tsuihark - Tumblr blog

tsuihark · 2 months ago

Text

as recommended a few reblogs ago, i decided to read "some theoretical considerations on caste" by madhusudan subedi as one of the starters for familiarizing myself with caste history and theory, since i am very ignorant. i had read the first recommendation in that post, "annihilation of caste," and found it very illuminating. ambedkar and subedi have very different backgrounds (from a cursory search of subedi's last name, i assume he is brahmin varna).

i thought it very strange that this author didn't bother to engage with a number of anti-caste scholars like otirao phule, periyar and ambedkar, or kancha iliah shepherd? not even in passing? and i thought that srinivas, who he references later, is suspect because of his sanskritization theory? and in general, not sure what to make of the latent attitude of colonialism's impact on indian caste system (good because it introduced western ideas of liberty and democracy to lead to caste consciousness, bad because it flattened other indian economic/political concerns all into one kind of caste system?). my summary below... i don't know why it won't let me keep my markdown formatting : (

issues in the theoretical discussion of caste systems

sociologists and social-anthropologists define caste in two senses

1) used without particular geographic limitation

2) used specifically to define social organization in traditional indian regional societies, as well as adjacent hindu and related populations in bangladesh, nepal, and sri lanka

regardless, class endogamy is very obvious and rigid and inheritance of privilege is narrowly restricted to that caste in perpetuity

caste as hindu social construct

they go on to describe the ideas of caste as a hindu social construct. it mostly references bougle who writes that the "spirit of caste" unites three tendencies: repulsion, hierarchy, and hereditary specialization

pre-dumontian views of hindu caste

weber's whole thing is (roughly) that belief systems form the basis of social and economic structure (in contrast to the marxist view). this is why he writes about protestantism as a basis of industrialization/capitalism famously

indian society is the ideal example of this, and he argues caste is an integral aspect of hinduism

caste is a special and extreme case of status groups. whereas class groups individuals of similar economic positions, the cohesive force of status groups is honor and prestige. thus, identity is created by imposing social restrictions based on honor and prestige (related to social intercourse, marriage, caste endogamy, and ideas of pollution)

hinduism's core tenets of karma (strict adherence of caste duties, beliefs of reincarnation) are what foment casteism

he has no good answer for why karma in india specifically results in the caste system. he posits maybe it's because of the notion of racial differences in ancient india

then, we move on bougle, which the author describes as a landmark essay

defining principles of the caste system are

hereditary specialization

hierarchy: "personal status, as rights and duties, is unequally divided and determined by the rank of the group to which one belongs." this originates from ritual and religious dominance of brahmans

repulsion: "phenomena of mutual repulsion between social groups, division into opposed fragments, isolation at the group level, and mechanism to prevent alliances and relations across the group boundary, like endogamy, pollution concepts, and food taboos"

his conclusion is even though other societies have caste-like properties, the "spirit of caste" in a full sense is only found in india

dumont on caste

now, we talk about homo hierarchicus (1970)

the basics is that the dominant principle of caste is religious hierarchy, not political, which is mediated with the diametrically opposed categories of purity and pollution.

ritual hierarchy will thus contrast brahmin (the epitome and essence of purity) with the "untouchable" (carrier of impunity)

...but it will also do so for brahmin (figure of sacred/ritual status) and king (figure of temporal/secular power)

(there's some meta-discussion on how structural analysis is the only tool possible to analyze at the entire system)

his evidence for this ritual hierarchy is through the relationship between brahman and kshatriya. brahman have monopoly over sacrifice, whereas kshatriya rule, but the latter are dependent upon and inferior to the former.

this is distinct from other societies where priest+king are the same or when the political is completely secularized and autonomous from religion

the spiritual scripts further cement this by describing man's purpose in life (described in dharmasastras), related to the jajmani system

dharma (duty) --> corresponds to brahman or priest

artha (profit) --> king or kshatriyas

kama (pleasure) --> others

because of this, sri lanka is quasi-caste because brahmans weren't numerous and the buddhist concept of kinship reject brahman-kshatriya duality

dumont was criticized because he "couldn't explain social change, dynamism, and individualistic strivings that occurred within orthodox hindu way of living"

berreman (1999): principle of brahmanical hierarchy, as dumont constructs it, is not uniformly followed. the power/status opposition is also a false dichotomy.

