes in the
production process. Thus the system of stratification in a society is dependent
on the relations of production.

37
Approaches
3.3 MODE OF PRODUCTION
The mode of production of each epoch determines the social, political and
religious feature of society at that particular state in history, as well as the
nature of class relations. Classes in society arise from a particular mode of
production. For example, in capitalist mode of production, high level
technology and capital comprise the means of production. This creates a
system where in one section own the means of Production and others do not.
This gets bifurcated into two classes, namely the Capitalist and the workers.

Box3.02

Classes polarise because they stand in relation of antagonism to each

other and class identities are strengthened because of common interests
and common economic status in the system of production. Within this
system are present inherent contradictions which lead to class-class
struggle, a new society evolves, with new mode of production and
subsequently, a new class reflecting it.

3.4 CLASS STRUGGLE

Class struggle is a recurring feature according to Marx in all societies. This
struggle, he says is inevitable because the ruling class in every society sows
the seeds of its own destruction, sooner or later. Oppression - economic,
political and ideological is a feature of this class-struggle. Exploitation leads
to rise of opposed class. Thus, they feel alienated from a system which they
help in treating, without labour, for instance, capitalism can never subsist.
Yet, the workers are alienated. A consciousness develops around which
working class is formed and when they clash, with the oppressions they
overthrow the system leading to a new stage of social formation and the
abolition of private means of ownership, as a consequence of which class-
lessness emerges.

From the above, it becomes clear that only when class consciousness evolve
and the class organises itself towards the pursuit of its own does a "class
exists in the Marxian sense". So, from a class in itself, it becomes a class for
itself.

Thus, for Marx, the essential feature of social inequality is Power - the
economic power. Society is divided into those who have it and those who do
not, i.e., the oppressors and the oppressed. Marx's economic interpretation is
an explanation of what accounts for this inequality in power. Those who own
the means of production have the power to rule and oppress those who do not
own it. Class controls the prevailing ideas in a given society.

38
 Marxian
3.5 CLASS CONSCIOUSNESS
Marx specified a number of variables for the formation of class-class
consciousness:

i) Conflicts over the distribution of economic rewards between the classes.

ii) Easy communication between the individual in the same class position so
that ideal and programmes are readily disseminated.

iii) Growth of class - Consciousness in the sense that the members of the
class have a feeling of solidarity and understanding of their historical
role.

iv) Profound dissatisfaction of the Lower Class over its inability to control
the economic structure of which it feels itself to be the exploited victim.

v) Established of a political organisation resulting from the economic

structure, the historical situation and maturation of class-consciousness.

The ideas of the ruling class in every epoch determine the ruling ideas, i.e.,
the class, which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its
ruling intellectual force. The existence of revolutionary ideas in a particular
period pre-supposes the existence of a revolutionary class. Of all the
instruments of production, the greatest productive power is the revolutionary
class itself. Thus, he sees classes, as distinct sub-divisions whose interests
often diverge. From the Marxian perspective, we can conclude that the
relationship between the major social classes is one of mutual dependence
and conflict.

3.6 CAPITALIST INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY

Thus, Marx in capitalist industrial society identifies two main classes: the
capitalist who pays the wage (Bourgeoisie) and the workers who receives the
wages (Proletariat). Marx predicted that as capitalism develops these two
classes become more and more homogenous, but as compared to him
Dahrendorf argues that classes will become more and more heterogeneous,
i.e., dissimilar and the working class get divided into three distinct levels -
Unskilled, semi-skilled, skilled manual, workers with divergence interests.

Unlike Marx, who talked about two classes, Weber talks about the middle
class also. According to him, as capitalism develops the middle class
expands. In the 19th century, Marxist predicted that a stage will come in
capitalist development when the middle class would sink into the Proletariat
(Pauperisation). But during 1950's and 1960's, a number of Sociologists and
suggested that just the opposite was happening.

They said a process of embourgeoisement was occurring whereby increasing

number of manual workers were entering the middle class. According to
them, the classes in Industrial society was acquiring the Pentagon shape 39
Approaches where the mass of population was middle class rather than working class.
According to Clark Kerr, this was the requirement of the advanced
industrialism which requires a highly educated, trained and skilled workforce.

These were placed according to their value of skill in the market. Those
whose skills were scarce on the market commanded high salaries and
constituted a separate class. Weber rejects the polarisation of two classes and
talks of Middle class of white-collar or skilled workers. Middle class expands
as capitalism develops. He argues that modern nation state requires a
"rational bureaucratic set-up" which requires clerks and managers.

Box3.03

Unlike Marx, Weber argues that those who belong to the same class need
not necessarily produce a communal action or develop a class
consciousness. They might behave in a similar way and have same
attitude like similar voting behaviour or drinking habits. Weber rejects
the inevitability of class revolution. They need not necessarily be a
revolution. Class-consciousness may be there but it would be of different
nature. For example, Caste groups in India.

Those who belong to lower class may try for reforms. For this purpose, they
come together to demand but never have drastic revolution to change the
system. Another example, in industrial strikes, there may be lock-outs but
revolution to change the system may not be there.

According to Weber, for workers to change the entire system, is not possible.
For, to attackany system an ideological formula is essential. An intellectual
class is essential, i.e., elitegroup, uneducated people cannot bring about a
revolution without an ideological set-up,therefore, to do so.

3.7 LET US SUM UP

In the above unit we have discussed the view the founder of sociology, Karl
Marx, on social stratification. He has view that has shaped and influenced
human development.

Karl Marx's views were based his theory of historical materialism. He viewed
social stratification from the historical perspective. The changes in
stratification in human society were based on the changing nature of
production. Classes formed the basis of the system of stratification. As the
production relations changed the nature of stratification also changed. New
classes were formed replacing the old ones. This also resulted in new
relations between classes. Hence for Marx classes and stratification were
similar. Marx stressed on the role of class-consciousness as an important
instrument for realizing class objectives.

40
 Marxian
3.8 KEY WORDS

Class : According to Marx, classes are groups of people

who are distinguished from each other due to
their ownership or control over the means of
production or lack of the same.
Class : According to Marx, classes are groups of people
who are distinguished from each other due to
their ownership or control over the means of
production or lack of the same. According to
Weber, classes are groups of people who are'
distinguished from each other through their
ownership or control of production and who
share similar life chances.
Class-consciousness : A class that is conscious of its distinguished
position in the social hierarchy.
Status : Effective claim to social esteem. Weber tried to
show that status cuts across class barriers.

3.9 FURTHER READINGS

T.B. Bottomore and M. Rubel (eds.), Karl Marx: Selected Writing in
Sociology and Social Philosphy, Penguin Books, 1963.

H.H. Gerth and C. W. Mills (eds.), From Marx Weber: Essays in Sociology,
Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1948.

3.10 SPECIMEN ANSWER TO CHECK YOUR

PROGRESS
Check Your Progress 1

1) As technology developed production also improved. Surplus could be

produced, and this led to classification of activities, or division of labour.
This also led to some people controlling means of production, hence to
private property. Thus Marx pointed out that the interests of people
became different from those of the community, and class came into
existence.

