Caste, conflict, and rebellion

Citation preview

Caste , C:i:-.D.ict, and :1eoellion By

Gail 1-:arie Orr..vedt

(Carleton College)

1963

110-SIS

Submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of MASTER 01 ARTS 1n

Sociology

in the GRAilJA'l'E DIVISIOR

of tbe

WllvERS.1'ff OI CALIPamIA, BERKEleEY

Approved:

-

• •

~

' \ vt'~ . v I \• • • • • • • • • • • • • .YI• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •. • •

L....-'1 \,,....

uages, and referring to an identified social cate g ory, conceived of in kinshi p terrns , .vi th a.r~ accepted rank in tbe ritual hierarchy of society and a traditional occup ation(s).

Thus, in this

terILinolog y there v,as no sin3le " Brat.i.ffian" caste ·tut many--Ct i tpavan Brahn1ans, Desasth Brah.lii~1:s, l\iyog i Erah1:1 ar1s, l'~a i11budiri Br&runans, 'I·arnil S!il.&rta arHi Sri Vaisnava Brabrnans.

'l'Lere were,

similarly, Rajputs, Vellalas, i,:arathas aLd Hicl n,y ot b.er r)rou ~. s that claimed a " ksa triya" sta tus, but t1;. ere v.as caste."

r1 0

" ksat riya

cas tes in t.ri is s e ns e nu.u:uered ir1 the tbu i: sarids .

Th is use of the term is sirn~ J• enoug h.

What is

not

simple, ho½ever, is an~lysis of ~het a si~c le caste re ; reEents, or of what tt:e system ao

8

whcle i0volves.

For stud e nts of

India, rejecti lil:;; the v3rr1a cate t. ories as a .ir, r. tter of st :=.tuslike Sa1i sl-'~ritic iut:olog.y, h.c.ive ter~d ed not only to fasten u pon

4

the jati as t he "real" cas t e (which it i ~.) but also to think of it as the "actual" gr oup as opposed to the theoretical varna cate gories.

It is at ttis point---the tendency to

think of t ~e caste as t he group which is the unit of Indian society, the tend ency to try to compar e I n~ ian stratification to oth er forms by co111r aring tl1e c ast e (co ri ceive d of as a grcu:p ) to a cla ss (conc eived of as a grou p )---that most an?.lysis g oes seri ous ly astray. For the caste it s elf, althou~h a socio log ic a l re ality, was never a group .

Its meilibers did not i d entify their interest s

with one anot h er; they did not interact with eech other on terms of equality; t h ey did not act in concert t owards a comwon g oal.

Instead , t h e caste was a socially-id entified group-sta-

tus, in v,; hich persons of sii;1ilar occupa tion and similar visible social posit ion were clas s ed to[ et h er by the ~eneral society and oy the mselves as 1nembers of the same ja ti.

Th is status

was conceive d of in relation to a co~ · rel1ensive and detailed hierarchy, and it had relis ious, ritu a l, politic al ar1d econon:.ic connotatio11s •

.And it v.·as rt.alized or expressed in a cci11plex

network of lo cal , hierarchical social rel at i onshi ps. But identification as a caste ce~l.er, it must a~ ~in be e1u~.,hasized, did not i.il e an that those of t h e sa1n e c~1st e for med a grou p .

I nd eed , if we want to expre ss wos t siniply t h e diff-

erence between a "class society" and a "c nst e society", it

must not be i11 teru,s of the nature of the g r oups or ulti~ate social uni ts, bu t r athe r more dyna1.ic ~ lly in terms of the very p r ocess es of gr oup for1'.la tior1:

I n a cl rss society , t t1os e

of similar occupa tional function te nd to a r ~w

5 unite, often in corBnun action a ba ir1.st u1err1b ers of other classes;

wl1ile in the caste society rne i:,bers of local kin groups tend to k eep the limits of their interaction on an equal basis ( a s op ~osed to the hierarchical interaction between me mbers of different castes) as exclusive a nd narrow as possible, separating theas elves no t only fro n1 meu1bers of castes lower t h an them but also from other ; roup s of tl1e same c 2ste.

