EDITORIALS & ARTICLES
Which is more significant, the principle of ‘hierarchy’ or the principle of difference; in intercaste relations in the present day? (UPSC CSE Mains 2017 - Sociology, Paper 2)
- The fact that the caste system is seen as an example par excellence of social stratification, gives an indication of the specificity of the term and the range it can include. The caste system, as it is understood widely, separates and hierarchizes Hindus. However, it is not sufficient if this separation and hierarchization are wholly internalized or intellectualized. It is only when hierarchy and differences are externalized and socially demonstrated that we can truly talk about social stratification. Rituals, dress, tonsorial styles, marriage practices, and a host of other such phenomena help in socially separating one caste from another. It is these phenomena too that are appropriately valorized for the purposes of hierarchical ranking. It is for this reason, that when we talk of social stratification we not only mean differentiation but differentiation that is made socially visible. It is not just stratification but social stratification. In other words there is a general acknowledgement within society of the social markers that separate the population, and an awareness also of the crucial criterion (sometimes a set of criteria) on which such forms of differentiation are based (see Beteille).
- Social stratification then deals with the ways in which the human population is socially differentiated, i.e. differentiated publicly and demonstrably. The criterion for differentiation may be one but the social dis- play of differentiation usually includes a host of factors. The principal criterion on which the caste system is based is the principle of natural superiority. Natural superiority in this case is not physical prowess or intelligence, though these often work their way in, but the endowment of bodily purity. It is a known fact that there is no unambiguous physical criterion by which individuals can be differentiated on the basis of the extent of purity of their bodies. This is why it is essential that social practices, occupations, life styles, rituals and taboos demonstratively differentiate one caste from another for all to see.
- Stratification spontaneously signifies a multi-layered phenomenon, much like the earth''s crust. The point to remember in this connection is that the geological metaphor can be misleading in the case of social stratification in so much as it might figuratively per- suade one to believe that stratification always implies layers that are vertically or hierarchically arranged.
- The various layers that stratification spontaneously signifies do not imply unconditional differentiation. The differentiation is always on the basis of a criterion, or a set of criteria. Stratification therefore im- plies a common axis (or axes) that straddles the differences. Quite un- like geology again, social stratification does not manifest itself readily or ''naturally'' to the naked eye. A deliberate act is required on the part of the observer or analyst to unite certain kinds of differences in order to construct a particular system of stratification. In discussing any sys- tem of social stratification we acknowledge an overarching commonal- ity (or similarity) which like a thread links the manifest differences to- gether. Social stratification is not like distinguishing between cabbages and kings: it does not group disparate entities without a clearly stated criterion or a declared set of criteria.
Next
previous
Latest News
General Studies