2) For Marx Class devoted the two main strata found in stratification
systems. There is a ruling class and a subject class. The means of
production are controlled by the ruling class and this is how it
appropriate the labour of the working class. Finally these classes are
opposed or antagonistic to one another.

41
 UNIT 4 WEBERIAN
Approaches

Structure

4.0 Objectives
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Weber on Stratification
4.2.1.1 Classes and Life Chances

4.2.1.2 Status

4.2.3 Power

4.3 Similarities and Differences between Marx and Weber

4.4 Let Us Sum Up
4.5 Keywords
4.6 Further Readings
4.7 Specimen Answers to Check Your Progress

4.0 OBJECTIVES
In this unit we shall discuss the view of the founding father of sociology,
namely, Max Weber. He has made tremendous contributions for sociological
thought. We will of course concentrate on only one aspect of their
contribution - social stratification. After reading this unit you will understand:
• how classes emerge in society:
• the basis of class formation;
• role of classes in social stratification; and
• Similarities and differences between Marx and Weber on Classes.

4.1 INTRODUCTION
Marx Weber (1864-1920) was another outstanding thinker. Like Marx he
recognized the economic aspects of stratification but he differed with Marx
on several of his basic propositions. While Marx focussed his attention on the
toiling classes and looked at social development from their point of view,
Weber stressed on the role of the propertied classes in social development.
Thus Weber is often referred as the Bourgeois Marx. In this unit we shall
discuss the views of Marx and Weber on stratification and then compare
views of Marx and Weber. We will then discuss the significance in analysing
class in understanding stratification systems.

42
 Weberian
4.2 WEBER ON STRATIFICATION
Max Weber as mentioned in the beginning is regarded as one of the founding
fathers of Sociology. He is also the originator of the most powerful
alternative to the Marxist theory of society. We shall discuss his views on
class and other forms of social stratification in this section.

Like Marx, Weber also believed that class was a basic form of stratification
in society. He defined the term 'class' according to the Marxist criterion,
namely, in relation to ownership of property. Property and lack of property,
according to him, were the basic categories of all class situations. He went on
the distinguish between to types of property-ownership and non-ownership of
goods and services. Those who owned property offered goods while those not
owning had only their labour power or skills to offer. Thus a factory owner
can offer goods which were produced in the factory. His workers, on the
other hand, can offer only their labour power in exchange of wages.

4.2.1 Class and Life – Chances

Another aspect of class that Weber stressed on was 'life-chances'. This term
related to the opportunities an individual got during the various stages of his
or her life. An individual born in a worker's family receives a particular type
of education, which in turn equips him or her for specific jobs. The education
will not be as expensive or asintense as the education of a child in an upper
class family. The employment opportunities for both are different. Their
different family backgrounds also make them part of different classes. The
same pattern can be seen in social interaction and marriage. A person from a
working class background will interact mostly with other members of his or
her class whereas a person from the upper-middle class will have
acquaintances mainly from his class. Thus Weber found that life-chances was
an important aspect of class formation.

Box 4.02

While discussing life-chances Weber's emphasis was on the group or the

community and not on the individual. He insisted that while determining
class, we have to look at the life-chances of the collective and not of
individuals within the collective. This is a very important aspect of class
as a collective. It is possible that the life-chances of an individual may be
different. For example the child of a-worker may be able to surpass his
or her class barrier. He/ she may get a better education and get
employment that is different from the opportunities available for his/her
peers.

The son of an industrialist may become a worker because of his abilities or

other circumstances. But these, Weber pointed out, were exceptions and not
the rule. He pointed out that what was more important was the fact that the
43
Approaches life-chances or members of a class were similar. This is what gave
permanence to that class as the next generation too joined the same class.
Therefore the definition of life-chances, according to Weber, is sharing of
economic and cultural goods which are available differently for different
groups.

The life-chances of an individual were largely determined by the market

situation. The son of a worker became a worker because this was the best
occupation available to him given his background. The market situation
becomes more important for the propertyless as they have to depend mainly
on the production of services as they posses only their skills. They cannot
market anything else for their existence. The property owners on the other
hand can depend on the income they get from their productive property.

Hence for Weber class had two basic aspects. Firstly it was an objective
category. It was determined by the control or lack of control over productive
property of the members. Secondly, all members of a particular had similar
life-chances, which in turn distinguished these members from others. The
life-chances of individuals depended on the their market situation in the case
of those not owning productive property and on the ownership of productivity
for those owning these.

Based on his definition, Weber identified four classes in capitalist society.

These were: (a) Upper class that comprised those owning or controlling
productive private property. This class was similar to the bourgeoisie
(capitalist class) in Marx's analysis, (b) White-collar workers. This class
included all those who were engaged in mental labour -managers,
administrators, professionals, etc. (c) Petty bourgeoisie. These were the self-
employed and they included shopkeepers, doctors lawyers, etc. (d) Manual
workers. These people sold their physical labour in exchange for wages. The
working class was included in this class. Weber thus dividedsociety into four
classes as opposed to Marx's two-class model. Hence though Weber found
the basis of class formation was similar to that of Marx he differed with Marx
on the types of classes in society.

4.2.2 Status
Like Marx, Weber also distinguished between class and class-consciousness.
As discussed above, for Marx, class-conscious was an important aspect of
class. A class could articulate its interests if it was conscious of its existence
as a special group. Weber too talked of class-consciousness but he did not
think it as necessary for the existence of a class. Instead he looked for an
alternative to class-consciousness and he found it in status. Weber noted that
whereas an individual's class situation need not lead to his becoming class
conscious, he was always conscious of his status.

44
 Weberian
Activity 1

Discuss with other students in the study centre what is meant by status.
Do their conceptions fit in with Weber's view on status? Note down your
findings.

According to Weber, classes were formed on the basis of economic relations.

Status groups, he noted, were normally 'communities'. He defined status a
position in society determined by social estimation of 'honour'. There were
links between class mid status but in many cases they were in opposition to
each other. Class was associated with production of goods and services or
in acquisition of the same. Status was determined by consumption. Thus
status was associated with a life style where there were restrictions on social
intercourse. Weber noted that the most rigid and well-defined status
boundaries could be found in India's caste system. A Brahman may belong to
the working class because it was the means of his livelihood, however he
would always consider himself superior to a person from a lower caste even
though the class situation of both may be the same. At the same time that
Brahman worker may have greater interaction with other Brahmans
belonging to classes higher than his. In our society we can see that inter-caste
marriage is not tolerated even when both families are from the same class but
they occupy different statuses in the caste hierarchy.

There in a stratified society, Weber found that property differences generated

classes whereas prestige differences generated status grouping. There were
the two main bases of .social stratification.

