Write a critique of the structural and functional perspective used by M.N. Srinivas in the understanding of Indian society. (UPSC CSE Mains 2017 - Sociology, Paper 2)
- M.N. Srinivas started structural-functional analysis in sociological and social anthropological research in India. The structural-functional perspective relies more on the field work tradition for understanding the social reality so that it can also be understood as ‘contextual’ or ‘field view’ perspective of the social phenomena.
- Srinivas has written on many aspects of Indian society and culture. He is best known for his work on religion, village community, caste and social change He was influenced by Radcliffe-Brown’s notion of structure, who was his teacher at Oxford He studied Indian society as a ‘totality’, a study which would integrate “the various groups in its interrelationship, whether tribes, peasants or various cults and sects” (Patel). His writings are based on intensive field work in South India in general and Coorgs and Rampura in particular (Shah).
-
- Social Change : Brahminization, sans-kritisation, westernization and secularization
- Religion and Society
- Study of Village
- Views on Caste
- Dominant Caste
Critique of M N Srinivas''s Structural Functionalism
- As the founder of modern sociology in India, he was not committed to any particular approach or theory, rather he adapted his approach as he went along. He began as an Indologist and moved on to structural functionalism and used various other approaches in his vast array of works.
- Yogendra Singh considers MNS’ sociology as a form of objective idealism, i.e. undergoing both continuity and change. Objective because he used empirical methods and idealists ''cause he believed that India can never go for absolute change or modernity.
- Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak holds that it is because of Srinivas that Indian society was studied from a caste perspective till the 80s. The subaltern perspective is important.
- Dalit scholars consider that Srinivas was a Brahmanic sociologist much like Ghurye. While Ghurye celebrated Hindu culture, Srinivas celebrated Sanskritization.
- His concept of Sanskritization is no longer valid in today’s society. Middle and lower castes have begun opting for westernisation and political representation by mass mobilisation instead to gain social mobility.
- Dominant caste too is no longer a valid concept in rural areas. OBCs and lower castes have successfully displaced the traditional upper castes like Brahmins and Rajputs from the power structure of the states. Also since the Jajmani relations have broken down, the traditional patronage system no longer works to maintain the dominance of the land-owning castes.
- Srinivas'' approach has been termed as brahminical by his critics. When he speaks of Sanskritization and speaks against reservation it can be said that the Brahmin in Srinivas supersedes the sociologist in Srinivas.
Next
previous
Latest News
EDITORIALS & ARTICLES
General Studies