Scott Albrecht and Dr. Ralph Brown, Department of Sociology
I posit here that three variables must be considered when discussing the devolvement of caste as the dominant element of Indian society: economic organization, the secularization of caste identities, and the disproportionate distribution of power as a remnant of the traditional economic arrangement. By tapping into the rationality of caste in terms of the human experience we can better understand the interrelationship of these variables and caste. I further argue that because caste roles and caste identities are essentially unique phenomena, caste identities may be perpetuated indefinitely where caste roles have become antiquated and unenforceable.
In its conceptualization, this paper was intended to trace the effects of new ideas from English colonization and American neo-colonization (philosophical globalization) on the Indian psyche and the resultant impact on the Indian social structure in terms of caste. I proposed to demonstrate that the psyche of lower caste Indians needed caste, because in that context these individuals had developed their identity. Western values of equality and opportunity were demoralizing and destructive unless accompanied by a reality of equality and opportunity.
In other words, I conceptualized a direct correlation between the economic order as derived from the production possibilities and philosophical valuation. This was based on the assumption that conscious beings needed a strong, positive relationship with their physical reality not only to survive but to justify their existence. Any deviation in the social structure from this reality produced psychological contradictions as exemplified by lower caste Hindus struggling with the devaluation of caste without the qualifying change in India’s economic order.
Real conditions in India suggest that major modifications be made to this simple dual-experience framework of physical reality and individual identity. I developed a three level framework of human experience that allows for a more liberal relationship between identity and reality.
The first level of experience is that of the individual and her basic motivations as a conscious being. First, humans as physical beings pursue the satisfaction of their basic, physiological needs (food, shelter, clothing, etc.). This pursuit of sustenance ties the individual to the material reality (or superstructure, the third level of experience) from which the resources to satisfy these needs are extracted. Obviously, there cannot be any permanent contradictions between those resources that the individual intends to extract and those available in the superstructure; any such contradiction would make life unlivable.
The second motivation, the need for dignity or the desire to achieve, spawns in human consciousness. A preconscious being feels the world revolves around him—all activity has meaning only through its interaction with him. For example, a snake feels threatened by an approaching unknown, assuming that the incomer can only intend good or evil for the snake. A conscious being, on the other hand, recognizes activity that occurs beyond his realm of influence, activity that has meaning beyond its interaction with him. He recognizes that the approaching unknown probably does not care that he exists or is even aware that he exists. Because humans are aware of their existence they must assert some principle of purpose to it, which purpose gives their life meaning in their expanding reality. Durkheim stated of this condition, “The individual alone is not a sufficient end for his activity. He is too little . . . When, therefore, we have no other object than ourselves we cannot avoid the thought that our efforts will finally end in nothingness, since we ourselves disappear.”
Because humans are aware of their existence, they search for the power to influence their surroundings in a meaningful way. One approach to find power is through conformity to the existing structure (the second level of experience). The individual becomes a necessary cog in the structure, and thus he is empowered to impact the universe through this role in the structure. This approach in itself, though, is insufficient, because it does not recognize the actor as human in the same way that the individual is consciously aware of himself.
The resultant drive is the Hegelian “struggle of recognition”. The individual needs for others to recognize her consciousness, her individuality. This is pursued commonly in a search for power or prowess over others. More than the pursuit of power and dominance, though, this drive can also be recognized in the vain expressions manifest in the need for sustenance: architecture in shelter, preparation in food, design in clothing, love in the pursuit of sexual satisfaction, etc. The need for recognition, therefore, produces competition and vanity in the pursuit of forcing others to recognize the individual as a conscious being.
These two related drives—one of conformity and the other of individuality—seem to stand in contradiction, but they find mutual satisfaction in the “Us vs. Them” complex. The individual demonstrates the importance of her role and her essentiality to “Us” by demonstrating the group’s superiority over “Them”. She is empowered by her role to force others to recognize her humanity. She can also recognize many definitions of Us and Them, and therefore simultaneously compete for dominance over Them while competing for power within Us.
It is not sufficient alone, though, that the individual be empowered and recognized as human. Dignity requires that activity of the individual also be meaningful. As Nietzsche put it, “If we have our own why of life, we shall get along with almost any how.” The role played by the individual must be justified by an ideology developed under the sanction of a proposition of a teleological creation. An effective ideology spells out roles for its adherents which allow them to magnify their effectiveness as cogs and pursue recognition, meanwhile conforming to the demands of the structure and superstructure. When the individual fails to fulfill her role, or the justification for the role is challenged, she develops a sense of learned helplessness as her sense of causation is threatened. This condition is often recognized as anomie.
The individual, therefore, is in constant dialogue with the second level of human experience, the structure. The structure exists as the sum of the roles and definitions of the individual members of the community, held together by an ideology. It encapsulates rules, both formal and informal, the social hierarchy, and defines the relationships between individuals filling different roles. Because the many actors develop their identity and dignity within the structure it is in their interests to preserve it. The individual seeking to change the structure struggles against those individuals for whom it is in their interests to maintain the status quo and the demands of the superstructure.