4.2.3 Power
The third organizing principle of social stratification is power, Unlike status
and wealth which can be clearly linked with group characteristics of rankmg
hi societies, the principle of power is a relatively diffused attribute because it
is not exclusive in character. It is always possible that a group with higher
status in society or that which enjoys greater wealth, also exercises more
power in society. Nevertheless, one could make a distinction between say,
principle of privileges where as the latter tends to be based on the group's
ability to use coercive means for other group's conformity with actions,
values and beliefs determined by it. The concept of power as Max Weber has
discussed in his treatment of social stratification rests on the fact that it
endows the persons or groups which have power to impose their will on other
groups by legitimate use of coercive method. In this sense, state offers us a
good example of an institution which has maximum power. It has sovereign
authority to impose its will on citizens of the society. When legitimacy of
exercise of power, is widely accepted by groups, in other words, when it is
institutionalized in society, power becomes authority. Authority as a concept
could be defined as legitimate power. Power as a principle also enters into the
notion of social stratification when its functions or its social ramifications
45
Approaches begin to be influenced by the political processes in society, and when state
begins to take more active or direct role in influencing the principles of social
stratification. A relevant example of this could be found in the policy of
positive discrimination or reservation of jobs, political offices and entry into
educational institutions in our country by the state in favour of castes and
tribes now declared as 'scheduled' or as 'other backward classes'. Max Weber,
in his treatment of power as an element in the formation of social
stratification has rightly emphasised the significance of politics, political
parties and their role in optimizing their access to power.

Activity 2

Discuss 'status' 'wealth' and 'power' with other students in the study
centre. In which way are they related to one another? Put your findings
down in your notebook.

Check Your Progress 1

1) Describe Weber's views on Classes and Life chances. Use about five
lines for your answer.

…………………………………………………………………………….

…………………………………………………………………………….

…………………………………………………………………………….

…………………………………………………………………………….

…………………………………………………………………………….

2) Outline some of the similarities and differences between Weber and

Marx so far as their views on social stratification is concerned. Use about
ten lines for your answer.

…………………………………………………………………………….

…………………………………………………………………………….

…………………………………………………………………………….

…………………………………………………………………………….

…………………………………………………………………………….

4.4 SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES BETWEEN

MARX ANDWEBER
From the above discussions we can see that there are some similarities
between the two thinkers on stratification. There are major differences as
well. For Marx the basis of stratification was class. The formation of class
46 was objective in the sense that a class was not formed because a group of
people got together and decided that they form a class. Its formation was Weberian

because of the production relations that existed in a society. Therefore a

person's position in the class structure was based on his position in the
production relations. If he happened to own or control capital and he
employed others, he was a capitalist. Those who did not own or control
property belonged to the opposing class of worker.

Opposition of classes was an important aspect of Marx's analysis. It was

through this opposition that social and economic change took place. The
capitalists invent new ways to counteract workers. This could be new
technology resulting in better production techniques or new laws preventing
workers from becoming more powerful. The workers too in their struggle
become more united. They tend to drop their internal differences when they
realise that their main opponent is another class. This leads to greater unity
among them. Thus for Marx, class and class-consciousness do not mean mere
categories in society. They are fundamental for social development.

At one level, Weber accepts Marx's view on class. However he does so not to
support Marx but to show how his analysis has weaknesses. He stresses that
society cannot be divided into only two main classes. There are more classes
that emerge due to the market situation and the type of work done. He
therefore finds that there are four main classes in society. This in effect
confuses the class relations. Thus Weber feels that neither class nor class-
consciousness can explain stratification completely. He thus lays greater
stress on status, whereas Marx lays stress on class-consciousness. Weber tries
to show that class-consciousness in not an important aspect of social
stratification. For him status groups are the basis. He finds that classes are
static whereas status stretches across classes.

While comparing the two we must keep in mind that Weber was an opponent
on Marx's views. He tried to provide alternatives to Marx. In this sense the
two cannot be compared because Weber's work was not complimentary to
that of Marx (just as Davis' approach to stratification was complementary to
that of Parsons as we shall show in the next unit). It was primarily developed
to oppose Marx. Thus despite some similarities, their works are basically
different.

4.5 LET US SUM UP

In the above unit we have discussed the view of the founder of sociology,
Max Weber, on social stratification. He has view that has shaped and
influenced human development.

Marx Weber stressed on the formation of classes. The basis of the class was
similar to what Marx said but he also stressed that there were four classes
instead of two. Weber's differences with Marx did not end there. He tried to
show the inadequacy of class analysis as the main means of explaining social
stratification. He asserted that stains was more important than class. His
47
Approaches contention was that people were not as class-conscious as they were status
conscious. Hence he felt that status was a better measure of social
stratification, even though class was an objective category.

4.6 KEY WORDS

Class : According to Marx, classes are groups of

people who are distinguished from each
other due to their ownership or control over
the means of production or lack of the
same.

Class : According to Marx, classes are groups of

people who are distinguished from each
other due to their ownership or control over
the means of production or lack of the
same. According to Weber, classes are
groups of people who are' distinguished
from each other through their ownership or
control of production and who share similar
life chances.

Class-consciousness : A class that is conscious of its distinguished

position in the social hierarchy.

Status : Effective claim to social esteem. Weber

tried to show that status cuts across class
barriers.

4.7 FURTHER READINGS

T.B. Bottomore and M. Rubel (eds.), Karl Marx: Selected Writing in
Sociology and Social Philosphy, Penguin Books, 1963.

H.H. Gerth and C. W. Mills (eds.), From Marx Weber: Essays in Sociology,
Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1948.

4.8 SPECIMEN ANSWER TO CHECK YOUR

PROGRESS
Check Your Progress 1

1) Weber defined class in relation to private property, but he distinguished

between ownership of goods and ownership of skills. The factory owner
could offer goods but his workers offer labour power in exchange of
48
 wages. Further life chances for Weber meant the opportunities an Weberian

individual got during various stages of his life. Education and family
background affect life chances. The emphasis however has to be on the
group and these can improve or deteriorate the position. Finally life
chances of a class were similar to which there were some exceptions.

2) There are both similarities and differences between Marx and Weber
regarding their views on social stratification. Thus opposition of classes
based on ownership of means of production was basic to Marx's thought.
The class and class consciousness are basic to social development for
Weber. Society con not be divided into only two classes, and he finds
four classes in society Weber lays greater stress on status whereas Marx
emphasizes class consciousness. Thus despite the similarities that both
scholars emphasized the importance of the class, their views were not
really similar.

49
 UNIT 5 FUNCTIONALIST
Approaches

Structure

5.0 Objectives
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Functionalist Approach of Stratification
5.3 Davis- Moore Approach
5.4.1 Functions of Stratification

5.4.2 Basic Propositions

5.5 Criticism of the Approach

5.6 Let Us Sum Up
5.7 Key Words
5.8 Further Readings
5.9 Specimen Answers to Check Your Progress

5.0 OBJECTIVES
This unit deals with the approach of social stratification put forward by
American sociologists, Davis and Moore. This approach is also known as the
Functionalist Theory of Social Stratification. Though this theory has been
widely accepted by sociologists for analysing social stratification, there have
been some strong criticisms of this theory. We shall examine all these aspects
of the theory. Hence, after reading this unit you will understand:
• the Background of this approach;
• what this approach states;
• the problems in explaining this approach;
• the criticism put forth by some well -known sociologists; and
• The importance of the approach in understanding society.