Behind this

tendency lay t be i mr;ortant Hindu concep ts of purity and pollu-

tion, backed up by the ffietaphysical doctrin e of karma (rebirth) and the et t ical-reli3ious inounction to follow one's own dharma or hereditary caste duty. Group formation in the caste society, t hen, tended eitter to fission or to defining itself in ter~s of internal hierarchy. Ors anized action seemed to be fossible only in hierarchical terms, either along liLes of kir!ship or along lines of traditional rel e ti cnsh ips of authority arid i::ubrr1ission between people of different caste---rarely in terms of l a r ~e [ Toups of people of rcur~hly eaual status. 2

Types of Co nflict in India Relatinft; social conflict to str 8t ific&tion ~

paper so u1e~.hat in t h e tradition of the

11

l ' Uts

this

cor1 flict t heori E,ts";

however, t .heir conclusior1s ruust be questioned.

I-~ot all strat-

ified societies have produced within the ms elves an eq ~ivalent ~Vhenever t n e hyphenated t erm "caste-r;roup" is used in this pa~r it is i Ltended to refer to t tce e l cca l sectioLs of a caste which 6 i J , at le .st o~ occasion, act in group terms.

6

to "cl 0 ss warfare" ( vvhe tl1er this is seen ir1 terms of v~orkingclass strikes, lower -class protest , or pe b sant rebellion), nor do all forms of conflict lead to social chan~e. 3

China, feuda l

30 conflict theorists" tend to see conflict as (1) enderuic, and (2) le&. J .:-1j :i:8 r1 i System ( ~ew York: J. J. A~~ust Inc., 1~5~), p. 52.

42

security of status, acceptance of tr ; dition~ g~meirs~h2ft

~--as opposed to g~sellschaft:

the dynamic but perhaps

bitter ?nd alienating coffipetition of an openclass society, com~etition either of ind ivi dua ls or of whole classes ranged 2gainst one ~nether.

It is this typ e of picture which seems

to lie back of Leach's statement:

In~ class society the 'people Ht the bottom' are those who have been forcen tberP by the ruthl~P-s .processes of economic co111r, etition; their r.ounternarts in a caste society are members of Rome closely-or ga nized kinship ~roup who r~g 3rd it RS their privileged right to carry out a task from which all members of t11e total society ,, are rigorouslJ· exclude~. 49 Ascription, then, tends to be +hought of as exclusive of competition. No cliche and no sociological model should be totally reje~ted, certair1ly not this or:.e, but it doec::_ require harn PXAmination.

I would not want to sugg est that ~est people

did not tr 2dition8lly a~cPpt their statu~ ~ith the helief that it was just, that they did not tend to d~fine their own esSf?nc~ and thP.t of others 2s determined fre t '. birth, in caste relat-

ionships.50

But there is ~nether sicte to the picturA which

49Leach, introduction to Asnects of Caste, p. 6. 50H. A. Gould, in "Castes, Outcastes and thP- Sociolng,y of StratificP.tion" (Intern~tionHl Jou.rnRl of Co~1.par ;.1t ivt~ Sociology I, ;>, September 196n, ·· pu. 2?0-?_3a), writes Lbat a sc rip -tion-orient ,· tion exists when a perc-on ann role are r..a de into a sjnglfl! qualitative e11tit .v . Parsons defines the "ascrirtior! achievement" pattern v!:riable in J.hee.e terrris: "Th"' mo~t furidamerital basis 0¥ catAgorizatinn ••. is the distinction bet~ e an object as a co mp l~x of g·ven ouRliti~s ~nd i~n object as an actor, striving t0'''Hr~s go als. In .bi ·; c::elf-i_ r- 1a g e or e