The ideology, it should be remembered, is only a feature of the structure. While the structural organization of a society (the hierarchy, positions, occupations, etc.) empowers the individual within the society it is the ideology that gives that action meaning. Therefore, one can change without the other and it is only necessary that they remain consistent. For example, if the ideology professes the importance of hard work to increase one’s status in society, the structural organization of the society must allow this mobility to reward hard work. Otherwise, the individual becomes disillusioned and disvalued. It is the ideology that is entrenched in individual identities, such that the structural organization can shift and flow as long as it continues to empower individuals as necessary to maintain their dignity. This type of shifting, though, is all but impossible; changes in the structural organization inevitably throw into flux the stability of certain roles and positions, thus disrupting identities. Changes in the ideology inherently produce identity crises.
The structure is most responsive to the superstructure, the third level of experience. The superstructure is the material reality in which the structure has developed, and includes the factors of production, both resources and technology. The structure must diagram an economic order consistent with the resources and technology available in the superstructure. The structure flexes to changes in the superstructure, because the structure responds to power which is derived from production in the superstructure. The individual, likewise, must maintain a consistent dialogue with the superstructure as it is the means by which she fulfills her basic needs.
Before applying this framework to the Indian caste system, it is requisite that we recognize one anomaly of the last century. Economic efficiency allows the individual to maintain a more liberal relationship with the superstructure and still satisfy the basic needs. The power derived from the superstructure is no longer over the lives of insubordinates as much as in previous time periods. The structure becomes more flexible and the average individual empowered in relation to those at the pinnacle of the structure.
In nearly every culture in human history religion has provided the dominant, socializing influence designating the norms and values of the people–the ideology. The normative expectations of Hinduism primarily denote a search for purity. This purity is achieved by adherence to strict regulations that require some degree of economic success. In the time of its conception not all Indians were able to comply with all the regulations of Hinduism (Brahmanism), because of their ascribed, stagnant, impoverished economic status. Therefore, the majority of the believers belonged to a religion that condemned them. In other words, there existed a powerful contradiction between what the superstructure provided, how the structure distributed, and what was demanded of the individual through the ideology.
Three millennia ago the caste system was added to the core religious doctrine. It cemented the position of the priests and rulers in the upper echelon and stabilized the social hierarchy. It eliminated inconsistencies between the ideal and the possible by adjusting the requirements of individual purity to correspond with the reality of economic stratification. People of the same occupation were grouped together and given a religious code, or dharma, adapted to their lifestyle. The ideology was molded to fit the structural organization and superstructure already in place. Simultaneously the structural organization was religiously codified in caste.
Caste is not unique in using religion to justify a stagnate order. Confucian China recognized the eternality of certain placements of people in a way similar to that of caste, the difference being that caste was built on a principle of purity that more rigidly defined interpersonal relationships. In the West, the German concept of ‘vocation’ valued every occupation as a natural and valid role for each individual. Caste took a slightly different approach: where Luther attempted to valorize the position of each individual as their vocation divined by God, caste recognized a hierarchy and then attempted to valorize each individual within their role. South Asian caste has been unique in human history in its extensiveness, restricting marriage, physical contact, and even sight between different persons on the grounds of purity.
The stratification of individuals in society was justified by karma. According to the doctrine of karma one’s station in this life was predicated by their previous life. A Shudra, the member of the lowest caste, was born a Shudra because they did not perform their dharma in a previous life as well as the Vaishya, Kshatrya or Brahman. The value of this doctrine cannot be overestimated in analyzing the efficiency of caste in building stable identities. The shame of low status was explained by karma, but the low caste Indian felt disassociated from the misdeeds she had performed in a previous life.
Caste, therefore, gave Hindus control over their destiny. The caste of each person gave them an identity–a meaning, purpose, and behavioral expectations. Dignity was had by living according to an ideal that was adapted to the lifestyle of every individual. Equality was proportional to one’s status and opportunity thus limited, but these ideals were meaningless in the pursuit of dignity within caste. The individual could strive for recognition and power within her own caste grouping when it would never be given by outsiders.
Another product of the caste system was the communal identity. One’s position in the social hierarchy was the product of her caste affiliation and not of her choosing. Therefore, in the context of the whole of society, one’s position was not individual, but collective. To change one’s station in life, in the context of the whole community, was a group project. These movements did occur, and were a means by which a group, and its individuals, could increase its importance in the community.
As long as economic conditions remained stagnate, India behaved like a great cultural sponge. It absorbed Buddhism, and Hellenizing and Sinicizing forces. Its durability stemmed from a remarkable correlation between the superstructure, the structure in caste, and the identity of Indians. Indians at all levels were highly invested in caste, because it structured their economic relations, religious practices, and individual self-perception. This gave it a resiliency that was only cracked under the drastic changes of the 19th and 20th centuries.