5.1 INTRODUCTION
The functionalist approach tries to explain the reasons why a society is able
to survive. The underlying belief of this approach is that all societies want
stability and peace. The people in society do not want chaos and confusion
because this will disrupt their day-to-day activities. Hence all societies what
order and some form of discipline. These are the means of achieving stability
in society.

The functionalists view society as some form of organism consisting of

different parts. These parts are integrated to the whole and they work in co-
operation with each other. The human body is a complex organism that
50
comprises different parts of the body. Each of these parts is separate but they Functionalist

form an integrated whole. Similarly, in society there are different parts that
perform different roles. If we look at the total picture of society we will see
that all these parts perform roles which contribute to the stability of the entire
society. In other words they contribute to the integration of society. For
example, we find that people have different types of occupations and people
perform different types of activities. There are doctors, lawyers, teachers,
students, workers, industrialists, farmers, weavers etc. Though all these
activities are different they are all needed for the functioning of the society.
Therefore they can be viewed as separate parts which work together in order
to integrate the society.

Hence we can see that the functionalist approach maintains that every
component of the social structure performs specific functions which are
necessary for maintaining stability in that society. These functions are
necessary for the survival of that society. Hence the system of stratification in
a society is also necessary for its integration and its stability.

5.2 FUNCTIONALIST APPROACHES

The functionalists accept the fact that all societies are stratified. In other
words, all the functions carried out by the various members of society are
functional for its survival but they are not equal in status. Some of the
functions are superior to the others. They are ranked higher. The people who
perform these functions are also regarded as superior to others, i.e. those
below them. The functionalist theories of stratification attempt to explain
how social inequalities occur and why they are necessary for society.

The functionalists presume that there are certain basic needs of the every
society. These needs have to be met or else there will be instability in society.
These needs are known as functional prerequisites. Secondly, though these
functional prerequisites are important, they are ranked according to the
importance that is granted to them in that society. For example, workers and
managers are needed to run a factory. No factory can exist with only workers
and no managers or only managers and no workers. Hence managers and
workers are integral for running a factory. At the same time it will be wrong
to assume that because both groups are necessary, both have equal status.
This is not so. The managers enjoy higher status than the workers do. Hence
integration does not mean equality. It means that all the different groups
together contribute towards stability but they do so because they are stratified
in a hierarchy. What is the basis of this hierarchy and, why do people accept
it? These are the questions that the theorists try to explain. In the next section
we shall examine the views of Davis and Moore, the most eminent of the
functionalists theorists.

51
Approaches Check Your Progress 1

1) Outline the functionalist approach.

…………………………………………………………………………….

…………………………………………………………………………….

…………………………………………………………………………….

…………………………………………………………………………….

…………………………………………………………………………….

5.4 DAVIS - MOORE APPROACH

Kingsley Davis and Wilbert Moore have developed the functionalist
approach of stratification Both are eminent American sociologists and they
were students of Talcott Parsons. They elaborated their view in an article
titled, "Some Principles of Stratification". This article became very popular
and controversial. They views have, been supported by functionalists and
have been severely criticised by others. Their views are also referred as the
functionalist theory of inequality. Let us first discuss their proposition and
then we can discuss some of the critiques.

Parsons stressed on the need for stratification in society. He showed that it

was inevitable in every society. Davis and Moore elaborated on this and try
to examine how stratification becomes effective in any society. In this way
the attempt to extend Parsons argument. The main problem they pose is why
do certain positions carry different degrees of prestige? And, how do
individuals get into these positions?

The authors support Parson's view that the basis of the existence of societies
in order and stability. All societies have their own functional prerequisites
which help them survive and operate effectively. Let us elaborate on this
point. Societies are not mere collection of individuals. These individuals have
to perform specific tasks so that the requirements of society are fulfilled.
There are thus a number of activities that exist in society. A society needs
workers, industrialists, managers, policemen, teachers, students, artisans and
so on. Different individuals who have specialised skills do these different
types of work.. Therefore the first functional prerequisite of any society is of
allocating these different roles effectively. This will ensure that the right
people are placed in proper positions.

There are four aspects of the above-mentioned functional prerequisite.

Firstly, all roles in society must be filled. All societies have different types of
occupations. These occupations are necessary for their existence. Hence it is
necessary to ensure that these occupations are filled. At the same time, mere
filled up occupations in not enough. If the wrong people (i.e. people who do
not have the requisite skills) are selected for the tasks there will be instability
52
in society. This in especially true if these position is important. For example Functionalist

if a power generation company employs a well known novelist, who has no

idea of power generation, the work of the company will suffer and there will
be stability not only hi the company but in the supply of electricity. Therefore
the second factor is that the most competent people must fill in the positions.
Thirdly, in order the best people are selected for the job it is necessary to
train them for it. Training therefore is an effective means of ensuring that the
best people are selected. In the case of that novelist who is made the head of a
power generation company, had lie undergone training for fulfilling the needs
of that position he could be regarded as the best person. Lastly, the roles must
be performed conscientiously. This is very important for ensuring effective
performance in the roles. As person may be trained and is the best in the
field, but if he does not do his work with dedication the system will suffer.
Hence all these four factors are necessary in order to meet the functional
prerequisites of a society.

5.4.1 Functions of Stratification

Davis and Moore state that all societies need some mechanism for ensuring
that the best people are selected for the positions and they perform well.
According to them the most effective means for ensuring this is social
stratification. This system is effective because it offers unequal rewards and
privileges to the different positions in society. If all people are given the same
rewards then there will be no motivation for people to work harder. There
may also be a tendency for people to avoid taking up positions of
responsibility or challenging jobs. They know that no matter how well they
perform and no matter what position they occupy they will get the same
rewards. Therefore stratification is necessary for the efficient functioning of
the system.

Activity 2

What is the need for stratification in a society? Discuss with students in

the study centre and note down your findings in your notebook.

The main contributions of a system of unequal rewards are two-fold. Firstly it

motivates people to fill certain positions. When positions carry higher
rewards people put in greater efforts become qualified for positions. For
example if the position of a lecturer carries higher rewards than other
professions bright students will strive to fulfill the qualifications for
becoming lecturers. In this way society will get better teachers. Secondly, the
rewards must be unequal even after fulfilling the position so that the persons
who are appointed are motivated to improve their performance further.. If
lecturers are rewarded for their teaching and research activities through
promotions and increased salaries, they will perform their duties better as
they would like the higher rewards. In this manner the system of
stratification, based on unequal rewards, is beneficial for societies.
53
Approaches Davis and Moore explain that this system of stratification holds true for both
modern societies based on competition and for traditional societies that are
based on ascription. In modem societies people occupy positions according to
their skills and qualifications. Those who are better qualified get better
rewards and they occupy positions of prestige. In traditional societies
positions are ascribed through birth. In traditional caste oriented Indian
society people occupied their positions not due to their competence but
through the status they had by birth. The son of a labourer would become a
labourer even if he had the intelligence to do other type of superior work.
Similarly the son of a landlord would become a landlord even if he were
totally incompetent for the job. In such a system the provision of unequal
rewards would have no effect in improving the efficiency of the system.
However Davis and Moore argue that in such societies the stress is on
performance of duties attached to the positions. Thus even though the son of
a labourer will remain a labour, if he performs his duties well he will be
rewarded though other means.

