ANDRE BETEILLE
Q 1. To what extent is the Beteille’s trinitarian model of stratification suitable
to explain contemporary reality?
Andre Béteille's trinitarian model of stratification was developed to explain the complexities
of the Indian social structure. The model identifies three dimensions of stratification in Indian
society: caste, class, and power. Each dimension corresponds to a different aspect of social
hierarchy and inequality. To evaluate the extent to which this model is suitable to explain
contemporary Indian reality, we need to consider both its strengths and limitations in light
of current societal changes.
Strengths of the Trinitarian Model for Contemporary India:
• Caste Continuity:
o Caste-based hierarchies remain deeply ingrained in Indian society, affecting
aspects of daily life such as marriage, occupation, and social interaction. The
trinitarian model recognizes the persistence of caste inequalities and their
interaction with other forms of stratification.
• Class Dynamics:
o Economic disparities have widened in contemporary India due to globalization,
urbanization, and technological advancements. Beteille's model acknowledges the
importance of class as a dimension of inequality, which is increasingly relevant as
capitalism and market forces continue to shape the country's social landscape.
• Power Structures:
o Power inequalities based on factors such as political influence, education, and
access to resources are central to India's societal functioning. The trinitarian
model's consideration of power dynamics remains relevant in understanding how
political and social power is distributed.
Limitations of the Trinitarian Model in Contemporary India:
• Changing Caste Realities:
o While caste remains a significant factor, its manifestations have evolved.
Urbanization, education, and economic mobility have led to shifts in traditional
caste roles and interactions. New caste-based movements and identity politics also
challenge the model's straightforward application.
• Intersectionality:
o The trinitarian model treats caste, class, and power as separate dimensions,
whereas in reality, they often intersect and reinforce each other in intricate ways.
Other factors such as gender, religion, and ethnicity also play significant roles in
stratification, necessitating a more complex analytical framework.
• Globalization and Cultural Changes:
o Globalization has brought new cultural influences, consumption patterns, and
aspirations. These factors impact how individuals perceive and negotiate their
positions in society, challenging the model's focus on traditional norms and
structures.
• Regional Variation:
o India is incredibly diverse across regions, languages, and cultures. The model
might not fully capture the variations in stratification dynamics across different
parts of the country.
• Emergence of New Elites:
o The rise of technology, entrepreneurship, and new industries has led to the
emergence of a tech-savvy and economically powerful elite. This group might not
fit neatly into the caste-class-power framework.
• Gender:
o The model doesn't explicitly incorporate gender as a dimension of stratification,
despite its crucial role in shaping social hierarchies.
The model's focus on the three dimensions of caste, class, and power is relevant but needs to
be supplemented with an understanding of changing caste dynamics, intersectionality,
globalization's effects, regional variations, and the emergence of new elites. A more
comprehensive and nuanced approach is required to explain the intricacies of contemporary
Indian stratification.
Q2. Beteille’s enchantment with Weber’s triology of “class, status and party”
is clearly evident in his Caste, Class and Power.
Beteille’s understanding of caste is highly reflexive, diffusive in comparison to other
sociologists. He never looks into caste as a structural organisation unlike MNS understanding
of caste. His observation on caste is mostly related to questions like stratification, social
change, democratic politics, development planning etc. He offers variable explanations to
caste in India. He stands committed to Weberian wisdom that caste must be studied as a
historical and empirical reality than caste as an institution functional or dysfunctional for
the society.
His reflection on caste is depicted in his book `caste, class and power’. He considers that
Society is classified on the basis of three important stratification systems which people are
holding in rural communities such as –
• Caste determined by birth.
• Class determined by unequal control over agricultural land.
• Power on the basis of policy networking and policy positions.
He goes beyond conventional wisdom and considers that not only caste system is hierarchical
but within a caste also hierarchy exists. This largely speaks about dynamic nature of caste
driven by ethics of fission and fusion. This kind of segmentary nature of caste is facilitating
the caste to obtain a new lease of life to address the emergent demands of situation in India.
The caste changes along with changing times, yet, it refuses to die.
He further considers that class and caste are engaged in a cross-cutting relation (ie) evident
from the division of castes into three major class groups such as upper, middle and lower
classes.
It contradicts the view point of scholars that caste has been always a source of social
exclusion amending to that Beteille considers that along with caste, poverty is another
indicator to social exclusion. He tries to explain how in a dynamic way people use caste and
class identities for different purposes for which he can’t accept that social stratification in
west is driven by class.
In the past caste was subjected to poverty and powerlessness but policy of reservation,
abolition of intermediaries and princely state have made the linkage between caste and class
relatively weak. Indian society was a closed society prior to the 20 th century and overlapped
into an open society after the 20th century due to legislative and legal measures. Thus, there
has been a shift from cumulative inequality to dispersed inequality in contemporary India
and social change is testimony to it.
By utilizing Weber's ideas of class (economic position), status (prestige and social honor), and
party (political affiliation and influence), Beteille sheds light on the multidimensional nature
of social stratification in the Indian context. His analysis emphasizes the interplay between
caste and class, highlighting how they both contribute to the overall power structure of the
village.