The key changes came with the British colonization of India. First, without delving into an economic treatise, the East India Company pursued the production of cash crops and goods (e.g. salt) and severely disrupted the region’s economic arrangements. Traditionally, the economy centered on sustenance production and barter in a feudal-like jajmani system. The workers and owners were responsible for the well-being of the other and their interests intertwined. Suddenly, owners began to interest themselves in the production of cash crops for sale, abandoning their hirelings. Following independence Indian leadership pursued a dynamic plan of industrial development, and the economy was remolded in a market-oriented format. Since, the Indian superstructure has again shifted from textile and industrial production to telecommunications and high tech development. The resources extracted and modes of production have changed, disrupting the region’s economic structure.
Second, the British instituted a census. In an attempt to correctly represent the peoples of the subcontinent, this census not only counted people, but also identified caste affiliation and hierarchal significance. It is arguable that in their attempt to label and identify, the British reinforced, clarified, or perhaps even invented a vertical social structure with defined boundaries. Groups became aware of their position above or below similar groups and often protested their ranks.
The long run impact of the census was even more important. Caste groupings became politicized and secularized as groups sued for a change in rank. Caste discrimination was made illegal, and an aggressive program of reverse discrimination was put in place. There developed what has become known as the race to the bottom, as groups attempted to lower their status to make themselves eligible for quotas and scholarships. The stigma associated with caste affiliation became less salient.
The impact on caste of these changes has been rather dynamic. Market capitalism has undercut the support for caste from the superstructure. Now caste discrimination is a contradiction to the order prescribed by the superstructure. But this does not mean that caste discrimination (the recognition of traditional caste roles) will not continue. The relationship between the superstructure and the structure is one of power, and still the traditional masters of the superstructure hold power in the new economic order. This power is expended in maintaining a contradictory structure, but simultaneously replenished as traditional elites continue to dominant the new fields of production. Their resources have allowed them to receive the education and own the factories. Similar to the power of whites over African-Americans, which can be traced back a century and a half to slavery in the United States, the power of high caste Indians can be perpetuated indefinitely as long as they are able to control the means of production.
The secularization of caste, ironically, has become the primary perpetuating force of caste identities. Caste groupings do not carry the same religious significance they once held, but to some extent the principle of purity has been translated from one of religious to secular significance. Secularization of caste has allowed groups to compete more openly, and thus, in many cases, individuals rely more heavily on their caste identity for power. Without the religious justification of their low positions, lower caste Hindus are willing to risk violence to pursue a dignity that has slipped away from them. These caste identities are broader (e.g. the Dalits never before identified themselves so broadly) and in many cases more salient.
We therefore see the separation of caste roles and caste identities. Caste roles with their baggage and stigma are being caste aside in the more open, liberally structured society. But caste identities, as a means by which people identify themselves, may continue to increase in individual salience. A more mobile society is a more competitive society, and caste identities make a powerful organizer in the struggle of Us vs. Them. As a general rule, the structure of Indian society will become ever more similar to the race situation in the United States.
References
- Beteille, Andre. 1992. The Backward Classes in Contemporary India. Oxford University Press: New York.
- Durga, P S Kanaka. “Identity and Symbols of Sustenance: Explorations in Social Mobility of Medieval South India.” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, 2001, 44, 2, May, 291-308.
- Freeman, Mark A. “Linking Self and Social Structure: A Psychological Perspective on Social Identity in Sri Lanka.” Journal of Cross-Cultural Pyschology, 2001, 32, 3, May, 291-308.
- Goldthorpe, John. “On Economic Development and Social Mobility.” The British Journal of Sociology. 1985, 36, 4, December, 549-573.
- Isaacs, Harold R. 1964. India’s Ex-Untouchables. The John Day Company: New York.
- Jaffrelot, Christophe. “Sanskritization vs. Ethnicization in India: Changing Identities and Caste Politics before Mandal.” Asian Survey, 2000, 40, 5, Sept-Oct, 756-766.
- Jenkins, Laura Dudley. “Becoming Backward: Preferential Policies and Religious Minorities in India.” Commonwealth and Comparative Politics, 2001, 39, 2, July, 32-50.
- Jodhka, Surinder S. 2002. Community and Identity: Contemporary Discourses on Culture and Politics in India. Sage Publications.
- Keay, John. 2000. India: A History. Atlantic Monthly Press: Berkeley, CA.
- Lipner, Julius. 1994. Hindus. Routledge: New York.
- Osella, Filippo and Caroline Osella. “From Transience to Immanence: Consumption, Life-Cycle and Social Mobility in Kerala, South India.” Modern Asian Studies, 1999, 33,4,October, 989-1020.
- Patel, Sujata. “Modernity: Sociological Categories and Identities.” Current Sociology/La Sociologie Contemporaine, 2000, 48, 3, July, 1-5.
- Sharma, Ursula. 1999. Caste. Open University Press: Philadelphia.
- Subramanian, Narendra. “Identity Politics and Social Pluralism: Political Sociology and Political Change in Tamil Nadu.” Commonwealth and Comparative Politics, 2002, 40, 3, November, 125-139.