Check Your Progress 2

1) List down the functional prerequisites of Davis and Moore.

2) Say True and False for the statements that are given below:

i) All positions in society are of the same functional important.

ii) Limited people can perform functionally important roles.

iii) No training is required to perform functionally important roles.

5.4.2 Basic Propositions of Davis and Moore

In the above sections we have tried to explain the role of social stratification
as a functional necessity of societies. In modern societies the basis of status is
through achievement and not ascription. In other words the status of a person
is determined by his or her merits and not by birth. Such societies are more
dynamic and can fulfill their functional prerequisites. In order to achieve this
Davis and Moore note that there are some propositions that are common for
all these societies. These are:

1) In every society certain positions are functionally more important than-

the others. These positions carry greater rewards and higher prestige. For
example, a position in the Indian administrative service in considered
having more prestige than other jobs.

2) Only limited people have the necessary merit or talents to perform these
roles. We can seen that in the case of the IAS examinations several
thousand appear for the examinations but only a handful are successful.

3) In most case these positions require a lengthy and intensive training

period. This involves sacrifices on the part of the people who acquire
these posts. In our own society we can see that certain professions such
54
 as medicine, engineering, chartered accountancy etc. involve intensive Functionalist

and expensive training involving a number of years. According to Davis

and Moore, this involves sacrifice on the part of the candidate. Hence
they must be rewarded for their sacrifice through higher financial
rewards and greater prestige in society.

The above propositions are based on the fact that in modern societies
achievement values have replaced ascriptive criteria. In these societies a
person's merit is more important than his or her birth. The occupations
are arranged hierarchically and those at the top have greater rewards and
prestige than those below. This system of higher rewards, along with the
fact that all can compete for these rewards and only those who are
competent will get them, provides motivation to people to strive to
perform better. However the most important condition for such a system
to survive is that there is social consensus on the importance of the
different occupations. This means that the ranking of occupations in
terms of their superiority is based on the value consensus of that society.

Box 5.02

Davis and Moore noted that there could be a problem in deciding which
positions are functionally more important than others. It is possible that
a position that is highly rewarded may not necessarily be functionally
important. This in fact is one of the weaknesses of the theory that has
been pointed out by its critics (we shall deal with this in more detail in
the next section). Davis and Moore suggest that there are ways of
measuring whether a superior position is functionally important or not.

It may be argued that an engineer in a factory is no different than a skilled

worker, hence the higher reward for the engineer is not justified. Davis and
Moore would argue that the engineer is functionally more important because
he has the skills of a skilled worker in addition to his other skills which the
skilled worker does not possess. Hence though an engineer can be a skilled
worker, a skilled worker cannot become an engineer. The second measure is
the "degree to which other positions are dependent on the one in question".
Thus an engineer in a factory is more important than the workers are because
they are dependent on his for direction in their work.

In brief, Davis and Moore have carried forward Parsons’ views on

stratification by clarifying the reasons for social inequality. They have tried
to show that the system of stratification based on unequal rewards and
prestige are necessary for maintaining order in society and ensuring its
progress.

55
Approaches
5.5 CRITICISM OF DAVIS AND IVIOORE'S
APPROACH
On the face of it the Davis-Moore approach appears rational and realistic.
After all in all societies which believe in social and occupational mobility.
This is in contrast to a society where there is no mobility as people are
assigned roles accordance with their birth. In India to the Constitution grants
equal rights to all citizens. It bans discrimination on the basis of caste, race,
religion and gender. This is similar to most modern societies where a person's
ability is more important than his birth. Under these circumstances the Davis-
Moore theory appears realistic as it offers an explanation for the existing
inequalities in society. There have been several criticisms of this theory. In
fact after it was published in the Americal Journal of Sociology in 1945, it
aroused a great deal of interest. Several well-known sociologists of that time
reacted by writing articles either in support or in criticism or the theory. As a
result this journal had a special issue containing these articles. It is widely
recognized that of the critical articles Melvin Tumin's was the most
comprehensive. We shall discuss the points he raised he raised in the
following paragraphs.

Tumin began his criticism with the statement that functionally important
positions are highly rewarded. While it was a fact that rewards were unequal
as some received more reward and prestige than other's it could not be
categorically stated that these positions are functionally more important. It is
possible that some workers in a factory are more necessary for maintaining
production than their managers are, though the managers are better rewarded.
In such cases if the workers are removed production will be hampered but if
some managers are removed it may be still possible to maintain production.
Therefore, how could functional importance of a position be measured? A
society needs doctors, lawyers, workers and farmers. Each of these positions
are functionally important for the existence of a society. Davis and Moore
have not provided the means of measuring the functional importance of these
positions. In fact some sociologists argue that the importance of position is a
matter of opinion and not an objective criteria.

Tumin argues that unequal rewards to people may not necessarily stem from
the functional importance of positions. The role of power in determining the
importance of positions and thereby appropriating higher rewards is also in
also important means of determining the rewards. For example in India
workers in the organized sector are better paid and get more social security
than the workers in the unorganized sector. This is mainly because the former
are unionised and have greater bargaining power than the latter that are not
unionised and hence have little protection. The type of work done by workers
in both sectors is similar but the rewards as well as the prestige are higher in
the organised sector. Hence power play a more important role in determining
higher rewards than functional importance.
56
Tumin challenges the justification of higher rewards on the basis that these Functionalist

positions involve greater training. He argues that training does not necessarily
mean sacrifice as the individuals also learn new skills, gain knowledge and
thereby benefit. Moreover the rewards for such cases are disproportionate to
the sacrifices made during training.

The proportion that unequal rewards help to motivate people in improving

their work is also not true according to Tumin. In reality there are barriers to
motivation. The system of stratification does not allow the talented people to
have equal access to better opportunities. Social discrimination is present in
every society and this acts as a barrier. In India where social inequalities are
higher it is difficult for the child of a poor person to get better education in
order to improve his position. This is true in America as well where Afro-
Americans and coloured people are economically worse off and hence they
cannot compete for better positions.

There is every possibility that in a system of unequal rewards, those who

receive higher rewards will ensure that their children get the same rewards.
They will also create barriers to prevent other from getting into the same
positions that their children are in. Doctors may be interested in getting their
children into the profession. They will not only try to ensure that their
children get in but will also try and prevent other children from getting into
profession. T.B. Bottomore in his study Elites and Societies shows that even
in developed countries such as Britain and France where the stratification
system in more open an overwhelming majority of the civil servants were
children of civil servants.

The fact is that those at the bottom of the social hierarchy do not have access
to the improving their knowledge and skills which will make them competent
enough to get the better position. Tumin notes that motivation through
unequal rewards can be possible in a system "where there is genuinely equal
access to recruitment and training for all potentially talented that differential
rewards can conceivable by justified as functionally important. This is rarely
possible in most societies." Hence he asserts that "stratification systems are
apparently antagonistic to the development of such full equality of
opportunity." Tumin therefore argues that those already receiving differential
positions can manipulate functionally important positions. Hence Tumin tries
to prove that the functional theory of social stratification is not realistic.