? dumont was concerned with structure of value and not structure of interest

in the end, also, dumont is suspect because he was actually supportive of caste, saying it was "social" like religion is "social" for durkheim

post-dumontian views of hindu caste

first, we talk about marriott (1976) which used an interpretive framework based upon "coded boidly substance" concepts.

caste is based on a "series of notions concerning bodily substances and inter-personal exchanges"

e.g. who is willing to accept food, water, etc from whom = sign of relative status

brahmans have the highest position because they will only take the perfect forms (gift of land, money, or grain, not ordinary payments for services, wives from lower castes, or ordinary cooked food), and also through their spritiual exchanges where they receive cosmic knowledge in the form of susbtance-transformative ceremonies, teaching, and advice

there are castes that will do maximizing strategies like the rajput who will try to "increase symmetrical exchange through land control, labor, or food distribution as well as maximizing strategies of marriage, descent, and diet to achieve the greatest quality and potency in substance, action and group substance-code"

there are also castes that will do minimizing transactional strategy (vaishya): "those who have productive power to grow grain, rear cattle, trade, supply butter, and pay taxes"

all this makes it easy to find out local caste ranking but the framework can't answer -- is the act of eating a symbol of purity or does the eating make you pure? it also doesn't explain why knowledge is important for status and sacredness but is separate from notions of purity, per se

thus, we look to raheja (1990) for a counter-example of pahansu in utter pradesh. he has a slightly more marxist view.

castes are interrelated by three different orders that are more important depending on context. ordering based on ritual purity (say, brahman and bhangi comparison) is really extreme.

gujar caste holds 98% of arable land, thus are the dominant caste because of economic power.

gujar dominance occurs through "ordering of centrality." through jajmani, members of service castes will receive shares of harvests or loyalty payments through their gujar patron. gujar will distribute evil and inauspiciousness through dan prestations, even to those hierarchically superior.

these transactions when amongst "one's own people" are conceptualized, when done with "one's own people," as sharing and "mutuality" instead

indeed, brahmans do not always possess high rank and purity, they might be considered polluted and dependent

in general, all three views follow the "essentialist paradigm where society is divided into a set of rigid, hierarchical groups bound together in an immutable bond, justified in terms of moral superiority of the clean caste to those considered unclean." the author acknowledges this generates enormous conflict and constant threat to the status quo.

there is another example from dirk (2001) about how the most prominent and related transformed traditions are kingship and caste.

in pre-colonial south india, local kings struggled for dominance warfare + worship. it wasn't about ideology of pure/impure, but about the king (who wanted to control people, not territory).

colonialism didn't understand this, "caste replaced crown" by justifying denial of political rights to indian subjects and used caste as a justification of colonial rule

caste in a comparative perspective

the article goes on to describe why some sociologists describe as caste a type of social stratification and differentiation that is not so unique.

quigley (1999): castes are relatively rather than absolutely bounded, not that strict in separation and endogamy

berreman (1967): "a caste system occurs where a society is made up of birth-ascribed groups which are hierarchically ordered and culturally distinct. the hierarchy entails differential evaluation, rewards, and association"

he says that basically every social stratification does this, and castes are sort of unique for having birth-ascription and names and interdependence, but the social relations can be seen elsewhere

the example of the rwandan qoum exhibit caste-like characteristics, where as the bali-hindu Warna doesn't have traditional types of castes anymore

brief mention of beteille (1965) that says division of a village in the past was dominated not only by rituals, but also economic and political life

caste, social inequality, and marginalization

basically, higher castes bring more labor under control (and also manage distribution of social resource,s information, transportation, etc) so they have more power, wealth, and influence.

caste and social change

now, we go on to discuss srinivas (1962) uncritically. basically, modern technology and representational politics have made caste experience "horizontal consolidation" where we have new collective caste solidarity.

sharma (1969) looks at six villages in rajasthan where two changes occurred

structural change

abolition of jagirdari and zamindari systems

introduction of adult franchise, Panchayati Raj, and cooperatives

peripheral changes: establishment and construction of modern schools, roads, migration

modernization of caste starts when ritualistic considerations become less effective + new attributes are substituted to maintain status (getting education, income, white-collar occupations)

author doesn't think caste completely captures class, though the overlap is huge

srinivas (2003): the subsistence economy of rural india (dependent on jati-based division of labor) is the "essence of caste" and is rapidly breaking down, thus moving the social order from status to contract

the general argument seems to be that the caste system is dying, but caste itself is now cluster of sub-castes that pool together for scarce resources (political power, economic opportunities, government jobs, professional education)

despite urban contentions that the system is dead, as well as the abolition of the untouchable class, clearly caste-based marriage is more the rule than the exception, and caste consciousness is high (in politics, activism)

caste system cannot be considered dead so long as dimensions of the untouchable persist (exclusion, humiliation, exploitation)

caste and identity politics

closed village economy has moved more towards service and manufacturing, rise of democracy ⟶ collapse of caste system but rise of caste identities

caste relations have moved away from traditional socio-economic interdependence and towards competitive models of social interaction

caste is not defined in terms of endogamy, hereditary and relative rank, but as a "political fraction" in competition with "other such factions for common economic and political goal"

castes today: affirmatie action and reservation policy

kind of stock-standard criticism of affirmative action in nepal + india here, i don't really want to reiterate.

#**

1 note · View note