5.6 LET US SUM UP

Social stratification exists in all societies. Every society has its hierarchy in
which the different individuals are placed. The main problems for the
structural functionalists, such as Talcott Parsons, Kingsley Davis and Wilbert
Moore, was how individuals occupy these different positions, and who do we
need these difference. They concluded that stratification was not only
inevitable in all societies but it was also very necessary for them as it
promoted stability and order. 57
Approaches Davis and Moore tried to examine why certain positions carry different
degrees of prestige. They found that positions which are functionally more
important for society carry higher rewards and greater prestige. They
explained the reasons for this.

This criticism put forth by Melvin Tumin of Davis and Moore's propositions
show that functional importance in not the only criteria for deciding on which
positions carry higher rewards. There are other factors such as power and
status based on birth. Even the so called open societies are influenced by
these criteria. He challenges all the major propositions in the theory and he
feels that stratification can become antagonising to members of society.

5.7 KEYWORDS
Value consensus : Agreement by all members of a social
system on what is accepted for all.
Functional Prerequisites : Those values that are necessary for
promoting order and stability and thus
necessary for the survival of that society.

5.8 FURTHER READINGS

R. Bendix and S.M. Lipset (eds.), Class, Status and Power, Routledge and
Kegan Paul 1967.

5.9 SPECIMEN ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR

PROGRESS
Check Your Progress

1) Functionalist approach explains how a society is able to survive. The

functionalists view society as an organism with various parts. Each of the
part is separate but they form an integrated whole, and contribute to its
stability. Thus the system of stratification in a society is also necessary
for its integration and stability.

Check Your Progress 2

1) This basic requirement for any society is to allocate various different
roles effectively. There are four aspects to these:
i) All roles, in society must be filled.
ii) The most competent people must fill these positions.
iii) Training for the job is necessary.
iv) Roles must be performed consciously.
2) i) False
ii) True
iii) False
58
UNIT 6 ATTRIBUTIONAL AND Attributional and
Interactional

INTERACTIONAL

Structure

6.0 Objectives
6.1 Introduction
6.2 Attributional Approaches to Caste
6.2.1 G.S.Ghurye

6.2.2 J.H.Hutton

6.2.3 MN.Srinivas

6.3 Interactional Approaches to Caste

6.3.1 F.G. Bailey

6.3.2 A.Mayer

6.3.3 M.Mariott

6.3.4 L.Dumont

6.4 Attributional and Interactional Approaches: An Appraisal

6.5 Let Us Sum Up
6.6 Keywords
6.7 Further Readings
6.8 Specimen Answers to Check Your Progress

6.0 OBJECTIVES
After reading this unit, you should be able to:
• Outline early explanations of caste;
• Describe the attributional theories to caste;
• Highlight the main aspects of the interactional approaches to caste; and
• Become acquainted with some of the limitations of the attributional and
interactional approaches to caste.

6.1 INTRODUCTION
Caste identity is closed linked with the social fabric of a village, town or city.
In the unit that follows we describe and analyze some of the major attempts
to explain the ranking order that is ubiquitous so far as caste formations are
concerned. To acquaint you with these approaches we will point out to you
some of the early religious and sociological explanations of caste. This will
set the backdrop for the attributional theories to caste which analyze caste
hierarchy in terms of the various immutable characteristics of caste. The 59
Approaches incursion into these approaches is followed by the interaction approaches to
caste hierarchy. Finally the unit picks up the threads of the approaches
described and analysed in the unit and points out the limitations of the types
of the approaches that have been presented. This will round off our
discussion on caste identity and how it maintains itself or mutates.

6.2 ATTRIBUTIONAL APPROACHES TO CASTE

Some scholars used the early insights of Marx Weber and Bougle to develop
what has come to be known as the "attributional approach". Attributional
approach discusses primarily the significant features of the caste system qua
system and what distinguishes it from other forms of the social stratification.

Attributes are inherent inalienable qualities associated with the caste system.
As such every ° caste must necessarily partake of these attributes.

6.2.1 G.S Ghurye

Ghurye wrote in the 1930's and considered that each caste was separated
from the other in a hierarchical order. This ordering sprang legitimately from
its attributes of a caste. These were:

i) Segmental Division. Thus membership to a caste group is acquired by

birth and with it come the position in the rank order relative to other
castes.

ii) Hierarchy. Following from the above society was arranged in rank
orders, or relations of superiority or inferiority. Thus Brahmins were
accepted as highest in the hierarchy and untouchables at the very bottom.

iii) Caste Restrictions. These were placed on every caste which gave
permission to its members only to interact with particular groups of
people. This included its dress, speech, customs, rituals and from who
they could accept food. The system was geared to maintain purity of the
group members, hence of the caste group itself.

iv) Caste Pollution. In this idea the whole effort of a caste was to avoid
contamination from polluting objects (those involved unclean
occupations, or of the lowest caste). This shunning of pollution is
reflected in the residential separation of the caste groups.

v) Traditional Occupation. Ghurye felt that every caste had a traditional

occupation the clean castes had clean occupations whereas the unclean
and impure caste had defiling ones.

vi) Endogamy. This trait of the castes was very distinct and essential to
keeping it together as a group that maintained its own distinct character.
Essentially it maintained that one could only marry within ones caste.

Thus through six attributes Ghurye sought to define the process by which a
60 caste group maintained its caste identity. By preserving the various attributes
of segmental division, hierarchy, caste restrictions, caste pollution, traditional Attributional and
Interactional
occupation, and marriage within a particular caste circle, the caste group
maintained its own separate (through interrelated) identity which it sought to
perpetuate over generations.

Activity 1

Discuss the attributes of caste according to G.S. Ghurye with fellow students.
Note down your findings in your notebook.

6.2.2 J.H. Hutton

Hutton had described the caste structure in his book Caste in India. Hutton
held that the central feature of the caste system was endogamy. Around this
fact are built up the various restrictions and taboos. Interaction must not
violate these restrictions placed on the various castes. Another important
feature of the caste system as seen by Hutton was the taboo on taking cooked
food from any caste but one's own. Such restrictions raise questions in
themselves:

i) Who cooks the food?

ii) What type of pot was the food cooked in?

iii) Is the food "kaccha" uncooked or (cooked in water) or 'pakka" (fried in

oil). The latter is acceptable from other castes as well.

iv) There is a hierarchy of food and vegetarian food is ranked higher than
non vegetarian food. Brahmins are usually vegetarian but not everywhere
in Bengal and Kashmir Brahmis eat non-vegetarian food as well.

These restrictions reflect the process of the formation of caste identity. They
are reflective of separation and hierarchy between the caste groups. Thus
non-acceptance of food reflects superiority of rank. The whole idea of
maintaining purity' and reducing pollution' is also found to permeate the
interactions.

In parts of the South India for instance the fear of pollution gets translated
into physical distance being maintained between the superior and inferior
caste. Again the castes low in rank order have to avoid village temples and
well and maintain a physical distance in their interaction with higher caste
members. Thus Hutton explains caste interactions with the notion of
attributes of a caste, primarily in terms of endogamy, purity and impurity and
restrictions on commensality. You will have noticed the overlap in Ghuryes
Hutton's approaches.

6.2.3 M.N. Srinivas

Before proceeding further it may be mentioned that the scholars using the
attributional approach stress the attributes of a caste. However each of them
61
Approaches lays emphasis on one or other of these attributes and how they affect
interaction. In the case of Srinivas writing in the 50's we find that he chooses
to study the structure of relations arising between castes on the basis of these
attributes. Thus he introduces a dynamic aspect of caste identity very
forcefully.

This aspect becomes clearer in Srinivas's work on positional mobility known

as 'Sanskritization'. Sanskritization is a process whereby a caste attempts to
raise its rank within the caste hierarchy by adopting in practice, the attributes
of the caste or castes above them, in the rank order. This is to say the 'low'
attributes are gradually dropped and the 'high' attributes of the castes above
them are imitated. This involves adoption of vegetarianism, clean
occupations of so on.

Closely connected is the concept of dominant caste. The dominant caste in a

village is conspicuous by its:

i) Sizeable numerical presence

ii) Ownership of land
iii) Political power.

Thus a dominant caste has numerical significance as well as economic and

political power. It is also interesting to note that the dominant caste need not
be the highest ranking caste in the village caste hierarchy. The dominant caste
commands the service of all other castes.

Check Your Progress 1

1) Give a summary of the attributional theory of caste according to M.N.

Srinivas in about 10 lines.

…………………………………………………………………………….

…………………………………………………………………………….

…………………………………………………………………………….

…………………………………………………………………………….

…………………………………………………………………………….

6.3 INTERACTIONAL APPROACHES TO CASTE

Interaction approach takes into account how castes are actually ranked with
respect to one another in a local empirical context.

We have already seen how attributes of a caste be used as a approach to study

caste. It would also have come clear to your that a set of attributes denotes its
own interactional processes. Thus we cannot say that attributes have no
bearing or interaction. On the other hand we find that the interaction too has
its attributional aspects. So the questions comes down to which of these
62
aspects in emphasized more than the other, and given primacy in analyzing Attributional and
Interactional
the caste dynamics and identity formation. Let us study some of the
pioneering works so for a interactional approaches to the study of caste are
concerned.

6.3.1 F.G. Bailey

Bailey feels that caste dynamics and identity are united by the two principles
of segregation and hierarchy. He feels that '"Castes Stand in ritual and secular
hierarchy expressed in the rules of interaction". The ritual system overlaps
the political and economic system.

Box 6.01

The relationship between castes does not comprise rituals alone-there is a

power dimension because there exists a dominant caste to which other castes
are subordinate. Rank and caste identity are expressed by a lower caste
attempting to emulate a caste which is higher in rank. Thus the interaction
pattern becomes indicative of ritual status the rank order hierarchy.
Interactional pattern itself involves attitudes and practices towards the
question of acceptance and non acceptance of food, services, water, smoking
together, seating arrangements at feasts and the exchange of gifts.

Bailey explained his viewpoint with reference to village Bisipara in Orissa;

and showed how the caste situation in Bisipara becomes changed and more
fluid after Independence when the Kshatriyas lost much of their land. This
caused a downslide in their ritual ranking as well. There was a clearly
discemable change in the interaction patterns which we have delineated
above e.g. acceptance and non acceptance of food from other castes.

6.3.2 A.Mayer
Mayer studied Ramkheri village in Madhya Pradesh. To understand the effect
on caste hierarchy Mayer observed interactive between castes in term of:

i) Commensality of eating drinking water and smoking

ii) Food type exchanged whether is "kaccha' or pakka'
iii) Context of eating, ritual or otherwise
iv) Seating arrangements at eating
v) Who provides food and who cooked it
vi) The vessel in which water is given - metal or earthen.

Thus the commensal hierarchy is based on the belief that any or all of the
above factors can lead to greater or lesser pollution for a caste thus affecting
its identity and ranking in the hierarchy order. Those at the top of the
hierachical order will ensure that only a caste or type of food and water
vessel which will no pollute them is accepted or used by them. For example
63
Approaches pakka food may be accepted from a lower caste but kaccha food will
accepted only from within the same caste or subcaste.

6.3.3 M.Marriott
Marriott analyses caste hierarchy with reference to the local context. Marriott
studied the arrangement of caste ranking in ritual interaction. Marriott
confirmed that ritual hierarchy is itself linked to economic and political
hierarchies. Usually economic and political ranks tend to coincide. That is to
say both ritual and non-ritual hierarchies affect the ranking in the caste order
though ritual hierarchies tend to play a greater role. In this way a consensus
emerges regarding caste ranking and this is collectively upheld. It must be
make clear here that this process is not as clear cut as it first seems. This is
because the sociologist enters the field when this process of caste ranking is
in its full blown form and he or she does not observe the historical process
and took place by deduces or infers about the same, from, from the data that
is available on hand.

Marriot studied KishanGarhi and Ram Nagla two villages in the Aligarh
District of U.P. in 1952. Marriott's study showed that there is consensus
about caste ranking in these villages. The basis on which this is done is on the
observation of ritual of ritual interaction, in the village itself.

In the villages Marriot studied we find that the important indicators or rank
are:

i) Giving and receiving of food

ii) Giving and receiving of honorific gestures and practices

iii) Thus Brahmins are ranked high since they officiate at the most exclusive
and important rituals. They simultaneously receive all services from the
other castes. Again Brahmins accept only "pakka" food from another
group of high castes. Thus a caste can be considered high if Brahmins
accept 'pakka' food from them and low if Brahmins accepting 'kaccha'
food from them. There were ten such 'high' castes in KishanGarhi and
four such 'high' castes in Ram Nagla. The lowest caste does not receive
any service from other castes, but has to provide its services to all other
castes ad had made it a practice to accept 'Kaccha' food from them as
well.

Activity 2

Discuss the important indicators of rank according to Mayer and Marriot with
students and friends. Note down your discoveries in your notebook.

Food and services, and how they are offered and accepted are therefore major
indicators of caste ranking. However Marriott observed that there were rules
also about:
64
i) smoking together, Attributional and
Interactional
ii) the arrangement of the hosing complex
iii) details and bodily contact
iv) feasting ;md the order in which the food is served.

In KishanGarhi political and economic dominance matched the ritual

hierarchy. Let us see how ritual status and economic power (land ownership)
overlap:

Rank and Land Ownership in KishanGarhi

Brahmins

High Caste

Low Caste

Lowest Caste

Thus there is a tendency among castes to transform their political and

economic status into ritual status.

However inconsistencies can and do exist. This gives room for social
mobility. Again, though it is true that the local interaction is important, but a
reference to other villages can also help determined local rank. However, by
and large the ritual hierarchy tends to be consistent with political and
economic dominance. Interaction sustains a given ranking order which can be
witnessed in the various facts that have been mentioned.

6.3.4 L. Dumont
Dumont added a new dimension to the studies of caste in an interactional
perspective. His study of caste emphasizes relations between castes rather
than attributes. Attributes can be only be explained with reference to the
relationship between castes. According to Dumont the local context has a role
in caste ranking and identity, but this is a response to the ideology of
hierarchy which extends over the entire caste system. Thus for Dumont caste
is a set of relationship of economic, political and kinship systems, sustained
by mainly religious values. For Dumont caste is a special type of inequality
and hierarchy is the essential value underlying the caste system, and it is this
value that integrates Hindu society.

The various aspects of the caste, says Dumont are based on the principle of
opposition between the pure and impure underlying them. 'Pure' is superior to
the impure' and has to be kept separate. Thus the caste system appears to be
65
Approaches rational to those because of the opposition between the pure and the impure.

Dumont also feels that hierarchy in the caste system indicates ritual status
without accepting the influences of wealth or power authority. Thus hierarchy
is the principle through which the elements are ranked in relation to the
whole. Ranking is basically religious in nature. In Indian society Status
(Brahmins) has always been separated from power (King). To go further,
power has been subordinated to 'status'. The king is subordinate to the priest,
but both are dependent on each other. Thus hierarchy is something ritualistic
in nature and supported by religion. Only when power in subordinated to
status, can this type of pure hierarchy develop. The Bhrahmins who
represents purity is superior and at the top of the whole system. But the
Brahmin along with (lie king opposes all the other categories of the Varna
system.

For Dumont the Jajmani system of economic interaction is a ritual expression

rather than an economic arrangement. Jajmani system is the religious
expression of inter dependence where interdependence itself is derived from
religion. Similarly, commensal regulations emphasize hierarchy rather then
separation. However, the question of purity does not arise on all such
occassions of commensality. Thus the washerman is a purifier" and can enter
the house freely. But the cannot attend a marriage party with similar caste.

Let us appraise now both the attributional and interactional approaches.

Check Your Progress 2

1) Briefly outline Domont's theory of interactional caste ranking in ranking

in about 10 lines.

……………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………

6.4 ATTRIBUTIONAL AND INTERACTION

APPROACHES: AN APPRAISAL
We are now in a position to point out some of the anomalies found in both
the attributional and interactional approaches. Let us take first the
attributional approach.

i) M. Marriott points out that there were cases in Kishangarhi where the
castes he examined did not seem to derive their position in the social
hierarchy from their attributes. Thus be found that diet and occupational
restrictions in some cases did not negate caste rank or identity.
66
ii) Again the placement of castes in KishanGarhi did not follow from Attributional and
Interactional
highness and lowness of occupation. Thus the facts did not fit the theory.

iii) There may in fact be discrepancies between attribute of a caste and its
rank: Thus in a Mysore village studied by Srinivas the traders caste is
vegetarian and follows a clean occupation relative to the peasants. Yet
peasants are ranked about traders.

iv) There is also the problem of which of the attributes is more and which of
the attributes is less important for ranking of castes.

It was due to these anomalies that the interactional approach was proposed as
an alternative to the attributional approach. This has been presented earlier
but is itself subject to some problems. Let us turn to these now.

i) The interactional approach subsumes within it the importance of

attributes. Thus interaction alone cannot account for rank without
reference to attributes

ii) Apart from Dumont interaction theory localizes hierarchy and propounds
that ranking is an outcome of interaction. Thus there is an emphasis on
separation rather than hierarchy. Dumont's position is that the ideology
of purity and pollution relates to the whole of Hindu society rather just a
part of it.

iii) In the case of Dumont however the work is historical to a large extent,
and the caste system appears to have remained stagnant over the ages,
which is not true.

iv) Although Dumont makes a clear separation between 'power' and status' it
has also been argued that power has been historically converted to status.

v) Finally the view of the caste as a university accepted ordered system of

values (ideology) does little justice to the protest movements that have
questioned caste division itself. The element of conflict is missing while
the integrative function of caste is highlighted

6.5 LET US SUM UP

In this unit we have explored the features of caste rank and identity. We
began with early explanations of caste, including the religious and
sociological explanations. We then moved on to a presentation of the
attribution approaches to caste including those of Ghurye, Hutton, and
Srinivas. Following this we described the interactional alternative to caste
ranking and identity, including the work of Bailey, Mayer, Marriott and
Dumont. Having presented this view we appraised both of the approaches to
caste ranking and identity, and found that there difficulties present in both. It
is clear however that the work. Discussed presents a tremendous advance
over the early religious and sociological explanations of caste hierarchy and
ranking.
67
Approaches
6.6 KEYWORDS

Attributes : Qualities and features

Commensality : Eating together or sitting together
Dominant Caste : A caste which is influential in a village due
to its economic and political power.
Endogamy : Marriage only within a particular groups
Hierarchy : Rank order in which items are arranged
from high to low
Ideology : A coherent consistent of set of ideas
Jajmani System : Custom of ritualised, personal, specialized
services offered by the dependent castes to
the dominant castes.
Kaccha food : Food that is uncooked, or cooked in water
Pakka food : food cooked in ghee or oil
Pollution : A state created by coming into contact with
'unclean' items or castes
Purity : A state of ritual cleanliness, or being free
from all polluting things and persons.

6.7 FURTHER READINGS

Madan T. N. (ed) 1971. On the Nature of Caste in India.In Contributions to
Indian Sociology (N.S.), 5:1-81.

Mandelbaum D. G. 1987 Society in India.Bombay: Popular Prakashan.

Mariott, M. 1959, interactional and Attributional Theories of Caste Ranking"

in Man in India Vol. 34.No. 2.

Srinivas M.N. 1966. Soda! Change in Modern India. Berkeley: University of

California Press.

6.8 SPECIMEN ANSWER TO CHECK YOUR

PROGRESS
Check Your Progress 1

1) Srinivas sees caste as a segmentary system. All castes are divided into
sub-castes which are; i) endogamous; ii) have common occupation; iii)
are units of social and ritual life; iv) follow a common culture; v) are
governed by the village council or 'Panchayat'. The factors of hierarchy,
caste occupation commensality and restrictions, principle of pollution
68 and caste panchayat are also considered by Srinivas. Thus
 Srinivas'sconcept of 'Sanskritization' talks of a lower caste emulating Attributional and
Interactional
higher caste attributes on order to rise higher within the ranking system.

Check Your Progress 2

1) For Dumont the ideology of purity and pollution is a general one and not
confined to any local context along. Thus for Dumont caste is a set of
relationship of economic political and kinship systems, sustained by
mainly religious values. Hierarchies is the essential value underlying the
caste system and it is this value that integrates Hindu Society. Caste has
the principle of pure and impure underlying it.

'Pure' is superior to 'impure' and has to be kept separate. For Dumont

power has been subordinated to status and thus the king is subordinate to
the priest. Hierarchy is thus ritualistic and supported by religion.

69
Approaches

70